2060
7, JULY 2009
Effects of Imperfections on the
Performance of OFDM Systems
Juan I. Montojo, Member, IEEE, and Laurence B. Milstein, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—Most OFDM analyses assume idealized conditions
when it comes to the waveform at the receiver in terms of time
and frequency synchronization. In addition, often a cyclic prefix
(CP) longer than the channel delay spread is assumed, and thus
the impact of the possible inter-symbol interference (ISI) from
adjacent OFDM symbols is not a consideration.
This work provides a consolidated framework for study and
analysis of OFDM systems with imperfections. The imperfections
include time and frequency synchronization errors, and channel
delay spread beyond the CP duration. Transmit as well as receive
filtering operations are explicitly modeled, and different receiver
detection criteria are considered.
The use of an OFDM waveform for UWB applications is
known to be a promising choice to simplify the receiver design
and to maximize the bandwidth scalability, as well as the
adaptation to various spectrum allocations. We present bit error
rate (BER) sensitivity analysis to key system parameters for
OFDM-based UWB applications. From these sensitivity analyses,
we see graceful performance degradation with decreasing CP
length and increasing residual frequency error. The performance
degradation can be much more critical for timing synchroniza-
tion errors.
Index Terms—OFDM, UWB, ICI, ISI.
I. I NTRODUCTION
O FDM systems have the advantage of being able to
operate as a set of N (number of subcarriers in the
system) parallel flat fading channels. However, this desirable
property comes at the price of provisioning a fixed overhead,
the CP, of duration greater than or equal to the channel
delay spread, to maintain the channel orthogonality at the
receiver after channel dispersion. Other impairments, such as
timing errors, frequency errors, or a channel varying within
the OFDM symbol span, will also destroy the orthogonality
of these parallel channels.
Research in the area of OFDM systems very often assumes
ideal orthogonality conditions. In particular, in analyses of
OFDM-based UWB systems [1], a CP long enough to avoid
ISI is usually assumed [2-6], despite the fact that a large
number of path components could be beyond the CP. The
Paper approved by J. Wang, the Editor for Wireless Spread Spectrum of
the IEEE Communications Society. Manuscript received September 9, 2007;
revised March 27, 2008.
J. I. Montojo is with the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
USA, and with Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA 92121 USA (e-mail: juan-
montojo@ucsd.edu).
L. B. Milstein is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA (e-mail:
milstein@ece.ucsd.edu).
This work was partially supported by the Intel Corporation, the Center for
Wireless Communications at UCSD, the UC Discovery Program, and the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant# FA 9550-08-1-021.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCOMM.2009.07.070452
0090-6778/09$25.00 
c 2009 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO.
assumption of a CP longer than the channel delay spread
is used in studies ranging from multi-antenna techniques
[2][5][6] to channel estimation [4].
Performance of OFDM systems with various imperfections
have been considered in references such as [7-24]. References
[7-10] analyze the impact of inter-carrier interference (ICI)
due to a time-varying channel within the OFDM symbol time
span, while [11] studies the impact of ICI due to frequency
error. The impact of a channel delay spread longer than the
CP has been studied in [12-24].
Reference [12] derives the carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I)
at each subcarrier, accounting for the effects of ICI and ISI
due to a channel delay spread longer than the CP and to
residual frequency error. The authors of [12] advocate the use
of channel coding and adaptive equalization to compensate
the effects of ICI/ISI. In [13], the power of the ICI/ISI
term is derived, and a sensitivity analysis of the CP length
is performed for a channel model corresponding to a hilly
environment. In [14], a method to cancel the residual ISI is
presented to alleviate the performance degradation at demod-
ulation. Reference [15] studies the combined impact of the
channel variation within the OFDM symbol time span and
the delay spread of the channel. In [16], the optimum timing
offset, number of subcarriers and CP duration that minimize
the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) degradation due to ICI/ISI is
studied. Reference [17] discusses the loss of orthogonality
caused by ICI and ISI when the OFDM system is used for low
earth orbit (LEO) satellite channels. Reference [18] derives the
power spectral density (PSD) of ISI to optimize the Time Of
Reference (TOR) for optimal placing of the Discrete Fourier
Transform (DFT) window at the OFDM receiver. References
[19] and [20] present expressions for ICI/ISI due to channel
delay spread beyond the CP length, and [20] derives the ICI
and ISI terms due to a channel delay spread greater than
the CP for a time-invariant channel. Reference [21] builds
on [20] to obtain expressions for the ICI/ISI terms for a
rapidly time-varying channel, i.e., when the channel changes
over the OFDM symbol duration. Reference [22] provides
good insights on the impact of ICI and ISI due to channel
delay spread beyond the CP and residual frequency error for
Rayleigh fading. Reference [23] provides sensitivity analysis
of capacity vs. OFDM symbol and CP length, and the choice
of TOR.
Perfect time and frequency synchronization are assumed in
[13-15][17][19-21]. Perfect time synchronization is assumed
in [12][22], and therefore ISI from only the previous OFDM
symbol is considered. Perfect frequency synchronization is
assumed in [16][18][23].
 MONTOJO and MILSTEIN: EFFECTS OF IMPERFECTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF OFDM SYSTEMS 2061

ˆ
To the best of our knowledge, the only publication that char- 2 cos(2 fˆ0t ) sampler
from
acterizes the ICI and ISI terms due to a channel delay spread channel Cyclic
hrx t Prefix
larger than the CP and imperfect synchronization is [24]. In Removal

reference [24], performance analysis for UWB systems with ˆ

2 sin(2 fˆ0t )
Complex
representation
Real
representation
various imperfections is conducted under the Rayleigh fading
z[n, N / 2] y DFT [n, N / 2] y CP [n,0]
assumption and assuming a minimum distance receiver. y ICP [n, k ]
y CP [n,1]
In our paper, we also characterize the ICI and ISI terms
yQCP [n, k ]
due to both a channel delay spread larger than the CP and z[n, N / 2 1] y DFT [n, N / 2 1]
y CP [n, N 1]
synchronization errors. However, unlike [24], that considers a
continuous-time OFDM model, we use a discrete-time OFDM
model. The discrete-time OFDM model is more relevant from
an implementation perspective, as it enables the efficient
utilization of FFT/IFFTs for the generation and processing
of the OFDM waveform. Also, [24] does not consider a CP,
Fig. 1. Block diagram of OFDM receiver.
but rather just uses a guard time between consecutive OFDM
symbols with no actual transmission. With this model, the
possible ISI from a future OFDM symbol that an OFDM duration is Tf  NT Tc , where Tc is the symbol duration prior
system using an actual CP is subject to is not accounted for in to the OFDM modulation. Finally, Πs [k/NT ] is the shifted
[24]. In this paper, we model an actual CP and, therefore, are rectangular function with unit amplitude and spanning the
able to quantify the ISI from the next OFDM symbol, which interval k ∈ [0, NT − 1].
would be incurred with a positive timing error. The transmitter gives an analog support to the discrete-time
Our system model also accounts for transmit and receive signal u[n, k] by way of a digital-to-analog conversion (DAC)
filtering operations, which are important as they entail an or pulse shaping filter that we denote by htx (t), yielding
increase of the effective channel delay spread. Further, we
T −1
 N
study the performance sensitivity to various types of data
xlp (t) = u[n, k]htx (t − kTc − nTf ), (2)
detection algorithms with imperfections.
n k
We specialize the generic analysis to conducting sensitivity
analyses against various system parameters and/or imperfec- which will be up-converted to the carrier frequency, f0 . Note
tion levels for UWB channel models. We show BER perfor- that we will denote the locally generated carrier frequency at
mance as a function of CP duration for various types of fading the OFDM transmitter by fˆ0 .
environments, and also show BER performance as a function The channel lowpass
P −1equivalent’s impulse response is de-
of residual time and frequency errors. noted by hchlp (t)  p=0 λp ·δ(t−Dp ), where P is the number
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section II, of multi-path components and {λp } represents the taps of the
first we present the system model, and then we characterize channel’s lowpass equivalent. The channel is considered to
the DFT output at the OFDM receiver for the most general be slowly varying and, therefore, constant during an OFDM
case of ICI and ISI. Section III covers data demodulation symbol duration. The lowpass equivalent of the channel noise,
for several different detection criteria and characterizes the nlp (t), is assumed to be complex circular white Gaussian
SINR at the data demodulator output. Section IV presents (AWGN) with zero mean and two-sided PSD N0 .
performance results comparing analysis, simulations, and a
Gaussian approximation of the interference terms. The paper B. OFDM Receiver
finishes with some concluding remarks in Section V. Figure 1 is a block diagram of the OFDM receiver. The re-
ceiver performs, first, passband filtering and down-conversion
II. OFDM S YSTEM M ODEL to baseband using the locally generated carrier frequency
ˆ
A. OFDM Transmitter and Channel denoted by fˆ0 . The CP is discarded and then a DFT is
performed.
The discrete-time OFDM transmit waveform at baseband is
After receive filtering and down-conversion, the signal part
given by
of the incoming signal may be written as
1 
N/2−1
k
u[n, k] = √ s[n, m] · ej2πm(k−CP )/N · Πs [ ]
RxF
ysignal (t) = {(xlp (t) ∗ hch
lp (t)) · e
j2πΔf t
} ∗hrx (t), (3)
N NT   
m=−N/2 Ξ(t)
(1)
where N is the number of subcarriers, CP is the duration where ‘∗’ represents convolution and we have introduced the
ˆ
in samples of the CP, NT  (N + CP ), and s[n, m] are frequency error Δf  (fˆ0 − fˆ0 ).
the information symbols, in general complex. The index n Using (2), we can write Ξ(t), defined in (3), as
is used as a time index and refers to a particular OFDM Ξ(t) = ej2πΔf t
symbol, the index m is used as a subcarrier index within the T −1
 N
OFDM symbol, and the index k is used as a time index for · u[n, k] · (hch
lp (t) ∗ h (t − kTc − nTf )) (4)
tx
samples within a given OFDM block. The OFDM symbol n k=0   
duration in seconds is T  N Tc , and the OFDM block htx−ch
lp (t−kTc −nTf )

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2062 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 7, JULY 2009

where we have introduced htx−chlp (t)  hch lp (t) ∗ h (t) as

tx
Therefore, sampling at 1/Tc Hz, with a transmit/receive timing
the convolution of the channel impulse response, hlp (t), and
ch error τ , yields

the transmit pulse shape filter or DAC, htx (t). Now, we can Tf +k Tc +τ )
y RxF [n , k ]  y RxF (t)|t=n Tf +k Tc +τ = ej2πΔf (n
manipulate (3) to yield T −1
 N
T −1  ∞ · u[n, k] · h((n − n)Tf + (k − k)Tc + τ )
 N
ysignal (t) = e
RxF j2πΔf t
u[n, k] · hrx (u) n k=0

n k=0 −∞ +ynoise
RxF
(n Tf + k Tc + τ ) (9)
−j2πΔf u 
·e · htx−ch
lp (t − u − kTc − nTf ) · du. (5) where k ∈ [0, NT − 1]. Note that we use again the dis-
crete representation of signals with two arguments, n and
Given that the receive filter has a bandwidth on the k, representing time indexing OFDM blocks and samples
order of N/T = 1/Tc = BWsignal , then the relevant therein, respectively. Since the time span of the effective
range for u in (5) is |u| ≤ ϑTc , where ϑ is an in- channel impulse response, h(t), is, by design, much smaller
teger number meant to capture the number of Tc inter- than the OFDM block duration, when receiving the OFDM
∞
vals so that −∞ hrx (u)e−j2πΔf u htx−ch (t − u − kTc − block with index n , only three blocks can contribute to the
ϑTc rx lp
∼
nTf )du = −ϑTc h (u)e −j2πΔf u tx−ch
hlp (t − u − kTc − final test statistic. These are the block with index n itself,
nTf )du. Looking at the product (Δf u), we see that the block preceding it and the block following it. Therefore,
(Δf ϑTc ) = (Δf ϑ/BWsignal ). Since, for all practical pur- the summation in n above is only relevant for the values
poses, BWsignal >> (Δf ϑ), we have (Δf ϑ)/BWsignal << n = n , n = (n − 1), n = (n + 1), and hence
1, and thus e−j2πΔf u ∼= 1 for the values of u that are relevant RxF,(n) RxF,(n−1)
y RxF [n, k] = ysignal [n, k] + ysignal [n, k]
to the integral. Note that the same approximation is made in
RxF,(n+1)
[7]. Therefore, +ysignal [n, k] + ynoise
RxF
[n, k] (10)
T −1
 N where we have defined
RxF
ysignal (t) ∼
= ej2πΔf t u[n, k]
ysignal [n, k]  ej2πΔf (nTf +kTc +τ )
RxF,(n)
n
 ∞
k=0
T −1
N
hrx (u) · htx−ch
lp (t − u − kTc − nTf ) · du (6) · u[n, ξ] · h((k − ξ)Tc + τ ), (11)
−∞
   ξ=0
h(t−kTc −nTf )
[n, k]  ej2πΔf (nTf +kTc +τ )
RxF,(n−1)
where we have introduced the effective channel impulse ysignal
response (incorporating the transmit and receive filtering op- T −1
N

erations), defined as h(t)  hrx (t) ∗ htx−ch (t) = hrx (t) ∗ · u[n − 1, ξ] · h(Tf + (k − ξ)Tc + τ ) (12)
lp
hlp (t) ∗ h (t).
ch tx ξ=0

Similarly, the noise component at the output of the front-end and

receive filter, ynoise
RxF
(t) , may be written as RxF,(n+1)
ysignal [n, k]  ej2πΔf (nTf +kTc +τ )
RxF
ynoise (t) = {nlp (t) ∗ ej2πΔf t } ∗ hrx (t) T −1
N
 ∞ · u[n + 1, ξ] · h(−Tf + (k − ξ)Tc + τ ) (13)
∼
=e j2πΔf t
hrx (u) · nlp (t − u) · du. (7) ξ=0
−∞
RxF,(n)
Note that ysignal [n, k] contains the contribution of the cur-
Note that, since nlp (t) is complex circular white Gaussian
rent OFDM symbol after sampling and before discarding the
noise, the rotating phasor ej2πΔf t will not change the statistics RxF,(n−1) RxF,(n−1)
of the noise and therefore can be dropped from the analysis. CP. The terms ysignal [n, k] and ysignal [n, k] consti-
tute the ISI after sampling and before discarding the CP from
We denote the overall waveform after receive filtering and
down-conversion by y RxF (t)  ysignal
RxF
(t) + ynoise
RxF
(t). This the previous and next OFDM symbol, respectively.
The sampled noise is given by
signal is sampled at a rate 1/Tc = N/T Hz. If the effective
channel impulse response, h(t), spans the continuous time RxF
ynoise [n, k] = ynoise
RxF
(nTf + kTc + τ ) (14)
interval [Dmin , Dmax ], then its sampled version, h(kTc ), where all the terms in (11)-(14) are valid for k = 0 . . . (NT −
spans the sample interval [Dmin /Tc , Dmax /Tc
]. Consid- 1).
ering a possible transmit/receive timing error, τ , the signal Keeping track of the sample span of u[n, k] and h(kTc +τ ),
h(t + τ ) spans the time interval [Dmin − τ, Dmax − τ ] and (11)-(13), may be re-written as
its sampled version, h(kTc + τ ), spans the sample interval
ysignal [n, k] = ej2πΔf (nTf +kTc +τ )
RxF,(n)
[(Dmin − τ )/Tc , (Dmax − τ )/Tc
]. Note that, in general,
⎧ k
the transmit/receive timing error, τ , is much smaller than the ⎪
⎪
⎪ ν=LL u[n, k − ν] · h(νTc + τ ),
channel delay spread, therefore, τ << Dmax . Let us denote ⎪
⎪ for k = max(0, LL ) . . . LU − 1
⎪
⎪
the sample interval limits for the effective channel impulse ⎨ L U
· ν=LL u[n, k − ν] · h(νTc + τ ), (15)
response LL for the lower limit and LU for the upper limit,
⎪
⎪ for k = LU . . . min(NT + LL − 1, NT − 1)
i.e., ⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪
LU
ν=k−(NT −1) u[n, k − ν] · h(νTc + τ ),
⎪
⎩
LL  (Dmin − τ )/Tc  and LU  (Dmax − τ )/Tc
. (8) for k = NT + LL . . . NT − 1 and if LL < 0

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 MONTOJO and MILSTEIN: EFFECTS OF IMPERFECTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF OFDM SYSTEMS 2063

can be identified to be

αn 
N/2−1
[n, k] = ej2πΔf (nTf +kTc +τ )
RxF,(n−1) CP,(n−1)
ysignal ysignal [n, k] = √ s[n − 1, m] · ej2πmCP/N
⎧ LU N
ν=LL u[n − 1, k − ν + NT ]h(νTc + τ ),
m=−N/2
⎪
⎪
⎨ 
LU
for k = 0 . . . LL − 1 if LL > 0
· LU (16) ·ej2π(m+Δf )k/N h(νTc + τ )e−j2πmν/N (19)
⎪
⎪ ν=k+1 u[n − 1, k − ν + NT ]h(νTc + τ ),
⎩ ν=k+CP +1
for k = max(0, LL ) . . . LU − 1
which is non-zero only if LU > CP and applies for k =
and 0 . . . (LU − CP − 1), and

αn 
N/2−1
[n, k] = ej2πΔf (nTf +kTc +τ ) s[n + 1, m] · e−j2πmCP/N
RxF,(n+1) CP,(n+1)
ysignal ysignal [n, k] = √
N

k−N m=−N/2
· u[n + 1, k − ν − NT ] · h(νTc + τ ) (17) 
k−N
ν=LL ·ej2π(m+Δf)k/N h(νTc + τ )e−j2πmν/N , (20)
ν=LL
for k = NT + LL . . . NT − 1 if LL < 0. which is non-zero only if LL < 0 and applies for k = (N +
The expressions in (15)-(17) show the non-zero contribu- LL ) . . . (N − 1), respectively.
tions of the different terms at each sample point within the The noise term, after discarding the CP, becomes
OFDM symbol (index k). Note that a non-zero contribution
of (17), which is the term representing the ISI from the
CP
ynoise [n, k] = ynoise
RxF
[n, k + CP ] for k = 0 . . . (N − 1). (21)
next OFDM symbol, requires LL < 0. This is equivalent to
Therefore, the overall DFT input is y CP [n, k] =
τ ≥ (Dmin + Tc ) and hence a "late sampling". We will see CP,(n) CP,(n−1) CP,(n+1)
ysignal [n, k]+ysignal [n, k]+ysignal [n, k]+ynoise
CP
[n, k],
now how some of the contributions in (16), which is the term
and we define the DFT output to be
representing ISI from the previous OFDM symbol, vanish after
discarding the CP. N −1
1  CP
After discarding the CP, we obtain the following signal- y DF T [n, l] = √ y [n, k] · e−j2πlk/N , (22)
N k=0
dependent term depending on the current OFDM symbol:
for l = −N/2 . . . (N/2 − 1). Since the DFT is a linear
CP,(n)
ysignal [n, k] = (18) operation, we may characterize the DFT output y DF T [n, l]
⎧ α N/2−1 j2π(m+Δf )k/N
in terms of the DFTs of each of the terms in y CP [n, k]. Using
⎪ m=−N/2 s[n, m] · e
√n
⎪
⎪ 
N the same notation as before, the DFT output dependent on the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
k+CP
· ν=L h(νTc + τ ) · e−j2πmν/N , for k = 0... current OFDM symbol is given by
⎪
⎪
L
⎪
⎪ (LU − CP − 1) if LU > CP
⎪
⎨ N/2−1 j2π(m+Δf )k/N αn 
N/2−1

m=−N/2 s[n, m] · e
DF T,(n)
αn
√ H(m), ysignal [n, l] = s[n, m]·
N N
⎪
⎪ for k = max(0, LU ) . . . min(N + LL − 1, N − 1) m=−N/2
⎪
⎪ N/2−1
⎪
⎪ j2π(m+Δf )k/N if LU >CP
m=−N/2 s[n, m] · e
αn
⎪ √   
⎪
⎪ N
 LU −CP −1
⎪
⎪ LU
· ν=k−(N h(νTc + τ ) · e−j2πmν/N , for k =  
k+CP
⎪
⎩ T −1) e j2π(Δf +m−l)k/N
h(νTc + τ ) · e−j2πmν/N
(N + LL ) . . . (N − 1) and if LL < 0 k=0 ν=LL
min(N−1,N+LL −1)

where we have defined αn  ej2πΔf (nTf +CP ·Tc +τ ) , the + ej2π(Δf +m−l)k/N H(m)+ (23)
k=max(0,LU −CP )
normalized frequency error as Δf  Δf /(1/T ), which is the
residual frequency error normalized by the subcarrier 
N−1 
LU 
 U spacing, ej2π(Δf +m−l)k/N h(νTc + τ ) · e−j2πmν/N
and the channel frequency response H(m)  L i=LL h(τ + k=N+LL ν=k−(N−1)
−j2πmi/N
iTc )e . Note that the first term in (18) is non-zero if   
if LL <0
LU > CP , or, equivalently, if (Dmax − τ ) > (CP · Tc ). This
is the condition for ISI from the previous OFDM symbol after The DFT output that depends on the previous OFDM symbol
discarding the CP as can be seen from realizing that it is the is nonzero if the CP duration is smaller than the channel delay
condition for the term (19) to be non-zero. Similarly, the last spread minus the timing error, i.e., if CP < LU , in which case
term in (18) is non-zero if LL < 0, which is equivalent to
αn 
N/2−1
τ ≥ (Dmin + Tc ), as seen before. This is the condition for ISI DF T,(n−1)
ysignal [n, l] = s[n − 1, m] · ej2πm·CP /N (24)
from the next OFDM symbol, as can be seen from realizing N
m=−N/2
that is the condition for the term (20) to be non-zero. Further, LU −CP −1
 
LU

note that discarding the CP does not remove the contribution · ej2π(Δf +m−l)k/N h(νTc + τ )e−j2πmν/N .
from the next OFDM symbol. k=0 ν=k+CP +1

Similarly, the signal-dependent terms depending on the The DFT output depending on the next OFDM symbol is
previous and next OFDM symbols after discarding the CP nonzero if the timing error, τ ≥ (Dmin + Tc ) , in which

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2064 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 7, JULY 2009

case where we can clearly identify the ICI and ISI terms at the

N/2−1 DFT output.
αn
s[n + 1, m] · e−j2πm·CP/N
DF T,(n+1)
ysignal [n, l] = For the data detection process, it is convenient to put
N (32) in matrix form. Matrices are represented by boldface
m=−N/2


N −1 
k−N capital letters, e.g., A, and vectors are represented by boldface
· ej2π(Δf +m−l)k/N h(νTc + τ )e−j2πmν/N (.25) lowercase letters, e.g., v. Therefore, we define the matrices
k=N +LL ν=LL
Ψx  [ζx [l, m]]m,l=−N/2,...,(N/2−1) (33)
The noise component at the DFT output may be written as
N −1
1  CP with x = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note that, from (32), Ψ1 is non-zero
DF T
ynoise [n, l] = √ ynoise [n, k] · e−j2πlk/N (26) only if there is ISI from the previous OFDM symbol, Ψ2 is
N k=0
the matrix characterizing the useful signal term as well as the
where ynoise
CP
[n, k] is defined in (21). To shorten notation, we ICI term due to frequency error, and Ψ3 is non-zero only if
can define the following variables: there is ISI from the next OFDM symbol. Further, note that
(LU −CP −1) Ψ4 and Ψ5 fully characterize the ISI from the previous and

ζ1 (l, m)  e−j2π(l−Δf −m)k/N next OFDM symbol, respectively. With the matrices defined
k=0
in (33), we can write (32) in matrix form as follows:
(k+CP )
 A(n) Apre (n)
· h(τ + iTc )e−j2πmi/N (27)      
αn αn
i=LL ysignal (n) =
DF T
(Ψ1 + Ψ2 + Ψ3 ) ·s(n) + Ψ4 ·s(n − 1)
N N
αn
ζ2 (l, m)  H(m) + Ψ5 ·s(n + 1) (34)
min(N +LL −1,N −1)
N 
 Anext (n)
· e−j2π(l−Δf −m)k/N (28)
k=max(LU −CP,0) where s(n), s(n − 1) and s(n + 1) are column vectors of
length N with information symbols at the nth , (n − 1)th and
 −1
N
(n + 1)th OFDM symbols, respectively, and where we have
ζ3 (l, m)  e−j2π(l−Δf −m)k/N defined the channel state information matrices, A(n), Apre (n)
k=N +LL and Anext (n). Note that there is no “time” dependency in

LU
either ζx (l, m) or Ψx because we assume a particular channel
· h(τ + iTc)e−j2πmi/N (29) realization that remains constant over the OFDM symbol
i=k−N +1
duration. This condition requires a channel coherence time
(LU −CP −1) Tcoh >> T or, equivalently, 1/Tcoh << 1/T , which means

ζ4 (l, m)  ej2πmCP/N e−j2π(l−Δf −m)k/N that the subcarrier spacing (1/T ) is much greater than the
k=0
Doppler spread (1/Tcoh ∼ = fd ). The time dependency in the

LU newly defined matrices A(n), Apre (n) and Anext (n) comes
· h(τ + iTc )e−j2πmi/N (30) from the time-varying phasor αn and we will drop it from the
i=k+CP +1 development to shorten notation.
Overall, at the DFT output, we have

N −1
ζ5 (l, m)  e−j2πmCP/N e−j2π(l−Δf −m)k/N yDF T (n) = As(n) +
k=N +LL
  
DT F
yusef ul and ICI (n)

k−N
· h(τ + iTc )e−j2πmi/N (31) Apre s(n − 1) + Anext s(n + 1) + w(n) (35)
     
i=LL DT F (n)
yISI DT F (n)
ynoise
Therefore, the signal-dependent output of the DFT may be
written as When there is no ISI, the expression in (35) reduces to
if LU >CP yDF T (n) = A · s(n) + w(n). The condition for no ISI
αn 
N/2−1     can be seen from observation of the terms in (32), i.e.,
DF T,(n)
ysignal [n, l] = s[n, m] ζ1 (l, m) (32)
N LU ≤ CP and LL ≥ 0. For this case, the matrix Ψ2 is
m=−N/2
the only non-zero matrix, and the term ζ2 (l, m) takes the
if LU >CP N −1
   form ζ2 (l, m) = H(m) k=0 e−j2π(l−Δf −m)k/N . Therefore,
if LL <0
    α 
N/2−1 the matrix Ψ2 canbe written as Ψ2 = Δ · DH , where
n N −1
+ζ2 (l, m) + ζ3 (l, m) + s[n − 1, m] · ζ4 (l, m) Δm+N/2,l+N/2  k=0 ej2π(l−Δf −m)k/N , and
N
m=−N/2 ⎡ ⎤
H(−N/2) 0 ··· 0
αn 
N/2−1
⎢ ⎥
+ s[n + 1, m] · ζ5 (l, m) ⎢ 0 H(−N/2 + 1) · · · 0 ⎥
N DH  ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
m=−N/2 ⎣ . . ··· . ⎦
  
if LL <0 0 0 · · · H(N/2 − 1)

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 MONTOJO and MILSTEIN: EFFECTS OF IMPERFECTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF OFDM SYSTEMS 2065

Since Δ is circulant, it can be shown that it can be decom- of different OFDM symbols, and hence, independence among
posed as Δ = N F · Mφ · FH , where the ICI and the two possible ISI terms.
⎡ ⎤ Defining Rs (n)  E{s(n)sH (n)} and Rw (n) 
1 0 ··· 0
⎢ 0 ej2πΔf /N · · · ⎥ E{w(n)wH (n)}, we can express the SINR of the lth sub-
⎢ 0 ⎥
Mφ  ⎢ . ⎥ carrier at the data detector output as
.. .. ..
⎣ .. . . . ⎦
|[B]l,l |2 E{|s(n, l)|2 }
0 0 · · · ej2πΔf (N −1)/N γ(n, l)  , (44)
d2 (n, l)
and F is the Fourier matrix of size N × N . As a result, for
where
the ISI-free case,
αn d2 (n, l)  [BRs (n)BH ]l,l − 2{[BRs (n)]l,l [BH ]l,l }
yDF T (n)  · Δ · DH · s(n) + w(n). (36)
N +|[B]l,l |2 E{|s(n, l)|2 } + [Bpre Rs (n − 1)BH
pre ]l,l
Further, if there is no residual frequency error, the matrix Δ
+[Bnext Rs (n + 1)BH
next ]l,l + [MRw (n)M ]l,l
H
(45)
becomes the identity matrix multiplied by N and αn = 1.
Therefore, (36) becomes Note that the expressions in (44) and (45) are valid for any
y DF T
(n)  DH · s(n) + w(n) (37) linear receiver, and will be specialized below for different
receiver criteria.
which is the traditional set of N parallel flat fading channels 2
For the special case of white noise, i.e., Rw (n) = σw IN
that OFDM systems are regularly associated with. and Rs (n) = Rs (n − 1) = Rs (n + 1) = IN , (44) takes the
following form:
III. DATA D ETECTION
|[B]l,l |2
We assume linear processing at the receiver, so that γ(n, l)  (46)
d3 (n, l)
z(n) = M · yDF T (n) (38) with
where the matrix M will take different forms depending on
d3 (n, l)  [BBH ]l,l − |[B]l,l |2 + [Bpre BH
pre ]l,l
the data detector type. Applying (35) to (38) yields 2
+[Bnext BH
next ]l,l + σw [MM ]l,l
H
(47)
z(n) = MAs(n) + MApres(n − 1) + MAnext s(n + 1) + Mw(n)
(39)
Denoting B  MA, Bpre  MApre and Bnext  MAnext , A. Data Detection with Single-Tap Equalizer (ST)
we can re-write (39) as
For the ST receiver, the detection operation is given by
z(n) = Bs(n) + Bpre s(n − 1) + Bnext s(n + 1) + Mw(n),
(40) zST (n) = Diag(AH )yDF T (n) (48)
which we can express as z(n) = zsignal (n) + w (n), and Note that this receiver does not attempt to equalize the
where zsignal (n)  Bs(n)+Bpre s(n−1)+Bnexts(n+1) and received signal and only the useful part of the received
w (n)  Mw(n). Clearly, the first summand in (40) contains signal, i.e., Diag(A), is considered, while ignoring the ICI,
the desired term as well as the ICI term, and therefore we can ISI and noise terms. For this case, B = Diag(AH )A,
re-write it as Bpre = Diag(AH )Apre and Bnext = Diag(AH )Anext , and
z(n) = Diag(B)s(n) + Diag(B)s(n) + Bpre s(n − 1) (44) and (45) take the following forms, respectively:
+Bnext s(n + 1) + Mw(n) (41) |[Diag(AH )A]l,l |2 E{|s(n, l)|2 }
γST (n, l)  , (49)
where Diag(A) represents a diagonal matrix containing only dST (n, l)
the diagonal elements of the matrix A and Diag(A) =
A−Diag(A) represents a matrix with zero diagonal elements dST (n, l)  [Diag(AH )ARs (n)AH Diag(A)]l,l (50)
containing all but the diagonal elements of A. −2{[Diag(AH )ARs (n)]l,l [AH Diag(A)]l,l }
By inspection of (41), we can obtain the SINR of the lth
+|[Diag(AH )A]l,l |2 E{|s(n, l)|2 }
subcarrier at the data detector output as
+[Diag(AH )Apre Rs (n − 1)AH pre A)]l,l
E{|[Diag(B)s(n)]l |2 }
γ(n, l)  (42) +[Diag(AH )Anext Rs (n + 1)AH
next A)]l,l
d1 (n, l)
+[MRw (n)MH ]l,l
where
d1 (n, l)  E{|[Diag(B)s(n)]l |2 } + E{|[Bpre s(n − 1)]l |2 }
B. Data Detection with Zero-Forcing Equalizer (ZF)
+E{|[Bnext s(n + 1)]l |2 } + E{|[Mw(n)]l |2 } (43)
For the ZF receiver, the detection operation is given by
and where the expectations are done over the random noise and 
the random information symbols. Note that we have assumed zZF (n)  Rs (n)AH ARs (n)AH + Apre Rs (n − 1)AH pre
independence between the noise and the signal terms, and −1
we have assumed independence of the modulation symbols +Anext Rs (n + 1)AH next · yDF T (n) (51)

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2066 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 7, JULY 2009

This receiver attempts to suppress the signal-dependent inter- IV. P ERFORMANCE C HARACTERIZATION
ference, i.e., ICI and ISI. Assuming Rs (n) = Rs (n − 1) =
Rs (n + 1) = IN , (51) becomes Let us express the detector output for the lth subcarrier from
(40) as
 −1
zZF (n)  AH AAH + Apre AH pre + Anext Anext
H

N/2−1

·yDF T (n). (52) z(n, l) = [B]l,l · s(n, l) + [B]l,m · s(n, m)

m=−N/2,m=l
A variant to this ZF detector is given by 
N/2−1

N/2−1

−1 + [M]l,m · w(n, m) + [Bpre ]l,m · s(n − 1, m)

zmodif ied ZF (n)  (A A) H
A yH DF T
(n) (53) m=−N/2 m=−N/2

This receiver attempts to suppress the ICI interference, while 

N/2−1
+ [Bnext ]l,m · s(n + 1, m). (58)
ignoring the ISI and the noise terms. We denote this re-
m=−N/2
ceiver by “modified ZF”, and we have assumed independent
modulation symbols of unit energy, i.e., Rs (n) = Rs (n − Denote the modulation symbols contributing to ICI in the
1) = Rs (n + 1) = IN . For this case, B = IN (perfect detection of the lth subcarrier by sl (n). Assuming BPSK
suppression of ICI), Bpre = (AH A)−1 AH Apre and Bnext = modulation with equal probability of s(n, l) = +1 and
(AH A)−1 AH Anext , and (44), (45) take the following forms, s(n, l) = −1, we can assume that s(n, l) = +1 without loss
respectively: of generality, to yield
E{|s(n, l)|2 } 
N/2−1
γmodif ied ZF (n, l)  , (54)
dmodif ied ZF (n, l) z(n, l) = [B]l,l + [B]l,m · s(n, m)
m=−N/2,m=l
dmodif ied ZF (n, l)  [(AH A)−1 AH Apre AH
pre A(A A)
H −1
]l,l
+[(A A) −1 H
A Anext AH −1 
N/2−1
next A(A A) ]l,l
H H

−1 −1
+ [Bpre ]l,m · s(n − 1, m)
+[(A A)
H
A Rw A(A A)
H H
]l,l (55) m=−N/2


N/2−1

For the ISI-free case, A = αn /N ΔDH , as can + [Bnext ]l,m · s(n + 1, m) + w (n, l) (59)
be seen from Equation (36), and therefore AH A = m=−N/2

1/N 2 DH H ΔH ΔDH . Using the expression for Δ derived in which constitutes the test statistic for a given receiver. Defining
Section II, we can further simplify AH A to yield AH A = the signal amplitude as
DH H F(Mφ )H FH FMφ FH DH = DH H DH , and therefore
AH A = (56) αRxT
(n,l)
ype
(A, Apre , Anext , sl (n), s(n − 1), s(n + 1))  [[B]l,l
⎡ ⎤
|H(−N/2)|2 0 ··· 0 
N/2−1
⎢ 0 |H(−N/2 + 1)|2 ··· 0 ⎥ + [B]l,m · s(n, m) (60)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥.
⎣ . . . . ⎦ m=−N/2,m=l

0 0 ··· |H(N/2 − 1)|2 

N/2−1
+ [[Bpre ]l,m · s(n − 1, m) + [Bnext ]l,m · s(n + 1, m)],
As a result, for the ISI-free case with the modified ZF m=−N/2
detector, (54) reduces to
for BPSK modulation, conditioned on the channel,
E{|s(n, l − N/2)|2 } A, Apre , Anext , the ICI, sl (n), and the ISI, s(n−1), s(n+1),
γmodified ZF-ISI free (n, l) =
[(AH A)−1 AH Rw A(AH A)−1 ]l,l the BER is given by
2
which for white noise case, i.e., Rw = σw IN , becomes
(n,l) (error|A, Apre , Anext , sl (n), s(n − 1), s(n + 1))
pBP SK
  
γmodified ZF-ISI free, white noise (n, l) = Q αRxT ype
(·) 2/σ 2 (n, l) . (61)
(n,l) w
|H(l − N/2)|2 · E{|s(n, l − N/2)|2 }
= 2
.
σw
where we use αRxT
n,l
ype
(·) to represent
RxT ype
αn,l (A, Apre , Anext , sl (n), s(n − 1), s(n + 1)).
C. Data Detection with Minimum-Mean-Square-Error Equal-
izer (MMSE) The vector sl (n) can take 2N −1 different values, while the
vectors s(n − 1) and s(n + 1) can take 2N different values.
For the MMSE receiver, the detection operation is given by Hence, we can average the BER in (61) over these to yield

zM M SE (n)  Rs (n)AH ARs (n)AH + Apre Rs (n − 1)AH
(n,l) (error|A, Apre , Anext )
pBP SK
pre
(62)
−1
+Anext Rs (n + 1)AH 2N
−1 N N   
next + Rw · yDF T (n) (57) −1 2 −1 2 −1
1 2
= Q αRxT
(n,l)
ype
(·) 2/σw  (n, l) .
23N−1
This receiver attempts to jointly minimize the ICI, ISI and in =0 in−1 =0 in+1 =0

noise contributions.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 MONTOJO and MILSTEIN: EFFECTS OF IMPERFECTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF OFDM SYSTEMS 2067

0
10 CM1 ensemble performance
0
10
CP0
CP16
CP32
CP48
−1
10
−1
10
BER

BER
−2
10

−2
10 Test stat − no ISI. Eq. (63)
Gauss. approx − no ISI
Simulated − no ISI 10
−3

Test stat − ISI. Eq. (63)

Gauss. approx − ISI
Simulated − ISI
−3
10 −4
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 10
SNR(dB) −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SNR (dB)

Fig. 2. BER performance using test statistic, simulation and Gaussian

approximation of ICI and ISI. Fig. 3. BER sensitivity to CP duration for CM1.

CM2 ensemble performance

0
10
We can further average the BER across subcarriers yielding CP0
CP16
pBP
n
SK
(error|A, Apre , Anext ) CP32
CP48

−1
N/2−1 10 CP64
1
= (n,l) (error|A, Apre , Anext ).
pBP SK
(63)
N
l=−N/2
BER

Figure 2 shows
the average BER, 10
−2

pBP
n
SK
(error|A, Apre , Anext ) for two channel realizations,
one incurring ISI and the other not incurring ISI. A residual
frequency error of 5% of the subcarrier frequency spacing −3
10
producing ICI is assumed in both cases. We further assume
perfect timing, i.e., τ = 0, and data detection using the ST
receiver. The average BER is obtained from the test statistics
(Equation (63)), from simulations and from approximating 10
−4

the interference component of the final test statistic as a
Gaussian random variable. The BER assuming Gaussian
interference
√ uses the SINR expressions in Section III and
pe = Q( 2γ) is plotted. Note that the number of subcarriers
for the channel realization not incurring ISI was chosen to
be N=16, and for the channel realization incurring ISI was
chosen to be N=8. Further, note that, despite the low value
of N chosen, the Gaussian approximation, as also found in
[8], provides a good match with simulations and the exact
prediction using the test statistic, and therefore, will be used
in the sequel.
Similar to other studies [8][12][17] for certain channel
models, Figures 3-6 show the sensitivity to the CP duration
of an ensemble of 1000 channel realizations for the UWB
channel models CM1, CM2, CM3, and CM4 defined in
[25]. CM1 is based on (0-4m) line-of-sight (LOS) channel
measurements with a root-mean-square (RMS) delay spread
of 5ns. CM2 is based on (0-4m) non-line-of-sight (NLOS)
channel measurements with an RMS delay spread of 8ns. CM3
is based on (4-10m) NLOS channel measurements with an
RMS delay spread of 15ns. Finally, CM4 was generated to fit
a 25ns RMS delay spread.
All the results assume a system with a subcarrier spacing of
4.125MHz, N=128 subcarriers [1], and a Nyquist filter with
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SNR (dB)
Fig. 4. BER sensitivity to CP duration for CM2.
0% roll-off and bandwidth 528MHz. Note that CP durations of
0, 16, 32, 48, 64, and 80 samples constitute 0%, 11.11%, 20%,
27.27%, 33.33%, and 38.46% fixed overhead. The results
shown in Figures 3-6 assume perfect time and frequency
synchronization, an ST receiver, and result from averaging
the performance over 1000 channel realizations. Note that for
each of the channel models, at some point a longer CP does
not improve the performance; this is the point where the ISI
is not significant.
Figure 7 shows the sensitivity to frequency errors for a given
CM1 channel realization. The results are obtained assuming a
system with N=128, 20% CP overhead, perfect time synchro-
nization, a Nyquist filter with 0% roll-off and a bandwidth of
528MHz, and an ST receiver. This figure contains analytical
(distinguished by lines with inserted characters, e.g., ’-*-’)
and simulation based (distinguished by just characters, e.g.,
’*’) results for frequency errors ranging from 0 to 5% of the
subcarrier frequency spacing. Assuming a ±20ppm frequency
tolerance at the transmitter and at the receiver, the maximum

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2068 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 7, JULY 2009

CM3 ensemble performance Sensitivity to frequency error

0 0
10 10
CP0 Δf = 0
CP16
10
−1 Δf = 1%
CP32 Δf = 3%
CP48
−1 −2
Δf = 5%
10 CP64 10

−3
10
BER

BER
−2 −4
10 10

−5
10

−3 −6
10 10

−7
10

−4 −8
10 10
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SNR (dB) SNR (dB)

Fig. 5. BER sensitivity to CP duration for CM3. Fig. 7. BER sensitivity to residual frequency error (analysis and simulation).

CM4 ensemble performance Sensitivity to timing error

0 0
10 10

−1
10

−1 −2
10 10

−3
10
BER

BER

−2 −4
10 10
τ=0
10
−5 τ = −10T
CP0 c

CP16 τ = 4T
c
−3 −6
10 CP32 10 τ = 8T
c
CP48
τ = 12T
CP64 10
−7 c
CP80 τ = 16T
c
−4 −8
10 10
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SNR (dB) SNR (dB)

Fig. 6. BER sensitivity to CP duration for CM4. Fig. 8. BER sensitivity to timing error (analysis and simulation).

frequency error incurred would be ±40ppm, which for a 5GHz
carrier frequency and 4.125MHz subcarrier spacing equates
to a frequency error of 5% of the subcarrier spacing. Note
that the frequency error in actual systems would typically be
compensated by some frequency compensation mechanism,
so that these results show the performance at different levels
of residual frequency error. From the results, we can see a
graceful performance degradation as frequency errors increase.
Figure 8 shows the sensitivity to timing errors for a given
CM1 channel realization. The same assumptions as for the
results in Figure 7 are made, with the exception that now we
assume perfect frequency synchronization in order to concen-
trate on the performance impact of varying the transmit/receive
timing error, τ . A positive value of τ means that the OFDM
symbol boundary at the receiver is late with respect to the
actual symbol boundary, and therefore inevitably there will
be ISI from the next OFDM symbol. A negative value of τ
advances the OFDM symbol boundary, but since the CP is
preceding the OFDM symbol, the actual effect is equivalent
to that of a shortened CP. Unlike the frequency errors, the
performance degradation for a positive timing error may be
quite abrupt, as seen in Figure 8. The performance degradation
of a negative timing error is much more graceful, as it is
equivalent to a shortened CP. Figure 9 illustrates this fact
graphically, showing the impact of timing error as it affects
ISI.
Figure 10 shows the sensitivity to the data detection cri-
terion (receiver type) for a given CM4 channel realization
incurring ISI. We keep the same hypothesis as for Figures
7 and 8 in terms of number of subcarriers, subcarrier spacing,
filtering, and CP overhead. The results shown assume a 1%
frequency error. However, the interference is dominated by
the ISI/ICI incurred from a channel delay spread larger than
the CP duration. We compare the BER for the data detection
criteria presented in Section III. The receiver type 1 (ST)
ignores the ICI, ISI and noise terms, however, there is no
interference or noise enhancement at the detector output. The
receiver type 2 (ZF) tries to minimize the signal-dependent

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 MONTOJO and MILSTEIN: EFFECTS OF IMPERFECTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF OFDM SYSTEMS
Fig. 9. ISI impact of transmit/receive timing error.
Sensitivity to Receiver type
10
0
10
−1
BER
−2
10
−3
10
−10 −5 0 5 10 15
SNR (dB)
Fig. 10. Receiver type sensitivity (analysis and simulation).
interference, while ignoring the noise term. As we can see,
the performance at high SNR matches that of receiver type 4
(MMSE). The receiver type 3 (modified ZF accounting for ICI
only) cancels perfectly the ICI, but ignores the ISI and noise
terms, and hence enhances their impact. The net effect is a
performance close to that of the single tap equalizer receiver
which does not attempt to suppress ICI or ISI. The receiver
type 4 (MMSE) takes into account the statistics of the ICI,
ISI and noise, and achieves the best noise-and-interference
suppression. This receiver requires, in addition to the channel
state information, knowledge of the noise and interference
statistics. However, adaptive techniques such as LMS or RLS
implementations can be used without the need of an explicit
characterization of the noise and interference statistics.
V. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
An OFDM model thoroughly characterizing the ISI and ICI
terms has been presented. Different data detectors have been
formulated, and performance comparisons were presented.
Section IV specialized the model to UWB systems, and results
in Section III were used to characterize the sensitivity of
an OFDM-based UWB system to key system parameters.
However, the model introduced in this paper can be used for
other OFDM systems in conjunction with studies of channel
estimation, time and frequency correction, and multi-antenna
techniques.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2069
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Batra, J. Balakrishnan, G. R. Aiello, J. R. Foerster, and A. Dabak,
“Design of a multiband OFDM system for realistic UWB channel
environments," IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., vol. 52, no. 9, pp.
2123-2138, Sept. 2004.
[2] W. P. Siriwongpairat, W. Su, M. Olfat, and K. J. Ray Liu, “Multiband-
OFDM MIMO coding framework for UWB communication systems,"
IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 54, no. 1, Jan. 2006.
[3] W. P. Siriwongpairat, W. Su, and K. J. Ray Liu, “Characterizing
performance of multiband UWB systems using poisson cluster arriving
fading paths," IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., Special Issue on Ultra-
Wideband Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 745-751, Apr. 2006.
[4] X. Fan, B. Leng, and G. Bi, “An improved channel estimation algorithm
for OFDM UWB," in Proc. 2005 International Conf. Wireless Commun.,
Networking Mobile Computing, vol. 1, pp. 173-176, Sept. 2005.
[5] J. Wang, G. Zhu, and J. Jin, “Optimal power allocation for space-
time coded OFDM UWB systems," in Proc. 2005 International Conf.
Rx type 1 Wireless Commun., Networking Mobile Computing, vol. 1, pp. 189-192,
Rx type 2 Sept. 2005.
Rx type 3 [6] W. Chan, W. Wu, C. Wang, M. Chiu, and C. Chao, “Application
Rx type 4 of space-time codes to OFDM UWB systems with under-sampled
receivers," in Proc. IEEE VTC 2005/Spring, vol. 2, pp. 1191-1195, May
2005.
[7] M. Russel and G. L. Stüber, “Interchannel interference analysis of
OFDM in a mobile environment," in Proc. IEEE VTC-1995, vol. 2,
July 1995, pp. 820-824.
[8] Y. Li and L. J. Cimini, “Bounds on the intercarrier interference of OFDM
in time-varying impairments," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 3,
Mar. 2001, pp. 401-404.
[9] T. (Ronald) Wang, J. G. Proakis, E. Masry, and J. R. Zeidler, “Perfor-
mance degradation of OFDM systems due to Doppler spreading," IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1422-1432, June 2006.
[10] T. (Ronald) Wang, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Techniques for
suppression of intercarrier interference in OFDM systems," in Proc.
IEEE Wireless Commun. Networking Conf., vol. 1, pp. 39-44, Mar. 2005.
[11] K. Sathananthan and C. Tellambura, “Probability of error calculation of
20 25 30
OFDM systems with frequency offset," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49,
no. 11, Nov. 2001, pp. 1884-1888.
[12] E. Viterbo and K. Fazel, “How to combat long echoes in OFDM
transmission schemes: sub-channel equalization and more powerful
channel coding," in Proc. GLOBECOM ’95, IEEE, Singapore, vol. 3,
Nov. 1995, pp. 2069-2074.
[13] J. L. Seoane, S. K. Wilson, and S. Gelfand, “Analysis of intertone and
interblock interference in OFDM when the length of the cyclic prefix is
shorter than the length of the impulse response of the channel," in Proc.
GLOBECOM ’97, IEEE, Pheonix, AZ, vol. 1, Nov. 1997, pp. 32-36.
[14] D. Kim and G. L. Stüber, “Residual ISI cancellation for OFDM with
applications to HDTV broadcasting," IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.,
vol. 16, no. 8, Oct. 1998.
[15] Y. H. Kim et al., “Performance analysis of coded OFDM systems in
time-varying multipath Rayleigh fading channels," IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 48, no. 5, Sept. 1999, pp. 1610-1615.
[16] H. Steendam and M. Moeneclaey, “Analysis and optimization of the
performance of OFDM on frequency-selective time-selective fading
channels," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 47, no. 12, Dec. 1999, pp. 1811-
1819.
[17] L. Wan and V. K. Dubey, “Performance of frequency and time domain
coded OFDM over fast fading LEO channels," in Proc. IEEE EURO-
COMM ’2000, May 2000, pp. 179-183.
[18] S. Celebi, “Interblock interference (IBI) and time of reference (TOR)
computation in OFDM systems," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no.
11, Nov. 2001, pp. 1895-1900.
[19] W. Henkel, G. Taubock, P. Odling, P. Borjesson, N. Petersson, and A.
Johansson, “The cyclic prefix of OFDM/DMT—an analysis," 2002 In-
ternational Zurich Seminar Broadband Commun., ETH Zurich, Switzer-
land, Feb. 2002.
[20] V. D. Nguyen and H. Kuchenbecker, “Intercarrier and intersymbol
interference analysis of OFDM systems on time-invariant channels," in
Proc. 13th IEEE Int’l Symp. PIMRC, vol. 4, Sept. 2002, pp. 1482-1487.
[21] V. D. Nguyen, K. Kyamakya, and G. Gelle, “SER of uncoded OFDM
systems with insufficient guard interval length and on time-varying
channels," in Proc. IEEE VTC 2004/Spring, vol. 4, May 2004, pp. 1897-
1901.
[22] G. D. Pantos, A. G. Kanatas, and P. Constantinou, “Performance
evaluation of OFDM transmission over a challenging urban propagation
environment," IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 49, no. 1, Mar. 2003, pp.
78-96.
 2070
[23] M. Batariere, K. Baum, and T. P. Krauss, “Cyclic prefix length analysis
for 4G OFDM systems," in Proc. IEEE VTC-2004/Fall, vol. 1, Sept.
2004, pp. 543-547.
[24] H. Q. Lai, W. P. Siriwongpairat, and K. J Ray Liu, “Performance analysis
of multiband OFDM UWB system with imperfect synchronization and
intersymbol interference," IEEE J. Select. Topic Signal Processing,
Special Issue Performance Limits Ultra-Wideband Systems, vol. 1, no.
3, pp. 521-534, Oct. 2007.
[25] IEEE P802.15-02/490r1-SG3a, “Channel modeling sub-committee re-
port final."
Juan I. Montojo received the engineering degree
from the Escola Tecnica Superior d’Enginyeria de
Telecomunicacio de Barcelona of the Universitat Po-
litecnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain, and
the Communications Systems Engineer certificate
from Institut Eurecom, Sophia-Antipolis, France,
both in 1997. He received an M.S. in Electrical En-
gineering from the University of Southern California
(USC), Los Angeles, CA in 1999.
From 1997, he has been with Qualcomm Inc.,
San Diego, CA, where he has worked as a systems
engineer on different wireless systems: Globalstar, cdma2000 1xEV-DO, TD-
SCDMA, WCDMA, LTE, LTE-A. He is currently focused on the design and
specification of the physical layer of 3GPP’s Long Term Evolution (LTE). He
participates in the physical layer standardization group of 3GPP (RAN1) as
Qualcomm’s lead delegate for LTE and LTE-A.
Mr. Montojo is working towards a Ph.D. in electrical engineering with
emphasis on Communications Systems in the Electrical and Computer En-
gineering (ECE) Department of the University of California at San Diego
(UCSD). His research is focused on OFDM-based UWB and cognitive radio.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 2, 2009 at 04:41 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 7, JULY 2009
Laurcence B. Milstein (S66, M68, SM77, F85)
received the B.E.E. degree from the City College
of New York, New York, NY, in 1964, and the M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY, in
1966 and 1968, respectively.
From 1968 to 1974, he was with the Space and
Communications Group of Hughes Aircraft Com-
pany, and from 1974 to 1976, he was a member
of the Department of Electrical and Systems Engi-
neering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Since 1976, he has been with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, where he is
the Ericsson Professor of Wireless Communications and former Department
Chairman, working in the area of digital communication theory with special
emphasis on spread-spectrum communication systems. He has also been
a consultant to both government and industry in the areas of radar and
communications.
Dr. Milstein was an Associate Editor for Communication Theory for
the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON C OMMUNICATIONS, an Associate Editor for
Book Reviews for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NFORMATION T HEORY,
an Associate Technical Editor for the IEEE C OMMUNICATIONS M AGAZINE,
and the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE J OURNAL ON S ELECTED A REAS IN
C OMMUNICATIONS. He was the Vice President for Technical Affairs in
1990 and 1991 of the IEEE Communications Society, and is a former Chair
of the IEEE Fellows Selection Committee. He is a recipient of the 1998
Military Communications Conference Long Term Technical Achievement
Award, an Academic Senate 1999 UCSD Distinguished Teaching Award,
an IEEE Third Millennium Medal in 2000, the 2000 IEEE Communication
Society Armstrong Technical Achievement Award, and the 2002 MILCOM
Fred Ellersick Award.