Turbo coding behavior in Rayleigh fading channels without perfect interleaving

Turbo coding is investigated for uninterleaved and partially interleaved Rayleigh fading channels. It is compared to ordinary convolutional coding with the same rate and memory 2, 4 and 8 best d/sub free/ encoders. When turbo frames are very long, turbo coding with a channel interleaver gets better...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Tepe, K.E., Anderson, J.B.
Format: Tagungsbericht
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1164 vol.2
container_issue
container_start_page 1157
container_title
container_volume 2
creator Tepe, K.E.
Anderson, J.B.
description Turbo coding is investigated for uninterleaved and partially interleaved Rayleigh fading channels. It is compared to ordinary convolutional coding with the same rate and memory 2, 4 and 8 best d/sub free/ encoders. When turbo frames are very long, turbo coding with a channel interleaver gets better bit error rates (BER) than ordinary convolutional coding with a channel interleaver. When the frames are shorter, lower complexity convolutional coding is as good as turbo coding. It is shown by experiment that only after a certain critical frame size does turbo coding get better BER than convolutional coding and the length of this threshold is linearly dependent on the inverse of the fading bandwidth, 1/BT. The effect of the constituent encoders on the error performance is also tested. Memory 2, 4 and 6 constituent encoders are compared. For short to moderate turbo frame size, the memory 2 constituent encoder is as good as the memory 4 and better than the memory 6 encoder. For very long block-lengths, the memory 4 encoder is the best. The memory 6 encoder is always the worst.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/MILCOM.2001.986027
format Conference Proceeding
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>ieee_6IE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_986027</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>986027</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>986027</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-ieee_primary_9860273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9jt0KgjAcxQcRFOULeLUXyOZMp9dSFPQB4b1M-6sL22TOwrdvVNcdDpyL3zlwEHJ94vk-SdanwzG9nDxKiO8lcUQomyAnYTGxDhilIZ0hp-_vxCqkjG6iOTpngy4ULtVNyBoX0PCnUBoLia98bEHUDa74h5UNlxLaHr-EadRgcAe6gtLYrgHdgh3KeommFW97cH65QO5um6X7lQCAvNPiwfWYf88Ff-Eb3ys_Nw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype></control><display><type>conference_proceeding</type><title>Turbo coding behavior in Rayleigh fading channels without perfect interleaving</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</source><creator>Tepe, K.E. ; Anderson, J.B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tepe, K.E. ; Anderson, J.B.</creatorcontrib><description>Turbo coding is investigated for uninterleaved and partially interleaved Rayleigh fading channels. It is compared to ordinary convolutional coding with the same rate and memory 2, 4 and 8 best d/sub free/ encoders. When turbo frames are very long, turbo coding with a channel interleaver gets better bit error rates (BER) than ordinary convolutional coding with a channel interleaver. When the frames are shorter, lower complexity convolutional coding is as good as turbo coding. It is shown by experiment that only after a certain critical frame size does turbo coding get better BER than convolutional coding and the length of this threshold is linearly dependent on the inverse of the fading bandwidth, 1/BT. The effect of the constituent encoders on the error performance is also tested. Memory 2, 4 and 6 constituent encoders are compared. For short to moderate turbo frame size, the memory 2 constituent encoder is as good as the memory 4 and better than the memory 6 encoder. For very long block-lengths, the memory 4 encoder is the best. The memory 6 encoder is always the worst.</description><identifier>ISBN: 9780780372252</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 0780372255</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/MILCOM.2001.986027</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IEEE</publisher><subject>AWGN ; Bandwidth ; Bit error rate ; Convolution ; Convolutional codes ; Fading ; Frequency ; Interleaved codes ; Testing ; Turbo codes</subject><ispartof>2001 MILCOM Proceedings Communications for Network-Centric Operations: Creating the Information Force (Cat. No.01CH37277), 2001, Vol.2, p.1157-1164 vol.2</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/986027$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,776,780,785,786,2052,4036,4037,27902,54895</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/986027$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tepe, K.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, J.B.</creatorcontrib><title>Turbo coding behavior in Rayleigh fading channels without perfect interleaving</title><title>2001 MILCOM Proceedings Communications for Network-Centric Operations: Creating the Information Force (Cat. No.01CH37277)</title><addtitle>MILCOM</addtitle><description>Turbo coding is investigated for uninterleaved and partially interleaved Rayleigh fading channels. It is compared to ordinary convolutional coding with the same rate and memory 2, 4 and 8 best d/sub free/ encoders. When turbo frames are very long, turbo coding with a channel interleaver gets better bit error rates (BER) than ordinary convolutional coding with a channel interleaver. When the frames are shorter, lower complexity convolutional coding is as good as turbo coding. It is shown by experiment that only after a certain critical frame size does turbo coding get better BER than convolutional coding and the length of this threshold is linearly dependent on the inverse of the fading bandwidth, 1/BT. The effect of the constituent encoders on the error performance is also tested. Memory 2, 4 and 6 constituent encoders are compared. For short to moderate turbo frame size, the memory 2 constituent encoder is as good as the memory 4 and better than the memory 6 encoder. For very long block-lengths, the memory 4 encoder is the best. The memory 6 encoder is always the worst.</description><subject>AWGN</subject><subject>Bandwidth</subject><subject>Bit error rate</subject><subject>Convolution</subject><subject>Convolutional codes</subject><subject>Fading</subject><subject>Frequency</subject><subject>Interleaved codes</subject><subject>Testing</subject><subject>Turbo codes</subject><isbn>9780780372252</isbn><isbn>0780372255</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>conference_proceeding</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><sourceid>6IE</sourceid><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><recordid>eNp9jt0KgjAcxQcRFOULeLUXyOZMp9dSFPQB4b1M-6sL22TOwrdvVNcdDpyL3zlwEHJ94vk-SdanwzG9nDxKiO8lcUQomyAnYTGxDhilIZ0hp-_vxCqkjG6iOTpngy4ULtVNyBoX0PCnUBoLia98bEHUDa74h5UNlxLaHr-EadRgcAe6gtLYrgHdgh3KeommFW97cH65QO5um6X7lQCAvNPiwfWYf88Ff-Eb3ys_Nw</recordid><startdate>2001</startdate><enddate>2001</enddate><creator>Tepe, K.E.</creator><creator>Anderson, J.B.</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>6IE</scope><scope>6IH</scope><scope>CBEJK</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>RIO</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2001</creationdate><title>Turbo coding behavior in Rayleigh fading channels without perfect interleaving</title><author>Tepe, K.E. ; Anderson, J.B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-ieee_primary_9860273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>conference_proceedings</rsrctype><prefilter>conference_proceedings</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>AWGN</topic><topic>Bandwidth</topic><topic>Bit error rate</topic><topic>Convolution</topic><topic>Convolutional codes</topic><topic>Fading</topic><topic>Frequency</topic><topic>Interleaved codes</topic><topic>Testing</topic><topic>Turbo codes</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tepe, K.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, J.B.</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plan (POP) 1998-present by volume</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore All Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plans (POP) 1998-present</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tepe, K.E.</au><au>Anderson, J.B.</au><format>book</format><genre>proceeding</genre><ristype>CONF</ristype><atitle>Turbo coding behavior in Rayleigh fading channels without perfect interleaving</atitle><btitle>2001 MILCOM Proceedings Communications for Network-Centric Operations: Creating the Information Force (Cat. No.01CH37277)</btitle><stitle>MILCOM</stitle><date>2001</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>2</volume><spage>1157</spage><epage>1164 vol.2</epage><pages>1157-1164 vol.2</pages><isbn>9780780372252</isbn><isbn>0780372255</isbn><abstract>Turbo coding is investigated for uninterleaved and partially interleaved Rayleigh fading channels. It is compared to ordinary convolutional coding with the same rate and memory 2, 4 and 8 best d/sub free/ encoders. When turbo frames are very long, turbo coding with a channel interleaver gets better bit error rates (BER) than ordinary convolutional coding with a channel interleaver. When the frames are shorter, lower complexity convolutional coding is as good as turbo coding. It is shown by experiment that only after a certain critical frame size does turbo coding get better BER than convolutional coding and the length of this threshold is linearly dependent on the inverse of the fading bandwidth, 1/BT. The effect of the constituent encoders on the error performance is also tested. Memory 2, 4 and 6 constituent encoders are compared. For short to moderate turbo frame size, the memory 2 constituent encoder is as good as the memory 4 and better than the memory 6 encoder. For very long block-lengths, the memory 4 encoder is the best. The memory 6 encoder is always the worst.</abstract><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/MILCOM.2001.986027</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISBN: 9780780372252
ispartof 2001 MILCOM Proceedings Communications for Network-Centric Operations: Creating the Information Force (Cat. No.01CH37277), 2001, Vol.2, p.1157-1164 vol.2
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_ieee_primary_986027
source IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings
subjects AWGN
Bandwidth
Bit error rate
Convolution
Convolutional codes
Fading
Frequency
Interleaved codes
Testing
Turbo codes
title Turbo coding behavior in Rayleigh fading channels without perfect interleaving
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T18%3A30%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ieee_6IE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=proceeding&rft.atitle=Turbo%20coding%20behavior%20in%20Rayleigh%20fading%20channels%20without%20perfect%20interleaving&rft.btitle=2001%20MILCOM%20Proceedings%20Communications%20for%20Network-Centric%20Operations:%20Creating%20the%20Information%20Force%20(Cat.%20No.01CH37277)&rft.au=Tepe,%20K.E.&rft.date=2001&rft.volume=2&rft.spage=1157&rft.epage=1164%20vol.2&rft.pages=1157-1164%20vol.2&rft.isbn=9780780372252&rft.isbn_list=0780372255&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/MILCOM.2001.986027&rft_dat=%3Cieee_6IE%3E986027%3C/ieee_6IE%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=986027&rfr_iscdi=true