Aufgaben:Exercise 3.5: Eye Opening with Pseudoternary Coding: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Fix interlanguage link: resolve redirect chain |
||
| (27 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{quiz-Header|Buchseite= | {{quiz-Header|Buchseite=Digital_Signal_Transmission/Intersymbol_Interference_for_Multi-Level_Transmission | ||
}} | }} | ||
[[File: | [[File:EN_Dig_A_3_5.png|right|frame|Eye diagrams with AMI and duobinary code]] | ||
Three digital transmission systems are considered, each with the following matching properties: | |||
* NRZ& | * NRZ rectangular pulses with amplitude $s_0 = 2 \, {\rm V}$, | ||
* coaxial cable with characteristic cable attenuation $a_* = 40 \, {\rm dB}$, | |||
* AWGN noise with noise power density $N_0$, | |||
* receiver filter $H_{\rm E}(f) = 1/H_{\rm K}(f) \cdot H_{\rm G}(f) $ consisting of an ideal channel equalizer $H_{\rm K}(f)^{-1}$ and a Gaussian low-pass filter $H_{\rm G}(f)$ with normalized cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G} \cdot T \approx 0.5$, | |||
* threshold decision with optimal decision thresholds and optimal detection time $T_{\rm D} = 0$. | |||
The system variants to be investigated in the exercise differ only in terms of the line code: | |||
⇒ $\text{System A}$ uses a binary bipolar redundancy-free transmission signal. The following descriptive variables are known: | |||
* Basic detection pulse values $g_0 = 1.56 \, {\rm V}$, $g_1 = g_{\rm –1} = 0.22 \, {\rm V}$, $g_2 = g_{\rm –2} = \, \text{ ...} \, \approx 0$ | |||
:$$\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}{\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{ 2} = g_{0}-g_{1}-g_{-1} = 1.12\,{\rm V}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | |||
* Noise rms value $\sigma_d \approx 0.2 \, {\rm V}$ | |||
:$$\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{\big[\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})/2\big]^2}{\sigma_d^2}\approx 31.36\,{\rm dB} \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \approx 15\,{\rm dB}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | |||
:$${\rm | |||
⇒ $\text{System B}$ uses AMI coding: | |||
* | *Here the outer symbols $"+1"$ or $"–1"$ occur only in isolation. | ||
* | *In the case of three consecutive symbols, the sequences "$\hspace{-0.1cm}\text{ ...} \, , \, +1, \, +1, \, +1, \,\text{ ...}$" and "$\hspace{-0.1cm}\text{ ...} \, , \, +1, \, 0, \, +1, \, \text{ ...} $" among others, are not possible, | ||
* in contrast to the sequence "$\hspace{-0.1cm}\text{ ...} \, , \, +1, \, –1, \, +1, \, \text{ ...} $". | |||
=== | ⇒ $\text{System C}$ uses the duobinary code: | ||
*Here the alternating sequence "$\hspace{-0.1cm} \text{ ...} \, , \, –1, \, +1, \, –1, \, \text{ ...} $" is excluded by the code, which has a favorable effect on the eye opening. | |||
Notes: | |||
*The exercise belongs to the chapter [[Digital_Signal_Transmission/Intersymbol_Interference_for_Multi-Level_Transmission|"Intersymbol Interference for Multi-Level Transmission"]]. | |||
* Not all of the numerical values given here are necessary to solve this exercise. | |||
===Questions=== | |||
<quiz display=simple> | <quiz display=simple> | ||
{ | {Calculate the half eye opening for the '''AMI code'''. | ||
|type="{}"} | |type="{}"} | ||
${ | $\text{System B:}\hspace{0.4cm} \ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})/2 \ = \ $ { 0.45 3% } $\ {\rm V}$ | ||
{ | {Calculate the worst-case signal-to-noise ratio for this system. | ||
|type="{}"} | |type="{}"} | ||
${ | $\text{System B:}\hspace{0.4cm} 10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, \rho_{\rm U} \ = \ $ { 7 3% } $\ {\rm dB}$ | ||
{ | {How must the thresholds $E_1$ and $E_2$ be chosen so that the result just calculated is correct? | ||
|type="{}"} | |type="{}"} | ||
$E_1$ | $E_1 \ \hspace{0.05cm} = \ ${ -0.69--0.65 } $\ {\rm V}$ | ||
$E_2$ | $E_2 \ = \ $ { 0.667 3% } $\ {\rm V}$ | ||
{ | {Calculate the half eye opening at the '''duobinary code'''. | ||
|type="{}"} | |type="{}"} | ||
${ | $\text{System C:}\hspace{0.4cm} \ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})/2 \ = \ $ { 0.67 3% } $\ {\rm V}$ | ||
{ | {Calculate the worst-case signal-to-noise ratio for duobinary coding. | ||
|type="{}"} | |type="{}"} | ||
${ | $\text{System C:}\hspace{0.4cm} 10 \cdot {\rm lg} \, \rho_{\rm U} \ = \ $ { 10.5 3% } $\ {\rm dB}$ | ||
</quiz> | </quiz> | ||
=== | ===Solution=== | ||
{{ML-Kopf}} | {{ML-Kopf}} | ||
'''(1)''' | '''(1)''' Since the symbol rate is not changed in the AMI code compared to the redundancy-free binary system, the basic detection pulse values remain unchanged: | ||
:$$g_0 = 1.56 \, {\rm V}, \ g_1 = g_{\rm –1} = 0.22 \, {\rm V}, \ g_2 = g_{\rm –2} \approx 0.$$ | |||
In pseudo-ternary coding, there are always two eye openings: | |||
*The upper boundary line of the upper eye results in the AMI code as in the redundancy-free binary system: | |||
:$$d_{\rm | :$$d_{\rm top}= g_0 - 2 \cdot g_1 \hspace{0.2cm}\text{(associated sequence: } "\hspace{-0.1cm}-1, +1, -1\hspace{-0.1cm}")\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | ||
*In contrast, for the lower boundary line of the upper eye: | |||
:$$ | :$$d_{\rm bottom}= g_1 \hspace{0.2cm}\text{(associated sequences: }\ "\hspace{-0.1cm}0,\ 0, +1\hspace{-0.1cm}"\hspace{0.2cm}\text{and} "\hspace{-0.1cm}+1,\ 0,\ 0\hspace{-0.1cm}")\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | ||
Thus, for the half eye opening, the following holds true: | |||
:$${\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2}= {1}/{2} \cdot (d_{\rm top} - d_{\rm bottom}) = {1}/{2} \cdot g_0 - {3}/{2} \cdot g_1 \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {=0.45\,{\rm V}}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | |||
The corresponding equation for the redundancy-free binary system is: | |||
:$${\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2}= g_0 - 2 \cdot g_1 \hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | :$${\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2}= g_0 - 2 \cdot g_1 \hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | ||
'''(2)''' | '''(2)''' In terms of noise, there is no difference between the three systems since the same symbol rate is always present. It follows for the AMI code: | ||
:$$\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{(0.45\,{\rm V})^2}{(0.2\,{\rm V})^2} = | :$$\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{(0.45\,{\rm V})^2}{(0.2\,{\rm V})^2} =5.06 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {\approx 7\,{\rm dB}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | ||
*The loss compared to the redundancy-free binary system is thus almost $8 \, {\rm dB}$. | |||
lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {\approx 7\,{\rm dB}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | |||
*The reason for this serious loss of signal-to-noise ratio is that with the AMI code, despite $37\%$ redundancy, the symbol sequence "$\text{ ...} , \, –1, \, +1, \, –1, \text{ ...} $" is not excluded, which is particularly unfavorable with respect to intersymbol interference. | |||
'''(3)''' The threshold $E_2$ must be in the middle between $d_{\rm top}$ and $d_{\rm bottom}$: | |||
:$$E_2= {1}/{2} \cdot (d_{\rm top} + d_{\rm bottom}) = {1}/{2} \cdot (g_0 - g_1 ) \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {=0.67\,{\rm V}}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | |||
*The threshold value $E_1$ is symmetrical to this: $E_1 \, \underline {= \, –0.67 {\rm V}}$. | |||
'''(4)''' We again assume the same basic detection pulse values. | |||
*The worst-case sequence with respect to the upper boundary line of the upper eye is "$\text{ ...} , 0, \, +1, \, 0, \text{ ...} $", | |||
*while the lower boundary line is defined by "$\text{ ...} , 0, \, 0, \, +1, \text{ ...} $" or "$\text{ ...} , +1, \, 0, \, 0, \text{ ...} $" respectively. | |||
*From this follows: | |||
:$$d_{\rm | :$$d_{\rm top}= g_0, \hspace{0.2cm} d_{\rm bottom} = g_1 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow\hspace{0.3cm}{\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2} = {g_0}/{2} -{g_1}/{2}\hspace{0.15cm}\underline { = 0.667\,{\rm V}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | ||
\hspace{0.3cm}{\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2} = {g_0}/{2} - | |||
{g_1}/{2}\hspace{0.15cm}\underline { = 0. | |||
'''(5)''' | '''(5)''' Using the result from '''(4)''', we obtain analogous to subtask '''(2)''': | ||
:$$\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{(0.67\,{\rm V})^2}{(0.2\,{\rm V})^2} = | :$$\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{(0.67\,{\rm V})^2}{(0.2\,{\rm V})^2} =11.2 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {\approx 10.5\,{\rm dB}}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | ||
lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {\approx 10.5\,{\rm dB}} | |||
\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | |||
*Prerequisite for this result are thresholds at | |||
:$$E_2= {1}/{2} \cdot (g_0 + g_1 ) = | :$$E_2= {1}/{2} \cdot (g_0 + g_1 ) =0.89\,{\rm V}, \hspace{0.2cm}E_1 = - 0.89\,{\rm V}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$ | ||
*It should be noted that the same cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G} \cdot T = 0.5$ was always assumed here. | |||
*If the cutoff frequency is optimized, it may well be that the duobinary code is superior to the redundancy-free binary code if the characteristic cable attenuation is sufficiently large. | |||
{{ML-Fuß}} | {{ML-Fuß}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Digital Signal Transmission: Exercises|^3.4 Eye Opening with Multilevel Systems^]] | ||
[[de:Aufgaben:Aufgabe 3.5: Augenöffnung bei Pseudoternärcodierung]] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:56, 16 March 2026

Three digital transmission systems are considered, each with the following matching properties:
- NRZ rectangular pulses with amplitude $s_0 = 2 \, {\rm V}$,
- coaxial cable with characteristic cable attenuation $a_* = 40 \, {\rm dB}$,
- AWGN noise with noise power density $N_0$,
- receiver filter $H_{\rm E}(f) = 1/H_{\rm K}(f) \cdot H_{\rm G}(f) $ consisting of an ideal channel equalizer $H_{\rm K}(f)^{-1}$ and a Gaussian low-pass filter $H_{\rm G}(f)$ with normalized cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G} \cdot T \approx 0.5$,
- threshold decision with optimal decision thresholds and optimal detection time $T_{\rm D} = 0$.
The system variants to be investigated in the exercise differ only in terms of the line code:
⇒ $\text{System A}$ uses a binary bipolar redundancy-free transmission signal. The following descriptive variables are known:
- Basic detection pulse values $g_0 = 1.56 \, {\rm V}$, $g_1 = g_{\rm –1} = 0.22 \, {\rm V}$, $g_2 = g_{\rm –2} = \, \text{ ...} \, \approx 0$
- $$\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}{\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{ 2} = g_{0}-g_{1}-g_{-1} = 1.12\,{\rm V}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
- Noise rms value $\sigma_d \approx 0.2 \, {\rm V}$
- $$\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{\big[\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})/2\big]^2}{\sigma_d^2}\approx 31.36\,{\rm dB} \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \approx 15\,{\rm dB}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
⇒ $\text{System B}$ uses AMI coding:
- Here the outer symbols $"+1"$ or $"–1"$ occur only in isolation.
- In the case of three consecutive symbols, the sequences "$\hspace{-0.1cm}\text{ ...} \, , \, +1, \, +1, \, +1, \,\text{ ...}$" and "$\hspace{-0.1cm}\text{ ...} \, , \, +1, \, 0, \, +1, \, \text{ ...} $" among others, are not possible,
- in contrast to the sequence "$\hspace{-0.1cm}\text{ ...} \, , \, +1, \, –1, \, +1, \, \text{ ...} $".
⇒ $\text{System C}$ uses the duobinary code:
- Here the alternating sequence "$\hspace{-0.1cm} \text{ ...} \, , \, –1, \, +1, \, –1, \, \text{ ...} $" is excluded by the code, which has a favorable effect on the eye opening.
Notes:
- The exercise belongs to the chapter "Intersymbol Interference for Multi-Level Transmission".
- Not all of the numerical values given here are necessary to solve this exercise.
Questions
Solution
- $$g_0 = 1.56 \, {\rm V}, \ g_1 = g_{\rm –1} = 0.22 \, {\rm V}, \ g_2 = g_{\rm –2} \approx 0.$$
In pseudo-ternary coding, there are always two eye openings:
- The upper boundary line of the upper eye results in the AMI code as in the redundancy-free binary system:
- $$d_{\rm top}= g_0 - 2 \cdot g_1 \hspace{0.2cm}\text{(associated sequence: } "\hspace{-0.1cm}-1, +1, -1\hspace{-0.1cm}")\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
- In contrast, for the lower boundary line of the upper eye:
- $$d_{\rm bottom}= g_1 \hspace{0.2cm}\text{(associated sequences: }\ "\hspace{-0.1cm}0,\ 0, +1\hspace{-0.1cm}"\hspace{0.2cm}\text{and} "\hspace{-0.1cm}+1,\ 0,\ 0\hspace{-0.1cm}")\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
Thus, for the half eye opening, the following holds true:
- $${\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2}= {1}/{2} \cdot (d_{\rm top} - d_{\rm bottom}) = {1}/{2} \cdot g_0 - {3}/{2} \cdot g_1 \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {=0.45\,{\rm V}}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
The corresponding equation for the redundancy-free binary system is:
- $${\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2}= g_0 - 2 \cdot g_1 \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
(2) In terms of noise, there is no difference between the three systems since the same symbol rate is always present. It follows for the AMI code:
- $$\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{(0.45\,{\rm V})^2}{(0.2\,{\rm V})^2} =5.06 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {\approx 7\,{\rm dB}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
- The loss compared to the redundancy-free binary system is thus almost $8 \, {\rm dB}$.
- The reason for this serious loss of signal-to-noise ratio is that with the AMI code, despite $37\%$ redundancy, the symbol sequence "$\text{ ...} , \, –1, \, +1, \, –1, \text{ ...} $" is not excluded, which is particularly unfavorable with respect to intersymbol interference.
(3) The threshold $E_2$ must be in the middle between $d_{\rm top}$ and $d_{\rm bottom}$:
- $$E_2= {1}/{2} \cdot (d_{\rm top} + d_{\rm bottom}) = {1}/{2} \cdot (g_0 - g_1 ) \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {=0.67\,{\rm V}}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
- The threshold value $E_1$ is symmetrical to this: $E_1 \, \underline {= \, –0.67 {\rm V}}$.
(4) We again assume the same basic detection pulse values.
- The worst-case sequence with respect to the upper boundary line of the upper eye is "$\text{ ...} , 0, \, +1, \, 0, \text{ ...} $",
- while the lower boundary line is defined by "$\text{ ...} , 0, \, 0, \, +1, \text{ ...} $" or "$\text{ ...} , +1, \, 0, \, 0, \text{ ...} $" respectively.
- From this follows:
- $$d_{\rm top}= g_0, \hspace{0.2cm} d_{\rm bottom} = g_1 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow\hspace{0.3cm}{\ddot{o}(T_{\rm D})}/{2} = {g_0}/{2} -{g_1}/{2}\hspace{0.15cm}\underline { = 0.667\,{\rm V}} \hspace{0.05cm}.$$
(5) Using the result from (4), we obtain analogous to subtask (2):
- $$\rho_{\rm U} = \frac{(0.67\,{\rm V})^2}{(0.2\,{\rm V})^2} =11.2 \hspace{0.3cm}\Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm}10 \cdot {\rm lg}\hspace{0.1cm}\rho_{\rm U} \hspace{0.15cm}\underline {\approx 10.5\,{\rm dB}}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
- Prerequisite for this result are thresholds at
- $$E_2= {1}/{2} \cdot (g_0 + g_1 ) =0.89\,{\rm V}, \hspace{0.2cm}E_1 = - 0.89\,{\rm V}\hspace{0.05cm}.$$
- It should be noted that the same cutoff frequency $f_{\rm G} \cdot T = 0.5$ was always assumed here.
- If the cutoff frequency is optimized, it may well be that the duobinary code is superior to the redundancy-free binary code if the characteristic cable attenuation is sufficiently large.