Spring Semester 2013

Modulation and coding mini-project

Coded bandwidth efficiency plane












1

Mini-project Task:
Regenerate the Bandwidth-efficiency plane and Plot the operating points of different coded
modulation schemes at a bit error probability of 10
-5
.
Solution:
First, the Shannon-Hartley capacity is plotted along with the operating points of the un-coded
MPSK, MQAM and non-coherent MFSK modulation schemes. The MATLAB BERTOOL toolbox is
used to get the Eb/No for each modulation scheme at BER of 10
-5
. Refer to table1.
Table 1: EbNo and for different modulation schemes
Scheme

MPSK MQAM Non-coherent MFSK
M-aray K=log2(M) EbNo =K EbNo =K EbNo
=

2 1 9.6 1

13.31 1/3
4 2 9.6 2 9.55 2 11 2/5
8 3

12.47 3 9.1 1/3
16 4 17.4 4 13.39 4 8.1 4/17
32 5 22.31 5 16.5 5 7.3 5/33
64 6 27.42 6 17.75 6

256 8

22.46 8



Figure 1: Bandwidth efficiency plane

Linear block code (15, 11):
To study the effect of coding on EbNo and the bandwidth efficiency, the (15, 11) with dmin=4 linear
block code is chosen with the same modulation schemes. The MATLAB BERTOOL toolbox is used to
get the Ec/No for each coded modulation scheme at BER of 10
-5
. However, the results are the same
when using the following equation:
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
10
-1
10
0
10
1
Eb/No (dB)
R
/
W

(
b
i
t
/
s
/
H
z
)
Bandwidth efficiency plane
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
10
-1
10
0
10
1
Eb/No (dB)
R
/
W

(
b
i
t
/
s
/
H
z
)
Bandwidth efficiency plane


Shannon-Hartley capacity
BPSK
QPSK
16-PSK
32-PSK
64-PSK
4-QAM
8-QAM
16-QAM
32-QAM
64-QAM
256-QAM
BFSK
QFSK
8-FSK
16-FSK
32-FSK
2

;
Where K=11, and N=15. Note that the decision technique used is hard. Refer to table 2.
Table2: Coded modulation schemes
Scheme

MPSK MQAM Non-coherent MFSK
M-aray K=log2(M) EbNo
=K

EbNo
=K

EbNo
=

2 1 8.387 11/15

12.51 11/45
4 2 8.387 22/15 8.389 22/15 9.91 22/75
8 3

11.26 33/15 8.5 11/45
16 4 16 44/15 12.15 44/15 7.576 44/255
32 5 20.8 55/15 15.22 55/15 7 1/9
64 6 26 66/15 16.4 66/15

256 8

21 88/15


Figure 2: Comparison between linear block coded and un-coded modulation schemes over awgn channel
3

Convolutional codes with code rate of :
The same steps are repeated but with different coding technique which is the convolutional code.
The decision technique is hard, and the Trellis is poly2trellis(7, [171 133]). Refer to table 3 for
details.

Table2: Convolutional coded modulation schemes
Scheme

MPSK MQAM Non-coherent MFSK
M-aray K=log2(M) EbNo
=K

EbNo
=K

EbNo
=

2 1 6.487 0.5

11.28 1/6
4 2 6.487 1 6.487 0.5 8.9 1/5
8 3 9.337 1.5 9.2 1 7.687 1/6
16 4

10 2 6.946 2/17
32 5 17.87 5/2 12.88 5/2 6.402 5/66
64 6 22.62 3 13.97 3

256 8

18.31 4



Figure 3: Comparison between Convolutional coded and encoded modulation schemes over awgn channel
4

Comment on Figures:
Some of design goals are to have less band-width, less power, less bit errors and more data
rate, but usually we have conflict between them. More data transmission means more
bandwidth, less errors means more power neededetc. One way to assess the different
modulation schemes is the Bandwidth-efficiency plane, which shows the Shannon and
various modulation schemes with different values of M for the same probability of error.
The Shannon limit shows the relation between EbNo and BW, -1.6dB means BW, 0dB
means bandwidth efficiency is 1. So, it represents the capacity and the minimum required
bandwidth for a given EbNo to transmit 1 bit/sec in a 1Hz BW. We want to be as close as
possible to Shannon limit but not beyond it, because any value outside would be
unrealizable, more than the maximum capacity of channel and BER would be maximum.
Some modulation schemes are bandwidth limited, like M-PSK and M-QAM hence when
increasing the value of M means more power is needed (EbNo increases), so to reach the
Shannon limit without huge bandwidth expansion we use error control coding techniques.
In the above figures we showed the original un-coded BW-efficiency plane, the plane coded
using Linear-block codes and Convolutional codes. In the coded planes the modulation
schemes points are shifted to the left downwards, meaning that using coding the schemes
now require more BW but less power for the same value of probability of error. The BW
efficiency is reduced by a factor R, and 0<R<1, but the overall gain in reduced power is
more than the loss in BW.












5

MATLAB code1:
close all
clc
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Modulation and Coding %%%
% Shannon capacity:
CW=-5:0.01:20;
SNR=(1./CW).*((2.^CW)-1);
SNR_dB=10.*log10(SNR);
% Plotting of Shannon-Hartley capacity
semilogy(SNR_dB,CW,'LineWidth',2); hold on

%% For M-PSK
% No coding
plot(9.6,1,'sq',9.6,2,'sq',17.4,4,'sq',22.31,5,'sq',27.42,6,'sq','linewidth',2); hold on
% With coding
plot(8.387,(11/15),'x',8.387,(22/15),'x',16,(44/15),'x',20.8,(55/15),'x',26,(66/15),'x','linewidth',2);
grid;hold off
title('Comparison between coded and encoded M-PSK modulation over awgn channel ')


%% For M-QAM
% No coding
plot(9.55,2,'o',12.47,3,'o',13.39,4,'o',16.5,5,'o',17.75,6,'o',22.46,8,'o','linewidth',3); hold on
% With coding
plot(8.389,(22/15),'x',11.26,(33/15),'x',12.15,(44/15),'x',15.22,(55/15),'x',16.4,(66/15),'x',21,(88/15),'x','l
inewidth',2); grid;hold off
title('Comparison between coded and encoded M-QAM modulation over awgn channel ')

%% For M-FSK
plot(13.31,(1/3),'v',11,(2/5),'v',9.1,(1/3),'v',8.1,(4/17),'v',7.3,(5/33),'v','linewidth',2); hold on
plot(12.51,(11/45),'x',9.91,(22/75),'x',8.5,(11/45),'x',7.576,(44/255),'x',7,(1/9),'x','linewidth',2);
grid;hold off
title('Comparison between coded and encoded M-FSK modulation over awgn channel ')


xlim([-5 36]);
ylim([0.1 20]);
xlabel('Eb/No (dB)');
ylabel('R/W (bit/s/Hz)');
title('Bandwidth efficiency plane');

MATLAB code2:
%% For M-PSK
% No coding
plot(9.6,1,'sq',9.6,2,'sq',17.4,4,'sq',22.31,5,'sq',27.42,6,'sq','linewidth',2); hold on
% With coding
plot(6.487,(0.5),'x',6.487,(1),'x',9.337,(3/2),'x',17.87,(5/2),'x',22.62,(3),'x','linewidth',2); grid;hold off
title('Comparison between coded and uncoded M-PSK modulation over awgn channel ')


%% For M-QAM
% No coding
plot(9.55,2,'o',12.47,3,'o',13.39,4,'o',16.5,5,'o',17.75,6,'o',22.46,8,'o','linewidth',3); hold on
% With coding
plot(6.487,(1),'x',9.2,(1.5),'x',10,(2),'x',12.88,(5/2),'x',13.97,(3),'x',18.31,(4),'x','linewidth',2);
grid;hold off
title('Comparison between coded and uncoded M-QAM modulation over awgn channel ')

%% For M-FSK'
% No coding
plot(13.31,(1/3),'v',11,(2/5),'v',9.1,(1/3),'v',8.1,(4/17),'v',7.3,(5/33),'v','linewidth',2); hold on
% With coding
plot(11.28,(1/6),'x',8.9,(1/5),'x',7.687,(1/6),'x',6.946,(2/17),'x',6.402,(5/66),'x','linewidth',2); grid;hold
off
title('Comparison between coded and un-coded M-FSK modulation over awgn channel ')