Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js

Exercise 3.3Z: Optimization of a Coaxial Cable System

From LNTwww

Normalized system parameters for different cutoff frequencies

We consider a redundancy-free binary transmission system with the following specifications:

  • The transmission pulses are NRZ rectangular and have energy  EB=s20T.
  • The channel is a coaxial cable with characteristic cable attenuation  a=40dB.
  • AWGN noise with (one-sided) noise power density  N0=0.0001EB  is present.
  • The receiver frequency response  HE(f)  includes an ideal channel equalizer  H1K(f)  and a Gaussian low-pass filter  HG(f)  with cutoff frequency  fG  for noise power limitation.


The table shows the eye opening   ¨o(TD)   as well as the detection noise rms value   σd   – each normalized to the transmitted amplitude  s0  – for different cutoff frequencies  fG.  The cutoff frequency is to be chosen such that the worst-case error probability is as small as possible,  with the following definition:

pU=Q(¨o(TD)/2σd)pU=Q(ρU)
  • This quantity represents an upper bound for the mean error probability   pSpU.
  • For  fGT0.4,  a lower bound can also be given:   pSpU/4.


Notes:



Questions

1

Within the given grid,  determine the optimal cutoff frequency with respect to the  "worst-case error probability"  criterion.

fG, optT = 

2

What values does this give for the  "worst-case signal-to-noise ratio"  and the worst-case error probability?

fG=G, opt:10lgρU = 

 dB
pU = 

 %

3

To what value would we need to reduce the noise power density  N0  (with respect to signal energy)  so that  pU  is not greater than  106?

N0/EB = 

 105

4

For the assumptions made in  (3),  give a lower and an upper bound for the  "average error probability"   pS

p S, min = 

 106
p S, max = 

 106


Solution

(1)  For the optimization it is sufficient to maximize the quotient  ¨o(TD)/σd:

  • This is maximized from the values given in the table for the cutoff frequency  fG,optT=0.4_  with  0.735/0.1973.73.
  • As a comparison:   For  fGT=0.3  the result is  0.192/0.0942.04  due to the smaller eye opening.
  • For  fGT=0.5  the quotient is also smaller than for the optimum:  1.159/0.3793.05.
  • 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:

ρU=(3.73/2)23.4810lgρU=5.41dB_pU=Q(3.73/2)0.031_.


(3)  With the given  10lgEB/N0=40 dB,  i.e. EB/N0=104,  the worst-case signal-to-noise ratio has been found to be  10lgρU5.41dB.

  • However,  for the worst-case error probability  pU=106   ⇒   10lgρU>13.55dB  must be obtained.
  • This is achieved by increasing the quotient  EB/N0  accordingly:
10lgEB/N0=40dB+13.55dB5.41dB=48.14dBEB/N0=104.81465163N0/EB=1.53105_.


(4) 

  • The upper bound  for pS  is equal to the worst-case error probability  pU=106_.
  • The lower bound is  0.25106_,  which is smaller by a factor of  4.