# Sum of Sinusoids Fading Simulator

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.

# Uniform, Gaussian and Rayleigh Distribution

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.

# Implementing a Non-Uniformly Spaced Tapped Delay Line Channel Model

Question:
Since you are good on fundamentals I would like to ask you a question that puzzles me. LTE channels models are defined at irregular time intervals as shown in [1].

The EPA, EVA and ETU channel taps can best be described as being sampled at multiples of 10 nsec. However, LTE signal is sampled at multiples of 3.84 MHz (Ts=260.416667 nsec). So how does one perform convolution operation.

Empirical multipath channel is usually characterized as a τ-spaced tapped delay line (TDL), whose power delay profile (PDP) is either uniformly spaced, or more frequently, spaced with arbitrary time delay(s). Converting a τ-spaced empirical model to a more tractable T-spaced (sampling time-spaced) statistical model will greatly facilitate the link-level simulation and performance evaluation of the broadband digital wireless system. The practical approaches to accomplish this task could be either approximation or interpolation,

1. Approximation
a. Ceil or Floor a τ-spaced tap to the neighbouring sampling time.
b. Split the energy of a τ-spaced tap to the adjacent sampling times.
2. Interpolation
An Ideal Bandlimited (sinc) Interpolator can fulfil the goal.

It should be noted that although T-spaced statistical model is simpler for analysis, τ-spaced empirical model represents the channel more accurately.

[1] http://www.steepestascent.com/content/mediaassets/html/LTE/Help/PropagationConditions.html

# MIMO Capacity in a Fading Environment

The Shannon Capacity of a channel is the data rate that can be achieved over a given bandwidth (BW) and at a particular signal to noise ratio (SNR) with diminishing bit error rate (BER). This has been discussed in an earlier post for the case of SISO channel and additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). For a MIMO fading channel the capacity with channel not known to the transmitter is given as (both sides have been normalized by the bandwidth [1]):

Shannon Capacity of a MIMO Channel

where NT is the number of transmit antennas, NR is the number of receive antennas, γ is the signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR), INR is the NRxNR identity matrix and H is the NRxNT channel matrix. Furthermore, hij, an element of the matrix H defines the complex channel coefficient between the ith receive antenna and jth transmit antenna. It is quite obvious that the channel capacity (in bits/sec/Hz) is highly dependent on the structure of matrix H. Let us explore the effect of H on the channel capacity.

Let us first consider a 4×4 case (NT=4, NR=4) where the channel is a simple AWGN channel and there is no fading. For this case hij=1 for all values of i and j. It is found that channel capacity of this simple channel for an SINR of 10 dB is 5.36bits/sec/Hz. It is further observed that the channel capacity does not change with number of transmit antennas and increases logarithmically with increase in number of receive antennas. Thus it can be concluded that in an AWGN channel no multiplexing gain is obtained by increasing the number of transmit antennas.

We next consider a more realistic scenario where the channel coefficients hij are complex with real and imaginary parts having a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance 0.5. Since the channel H is random the capacity is also a random variable with a certain distribution. An important metric to quantify the capacity of such a channel is the Complimentary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF). This curve basically gives the probability that the MIMO capacity is above a certain threshold.

It is obvious (see figure above) that there is a very high probability that the capacity obtained for the MIMO channel is significantly higher than that obtained for an AWGN channel e.g. for an SINR of 9 dB there is 90% probability that the capacity is greater than 8 bps/Hz. Similarly for an SINR of 12 dB there is a 90% probability that the capacity is greater than 11 bps/Hz. For a stricter threshold of 99% the above capacities are reduced to 7.2 bps/Hz and 9.6 bps/Hz.

In a practical system the channel coefficients hij would have some correlation which would depend upon the antenna spacing. Lower the antenna spacing higher would be the antenna correlation and lower would be the MIMO system capacity. This would be discussed in a future post.

The MATLAB code for calculating the CCDF of channel capacity of a MIMO channel is given below.

```clear all
close all

Nr=4;
Nt=4;
I=eye(Nr);
g=15.8489;

for n=1:10000
H=sqrt(1/2)*randn(Nr,Nt)+j*sqrt(1/2)*randn(Nr,Nt);
C(n)=log2(det(I+(g/Nt)*(H*H')));
end

[a,b]=hist(real(C),100);
a=a/sum(a);
plot(b,1-cumsum(a));
xlabel('Capacity (bps/Hz)')
ylabel('Probability (Capacity > Abcissa)')
grid on```

[1] G. J. Foschini and M. J. Gans,”On limits of Wireless Communications in a Fading Environment when Using Multiple Antennas”, Wireless Personal Communications 6, pp 311-335, 1998.

# A Rayleigh Fading Simulator with Temporal and Spatial Correlation

Just to recap, building an LTE fading simulator with the desired temporal and spatial correlation is a three step procedure.

1. Generate Rayleigh fading sequences using Smith’s method which is based on Clarke and Gan’s fading model.

2. Introduce spatial correlation based upon the spatial correlation matrices defined in 3GPP 36.101.

3. Use these spatially and temporally correlated sequences as the filter taps for the LTE channel models.

We have already discussed step 1 and 3 in our previous posts. We now focus on step 2, generating spatially correlated channels coefficients.

3GPP has defined spatial correlation matrices for the Node-B and the UE. These are defined for 1,2 and 4 transmit and receive antennas. These are reproduced below.

Spatial Correlation Matrix

The parameters ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ are defined as:

Low Correlation
alpha=0, beta=0

Medium Correlation
alpha=0.3, beta=0.9

High Correlation
alpha=0.9, beta=0.9

The combined effect of antenna correlation at the transmitter and receiver is obtained by taking the Kronecker product of individual correlation matrices e.g. for a 2×2 case the correlation matrix is given as:

Correlation Matrix for 2×2 MIMO

Multiplying the square root of the correlation matrix with the vector of channel coefficients is equivalent to taking a weighted average e.g. for the channel between transmit antenna 1 and receive antenna 1 the correlated channel coefficient h11corr is given as:

h11corr=w1*h11+w2*h12+w3*h21+w4*h22

where w1=1 and w2, w3 and w4 are less than one and greater than zero. For the high correlation case described above the channel coefficient is calculated as:

h11corr=0.7179*h11+0.4500*h12+0.4500*h21+0.2821*h22

From a practical point of antenna correlation is dependent on the antenna separation. Greater the antenna spacing lower is the antenna correlation and better the system performance. However, a base station requires much higher antenna spacing than a UE to achieve the same level of antenna correlation. This is due to the fact the base station antennas are placed much higher than a UE. Therefore the signals arriving at the base station are usually confined to smaller angles and experience similar fading. A UE on the other hand has a lot of obstacles in the surrounding areas which results in higher angle spread and uncorrelated fading between the different paths.

# LTE Multipath Channel Models

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