720
2, FEBRUARY 2009
Pulsed-OFDM Modulation for
Ultrawideband Communications
Ebrahim Saberinia, Member, IEEE, Jun Tang, Member, IEEE,
Ahmed H. Tewfik, Fellow, IEEE, and Keshab K. Parhi, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—In this paper, we describe a novel approach for reduc-
ing the power consumption and complexity of a multiband orthog-
onal frequency-division multiplexing (MB-OFDM) ultrawideband
(UWB) system by applying ideas from pulsed UWB systems. The
approach is quite general and applicable to many other systems.
Unlike the MB-OFDM system, the enhancement that we propose
uses pulses with duty cycles of less than 1 as the amplitude shap-
ing pulse of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM)
modulation. Pulsating OFDM symbols spread the spectrum of
the modulated signals in the frequency domain, leading to a
spreading gain that is equal to the inverse of the duty cycle of
the pulsed subcarriers. We study the spectral characteristics of
pulsed OFDM and the added degrees of diversity that it provides.
We show that pulsed-OFDM signals can easily be generated by
either upsampling an equivalent OFDM baseband signal with a
reduced number of carriers or by replacing the digital-to-analog
converter (DAC) of a normal MB-OFDM transmitter with a low-
duty-cycle DAC. We establish that a pulsed-OFDM receiver can
fully exploit the added diversity without using Rake receivers. It
is shown that, while pulsed OFDM has superior or comparable
performance to MB-OFDM in multipath fading channels, it also
has intrinsic low-complexity and power consumption advantages
compared with MB-OFDM. To establish this fact, we describe
an example design for the IEEE 802.15.3a Standard and present
full simulation results for the UWB indoor propagation channels
provided by the IEEE 802.15.3a Standard activity committee.
Index Terms—Multiband orthogonal frequency-division multi-
plexing (MB-OFDM), orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing
(OFDM), pulsed OFDM, ultrawideband (UWB).
I. I NTRODUCTION
U LTRAWIDEBAND (UWB) communication systems use
signals with a bandwidth that is larger than 25% of the
center frequency or more than 500 MHz. UWB communication
systems offer several potential advantages, including robustness
to multipath interference and inherent support for location-
aware networking and multiuser access [1], [2]. UWB is the
underlying technology behind several emerging military sensor
and communication networks. Furthermore, the vast majority of
Manuscript received March 7, 2006; revised December 27, 2006 and
August 30, 2007. First published April 18, 2008; current version published
February 17, 2009.
E. Saberinia is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA (e-mail: Ebrahim.
Saberinia@unlv.edu).
J. Tang is with Newport Media Inc., Lake Forest, CA 92630 USA (e-mail:
tangjun@ece.umn.edu).
A. H. Tewfik and K. K. Parhi are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
USA (e-mail: tewfik@umn.edu; parhi@umn.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2008.923680
0018-9545/$25.00 © 2009 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 19, 2009 at 01:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO.
proposals for the IEEE 802.15.3a Wireless Personal Area Net-
working Protocol were based on UWB communications. Two
different promising UWB systems came out as a result of this
activity to provide a high-bit-rate wireless personal area net-
work (WPAN), but none of the two was adapted as the standard
[4], [5].
The original UWB systems were based on short-duration and
low-duty-cycle pulses, and time-hopping or direct-sequence
(DS) spread-spectrum schemes. They usually use simple mod-
ulation schemes such as on–off keying, pulse position modula-
tion, and binary phase-shift keying, and provide features such as
power efficiency and low complexity. One of the major systems
from the IEEE 802.15.3a activity is the DS pulsed UWB sys-
tem [4]. On the other hand, the orthogonal frequency-division
multiplexing (OFDM) technique is successfully used in several
narrow-band systems, such as the IEEE 802.11a and g, and
provides features such as frequency efficiency and robustness to
multipath effects. Multiband OFDM (MB-OFDM) is the other
major UWB system from the IEEE 802.15.3a activity that uses
OFDM modulation in the UWB spectrum [5], [6].
In this paper, we propose an enhancement to an MB-OFDM
system that combines some of the benefits of the pulsed UWB
systems with those of the OFDM UWB systems. The new
scheme, which is called pulsed OFDM, uses pulses with duty
cycles of less than 1, instead of pulses with duty cycles of 1,
which are used in normal OFDM systems. The pulsation of the
OFDM signal spreads its spectrum and provides a processing
gain that is equal to the inverse of the duty cycle of the pulses.
We show that a pulsed-OFDM signal can easily be generated
by upsampling the output of an inverse fast Fourier transform
(IFFT) module in a normal OFDM system. Furthermore, using
digital equivalent system analysis, we design a low-complexity
receiver for the system that exploits the spreading gain provided
by the pulsation to enhance the performance of the system in
multipath fading channels. Frequency-domain analysis shows
that the pulsed-OFDM system is equivalent to frequency repe-
tition coding in a normal OFDM system. Therefore, the current
scheme can also be viewed as a novel implementation of the
repetition-coding scheme with much lower complexity. Finally,
to show the potential of the new system, we design a multiband
pulsed-OFDM (MB-pulsed-OFDM) system with the same band
planning and throughput as the MB-OFDM system and com-
pare its performance, complexity, and power consumption with
those of the MB-OFDM system. The simulation results show
that the pulsed-OFDM system provides a comparable perfor-
mance with the MB-OFDM system with much less complex-
ity and power consumption. We show that the pulsed-OFDM
SABERINIA et al.: PULSED-OFDM MODULATION FOR ULTRAWIDEBAND COMMUNICATIONS
Fig. 1. Pulsed-OFDM transceiver structure. (a) Pulsed-OFDM transmitter using a low-duty-cycle pulse generator. (b) Pulsed-OFDM transmitter using
upsampling. (c) Receiver structure.
system has some of the important benefits of two different
UWB systems, i.e., pulsed UWB and OFDM UWB systems.
For example, the system does not require a Rake-receiver
structure similar to that of other pulsed UWB systems to exploit
the diversity provided by the pulsation. This is one of the main
advantages of OFDM systems. On the other hand, the new sys-
tem has considerable complexity and power consumption ad-
vantages over the MB-OFDM system. This is one of the main
advantages of pulsed UWB systems. We quantify the lower
complexity and power consumption of pulse OFDM compared
to those of MB-OFDM using implementation-technology-
independent metrics, such as the clock rate and complexity of
the required fast Fourier transforms (FFTs).
II. MB-P ULSED -OFDM S YSTEM
A. MB-Pulsed-OFDM System
In the MB-OFDM scheme of [5] and [6], the whole avail-
able UWB spectrum is divided into several subbands with
smaller bandwidth. In each subband, a normal OFDM symbol is
transmitted, and then, the system switches to another subband.
Quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK) modulation is used for
OFDM. The transmitted signal in this scheme is given by

M −1
2πc(r)t
x(t) = brk ej2πkf0 t p(t − rTp )e−j Ts
r k=0
where M is the number of subcarriers in each OFDM symbol,
and p(t) is a low-pass pulse with duration Tp . The QPSK
symbol that is transmitted in the rth time slot and over the
kth subcarrier is denoted by brk . The subcarrier spacing is
denoted by f0 and is equal to 1/Tp . Sequence c(r) controls
frequency hopping between subbands. To spread the spectrum
of the transmitted signal, the pulsed-OFDM system modulates
the OFDM signal with a regular train of pulses with low duty
cycle. Specifically, an MB-pulsed-OFDM signal can be pre-
sented with a similar formula as the MB-OFDM signal in (1).
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 19, 2009 at 01:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
721
However, in this case, p(t) is a train of pulses with duty cycles
of less than 1, i.e.,
−1

N
p(t) = s(t − nT ). (2)
n=0
In the preceding equation, s(t) is a monopulse with duration
Ts , and T is the pulse separation time, which is larger than Ts .
The number of monopulses is denoted by N and is the same
as the number of subcarriers for the OFDM modulation. This
number will be chosen, such that the total bandwidth of the
pulsed-OFDM signal becomes equal to that of the nonpulsed-
OFDM signal. Note that the MB-pulsed-OFDM system does
not change the multiband structure of the MB-OFDM system.
The change is in the transmitted signal within a subband.
The pulsed OFDM can simply be generated by replacing
the DAC in an OFDM transmitter with a pulse train generator.
The generator produces amplitude-modulated pulses with duty
cycles of less than 1. If the inverse of the duty cycle is integer,
the same signal can also be generated by upsampling the
digital baseband OFDM modulated signal before sending it to a
conventional DAC. The upsampling is done by inserting K − 1
zeroes between samples of the signal. The resulting pulsed-
OFDM signal is then a pulse train with a duty cycle of 1/K.
Since this kind of pulsed-OFDM system can easily be imple-
mented with a simple change in a normal OFDM transmitter,
(1) we shall retain it in the remainder of this paper. We also refer to
parameter K as the processing gain of the pulsed-OFDM sys-
tem. Both transmitter structures are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b).
B. Pulsed-OFDM Signal Spectrum
The spectrum of the pulsed-OFDM signal is easily derived
from the impulse response s(t) of the DAC or, equivalently,
from pulse train p(t). Specifically, following [9, p. 208],
we have
−1   n 2

N

SPOFDM (f ) = P f −  (3)
n=0
NT
722
Fig. 2. (a) Spectrum of a pulse train with N = 4 pulses per train and a duty
cycle of 1/4. (b) Spectrum of the corresponding pulsed-OFDM signal.
where P (f ) is the Fourier transform of p(t), which, by taking
Fourier transform from both sides of (2), is given by
sin2 (πN f T )
|P (f )|2 = |S(f )|2 . (4)
sin2 (πf T )
Fig. 2 shows the spectrum of a pulse train with rectangular
monopulses, where the number of pulses is equal to N = 4,
the duty cycle is 1/4, and the spectrum of the corresponding
pulsed-OFDM signal has N = 4 subcarriers. Equations (3) and
(4) show that the bandwidth of a pulsed-OFDM signal with a
symbol rate of 1/T and a processing gain of K is approximately
equal to (K + 1)/T . The actual shape of the spectrum within
this bandwidth depends on the impulse response of the DAC,
and design optimization can be performed to make it as flat as
possible.
An alternate approach in calculating the spectrum of the
pulsed-OFDM signal gives us more insight about the spreading
properties of pulsed OFDM. As noted before, the pulsed-
OFDM signal is generated by upsampling a normal OFDM
signal by a factor of K, and it is well known that the upsampling
process spreads the frequency of the signal over a band that
is K times larger than the original by repeating the original
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 19, 2009 at 01:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009
signal spectrum in the frequency domain [7]. Therefore, we can
compute the spectrum of the pulsed-OFDM signal as

K−1  
k
SPOFDM (f ) = SOFDM f− (5)
Ts
k=0
where SOFDM (f ) is the spectrum of the original OFDM signal.
This discussion indicates that the pulsed OFDM leads to a
simple implementation of the frequency repetition scheme. Fre-
quency repetition has previously been explored in the OFDM
literature, e.g., [5] and [8], to achieve frequency diversity by
transmitting the same symbol in different subcarriers. While
direct frequency repetition, putting repeated data as the input
of the IFFT, will generate the same signal, our approach can
result in a very low complexity implementation of the system
by reducing the number of subcarriers at the IFFT stage and
decreasing the clock rate of the circuitry at this stage. As we
will show in the next section, pulsed OFDM also leads to a new
receiver structure for the frequency repetition scheme that has
much lower complexity than the traditional scheme.
C. Pulsed-OFDM Receiver
Since the pulsed-OFDM system is equivalent to a pulse repe-
tition OFDM system, it can be demodulated by a normal OFDM
receiver, followed by a diversity-combing scheme. However,
the new implementation using upsampling gives us an insight
about a lower complexity receive structure. To describe the
new receiver structure, we use a digital equivalent model of the
system, assuming that the received signal is sampled at the same
rate as that of the transmitter DAC. The entire transmission
system after constellation mapping can be represented by the
digital equivalent model shown in Fig. 3(a). Here, Hd (z) is the
digital equivalent channel. The impulse response of this channel
hd (n) is a sampled version of the equivalent analog channel,
which consists of the physical channel, transmitter filter, and re-
ceiver filter. We assume that Hd (z) is a finite-impulse-response
filter with L + 1 taps. The main difference between pulsed
OFDM and normal OFDM is the upsampling operation after
the IFFT. We will show that the upsampling operation provides
K branches of diversity that can be separated at the receiver. To
establish this fact, we use the polyphase decomposition of the
digital equivalent channel Hd (z), i.e.,

K−1
Hd (z) = z −k Hk (z K ) (6)
k=0
where Hk (z), k = 0, . . . , K − 1 are the polyphase factors of
Hd (z). Substituting this polyphase decomposition in Fig. 3(a)
and using conventional multirate signal processing principles,
we obtain the digital equivalent model shown in Fig. 3(b)
[7]. This model shows that the pulsed-OFDM received signal
consists of a parallel-to-serial conversion of K parallel normal
OFDM received signals. Each of these normal OFDM received
signals is the output of a different channel driven by the same
normal OFDM input signal. Hence, the diversity branches can
be separated by a simple serial-to-parallel conversion structure,
SABERINIA et al.: PULSED-OFDM MODULATION FOR ULTRAWIDEBAND COMMUNICATIONS
Fig. 3. Digital equivalent models for the pulsed-OFDM transmitter and channel. (a) Basic model. (b) Another model by replacing channel polyphase
decomposition in the basic model. (c) Circuit for separating diversity branches in model (b). (d) Final model presenting K diversity branches captured by
the pulsed-OFDM system.
as shown in Fig. 3(c). Combining the structures in Fig. 3(b) and
(c), we derive our final digital equivalent model of a pulsed-
OFDM system, as shown in Fig. 3(d).
Fig. 1(c) shows the new receiver structure. After sampling,
the signal is passed through a serial-to-parallel converter to sep-
arate the diversity branches. Each branch is separately demod-
ulated by applying the FFT. Similar to other OFDM systems, a
cyclic prefix (CP) whose length is greater than the maximum
subchannel length is added after the IFFT at the transmitter
and discarded from the received signals before the FFT in
each branch. The CP eliminates intersymbol interference and
interchannel interference in all branches. Then, we combine
the diversity branches using maximal ratio combining [9,ch,6].
Compared to a traditional receiver that uses a single KN -point
FFT to demodulate the signal, our receiver uses K parallel
N -point FFTs to demodulate the signal. As we will show later,
this receiver can be implemented with lower complexity and
power consumption.
D. Choosing Upsampling Factor
The preceding analysis leads to the important questions of
how large upsampling factor K can be and how we can select a
suitable value for upsampling factor K in a given environment.
To answer these questions, first, notice that, to get maximal
benefit from the K diversity branches with minimal complexity,
we would want to make sure that they are uncorrelated. This
condition holds as long as the bandwidth of each subchannel
is larger than the coherence bandwidth of the channel. In other
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 19, 2009 at 01:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
723
words, upsampling factor K needs to be smaller than or equal
to an upper limit Kmax given by

w
Kmax = = wTspread  (7)
Bc
where w is the subband bandwidth, Bc is the coherence band-
width of the channel, and Tspread is its maximum delay spread.
Here, x denotes the largest integer that is smaller than x. In a
given channel setting, we may then look for the optimum K in
the range K = 1, . . . , Kmax .
The selection of upsampling factor K in a given scenario
can be done once a suitable design criterion is chosen. In [10],
we address this issue using the concept of outage capacity
[11], [12] of the pulsed-OFDM system in fading channels. The
advantage of this approach is that it leads to results that can be
applied, regardless of the choice of coding, interleaving, and
modulation schemes. In particular, we provide an algorithm
for choosing the optimal upsampling rate for a given set of
requirements and channel conditions. For example, the results
in [10] show that it is best not to use upsampling (i.e., select
K = 1) in the IEEE 802.15.3a environment for transmissions
at 480 Mb/s at 1 m, whereas a value of K = 4 is more suitable
for transmissions at 110 Mb/s at 10 m. The latter value will be
retained for discussion in the remaining part of this paper.
III. P ULSED OFDM FOR IEEE 802.15.3a WPANs
To show the capabilities of pulsed OFDM, in this section,
we compare a pulsed-OFDM system designed for the IEEE
724 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009

802.15.3a standard physical layer with the current MB-OFDM

system in 110-Mb/s transmission mode.

A. Pulsed-OFDM System Parameters

To transmit 110 Mb/s of information, the MB-OFDM system
uses convolutional coding with a rate of 1/3, followed by
OFDM modulation with M = 128 subcarriers. Only 100 sub-
carriers are used to transmit data. A direct frequency repetition
is also used by sending the same data in two subcarriers. To de-
sign a pulsed-OFDM system for this scenario, using the results
in [10], we select a processing gain of K = 4 with N = 32 sub-
carriers. Compared with the M = 128 subcarriers used in the
nonpulsed MB-OFDM system, the bandwidth of two signals
are identical and equal to W = 528 MHz. This condition pre-
serves the band planning of the MB-OFDM system. To achieve
the same data rate, we use a convolutional error-correcting code
with a rate of 2/3. Twenty-five subcarriers are used to send
25 QPSK symbols that are generated from 50 coded bits. The
remaining subcarriers are used as pilot.

B. Performance Comparison
To compare the performance of the pulsed and nonpulsed
systems, we ran a complete simulation of both systems over the
channel models described in the IEEE 802.15.3a UWB channel
modeling report [13]. Two channel models (named CM3 and
CM4) are presented to model the channels at 10 m for the
110-Mb/s mode. Here, we report the simulation results of the
MB-pulsed-OFDM and MB-OFDM systems for both channels.
These simulations assume complete synchronization, timing,
and channel estimation for both systems. Fig. 4(a) shows the
results over the CM4 channel. This channel model has a delay
spread of 250 ns. In this figure, the bit error rate (BER) is plotted
versus the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for both systems. The
simulation results show that the pulsed-OFDM system outper-
forms the nonpulsed system in a high-SNR region. Fig. 4(a)
Fig. 4. Magnetization BER versus distance for the pulsed- and nonpulsed-
shows the results of the simulations of both the nonpulsed- and OFDM systems in the (a) CM-4 and (b) CM-3 channels.
pulsed-OFDM systems when operating over the CM3 channel.
This channel is a little better in terms of multipath compared to and frequency repetition with a factor of 2, the pulsed-OFDM
the CM4 channel and has a delay spread of 150 ns. Fig. 4(b) system uses a rate-2/3 convolutional code and frequency repe-
shows that the performance enhancement is smaller in this tition with a factor of 4. Therefore, the MB-OFDM system has
channel for pulsed OFDM. We expect the nonpulsed system to a higher coding gain than the pulsed-OFDM system, whereas
get better as we move toward less severe multipath channels. the pulsed-OFDM system has a higher diversity gain than the
Specifically, in the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) MB-OFDM system. Therefore, the performance comparison of
channel, the nonpulsed system has better performance than the these two systems highly depends on the channel model we
pulsed-OFDM system because of better channel coding. Hence, use. For example, in the AWGN channel, where diversity is
we conclude that pulsed-OFDM systems are better in exploiting not important, the MB-OFDM system outperforms the pulsed-
the frequency diversity of a multipath channel. OFDM system because of its higher coding gain, whereas, in a
dense multipath channel such as CM4, the opposite is true. We
C. Performance Discussion can say that ,overall, they have similar performances. However,
the main advantage of pulsed OFDM over MB-OFDM is in
The simulation results in the previous section shows the terms of complexity and power consumption, as shown in the
slight advantage of the pulsed-OFDM system over the MB- succeeding sections.
OFDM system in CM4 and CM3. However, it is important to
emphasize some points. These two systems use the same band-
D. Complexity Comparison
width to transmit the same amount of data. Their main differ-
ences are in the coding and spreading techniques that they use. Both the pulsed-OFDM and nonpulsed-OFDM systems have
While the MB-OFDM system use a rate-1/3 convolutional code the same radio frequency front end. Thus, in the analog

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 19, 2009 at 01:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SABERINIA et al.: PULSED-OFDM MODULATION FOR ULTRAWIDEBAND COMMUNICATIONS
TABLE I
CLOCK RATE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE TRANSCEIVER FOR NONPULSED AND PULSED OFDM
domain, except possibly for the DAC and analog-to-digital
parts, depending on implementation, the two systems have
similar complexities and power consumptions. However, in the
digital domain, we can achieve considerable savings in terms of
power consumption and complexity by using pulsed OFDM.
The reduction in complexity came from the inherent advan-
tage of the pulsed-OFDM scheme using a reduced number of
subcarriers. In particular, only a 32-point IFFT is required at the
transmitter side. This is much simpler than the 128-point IFFT
used in the baseline system. It is known that the complexity of
an FFT or IFFT processor is proportional to N log N , where
N is the size of the data block. At the receiver side, the
pulsed-OFDM system requires four 32-point FFTs, whereas the
nonpulsed-OFDM system only requires a single 128-point FFT.
Again, the complexity of the pulsed-OFDM receiver is slightly
lower than that of the MB-OFDM receiver.
E. Power Consumption Comparison
In addition to its lower complexity, the pulsed-OFDM system
has a significant advantage over the nonpulsed-OFDM system
in terms of power consumption. The power consumption of a
very-large-scale-integration chip is determined by its clock rate
and the supply voltage and capacitance of the circuit. It can
roughly be computed as
P = Ctotal V02 f
where Ctotal denotes the total capacitance of the circuit, V0 is
the supply voltage, and f is the clock frequency. According
to the analysis in the previous sections, the baseband section
of the pulsed-OFDM system runs at a lower clock frequency
than that of the MB-OFDM system. This fact is illustrated in
Table I where the clock rates of different parts of the transmitter
and the receiver are listed for both the pulsed and nonpulsed
systems. Due to the simplicity of the circuits in the pulsed-
OFDM system, such as FFT processors and Viterbi decoders,
the Ctotal in the pulsed-OFDM system is smaller than that in
the nonpulsed-OFDM system, leading to further reduction in
power consumption.
IV. C ONCLUSION
Pulsed-OFDM modulation is a simple frequency-spreading
technique for multicarrier UWB systems that provides addi-
tional diversity in multipath fading channels. Using a digital
equivalent model, we showed that a pulsating OFDM signal
is equivalent to a simple frequency repetition coding. The new
approach in the implementation of the system, with upsampling
of the signal after IFFT with a reduced number of subcarriers,
provides considerable savings in the complexity and power con-
sumption of the transceivers, compared with previous schemes
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 19, 2009 at 01:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
725
that simply input the same symbols in different subcarriers
before the IFFT. Furthermore, this new approach enables us to
design a new receiver structure for the repetition coded OFDM
symbols with lower complexity exploiting full diversity.
Finally, replacing part of the convolutional coding in the
baseline MB-OFDM system and using pulsed-OFDM modu-
lation, we designed a system for the 110-Mb/s IEEE 802.15.3a
WPAN with reduced complexity, reduced power consumption,
and comparable performance to the MB-OFDM system.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Z. Win and R. A. Scholtz, “Ultra-wide bandwidth time-hopping
spread-spectrum impulse radio for wireless multiple-access communica-
tions,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 679–689, Apr. 2000.
[2] M. Z. Win and R. A. Scholtz, “On the robustness of ultra-wide bandwidth
signals in dense multipath environments,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 2,
no. 2, pp. 51–53, Feb. 1998.
[3] “FCC notice of proposed rule making,” Revision of Part 15 of the
Commission’s Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems.
ET-Docket 98-153.
[4] M. Welborn, XtremeSpectum Proposal for IEEE 802.15.3a, Jul. 2003,
San Francisco, CA. IEEE 802.15 work group official web site. [Online].
Available: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/2003/Jul03/
[5] A. Batra et al., “Multi-band OFDM: Merged proposal #1,” Merged Pro-
posal for the IEEE 802.15.3a Standard, Jul. 2003, San Francisco, CA.
IEEE 802.15 work group official web site. [Online]. Available: http://
grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/2003/ Jul03/
[6] J. Balakrishnan, A. Batra, and A. Dabak, “A multi-band OFDM system
for UWB communication,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Ultra Wideband Syst.
Technol., Nov. 2003, pp. 354–358.
(8) [7] P. P. Vaidyanathanm, Multirate Systems and Filter Banks, 1st ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall, Sep. 1992.
[8] T. Seki, M. Itami, H. Ohta, and K. Itoh, “A study of OFDM system
applying frequency diversity,” in Proc. 11th IEEE Int. Symp. PIMRC,
Sep. 2000, vol. 2, pp. 1385–1389.
[9] G. L. Stuber, Principles of Mobile Communication, 2nd ed. Norwell,
MA: Kluwer, Feb. 2001.
[10] E. Saberinia and A. H. Tewfik, “Outage capacity of pulsed-OFDM ultra
wideband communications,” in Proc. Joint IEEE Conf. UWBST/
IWUWBS, Tokyo, Japan, May 2004, pp. 323–327.
[11] E. Bieglieri, J. Proakis, and S. Shamai, “Fading channels: Information-
theoretic and communications aspects,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 44,
no. 6, pp. 2619–2692, Oct. 1998.
[12] L. H. Ozarow, S. Shamai, and A. D. wayner, “Information theoretic con-
siderations for cellular mobile radio,” IEEE Trans.Veh. Technol., vol. 43,
no. 2, pp. 359–378, May 1994.
[13] J. Foerster et al., Channel Modeling Sub-Committee Report Final. 802.15
work group official web site. [Online]. Available: http://grouper.ieee.org/
groups/802/15/pub/2003/May03/
Ebrahim Saberinia (S’02–M’05) received the B.Sc.
and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in
1996 and 1998, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree
in electrical and computer engineering from the Uni-
versity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2004.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His research in-
terests include wireless communications, statistical
signal processing, and wireless networks. His current
research interests include ultrawideband communications, biomedical signal
processing, and wireless personal area networks.
726 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2009

Jun Tang (S’02–M’07) received the B.S. and M.S. Keshab K. Parhi (S’85–M’88–SM’91–F’96) re-
degrees in electronics engineering from Tsinghua ceived the B.Tech. degree from Indian Institute
University, Beijing, China, in 1998 and 2000, respec- of Technology, Kharagpur, India, in 1982, the
tively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering M.S.E.E. degree from the University of Pennsylva-
from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. nia, Philadelphia, in 1984, and the Ph.D. degree from
He is currently with Newport Media Inc., Lake the University of California, Berkeley, in 1988.
Forest, CA. His research interests include high-speed Since 1988, he has been with the Department of
and low-power VLSI implementation of wireless Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
communication systems. Minnesota, Minneapolis, where he is currently the
Distinguished McKnight University Professor. He is
currently working on error control coders and cryp-
tography architectures, high-speed transceivers, and ultrawideband systems.
He is the author more than 400 papers and the textbook VLSI Digital Signal
Ahmed H. Tewfik (S’81–M’82–SM’92–F’96) re- Processing Systems (Wiley, 1999). He is a coeditor of the reference book Digital
ceived the B.Sc. degree from Cairo University, Signal Processing for Multimedia Systems (Marcel Dekker, 1999). He currently
Cairo, Egypt, in 1982 and the M.Sc., E.E., and serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of VLSI Signal Processing. His
Sc.D. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of research interests include VLSI architecture design and the implementation of
Technology, Cambridge, in 1984, 1985, and 1987, the physical layer aspects of broadband communications systems.
respectively. Dr. Parhi has served on the Editorial Boards of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS
In 1987, he was with Alphatech, Inc., Burlington, ON C IRCUITS AND S YSTEMS , the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON C IRCUITS AND
MA. From August 1997 to August 2001, he was SYSTEMS—PART II: ANALOG AND DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING, the IEEE
the President and CEO of Cognicity, Inc., which is TRANSACTIONS ON VERY LARGE SCALE INTEGRATION (VLSI) SYSTEMS,
an entertainment marketing software tool publisher the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, the IEEE SIGNAL
that he cofounded when he was on partial leave of PROCESSING LETTERS, and the IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE.
absence from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He is currently the He currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
E. F. Johnson Professor of electronic communications with the Department of CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—PART I: REGULAR PAPERS (during the 2004–
Electrical Engineering, University of Minnesota. He has served as a Consultant 2005 term). He served as a Technical Program Cochair of the 1995 IEEE
to several companies, including MTS Systems, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN; VLSI Signal Processing Workshop and the 1996 ASAP Conference, and as the
Emerson-Rosemount, Inc., Eden Prairie; CyberNova, Milipitas, CA; Macrovi- General Chair of the 2002 IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Systems. He
sion, Santa Clara, CA; Visionaire Technology, Fremont, CA; Ipsos, New York, was a Distinguished Lecturer for the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society from
NY; InterDigital Communications, King of Prussia, PA; and Key-eye Com- 1996 to 1998. He was the recipient of numerous awards, including the 2004
munications, Sacramento, CA. He has also been with Texas Instruments and F. E. Terman Award from the American Society of Engineering Education, the
Computing Devices International. He is currently an Associate Editor for the 2003 IEEE Kiyo Tomiyasu Technical Field Award, the 2001 IEEE W. R. G.
EURASIP Journal on Bioinformatics and Systems Biology. His current research Baker Prize Paper Award, and the Golden Jubilee Award from the IEEE Circuits
interests include genomics and proteomics, programmable wireless networks, and Systems Society in 1999.
wearable sensors for patients with traumatic brain injury, brain computing
interfaces, healthcare safety, and datanomic and pervasive computing and
storage.
Prof. Tewfik was a Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Signal Process-
ing Society during 1997–1999. He was elected to the Board of Governors
of the IEEE Signal Processing Society in 2005. He was invited to be a
Principal Lecturer at the 1995 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Society Summer School. He delivered plenary lectures at several IEEE and
non-IEEE meetings, including the 1994 IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing; the 1999 IEEE-EURASIP Workshop
on Nonlinear Signal and Image Processing; the 1999 IEEE Turkish Signal
Processing Conference; the First IEEE International Symposium on Signal
Processing and Information Theory in 2001; the SSGRR2002w International
Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for Electronic Business, Science,
and Education on the Internet; the 2003 European Union COST Meeting; the
Tenth IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits, and Systems;
and the 2005 International Workshop on Sampling Theory and Applications.
He gave invited tutorials on ultrawideband communications at the 2003 Fall
IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, on watermarking at the 1998 IEEE
International Conference on Image Processing, and on wavelets at the 1994
IEEE Workshop on Time-Frequency and Time-Scale Analysis. He was selected
to be the first Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS from
1993 to 1999. He was an Associate Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
SIGNAL PROCESSING, a Guest Editor of three Special Issues on wavelets and
their applications and watermarking of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL
PROCESSING, and a Guest Editor of a Special Issue on multimedia databases of
the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA. He also served as the President
of the Minnesota Chapters of the IEEE Signal Processing Society and the
IEEE Communications Society from 2002 to 2005. He was the recipient of the
E. F. Johnson Professorship of Electronic Communications in 1993, the Taylor
Faculty Development Award from Taylor Foundation in 1992, the National
Science Foundation Research Initiation Award in 1990, and the IEEE Third
Millennium Award in 2000.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on July 19, 2009 at 01:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.