CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1INTRODUCTION
Multiple antenna systems that operate at high require simple yet effective space time transmission schemes to handle the large traffic volume in real time. At rates of tens of bits per second per hertz, vertical bell labs layered space time(VBLAST),where every antenna transmits its own independent sub stream of data, has been shown to have good performance and simple encoding and decoding. Yet VBLAST suffers from its inability to work with fewer receive antennas than transmit antennas this deficiency is especially important for modern cellular systems, where a base station typically has more antennas than the mobile handsets. Furthermore, because V-BLAST transmits independent data streams on its antennas there is no built in spatial coding to guard against deep fades from any given transmit antenna. On the other hand, there are many previously proposed space time codes that have good fading resistance and simple decoding, but these codes generally have poor performance at high data rates or with many antennas. We propose a high rate coding schemes that can handle any configuration of transmit and receive antennas and that subsumes both V-BLAST and many proposed space time block codes as special cases. The scheme transmits sub streams of data in linear combinations over space and time. The codes are designed to optimize the mutual information between the transmitted and received signals. Because of their linear structure, the codes retain the decoding simplicity of V-BLAST, and because of their information theoretic optimality, they possess many coding advantages .we give examples of the codes and show that their performance is generally superior to earlier proposed methods over a wide range of rates and signal to noise ratios(SNRS)

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT

Space time coded systems developed in the last ten years have been designed primarily using linear modulation.non linear continuous phase modulation has desirable constant envelope properties and considerable potential in space time coded
1

systems. The work in this is focused on developing and analyzing an integrated space time block coded continuous phase modulated (STBC-SM)systems .the coding of the space time encoder and the modulation is incorporated into a single trellis encoder. This allows state combining, which leads to complexity reduction due to the reduced number of states. Design criteria for STBC-SM are summarized and the Euclidean distance is shown to be important for code design. The integrated STC-SM systems design enables systematic space time block code searches that find optimal STBC, to be easily implemented. Optimal rate-1 2 and rate 23 space time codes are found by maximizing the systems minimum squared Euclidean distance. These codes can provide high throughput and good coding gains over un optimized full rank codes, such as delay diversity, in a quasi-static flat fading environment. Performance bounds are developed using a union bound argument and the pair wise error probability, approximation of the bounds are evaluated. These truncated upper bounds predict the slopes of the simulated performance curves at low error rates.

1.3 LITERATURE SURVEY

A novel multiple input multiple output(MIMO) transmission scheme, called space time block coded spatial modulation (STBCSM),is proposed. It combines spatial modulation and space time block coding(STBC) to take advantages of the benefits of both while avoiding their drawbacks. In the STBC-SM scheme, the transmitted information symbols are expanded not only to the space and time domains but also to the spatial(antenna) domain which corresponds to the on/off status of the transmit antennas available at the space domain, and therefore both core STBC and antenna indices carry information. A general technique is presented for the design of the STBC SM scheme for any number of transmits antennas. Besides the high spectral efficiency advantage provided by the antenna domain, the proposed scheme is also optimized by deriving its diversity and coding gains to exploit the diversity advantages of STBC.A low complexity maximum likelihood(ML) decoder is given for the new scheme which profits from the orthogonality of the core STBC. The performance advantages of the

STBC-SM over simple SM and over v-blast are shown by simulation results for various spectral efficiency and are supported by the derivation of closed form expression for the union bound on the bit error probability.

1.4 EXISTING SYSTEM

In V-BLAST system, a high level of inter-channel interference(ICI) occurs at the receiver since all antennas transmit their own data streams at the same time. this further increases the complexity of an optimal decoder exponentially, while low complexity suboptimum linear decoders, such as the minimum mean square error(MMSE)decoder, degrade the error performance of the system significantly. DISADVANTAGES OF EXISTING SYSTEM: 1. ML decoding complexity grows exponentially with the constellation size 2. Difficult implementation 3. Expensive for future wireless communication system

PRAPOSED SYSTEM In this report, we have introduced a MIMO transmission scheme, called STBC-SM, as an alternative to existing techniques such as SM and V-BLAST.the proposed new transmission scheme employs both APM techniques and antenna indices to convey information and exploits the transmit diversity potential of MIMO channels. A general technique has been presented for the construction of the STBCSM scheme for any number of transmit antennas in which the STBC-SM system was optimized by deriving its diversity and coding gains to reach optimum performance.

1.5 OUTLINE OF THE ORGANIZED THESIS

This thesis consists of 5chapters and three appendices and is organized as follows:

In Chapter 2 introduces MIMO systems. We describe multiple antenna systems and the corresponding statistical parameters. The potential of MIMO systems as well their problems are described. We present two channel correlation models which will be used throughout this thesis. The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) definition used in this thesis is explained in detail. In chapter3, we introduce our STBC-SM transmission scheme via an example with four transmit antennas, give a general STBC-SM design technique for transmit antennas, and formulate the optimal STBC-SM ML detector. In chapter4,we introduce various types of modulation technics. In chapter5, the performance analysis of the STBC-SM system is presented. Simulation results and performance comparisons are presented in chapter6. Finally, chapter5 includes the main conclusions of the paper.

CHAPTER 2 MULTIPLE-ANTENNAWIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The invention of the radio telegraph by Guglielmo Marconi more than hundert years ago marks the commencement of wireless communications. In the last 20 years, the rapid progress in radio technology has activated a communications revolution. Wireless systems have been deployed through the world to help people and machines to communicate with each other independent of their location. Always best connected is one of the slogans for the fourth generation of wireless communications system (4G), meaning that your wireless equipment should connect to the network or system that at the moment is the bestfor you.

Wireless communication is highly challenging due to the complex, time varying propagation medium. If we consider a wireless link with one transmitter and one receiver, the transmitted signal that is launched into wireless environment arrives at the receiver along a number of diverse paths, referred to as multipaths. These paths occur from scattering and rejection of radiated energy from objects (buildings, hills,trees ...) and each path has a different and time-varying delay, angle of arrival, and signal amplitude. As a consequence, the received signal can vary as a function of frequency, time and space. These variations are referred to as fading and cause deterioration of the system quality. Furthermore, wireless channels suffer of cochannel interference (CCI) from other cells that share the same frequency channel, leading to distortion of the desired signal and also low system performance. Therefore, wireless systems must be designed to mitigate fading and interference to guarantee a reliable communication. A successful method to improve reliable communication over a wireless link is to use multiple antennas. The main arguments for this method are:

 Array gain

Array gain means the average increase in signal to noise ratio (SNR) at the receiver that can be obtained by the coherent combining of multiple antenna signals at the receiver or at the transmitter side or at both sides. The average increase in signal power is proportional to the number of receive antennas. In case of multiple antennas at the transmitter, array gain exploitation requires channel knowledge at the transmitter. Interference reduction

Cochannel interference contributes to the overall noise of the system and deteriorates performance. By using multiple antennas it is possible to suppress interfering signals what leads to an improvement of system capacity. Interference reduction requires knowledge of the channel of the desired signal, but exact knowledge of channel may not be necessary. Diversity gain

An effective method to combat fading is diversity. According to the domain where diversity is introduced, diversity techniques are classified into time, frequency and space diversity. Space or antenna diversity has been popular in wireless microwave communications and can be classified into two categories: receive diversity and transmit diversity, depending on whether multiple antennas are used for reception or transmission.

1.Receive Diversity

It can be used in channels with multiple antennas at the receive side. The receive signals are assumed to fade independently and are combined at the receiver so that the resulting signal shows significantly reduced fading. Receive diversity is characterized by the number of independent fading branches and it is at most equal to the number of receive antennas.
6

2.Transmit Diversity

Transmit diversity is applicable to channels with multiple transmit antennas and it is at most equal to the number of the transmit antennas, especially if the transmit antennas are placed sufficiently apart from each other. Information is processed at the transmitter and then spread across the multiple antennas. Transmit diversity was introduced first by Winters and it has become an active research area.

In case of multiple antennas at both link ends, utilization of diversity requires a combination of the receive and transmit diversity explained above. The diversity order is bounded by the product of the number of transmit and receive antennas, if the channel between each transmit-receive antenna pair fades independently. The key feature of all diversity methods is a low probability of simultaneous deep fades in the various diversity channels. In general the system performance with diversity techniques depends on how many signal replicas are combined at the receiver to increase the overall SNR.

There exist four main types of signal combining methods at the receiver: selection combining, switched combining, equal-gain combining and maximum ratio combining (MRC). More information about combining methods can be found in Wireless systems consisting of a transmitter, a radio channel and a receiver are categorized by their number of inputs and outputs. The simplest configuration is a single antenna at both sides of the wireless link, denoted as single-input/single output (SISO) system. Using multiple antennas on one or both sides of the communication link are denoted as multiple input/multiple output (MIMO) systems. The difference between a SISO system and a MIMO system with nt transmit antennas and nr receive antennas is the way of mapping the single stream of data symbols to nt streams of symbols and the corresponding inverse operation at the receiver side. Systems with multiple antennas on the receive side only are called single input/multiple output (SIMO) systems and systems with multiple antennas at the transmitter side and a single antenna at the receiver side are called multiple input/single output (MISO) systems. The MIMO system is the most general and includes SISO,MISO, SIMO systems as special cases. Therefore, the term MIMO will be used in general for
7

multiple antenna systems. The fundamental problem of MIMO systems is the mapping operation at the transmitter and the corresponding inversion at the receiver to optimize the overall performance of the wireless system. Mostly, researchers concentrate on the following system parameters: bit rate, reliability and complexity. The goal is to design a robust and low complex wireless system that provides the highest possible bit rate per unit bandwidth.

2.1.1 MULTI - ANTENNA TRANSMISSION METHODS:

To transmit information over a single wireless link, different transmission and reception strategies can be applied. Which one of them should be used depends on the knowledge of the instantaneous MIMO channel parameters at the transmitter side. If the channel state information (CSI) is not available at the transmitter spatial multiplexing (SM) or space-time coding (STC) can be used for transmission. If the CSI is available at the transmitter, beamforming can be used to transmit a single data stream over the wireless link. In this way, spectral efficiency and robustness of the system can be improved. It is difficult to decide which of these transmission methods is the best one. It can be concluded that the choice of the transmission model depends on three entities important for wireless link design, namely bit rate, system complexity and reliability. A STC has low complexity and promises high diversity, but the bit rate is moderate. SM provides high bit rate, but is less reliable. Beamforming exploits array gain, is robust with respect to channel fading, but it requires CSI. In this thesis we will only consider STC transmissions. In the first part of the thesis, we will analyze STC transmission without any channel knowledge at the transmitter side and in the second part of the thesis, we will analyze STC transmissions with partial CSI at the transmitter.

We will propose some low complexity feedback methods which improve the overall system quality without increasing the system complexity substantially. In most cases the complexity of signal processing at the transmitter side is very low and the main part of the signal processing has to be performed at the receiver. The receiver has to regain the transmitted symbols from the mixed received symbols. Several receiver strategies can be applied:

 Maximum Likelihood (ML) Receiver ML achieves the best system performance (maximum diversity and lowest bit error ratio (BER) can be obtained), but needs the most complex detection algorithm. The ML receiver calculates all possible noiseless receive signals by transforming all possible transmit signals by the known MIMO channel transfer matrix. Then it searches for that signal calculated in advance, which minimizes the Euclidean distance to the actually received signal. The undisturbed transmit signal that leads to this minimum distance is considered as the most likely transmit signal. Note that the above described detection process is optimum in sense of BER for white Gaussian noise. Using higher signal modulation, this receiver option is extremely complex. There exist approximate receive strategies, which achieve almost ML performance and need only a fraction of the ML complexity Linear Receivers Zero Forcing (ZF) receivers and Minimum Mean Square Error (MMSE) receivers belong to the group of linear receivers. The ZF receiver completely nulls out the influence of the interference signals coming from other transmit antennas and detects every data stream separately. The disadvantage of this receiver is that due to canceling the influence of the signals from other transmit antennas, the additive noise may be strongly increased and thus the performance may degrade heavily. Due to the separate decision of every data stream, the complexity of this algorithm is much lower than in case of an ML receiver. The MMSE receiver compromises between noise enhancement and signal interference and minimizes the mean squared error between the transmitted symbol and the detected symbol. Thus the results of the MMSE equalization are the transmitted data streams plus some residual interference and noise. After MMSE equalization each data stream is separately detected (quantized) in the same way as in the ZF case. In practice it can be difficult to obtain correct parameter values of the noise that is necessary for an optimum signal detection and only a small improvement compared to the ZF receiver can be obtained. Therefore, this receiver is not used in practice.

2.2 MODELLING THE WIRELESS MIMO SYSTEM:

To analyze the wireless communication system, appropriate models for signals and channels are needed. In this section we will present the necessary prerequisites for the models used in the thesis. We will give an overview over the MIMO channels and the signal models and describe parameters of interest such as antenna correlation, noise and SNR definition.

2.2.1 SYSTEM (AND CHANNEL) MODEL:

Let us consider a point-to-point MIMO system with nt transmit and nr receive antennas. The block diagram is given in Fig. 2.1 Let hi,j be a complex number corresponding to the channel gain between transmit antenna j and receive antenna i. If at a certain time instant the complex signals {s1, s2, , snt} are transmitted via nt transmit antennas, the received signal at antenna i can be expressed as: (2.1)

Figure 2.1: MIMO model with nt transmit antennas and nr receive antennas. where ni is a noise term (to be discussed later). Combining all receive signals in a vector y, can be easily expressed in matrix form y = Hs + n. (2.2)

y is the nr 1 receive symbol vector, H is the nr nt MIMO channel transfer matrix,

10

h1,1 H=

h1,nt

(2.3) hnr,1 hnr,nt

s is the nt 1 transmit symbol vector and n is the nr 1 additive noise vector. Note that the system model implicitly assumes a flat fading MIMO channel, i.e., channel coefficients are constant during the transmission of several symbols. Flat fading, or frequency non-selective fading, applies by definition to systems where the bandwidth of the transmitted signal is much smaller than the coherence bandwidth of the channel. All the frequency components of the transmitted signal undergo the same attenuation and phase shift propagation through the channel. Throughout this thesis, we assume that the transmit symbols are uncorrelated, that means E( )= (2.4)

where Ps denotes the mean signal power of the used modulation format at each transmit antenna. This implies that only modulation formats with the same mean power on all transmit antennas are considered.

2.2.2 CHANNEL MODEL

In this thesis, two different spatial channel models are considered, namely spatially uncorrelated and spatially correlated channels.

2.2.2.1 SPATIALLY UNCORRELATED CHANNEL

Spatially uncorrelated channels are modeled by a random matrix with independent identically distributed (i.i.d.), circularly symmetric, complex Gaussian entries with zero mean and unit variance (0,1) (2.5)

This is usually a rough approximation and such a model can be observed in scenarios where the antenna elements are located far apart from each other and a lot

11

of scattering surround the antenna arrays at both sides of the link. In practice, the elements of H are correlated by an amount that depends on the propagation environment as well as on the polarization of the antenna elements and the spacing between them. For this reason it is necessary to consider correlated channels too.

2.2.2.2 SPATIALLY CORRELATED CHANNEL:

In many implementations, the transmit and/or receive antennas can be spatially correlated. For example, in cellular systems, the base-station antennas are typically unhindered and have no local scattering inducing correlation across the basestation antennas. Antenna correlation informs about the spatial diversity available in a MIMO channel. If antennas are highly correlated, very small spatial diversity gain can be achieved. In principle, correlated MIMO channels can be modeled in two ways. There are geometrically-based and statistically-based channel models. In this thesis the focus lies on statistical models.

Channel correlation models

A very simple and appropriate approach is to assume the entries of the channel matrix to be complex Gaussian distributed with zero mean and unit variance with complex correlations between all entries. The full correlation matrix can then be written as { } (2.6)

where hi denotes the i-th column vector of the channel matrix. Knowing all complex correlation coefficients, the actual channel matrix can be modeled as: H = (h1h2 hnt) with ( )T =

g.

(2.7)

g is an i.i.d. (nr nt) 1 random vector with complex Gaussian distributed entries with zero mean and unit variance. This model is called a full correlation model. The big drawback of this model is that a huge number of correlation parameters, namely

12

parameters, are necessary to describe and generate the correlated channel

matrices necessary for Monte Carlo simulations. To reduce the huge number of necessary parameters, the so-called Kronecker Model has been introduced. The assumption of this model is that the transmit and the receive correlation can be separated. The model is described by the transmit correlation matrix { } (2.8)

and the receive correlation matrix: { } (2.9)

2.2.2.3 NOISE TERM AND SNR-DEFINITION:

We assume the noise samples at the receive antennas to be spatially white circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance (0, ) (2.10)

Such noise is called additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). There are two strong reasons for this assumption. First, the Gaussian distribution tends to yield mathematical expressions that are easy to deal with. Second, a Gaussian distribution of a disturbance term can often be motivated via the central limit theorem of many statistical independent small contributions.

13

CHAPTER 3 SPACE-TIME BLOCK CODED SPATIAL MODULATION (STBC-SM)

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO SM MODULATION

Spatial Modulation (SM) has been recently proposed as a new modulation concept for MIMO systems, which aims at reducing the complexity and cost of multipleantenna schemes without deteriorating the endtoend system performance and still guaranteeing good data rates. More specifically, the low complexity transceiver design and high spectral efficiency are simultaneously achieved by adopting the simple modulation and coding mechanisms in what follows: 1) Just one transmitantenna is activated for data transmission at any signaling time instance. This allows SM to entirely avoid the ICI, to require no synchronization among the transmitantenna, and to need only one RF chain for data transmission. This is in net contrast with respect to conventional MIMO schemes where the multipleantenna are used to simultaneously transmit multiple data streams. Furthermore, this allows SM to exploit a lowcomplexity singlestream receiver design for optimal Maximum Likelihood (ML) decoding. 2) The spatial position of each transmitantenna in the antennaarray is used as a source of information. This is obtained by establishing a onetoone mapping between each antenna index and a block of information bits to be transmitted, which results in a coding mechanism that can be called transmitantenna index coded modulation. This allows SM to achieve a spatial multiplexing gain with respect to conventional singleantenna systems since part of the information is implicitly conveyed by the position of the transmitantenna. Accordingly, even though just one antenna is active, SM can also achieve high data throughput.

The two distinguishable features above make SM a fundamentally new physical layer transmission technique which combines, in a unique fashion, digital

14

modulation, coding, and multipleantenna to achieve high data rates and low complexity implementations. In particular, the coding mechanism in 2) makes SM very different from, apparently similar, TransmitAntenna Selection (TAS) or Spatial Division Multiplexing (SDM) schemes. Motivated by the appealing characteristics of SM for various practical applications, in this article we offer a careful overview of the most recent results related to this novel transmission technology and outline some important research issues and challenges that appear relevant to better aid the understanding and evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages with respect to other popular MIMO schemes. Notation: In this article, Nt and Nr denote the number of transmit and receiveantenna, respectively, M is the size of the complex signalconstellation diagram, and Rx denotes the received signal corrupted by additive noise. Furthermore, Em and N0 denote the energy radiated by each transmitantenna and the noise power at the receiver input, respectively. For illustrative purposes, a Nakagamim fading channel is considered with-I and mi denoting the average power gain and the fading parameter of the ith transmitto receive wireless link, and i;j being the correlation coefficient between the ith and jth transmittoreceive wireless links, respectively.

HOW IT WORKS

The basic idea of STBC-SM is to map a block of information bits into two information carrying units: 1) a symbol that is chosen from a complex signal constellation diagram, and 2) a unique transmitantenna index that is chosen from the set of transmitantenna in the antennaarray(i.e., the socalled spatialconstellation diagram). The net result of embedding part of the information to be transmitted into the position of the transmit antenna is a hybrid modulation and MIMO technique in which the modulated signals belong to a tridimensional constellation diagram, which jointly combines signal and spatial information. When the information carrying unit is only the transmitantenna index, SM reduces to the socalled Space Shift Keying (SSK) modulation, which avoids any form of conventional modulation and tradesoff receiver complexity for achievable data rates .
15

The Transmitter
At the transmitter, the bit stream emitted by a binary source is divided into blocks containing log2 (Nt)+log2 (M) bits each, with log2 (Nt) and log2 (M) being the number of bits needed to identify a transmitantenna in the antennaarray and a symbol in the signalconstellation diagram, respectively. Each block is then processed by a SM mapper, which splits each of them into two subblocks of log2 (Nt) and log2 (M) bits each. The bits in the first sub block are used to select the antenna that is switched on for data transmission, while all other transmitantenna are kept silent in the current signaling time interval. The bits in the second sub block are used to choose a symbol in the signal constellation diagram. In the example shown in Fig.5.1 Tx2 will be activated for data transmission by the first two bits (10) and a -1 binary signal will be sent from it out corresponding to the third bit (1). If SSK modulation instead of SM is considered, each transmitantenna, when switched on, will send exactly the same signal out: the information is, thus, encoded only in the position within the antennaarray.

The Wireless Channel as a Modulation Unit

The signal emitted by the active antenna then goes through a generic wireless channel. Owing to the different spatial positions occupied by the transmitantenna in the antenna array, the signal transmitted by each antenna will experience different propagation conditions due to the different interacting environmental objects along any transmittoreceive wireless link. This represents the fundamental working principle of SM as is shown in Fig.4.1. Which depicts the signals impinging upon the single receiveantenna and corresponding to each of the four transmitantenna. Let us emphasize that only one transmit antenna is active at any time instance, so only one signal will be actually received. The other antennas will radiate no power. It is apparent from this working mechanism that, especially for SSK modulation, the wireless channel plays the role of a modulation unit, by introducing a distinct fingerprint that makes the signal emitted by distinct transmitantenna distinguishable at the receiver. If the transmittoreceive wireless links are not sufficiently different,

16

data communication might be impossible since the signals emitted by the transmit antenna will look approximately the same.

The Receiver
The receiver exploits the random modulation introduced by the wireless channel for signal detection. In particular, Fig.5.1 shows a ML detector with perfect Channel State Information (CSI) at the receiver. In order to detect the transmitted signal from the noisy received signal Rx, the receiver must know a priori (in practice this is obtained via channel estimation) the channel impulse response of all the transmittoreceive wireless links. In Fig. The receiver must estimate four channel impulse responses (including the effects of the transmit and receivefilters) since Nt = 4 and Nr = 1.

In general, NtNr channel impulse responses need to be estimated. According to the ML principle, the receiver computes the Euclidean distance between the received signal and the set of possible signals modulated by the wireless channel (including signal modulation if SM is used) and chooses the closest one. In general, MNtNr Euclidean distances need to be computed. This way, all the bits in the transmitted block can be decoded and the original bitstream recovered.

In summary, the working principle of SM is based on the following facts: i) the wireless environment naturally modulates the transmitted signal, ii) each transmittoreceive wireless link has a different channel, and iii) the receiver employs the a priori channel knowledge to detect the transmitted signal. In other words, SM exploits the locationspecific property of the wireless channel, i.e., the uniqueness of each transmittoreceive wireless link, for communication. Accordingly, SM differs from Space Division Multiple Access (SDMA) as well, as in SDMA the differences in the channel impulse responses are exploited for multipleaccess and are not used for data modulation.

17

STBC-SM PROCESS
BINARY SOURCE ..101000100010100100111010101100001000111010110

SM MAPPER

10

1
SIGNAL SELECTION

ANTENNA SELECTION

TX2

-1 BPSK

TX0

TX1

TX2

TX3

TX0 TX1

TX3

TX2

RXn

Figure.3.1 space time block coded spatial modulation process In the STBC-SM scheme, both STBC symbols and the indices of the transmit antennas from which these symbols are transmitted, carry information. We choose Altamontis STBC, which transmits one symbol pcu, as the core STBC due to its advantages in terms of spectral efficiency and simplified ML detection. In

18

Altamontis STBC, two complex information symbols (1 and 2) drawn from an PSK or -QAM constellation are transmitted from two transmit antennas in two symbol intervals in an orthogonal manner by the codeword

where columns and rows correspond to the transmit antennas and the symbol intervals, respectively. For the STBC-SM scheme we extend the matrix in (1) to the antenna domain.

Example (STBC-SM with four transmitters antennas, BPSK modulation):

Consider a MIMO system with four transmit antennas which transmit the Alamouti STBC using one of the following four codewords:

where , = 1, 2 are called the STBC-SM codebooks each containing two STBC-SM codewords X, = 1, 2 which do not interfere to each other. The resulting STBC-SM code is elements is defined

=1 . A non-interfering codeword group having

as a group of codewords satisfying

That is they have no overlapping columns. In (2), is a rotation angle to be optimized for a given modulation format to ensure maximum diversity and coding gain at the expense of expansion of the signal constellation. However, if is not considered, overlapping columns of codeword pairs from different codebooks would reduce the transmit diversity order to one. Assume now that we have four information bits (1, 2, 3, 4) to be transmitted in two consecutive symbol intervals by the

19

STBCSM technique. The mapping rule for 2 bits/s/Hz transmission is given by Table I for the codebooks of (2) and for binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation, where a realization of any codeword is called a transmission matrix. In Table I, the first two information bits (1, 2) are used to determine the antenna-pair position while the last two (3, 4) determine the BPSK symbol pair. If we generalize this system to - ary signaling, we have four different codewords each having 2 different realizations. Consequently, the spectral efficiency of the STBC-SM scheme for four transmit antennas becomes bits/s/Hz, where the factor 1/2 normalizes for the two channel uses spanned by the matrices in (2). For STBCs using larger numbers of symbol.

TABLE I
STBC-SM mapping rule for 2 bits/s/Hz transmission using BPSK, four transmit antennas and Alamoutis STBC

Table 3.1 STBC-SM mapping rule

intervals such as the quasi-orthogonal STBC for four transmit antennas which employs four symbol intervals, the spectral efficiency will be degraded substantially

20

due to this normalization term since the number of bits carried by the antenna modulation (log2), (where is the total number of antenna combinations) is normalized by the number of channel uses of the corresponding STBC.

3.1.1 STBC-SM SYSTEM DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION:

In this subsection, we generalize the STBC-SM scheme for MIMO systems using Alamoutis STBC to transmit antennas by giving a general design technique. An important design parameter for quasi-static Rayleigh fading channels is the minimum coding gain distance (CGD) between two STBC-SM codewords X and X, where X is transmitted and X is erroneously detected, is defined as

The minimum CGD between two codebooks and is defined as

and the minimum CGD of an STBC-SM code is defined by

Note that, min () , since the minimum CGD between non-interfering codewords of the same codebook is always greater than or equal to the right hand side of (5). Unlike in the SM scheme, the number of transmit antennas in the STBCSM scheme need not be an integer power of 2, since the pair wise combinations are chosen from available transmit antennas for STBC transmission. This provides design flexibility. However, the total number of codeword combinations considered should be an integer power of 2. In the following, we give an algorithm to design the STBC-SM scheme:

1) Given the total number of transmit antennas , calculate the number of possible antenna combinations for the transmission of Alamoutis STBC, i.e., the total number of STBC-SM codewords from

21

where is a positive integer. 2) Calculate the number of codewords in each codebook

and the total number of codebooks from = /. Note that the last codebook does not need to have codewords, i.e. its cardinality is = ( 1). Start with the construction of 1 which contains no interfering codewords as

Where X is defined in (1). 4) Using a similar approach, construct for 2 by considering the following two important facts: every codebook must contain non-interfering codewords chosen from pair wise combinations of available transmit antennas. Each codebook must be composed of codewords with antenna combinations that were never used in the construction of a previous codebook. 5) Determine the rotation angles for each , 2 , that maximize min () in (5) for a given signal constellation and antenna configuration; that is

As long as the STBC-SM codewords are generated by the algorithm described above, the choice of other antenna combinations is also possible but this would not improve the overall system performance for uncorrelated channels. Since we have antenna

22

combinations, the resulting spectral efficiency of the STBC-SM scheme can be calculated as

The block diagram of the STBC-SM transmitter is shown in Fig. 1. During each two consecutive symbol intervals, 2 bits

enter the STBCSM transmitter, where the first log2 bits determine the antenna-pair position

that is associated with the corresponding antenna pair, while the last 2log2 bits determine the symbol pair If we compare the spectral efficiency (7)

of the STBC-SM scheme with that of Alamoutis scheme (log2 bits/s/Hz), we observe an increment of 1/2log2 bits/s/Hz provided by the antenna modulation. We consider two different cases for the optimization of the STBC-SM scheme. Case 1 - 4: We have, in this case, two codebooks 1 and 2 and only one nonzero angle, say , to be optimized. It can be seen that min (1, 2) is equal to the minimum

Figure 3.1.1 STBC SM transmitter block

23

Figure3.1.2 STBC-SM block diagram at receiver side CGD between any two interfering codewords from 1 and 2. Without loss of generality, assume that the interfering codewords are chosen as

where

is

transmitted

and

is

erroneously detected. We calculate the minimum CGD between X1 and X1 from (3) as

24

Where Although maximization of min (X1, X1) with respect to is analytically possible for BPSK and quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK) constellations, it becomes unmanageable for 16-QAM and 64-QAM which are essential modulation formats for the next generation wireless standards such as LTE-advanced and WiMAX. We compute min(X1, X1) as a function of [0, /2] for BPSK,

QPSK, 16-QAM and 64-QAM signal constellations via computer search and plot them in Fig. 2. These curves are denoted by () for = 2, 4, 16 and 64, respectively. Values maximizing these functions can be determined from Fig. 2 as follows:

Case 2 - > 4: In this case, the number of codebooks, , is greater than 2. Let the corresponding rotation angles to be optimized be denoted in ascending order by 1 = 0 < 2 <1 where = 2 for BPSK and p = 1 for QPSK. For BPSK and QPSK signaling, choosing

for

guarantees the maximization of the minimum CGD for the STBC-

SM scheme. This can be explained as follows. For any n, we have to maximize as

25

where

and the minimum CGD between codebooks is directly determined by the difference between their rotation angles.

Figure. 3.1.3 Variation of min () given in (9) for BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM and 64QAM (2 (), 4 (), 16 () and 64 ()).

This can be easily verified from (9) by choosing the two interfering codewords as and respectively. Then, to maximize minimum CGD between the with the rotation angles and

it is sufficient to maximize the consecutive Codebooks

. For QPSK signaling, this is accomplished by dividing the interval choosing, for i = 1, 2, . . . , n1, into n equal sub-intervals and

26

The resulting maximum

can be evaluated from (11) As

Similar results are obtained for BPSK signaling except that by in (12) and (13). We obtain the corresponding

is replaced maximum

On the other hand, for 16-QAM and 64-QAM signaling, the selection of in integer multiples of would not guarantee to maximize the

minimum CGD for the STBC-SM scheme since the behavior of the functions is very non-linear, having several zeros in [0, pi/2]. However, our extensive computer search has indicated that for 16 QAM with n 6, the rotation angles chosen as for are still

optimum. But for 16-QAM signaling with n > 6 as well as for 64-QAM signaling with n > 2, the optimal search. TABLE II Basic parameters of the STBC-SM system for different number of transmit antennas is very non-linear, having several zeros in [0, pi/2]. However, our extensive computer search has indicated that for 16-QAM s must be determined by an exhaustive computer

Table 3.1.1 STBC-SM system for different number of transmit antennas

27

In Table II, we summarize the basic parameters of the STBC-SM system for 3 nT 8. We observe that increasing the number of transmit antennas results in an increasing number of antenna combinations and, consequently, increasing spectral efficiency achieved by the STBC-SM scheme. However, this requires a larger number of angles to be optimized and causes some reduction in the minimum CGD. On the other hand, when the same number of combinations can be supported by different numbers of transmit antennas, a higher number of transmit antennas requires fewer angles to be optimized resulting in higher minimum CGD (for an example, the cases c = 8, nT = 5 and 6 in Table II).

We now give two examples for the codebook generation process of the STBCSM design algorithm, presented above.

Design Example 1: From Table II, for nT = 6, we have c = 8, a = n = 3 and the optimized angles are for BPSK and

for QPSK and 16-QAM. The maximum of is calculated for BPSK, QPSK and 16-QAM constellations as

According to the design algorithm, the codebooks can be constructed as below,

w( here 0 denotes the 2 1 all-zero vector. Since there are 6 2 ) = 15 possible antenna combinations, 7 of them are discarded to obtain 8 codewords. Note that the choice of other combinations does not affect . In other words, the codebooks given

28

above represent only one of the possible realizations of the STBC-SM scheme for six transmit antennas.

Design Example 2: From Table II, for nT = 8, we have c = 16, a = n = 4 and optimized angles are for BPSK and is calculated for BPSK,

for QPSK and 16-QAM. Similarly, max QPSK and 16-QAM constellations as

According to the design algorithm, the codebooks can be constructed as follows:

3.1.2 OPTIMAL ML DECODER FOR THE STBC-SM SYSTEM:

In this subsection, we formulate the ML decoder for the STBC-SM scheme. The system with nT transmit and nR receive antennas is considered in the presence of a quasi-static Rayleigh flat fading MIMO channel. The received matrix Y can be expressed as signal

29

where

is the 2 nT STBC-SM transmission matrix, transmitted over is a normalization factor to ensure that p is the average SNR

two channel uses and

at each receive antenna. H and N denote the nT nR channel matrix and 2nR noise matrix, respectively. The entries of H and N are assumed to be independent and identically distributed (I.I.D.) complex Gaussian random variables with zero means and unit variances. We assume that H remains constant during the transmission of a codeword and takes independent values from one codeword to another. We further assume that H is known at the receiver, but not at the transmitter.

Assuming nT transmit antennas are employed, the STBCSM code has c codewords, from which different transmission matrices can be constructed.

An ML decoder must make an exhaustive search over all possible transmission matrices, and decides in favor of the matrix that minimizes the following metric:

The minimization in (15) can be simplified due to the orthogonality of Alamoutis STBC as follows. The decoder can extract the embedded information symbol vector from (14), and obtain the following equivalent channel model:

Where

the 2nR 2 equivalent channel matrix of the Alamouti is coded SM

scheme, which has c different realizations according to the STBC-SM codewords. In (16), y and n represent the 2nR 1 equivalent received signal and noise vectors, respectively. Due to the orthogonality of Alamoutis STBC, the columns of are

orthogonal to each other for all cases and, consequently, no ICI occurs in our scheme as in the case of SM. Consider the STBC-SM transmission model as described in

30

Table I for four transmit antennas. Since there are c = 4 STBC-SM codewords, as seen from Table II, we have four different realizations for nR receive antennas as , which are given for

where

is the channel fading coefficient between transmit antenna j and receive . Generally, we have c equivalent channel matrices and for the th combination, the receiver determines the

antenna i and

ML estimates of x1 and x2 using the decomposition as follows, resulting from the orthogonality of h,1 and h,2:

Where column vector. The associated minimum ML metrics x2 are

is a 2nR1 for x1 and

31

respectively. Since th combination, their summation

are calculated by the ML decoder for the gives

the total ML metric for the th combination. Finally, the receiver makes a decision by choosing the minimum antenna combination metric as =argmin . for which As a result, the total ,

number of ML metric calculations in (15) is reduced from

yielding a linear decoding complexity as is also true for the SM scheme, whose optimal decoder requires metric calculations. Obviously, since

there will be a linear increase in ML decoding complexity with STBC-SM as compared to the SM scheme. However, as we will show in the next section, this insignificant increase in decoding complexity is rewarded with significant performance improvement provided by the STBC-SM over SM. The last step of the decoding process is the demapping operation based on the look-up table used at the transmitter, to recover the input bits

from the determined spatial position (combination) and the information symbols The block diagram of the ML decoder described above is given in Fig. 3.1.2

3.2 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE STBC-SM SYSTEM

In this section, we analyze the error performance of the STBC-SM system, in which 2m bits are transmitted during two consecutive symbol intervals using one of the different STBC-SM transmission matrices, denoted by here for convenience. An upper bound on the average bit error probability (BEP) is given by the well-known union bound :
32

Where

is the pair wise error probability (PEP) of deciding STBC-

SM matrix Xi given that the STBC-SM matrix Xj is transmitted, and ni,j is the number of bits in error between the matrices Xi and Xj . Under the normalization the conditional PEP of the STBC-SM system is calculated as in (14),

Where

Averaging (21) over the channel

matrix H and using the moment generating function (MGF) approach, the unconditional PEP is obtained As

where

are the eigenvalues of the distance matrix

which is the PEP of the conventional Alamouti STBC. Closed form expressions can be obtained for the integrals in (22) and (23) using the general formulas given in Section 5.

33

In case of c = a, for nT = 3 and for an even number of transmit antennas when nT 4, it is observed that all transmission matrices have the uniform error property due to the symmetry of STBC-SM codebooks, i.e., have the same PEP as that of X1. Thus, we obtain a BEP upper bound for STBC-SM as follows:

Applying the natural mapping to transmission matrices, Ni,j calculated as where

can be directly are the

Hamming weight and the binary representation of x, respectively. Consequently, from (24), we obtain the union bound on the BEP as

which will be evaluated in the next section for different system parameters.

34

CHAPTER 4 MODULATION TECHNIQUES

4.1 QUADRATURE AMPLITUDE MODULATION (QAM):
This modulation scheme is also called quadrature carrier multiplexing. Infact, this modulation scheme enables to DSB-SC modulated signals to occupy the same transmission BW at the receiver o/p. it is, therefore, known as a bandwidthconservation scheme. The QAM Tx consists of two separate balanced modulators, which are supplied, with two carrier waves of the same freq but differing in phase by 90. The o/p of the two balanced modulators are added in the adder and transmitted.

Figure.4.1 QAM System The transmitted signal is thus given by S (t) = X1 (t) A cos (2Fc t) + X2 (t) A sin (2Fc t) Hence, the multiplexed signal consists of the in-phase component A X1 (t) and the quadrature phase component A X2 (t). Balanced Modulator: A DSB-SC signal is basically the product of the modulating or base band signal and the carrier signal. Unfortunately, a single electronic device cannot generate a DSB-SC signal. A circuit is needed to achieve the generation of a DSB-SC signal is called product modulator i.e., Balanced Modulator.

35

We know that a non-linear resistance or a non-linear device may be used to produce AM i.e., one carrier and two sidebands. However, a DSB-SC signal contains only 2 sidebands. Thus, if 2 non-linear devices such as diodes, transistors etc., are connected in balanced mode so as to suppress the carriers of each other, then only sidebands are left, i.e., a DSB-SC signal is generated. Therefore, a balanced modulator may be defined as a circuit in which two non-linear devices are connected in a balanced mode to produce a DSB-SC signal.

4.2 QUADRATURE PHASE SHIFT KEYING (QPSK) :

In communication systems, we have two main resources. These are: 1. Transmission Power 2. Channel bandwidth If two or more bits are combined in some symbols, then the signaling rate will be reduced. Thus, the frequency of the carrier needed is also reduced. This reduces the transmission channel B.W. Hence, because of grouping of bits in symbols; the transmission channel B.W can be reduced. In QPSK two successive bits in the data sequence are grouped together. This reduces the bits rate or signaling rate and thus reduces the B.W of the channel. In case of BPSK, we know that when sym. Changes the level, the phase of the carrier is changed by 180. Because, there were only two symbols in BPSK, the phase shift occurs in 2 levels only. However, in QPSK, 2 successive bits are combined. Infect, this combination of two bits forms 4 distinct symbaless. When the symbols is changed to next symbols, then the phase of the carrier is changed by 45 degrees.
S.No I/p successive bits symbol phase shift in carrier

I=1 I=2 I=3 I=4

1(1v) 0(-1v) 0(-1v) 1(1v)

0(-1v) 0(-1v) 1(1v) 1(1v)

S1 S2 S3 S4

/4 3/4 5/4 7/4

Table 4.2.1 QPSK phase shift for different symbols

36

Generation of QPSK: Here the I/P binary seq. is first converted into a bipolar NRZ type of signal. This signal is denoted by b (t). It represents binary 1 by +1V and binary 0 by 1V. The demultiplexer divides b (t) into 2 separate bit streams of the odd numbered and even numbered bits. Here Be (t) represents even numbered sequence and Bo (t) represents odd numbered sequence. The symbol duration of both of these odd numbered sequences is 2Tb. Hence, each symbol consists of 2 bits.

Figure.4.2.1 Generation of QPSK

It may be observed that the first even bit occurs after the first odd bit. Hence, even numbered bit sequence be (t) starts with the delay of one bit period due to first odd bit. Thus, first symbol of be (t) is delayed by one bit period due to first odd bit. Thus, first symbol of be (t) is delayed by on bit period Tb with respect to first symbol of Bo (t). This delay of Tb is known as offset. This shows that the change in the levels of Be (t) and Bo (t) cant occur at the same time due to offset or staggering. The bit stream Be (t) modulates carrier cosine carrier and B0 (t) modulates sinusoidal carrier. These modulators are the balanced modulators. The 2 carriers are Ps.cos (2Fc.t) and Ps.sin (2Fc.t) have been shown in fig. Their carriers are known as quadrature carriers. Due to the offset, the phase shift in QPSK signal is /2

37

CHAPTER 5 RESULT ANALYSIS

5.1 SIMULATION RESULTS AND COMPARISONS

In this section, we present simulation results for the STBCSM system with different numbers of transmit antennas and make comparisons with SM, V-BLAST, rate-3/4 OSTBC for four transmit antennas , Alamoutis STBC, the Golden Code and double space-time transmit diversity (DSTTD) scheme. The bit error rate (BER) performance of these systems was evaluated by Monte Carlo simulations for various spectral efficiencies as a function of the average SNR per receive antenna (p) and in all cases we assumed four receive antennas. All performance comparisons are made for a BER value of 105. The SM system uses the optimal decoder derived in 11. The V-BLAST system uses MMSE detection with ordered successive interference cancellation (SIC) decoding where the layer with the highest post detection SNR is detected first, then nulled and the process is repeated for all layers, iteratively. We employ ML decoders for both the Golden code and the DSTTD scheme.

We first present the BER performance curves of the STBCSM scheme with three and four transmit antennas for BPSK and QPSK constellations in Fig. 5.1 As a reference, the BEP upper bound curves of the STBC-SM scheme are also evaluated from (25) and depicted in the same figure. From Fig. 5.1 it follows that the derived upper bound becomes very tight with increasing SNR values for all cases and can be used as a helpful tool to estimate the error performance behavior of the STBC-SM scheme with different setups. Also note that the BER curves in Fig.5.1 are shifted to the right while their slope remains unchanged and equal to 2nR, with increasing spectral efficiency.

38

Fig 5.1: BER performance of Almoutis STBC schemes

Fig 5.2: BER performance of STBC-SM schemes for BPSK and QPSK

In Fig. 5.2 , the BER curves of STBC-SM with nT = 4 and QPSK, SM with nT = 4 and BPSK with nT = 3 and BPSK with 16-QAM and Alamoutis STBC with 8QAM are evaluated for 3 bits/s/Hz transmission. We observe that STBC-SM provides

39

SNR gains of 3.8 dB, 5.1 dB, 2.8 dB and 3.4 dB over SM, and Alamoutis STBC, respectively. In Fig. 5.2 we employ two different STBC-SM schemes With nT = 8 and QPSK, and nT = 4 and 8-QAM (for the case nT 4, the optimum rotation angle for rectangular 8-QAM is found from (9) as equal to 0.96 rad for which for 4 bits/s/Hz, and make comparisons with the following schemes: SM with nT = 8 and BPSK with nT = 2 and QPSK with 32-QAM, and Alamoutis STBC with 16-QAM. It is seen that STBCSM with nT = 8 and QPSK provides SNR gains of 3.5 dB, 5 dB, 4.7 dB and 4.4 dB over, SM and Alamoutis STBC, respectively. On the other hand, we observe 3 dB SNR gap between two STBC-SM schemes in favor of the one that uses a smaller constellation and relies more heavily on the use of the spatial domain to achieve 4 bits/s/Hz. This gap is also verified by the difference between normalized minimum CGD values of these two schemes.

Fig 5.3: BER performance of STBC-SM schemes for PSK

40

We conclude from this result that one can optimize the error performance without expanding the signal constellation but expanding the spatial constellation to improve spectral efficiency.

However the number of required metric calculations for ML decoding of the first STBC-SM scheme is equal to 128 while the other ones is equal to 64, which provides an interesting trade-off between complexity and performance. Based on these examples, we conclude that for a given spectral efficiency, as the modulation order M increases, the number of transmit antennas nT should decrease, and consequently the SNR level needed for a fixed BER will increase while the overall decoding complexity will be reduced. On the other hand, as the modulation order M decreases, the number of transmit antennas nT should increase, and as a result the SNR level needed for a fixed BER will decrease while the overall decoding complexity increases.

41

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
In this project, we have introduced a novel high-rate, low complexity MIMO transmission scheme, called STBC-SM, as an alternative to existing techniques such as SM and VBLAST. The proposed new transmission scheme employs both APM techniques and antenna indices to convey information and exploits the transmit diversity potential of MIMO channels. A general technique has been presented for the construction of the STBC-SM scheme for any number of transmit antennas in which the STBC-SM system was optimized by deriving its diversity and coding gains to reach optimum performance. It has been shown via computer simulations and also supported by a theoretical upper bound analysis that the STBC-SM offers significant improvements in BER performance compared to SM and V-BLAST systems(approximately 3-5 dB depending on the spectral efficiency) with an acceptable linear increase in decoding complexity. From a practical implementation point of view, the RF (radio frequency) front-end of the system should be able to switch between different transmit antennas similar to the classical SM scheme. On the other hand, unlike V-BLAST in which all antennas are employed to transmit simultaneously, the number of required RF chains is only two in our scheme, and the synchronization of all transmit antennas would not be required. We conclude that the STBC-SM scheme can be useful for high-rate, low complexity, emerging wireless communication systems such as LTE and WiMAX. Our future work will be focused on the integration of trellis coding into the proposed STBC-SM scheme.

42

REFERENCES
[1]. E. Telatar, Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels," European Trans. Telecommun., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 558-595, Nov./Dec. 1999. [2]. V. Tarokh, H. Jafarkhani, and A. R. Calderbank, Space-time block codes from orthogonal designs," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1456-1467, July 1999. [3]. E. Biglieri, Y. Hong, and E. Viterbo, On fast-decodable space-time block codes," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 524-530, Feb. 2009. [4]. E. Basar and . Aygl, High-rate full-diversity space-time block codes for three and four transmit antennas," IET Commun., vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1371-1378, Aug. 2009.

43

APPENDIX
ALMOUTI STBC MODULATION
clc clear N = 2; % number of bits or symbols Eb_N0_dB = [0:25]; % multiple Eb/N0 values

for ii = 1:length(Eb_N0_dB) ip = randsrc(1,N,[1 10]); s = qammod(ip,16); % Alamouti STBC sCode = zeros(2,N); sCode(:,1:2:end) = (1/sqrt(2))*reshape(s,2,N/2); % [x1 x2 ...] sCode(:,2:2:end)=(1/sqrt(2))*(kron(ones(1,N/2),[1;1]).*flipud(reshape(conj(s),2,N/2)) ); % [-x2* x1* ....] h = 1/sqrt(2)*[randn(1,N) + j*randn(1,N)]; % Rayleigh channel hMod = kron(reshape(h,2,N/2),ones(1,2)); % repeating the same channel for two symbols n = 1/sqrt(2)*[randn(1,N) + j*randn(1,N)]; % white gaussian noise, 0dB variance % Channel and noise Noise addition y = sum(hMod.*sCode,1) + 10^(-Eb_N0_dB(ii)/20)*n; % Receiver yMod = kron(reshape(y,2,N/2),ones(1,2)); % [y1 y1 ... ; y2 y2 ...] yMod(2,:) = conj(yMod(2,:)); % [y1 y1 ... ; y2* y2*...] % forming the equalization matrix hEq = zeros(2,N); hEq(:,[1:2:end]) = reshape(h,2,N/2); % [h1 0 ... ; h2 0...] hEq(:,[2:2:end]) = kron(ones(1,N/2),[1;-1]).*flipud(reshape(h,2,N/2)); % [h1 h2 ... ; h2 -h1 ...] hEq(1,:) = conj(hEq(1,:)); % [h1* h2* ... ; h2 -h1 .... ] hEqPower = sum(hEq.*conj(hEq),1); yHat = sum(hEq.*yMod,1)./hEqPower; % [h1*y1 + h2y2*, h2*y1 -h1y2*, ... ]

44

yHat(2:2:end) = conj(yHat(2:2:end)); % receiver - hard decision decoding ipHat = real(yHat)>0

% counting the errors nErr(ii) = size(find([ip- ipHat]),2) end figure; simBer = nErr/N; % simulated ber EbN0Lin = 10.^(Eb_N0_dB/10); p = 1/2 - 1/2*(1+2./EbN0Lin).^(-16/2); BER_A = p.^3.*(1+16*(1-p))/(length(Eb_N0_dB)/2); semilogy(Eb_N0_dB,BER_A,'k-*','LineWidth',2);hold on grid on xlabel('Eb/No, dB'); ylabel('Bit Error Rate'); title('BER performance of Alamoutis STBC schemes'); grid on

%Space-Time Block Coded Spatial Modulation

clc clear all close all warning off nt = 8; a = nt/4; c = power(2,nt); n = c/a; a_t = c - a*(n-1); %-------------------------------------------------------------------------N = 2; % number of bits or symbols Eb_N0_dB = [0:25]; % multiple Eb/N0 values for ii = 1:length(Eb_N0_dB)

45

N = 2; clear sCode % Transmitter ip = rand(1,N)>0.5 % generating 0,1 with equal probability s = 2*ip-1; % BPSK modulation 0 -> -1; 1 -> 0

% Alamouti STBC sCode = zeros(2,N); sCode(:,1:2:end) = (1/sqrt(2))*reshape(s,2,N/2); % [x1 x2 ...] sCode(:,2:2:end) = (1/sqrt(2))*(kron(ones(1,N/2),[1;1]).*flipud(reshape(conj(s),2,N/2))); % [-x2* x1* ....] --------eqn(1) z = zeros(2,2); X11_sCode = [sCode z]; X12_sCode = [z sCode]; theta = det(sCode); X1 = [X11_sCode,X12_sCode]; % X1 = X12_sCode; z1 = [0;0]; x1 = sCode(:,1); x2 = sCode(:,2); X21_sCode = [z1 sCode z1]; X22_sCode = [x1 z x2]; X2 = [X21_sCode.*theta,X22_sCode.*theta]; % X2{2} = X22_sCode.*theta; X = [X1,X2]; m = .5*log2(c) + log2(2); %-----------eqn(7) clear sCode sCode = X; N = length(sCode); h = 1/sqrt(2)*[randn(1,N) + j*randn(1,N)]; % Rayleigh channel hMod = kron(reshape(h,2,N/2),ones(1,2)); % repeating the same channel for two symbols % hMod = repmat(hMod,1,8); n = 1/sqrt(2)*[randn(1,N) + j*randn(1,N)]; % white gaussian noise, 0dB variance
46

% Channel and noise Noise addition y = sum(hMod.*sCode,1) + 10^(-Eb_N0_dB(ii)/20)*n;

% Receiver yMod = kron(reshape(y,2,N/2),ones(1,2)); % [y1 y1 ... ; y2 y2 ...] yMod(2,:) = conj(yMod(2,:)); % [y1 y1 ... ; y2* y2*...]

% forming the equalization matrix hEq = zeros(2,N); hEq(:,[1:2:end]) = reshape(h,2,N/2); % [h1 0 ... ; h2 0...] hEq(:,[2:2:end]) = kron(ones(1,N/2),[1;-1]).*flipud(reshape(h,2,N/2)); % [h1 h2 ... ; h2 -h1 ...] hEq(1,:) = conj(hEq(1,:)); % [h1* h2* ... ; h2 -h1 .... ] hEqPower = sum(hEq.*conj(hEq),1); yHat = sum(hEq.*yMod,1)./hEqPower; % [h1*y1 + h2y2*, h2*y1 -h1y2*, ... ] yHat(2:2:end) = conj(yHat(2:2:end));

% receiver - hard decision decoding ipHat = real(yHat)>0

% counting the errors nErr(ii) = size(find([ip- ipHat(1,1:2)]),2)

end %-------------------------------------------------------------------------simBer = nErr/N; % simulated ber EbN0Lin = 10.^(Eb_N0_dB/10); BER_r_1 = 0.5.*(1-1*(1+1./EbN0Lin).^(-0.5)); p = 1/2 - 1/2*(1+1./EbN0Lin).^(-3/2); BER_3 = p.^3.*(1+3*(1-p))/(length(Eb_N0_dB)/2); pAlamouti = 1/2 - 1/2*(1+2./EbN0Lin).^(-4/2); BER_4 = pAlamouti.^4.*(1+4*(1-pAlamouti))/(length(Eb_N0_dB)/2); figure
47

semilogy(Eb_N0_dB,BER_r_1,'bp-','LineWidth',2); hold on semilogy(Eb_N0_dB,BER_3,'g-o','LineWidth',2); semilogy(Eb_N0_dB,BER_4,'r->','LineWidth',2);hold on main_qpsk axis([0 25 10^-5 0.5]) grid on legend('sample line', 'Bpsk nt = 3', 'Bpsk nt = 4','Qpsk nt = 3', 'Qpsk nt = 4'); xlabel('Eb/No, dB'); ylabel('Bit Error Rate'); title('BER performance of STBC-SM scheme for BPSK and QPSK');

figure_3;

STBC-SM WITH 4PSK MODULATION

nt = 4; a = nt/2; c = power(2,nt); n = c/a; a_t = c - a*(n-1); Eb_N0_dB = [0:25]; % multiple Eb/N0 values for ii = 1:length(Eb_N0_dB) N = 2; clear sCode ip = randsrc(1,N,[1 3]) s = pskmod(ip,4) % Alamouti STBC sCode = zeros(2,N); sCode(:,1:2:end) = (1/sqrt(2))*reshape(s,2,N/2); % [x1 x2 ...] sCode(:,2:2:end) = (1/sqrt(2))*(kron(ones(1,N/2),[1;1]).*flipud(reshape(conj(s),2,N/2))); % [-x2* x1* ....] --------eqn(1) z = zeros(2,2);

48

X11_sCode = [sCode z]; X12_sCode = [z sCode]; theta = det(sCode); X1 = [X11_sCode,X12_sCode]; % X1 = X12_sCode; z1 = [0;0]; x1 = sCode(:,1); x2 = sCode(:,2); X21_sCode = [z1 sCode z1]; X22_sCode = [x1 z x2]; X2 = [X21_sCode.*theta,X22_sCode.*theta]; % X2{2} = X22_sCode.*theta; X = [X1,X2]; m = .5*log2(c) + log2(2); %-----------eqn(7) clear sCode sCode = X; N = length(sCode); h = 1/sqrt(2)*[randn(1,N) + j*randn(1,N)]; % Rayleigh channel hMod = kron(reshape(h,2,N/2),ones(1,2)); % repeating the same channel for two symbols % hMod = repmat(hMod,1,8); n = 1/sqrt(2)*[randn(1,N) + j*randn(1,N)]; % white gaussian noise, 0dB variance % Channel and noise Noise addition y = sum(hMod.*sCode,1) + 10^(-Eb_N0_dB(ii)/20)*n; % Receiver yMod = kron(reshape(y,2,N/2),ones(1,2)); % [y1 y1 ... ; y2 y2 ...] yMod(2,:) = conj(yMod(2,:)); % [y1 y1 ... ; y2* y2*...] % forming the equalization matrix hEq = zeros(2,N); hEq(:,[1:2:end]) = reshape(h,2,N/2); % [h1 0 ... ; h2 0...] hEq(:,[2:2:end]) = kron(ones(1,N/2),[1;-1]).*flipud(reshape(h,2,N/2)); % [h1 h2 ... ; h2 -h1 ...] hEq(1,:) = conj(hEq(1,:)); % [h1* h2* ... ; h2 -h1 .... ] hEqPower = sum(hEq.*conj(hEq),1);
49

yHat = sum(hEq.*yMod,1)./hEqPower; % [h1*y1 + h2y2*, h2*y1 -h1y2*, ... ] yHat(2:2:end) = conj(yHat(2:2:end));

% receiver - hard decision decoding ipHat = real(yHat)>0 % counting the errors nErr(ii) = size(find([ip- ipHat(1,1:2)]),2) end %-------------------------------------------------------------------------simBer = nErr/N; % simulated ber EbN0Lin = 10.^(Eb_N0_dB/10); p = 1/2 - 1/2*(1+2./EbN0Lin).^(-3/2); BER_3 = p.^3.*(1+3*(1-p))/(length(Eb_N0_dB)/4); pAlamouti = 1/2 - 1/2*(1+4./EbN0Lin).^(-4/2); BER_4 = pAlamouti.^4.*(1+4*(1-pAlamouti))/(length(Eb_N0_dB)/4); hold on semilogy(Eb_N0_dB,BER_3,'k-*','LineWidth',2);hold on semilogy(Eb_N0_dB,BER_4,'c-<','LineWidth',2);hold on

50