The Design and Performance of SEFDM with the
Sinc-to-RRC Modification of Subcarriers Spectrums
Aleksandr Gelgor, Anton Gorlov, Van Phe Nguyen
Radio and Telecommunications Systems
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University
St. Petersburg, Russia
www.spbstu.ru
Abstract— In this paper we propose a utilization of infinite
RRC-pulses (with finite root raised cosine spectrum) as shapes
for subcarriers’ spectrums in spectrally efficient frequency
division multiplexing (SEFDM). For this purpose, we suggest
algorithms for SEFDM generation and detection in frequency
domain. Employing the dualism of Fourier transforms, we treat
spectrum samples as time-domain samples, and entire SEFDM
spectrum is considered as a time-domain faster-than-Nyquist
signal. This approach allows a signal detection based on the
Viterbi algorithm. The computational complexity of this receiver
depends linearly on a number of allocated subcarriers. A
transition from sinc to RRC subcarriers’ spectrums leads to
increase of SEFDM symbol duration in time domain. We have
demonstrated by simulation that bandwidth and energy
consumptions of SEFDM with RRC subcarriers’ spectrums are
significantly lower than the consumptions of SEFDM with sinc
subcarriers’ spectrums under a fixed computational complexity
of the receiver. In addition, we have represented the comparison
of our signals with the conventional SEFDM in terms of modified
energy consumptions taking a signal peak to average power ratio
into account. In this case, SEFDM with RRC subcarriers’
spectrums also outperform SEFDM with sinc subcarriers’
spectrums.
Keywords—SEFDM; FTN; RRC-pulses; the Viterbi algorithm
I. INTRODUCTION
Most of the modern telecommunication standards define
signaling with zero inter-symbol interference (ISI). In such
systems, signal detection can be implemented in a symbol-by-
symbol way that leads to low computational complexity.
However, there is an evident intention of utilization non-
orthogonal signaling in prospective communication standards.
For instance, one of candidates for 5G systems is the
spectrally-efficient frequency division multiplexing (SEFDM).
In this technique, multicarrier signals are generated with
subcarrier frequency spacing smaller than it is required by
orthogonality condition. This is the key distinction of SEFDM
from OFDM. The SEFDM signals are expected to provide a
significant bandwidth efficiency gain with an acceptable loss
of energy efficiency and growth of computational complexity.
There are plenty of publications dedicated to fast
algorithms for generation and detection of SEFDM. For the
signal generation, one popular algorithm truncates a sequence
of samples from the IFFT output [1]. This truncation
transforms an ordinary OFDM to the SEFDM. For detection of
these signals, various modifications of exhaustive search are
usually considered [2], [3], but high computational complexity
of these algorithms allows only a small number of subcarriers
to be allocated. Two approaches to SEFDM with larger number
of subcarriers are given in [4]. The first approach implies a
division of entire system bandwidth into subbands. If there is
no strong interference between subbands, it is possible to
perform the signal detection separately for each subband. The
second approach employs the turbo equalizer technique for
detection of SEFDM combined with a convolutional code. In
[4] the receiver performs a frequency domain demodulation
with low computational complexity. Despite the low quality of
this demodulator, the overall detection quality is satisfactory
due to the iterative signal processing with SISO decoding of
convolutional code. A challenge of SEFDM signals processing
in hardware is also discussed in [5], [6], [7].
The idea of improving bandwidth efficiency by the
intentional introduction of ISI was originally suggested by
Mazo [8]. He considered single-carrier signals obtained by the
linear modulation with sinc-pulses, in his signals symbols were
transmitted 1/τ times faster (0 < τ ≤ 1) than it is required for
orthogonality of neighboring sinc-pulses. It was shown that a
reduction of τ from 1 to 0.8 does not deteriorate energy
efficiency for BPSK constellation, thus a 25% gain in
bandwidth efficiency is possible with no penalty. A linearly
modulated signal based on sinc-pulses has a rectangular
spectrum and occupies the minimal bandwidth. A utilization of
τ < 1 leads to a symbol rate exceeding the Nyquist limit for the
condition of zero ISI. According to these facts, Mazo suggested
the term Faster-than-Nyquist (FTN) to refer such signals with
τ < 1. In [9] Liveris and Georghiades analyzed a utilization of
RRC-pulses instead of sinc-pulses for FTN:
sin{(1 - b) pt / T } + cos{(1 + b) pt / T }4bt / T
aRRC (t , b) = , (1)
T {1 - (4b t / T ) 2 }pt / T
where 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 is a roll-off factor, T is the minimal symbol
transmission period (symbol interval) providing zero ISI. The
sinc-pulse is a particular case of RRC-pulses with β = 0.
Liveris and Georghiades have shown that the utilization of
RRC-pulses in FTN can also provide a bandwidth efficiency
gain with no energy losses.
In [10] we investigated bandwidth and energy
consumptions of FTN with RRC-pulses (RRC-FTN) under a
fixed receiver’s computational complexity or, equally, a fixed
ISI window length taken into account. The energy
consumptions were equal to signal to noise ratio per bit
required for providing the chosen detection quality
BER = 10 –4:
bE = h 2 = Ebit / N 0 . (2)
The bandwidth consumptions were calculated as follows
b F = W99% / R , (3)
where W99% is a bandwidth comprising 99% of signal power,
and R is a transmission bitrate. The receiver was based on the
Viterbi algorithm. It was shown by simulation that, in practice,
the efficiency of FTN with sinc-pulses (sinc-FTN) is
significantly lower than the theoretical asymptotic values. In
particular, for 1000 QPSK symbols frames the Viterbi receiver
with 27 states provided the energy consumptions βE = 13.5 dB
for τ = 0.8. This value of βE is 5.1 dB higher than the
theoretical asymptotic consumptions βE = 8.4 dB for
BER = 10 –4. In our work, for various values of τ, the minimal
bandwidth and energy consumptions were provided by values
of roll-off about 0.5. In general, for each value of βF one should
search for a combination of β and τ providing the minimal
energy consumptions.
To take the advantage of RRC-FTN, and according to the
fact that conventional SEFDM signals are similar to sinc-FTN,
we decided to employ RRC-pulses with β > 0 as shapes of
subcarriers’ spectrums in SEFDM. In addition, it was desired
to make possible the detection of SEFDM by the Viterbi
receiver, because it provides a linear increase of computational
complexity of SEFDM detection with increase of number of
subcarriers. We will use the notation sinc-SEFDM to refer
conventional SEFDM signals with sinc-shape of subcarriers’
spectrums, and proposed signals will be referred as RRC-
SEFDM.
In the second section of this paper we will describe our
approach to RRC-SEFDM generation and detection.
Simulation parameters will be defined in the third section.
Finally, we will compare sinc-SEFDM with RRC-SEFDM in
terms of bandwidth and energy consumptions.
II. RRC-SEFDM SIGNALS
The basic idea of RRC-SEFDM is a reproduction of
procedures of the FTN generation but in frequency domain
instead of time domain. For this purpose, we should interpret
time-domain samples of RRC-pulse as spectrum samples, and,
vice versa, its finite spectrum should be considered as a time-
domain pulse. We will start the description of RRC-SEFDM
from the zero ISI mode. Actually, this mode is equal to OFDM
Fig. 1. RRC-pulses in frequency domain (right part) and corresponding time
domain pulses (left side); K = 1 for β = 0, and K = 2 for β = 0.2
with RRC subcarriers’ spectrums (RRC-OFDM). After this we
will describe a transition to non-orthogonal RRC-SEFDM.
It is known that the sinc-pulse (or RRC-pulse with β = 0
roll-off) has a rectangular spectrum of 1/T bandwidth.
According to the sampling theorem, it is possible to represent
the signal by one sample K = 1 per each symbol interval.
Taking into account the dualism of time-frequency Fourier
transformations, one can obtain a sinc-spectrum for a
rectangular time-domain pulse. Thus, it is sufficient to consider
one sample per each “symbol interval” Tf = 1/T in frequency
domain. It works in a conventional sinc-OFDM generation
scheme: DFT of NFFT time domain samples with the T/NFFT
sampling period gives NFFT frequency domain samples with the
1/T period (fig. 1, β = 0).
Spectrums of RRC-pulses with β > 0 occupy wider than 1/T
bandwidth, hence, it is required to increase the number K of
samples per each “symbol interval” in frequency domain to
satisfy the sampling theorem. In the design of signal processing
algorithms, it is convenient to utilize integer values of K. The
K = 2 is the minimal value suitable for all values of β > 0.
When RRC subcarriers’ spectrums are utilized (RRC-OFDM),
a two times increase of number of time domain samples is
required, and two times more samples are involved in DFT
(fig. 1, β = 0.2). Notice that the signal sampling rate
Fs = NFFT/T in time domain should be retained.
We can see from the fig. 1 that the longer time domain
pulse has almost zero segments on its edges, and these edges
should not necessarily be transmitted. Here we define a
parameter NZ as a number of samples set to zero on the edges
for K = 2, where 0 ≤ NZ ≤ NFFT/2. For K > 2, left and right (K –
2)NFFT/2 samples in time domain should be eliminated each
time because they are caused by the signal’s spectrum
“upsampling”.
Let us define algorithms for generation and detection of
RRC-OFDM signals.
Preliminary calculations:
1. Write RRC-pulse’s samples a RRC(nT – KNFFTT/2, β), n = 0,
1, …, KNFFT – 1 into a column array A.
2. Calculate the time domain pulse B = F–1A, where F is the
DFT matrix:
F = exp( - j 2pk T k / KN FFT ) / KN FFT ,
(4)
k = [- KN FFT / 2, ..., KN FFT / 2 - 1]T .
3. Set to zero first and last {(K – 2)NFFT/2 + NZ} elements of
B, write the result into a column array C.
4. Calculate a frequency domain “pulse” D = FC,
corresponding to the time-domain pulse C.
After these steps, the column array D contains samples of
RRC-pulse corrupted by the procedure of setting to zero
{(K – 2)NFFT + 2NZ} samples in time domain. Notice, that
under a fixed NZ, RRC-pulse with higher value of β will have
more distortions.
RRC-OFDM symbol generation:
1. Write N symbols with a step K in a column array E of size
KNFFT (the K samples interval corresponds to the 1/T
frequency spacing). For instance, the positions
n = {KNFFT/2 – KN/2}, {KNFFT/2 – KN/2 + K}, …,
{KNFFT/2 – KN/2 + (N – 1)K} can be used if N is even. Set
to zero elements of E at other positions.
2. Calculate a cyclic convolution G = E*D, which
corresponds to a filtering. The cyclic convolution can be
calculated effectively by FFT.
3. Calculate KNFFT samples of RRC-OFDM symbol
H = F–1G.
4. Eliminate from transmission first and last
{(K – 2)NFFT/2 + NZ} elements of H.
Detection of RRC-OFDM (the equalization is already
done):
1. Write received and equalized signal samples into a column
array R, this array consist of elements of H affected by a
channel.
2. Pad the array R by {(K – 2)NFFT/2 + NZ} zeros at the
beginning and the end, write the result into the array H.
3. Calculate the received RRC-OFDM symbol spectrum
G = FH.
4. Perform the matched filtering E = G*D. If the NZ value is
enough to make D and A almost equal, then the matched
filtering cancels ISI at positions n.
5. Demodulate symbols at the positions n independently.
To sum up, the generation and the detection algorithms for
RRC-OFDM are equal to processing of single-carrier signals,
but they should be implemented in frequency domain. The
transition to frequency domain is made by FFT, as for sinc-
OFDM. Now, let us move to the RRC-SEFDM. For this
purpose, neighboring subcarriers should be allocated closer to
each other with a frequency spacing α/T, where 0 < α ≤ 1 is a
bandwidth compression factor. During the calculation of E, it
means a transition from K to αK step. If the value αK is not
integer, it leads to fractional symbol positions in E, and the
signal generation algorithm should be modified. To overcome
this problem, we suggest a utilization of K values providing
integer values of αK. In addition, integer values of αK will be
convenient on the detection stage. The minimal suitable values
of K are shown in the table 1 for various α and β > 0. The
condition K ≥ 2 is also taken into account. For β = 0, the only
distinction from table 1 occurs for α = 1, where K = 1 can be
utilized.
TABLE I. THE MINIMAL VALUES OF K DEPENDING ON α
α 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.25
K 2 10 5 10 5 2 4
In this way, a transition from RRC-OFDM to RRC-
SEFDM means a corresponding variation of symbols
allocation step in the array E, and utilization of higher values
of K.
Let us assume that the number of non-zero elements in D is
equal to L RRCαK, and the corrupted RRC-pulse has a bandwidth
of LRRC “symbol intervals” in frequency domain. In this case, a
generation of SEFDM spectrum (a calculation of G) is similar
to convolutional encoding with an (L RRC – 1) code constraint
length. In this analogy, a shift register of the “encoder”
contains modulated segments of the corrupted RRC-pulse
instead of information bits, and the resultant spectrum is a sum
of all stored modulated segments. In this regard, for RRC-
SEFDM we propose the receiver based on the Viterbi
algorithm, which is known as a successful solution for
decoding of convolutional codes. The modifications of the
conventional Viterbi algorithm are the sequential processing of
spectrum samples (elements of G) instead of time domain
sequence of samples, and the utilization of Euclidean metric
instead of Hamming metric. In other words, for each “symbol
interval” in frequency domain, the receiver calculates the set of
Euclidean distances between the segment of received signal
spectrum and all reference spectrum shapes.
The computational complexity of the Viterbi receiver is
defined by a number of states in the trellis, or, equally, by a
finite bandwidth of subcarrier’s spectrum taken into account.
This finite bandwidth can be expressed as a number LVD ≤ LRRC
of “symbol intervals” in frequency domain. The receiver
implements a sub-optimal detection, because RRC-pulse as
well as the sinc-pulse is infinite and, hence, leads to infinite ISI
window. Despite this fact, side lobs of RRC-pulse fall rapidly,
and there is the minimal bandwidth L(0)VD providing the
detection quality equal to optimal, which can not be improved
with LVD ≥ L(0)VD. Obviously, higher values of β lead to smaller
L(0)VD. In addition, a presence of guarding gaps in frequency
domain provides a possibility of initialization and termination
of the trellis thus improving the detection quality.
III. S IMULATION P ARAMETERS
In this work we investigate the performance of RRC-
SEFDM arising from OFDM with NFFT = 64 and N = 52; this
OFDM mode corresponds to the WiFi standard. In the
simulation, we utilized a single-path channel model with the
additive white Gaussian noise. All subcarriers were used for
data transmission. The considered values of α and
corresponding numbers of subcarriers N are listed in the
table 2.

TABLE II. NUMBERS OF S UBCARRIERS DEPENDING ON α

α 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

N 52 58 64 74 86 104

For each value of bandwidth compression factor, we

considered the following values of the roll-off β: 0, 0.2, 0.4,
0.6, 0.8, 1. All possible values of NZ from the range 0…32
were considered for each simulated mode. In all modes, we
considered only QPSK signal constellation. The transmission
bitrate was calculated for a considered RRC-SEFDM symbol
duration as follows: Fig. 2. Bandwidth and energy consumptions of RRC-SEFDM with β > 0
and conventional sinc-SEFDM

-1 -1 Alternatively, a 20% gain in bandwidth is provided by RRC-

æ 2 N FFT - 2 NZ ö æ æ NZ öö
R = 2 çT ÷ = çç T ç 1 - ÷ ÷÷ . (5)
è N FFT ø è è N FFT øø
The estimates of W99% did not depend significantly on β
and NZ, and in all modes W99% values were almost equal to
α/T. Thus, the bandwidth consumptions were calculated as
follows:
æ NZ ö
bF = a ç 1 - ÷. (6)
è N FFT ø side lobs of sinc-function is slower than for RRC-pulses with
During the simulation we estimated BER curves. The step
of h 2 was equal to 0.1 dB. Each point was computed by
accumulation of 1000 error bits and 500 error frames (each
frame was equal to a single RRC-SEFDM symbol). The values
of h2 exactly corresponding to BER = 10–4 were calculated by
linear interpolation (in a double logarithmic scale), these values
were used as energy consumptions βE. The Viterbi algorithm
“supposed” the finite subcarrier’s spectrum bandwidth LVD = 8,
and, for QPSK, the trellis contained 27 states.
IV. S IMULATION RESULTS
During the simulation, we have obtained plenty of BER
curves with corresponding consumptions values (βF, βE). In
fig. 2, the curve (1) corresponds to the minimal consumptions
of RRC-SEFDM for β > 0; the curve (2) illustrates
consumptions of conventional sinc-SEFDM (β = 0, NZ = 32).
Other points correspond to various modes of RRC-SEFDM for
β > 0 and do not provide the minimal consumptions. The right
point of the curve (2) (α = 1) corresponds to sinc-OFDM with
zero ISI; therefore, in this mode we used the conventional FFT
receiver.
As we can see from fig. 2, a transition from β = 0 to β > 0
leads to the significant gain. Particularly, for α = 0.8 RRC-
SEFDM provide a 1.7 dB energy gain with respect to sinc-
SEFDM, while the bandwidth consumptions are equal.
SEFDM with retention of energy consumptions.
The curve (1) confirms the results of RRC-FTN [10]. It
shows that the minimal consumptions are provided by values
of β about 0.5. However, we have not found a principle of
choosing good combinations of β, α and NZ. It means, that for
a fixed bandwidth consumptions βF, a good combination
providing the minimal βE can be found by simulation; or vice
versa, a sought combination can provide the minimal βF under
a fixed βE.
Let us explain energy losses of sinc-SEFDM. The fall of
β > 0. It means that the roll-off β = 0 leads to the strongest ISI,
in this mode the ISI window has the maximal length, and the
optimal receiver has the maximal complexity in terms of L(0)VD.
Thus, the sinc subcarrier’s spectrum leads to the worst
performance under the fixed receiver’s computational
complexity with L VD = 8. It seems like the roll-off β = 1 must
demonstrate the best performance. However, it is wrong since
the increase of roll-off causes the reduction of NZ (to keep
small distortions of spectrum’s bandwidth) thus increasing the
βF. In addition, the stronger distortions lead to the stronger
imposed ISI and, hence, to the higher values of βE.
For β > 0, the truncated pulse in time domain С differs
from the rectangular pulse, which has the lowest peak-to
average power ratio (PAPR). Despite the (βF, βE) gain of RRC-
SEFDM with respect to sinc-SEFDM, the increase of signal
PAPR can suppress this gain. In this regard, we propose a
comparison of signals in terms of modified energy
consumptions:
b*E = b E PAPR(j),
Pmax (j) (7)
PAPR(j) = , Pr{P > Pmax (j)} = j,
Pav
where Pmax(φ) is the peak signal power not exceeded with the
(1 – φ) probability, Pav is the average signal power, P is the
instantaneous power.
Fig. 3. Bandwidth and modified energy consumptions of RRC-SEFDM
with β > 0 and conventional sinc-SEFDM; signals’ PAPR values are taken
into accound, φ = 10–4
The fig. 3 illustrates the signals’ consumptions calculated
with PAPR values taken into account and φ = 10–4. As we can
see, in the modified (βF, β*E) plane, the RRC-SEFDM have
also lower consumptions with respect to sinc-SEFDM. This
trend was also confirmed for other values of φ.
Finally, we have noticed another advantage of RRC-
SEFDM with respect to sinc-SEFDM besides the mentioned
gains in consumptions. Due to the fact that RRC-pulses have
lower level of side lobs than sinc-pulses, the power spectrum of
RRC-SEFDM has lower out-of-band emissions with respect to
sinc-SEFDM (fig. 4).
V. CONCLUSION
Demodulation of RRC-SEFDM in frequency domain can
be done by the BCJR instead of the Viterbi algorithm. The
BCJR operates soft decisions about bits on its input and output.
It allows a research of novel coded modulation techniques
based on RRC-SEFDM signals and modern forward error
correction schemes. These coded SEFDM signals can be
effectively processed by the iterative receiver – the turbo
equalizer.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Isam and I. Darwazeh, “Simple DSP-IDFT techniques for generating
spectrally efficient FDM signals”, IEEE, IET Int. Symp. Commun. Syst.,
Netw., Digital Signal Process., pp. 20-24, 2010.
Fig. 4. Power spectrums of sinc-SEFDM and RRC-SEFDM. Shown
combinations of β, α and NZ correspond to the modes providing the 1.7 dB
gain in βE and the 1.6 dB gain in β*E marked in the fig. 2 and fig. 3
respectively
[2] S. Isam, I. Kanaras and I. Darwazeh, “A truncated SVD approach for
fixed complexity spectrally efficient FDM receivers,” Proc. IEEE
Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf., pp. 1584-1589, 2011.
[3] S. Isam, I. Darwazeh, “Design and performance assessment of fixed
complexity spectrally efficient FDM receivers,” Proc. IEEE 73rd Veh.
Technol. Conf., pp. 1-5, 2011.
[4] T. Xu, I. Darwazeh, “Spectrally efficient FDM: Spectrum saving
technique for 5G?” 1st Int. Conf on 5G for Ubiquitous Connectivity
(5GU), pp. 273-278, 2014.
[5] T. Xu, R. C. Grammenos, and I. Darwazeh, “FPGA implementations of
real-time detectors for a spectrally efficient FDM system,” in
Telecommunications (ICT), 2013 20th Int. Conf. on, pp. 1-5, 2013.
[6] Xu, I. Darwazeh, “Bandwidth Compressed Carrier Aggregation,” in
Communication Workshop (ICCW), 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. on, pp. 1107-
1112, 2015.
[7] J. Huang, Q. Sui, Z. Li, F. Ji, “Experimental Demonstration of 16-QAM
DD-SEFDM With Cascaded BPSK Iterative Detection,” IEEE Photonics
Journal, Vol. 8, no. 3, June 2016.
[8] J. E. Mazo, “Faster-than-Nyquist signaling,” Bell System Technical
Journal, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1451–1462, 1975.
[9] A. D. Liveris and C. N. Georghiades, “Exploiting faster-than-Nyquist
signaling,” IEEE Trans. Comm., vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1502–1511, 2003.
[10] A. Gorlov, A. Gelgor, Van Phe Nguyen, “Root-Raised Cosine versus
Optimal Finite Pulses for Faster-than-Nyquist Generation,” in Internet of
Things, Smart Spaces, and Next Generation Networks and Systems.
Springer International Publishing, 2016, accepted.