Difference between revisions of "Aufgaben:Exercise 3.3Z: Optimization of a Coaxial Cable System"
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | [[File:P_ID1409__Dig_Z_3_3.png|right|frame|Normalized system parameters for different | + | [[File:P_ID1409__Dig_Z_3_3.png|right|frame|Normalized system parameters for different cutoff frequencies]] |
We consider a redundancy-free binary transmission system with the following specifications: | We consider a redundancy-free binary transmission system with the following specifications: | ||
* The transmission pulses are NRZ rectangular and have energy $E_{\rm B} = s_0^2 \cdot T$. | * The transmission pulses are NRZ rectangular and have energy $E_{\rm B} = s_0^2 \cdot T$. | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
*The exercise belongs to the chapter [[Digital_Signal_Transmission/Consideration_of_Channel_Distortion_and_Equalization|"Consideration of Channel Distortion and Equalization"]]. | *The exercise belongs to the chapter [[Digital_Signal_Transmission/Consideration_of_Channel_Distortion_and_Equalization|"Consideration of Channel Distortion and Equalization"]]. | ||
− | * Use the interaction module [[Applets:Komplementäre_Gaußsche_Fehlerfunktionen|"Complementary Gaussian Error Functions"]] for numerical evaluation of the Q-function | + | * Use the interaction module [[Applets:Komplementäre_Gaußsche_Fehlerfunktionen|"Complementary Gaussian Error Functions"]] for numerical evaluation of the Q-function. |
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
===Solution=== | ===Solution=== | ||
{{ML-Kopf}} | {{ML-Kopf}} | ||
− | '''(1)''' For the optimization it is sufficient to maximize the quotient $\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})/\sigma_d$: | + | '''(1)''' For the optimization it is sufficient to maximize the quotient $\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})/\sigma_d$: |
− | *This is maximized from the values given in the table for the cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G, opt} \cdot T \underline {= 0.4}$ with $0.735/0.197 \approx 3.73$. | + | *This is maximized from the values given in the table for the cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G, opt} \cdot T \underline {= 0.4}$ with $0.735/0.197 \approx 3.73$. |
− | *As a comparison: For $f_{\rm G} \cdot T = 0.3$ the result is $0.192/0.094 \approx 2.04$ due to the smaller eye opening | + | *As a comparison: For $f_{\rm G} \cdot T = 0.3$ the result is $0.192/0.094 \approx 2.04$ due to the smaller eye opening. |
+ | *For $f_{\rm G} \cdot T = 0.5$ the quotient is also smaller than for the optimum: $1.159/0.379 \approx 3.05$. | ||
*An even larger cutoff frequency leads to a very large noise rms value without simultaneously increasing the vertical eye opening in the same way. | *An even larger cutoff frequency leads to a very large noise rms value without simultaneously increasing the vertical eye opening in the same way. | ||
− | '''(2)''' Using the result from '''(1)''', we further obtain: | + | '''(2)''' Using the result from '''(1)''', we further obtain: |
:$$\rho_{\rm U} = \left ( {3.73}/{2} \right )^2 \approx 3.48 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} | :$$\rho_{\rm U} = \left ( {3.73}/{2} \right )^2 \approx 3.48 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} | ||
10 \cdot {\rm | 10 \cdot {\rm | ||
Line 69: | Line 70: | ||
− | '''(3)''' | + | '''(3)''' With the given $10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, E_{\rm B}/N_0 = 40 \ \rm dB$, i.e. $E_{\rm B}/N_0 = 10^4$, the worst-case signal-to-noise ratio has been found to be $10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, \rho_{\rm U} \approx 5.41 \, {\rm dB}$. |
− | + | *However, for the worst-case error probability $p_{\rm U} = 10^{\rm -6}$ ⇒ $10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, \rho_{\rm U} > 13.55 \, {\rm dB}$ must be obtained. | |
− | *However, for the worst-case error probability $p_{\rm U} = 10^{\rm -6}$ | + | *This is achieved by increasing the quotient $E_{\rm B}/N_0$ accordingly: |
− | *This is achieved by increasing the quotient $E_{\rm B}/N_0$ accordingly: | ||
:$$10 \cdot {\rm | :$$10 \cdot {\rm | ||
lg}\hspace{0.1cm}{E_{\rm B}}/{N_0} = 40\,{\rm dB} | lg}\hspace{0.1cm}{E_{\rm B}}/{N_0} = 40\,{\rm dB} | ||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
'''(4)''' | '''(4)''' | ||
− | *The upper bound for $p_{\rm S}$ is equal to the worst-case error probability $p_{\rm U} = \underline {10^{\rm -6}}$. | + | *The upper bound for $p_{\rm S}$ is equal to the worst-case error probability $p_{\rm U} = \underline {10^{\rm -6}}$. |
− | *The lower bound is $\underline {0.25 \cdot 10^{\rm -6}}$, which is smaller by a factor of 4. | + | |
+ | *The lower bound is $\underline {0.25 \cdot 10^{\rm -6}}$, which is smaller by a factor of $4$. | ||
{{ML-Fuß}} | {{ML-Fuß}} | ||
[[Category:Digital Signal Transmission: Exercises|^3.3 Channel Distortion and Equalization^]] | [[Category:Digital Signal Transmission: Exercises|^3.3 Channel Distortion and Equalization^]] |
Latest revision as of 14:06, 28 June 2022
We consider a redundancy-free binary transmission system with the following specifications:
- The transmission pulses are NRZ rectangular and have energy $E_{\rm B} = s_0^2 \cdot T$.
- The channel is a coaxial cable with characteristic cable attenuation $a_* = 40 \, {\rm dB}$.
- AWGN noise with (one-sided) noise power density $N_0 = 0.0001 \cdot E_{\rm B}$ is present.
- The receiver frequency response $H_{\rm E}(f)$ includes an ideal channel equalizer $H_{\rm K}^{\rm -1}(f)$ and a Gaussian low-pass filter $H_{\rm G}(f)$ with cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G}$ for noise power limitation.
The table shows the eye opening $\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})$ as well as the detection noise rms value $\sigma_{\rm d}$ – each normalized to the transmitted amplitude $s_0$ – for different cutoff frequencies $f_{\rm G}$. The cutoff frequency is to be chosen such that the worst-case error probability is as small as possible, with the following definition:
- $$p_{\rm U} = {\rm Q} \left( \frac{\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})/2}{ \sigma_d} \right) \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} p_{\rm U} = {\rm Q} \left( \sqrt{\rho_{\rm U}}\right)$$
- This quantity represents an upper bound for the mean error probability $p_{\rm S} \le p_{\rm U}$.
- For $f_{\rm G} \cdot T ≥ 0.4$, a lower bound can also be given: $p_{\rm S} \ge p_{\rm U}/4$.
Notes:
- The exercise belongs to the chapter "Consideration of Channel Distortion and Equalization".
- Use the interaction module "Complementary Gaussian Error Functions" for numerical evaluation of the Q-function.
Questions
Solution
- This is maximized from the values given in the table for the cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G, opt} \cdot T \underline {= 0.4}$ with $0.735/0.197 \approx 3.73$.
- As a comparison: For $f_{\rm G} \cdot T = 0.3$ the result is $0.192/0.094 \approx 2.04$ due to the smaller eye opening.
- For $f_{\rm G} \cdot T = 0.5$ the quotient is also smaller than for the optimum: $1.159/0.379 \approx 3.05$.
- An even larger cutoff frequency leads to a very large noise rms value without simultaneously increasing the vertical eye opening in the same way.
(2) Using the result from (1), we further obtain:
- $$\rho_{\rm U} = \left ( {3.73}/{2} \right )^2 \approx 3.48 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} 10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline { = 5.41\,{\rm dB}}\hspace{0.3cm} \Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} p_{\rm U} = {\rm Q}\left ( {3.73}/{2} \right) \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {\approx 0.031} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
(3) With the given $10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, E_{\rm B}/N_0 = 40 \ \rm dB$, i.e. $E_{\rm B}/N_0 = 10^4$, the worst-case signal-to-noise ratio has been found to be $10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, \rho_{\rm U} \approx 5.41 \, {\rm dB}$.
- However, for the worst-case error probability $p_{\rm U} = 10^{\rm -6}$ ⇒ $10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, \rho_{\rm U} > 13.55 \, {\rm dB}$ must be obtained.
- This is achieved by increasing the quotient $E_{\rm B}/N_0$ accordingly:
- $$10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}{E_{\rm B}}/{N_0} = 40\,{\rm dB} \hspace{0.1cm}+\hspace{0.1cm}13.55\,{\rm dB} \hspace{0.1cm}-\hspace{0.1cm}5.41\,{\rm dB}= 48.14\,{\rm dB}\hspace{0.3cm} \Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} {E_{\rm B}}/{N_0} = 10^{4.814}\approx 65163 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} {N_0}/{E_{\rm B}}\hspace{0.15cm}\underline { = 1.53 \cdot 10^{-5}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
(4)
- The upper bound for $p_{\rm S}$ is equal to the worst-case error probability $p_{\rm U} = \underline {10^{\rm -6}}$.
- The lower bound is $\underline {0.25 \cdot 10^{\rm -6}}$, which is smaller by a factor of $4$.