International Conference on Circuits, Power, and Intelligent Systems (CCPIS), September 01-03, 2023, Bhubaneswar, India
A Comparative Analysis of Multicarrier Waveforms
for Future Wireless Communications
Srinivas Ramavath, Prasanta Kumar Patra and Umesh Chandra Samal
School of Electronics Engineering,
Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) Bhubaneswar – 751024, India.
E-mail: srinivas2012iitg@gmail.com, {ppatrafet, umesh.samalfet}@kiit.ac.in
2023 1st International Conference on Circuits, Power and Intelligent Systems (CCPIS) | 979-8-3503-1576-9/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/CCPIS59145.2023.10291561
Abstract—Beyond Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex-
ing, there has been a lot of study done since there is a requirement
for enhanced waveforms in 5G networks. For 5G, many filtered
multi-carrier transmission systems, such as filter-OFDM and fil-
ter bank multicarrier modulation, have been suggested, each with
its own set of advantages and disadvantages. This article seeks
to give a thorough comparative study of different waveforms,
allowing for a comparative evaluation of their performance on
an overall basis. The study comprehensively assesses various
performance metrics, including peak-to-average power ratio, out-
of-band leakage power, bit error rate over wireless channels, the
impact of carrier frequency offset, and spectral efficiency. These
findings will be useful in determining which waveform to use for
the future generation of mobile communication systems.
Index Terms—PAPR, ISI, ICI, PSD, BER, OFDM and FBMC
I. I NTRODUCTION
Fourth-generation (4G) communication systems offer users
highly efficient connections in terms of spectral usage [1], [2].
However, the fifth-generation (5G) wireless technologies are
expected to support a range of new applications with distinct
requirements [3], [4]. These applications include Tactile Inter-
net, Great Service in crowded environments, Cognitive Radio
(CR), and Machine Type Communication (MTC). Each of
these applications has unique demands that differ significantly
from those of 4G applications. In the context of MTC, the scale
of connectivity required encompasses a substantial multitude
of devices. As a result, relaxed synchronization and cost-
effective devices are necessary to enable efficient communica-
tion. On the other hand, the Tactile Internet demands extremely
low latency (as low as 1 millisecond) and exceptional reliabil-
ity (99.9999%) to support real-time, interactive experiences.
Additionally, Cognitive Radio applications exploit spectrum
opportunistically and require very minimal out-of-band (OoB)
leakage (-65dB) and the ability to adjust operational bandwidth
flexibly. These characteristics enable effective utilization of the
available spectrum resources. Therefore, the development and
implementation of 5G wireless technologies are driven by the
need to address these diverse requirements and facilitate the
efficient operation of emerging applications [3].
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
with a cyclic prefix (CP) has become the predominant
waveform in 4G networks due to its simplicity and ability
to counter frequency selective fading channels (FSFC).
Nevertheless, OFDM-CP’s susceptibility to frequency and
979-8-3503-1576-9/23/$31.00
Authorized licensed use limited©2023 IEEE DE GABES. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 12:38:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore.
to: UNIVERSITE
time offsets, along with its substantial OoB leakage caused
by the use of rectangular pulse shapes in the time domain,
pose significant challenges. As a result, researchers have
been actively exploring alternative waveforms that address
these limitations in preparation for the development of 5G
networks. Considering the aforementioned criteria, numerous
waveforms, both existing and novel, have been under scrutiny
for their suitability in 5G networks. One such waveform
is Filter Bank Multi-Carrier (FBMC), which has gained
attention as a potential candidate.
The key concept in f-OFDM is the addition of a filtering stage
before the inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) operation,
which is traditionally used to generate the OFDM symbol
in conventional OFDM systems. The purpose of the filter
is to shape the transmit spectrum to reduce OoB emissions
and improve the spectral efficiency. In f-OFDM, the transmit
spectrum is shaped using a filter that matches the frequency
response of the channel. This can be done by estimating
the channel response or using predefined channel models
[5]. The filtered signal is then converted into the time
domain using the IFFT operation, resulting in a time-domain
waveform that is transmitted over the channel. At the receiver,
the received signal is passed through an FFT operation to
convert it back into the frequency domain. The receiver then
performs subcarrier demodulation and decoding to recover the
transmitted symbols. The filtering stage at the transmitter and
the matched filtering at the receiver help mitigate inter-symbol
interference and improve the overall system performance.
f-OFDM presents numerous advantages compared to
conventional OFDM, encompassing enhanced spectral
containment, minimized OoB emissions, and heightened
resilience against narrowband interference. It is particularly
beneficial in scenarios where strict spectral regulations are
imposed or when the channel exhibits frequency-selective
fading. It’s worth noting that f-OFDM is just one of the
many variants of OFDM that have been developed to address
specific challenges in different communication scenarios.
Other variations include windowed OFDM (W-OFDM), offset
QAM OFDM (OQAM-OFDM), and pulse-shaped OFDM
(P-OFDM), each with its own set of advantages and use cases.
OFDM has a number of advantages over other modu-
lation techniques, such as robustness to multipath fading,
high spectral efficiency easy equalization, flexibility, Immu-
Restrictions apply.
nity to narrowband interference, low out-of-band emissions calization, pulse shaping, time-frequency sparsity, chan-
and scalability. OFDM exhibits several inherent limitations, nel equalization and Doppler resilience.
encompassing a notable high peak-to-average power ratio The subsequent sections of this paper are structured as fol-
(PAPR), susceptibility to frequency offset and phase noise, lows: Part II introduces and defines three typical systems,
inter-symbol interference (ISI), elevated complexity, and inter- namely OFDM, f-OFDM, and FBMC, and explores various
carrier interference (ICI). Due to its limitations, OFDM is characteristics associated with each. In Section III, we perform
not being considered for 5G. f-OFDM technology, which calculations and examinations of the parameters relevant to
is more spectrally efficient, more adaptable, and capable of each system. Part IV is dedicated to the presentation of
supporting asynchronous transmission than traditional OFDM, simulation figures. Finally, Part V provides a comprehensive
uses a filter to suppress out-of-band emissions. However, summary of the obtained results.
there are significant drawbacks to f-OFDM as well, including
greater complexity and decreased performance. Despite these II. S YSTEM M ODEL
disadvantages, f-OFDM is a promising technology that offers
several advantages over other variants of OFDM. It is likely A. OFDM
to be used in a variety of applications in the future. f-OFDM In an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
is a good choice for a variety of applications due to its system, the process involves partitioning a high-rate data
performance, complexity, and cost advantages. stream into N distinct lower-rate streams. These individ-
Filter bank multicarrier (FBMC) is a modulation technique ual streams are then concurrently transmitted through dedi-
that uses a filter bank to divide the signal bandwidth into a cated subcarriers. The modulation scheme employed for these
number of sub-carriers. Each sub-carrier is then modulated subcarriers can be either Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
using a pulse shape that provides small OoB leakage and (QAM) or Quadrature Phase-Shift Keying (QPSK). To gener-
high frequency localization. This enables optimal utilization ate the OFDM output sequence x(n) for 0 ≤ n ≤ N − 1, the
of available bandwidth by permitting sub-carrier overlapping input data symbol X(k) for 0 ≤ k ≤ N −1 is modulated using
in frequency. Two primary variants of FBMC schemes are a set of N orthogonal frequencies using the IFFT technique
utilized: Cosine multi-tone (CMT) and Staggered multi-tone [5].
(SMT). CMT employs vestigial sideband modulation, whereas N −1  
SMT utilizes offset QAM. Both schemes exhibit compara- 1 X 2πnk
xn = Xk exp j , 0≤n≤N −1 (1)
ble structures and performance characteristics when transmit- N N
k=0
ted over wireless channels, irrespective of the presence of
transceiver impairments [3]. Hence, the performance analysis In the context of OFDM symbols, the complex number x[n]
conducted for one scheme can be extrapolated to the other. can be decomposed into its real part, denoted as xre [n], and
Notably, FBMC systems forego the use of a cyclic prefix, its imaginary part, denoted as xim [n]. As the number of
which exposes them to the challenge of inter-symbol interfer- samples N in the symbol increases, the distributions of xre [n]
ence when operating in frequency-selective fading channels. and xim [n] tend to follow a normal (Gaussian) distribution,
Moreover, the signal undergoes linear filtering, leading to as stated by the central limit theorem. Consequently, the
its spread beyond its original duration. This results in effi- magnitude of x[n], represented as |x[n]|, exhibits a Rayleigh
ciency limitations for FBMC, similar to those of OFDM, for distribution, as depicted in figure 1. The probability density
small symbol periods. FBMC also has higher complexity than function of |x[n]| can be expressed as follows [8]–[10].
OFDM. Here are some of the advantages of FBMC like high −x2
x
spectral efficiency, good frequency localization, robustness to fX n (x) = e 2σ2 (2)
σ2
narrowband interference and low OoB emissions. Here are
some of the disadvantages of FBMC like high PAPR, sen- The expression for the cumulative distribution function of
sitivity to timing and frequency synchronization errors, higher Xmax is as follows.
complexity than OFDM. PAPR is an important parameter in −x2
multicarrier systems because it can lead to power inefficiency FX max (x) = 1 − e 2σ2 (3)
and distortion in the transmitter.
The contributions of the present study are enumerated below The probability associated with the PAPR falling below a
in a systematic fashion, aiming to enhance clarity certain threshold level can be formulated as
 N
−x2
1) The theoretical formulations of PAPR, Bit Error Rate P (P AP R ≤ x) = 1 − e 2σ2 (4)
(BER), and Power Spectral Density (PSD) are thor-
oughly examined of different waveforms such as OFDM, We examine the subsequent complementary cumulative distri-
f-OFDM and FBMC and validated through simulation bution function (CCDF)
results.
N
2) The comparative analysis of the above mention wave-

−x2

forms have been discursed with respect to frequency lo- CDFc = 1 − 1 − e 2σ 2

(5)

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE GABES. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 12:38:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 so that φt = 2π π
0 ≤ t ≤ M + α − 21 T


The mathematical expressions for the BER analysis of M -ary T t + 2,
QAM signaling in Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) The FBMC PAPR distribution function is as follows:
channels are provided as follows: (n+1)T −1
Y
1 − e−αt γ


s  P (P AP R ≤ γ) = (9)
2 (M − 1)  6Eb log2  M
i=nT
PeOF DM = Q . (6)
M log2M N0 M 2 − 1 The autocorrelation function of the baseband FBMC signal
after transmission, γyy (t, τ ), is
In the aforementioned context, the symbol M represents the
modulation order, and the function denoted as Q(.) corre- γyy (t, τ ) = E [y (t) y ∗ (t − τ )] (10)
sponds to the standard Q-function commonly utilized in the
The PSD of y(t) is fourier transform of autocorrelation func-
analysis of communication systems.
tion can be determined as
Z ∞
B. f-OFDM Syy (w) = γ̄yy (τ ) e−jwτ dτ (11)
−∞
In a filtered OFDM system, the PAPR is a measure of the
peak power in the transmitted signal relative to its average K−1  
Pd T X 2πk
power. Please note that the calculation of PAPR can vary Syy (w) = Shh w − (12)
depending on the specific filtering technique and the character- 2 T
k=0
istics of the OFDM system being used. The formula provided R∞
where Shh (w) = −∞ γ̄hh (τ ) e−jwτ dτ represents h(t)’s
above represents a general approach, but it may need to be
energy spectral density, where Pd is the average power of
modified or adapted based on the specific requirements and
xk (m) and T is the symbol period. The analytical BER
parameters of your filtered OFDM system. f-OFDM exhibits
expressions are formulated as a function of the average bit-
decreased side lobes compared to OFDM, thereby enhancing
energy to noise energy ratio Eb /N0 for QAM signaling in
spectral efficiency. A comparison of the PSD plots reveals that
AWGN channels is given as
f-OFDM effectively reduces OoB more than OFDM. In terms
of BER, both OFDM and f-OFDM demonstrate comparable  q
βEb

l
performance. However, when evaluating overall performance, 2 − 1 N0
PeF BM C = erf c  q  (13)
f-OFDM outperforms OFDM. 2l l 1 + 2σ 2 βEb N0

C. FBMC
The input data symbols for each subcarrier are encoded prior
to their input into the FBMC [3].
xk (m) = Re {xk (m)} + jIm {xk (m)} ,
0 ≤ k ≤ K − 1, 0≤m≤M −1
The mth data symbol on the k th subcarrier can be represented
by its real component xr [m] and its imaginary component
xi [m]. To construct the input data block x(m) for the mth
symbol, all K subcarriers are taken into account, resulting
in a vector x(m) = [x0 (m), x1 (m), ....., xK−1 (m)]T . In this
context, xk (m) represents the real and imaginary components
of the symbols in the time domain, encompassing half of the
data block’s duration (T ). The data blocks undergo analysis
filtering before being combined with K sub-carrier modula-
tors, each operating at carrier frequencies spaced apart by
the reciprocal of the symbol period ( T1 ) [3]. The resulting
modulated signal of the OQAM-FBMC system, consisting of
M data blocks, is denoted as:
K−1
XM −1
X 2) f-OFDM: The frequency localization of f-OFDM is
y(t) = Re (dk ) g(t − mT )ejkφt + Im (dk )
k=0 m=0
T jkφt
g(t − mT − )e
2 additional complexity and reduce PAPR of the signal.
where β = 22l3l−1 and the variable l denotes the bit count
within a symbol [11]–[13].
III. C OMPARATIVE A NALYSIS
FBMC demonstrates considerable potential as a modulation
technique, boasting several advantages over the prevalent
(7)
OFDM scheme. However, it is important to be aware of the
disadvantages of FBMC before deploying it in a wireless sys-
tem [6]. OFDM and FBMC are two popular techniques used
in modern communication systems for efficient transmission
of data over wireless channels. While both OFDM and FBMC
share some similarities, they also have significant differences.
Let’s compare them in terms of several key aspects:
A. Frequency Localization
1) OFDM: In OFDM, the available frequency band is
divided into a large number of subcarriers. Each subcarrier is
orthogonal to each other, meaning they do not interfere with
one another. However, the orthogonality of subcarriers leads
to poor frequency localization, which can cause interference
with neighboring subcarriers.
achieved by filtering the OFDM signal with a bandpass filter
and it can improve the spectral efficiency, performance, and
robustness of the system. However, the filter can introduce
(8)

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE GABES. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 12:38:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3) FBMC: FBMC uses a filter bank to achieve better
frequency localization. It employs a set of prototype filters
that allow for better control over the frequency response of
each subcarrier. This phenomenon leads to diminished OoB
emissions and improved spectral efficiency when compared to
OFDM.
B. Pulse Shaping
1) OFDM: OFDM uses rectangular pulses in the time do-
main for each subcarrier. These pulses have a wide bandwidth,
resulting in high sidelobes and poor spectral efficiency. This
issue is known as the “spectral leakage” problem.
2) f-OFDM: Pulse shaping is an important technique for
improving the performance of OFDM systems. By reducing
the OoB emissions and improving the time-domain response,
Pulse shaping has been demonstrated to enhance both the
spectral efficiency and the resilience of the system against
multipath fading.
3) FBMC: FBMC utilizes more sophisticated pulse shaping
techniques, such as cosine-modulated waveforms or prototype
filters. These techniques help in achieving better spectral
containment, reducing the sidelobes, and improving spectral
efficiency.
C. Time-Frequency Sparsity
1) OFDM: OFDM is not time-frequency sparse, which
means that all subcarriers are active at all times, even if they
carry no useful information. This can lead to wasteful energy
consumption.
2) f-OFDM: The time-frequency sparsity of filter-OFDM
signals is a key advantage of this modulation technique.
The sparsity can be exploited to improve the performance
of OFDM systems in a number of ways, such as reducing
the complexity of OFDM receivers and improving the perfor-
mance of OFDM systems in the presence of noise.
3) FBMC: FBMC exhibits time-frequency sparsity by em-
ploying filter banks. It enables the transmission of only those
subcarriers that are necessary to carry the information. As a
result, FBMC offers improved energy efficiency by avoiding
the transmission of redundant subcarriers.
D. Channel Equalization
1) OFDM: Due to its orthogonality property, OFDM is
well-suited for frequency-domain equalization. The channel
estimation and equalization can be efficiently performed by
employing techniques such as the IFFT and FFT.
2) f-OFDM: In the case of filtered OFDM, the channel is
typically frequency selective, meaning that different frequen-
cies of the signal are attenuated or delayed differently. This
can cause inter-carrier interference (ICI), which can degrade
the signal quality.
3) FBMC: FBMC requires more complex time-domain
equalization due to the non-orthogonal nature of the sub-
carriers. Channel equalization in FBMC typically involves
multi-tap filters or equalization algorithms like zero-forcing
or minimum mean square error (MMSE).
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE GABES. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 12:38:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
E. Doppler Resilience
1) OFDM: OFDM is susceptible to ICI caused by Doppler
shifts in high-mobility scenarios. This is due to the narrow
subcarrier spacing and the lack of frequency localization.
2) f-OFDM: In general, f-OFDM is more Doppler resilient
than OFDM. This is because the filter reduces the out-of-band
emissions of the signal, which makes it less susceptible to
Doppler shift. However, the Doppler resilience of f-OFDM is
still limited, and it is not suitable for all mobile applications.
3) FBMC: FBMC exhibits better resilience to Doppler
shifts since it uses filter banks with better frequency local-
ization. It can mitigate the effects of ICI and maintain better
performance in high-mobility environments.
FBMC offers certain advantages over OFDM in terms of
frequency localization, spectral efficiency, energy efficiency,
and resilience to Doppler shifts. However, FBMC is also more
complex to implement and requires sophisticated equalization
techniques compared to OFDM. The selection between OFDM
and FBMC is contingent upon the particular demands and
limitations inherent in the communication system [7].
IV. A NALYSIS OF S IMULATIONS
In this section, a comprehensive performance evaluation
of the competing waveforms is presented. To assess their
performance, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations. FBMC
0
-10
PHYDYAS
RRC
Hermite
-20 Rectangular
-30
-40
P(f)
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Normalized Frequency, f T0
Fig. 1. Prototype Filters PSD Response.
subcarriers are typically overlapping in frequency and time.
The prototype filter is a key component in FBMC that helps
shape the subcarriers and control their spectral properties.
The prototype filter in FBMC is designed to have a specific
frequency response that determines the shape of each sub-
carrier. It is typically a finite impulse response (FIR) filter
with a specific length and tap coefficients. The selection of the
prototype filter significantly impacts the system’s performance
in terms of spectral efficiency, OoB emissions, and robustness
to channel impairments. The prototype filter in FBMC should
satisfy several important properties, including orthogonality,
good frequency localization, good time localization and low
sidelobes. Designing an FBMC prototype filter involves find-
ing the appropriate tap coefficients that satisfy these properties.
Several design techniques can be used, including the least
squares method, minimax method, or optimization algorithms.
The prototype filter in FBMC plays a crucial role in shap-
ing the subcarriers, controlling their spectral properties, and
achieving efficient data transmission with reduced interference 0
OFDM
and improved spectral efficiency [14]. FBMC and f-OFDM -10 f-OFDM
FBMC

Power Spectral Density [dB]

-20

-30
0
10 -40
F-OFDM
FBMC -50
OFDM
-60

-70
10 -1
-80
CCDF

-90

-100
-2 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
10
Normalized Frequency, f/F

Fig. 3. Performance of the power spectral density.

10 -3
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Peak-to-Average Power Ratio [dB]

Fig. 2. Peak to Average Power Ratio Distribution.
are both multicarrier modulation techniques that have been
developed as alternatives to traditional OFDM [15]. One key
difference between FBMC and f-OFDM is their performance
in terms of PAPR. In multicarrier systems like FBMC and f-
OFDM, the modulation process can cause high peaks in the
transmitted signal, which can lead to nonlinear distortion and
reduced efficiency in power amplifiers. Therefore, minimizing
the PAPR is desirable. In FBMC, the use of prototype filters
helps to reduce the PAPR. The prototype filters in FBMC
are designed with good frequency localization properties,
which means they have better control over the subcarrier
bandwidths. By applying these filters to the subcarriers, FBMC
can achieve a more localized spectrum, resulting in reduced
OoB emissions. This localization of the subcarriers helps to
distribute the power more evenly, leading to a lower PAPR
compared to conventional OFDM. On the other hand, f-OFDM
specifically aims to address the high PAPR issue in OFDM. It
achieves this by adding a filter in the time domain, typically a
windowing function, to shape the OFDM symbols. The filter
effectively reduces the side lobes and suppresses the OoB
emissions, which helps to lower the PAPR. By applying a
filter in the time domain, f-OFDM reduces the signal’s time-
domain fluctuations, resulting in a lower peak power and thus
a lower PAPR. Both FBMC and f-OFDM offer advantages in
terms of reducing the PAPR compared to conventional OFDM.
However, the specific techniques used in each approach differ.
FBMC achieves lower PAPR by using prototype filters to
shape the subcarriers’ frequency response, while f-OFDM
achieves it by applying a time-domain filter to the OFDM
symbols. It’s important to note that the choice between FBMC
and f-OFDM involves considering various factors beyond
PAPR, such as spectral efficiency, complexity, resilience to
subcarriers. Each subcarrier is then filtered and modulated
individually, allowing for a flexible allocation of power and
bandwidth. FBMC typically employs prototype filters with
good frequency selectivity. In terms of PSD, FBMC exhibits
a very narrow main lobe centered around each subcarrier,
resulting in a low OoB leakage [16]. This means that the
power is concentrated around the intended subcarriers, reduc-
ing interference to adjacent frequency bands. FBMC’s PSD
is characterized by sharp cutoffs and low sidelobes, resulting
in excellent spectral containment. f-OFDM is reduce the out-
of-band emissions. The filtering is applied to the OFDM
symbol prior to transmission, shaping the signal’s frequency
response. f-OFDM typically uses pulse shaping filters with
good stopband attenuation. In terms of PSD, f-OFDM exhibits
a wider main lobe compared to FBMC, but the sidelobes
are significantly suppressed due to the filtering process. The
OoB leakage in f-OFDM is reduced compared to conventional
OFDM, which helps mitigate interference. The PSD of f-
OFDM shows a trade-off between spectral containment and
the width of the main lobe. Both FBMC and f-OFDM are
techniques that aim to improve spectral efficiency and reduce
interference. FBMC achieves a very narrow main lobe with
low sidelobes, providing excellent spectral containment. f-
OFDM, on the other hand, achieves a wider main lobe but
with significantly suppressed sidelobes, striking a balance
between spectral containment and wider frequency coverage.
The choice between FBMC and f-OFDM depends on the
specific requirements and constraints of the communication
system [17]. Both FBMC and f-OFDM can achieve good BER
F-OFDM
OFDM
FBMC
10 -1
Bit Error Ratio

channel impairments, and compatibility with existing systems.

10 -2
Different applications may have different requirements, and
both FBMC and f-OFDM provide alternative multicarrier
modulation options with their own strengths and trade-offs.
10 -3
The PSD is a measure of the power distribution of a signal 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
in the frequency domain. FBMC and f-OFDM differ in how
they allocate and distribute the power across the frequency Fig. 4. Performance for the bit error rate.
spectrum, which affects their respective PSD characteristics.
FBMC uses a filter bank to split the input signal into multiple performance, but FBMC generally offers better performance

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE GABES. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 12:38:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I
A NALYSIS OF PAPR, BER AND PSD ACROSS VARIOUS SYSTEMS
System Models SNR (dB) PAPR (dB) PSD(dB)
OFDM 23.5 11.12 -12
f -OFDM 22.5 11.10 -14
FBMC 22.0 10.8 -40
due to its higher degree of frequency selectivity. However, it’s
important to note that the actual BER performance depends
on various factors such as channel conditions, modulation
scheme, coding techniques, and the implementation details
of the specific system. Therefore, a thorough performance
evaluation and optimization are necessary for a particular
application to determine the most suitable modulation scheme
[18].
V. C ONCLUSION
Derived from a comprehensive performance analysis of
the competing waveforms, the ensuing conclusions can be
drawn. FBMC provides excellent spectral containment with
a very narrow main lobe and low sidelobes in its PSD. This
minimizes interference to adjacent frequency bands. f-OFDM
achieves a trade-off between spectral containment and wider
frequency coverage, with a wider main lobe and significantly
suppressed sidelobes. FBMC demonstrates notable frequency
selectivity attributed to its utilization of prototype filters. This
reduces ICI and ISI, resulting in improved system perfor-
mance. f-OFDM incorporates pulse shaping filters, which re-
duce out-of-band emissions but may introduce some distortion.
FBMC generally offers better BER performance compared
to f-OFDM due to its higher degree of frequency selectivity
and excellent spectral containment. However, the actual BER
performance depends on various factors and can be managed
through equalization techniques in f-OFDM. The selection of
FBMC or F-OFDM should be based on thorough performance
evaluations, taking into account factors like channel condi-
tions, modulation scheme, coding techniques, and implementa-
tion details to determine the most suitable modulation scheme
for a particular application. In the context of the ideal channel,
Precoded FBMC demonstrates a substantial BER improvement
of more than two orders of magnitude (10−2 ) compared to
conventional OFDM and f-OFDM. Furthermore, in scenarios
involving Carrier Frequency Offset, FBMC outperforms the
other modulation schemes. Specifically, FBMC achieves an
SNR gain of approximately 3dB over OFDM when confronted
with CFO effects. One of the key advantages of FBMC lies
in its ability to minimize OoB leakage effectively, making it
the most suitable option for applications with strict OoB leak-
age constraints. Additionally, FBMC exhibits a lower PAPR
compared to the other modulation techniques, surpassing them
by approximately one decibel. Consequently, based on these
findings, it can be concluded that FBMC is a favorable choice
for applications requiring robustness against CFO-induced
impairments and stringent OoB leakage constraints.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE GABES. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 12:38:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
R EFERENCES
[1] Cho, Yong Soo, Jaekwon Kim, Won Y. Yang, and Chung G. Kang,
“MIMO-OFDM wireless communications with MATLAB,” John Wiley
and Sons, 2010.
[2] S. Ramavath and R. S. Kshetrimayum, “Analytical calculations of
CCDF for some common PAPR reduction techniques in OFDM sys-
tems,” in International Conference on Communications, Devices and
Intelligent Systems (CODIS), Kolkata, India, 2012, pp. 393-396, doi:
10.1109/CODIS.2012.6422221.
[3] Jiang, Tao, Da Chen, Chunxing Ni, and Daiming Qu., “OQAM/FBMC
for future wireless communications: Principles, technologies and appli-
cations,” Academic Press, 2017.
[4] R. Nissel, S. Schwarz and M. Rupp, “Filter Bank Multicarrier Modula-
tion Schemes for Future Mobile Communications,” in IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1768-1782, Aug.
2017, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2017.2710022.
[5] S. Ramavath, P. K. Patra and U. C. Samal, “Theoretical Anal-
ysis of Power Spectral Density of CP-Based FBMC Signals,”
in International Conference on Communication, Circuits, and
Systems (IC3S), BHUBANESWAR, India, 2023, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/IC3S57698.2023.10169752.
[6] Ramavath, Srinivas, and Umesh Chandra Samal, “Theoretical analysis of
PAPR companding techniques for FBMC systems,” in Wireless Personal
Communications 118, no. 4 (2021): 2965-2981.
[7] Luo, Fa-Long, and Charlie Jianzhong Zhang, eds., “Signal processing
for 5G: algorithms and implementations,” John Wiley and Sons, 2016.
[8] C. Shahriar et al., “PHY-Layer Resiliency in OFDM Communications:
A Tutorial,” in IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 17, no.
1, pp. 292-314, Firstquarter 2015, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2014.2349883.
[9] B. Farhang-Boroujeny and H. Moradi, “OFDM Inspired Waveforms for
5G,” in IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
2474-2492, Fourthquarter 2016, doi: 10.1109/COMST.2016.2565566.
[10] T. Mao, Q. Wang, Z. Wang and S. Chen, “Novel Index Mod-
ulation Techniques: A Survey,” in IEEE Communications Surveys
and Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 315-348, Firstquarter 2019, doi:
10.1109/COMST.2018.2858567.
[11] I. Galdino, R. Zakaria, D. Le Ruyet and M. L. R. de Campos, “Short
Prototype Filter Design for OQAM-FBMC Modulation,” in IEEE Trans-
actions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 9163-9167, Aug.
2020, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2020.2999732.
[12] T. Mao, Q. Wang, Z. Wang and S. Chen, “Novel Index Mod-
ulation Techniques: A Survey,” in IEEE Communications Surveys
and Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 315-348, Firstquarter 2019, doi:
10.1109/COMST.2018.2858567.
[13] I. Galdino Andrade, D. Le Ruyet, M. L. R. de Campos and R. Zakaria,
“Bit Error Probability Expressions for QAM-FBMC Systems,” in IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 994-998, May 2022, doi:
10.1109/LCOMM.2022.3149107.
[14] T. Jang, J. Kim and J. H. Cho, “A Design of Spectrally-Efficient Low-
Complexity QAM-FBMC Systems With Mismatched Prototype Filters,”
in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 12, pp.
13043-13059, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2022.3200331.
[15] A. Bedoui and M. Et-tolba, “A comparative analysis of filter bank mul-
ticarrier (FBMC) as 5G multiplexing technique,” in International Con-
ference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Communications (WINCOM),
Rabat, Morocco, 2017, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/WINCOM.2017.8238200.
[16] R. Zakaria and D. Le Ruyet, “Theoretical Analysis of the Power
Spectral Density for FFT-FBMC Signals,” in IEEE Communica-
tions Letters, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1748-1751, Sept. 2016, doi:
10.1109/LCOMM.2016.2588497.
[17] Kundrapu, Srikanth, VBS Srilatha Indira Dutt, Nitesh Kalyan Koilada,
and Adithya Chowdary Raavi, “Characteristic analysis of OFDM,
FBMC and UFMC modulation schemes for next generation wireless
communication network systems,” In 3rd International conference on
Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA), pp.
715-721. IEEE, 2019.
[18] U. C. Samal and K. Vasudevan, “Bandwidth efficient turbo coded
OFDM systems,” in 13th International Conference on ITS Telecom-
munications (ITST), Tampere, Finland, 2013, pp. 493-498, doi:
10.1109/ITST.2013.6685594.