Page 107 - ITU Kaleidoscope 2016

ICTs for a Sustainable World

Table 2: Required time to generate a transmit string in different scheme reduces PAPR more than existing schemes, where its
pulse shaping schemes (parallel filters) computational cost is higher, but acceptable. The PAPR in
Pulse Shaping SC-IFDMA our scheme is 2.11 dB, 1.08 dB, and 0.67 dB less than those
QPSK(µs) 16QMA(µs) in RC pulse shaping for QPSK, 16-QAM and 64-QAM re-
RC 643.74 720.79 spectively.
RRC 644.73 722.58
PLP 637.06 718.92 REFERENCES
PEP 643.56 717.96
PP (n = 2) 637.44 719.50 [1] L. M. Ericsson, “More than 50 billion connected de-
PLCP (µ = 1.6) 687.09 755.12 vices,” White Paper, Feb. 2011.
Proposed (µ = 1 and ν = 2) 710.26 774.42
[2] T. Wattanasuwakull and W. Benjapolakul, ”PAPR reduc-
tion for OFDM transmission by using method of tone
Table 3: Required time to generate a transmit string in different reservation and tone injection,” 5th International Confer-
pulse shaping schemes (combined filters) ence on information, Communications and Signal Pro-
cessing, Bangkok, pp. 273-277, 2005.
Pulse Shaping SC-IFDMA
QPSK(µs) 16QMA(µs) [3] S. H. Muller and J. B. Huber, “A comparison of
RC 643.74 720.79 peak power reduction Schemes for OFDM,“ IEEE
RRC 644.73 722.58 Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM),
PLP 637.06 718.92 Phoenix, vol. 1, pp. 1-5, Nov. 3-8, 1997.
PEP 643.56 717.96
[4] R. W. Bauml, R. F. H. Fisher, and J. B. Huber, “Reducing
PP (n = 2) 637.43 719.50
the peak-to-average power ratio of multicarrier modula-
PLCP (µ = 1.6) 637.39 719.23
tion by selected mapping,” Electronics Letters, vol. 32,
Proposed (µ = 1 and ν = 2) 645.31 720.59
no. 22, pp. 2056-2057, Oct. 1996.
[5] H. Breiling, S. H. Muller-Weinfurtner, and J. B. Huber,
“SLM peak-power reduction without explicit side infor-
To compare different pulse shaping schemes, the average (β) mation,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 5, no. 6, pp.
2
and the variance (σ ) of PAPR in dB are shown in Table IV
239-2041, Jun. 2001.
for α = 0.35 and sampling frequency of 20 MHz. Note
that our proposed scheme has the least values of PAPR aver- [6] S. H. Muller and J. B. Huber, “OFDM with reduced
age and variance compared to other pulse shaping schemes. peak-to-average power ratio by optimum combination of
Specifically, the average PAPR in our scheme is 2.11 dB, partial transmit sequences,” Electronics Letters, vol. 33,
1.08 dB and 0.67 dB less than those in RC pulse shaping for no. 5, pp. 368-369, Feb. 1997.
QPSK, 16-QAM and 64-QAM respectively.
[7] S. H. Muller and J. B. Huber, “A novel peak power re-
duction scheme for OFDM,” The 8th IEEE International
6. CONCLUSION Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Com-
munications (PIMRC), Helsinki,vol. 4, pp. 1090-1094,
In this paper, we proposed a novel pulse shaping scheme to Sep. 1-4, 1997.
reduce PAPR in SC-FDMA systems, and compared its per-
[8] A. D. S. Jayalath and C. Tellambura, “Adaptive PTS ap-
formance with other existing schemes via simulation. Our
proach for reduction of peak-to-average power ratio of
OFDM signal,” Electronics Letters, vol. 36, no. 14, pp.
Table 4: Average values and variances of PAPR for different pulse 1226-1228, Jul. 2000.
shaping schemes
[9] L. J. Cimini and N. R. Sollenberger, “Peak-to-average
Pulse Shaping QPSK 16QAM 64QAM power ratio reduction of an OFDM signal using partial
β σ 2 β σ 2 β σ 2 transmit sequences,” IEEE Communication Letters, vol.
RC 4.45 0.11 5.49 0.32 5.76 0.32 4, no. 3, pp. 86-88, Mar. 2000.
RRC 3.53 0.05 5.02 0.14 5.55 0.14
[10] C. Tellambura, “Improved phase factor computation for
PLP 3.93 0.07 5.21 0.25 5.54 0.25
the PAR reduction of an OFDM signal using PTS,” IEEE
PEP 3.77 0.07 5.12 0.24 5.48 0.24
Communication Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 135-137, Apr.
PP (n = 2) 3.10 0.04 4.81 0.15 5.27 0.18
2001.
PLCP (µ = 1.6) 3.70 0.08 5.09 0.23 5.45 0.23
Convex (d = 5) 3.90 0.16 4.99 0.23 5.39 0.21 [11] S. H. Han and J. H. Lee, “PAPR reduction of OFDM
Concave (d = 1) 3.64 0.08 5.04 0.25 5.42 0.22 signals using a reduced complexity PTS technique,”
Proposed 2.34 0.02 4.41 0.08 5.09 0.10 IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 887-
890, Nov. 2004.

– 89 –