We have already seen in previous posts that the BER of BPSK increases significantly when the channel changes from a simple AWGN channel to a fading channel. One solution to this problem, that was proposed by Alamouti, was to use Transmit Diversity i.e. multiple transmit antennas transmit the information over multiple time slots increasing the likelihood of receiving the information. We have considered the simplest case of two transmit antennas and BPSK modulation (QPSK modulation would give the same BER with twice the throughput). Given below is the Python code for this, feel free to modify it and run it from the console given below.

We have previously calculated the bit error rate of BPSK in an AWGN channel, we now do the same for a Rayleigh fading channel. Remember that we have now shifted our focus from MATLAB to Python since its open and free to use. We are currently using Python-2 but intend to Python-3 once some integration issues with Trinket are sorted out.

We have previously looked at frequency domain fading simulators i.e. simulators that define the Doppler components in the frequency domain and then perform an IDFT to get the time domain signal. These simulators include Smith’s Simulator, Young’s Simulator and our very own Computationally Efficient Rayleigh Fading Simulator. Another technique that has been widely reported in the literature is Sum of Sinusoids Method. As the name suggests this method generates the Doppler components in the time domain and then sums them up to generate the time domain fading envelope. There are three parameters that define the properties of the generated signal.

1) Number of sinusoids – Higher the number better the properties of the generated signal but greater the computational complexity
2) Angle of arrival – This can be generated statistically or deterministically, spread from –pi to pi.
3) Phase of the arriving wave – This is uniformly distributed between –pi and pi.

The MATLAB code below gives three similar sum of sinusoids techniques for generating a Rayleigh faded envelope [1].

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% SUM OF SINUSOIDS FADING SIMULATORS
% fd - Doppler frequency
% fs - Sampling frequency
% ts - Sampling period
% N - Number of sinusoids
%
% www.raymaps.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
clear all
close all
fd=70;
fs=1000000;
ts=1/fs;
t=0:ts:1;
N=100;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Method 1 - Clarke
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x=zeros(1,length(t));
y=zeros(1,length(t));
for n=1:N;n
alpha=(rand-0.5)*2*pi;
phi=(rand-0.5)*2*pi;
x=x+randn*cos(2*pi*fd*t*cos(alpha)+phi);
y=y+randn*sin(2*pi*fd*t*cos(alpha)+phi);
end
z=(1/sqrt(N))*(x+1i*y);
r1=abs(z);
plot(t,10*log10(r1))
hold on
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Method 2 - Pop, Beaulieu
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x=zeros(1,length(t));
y=zeros(1,length(t));
for n=1:N;n
alpha=2*pi*n/N;
phi=(rand-0.5)*2*pi;
x=x+randn*cos(2*pi*fd*t*cos(alpha)+phi);
y=y+randn*sin(2*pi*fd*t*cos(alpha)+phi);
end
z=(1/sqrt(N))*(x+1i*y);
r2=abs(z);
plot(t,10*log10(r2),'r')
hold on
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Method 3 - Chengshan Xiao
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x=zeros(1,length(t));
y=zeros(1,length(t));
for n=1:N;n
phi=(rand-0.5)*2*pi;
theta=(rand-0.5)*2*pi;
alpha=(2*pi*n+theta)/N;
x=x+randn*cos(2*pi*fd*t*cos(alpha)+phi);
y=y+randn*sin(2*pi*fd*t*cos(alpha)+phi);
end
z=(1/sqrt(N))*(x+1i*y);
r3=abs(z);
plot(t,10*log10(r3),'g')
hold off
xlabel('Time(sec)')
ylabel('Envelope(dB)')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

All the three techniques given above are quite accurate in generating a Rayleigh faded envelope with the desired statistical properties. The accuracy of these techniques increases as the number of sinusoids goes to infinity (we have tested these techniques with up to 1000 sinusoids but realistically speaking even 100 sinusoids are enough). If we want to compare the three techniques in terms of the Level Crossing Rate (LCR) and Average Fade Duration (AFD) we can say that the first and third technique are a bit more accurate than the second technique. Therefore we can conclude that a statistically distributed angle of arrival is a better choice than a deterministically distributed angle of arrival. Also, if we look at the autocorrelation of the in-phase and quadrature components we see that for the first and third case we get a zero order Bessel function of the first kind whereas for the second case we get a somewhat different sequence which approximates the Bessel function with increasing accuracy as the number of sinusoids is increased.

The above figures show the theoretical Bessel function versus the autocorrelation of the real/imaginary part generated by method number two. The figure on the left considers 20 sinusoids whereas the figure on the right considers 40 sinusoids. As can be seen the accuracy of the autocorrelation sequence increases considerably by doubling the number of sinusoids. We can assume that for number of sinusoids exceeding 100 i.e. N=100 in the above code the generated autocorrelation sequence would be quite accurate.

[1] Chengshan Xiao, “Novel Sum-of-Sinusoids Simulation Models for Rayleigh and Rician Fading Channels,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 5, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2006.

In the previous posts we had discussed generation of a correlated Rayleigh fading sequence using Smith’s method [1] and Young’s modification of Smith’s method [2]. The main contribution of Young was that he proposed a mechanism where the number of IDFTs was reduced by half. This was achieved by first adding two length N IID zero mean Gaussian sequences filtered by the filter F[k] and then performing the IDFT on the resulting complex sequence.

This was different to Smith’s method where the IDFT was performed simultaneously on two branches and then the outputs of these branches were added in quadrature to achieve the desired sequence with Rayleigh distributed envelope and Uniformly distributed phase. Another problem with Smith’s method was that the outputs of the two arms after performing IDFTs was assumed to be real which is not always the case in implementation and depends upon the combination of Doppler frequency (fm) and length of Gaussian sequence (N).

Young’s technique is shown graphically in the above figure. Also shown is the definition of filter F[k] which depends upon N, fm and km (please note that the fm in the above equation is normalized by the sampling frequency fs). Here km = N*(fm/fs). We propose three modifications to Young’s technique which significantly reduces computation and at the same time maintains the statistical properties of the generated sequence. The modifications we propose are.

1. First modification has to do with the generated Gaussian sequence. It is observed that the filter F[k], at very high sampling rates, is mostly zero and there are very few points which have some non-zero value. So when we multiply the Gaussian sequence with the filter we mostly get zeros at the output. So we propose that the filter response in the frequency domain must be calculated first and the the Gaussian random sequence must be generated for only those points where the filter F[k] is non-zero e.g. for a sampling frequency of 7.68 MHz (standard sampling frequency for a BW of 5 MHz in LTE) and Doppler frequency of 70 Hz (corresponding to medium Doppler case in LTE) the filter F[k] has 99.9982% zeros in its frequency response and it would be a highly wasteful to calculate Gaussian RVs for all those values.

2. Secondly according to Clarke [3] the Doppler Spectrum measurements have “Marked disagreement at very low frequencies and at frequencies in the region of the sharp cut-off associated with the maximum Doppler frequency shift. At very low frequencies the spectral energy is always observed to be higher than that predicted by theory”. He goes on to add “The reason for this is that neither theoretical model takes into account the large scale variations in total energy which result from the changing topography between transmitter and mobile receiver”. This suggests that the Classical Doppler Spectrum might not be the best choice under all scenarios. This has also been noted in [4] where a flat fading model is evaluated in terms of its Level Crossing Rate and Average Fade Duration. Such a flat spectrum is especially suited to indoor scenarios as noted in [5] and [6].

We propose a filter that gives equal weight to all the frequencies up to the maximum Doppler frequency. So our filter is a box-type filter which applies a constant scaling factor to all the frequencies in the pass-band and zeros out all the frequencies in the stop-band. So in fact the Gaussian sequence that is generated in the in-phase arm may directly be added with the Gaussian sequence from the other arm without applying the frequency domain filter and then IDFT of the complex sequence is taken. We will look into the deviation from ideality that this causes later.

3. The third modification that we propose is in the implementation of the IDFT. Here again we take into consideration that the complex sequence being fed to the IDFT is filled with zeros (as we noted earlier 99.9982% zeros for 7.68 MHz and even more for higher frequencies) so we can avoid a lot multiplications and summations. The IDFT is defined below and also given is our modification to it.

Further improvement in computation time is achieved by implementing the above as a matrix multiplication. The matrix multiplication is implemented as H*X where H is the IDFT coefficients of size N x 2(km+1) and X is a vector of size 2(km+1) x 1 upon which the IDFT has to be performed.

Now let us look at the output sequence generated by using the above techniques. We consider the case of Medium Doppler Frequency of 70 Hz (EVA channel) as defined by LTE specifications. Sampling frequency is fixed at 10 kHz giving a normalized Doppler frequency of 0.007. This was done due to limitation of memory on the machine. The author also experimented with a sampling frequency of 7.68 MHz but this did not yield enough samples for statistically accurate results. We did use a sampling frequency of 7.68 MHz for our bit error rate simulation which is shown in the end.

It is observed for fm=70 Hz the envelope of the output sequence using the proposed technique matches quite well with the envelope of the output sequence generated by the ideal filter proposed by Young. Also the phase and envelope of the sequence generated using the proposed technique has the desired distribution. Some of the other metrics that we can look at are the level crossing rate (LCR) and average fade duration (AFD) as well as the Auto Correlation of the real and imaginary parts of the complex sequence generated.

Parameter

Young

Modified

LCR (ideal)

48.1086

48.1086

LCR (sim)

48.1506

39.4348

AFD (ideal)

0.0018

0.0018

AFD (sim)

0.0018

0.0022

If we look at the results for LCR and AFD we see that the simulated results match reasonably well with the results predicted by theory. These results correspond to 100 snapshots of the fading sequence. It was important to take the average of several snapshots as results varied with each simulation run. Sometimes Young’s technique produced more accurate results while at other times the proposed technique was better. Again the limitations of computer memory and processing power dictated the length of the sequence that could be generated.

In general Young’s technique produced better results than our proposed technique. It was found that product of LCR and AFD for both cases matched quite well with the theoretical value. So the total time spent in a fade state per second was equal in both the cases. In the proposed method the duration of a single fading event was higher, whereas the number of fading events per second was lower. This can be attributed to the fact that in our proposed technique higher weighting is given to lower frequency components and the fading sequence is smoothed out by these low frequency components. One technique to overcome this is spectral broadening as suggested by [4] but this is not the subject here and we postpone its discussion to another article.

Auto Correlation of Real Part fm=70Hz

The Auto Correlation of the real and imaginary parts of the generated sequences are also calculated for a Doppler frequency of 70 Hz. It is found that the Auto Correlation sequence for the two techniques matches quite well. However, the Auto Correlation sequence deviates from the theoretical value as calculated the by Bessel function of the first kind and zero order. Since we have used a flat spectral mask the Auto Correlation function resembles the sinc(x) function which is the same as zeroth order Spherical Bessel Function of the first kind (which is related to 1/2 order Bessel Function of the first kind).

It was found that when the Rayleigh fading sequence is generated by the program provided in Young’s thesis the shape of the Auto Correlation function depends upon the sampling frequency. At a normalized Doppler frequency of 0.05 and N=2^16 Young’s technique produces quite accurate results. We also measured the mean squared error (MSE) between the two Auto Correlations sequences and found it to be a function of the Normalized Doppler Frequency. It was found that as the Normalized Doppler Frequency was increased from 0.00007 to 0.0007 the MSE error dropped from 0.0277 to 0.0041. The relationship between the Normalized Doppler Frequency and MSE, for a fixed sequence length, seems to be resembling an exponential function. For more accurate results, at higher sampling frequencies, the number of samples would have to be increased considerably. In fact it was found that if the variable km (km=N*fm/fs) is maintained at around 20 the error between the two correlation sequences is less than 1% for all possible sampling rates.

We also compared the bit error rate (BER) performance of different QAM modulation schemes using both the techniques for fading envelope generation and found these to be matching quite well. A single tap was used which results in a flat fading channel. This is a simplistic channel model but it gives us some confidence that the proposed approach does have the desired statistical properties. A good test of a temporally correlated Rayleigh fading sequence is to test it on a system that implements interleavers and channel coders whose performance strongly depends upon factors such as the LCR and AFD e.g. a certain forward error correction (FEC) code might work well in high LCR and low AFD as this distributes out errors in different blocks and allows the code to correct them. In simulations done so far (not shown here) we have found that for a 1/2 rate convolutional encoder with Hard Viterbi Decoding the BER for the two schemes matches quite well. In general the results for correlated fading are much worse than uncorrelated fading.

In future we would also like to evaluate the bit error rate (BER) performance of an M-QAM OFDM system with Frequency Selective Rayleigh fading as described by the LTE fading channels EPA, EVA and ETU. This is probably a good scenario to compare the accuracy of the two techniques used to generate Rayleigh fading sequences above. One challenge in this regard is that the LTE channel taps are described in increments of 10 nsec whereas the LTE signal sampling rate is defined on a different scale (minimum Ts=32.5521 nsec corresponding to a sampling rate of 30.72 Msps). So we would have to do sample rate conversion to implement a time varying frequency selective Rayleigh fading channel.

[1] John I. Smith, “A Computer Generated Multipath Fading Simulation for Mobile Radio”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol VT-24, No. 3, August 1975.

[2] David J. Young and Norman C. Beaulieu, “The Generation of Correlated Rayleigh Random Variates by Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform”, IEEE Transactions on Communications vol. 48 no. 7 July 2000.

[3] R. H. Clarke, A Statistical Theory of Mobile Radio Reception”, Bell Systems Technical Journal 47 (6), pp 957–1000, July 1968.

[4] Rosmansyah, Y.; Saunders, S.R.; Sweeney, P.; Tafazolli, R., “Equivalence of flat and classical Doppler sample generators,” Electronics Letters , vol.37, no.4, pp.243,244, 15 Feb 2001.

[5] JTC (Joint Technical Committee T1 RIP1.4 and TIA TR46.3.3/TR45.4.4 on Wireless Access): “Draft final report on RF channel characterization”. Paper no. JTC(AIR)/94.01.17-238R4, January 17, 1994.

[6] ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute): “Universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS); selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies of the UMTS (UMTS 30.03 version 3.2.0)”. Technical Report, TR 101 112 V3.2.0 (1998-04), http://www.etsi.org, 1998.

It is sometimes important to know the relationship between various distributions. This can be useful if there is a function available for one distribution and it can be used to derive other distributions. In the context of Wireless Communications it is important to know the relationship between the Uniform, Gaussian and Rayleigh distribution.

According to Central Limit Theorem the sum of a large number of independent and identically distributed random variables has a Gaussian distribution. This is used to model the amplitude of the in-phase and quadrature components of a wireless signal. Shown below is the model for the received signal which has been modulated by the Gaussian channel coefficients g1 and g2.

r=g1*a1*cos(2*pi*fc*t)+g2*a2*sin(2*pi*fc*t)

The envelope of this signal (sqrt(g1^2+g2^2)) as a Rayleigh distribution. Now if you only had a function for Uniform Distribution you can generate Rayleigh Distribution using the following routine.

clear all
close all
M=10000;
N=100;
for n=1:M;
x1=rand(1,N)-0.5;
x2=rand(1,N)-0.5;
y1=mean(x1);
y2=mean(x2);
z(n)=sqrt(y1^2+y2^2);
end
hist(z,20)

Note: Here a1 and a2 can be considered constants (at least during the symbol duration) and its really g1 and g2 that are varying.

1. The simplest channel model just scales the input signal by a real number between 0 and 1 e.g. if the signal at the transmitter is s(t) then at the receiver it becomes a*s(t). The effect of channel is multiplicative (the receiver noise on the other hand is additive).

2. The above channel model ignores the phase shift introduced by the channel. A more realistic channel model is one that scales the input signal as well rotates it by a certain angle e.g. if s(t) is the transmitted signal then the received signal becomes a*exp(jθ)*s(t).

3. In a realistic channel the transmitter, receiver and/or the environment is in motion therefore the scaling factor and phase shift are a function of time e.g. if s(t) is the transmitted signal then the received signal is a(t)*exp(jθ(t))*s(t). Typically in simulation of wireless communication systems a(t) has a Rayleigh distribution and θ(t) has a uniform distribution.

4. Although the above model is quite popular, it can be further improved by introducing temporal correlation in the fading envelope. This can be achieved by the Smith’s simulator which uses a frequency domain approach to characterize the channel. The behavior of the channel is controlled by the Doppler frequency f_{d}. Higher the Doppler frequency greater is the variation in the channel and vice versa [1].

5. Finally the most advanced wireless channel model is one that considers the channel to be an FIR filter where each tap is defined by the process outlined in (4). The channel thus performs convolution on the signal that passes through it. In the context of LTE there are three channel models that are defined namely Extended Pedestrian A (EPA), Extended Vehicular A (EVA) and Extended Typical Urban (UTU) [2].

Note: As an after thought I have realized that this channel model becomes even more complicated with the introduction of spatial correlation between the antennas of a MIMO system [3].

We have previously discussed the bit error rate (BER) performance of M-QAM in AWGN. We now discuss the BER performance of M-QAM in Rayleigh fading. The one-tap Rayleigh fading channel is generated from two orthogonal Gaussian random variables with variance of 0.5 each. The complex random channel coefficient so generated has an amplitude which is Rayleigh distributed and a phase which is uniformly distributed. As usual the fading channel introduces a multiplicative effect whereas the AWGN is additive.

The function “QAM_fading” has three inputs, ‘n_bits’, ‘M’, ‘EbNodB’ and one output ‘ber’. The inputs are the number of bits to be passed through the channel, the alphabet size and the Energy per Bit to Noise Power Spectral Density in dB respectively whereas the output is the bit error rate (BER).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% FUNCTION THAT CALCULATES THE BER OF M-QAM IN RAYLEIGH FADING
% n_bits: Input, number of bits
% M: Input, constellation size
% EbNodB: Input, energy per bit to noise power spectral density
% ber: Output, bit error rate
% Copyright RAYmaps (www.raymaps.com)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
function[ber]= QAM_fading(n_bits, M, EbNodB)
% Transmitter
k=log2(M);
EbNo=10^(EbNodB/10);
x=transpose(round(rand(1,n_bits)));
h1=modem.qammod(M);
h1.inputtype='bit';
h1.symbolorder='gray';
y=modulate(h1,x);
% Channel
Eb=mean((abs(y)).^2)/k;
sigma=sqrt(Eb/(2*EbNo));
w=sigma*(randn(n_bits/k,1)+1i*randn(n_bits/k,1));
h=(1/sqrt(2))*(randn(n_bits/k,1)+1i*randn(n_bits/k,1));
r=h.*y+w;
% Receiver
r=r./h;
h2=modem.qamdemod(M);
h2.outputtype='bit';
h2.symbolorder='gray';
h2.decisiontype='hard decision';
z=demodulate(h2,r);
ber=(n_bits-sum(x==z))/n_bits
return
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The bit error rates of four modulation schemes 4-QAM, 16-QAM, 64-QAM and 256-QAM are shown in the figure above. All modulation schemes use Gray coding which gives a few dB of margin in the BER performance. As with the AWGN case each additional bit per symbol requires about 1.5-2 dB in signal to ratio to achieve the same BER.

Although not shown here similar behavior is observed for higher order modulation schemes such as 1024-QAM and 4096-QAM (the gap in the signal to noise ratio for the same BER is increased to about 5dB).

Lastly we explain some of the terms used above.

Rayleigh Fading

Rayleigh Fading is a commonly used term in simulation of Digital Communication Systems but it tends to differ in meaning in different contexts. The term Rayleigh Fading as used above means a single tap channel that varies from one symbol to the next. It has an amplitude which is Rayleigh distributed and a phase which is Uniformly distributed. A single tap channel means that it does not introduce any Inter Symbol Interference (ISI). Such a channel is also referred to as a Flat Fading Channel. The channel can also be referred to as a Fast Fading Channel since each symbol experiences a new channel state which is independent of its previous state (also termed as uncorrelated).

Gray Coding

When using QAM modulation, each QAM symbol represents 2,3,4 or higher number of bits. That means that when a symbol error occurs a number of bits are reversed. Now a good way to do the bit-to-symbol assignment is to do it in a way such that no neighboring symbols differ by more than one bit e.g. in 16-QAM, a symbol that represents a binary word 1101 is surrounded by four symbols representing 0101, 1100, 1001 and 1111. So if a symbol error is made, only one bit would be in error. However, one must note that this is true only in good signal conditions. When the SNR is low (noise has a higher magnitude) the symbol might be displaced to a location that is not adjacent and we might get higher number of bits in error.

Hard Decision

The concept of hard decision decoding is important when talking about channel coding, which we have not used in the above simulation. However, we will briefly explain it here. Hard decision is based on what is called “Hamming Distance” whereas soft decision is based on what it called “Euclidean Distance”. Hamming Distance is the distance of a code word in binary form, such as 011 differs from 010 and 001 by 1. Whereas the Euclidean distance is the distance before a decision is made that a bit is zero or one. So if the received sequence is 0.1 0.6 0.7 we get a Euclidean distance of 0.8124 from 010 and 0.6782 from 001. So we cannot make a hard decision about which sequence was transmitted based on the received sequence of 011. But based on the soft metrics we can make a decision that 001 was the most likely sequence that was transmitted (assuming that 010 and 001 were the only possible transmitted sequences).

Since the wireless channel is time varying the channel taps c(0) c(1)…..c(L-1) are also time varying with either Rayleigh or Rician distribution. It is quite easy to generate Rayleigh random variables with the desired power and distribution, however, when these Rayleigh random variables are required to have temporal correlation the process becomes a bit complicated. Temporal correlation of these variables depends upon the Doppler frequency which is turn depends upon the speed of the mobile device. The Doppler frequency is defined as:

fd=v*cos(theta)/lambda

where

fd is the Doppler Frequency in Hz
v is the receiver velocity in m/sec
lambda is the wavelength in m
and theta is the angle between the direction of arrival of the signal and the direction of motion

A simple method for generating Rayleigh random variables with the desired temporal correlation was devised by Smith [1]. His method was based on Clark and Gans fading model and has been widely used in simulation of wireless communication systems.

The method for generating the Rayleigh random with the desired temporal correlation is given below (modified from Theodore S. Rappaport Text).

1. Define N the number of Gaussian RVs to be generated, fm the Doppler frequency in Hz, fs the sampling frequency in Hz, df the frequency spacing which is calculated as df=(2*fm)/(N-1) and M total number of samples in frequency domain which is calculated as M=(fs/df).

2. Generate two sequences of N/2 complex Gaussian random variables. These correspond to the frequency bins up to fm. Take the complex conjugate of these sequences to generate the N/2 complex Gaussian random variables for the negative frequency bins up to -fm.

3. Multiply the above complex Gaussian sequences g1 and g2 with square root of the Doppler Spectrum S generated from -fm to fm. Calculate the spectrum at -fm and +fm by using linear extrapolation.

4. Extend the above generated spectra from -fs/2 to +fs/2 by stuffing zeros from -fs/2 to -fm and fm to fs/2. Take the IFFT of the resulting spectra X and Y resulting in time domain signals x and y.

5. Add the absolute values of the resulting signals x and y in quadrature. Take the absolute value of this complex signal. This is the desired Rayleigh distributed envelope with the required temporal correlation.

The Matlab code for generating Rayleigh random sequence with a Doppler frequency of fm Hz is given below.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% RAYLEIGH FADING SIMULATOR BASED UPON SMITH'S METHOD
% N is the number of paths
% M is the total number of points in the frequency domain
% fm is the Doppler frequency in Hz
% fs is the sampling frequency in Hz
% df is the step size in the frequency domain
% Copyright RAYmaps (www.raymaps.com)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
clear all;
close all;
N=10;
fm=300;
df=(2*fm)/(N-1);
fs=7.68e6;
M=round(fs/df);
T=1/df;
Ts=1/fs;
% Generate two sequences of N complex Gaussian random variables
g=randn(1,N/2)+j*randn(1,N/2);
gc=conj(g);
g1=[fliplr(gc), g];
g=randn(1,N/2)+j*randn(1,N/2);
gc=conj(g);
g2=[fliplr(gc), g];
% Generate Doppler Spectrum S
f=-fm:df:fm;
S=1.5./(pi*fm*sqrt(1-(f/fm).^2));
S(1)=2*S(2)-S(3);
S(end)=2*S(end-1)-S(end-2);
% Multiply the complex sequences with the Doppler Spectrum S, take IFFT
X=g1.*sqrt(S);
X=[zeros(1,round((M-N)/2)), X, zeros(1,round((M-N)/2))];
x=abs(ifft(X,M));
Y=g2.*sqrt(S);
Y=[zeros(1,round((M-N)/2)), Y, zeros(1,round((M-N)/2))];
y=abs(ifft(Y,M));
% Find the resulting Rayleigh faded envelope
z=x+j*y;
r=abs(z);
t=0:Ts:T-Ts;
plot(t,10*log10(r/mean(r)),'r')
xlabel('Time(sec)')
ylabel('Envelope (dB)')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The above code generates a Rayleigh random sequence with samples spaced at 0.1302 usec. This corresponds to a sampling frequency of 7.68 MHz which is the standard sampling frequency for a bandwidth of 5MHz. Similarly, the sampling rate for 10 MHz and 20 MHz is 15.36 MHz and 30.72 MHz respectively. The Doppler frequency can also be changed according to the scenario. LTE standard defines 3 channel models EPA, EVA and ETU with Doppler frequencies of 5 Hz, 70 Hz and 300 Hz respectively. These are also known as Low Doppler, Medium Doppler and High Doppler respectively.

The above code generated Rayleigh sequences of varying lengths for the three cases. But in all the cases it is in excess of 10 msec and can be used as the fading sequence for an LTE frame. Just to recall an LTE frame is of 10 msec duration with 20 time slots of 0.5 msec each. If each slot contains 7 OFDM symbols the total length of a fading sequence is 140 symbols.

It is seen that the fluctuation in the channel increases with Doppler frequency. The channel is almost static for a Doppler frequency of 5 Hz and varies quite rapidly for a Doppler frequency of 300 Hz. It is also shown above that the envelope of z is Rayleigh distributed and phase of z is Uniformly distributed. However, the range of phase is from 0 to pi/2. This needs to be further investigated. The level crossing rate and average fade duration can also be measured.

This is the process for generating one Rayleigh distributed channel tap. This step would have to be repeated for the number of taps in the channel model which could be 7 or 9 for the LTE channel models. A Ricean distributed channel tap can be generated in a similar fashion. MIMO channel taps can also be generated using the above described method, however, we would need to understand the concept of antenna correlation before we do that.

Level Crossing Rate and Average Fade Duration

Level crossing rate (LCR) is defined as number of times per second the signal envelope crosses a given threshold. This could be either in the positive direction or negative direction. Average fade duration (AFD) is the average duration that the signal envelope remains below a given threshold once it crosses that threshold. Simply it is the average duration of a fading event. The LCR and AFD are interconnected and the product of these two quantities is a constant. The program given below calculates the LCR and AFD of the above generated envelope r.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% PROGRAM TO CALCULATE THE LEVEL CROSSING RATE AND AVERAGE FADE DURATION
% Rth: Level to calculate the LCR and AFD
% Rrms: RMS level of the signal r
% rho: Ratio of defined threshold and RMS level
% Copyright RAYmaps (www.raymaps.com)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Rth=0.30;
Rrms=sqrt(mean(r.^2));
rho=Rth/Rrms;
count1=0;
count2=0;
r=r/mean(r);
for n=1:length(r)-1
if r(n)<Rth && r(n+1)>Rth
count1=count1+1;
end
if r(n) < Rth
count2=count2+1;
end
end
LCR=count1/(T)
AFD=((count2*Ts)/T)/LCR
LCR_num=sqrt(2*pi)*fm*rho*exp(-(rho^2))
AFD_num=(exp(rho^2)-1)/(rho*fm*sqrt(2*pi))
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The program calculates both the simulated and theoretical values of LCR and AFD e.g. for a threshold level of 0.3 (-5.22 dB) the LCR and AFD values calculated for fm=70 Hz and N=32 are:

LCR simulation = 45.16

LCR theoretical = 43.41

AFD simulation = 0.0015 sec

AFD theoretical = 0.0016 sec

It can be seen that the theoretical and simulation results match quite well. This gives us confidence that are generated envelope has the desired statistical characteristics.

Note:

1. According to Wireless Communications Principles and Practice by Ted Rappaport “Perform an IFFT on the resulting frequency domain signals from the in-phase and quadrature arms to get two N-length time series, and add the squares of each signal point in time to create an N-point time series. Note that each quadrature arm should be a real signal after IFFT”. Now this point about the signal being real after IFFT is not always satisfied by the above program. The condition can be satisfied by playing around with the value of N a bit.

2. Also, we take the absolute value of both the time series after IFFT operation to make sure that we get a real valued sequence. However, taking the absolute value of both the in-phase and quadrature terms makes z fall in the first quadrant and the phase of z to vary from 0 to pi/2. A better approach might be to use the ‘real’ function instead of ‘abs’ function so that the phase can vary from 0 to 2pi.

3. A computationally efficient method of generating Rayleigh fading sequence is given here.

[1] John I. Smith, “A Computer Generated Multipath Fading Simulation for Mobile Radio”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol VT-24, No. 3, August 1975.

When a wireless signal travels from a transmitter to a receiver it follows multiple paths. The signal may travel directly following the line of sight between the transmitter and receiver, it may bounce off the ground and reach the receiver or it may be reflected by multiple buildings on the way to the receiver. When these copies of the same signal arrive at the receiver they are delayed and attenuated based upon the path length that they have followed and various other factors.

A well known technique to model such a wireless channel is to model it as an FIR (Finite Impulse Response) filter. The wireless channel thus performs the convolution operation on the transmitted signal. The multipath profile of three well known LTE channel models is shown below.

The channel profile quantifies the delays and relative powers of the multipath components. It can be observed that the EPA model has 7 multipath components whereas the EVA and ETU models have 9 multipath components each. However there is a small caveat here. The multipath components described in the above table are not uniformly spaced in the time domain. So if an FIR filter has to perform convolution operation on a signal uniformly sampled at 100 MHz (Ts=10 nsec) the number of filter taps would be much larger. To be exact the FIR filters corresponding to the above channel models would have 42, 252 and 501 filter taps respectively. Most of these taps would have no power so the FIR filter can be efficiently implemented in hardware.

Also, if the channel is time-varying as most wireless channels are, each filter tap can be modeled to have a Rayleigh or Ricean distribution with a mean value described in the table above. Lastly, the variation in the value of a channel tap from one sample to the next depends upon the Doppler frequency which in turn depends upon the speed of the mobile unit. Higher the velocity of a mobile unit higher would be the Doppler frequency and greater would be the variations in the channel. The Doppler frequency is defined as:

fd=v*cos(theta)/lambda

where

‘fd’ is the Doppler Frequency
‘v’ is the receiver velocity
‘lambda’ is the wavelength
and ‘theta’ is the angle between the direction of arrival of the signal and the direction of motion

The exact method of generating Rayleigh distributed channel co-efficients with the desired temporal correlation requires some more explanation and would be the subject of a future post.

Note:
1. The above multipath channel models have a maximum delay of 410 nsec, 2510 nsec and 5000 nsec which is well within the range of a long cyclic prefix of length 16.67 usec (16670 nsec). So the Intersymbol Interference (ISI) would not adversely effect the system performance.
2. If you are doing simulation of a system that operates on individual symbols then temporal correlation between channel co-efficients is not that important. But if the system operates on blocks of symbols or bits (as an interleaver or convolutional encoder does) then temporal correlation plays an important part in determining the system performance.