Professional Documents
Culture Documents
e
(f) =
_
b
f
p +b
e
e
3
fe
2.5
(2)
R
e
(f) = b
0
e
2.4
f
2.05
(3)
where b
0
= 6.47 10
6
, b
f
= 1.40 10
6
, b
e
= 5.4 10
5
.
The attenuation is given by:
L
wv
=
_
d
0
(x)dx (4)
(x) = 0.1820fR
(f) (5)
Loss due to buildings is modeled based on their physical geometry and the characteristics of mate-
rials out of which they are constructed. The expression for loss is given as [7]:
L
b
= S
G
S
R
p
(6)
where S
G
: Scattering coecient based on the geometry of the building, S
R
: Reection coecient
based on the material of the building and
p
is the polarization coecient. The reection coecient
S
R
is material specic and is calculated as a function of the surface roughness which in turn is
dened by the Rayleigh roughness criterion. The polarization coecient
p
is dened in terms of
incident and reected azimuthal and elevation angles. The expression for loss due to vegetation
has been empirically derived [7] as:
L
veg
= 0.39f
0.39
d
0.25
Trees with leaves (7)
L
veg
= 0.37f
0.18
d
0.59
Trees without leaves (8)
where, L: Loss in dB, f: Frequency in MHz, d: Height of the vegetation in meters.
For a channel consisting of buildings made of wood and having vegetation of height 0.5 m, we
dene the received power P
r
as:
P
r
= 10 log P
t
+20 log c20 log 4D20 log f 10 log L
atm
10 log L
wv
10 log L
b
10 log L
veg
(9)
3. MODELLING THE BER FOR THE RECEIVED POWER
Expressions for the BER in an m-PSK and an m-FSK system are presented below. They have been
calculated with the help of the mathematical formulae given in [9].
4. SIMULATION RESULTS OF BER
Under free-space, clear sky, Line of Sight (LOS) conditions, the variation of power received with
distance of propagation, for various EIRP values at 40 GHz is shown in Figure 1. For an EIRP
of 50 dB, the power received is 54.48 dB at a distance of 100 m and it decreases to 88.48 dB
at a distance of 5 km. This gure has been taken as a reference for the analysis of propagation
mechanisms.
In order to evaluate the Bit Error Rate of a practical communication system employing PSK
or FSK, we substitute the values of received power P
r
into the BER equations. The simulation
parameters are as dened below.
Distance between transmitter and receiver: 1000 m
Pressure: 101325.024 Pa
Temperature: 288 K
Relative humidity: 0.70
The simulated values of BER for a PSK and an FSK system are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
294 PIERS Proceedings, Cambridge, USA, July 58, 2010
Table 1: BER of m-PSK systems.
Type of
modulation
BER expression
Binary PSK BER =
1
2
erfc
_
E
b
N
0
_
Quaternary PSK BER =
1
2
erfc
_
E
b
N
0
_
8-PSK BER =
1
3
erfc
_
_
3E
b
N
0
sin
8
_
16-PSK BER =
1
4
erfc
_
_
4E
b
N
0
sin
_
16
_
_
Table 2: BER of m-FSK systems.
Type of
modulation
BER expression
Binary FSK BER
1
2
erfc
_
E
b
2N
0
_
Quaternary FSK BER
3
4
erfc
_
E
b
N
0
_
8-FSK BER
7
6
erfc
_
3E
b
2N
0
_
16-FSK BER
15
8
erfc
_
2E
b
N
0
_
Figure 1: Received power Vs. distance at 40 GHz.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 2 shows the BER of a PSK system that has been aected by free space path loss, atmospheric
attenuation, water vapor dispersion, reection and scattering due to wooden buildings, and loss
due to vegetation. Figure 3 shows the results for a FSK system.
On comparing Figure 2 and Figure 3, we nd that the FSK system presents a better BER than
the PSK system for the same EIRP values. For smaller values of EIRP (till 41 dB), the BER oered
by the FSK and PSK systems are similar. However, as the EIRP increases, the BER of the FSK
system drops at a much higher rate than the BER of the PSK system. At an EIRP of 50 dB, the
BFSK systems BER is 10
6
, while that of the BPSK system is only 10
3
.
Figure 2 shows that the BERs of a BPSK and a QPSK system are equal. For low values of
EIRP, the BERs of BPSK, QPSK, 8PSK and 16PSK systems are almost the same. However, as
EIRP increases, the BER of the BPSK and QPSK systems drop in a very fast fashion, leading to
a very good BER of 10
6
at 50 dB. It can be noted that, the BPSK and QPSK systems oer the
lowest BER. We note that the BER increases as the value of M increases.
Figure 3 shows that the BER is maximum for a BFSK system. The 16FSK system oers the
lowest BER. The QFSK system oers a 10 times lower BER than the BFSK system. The 8FSK
system oers a 100 times lower BER at the same EIRP. In contrast to PSK systems, we see that
in FSK systems, as M increases, the BER decreases rapidly. However, as M increases the number
of carrier signals also increases. This leads to complexity in demodulation. Thus, as a tradeo
between the BER and the complexity, it would be best to use 8FSK signal, which not only oers a
suciently low BER, but also accounts for lower complexity of system implementation than 16FSK,
especially at the receiver side.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium Proceedings, Cambridge, USA, July 58, 2010 295
Figure 2: BER Vs EIRP for a practical PSK system
in the 40 GHz range.
Figure 3: BER Vs EIRP for a practical FSK system
in the 40 GHz range.
6. CONCLUSION
We have estimated the losses caused due to various natural and man-made obstacles present in
the channel of a practical communication system, employing mm wave transmission. A number of
modulation schemes such as BPSK, QPSK, BFSK, QFSK, M-PSK and M-FSK have been described.
Their BERs have been evaluated at 40 GHz for a range of EIRPs. The comparison shows that,
as the value of M increases, the BER of PSK system increases, while the BER of an FSK system
decreases. We have concluded that BPSK, QPSK or 8FSK are the most advantageous modulation
schemes in a practical communication system, under critical climatic conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (Amrita Univer-
sity) for providing necessary nancial support for this research work. The acknowledgments are
also to Mr. S. Narayanan and Mr. R. Ramanathan of the Applied Electromagnetic Research Group
for their help.
REFERENCES
1. Pozar, D. M., Microwave Engineering, Wiley & Sons Publications, 3rd Edition, 2004.
2. Costanzo. S., I. Venneri, G. Di Massa, and G. Amendola, Hybrid array antenna for broadband
millimeter-wave applications, Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 83, 173183, 2008.
3. Mallat, N. K., E. Moldovan, and S. O. Tatu, Comparative demodulation results for six-port
and conventional 60 GHz direct conversion receivers, Progress In Electromagnetics Research,
Vol. 84, 437449, 2008.
4. Millimeter wave propagation: Spectrum management implications, Federal Communications
Commission oce of Engineering and Technology, Bulletin No. 70, July 1997.
5. Technology report A growing number of applications boosts mm-wave technology, High
Frequency Electronics Copyright 2006 Summit Technical Media, May 2006.
6. Liebe H. J., K. C. Allen, G. R. Hand, R. H. Espeland, and E. J. Violette, Millimeter-wave
propagation in moist air: Model versus path data, US Department of Commerce, March 1985.
7. AI-Nuaimi, M. O., A generalised site shielding procedure for readio system planning at mi-
crowave frequencies, Proceedings of Fifteenth National Radio Science Conference, Helwan,
Cairo, Egypt, February 2426, 1998.
8. Alejos, A. V., M. G. Sanchez, and I. Cui nas, Measurement and analysis of propagation
mechanisms at 40 GHz: Viability of site shielding forced by obstacles, IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 57, No. 6, November 2008.
9. Haykin, S., Digital Communications, Wiley India Edition, 2008.