1112 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 58, NO.

4, APRIL 2010
An Analytical Method for Calculating the
Bit Error Rate Performance of Rake Reception in
UWB Multipath Fading Channels
Hua Shao, Student Member, IEEE, and Norman C. Beaulieu, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThe bit error rate performance of Rake reception
of impulse radio ultra-wide bandwidth signals over the IEEE
802.15.3a channel models is evaluated. Instead of using Gaussian
approximation for the probability density function of the total
disturbance which includes the multi-user interference and the
background additive white Gaussian noise, two new models
dubbed the composite lognormal-Gaussian and the composite
lognormal-Laplacian are proposed for modeling the multi-user
interference and shadowing in ultra-wide bandwidth multipath
fading channels. Tractable formulae for bit error rate evaluation
of Rake reception in ultra-wide bandwidth multipath channels
are derived for both models. Numerical results indicate that
these formulae predict the bit error rate performance with
good accuracy, and can be rapidly and easily evaluated using
commonplace computer resources.
Index TermsBit error rate, Gaussian approximation, im-
pulse radio (IR), Laplacian approximation, lognormal shadowing,
multipath fading channels, multi-user interference (MUI), Rake
receiver, Saleh-Valenzuela channel model, ultra-wide bandwidth
(UWB).
I. INTRODUCTION
I
MPULSE radio (IR) ultra-wide bandwidth (UWB) wireless
is a promising communication technology which is pro-
posed as a valid solution for high-speed short-range wireless
communication systems. The merits of UWB communication
systems have spurred growing interest in both academia and
industry. Since many UWB physical layer techniques and
components are designed based on the characteristics of
the communcation channels, modeling UWB communication
channels becomes crucial. In 2002, the IEEE standards group
adopted a modied version of the Saleh-Valenzuela multipath
channel model [1] as the accepted standard for UWB channel
modeling and investigation [2]. In this report, four different
channel models were proposed for fully evaluating the perfor-
mance of UWB communication systems. These models have
been widely used in UWB research since then.
Before the IEEE 802.15.3a model, the methods used to eval-
uate the performance of the Rake receiver for UWB systems
were restricted to experimental ones due to a lack of knowl-
edge of the statistics of the fading channels [3], [4], especially
the amplitude distribution, which is crucial in evaluating the
Paper approved by L. Yang, the Editor for Ultra Wideband of the IEEE
Communications Society. Manuscript received July 14, 2008; revised July 9,
2009 and September 28, 2009.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2V4, Canada (e-mail: {hshao,
beaulieu}@ece.ualberta.ca).
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TCOMM.2010.04.080345
bit error rate (BER) performance of communication systems.
In the IEEE 802.15.3a report on the UWB channel models [2],
the lognormal distribution is adopted to model the amplitude
distribution in UWB channels. Multi-user interference (MUI)
is another important impairment in UWB systems. In an
UWB system, several transmitters can coexist viably in the
coverage area, and the MUI caused by coexisting users in
the same coverage area due to asynchronous transmissions
of different users as well as the multipath nature of UWB
channels is difcult to eliminate. In order to evaluate the BER
performance of Rake reception in practical UWB channels, it
is important to examine the characteristics of the MUI. How-
ever, studies show that the MUI is not easy to analyze even
with the recent knowledge of UWB channels, and a complete
description of the statistics of the MUI is difcult. Hence, the
literature on Rake reception performance evaluation usually
models the total disturbance, which includes the MUI and
the background additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), as
a Gaussian distributed random variable (RV), resulting in an
approximation in terms of the well known Q-function [5], [6].
However, even if we could model the interference component
as a Gaussian distributed RV, the shadowing factors in the
channel models complicate or vitiate this method, even apart
from the fact that the Gaussian distribution is not always
accurate for approximating the probability density function
(PDF) of the MUI component.
In this paper, two new models dubbed the compos-
ite lognormal-Gaussian model and composite lognormal-
Laplacian model are proposed for approximating the MUI.
In these models, composite approximations which adopt a
Gaussian approximation or a Laplacian approximation for the
MUI with subsequent lognormal shadowing effects are used
instead of adopting the Gaussian approximation for the PDF
of the total disturbance, which includes the MUI and the
background AWGN. Tractable formulae with good accuracies
for BER evaluation in IEEE UWB multipath channels are
derived for both models. These formulae can be rapidly and
easily evaluted with commonplace computer resources.
II. CHANNEL MODEL
In the IEEE UWB multipath models [2], the multipath
components arrive in clusters of rays. Accordingly, double
summations are used to describe the discrete time impulse
0090-6778/10$25.00 c 2010 IEEE
SHAO and BEAULIEU: AN ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE BIT ERROR RATE PERFORMANCE OF RAKE RECEPTION . . . 1113
response of UWB channels as
() =
1

=0
1

=0

,
(

,
) (1)
where represents the lognormal shadowing in UWB chan-
nels,
,
is the amplitude attenuation of the kth ray within
the pth cluster, and () is the Diracs delta function. The
arrival time of the pth cluster is denoted by

, and that
of the kth ray relative to the pth cluster is represented by

,
. The arrival times of clusters and rays are modeled by
Poisson distributions, where the cluster and ray arrival rates
are denoted by and , respectively [2]. Moreover, the
multipath attenuation
,
can be divided into three parts as

,
=
,

,
, where
,
accounts for signal inversion
due to reection, assuming values of {+1, 1} with equal
probability, and

and
,
reect the fadings associated with
the pth cluster and the kth ray within the pth cluster, respec-
tively. The random variable

,
is lognormally distributed
and characterized as 20 log
10
(

,
) (
,
,
2
1
+
2
2
),
where
,
=
10 ln(
0
)10

/10
,
/
ln(10)

(
2
1
+
2
2
) ln(10)
20
. The
parameter
0
is the average power of the multipath component
at the beginning of the observation time, and
1
and
2
are
the standard deviations of the underlying normal distributions
corresponding to the cluster and ray lognormal fading terms,
respectively. The parameters and denote the cluster and
ray decay factor, respectively. The power prole decays double
exponentially, and the second moment of the amplitude atten-
uation can be expressed as E(

2
) =
0

,
/
,
where E() denotes the expectation of RV .
This channel model has been adopted to analyze the MUI
in [6], [7]. However, the analyses of the interference statistics
based on this channel model are rather complicated because
of the random arrival times of clusters and rays. Thus, an
equivalent discrete channel model for eq. (1) was proposed
in [2], [8], where the arrival time axis is divided into time
bins with duration . If multiple multipath components get
quantized into the same time bin, their amplitude values are
added to generate a new coefcient. This discrete channel
model can be represented as
() =

t
1

=0

( ) (2)
where
t
is the total number of available multipath compo-
nents,

is the new coefcient of the lth time bin, is the

time bin duration, and is the shadowing factor as mentioned
before. The parameter in this new model is chosen to
be much less than the delay spread, so that the amplitudes
{

t
1
=0
related to different time bins can be considered to be
uncorrelated and the new model can be adopted without losing
the essence of UWB multipath channels [2], [8]. Note that
the multipath coefcient

is the summation of the original

amplitudes
,
quantized to the lth time bin. Since
,
can
be factored into three components as
,
=
,

,
and
the mean of
,
is zero due to the factor
,
assuming
values of {+1, 1} with equal probability, the new amplitudes
{

t
1
=0
also have zero means.
In the original CM1-CM4 models proposed in [2], the
arrival times of the clusters and the rays within each cluster are
modeled by Poisson processes [2]. If the time duration of each
time bin in the new discrete model (c.f. eq. (2)) is chosen to
be small enough, the probability that a cluster arrives within
a time bin is given by

= , and the probability of no

cluster and more than one clusters arriving within a particular
time bin are given as 1

and 0, repectively, according to

the characteristics of the Poisson process. In similar fashion,
the probability that a ray of a cluster arrives within a particular
time bin is given by

= , and the probability of no ray

or more than one rays of a cluster arriving in a particular time
bin is given by 1

and 0, respectively. We consider the

CM1 channel model rst. It is shown in [8] that the probability
that a cluster arriving in the nth time bin results in a ray in
the lth time bin in CM1 channels can be expressed as

()
,LOS
=

, = 0, = 0

, 1 1, = 0

, = , = 0
1, = = 0.
(3)
Using the probability
()
,LOS
, the second moments of am-
plitudes {

t
1
=0
in the CM1 channel model have been
evaluated in [8] as
E
_

=0

()
,LOS

()

=
_

0
, = 0

0
_

_
, 1
(4)
where = exp
_

_
. Following the same procedure as
in [8], the fourth moment of the amplitude

can be evaluated
as [9]
E
_

2
0

ln
2
(10)
10
2

2
, = 0

=0

2
0

()
,LOS

2()

2
ln
2
10
10
2
+ 6
1

=0

1
=+1

2
0

()
,LOS

()

1
,LOS

(+
1
)

(2
1
)

, 1
(5)
where =

2
1
+
2
2
. The results in eqs. (4) and (5) are
valid for the CM1 channel model [2], where a LOS component
exists, and the rst ray of the rst cluster is assumed to arrive
at time 0. However, the results should be altered to apply
to the CM2-CM4 channel models based on NLOS channel
measurements [2]. Instead of using eq. (3), the probability
that a cluster arriving in the nth time bin results in a ray in
the lth time bin in CM2-CM4 channels can be expressed as

()
,NLOS
=
_

, 0 1

, = .
(6)
In similar fashion as in [8], the second moment of the
amplitude

in the CM2-CM4 channel models can be derived

as
E
_

=0

()
,NLOS

()

=
0

+
0

_
1

1
_

, = 0, 1, ,
t
1 (7)
1114 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 58, NO. 4, APRIL 2010
where = exp
_

_
. The fourth moment of the ampli-
tude can also be derived for the CM2-CM4 channel models
as
E
_

2
0

ln
2
(10)
10
2

2
, = 0

=0

2
0

()
,NLOS

2()

2
ln
2
10
10
2
+6
1

=0

1
=+1

2
0

()
,NLOS

()

1
,NLOS

(+
1
)

(2
1
)

1.
(8)
It is seen that the coefcients {

t
1
=0
have zero means in all
CM1-CM4 channel models. In CM1 channels, the second and
fourth moments of {

t
1
=0
can be evaluated using eqs. (4)
and (5), respectively. These statistics can be calculated using
eqs. (7) and (8) in the CM2-CM4 NLOS channel models.
Moreover, it is useful here to normalize the mean energy of the
channels, rather than normalizing the energy of each channel
realization. Hence, assuming the total number of multipath
components in the channel is
t
, we have E(

t
1
=0

2

) = 1
for every user in all CM1-CM4 channel models [8], [10].
III. SYSTEM MODEL AND RAKE RECEPTION
In this paper, we consider a time-hopping binary phase shift
keying (TH-BPSK) signal. The analyses and results are similar
for TH-binary pulse position modulation (TH-BPPM). A TH-
BPSK signal is given by [11]

()
() =

s
+

()
/

(
f

()

c
) (9)
where
()
() is the signal of the kth user,

is the bit
energy for the kth user, and
s
is the length of the repetition
code. The jth information bit of the kth user is represented
by
()

. The function () is the transmitted UWB pulse

with unit energy and duration
p
, satisfying the condition

2
() = 1. Each frame with duration
f
is divided
into chips with duration
c
. The sequence
_

()

_
is the time-
hopping sequence for the kth user which takes integer values
in the range 0
()

<
h
, where
h
is the number of
hops which should satisfy the condition
h

c

f
[11]. The
product
()

c
adds an additional time shift to a users TH
pulses to reduce the chances of collisions with other users.
We assume that the rst user is the desired user, and the
rst information bit of the desired user is to be recovered.
Without loss of generality, the delay of the desired user can
be assumed to be 0 at the receiver, while the relative time
shift of the kth user

( = 1) is assumed to be uniformly
distributed in [0,
b
), where
b
is the information bit duration.
Based on the channel model described in eq. (2), the received
signal can be written as
() =

t
1

=0

(1)

(1)
( )
+

=2

t
1

=0

()

()
(

) + ()(10)
where
u
is the number of users in the same coverage area,
the AWGN term () is a Gaussian random process with
power spectral density
0
,
t
is the total number of multipath
components, and
()

is the amplitude of the lth multipath

component of the kth user.
Note that the robustness of UWB signals to multipath is
due to their ne delay resolution, and high diversity order can
be exploited with the adoption of a Rake receiver in UWB
systems [12]. The Rake receiver captures reected and delayed
versions of the transmitted signal and combines them in order
to achieve better performance than can be achieved using
only one replica of the transmitted signal. We focus on Rake
receiver structures which employ a maximal-ratio combining
(MRC) scheme to combine the output signals obtained from
Rake ngers. Assuming that the channel is perfectly known
at the receiver side and that the time-hopping sequence of the
desired users is
(1)

= 0 for all [13], the signals can be

coherently detected and combined by employing the template
() =

f
1
=0

(1)

s
1
=0
(
f
), where
f
is
the number of Rake ngers. Owing to symmetry, we need
only consider the case where the transmitted symbol is +1.
With perfect time synchronization, the decision statistic at the
output of the Rake receiver is given by
=

b
0
()() = + + (11a)
where is the desired signal component given by
=

f
1

=0
_

(1)

_
2
(11b)
and in eq. (11a) is the MUI term which can be expressed
as
=

f
1

=0

(1)

=2

s
1

=0

()
,
(11c)
where
()
,
is the interference component in the mth frame of
the lth Rake nger originating from the kth ( > 1) coexisting
user, which can be expressed as

()
,
=

f
+(+1)

f
+

t
1

1
=0

()

()
/
s

(
f

()

)(
f
).(11d)
The variance of the ltered AWGN term can be expressed
as

= var() =
0

f
1

=0
E
_

(1)

2
_
. (12)
A. Statistics of the Desired Signal Component
According to eq. (11b), the mean of the desired signal
component before shadowing can be expressed as
E() =

f
1

=0

(1)

2
_
. (13)
SHAO and BEAULIEU: AN ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE BIT ERROR RATE PERFORMANCE OF RAKE RECEPTION . . . 1115
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Amplitude
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n


Empirical PDF of 10log
10
(S)
Gaussian PDF with mean
zs
and variance
2
zs
Fig. 1. The empirical PDF of the amplitude of = 10 log
10
() in CM1
channels and the Gaussian PDF with mean

and variance
2

.
The second moment of can be expressed as
E(
2
) =

s
E
_

(1)
0
4
_
,
f
= 1

s
_

f
1

=0
E
_

(1)

4
_
+ 2

f
2

=0

f
1

1
=+1
E
_

(1)

2
_
E
_

(1)

1
2
_
_
,
f
2.
(14)
Thus, the variance of the desired signal component
can be expressed as var() = E(
2
) E
2
() =

f
1
=0
_
E
_

(1)
0
4
_
E
2
_

(1)

2
__
. Since the formulae
for the second and fourth moments of the amplitudes {

t
1
=0
have already been derived, E() and E(
2
) can be evaluated
using eqs. (13) and (14). The calculations are based on eqs. (4)
and (5) in CM1 LOS channels, and eqs. (7) and (8) in CM2-
CM4 NLOS channels. Meanwhile, it is justied in [5], [7] that
the desired signal component can be well approximated by a
lognormal distributed RV. Therefore, the RV = 10 log
10
()
can be approximated by a normally distributed RV with mean

and variance
2

, where

and
2

can be expressed in
terms of E() and E(
2
) as

=
10
ln 10
ln
_

2
()

(
2
)
_
(15)

=
100
ln
2
10
ln
_
(
2
)

2
()
_
(16)
according to the Wilkinson approximation method [14]. Fig. 1
shows the empirical PDF of = 10 log
10
() and the PDF of
a Gaussian distributed RV with mean

and variance
2

.
It is seen in Fig. 1 that eqs. (13) and (14) are effective in
predicting the mean and the second moment of the desired
signal component , and that can be well approximated
by a normally distributed RV. Therefore, the desired signal
component can be assumed to be lognormally distributed.
B. Statistics of the MUI
A complete description of the PDF of the MUI component
in UWB systems is difcult. However, derivation of the
moments of the MUI based on the discrete channel model
described in eq. (2) is possible. Note that the interference
term can be expressed as in eq. (11c), which is a triple
summation of the partial interference
()
,
given by eq. (11d).
Letting () denote the autocorrelation function of () as
() =

( )(), eq. (11d) can be rewritten as

()
,
=

t
1

1
=0

()

()
/
s

(( )
f
+
()

c
+ (
1
) +

)
=

t
1

1
=0

()

1
,,
(17a)
where

()

1
,,
=

()

()
/
s

(()
f
+
()

c
+(
1
)+

).
(17b)
As mentioned previously, the amplitudes {

t
1
=0
all have
zero means, and the interfering information bit
()
/
s

as-
sumes values from {+1, 1} with equal probability. Thus,
the PDF of the partial interference
()
,
is symmetric about the
point 0, and its mean is zero. When considering the second
moment of
()
,
, the assumption

<

/2 2
p
is
adopted [11], which means that the pulse can only hop over
an interval of one-half of a frame time. We denote the time
shift (
1
) +

in the argument of the function () on

the right side of eq. (17b) by

1
,,
, and model

1
,,
as [11]

1
,,
= (
1
) +

1
,,

f
+

1
,,
(18)
where

1
,,
is the value of the time shift of the kth user
rounded to the nearest frame time, and

1
,,
is the fractional
part in the rounding process, which is uniformly distributed in
[

f
2
,

f
2
). Thus, the argument of the function () in (17b)
can be rewritten as ( +

1
,,
)
f
+
()

c
+

1
,,
. Since
the autocorrelation function () is non-zero for [
p
,
p
),
and the assumption

<

/2 2
p
is adopted, there is
only one non-zero term in the summation on the right side
of eq. (17b), where the frame index satises the condition
+

1
,,
= 0. Therefore, eq. (17b) can be rewritten as

()

1
,,
=
()

()
/
s

(
()

c
+

1
,,
) (19)
where =

1
,,
. Given the time-hopping sequence of the
kth user
_

()

_
and

1
,,
, the second moment of the partial
statistic
()
,
can be expressed as
E
_

()
,
2

()

1
,,
_
=

t
1

=0
E
_

()

1
,,
2

()

1
,,
_
=

2
(
()

c
+

1
,,
)E
_

t
1

=0

()

1
2
_
=

2
(
()

c
+

1
,,
) (20)
1116 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 58, NO. 4, APRIL 2010
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Amplitude of I
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n


N
u
=4
Empirical PDF of I
Gaussian Approximation
Laplacian Approximation
Fig. 2. The empirical PDF of the amplitude of the interference, , without
shadowing factor, the Gaussian PDF, and the Laplacian PDF in CM1 channels
when there are 4 coexisting users in the same coverage area.
2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Amplitude of I
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n


N
u
=32
Empirical PDF of I
Gaussian Approximation
Laplacian Approximation
Fig. 3. The empirical PDF of the amplitude of the interference, , without
shadowing factor, the Gaussian PDF, and the Laplacian PDF in CM1 channels
when there are 32 coexisting users in the same coverage area.
since the multipath coefcients
_

()

1
_

t
1

1
=0
meet the con-
straint E
_

t
1

1
=0

()

1
2
_
= 1. Note that the time-
hopping sequence of the kth user
()

assumes values of
{0, 1, ,
h
1} with equal probability
1

h
, and

1
,,
is
uniformly distributed in [
f
/2,
f
/2). Following a similar
procedure as in [15] to average out these two RVs, the second
moment of
()
,
can be expressed as
E
_

()
,
2
_
=

(21)
where

=
1

2
(). Assuming the interference
terms
()
,
( = 0, ,
f
1; = 0, ,
s
; = 2,
u
)
are independent, the second moment of the total interference
(c.f. eq. (11c)) can be expressed as

=
_

2
_
=

=2

f
1

=0

(1)

2
_
_
=

=2

(22)
where the summands in

f
1
=0

_

(1)

2
_
can be
evaluated using eq. (4) in CM1 channels, and eq. (7) in CM2-
CM4 NLOS channels.
Although the rst and second moments of the interference
can be evaluated, it is still difcult or intractable to character-
ize the PDF of mathematically. However, the PDFs of some
known distributions can be adopted for approximating the PDF
of and predicting the bit error rate performance. Fig. 2 shows
the empirical PDF of the interference , the Gaussian PDF and
the Laplacian PDF with mean 0 and variance evaluated by eq.
(22). Equal-power interferers are considered and the number of
coexisting users is
u
= 4. It is seen in Fig. 2 that the second
moment of the interference can be well predicted by eq. (22),
and the PDF of the interference term can be well approximated
by the Laplacian PDF. Fig. 3 shows the empirical PDF of , the
Gaussian and the Laplacian PDF with mean 0 and variance
evaluated using (22) where the number of coexisting users
is increased to
u
= 32. It should be noted that 32 is a
large number for the number of signicant interferers in UWB
multiple access systems which operate in indoor environments,
where the range of operation of UWB devices is only a few
meters. Observe that even with such a relatively large number
of users, the central limit theorem (CLT) is not effective, and
the Laplacian PDF is still better for approximating the PDF
of the interference component, at least in the cases we are
analyzing. The reason why the CLT is ineffective in modeling
the MUI in UWB systems lies in the fact that time-hopping
UWB signals have a low duty cycle; i.e., the frame duration
f
is much longer than the pulse duration
p
. Only a single pulse
is transmitted per frame, and there is spacing between adjacent
transmitted pulses. Therefore, when the receiver detects the
signal in a given chip, it only sees interference from a
relatively small number of users compared to the total number
of interfering users transmitting simultaneously in the same
coverage area. Moreover, the motivating applications of UWB
systems suggest that the range of operation for UWB devices
is only a few meters and the number of total contributing
interferers is usually small. These properties lead to the fact
that the UWB MUI cannot be well modeled as a Gaussian
distributed RV as shown in Figs. 2-3. However, if the number
of users coexisting in the same coverage area increases to a
very large value, or the UWB pulse used for transmission has
a larger duration, the CLT may be effective and the Gaussian
distribution may be a better approximation for the UWB MUI.
Specic details as well as full explanations of the reasons
underlying these behaviours are given in [16], [17].
Since the Gaussian and the Laplacian distributions may
approximate the PDF of the MUI in UWB systems well in
different scenarios, both PDFs will be adopted to construct
the models which are used to predict the BER performance of
Rake reception in UWB systems in the sequel. Furthermore,
it is noted that the AWGN term has zero mean and
the corresponding PDF is an even function. Thus, the total
disturbance which includes both the interference and the
SHAO and BEAULIEU: AN ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE BIT ERROR RATE PERFORMANCE OF RAKE RECEPTION . . . 1117
AWGN term also has zero mean, and the PDF of the total
disturbance is even symmetric.
IV. BIT ERROR RATE ESTIMATION
A. Statistics at the Receiver
Owing to the symmetry, we need only consider the case
where the transmitted symbol is +1. The decision statistic at
the output of the Rake receiver is expressed in eq. (11a) as
=

..
+

..
+. (23)
The statistics of the interference term before shadowing
have been analyzed in Section III, where the Gaussian and
Laplacian distribution can be used for approximating the PDF
of in different scenarios. Therefore, in this section, two
models based on these two approximations will be derived
to estimate the BER performance of Rake reception of UWB
signals in multipath fading channels.
B. Bit Error Rate Estimation
1) Composite Lognormal-Gaussian Model: Assuming that
the CLT is valid, the MUI component before shadowing, ,
can be approximated by a Gaussian distributed RV. Thus,
conditioning on the shadowing factor , the MUI component

= can be modeled as a normally distributed RV with

zero mean and variance
2

, where
2

is the variance of
the MUI before shadowing, which can be evaluated using eq.
(22). Assuming that the MUI and the AWGN are independent
and conditioning on , the total disturbance = +
can be well modeled as
(0,
2

+
2

). (24)
If the transmitted symbol is +1, the BER of Rake reception is
expressed as
P() = P
r
( < 0) = P
r
(

+ < 0) = P
r
(+ < 0).
(25)
Therefore, conditioning on the shadowing factor and the de-
sired signal component , the bit error rate of Rake reception
can be calculated based on the composite lognormal-Gaussian
model as

clg
(, ) =
_

+
2

_
(26)
where () = 1/

exp(
2
/2) is the well-known
Q-function. As mentioned in the previous section, the desired
signal component can be well approximated by a lognormal
distributed RV. The shadowing term is also lognormal
distributed [2]. These two RVs can be characterized by

= 10 log
10
() (

,
2

) (27)

= 20 log
10
() (0,
2

) (28)
where

and
2

are given by eq. (15) and eq. (16),

respectively, and

= 3 dB. Averaging out the RVs

and , the BER of Rake reception based on the composite
lognormal-Gaussian model can be calculated as
P
clg
() =

P(, )

()

()
=
1
2

_
10

/20+

/10

10

/10

+
2

_
exp
_

2
2

_
exp
_

)
2
2
2

. (29)
Several numerical techniques can be used to evaluate eq.
(29). For instance, the value of integral

exp(
2
)()
can be approximated using Hermite-Gauss quadrature as [18,
25.4.46]

exp(
2
)() =

=1

) (30)
where

is the ith zero of the Hermite polynomial

(),
and the associated weights

are given by

=
2
1
!

2
[
1
(

)]
2
. (31)
Therefore, eq. (29) can be evaluated using Hermite-Gauss
quadrature as
P
clg
() =
1

=1

=1

10

/20+

/10

10

/10

+
2

(32)
where the abscissas {

=1
and the weight factors {

=1
are tabulated in [18, Table 25.10]. Typically,

= 20
is sufcient for excellent accuracy. Therefore, based on the
composite lognormal-Gaussian model, the BER of Rake re-
ception can be easily and quickly evaluated using eq. (32)
with commonplace computer resources.
2) Composite Lognormal-Laplacian Model: It is reported
in [19] that indoor environments, where UWB devices are
envisioned to be deployed, are subject to impulsive (non-
Gaussian) noise. Another distribution - the Laplace distribu-
tion, which is usually adopted to model impulsive noises, is
used here to approximate the total interference term before
shadowing. It is also seen in Figs. 2-3 that the PDFs of the in-
terference component in eq. (11a) can be well approximated
by the Laplacian PDF. In this case, the approximate PDF of
the interference term can be expressed as

() =
1
2
exp(/). (33)
For a RV with the PDF given by eq. (33), the variance is
2
2
. Therefore, the parameter in eq. (33) can be obtained
by matching 2
2
with
2

, viz, =

/2, where
2

is the
variance of evaluated by eq. (22). Hence, conditioning on
the shadowing factor , the approximate PDF of

= can
be expressed as

() =
1
2
exp
_

_
(34)
and the corresponding characteristic function (CF) is

() =
1
1 +
2

2
. (35)
1118 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 58, NO. 4, APRIL 2010
TABLE I
CHANNEL PARAMETERS
(nsec)

(nsec)
c
(nsec)
f
(nsec)
b
(nsec)
s

h

u
0.167 0.167 0.334 10 40 4 8 4,8,16, and 32
We assume that the MUI and the AWGN component are
independent. Conditioning on the shadowing factor , the CF
of the total disturbance = + can be expressed as

() =
1
1 +
2

2
exp
_

2
2
_
. (36)
Letting

() denote the cumulative density function (CDF)

of =

+ , the BER conditioned on the desired signal
component and the shadowing effect can be expressed
as
P(, ) = P
r
(

+

+ < 0, )
= P
r
( <

, ) = 1

(

, ). (37)
The relationship between the CF of a RV and its CDF is
given by

() =
1
2
+
1

+
0
sin()

() (38)
when is real. Therefore, based on eq. (38), the conditional
BER given by eq. (37) can be rewritten as [20]
P
cll
(, ) =
1
2

1

+
0
sin()

() (39)
using the composite lognormal-Laplacian model, where

() is the conditional CF of given by eq. (36).
Substituting eq. (36) into (39), eq. (39) can be rewritten as
P
cll
(, )
=
1
2

1

+
0
sin()

1
1 +
2

2
2

=
1
2

1

+
0
sin()

2
2

+
0
sin()
1

2
+
2

2
2

_
.
(40)
Note that [21, 3.952, 6.
3
]

+
0

2
sin()

=

2
(

2
) (41)
and [21, 3.954, 1.
11
]

2
sin()

2
+
2
=

2
_
2 sinh()
+

+

2

)
_
(42)
where () =
2

2
is the error function. Based on
eqs. (41) and (42), the conditional BER P
cll
(, ) in eq.
(40) can be rewritten as
P
cll
(, ) =
1
2

1
2

2
2

1
4

2
2

2
[
2 sinh
(

)
+

/2

2
2

/2

2
2

)]
.
(43)
As mentioned above, the desired signal component and the
shadowing term can be characterized by 10 log
10
()
(

,
2

), and 20 log
10
() (0,
2

), respectively,
where

and
2

are given by eqs. (15) and (16), and

= 3 dB. The BER of UWB systems based on the

composite lognormal-Laplacian model can thus be evaluated
by averaging eq. (43) over the PDF of and as
P
cll
() =
1
2

P
cll
(10

/20
, 10

/10
)

2
2

)
2
2
2

. (44)
The BER in eq. (44) can be readily evaluated using Hermite-
Gauss quadrature in the same manner as in eq. (32), viz,
P
cll
() =
1

=1

=1

= P
cll
(10
(

/20)
, 10
(

)/10
) (45)
where P
cll
(, ) is given by eq. (43), {

=1
and {

=1
are tabulated in [18, Table 25.10], and

= 20 is
typically sufcient for excellent accuracy. Therefore, based on
the composite lognormal-Laplacian model, the BER of Rake
reception can be easily and quickly evaluated using eq. (45)
with commonplace computer resources.
V. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In this section, eqs. (32) and (45) will be used for numerical
computation of the average BER in IEEE 802.15.3a chan-
nels based on the composite lognormal-Gaussian model and
composite lognormal-Laplacian model, respectively. The key
parameters dening the IEEE 802.15.3a CM1-CM4 channel
models are given in [2, Table 2]. The other system parameters
are given in Table I.
Equal-power interferers are considered, the SIR is dened
as SIR =
1
/

and the SNR is dened as SNR =

1
/
0
.
The numbers of Rake ngers used for signal detection are 10,
30, 50 and 70 in the CM1, CM2, CM3 and CM4 channel
models, respectively. The received pulse is the second-order
Gaussian monocycle.
Fig. 4 shows the estimated BER based on the composite
lognormal-Gaussian model, the estimated BER based on the
composite lognormal-Laplacian model, and the simulated BER
as a function of the SNR of the MRC Rake receiver in
UWB CM1 channels [2]. The SIR value is 10 dB, the SNR
SHAO and BEAULIEU: AN ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE BIT ERROR RATE PERFORMANCE OF RAKE RECEPTION . . . 1119
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0


N
u
=32
N
u
=16
N
u
=8
N
u
=4
Composite LognormalGaussian Model
Composite LognormalLaplacian Model
Simulation
Fig. 4. The simulated BER curves, and the estimated BER curves based
on the composite lognormal-Gaussian model and the composite lognormal-
Laplacian model for Rake reception in CM1 channels.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0


N
u
=32
N
u
=16
N
u
=8
N
u
=4
Composite LognormalGaussian Model
Composite LognormalLaplacian Model
Simulation
Fig. 5. The simulated BER curves, and the estimated BER curves based
on the composite lognormal-Gaussian model and the composite lognormal-
Laplacian model for Rake reception in CM2 channels.
values ranges from 0 to 50 dB, and the number of available
Rake ngers is
f
= 10. Note that the composite lognormal-
Gaussian and the composite lognormal-Laplacian model are
both accurate for predicting the BER performance of Rake
reception in UWB channels when the SNR is small and
the AWGN term dominates the interference. However, the
discrepancies between the estimated BER and the simulated
results increase a small amount for both methods as the SNR
value becomes larger. This is because, the interference term
becomes more dominant as the SNR increases. Since the PDF
of is neither exactly Gaussian nor Laplacian distributed,
the inaccuracy of the estimates increases. Nonetheless, the
absolute differences between the estimated BER based on the
composite lognormal-Laplacian model and the simulated BER
are smaller than those between the estimated BER based on
the composite lognormal-Gaussian model and the simulated
BER. Note also, that the BER estimation method based on the
composite lognormal-Laplacian model yields more accurate
results when the number of coexisting users is relatively large.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0


N
u
=32
N
u
=16
N
u
=8
N
u
=4
Composite LognormalGaussian Model
Composite LognormalLaplacian Model
Simulation
Fig. 6. The simulated BER curves, and the estimated BER curves based
on the composite lognormal-Gaussian model and the composite lognormal-
Laplacian model for Rake reception in CM3 channels.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0


N
u
=32
N
u
=16
N
u
=8
N
u
=4
Composite LognormalGaussian Model
Composite LognormalLaplacian Model
Simulation
Fig. 7. The simulated BER curves, and the estimated BER curves based
on the composite lognormal-Gaussian model and the composite lognormal-
Laplacian model for Rake reception in CM4 channels.
For instance, it is seen in Fig. 4 that the BER estimation
method based on the composite lognormal-Laplacian model
can predict the BER of Rake reception well even in the error
oor, where the MUI term is the dominant disturbance, for

u
= 32. This behavior can be predicted by Fig. 3. It is seen
in Fig. 3 that the Laplacian distribution approximates the PDF
of the interference term quite well with
u
= 32.
Figs. 5, 6 and 7 show the estimated BER based on the com-
posite lognormal-Gaussian model, the estimated BER based
on the lognormal-Laplacian model, and the simulated BER as
a function of the SNR of the MRC Rake receiver in the CM2,
CM3 and CM4 channel models [2]. The system parameters
are the same as in Fig. 4. The results in these three gures
are similar to those in Fig. 4. Note that the performance of
the composite lognormal-Laplacian model is again enhanced
when the number of users increases from 4 to 32. Observe also
that the composite lognormal-Laplacian model always works
at least as well as the composite lognormal-Gaussian model,
and it outperforms the latter for increasing values of SNR in
1120 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 58, NO. 4, APRIL 2010
all the CM2 - CM4 channel models. However, the composite
lognormal-Gaussian model may be effective when the number
of users in the same coverage area increases to a very large
number, or when the UWB pulses have a greater duty cycle.
VI. CONCLUSION
Two new analytical methods for evaluating the BER per-
formance of the MRC Rake receiver in IEEE 802.15.3a UWB
channels have been proposed. Tractable expressions which
can be rapidly evaluated with good accuracy were derived.
Simulation results indicate that the composite lognormal-
Laplacian model is more accurate for evaluating the BER
performance of UWB systems in practical operating scenarios
than the composite lognormal-Gaussian model.
REFERENCES
[1] A. A. M. Saleh and R. A. Valenzuela, A statistical model for indoor
multipath propagation," IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. SAC-5, pp.
128-137, Feb. 1987.
[2] J. R. Foerster, Channel modeling sub-committee report (nal)," 2003,
IEEE P802.15-02/490r1-SG3a, Feb. 2003.
[3] D. Cassioli, M. Z. Win, and A. F. Molisch, Performance of low-
complexity RAKE reception in a realistic UWB channel," in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Commun., 2002, pp. 763-767.
[4] F. Ramlrez-Mireles, On the performance of ultra-wide-band signals in
Gaussian noise and dense multipath," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol.
50, pp. 244-249, Jan. 2001.
[5] J. Zhang, R. Kennedy, and T. Abhayapala, Performance of Rake
reception for ultra wideband signals in a lognormal-fading channel,"
in Proc. International Workshop Ultra Wideband Syst. (IWUWBS 03),
pp. 5-9.
[6] J. A. Gubner and K. Hao, A computable formula for the average bit
error probability as a function of window size for the IEEE 802.15.3a
UWB channel model," IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Technol., vol. 54,
pp. 1762-1768, Apr. 2006.
[7] Y. Chen and N. C. Beaulieu, Interference analysis of UWB systems
for IEEE channel models using rst- and second-order moments," IEEE
Trans. Commun., pp. 622-625, Mar. 2009.
[8] T. Jia and D. I. Kim, Analysis of channel-averaged SINR for indoor
UWB rake and transmitted Reference Systems," IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 55, pp. 2022-2032, Oct. 2007.
[9] D. I. Kim, Near-optimal and suboptimal receivers for multiuser UWB
impulse radio systems in multipath," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 57,
pp. 3001-3011, Oct. 2009.
[10] W. Cao, A. Nallanathan, and C. C. Chai, Exact bit error rate analysis of
direct sequence ultra-wide band multiple access systems in lognormal
multipath fading channels," IET Commun., vol. 2, pp. 410-421, Mar.
2008.
[11] M. Z. Win and R. A. Scholtz, Ultra-wide bandwidth time-hopping
spread-spectrum impulse radio for wireless multiple-access communi-
cations," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, pp. 679-691, Apr. 2000.
[12] , On the robustness of ultra-wide bandwidth signals in dense
multipath environments," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 2, pp. 51-53, Feb.
1998.
[13] G. Durisi and S. Benedetto, Performance evaluation of TH-PPM UWB
systems in the presence of multiuser interference," IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 7, pp. 224-226, May 2003.
[14] N. C. Beaulieu, A. A. Abu-Dayya, and P. J. McLane, Estimating the
distribution of a sum of independent lognormal random variables," IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 43, pp. 2869-2873, Dec. 1995.
[15] N. C. Beaulieu, H. Shao, and J. Fiorina, P-order metric UWB receiver
structures with superior performance," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56,
pp. 1666-1676, Oct. 2008.
[16] N. C. Beaulieu and D. J. Young, Designing time-hopping ultra-wide
bandwidth receivers for multi-user interference environments," Proc.
IEEE, pp. 255-284, Feb. 2009.
[17] I. Hosseini and N. C. Beaulieu, Bit error rate of TH-BPSK UWB
receivers in multiuser interference," IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 8, pp. 4916-4921, Oct. 2009.
[18] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions:
with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables (10th printing). New
York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1972.
[19] K. L. Blackard, T. S. Rappaport, and C. W. Bostian, Measurements
and models of radio frequency impulsive noise for indoor wireless
communications," IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 11, pp. 991-1001,
Sept. 1993.
[20] M. Chiani, Performance of BPSK and GMSK with multiple cochannel
interferers," in Proc. Seventh IEEE International Symp. Personal, Indoor
Mobile Radio Commun. (PIMRC96), 1996, pp. 833-837.
[21] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series and
Products, Seventh Edition. San Diego, CA: Academic, Mar. 2007.
Hua Shao (S07) received the B. Sc. degree in elec-
trical engineering from Peking University, Beijing,
China, in 2004 and the M. Sc. degree in electrical
engineering from the University of Alberta, AB,
Canada in 2006. She is currently working toward
the Ph. D. degree in the iCORE Wireless Commu-
nications Laboratory, Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, AB,
Canada. Her current research interests include ultra-
wideband (UWB) radio communications, spread-
spectrum communications, and digital communica-
tions over fading channels. Ms. Shao is a current recipient of the iCORE ICT
Graduate Student Scholarship from the Alberta Informatics Circle of Research
Excellence (iCORE).
Norman C. Beaulieu (S82-M86-SM89-F99) re-
ceived the B.A.Sc. (honors), M.A.Sc., and Ph.D. de-
grees in electrical engineering from the University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada in 1980,
1983, and 1986, respectively. He was awarded the
University of British Columbia Special University
Prize in Applied Science in 1980 as the highest
standing graduate in the Faculty of Applied Science.
He was a Queens National Scholar Assistant Pro-
fessor with the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ing, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada from
September 1986 to June 1988, an Associate Professor from July 1988 to June
1993, and a Professor from July 1993 to August 2000. In September 2000, he
became the iCORE Research Chair in Broadband Wireless Communications
at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada and in January 2001, the
Canada Research Chair in Broadband Wireless Communications. His current
research interests include broadband digital communications systems, ultra-
wide bandwidth systems, fading channel modeling and simulation, diversity
systems, interference prediction and cancellation, importance sampling and
semi-analytical methods, and space-time coding.
Dr. Beaulieu is a Member of the IEEE Communication Theory Committee
and served as its Representative to the Technical Program Committee of the
1991 International Conference on Communications and as Co-Representative
to the Technical Program Committee of the 1993 International Conference on
Communications and the 1996 International Conference on Communications.
He was General Chair of the Sixth Communication Theory Mini-Conference
in association with GLOBECOM 97 and Co-Chair of the Canadian Workshop
on Information Theory in 1999 and 2007. Dr. Beaulieu served as Co-Chair of
the Technical Program Committee of the Communication Theory Symposium
of the 2008 International Conference on Communications, and as Co-Chair
of the Technical Program Committee of the 2009 International Conference
on Ultra-Wideband. He has been an Editor for Wireless Communication
Theory of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS since January
1992, and was Editor-in-Chief from January 2000 to December 2003. He
served as an Associate Editor for Wireless Communication Theory of the
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS from November 1996 to August 2003.
He also served on the Editorial Board of THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
from November 2000 to December 2006. He received the Natural Science
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) E.W.R. Steacie
Memorial Fellowship in 1999. Professor Beaulieu was elected a Fellow of
the Engineering Institute of Canada in 2001 and was awarded the Medaille
K.Y. Lo Medal of the Institute in 2004. He was elected Fellow of the Royal
Society of Canada in 2002 and was awarded the Thomas W. Eadie Medal
of the Society in 2005. Also in 2005, Professor Beaulieu was awarded the
Alberta Science and Technology Leadership Foundation ASTech Outstanding
Leadership in Alberta Technology Award. In 2006, he was elected Fellow
of the Canadian Academy of Engineering. He was the 2006 recipient of
the J Gordin Kaplan Award for Excellence in Research, the University of
Albertas most prestigious research prize. Professor Beaulieu is listed on
ISIHighlyCited.com and was appointed as an IEEE Communications Society
Distinguished Lecturer. He is the recipient of the IEEE Communications
Society 2007 Edwin Howard Armstrong Achievement Award.