You are on page 1of 5

Chirp Pulse Compression in NonCoherent ImpulseRadio UltraWideband Detection Without Waveform Signature Estimation

Igor Dotlic and Ryu Miura

Dependable Wireless Laboratory, Wireless Network Research Institute, National Institute for Information and Communications Technology 3-4, Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka, 239-0847, Japan email: {dotlic, ryu}

AbstractThe paper investigates benets of using chirp pulse compression in non-coherent ImpulseRadio UltraWideband (IRUWB) communications. Furthermore, we develop closed form expression for bandwidth and dimension of the signal after the chirp pulse compression that was lacking before. Two usual types of non-coherent IRUWB detection are considered - energy detection of PPMmodulated symbols and sample wise differential detection of DPSKmodulated symbols. These detection schemes show deterioration of bit error probability performance with an increase of the dimension of the signal in detection. The performance of the aforementioned detection schemes improves signicantly when chirp pulse compression is applied, i.e. when dimension of the signal in detection is reduced. As we show, this performance enhancement happens in noise as well as in multiuser interference. Index TermsUltraWideband (UWB); Transceiver Design; Interference rejection techniques.

I. I NTRODUCTION ImpulseRadio UltraWideband (IRUWB) is gaining attention of the industry through current developments of 802.15 wireless personal area communication standards that include IRUWB Physical Layer (PHY) specications. Namely, the IEEE 802.15.62012 Body Area Network (BAN) standard [1] as well as the IEEE 802.15.4f2012 standard for active Radio Frequency Identication (RFID) [2] both include IRUWB PHY specications. These PHY specications are made with having in mind possibility of detection with receivers that are in most cases suboptimal; foremostly noncoherent, with little of channel information and without channel equalization. Indeed, due to the channels which are usually very rich in multipath, received symbol waveforms in ImpulseRadio UltraWideband (IRUWB) communications are typically very different compared to transmitted pulse waveforms. Retrieving full channel information under such conditions inevitably leads to increased receiver complexity which is unacceptable in many applications. For this reason, IRUWB receivers architectures often resort to suboptimal techniques of either energy detection for Pulse Position Modulation (PPM) and OnOff Keying (OOK) modulations and differential detection without symbol signature estimation for Differential Phase Shift Keying (DPSK) modulated signals that

we termed Samplewise DPSK detection (SDPSK) 1 [3]. Performance of the aforementioned noncoherent detection techniques deteriorates with an increase of the dimension, i.e. timebandwidth product of a signal in detection [4]. Due to technological and regulatory constraints, dimension of the transmitted symbol waveform typically increases with the decrease of the symbol rate, which yields an even larger dimension of the received waveform and thus poor detection performance. A classic remedy for this is the matchltering pulse compression technique, i.e. received waveform dimension reduction by ltering the received waveform with a lter matched to the transmitted waveform, usually implemented in Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) technology. However, as we discussed in [5], in IRUWB SAW lter implementation is technologically challenging and increases the number of discrete offchip components. To make waveform compression more compatible with contemporary integrated circuit technology we proposed chirp pulse compression in [5]. Chirp pulse compression can be utilized if the transmitted waveform is a linear chirp pulse; it consists of mixing the received waveform with a chirp pulse generated in the receiver which is approximately the same as the transmitted chirp pulse. This step is followed by the low pass ltering. In [5] we analyzed the performance of this kind of pulse compression in classic DPSK detection, i.e. DPSK detection with digital waveform signature estimation and digital matchedltering. We concentrated in DPSK digital detection complexity and performance analysis with and without chirp pulse compression. As shown in [5], chirp pulse compression does reduce the number of samples in the digital domain of the DPSK IR UWB receivers without performance loss. However, it is also applicable to the noncoherent detection techniques mentioned above that do not include symbol signature estimation. There, apart from reducing the number of samples needed in the case of the digital detection implementation, chirp pulse compres1 As delay values equal to typical symbol times in IRUWB are, with the current state of technology, relatively hard to implement in the analog domain, the implementation of DPSK symbol differentiation is expected to be foremostly digital.

sion should also increase the receiver performance through lowering dimension the signal in detection. Such performance analysis is the subject of this paper and it will be done as follows. In Sec. II we will present analytical models that will be used in the rest of the paper. Sec. III gives the chirp pulse compression mechanism derivation that was lacking in [5]. In Sec. IV we present the derivation of the probability of error in noise for the systems with and without chirp pulse compression. Sec. V presents the simulation study that proves analytical concepts introduced in previous sections. We will end our discussion with conclusions in Sec. VI. II. S YSTEM MODEL A. Linear chirp pulse In analytical signal representation linear chirp pulse is dened as Kc 2 t w (t, Tp /2, Tp /2) , (1) c(t) = exp 2j f0 t + 2 where f0 is a carrier frequency, w (t, t1 , t2 ) is a nearly rectangular window function with limits t1 and t2 , Tp is a chirp pulse duration and Kc is a chirping slope dened as fc . (2) Kc = Tp Here, fc is a frequency sweep. In this work we will assume that chirp pulses considered are ideally linear and that windowing function w (t, t1 , t2 ) is ideally rectangular. For effects nonidealities of the chirp pulse to the chirp pulse compression we direct interested reader to [5]. Timebandwidth product of any waveform is dened as a number of complex samples needed to characterized that waveform [6] and thus it is also know as a dimension of a waveform; for the chirp pulse it is dened as T Bc = fc Tp . (3) B. Transmitted signal The symbol waveform used is a single chirp pulse, either binary DPSK (DBPSK) or binary PPM (BPPM) modulated. Hence, transmitted signal of the kth symbol has a form ak (t) = exp (jk ) c (t l(k)Th kTsym T bk ) , (4)


Q vk (t, R )

hLP (t)

sQ (t, R ) k

ADC zQ (R ) k

Chirp pulse generator S Carrier pulse generator

rk (t)

R Detection zI (R ) k ADC

I vk (t, R )

hLP (t)

sI (t, R ) k

Fig. 1. Receiver architectures considered. Switch S in upper position Chirp receiver. Switch S in lower position Receiver without pulse compression.

D. Chirp receiver For the sake of analysis we will consider here a receiver architectures with quadrature baseband signal processing shown in Fig. 1. However, heterodyne receiver architecture can also support frequency division multiplexing as quadrature baseband architecture, but may have lower implementation complexity and thus be a preferred implementation option, particularly for receivers with energydetection, which is usually implemented in the analog domain. Hence, the analytical model described here can serve as a basebandequivalent model of the heterodyne receiver. Consider the receiver shown in Fig. 1. When the switch marked S is in upper position, the receiver acts as a chirp receiver. In the case of DBPSK modulation, for the kth symbol, the receiver generates a chirp pulse gk (t) with timing R at a single position gk (t, R ) = c (t l(k)Th kTsym R ) , (6)

whereas if the transmitted signal is BPPM modulated, the receiver generates a chirp pulse at two positions gk

(t, R ) = (7)

c (t l(k)Th kTsym R T {0, 1}) .

where Tsym is a symbol duration, Th < Tsym and l(k) are timehopping resolution and sequence respectively with property l(k) {0, 1, . . . , Tsym /Th }. If the system uses BPPM modulation, k = 0 is set and information bits bk {0, 1} modulate position of the chirp pulse with BPPM delay T . For DBPSK modulation bk = 0 is set and symbol phases k are differentially encoded as in [5]. C. Received signal The transmitted symbol waveform ak (t) passes through the channel with impulse response hc (t) having RMS delay spread to produce a waveform at the input of the receiver rk (t) rk (t) = ak (t) hc (t), where denotes convolution. (5)

In the case of DBPSK modulation, if we assume there is no InterSymbolInterference (ISI), i.e. Tsym > T , gk (t, R ) is mixed only with the received signal rk (t) at single position to produce a signal after mixing vk (t, R )
vk (t, R ) = gk (t, R )rk (t).


For detection of BPPMmodulated symbols there are two {0,1} signals after mixing: vk (t, R ) dened analogously to (8) from (7). For detection of DBPSKmodulated symbols, the magnitude of the signal vk (t, R ) is larger than zero in the same time interval as the magnitude of gk (t, R ). Similarly, for BPPM {0,1} modulation, vk (t, R ) have magnitudes larger than zero in {0,1} the same time interval as gk (t, R ). Signals vk (t, R ) and {0,1} vk (t, R ) are ltered with a lowpass lter with impulse {0,1} response hLP (t) to produce signals sk (t, R ) and sk (t, R )

respectively sk (t, R ) = vk (t, R ) hLP (t), sk




(t, R ) = vk

(t, R ) hLP (t).

Let us now consider properties of the signal after mixing v0 (t, R ) in the chirp receiver. Inserting (5) in (8) yields

Optimal timing is found in the same manner as in [5], as well as receiver loss factor = (Eb /N0 )r /(Eb /N0 )s . We will model hLP (t) in such manner that its group delay is {0,1} zero. Hence, the signals sk (t, R ) and sk (t, R ) are larger than zero approximately in the same time intervals as signals {0,1} vk (t, R ) and vk (t, R ) respectively. E. Receiver without pulse compression The receiver shown in Fig. 1 works as a noncoherent receiver without compression when switch S is in the lower position; it does not mix the received signal with the chirp pulse, but with unmodulated carrier pulse. All expressions given in Sec. II-D for the chirp receiver also hold for the receiver without pulse compression when fc = 0 in (6) and (7) is set, i.e. when chirp pulse locally generated in the receiver becomes a carrier tone pulse. F. Detection schemes considered For the sake of brevity we will dene zk (t, R ) signals, which for DBPSK modulation will represent versions of the sk (t, R ) signals timeshifted to have a magnitude larger than zero for t [Tp /2, Tp /2] zk (t, R ) = sk (t + l(k)Th + kTsym , R ) . Similarly, for BPPM modulation zk

opt R

hc (, R ) exp [2j (Kc (R ) t)]

w (t, max{, R } Tp /2, min{, R } + Tp /2) d, (15) where hc (, R ) is a chirpmodulated version of the channel impulse response
Kc 2 2 hc (, R ) = hc ( )e2j [f0 (R ) 2 (R )] .


If we assume that Tp , in (15) we may write w (t, max{, R } Tp /2, min{, R } + Tp /2) w (t, R Tp /2, R + Tp /2). Hence, (15) becomes v0 (t, R ) exp (2jKc R t) Hc (Kc t, R ) w (t, R Tp /2, R + Tp /2) , (17) where Hc (f, R ) represents a Fourier transform of hc (, R ). Now, applying Fourier transform to (17) yields V0 (f, R ) 2Tp exp (2jf R ) Kc f hc R , R sinc (f Tp ) , (18) Kc


where V0 (f, R ) is a Fourier transform of v0 (t, R ). Since hc (, R ) has the RMS spread equal to , from (18), RMS bandwidth of v0 (t, R ), denoted f will be f K c + 1 . Tp (19)

(t, R ) = (11)

Thus, dimension of the signal after mixing will be T Bv = f Tp fc + 1. (20)

sk (t + l(k)Th + kTsym + T {0, 1} , R ) .


zk (t, R ) and zk (t, R ) signals in (10) and (11) respectively are frequency limited to twosided bandwidth of hLP (t), denoted BLP . Hence, for DPSK modulation, according to the sampling theorem [6], zk (t, R ) can be represented by a columnvectors of complex samples zk (R ) = [zk (Tp /2 +
M 1 mTs , R )]m=0

Since duration of the signal r0 (t) is Tp + and assumption made was Tp , the dimension of r0 (t) would approximately be T Br T Bc = fc Tp . (21) Hence, signal after mixing is compressed approximately Tp / times compared to the received signal. As described in [5], assumption Tp made when deriving (20) can be regarded as too strict, since described signal compression mechanism occurs with approximately Tp > 2 . As we will show in the rest of the paper, the signal dimension reduction has a profound effects on performance of the receiver in non coherent detection schemes considered. IV. P ROBABILITY OF ERROR IN NOISE When deriving expressions for the biterror probability for detection schemes like (13) and (14) in IRUWB, all available literature, e.g. [4], usually considers M = BLP Tp (12) to be sufciently large to apply the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) and regard distribution of the decision variable dk as approximately Gaussian. However, with chirp pulse


where Ts = 1/BLP is the sampling period and M = BLP Tp is the number of complex samples, i.e. dimension of the signal {0,1} zk (t, R ). Similarly, for BPPM modulation, zk (R ) are dened analogously to (12) from (11). The decision variable for the SDPSK detection [3], [7] is dened as dk = zH (R )zk (R ) k1 (13)

where superscript H denotes Hermitian transposition. The decision variable for the Energy Detection of BPPM symbols (EDBPPM) is dened as dk = z1 (R ) k

z0 (R ) k


compression twosided bandwidth of vk (t, R ), denoted Bv is Bv fc /Tp can be relatively small under the above assumption Tp . By setting BLP Bv , the chirp receiver can have relatively low loss factor while in the same time signicantly lowering dimension of the zk (t, R ) compared to the vk (t, R ). In contrast, in the receiver without pulse compression, BLP Bv = fc needs to be set in order to achieve low . Indeed, M = BLP Tp fc is a typical choice in the chirp receiver design; this value of M can be relatively small and hence CLT cannot be applied in the bit error probability calculation without loss in accuracy. For this reason, we will use the result derived in [8] and later rewritten in the closed form in [9]; the result gives a generalized biterror probability expression for the narrowband multichannel noncoherent detection with equal gain combining and is applicable for several different multichannel narrowband noncoherent modulation/detection pairs [9]. Nevertheless, if, as in [4], noise in zk (R ) vectors is considered to be white, both (13) and (14) become special cases of the decision variable formulation from [8]. Thus, the biterror probability expression for EDBPPM and SDPSK can be given in the closed form derived in [9]: Pe = 2M m 1 1 + 2 22M 1 m=1 M m [Qm (a t , b t ) Qm (b t , a t )] , (22)

where Qm (, ) is generalized Marcum Qfunction of mth order, t = (Eb /N0 )s = (Eb /N0 )r /, while a and b are modulation/detection pair dependent parameters which we calculated from expressions given in [8]; for EDBPPM: a = 0, b = 1, for SDPSK detection of DBPSK (S DBPSK): a = 0, b = 2 and for SDPSK detection of Grayencoded DQPSK (SDQPSK, considered here, see not [3]): a = 2 2, b = 2 + 2. Apart from being an exact biterror probability expression, (22) has an additional advantage of encompassing 3 different modulation/detection pairs by a single equation. V. N UMERICAL A NALYSIS For a numerical analysis we choose a system with Tsym = 8.704 s, Tp = 272 ns, Th = Tp and T = Tsym /2. Hopping sequences used are from the IEEE 802.15.6 standard [1] as well as the chirp frequency sweep fc = 520 MHz. Furthermore, duty cycle DC = Tp /Tsym = 1/32 is the same as in IEEE 802.15.6 standard [1]. The value of Tp chosen is high enough for the chirp pulse compression to have a signicant impact on the signal dimension reduction. Hence, sampling period Ts = 2 ns, chosen for the receiver without compression, yields signal dimension M = 136, while Ts = 17 ns, chosen for the chirp receiver, yields M = 16. All simulations were done on IEEE 802.15.4a channel model CM2 [10] at f0 = 8 GHz with 1e5 bits transfered at every of 1e3 channel realizations, yielding 1e8 bits transfered in total per every simulation point. For hLP (t) integrateanddump lter was used as in [3], [5], [7].

Fig. 2 shows performance in noise of the two modulation/detection pairs considered: EDBPPM and SDBPSK; classic DBPSK [5] is also plotted as a benchmark. Performances of all modulation/detection pairs considered are shown in cases without and with chirp pulse compression. Since DBPSK performance does not depend on M [5], curves for DBPSK in Fig. 2 show roughly 1 dB higher of the chirp receiver compared to the receiver without pulse compression. However, for ED-BPPM and SDBPSK, lower M of the chirp receiver more than compensates for its higher and gives it roughly 1 dB better performance compared to the receiver without pulse compression. Theoretical curves plotted in Fig. 2 from (22) with numerically calculated for each channel realization show an excellent match between theory and simulation. In Fig. 3 simulated multiuser performances of EDBPPM and SDBPSK are shown with (Eb /N0 )r = 30 dB. All interfering transmitters have the same power at the receiver as the transmitter of interest, i.e. nearfar ratio is 0 dB. Moreover, interfering transmitters use the same signaling parameters as the transmitter of interest, i.e. the same Tsym and Tp , as well as the same set of hopping sequences. Waveform used by interfering transmitters can be either the same chirp pulse as the one of the user of interest or the short-pulse burst of the same duration used in IEEE 802.15.6 standard [1]. Performance of EDBPPM without pulse compression does not depend on the type of interfering waveform. This is expected, since EDBPPM simply integrates the received signal energies in given time windows and hence does not discriminate between different waveforms of the same duration. When chirp pulse compression is introduced to ED BPPM it benets its performance signicantly. Shortpulse burst interfering waveform is more attenuated in the chirp pulse compression compared to the chirp pulse and hence the chirp receiver is able to sustain higher levels of this type of interference in EDBPPM. Signicant performance enhancement from the chirp pulse compression in EDBPPM in the case of the chirp interference can be explained by effective reduction of the signal dimension in which the interferer needs to be located in order to pass through the chirp pulse compression with little or no attenuation. More precisely, from the mathematical analysis of the chirp receiver it can be shown that the interfering chirp pulse needs to be located in the time window of duration BLP TP /fc = M/fc in order for the signicant amount of energy to pass through {0,1} the chirp pulse compression to zk (R ). Hence, in the case of the chirp receiver considered here, 31 ns. In the receiver without pulse compression this window duration is signicantly larger Tp = 272 ns. In contrast with the EDBPPM, chirp pulse compression does not signicantly improve S-DBPSK performance in the case of chirp pulse interference. values for SDBPSK receivers with and without pulse compression are the same as those for EDBPPM, written above. However, unlike with EDBPPM, the energy of the interfering signals that goes to zk (R ) is not the only important parameter for the S







103 Pe Pe 104

















(Eb /N0 )r (dB) Fig. 2. Performance of modulation/detection pairs considered in noise. Legend: no comp. & EDBPPM: simulation ( ), theory ( ); chirp comp. & EDBPPM: simulation ( ), theory ( ); no comp. & SDBPSK: simulation ); chirp comp. & SDBPSK: simulation ( ), theory ( ), ( ), theory ( no comp. & DBPSK: simulation ( ), theory ( ); chirp comp. & DBPSK: ). simulation ( ), theory (

Number of interfering transmitters Fig. 3. Performance of modulation/detection pairs considered in multi user interference. Legend: no comp. & EDBPPM: chirp interf. ( ), burst ); chirp comp. & EDBPPM: chirp interf. ( ), burst interf. interf. ( ( ); no comp. & SDBPSK: chirp interf. ( ), burst interf. ( ); chirp comp. & SDBPSK: chirp interf. ( ), burst interf. ( ).

DBPSK detection performance. In SDBPSK detection interfering signals are crosscorrelated with useful signal and other interfering signals (13). In this operation, higher signal dimension M helps in interference suppression, since it makes levels of crosscorrelations with interfering signals lower on average. Hence, higher M of the receiver without pulse compression compensates for higher level of interference energy that reaches detection and makes its SDBPSK performance similar with the one of the chirp receiver. The level of suppression of the shortpulse burst interference in the SDBSPK receiver with chirp pulse compression is very high. Indeed, the amount of performance enhancement made by using chirp pulse compression in the case of the short pulse burst interference is about the same for EDBPPM and SDBPSK. VI. C ONCLUSION In this paper we investigated the effects of using chirppulse compression in noncoherent IRUWB detection schemes, namely EDBPPM and SDBPSK. Dimension of the signal after chirp pulse compression practically does not depend on the dimension of the transmitted signal and is considerably smaller compared to the dimension of the received signal. This is especially true when the dimension of the transmitted signal is high, i.e. at low data rates. This property of the chirp receiver has a profound effects on its performance. Indeed, the performance of both EDBPPM and SDBPSK in noise becomes considerably better when chirp pulse compression is applied. The performance enhancement achieved by chirp

pulse compression in multiuser interference is even higher than in noise. R EFERENCES

[1] D. Lewis, IEEE P802.15.6-2012 Standard for Body Area Network, IEEE 802.15 WPAN, February 2012. [2] M. McInnis, IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan area networks Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs), Amendment: Active Radio Frequency Identication, IEEE 802.15 WPAN, April 2012. [3] I. Dotli and R. Kohno, Performance analysis of Impulse Radio Ultra c Wideband differential detection schemes for Body Area Networks, in IEEE 21st International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications Workshops (PIMRC Workshops), September 2010, pp. 72 77. [4] K. Witrisal, G. Leus, G. Janssen, M. Pausini, F. Troesch, T. Zasowski, and J. Romme, Noncoherent UltraWideband Systems, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 48 66, July 2009. [5] I. Dotli and R. Kohno, Low Complexity Chirp Pulsed Ultra-Wideband c System with Near-Optimum Multipath Performance, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 208 218, January 2011. [6] C. Shannon, Communication in the presence of noise, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 11921201, Sept. 1984. [7] I. Dotli and R. Kohno, Preamble Structure and Synchronization for c IEEE 802.15.6 Impulse-Radio Ultra-Wideband Physical Layer, in 5th International Symposium on Medical Information and Communication Technology, ISMICT, March 2011. [8] J. Proakis, On the Probability of Error for Multichannel Reception of Binary Signals, IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 68 71, february 1968. [9] M. K. Simon and M.-S. Alouini, Digital Communication over Fading Channels: A Unied Approach to Performance Analysis. John Wiley, 2000. [10] A. Molisch, D. Cassioli, C.-C. Chong, S. Emami, A. Fort, B. Kannan, J. Karedal, J. Kunisch, H. Schantz, K. Siwiak, and M. Win, A comprehensive standardized model for ultrawideband propagation channels, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 3151 3166, November 2006.