Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carrier Frequencyoffset
Carrier Frequencyoffset
net/publication/328724739
CITATIONS READS
0 1,370
3 authors:
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Vinodh Kumar Minchula on 15 November 2018.
1 Introduction
A(k) a(n)
Remove a(t)
Signal Cyclic r(t)
S(k) P/S De- FFT ADC
Prefix
mappe and S/P
r
2 Frequency Offset
Magnitude
Frequency
Carrier Frequency Offset
(1) Fractional CFO, which introduces ICI and degrades the performance of Bit
Error Rate (BER) and
(2) Integer CFO, which introduces the cyclic shift of data subcarriers and phase
change.
The OFDM transmitter and receiver with CFO equations can be determined as
At transmitter
1
k−1
j2π xm
b(n) B(m)e X (1)
X m0
At receiver
j2π xε
a(n) b(n)e X + w(n) (2)
where k = 0, 2, …, N − 1.
Due to the carrier frequency offset, the Bit Error Rate (BER) performance degrades
as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) increases for the selective range of CFO [9, 10].
3 Results
This section illustrates the behavior of OFDM with different CFO ranges in terms
of BER versus SNR for various modulations such as BPSK, QPSK, 8PSK, 16PSK,
32PSK, 64PSK, and 16QAM. All simulations are performed by using MATLAB
software. The offset ranges from 0 to 0.2 with an interval of 0.05 under Gaussian
channel. The simulated results are compared with each modulation techniques for
the above-selected range of CFOs. It is observed that BPSK modulation technique
is having low BER for null offset when compared to other modulation techniques.
The BER results for various modulations versus. SNR in dB under different ranges
of CFOs are plotted in Fig. 3 and tabulated in Table 1.
The BER performance of CFO OFDM system gradually decreases as SNR
increases, whereas at fixed SNR, BER increases with CFO as shown in Table 1.
The BPSK modulation is having least BER when compared to the 16QAM for
CFO “0” and BER is increasing for an increase in CFOs. So, it is observed that BPSK
modulation technique is having low BER for null offset than other modulations.
404 C. Vijay et al.
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
BER
-3
10
CFO 0
CFO 0.05
-4
10 CFO 0.1
CFO 0.15
CFO 0.2
-5
10
-6
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SNR
(a) BER for BPSK modulation
0
10
-1
10
BER
CFO 0
-2 CFO 0.05
10
CFO 0.1
CFO 0.15
CFO 0.2
-3
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SNR
(b) BER for QPSK modulation
0
10
BER
-1
10
CFO 0
CFO 0.05
CFO 0.1
CFO 0.15
CFO 0.2
-2
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SNR
(c) BER for 8PSK modulation
Fig. 3 Performance of BER with SNR for CFO range from 0 to 0.2 by applying various modulation
techniques a BER for BPSK modulation, b BER for QPSK modulation, c BER for 8PSK modulation,
d BER for16PSK modulation, e BER for 32PSK modulation, f BER for 64PSK modulation, g BER
for 16QAM modulation
Carrier Frequency Offset Impact on LTE-OFDM Systems 405
-0.1
10
-0.2
10
BER
CFO 0
CFO 0.2
-0.4
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SNR
(d)BER for16PSK modulation
-0.03
10
-0.06
10
-0.09
10
BER
CFO 0
CFO 0.05
CFO 0.2
-0.15
10
-0.18
10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SNR
(e) BER for 32PSK modulation
-0.01
10
-0.02
10
-0.03
10
-0.04
10
BER
-0.05
10 CFO 0
CFO 0.05
-0.06
10 CFO 0.1
CFO 0.15
10
-0.08
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SNR
(f) BER for 64PSK modulation
Fig. 3 (continued)
406 C. Vijay et al.
-0.08
10
CFO 0
CFO 0.05
-0.09 CFO 0.1
10 CFO 0.15
CFO 0.2
-0.1
BER
10
-0.11
10
-0.12
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SNR
(g) BER for 16QAM modulation
Fig. 3 (continued)
Table 1 CFO OFDM system performance in BER versus SNR for different modulations
CFO SNR
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) BER for BPSK modulation
0 0.078644 0.037438 0.012452 0.002327 0.000198 4.69E-06
0.05 0.084684 0.042579 0.015614 0.003599 0.00044 2.03E-05
0.1 0.101945 0.057871 0.026447 0.009198 0.002299 0.000369
0.15 0.131541 0.085102 0.048823 0.024485 0.010701 0.004013
0.2 0.173363 0.12615 0.085555 0.054676 0.032775 0.019105
(b) BER for QPSK modulation
0 0.291712 0.197715 0.109498 0.045531 0.011942 1.52E-03
0.05 0.309956 0.21954 0.13418 0.067938 0.026476 7.34E-03
0.1 0.360026 0.282652 0.209367 0.145056 0.092691 0.054682
0.15 0.433372 0.377812 0.326538 0.278971 0.237977 0.203622
0.2 0.517500 0.487174 0.459823 0.439834 0.423465 0.413179
(c) BER for 8PSK modulation
0 0.577309 0.490926 0.389978 0.279327 0.17411 0.087213
0.05 0.593938 0.51873 0.432836 0.343744 0.261075 0.18912
0.1 0.641323 0.589317 0.538837 0.496718 0.464486 0.443959
0.15 0.701901 0.676556 0.659909 0.653526 0.660193 0.67378
0.2 0.760627 0.754763 0.75783 0.76987 0.78765 0.805837
(continued)
Carrier Frequency Offset Impact on LTE-OFDM Systems 407
Table 1 (continued)
CFO SNR
0 2 4 6 8 10
(d) BER for 16PSK modulation
0 0.776788 0.726357 0.661444 0.581534 0.487653 0.382983
0.05 0.786784 0.744514 0.691984 0.634854 0.576304 0.524866
0.1 0.815534 0.788336 0.762869 0.744088 0.737901 0.746335
0.15 0.848979 0.838316 0.833515 0.838197 0.851133 0.870782
0.2 0.881541 0.881165 0.885948 0.896666 0.910405 0.925125
(e) BER for 32PSK modulation
0 0.886959 0.86079 0.82542 0.781804 0.727747 0.660688
0.05 0.892352 0.869707 0.84288 0.811607 0.780671 0.754652
0.1 0.906378 0.893055 0.88023 0.871598 0.870809 0.879839
0.15 0.92483 0.918941 0.91772 0.921059 0.929513 0.941159
0.2 0.940813 0.941132 0.943667 0.949845 0.957452 0.965181
(f) BER for 64PSK modulation
0 0.943425 0.929761 0.91226 0.890116 0.861768 0.82628
0.05 0.945672 0.934871 0.920863 0.905502 0.889098 0.875956
0.1 0.95322 0.946372 0.940327 0.936477 0.935768 0.940466
0.15 0.961951 0.959393 0.959005 0.960477 0.96483 0.971102
0.2 0.970549 0.97053 0.971931 0.975017 0.97901 0.98292
(g) BER for 16QAM modulation
0 0.74922 0.749587 0.74987 0.74983 0.750437 0.750481
0.05 0.74883 0.748692 0.749475 0.748851 0.749652 0.748608
0.1 0.753488 0.751015 0.749188 0.748386 0.747768 0.749256
0.15 0.782832 0.775532 0.771145 0.765766 0.76428 0.762372
0.2 0.845952 0.843123 0.841034 0.839796 0.838629 0.83769
4 Conclusions
References