Performance analysis of GMSK frequency detection with decision feedback equalisation in digital land mobile radio

Adachi, Fumiyuki; Ohno, K.

doi:10.1049/ip-f-1.1988.0027

Cited by 32 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…

f false(t false) = normald ϕ false(t false) / normald t / 2 π

), the non‐differentiable phase means that the QPC waveform still contains a significant amount of high‐frequency components. To further improve the spectrum of the QPC waveform, the GMSK coding scheme [19, 20] was proposed in coding the waveform resulting in the GMSK‐QPC waveform [14]. The difference between the original QPC and the GMSK‐QPC waveforms lies, in that the former is coded by a rectangular window function (i.e.…”

Section: Construction Of Phase‐continuous and Differentiable And Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementable phase‐coded radar waveforms featuring extra‐low range sidelobes and Doppler resilience

Dong

2019

IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…

f false(t false) = normald ϕ false(t false) / normald t / 2 π

Section: Construction Of Phase‐continuous and Differentiable And Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementable phase‐coded radar waveforms featuring extra‐low range sidelobes and Doppler resilience

Dong

2019

IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Among the various signal detection techniques which can be employed in conjunction with GMSK signals, decision feedback differential detection (DF-DD) has been proposed to improve the performance of conventional differentially detected (C-DD) GMSK schemes [4,5]. Although in the past, the DF-DD technique has been considered under different operating conditions, including the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel [4], fading [5,6], and cochannel interference (CCI) [7], so far it has not been investigated in the presence of adjacent channel interference (ACI). Despite the fact that for cellular mobile radio systems, ACI is a less problematic interference as compared to CCI, it nevertheless still represents a non-negligible source of interference and thus system performance degradation [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of ACI and nonlinearities on the performance of differentially detected GMSK signals

Mathiopoulos

Karagiannidis

Toor³

2004

IEE Proc., Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects on the performance of differentially detected Gaussian minimum shift keying (GMSK) signals operated in the presence of adjacent channel interference (ACI), modulator impairments, amplifier nonlinearities and additive white Gaussian noise is investigated. By means of computer simulation, the bit error rate (BER) performance of 1-and 2-bit conventional and decision feedback differentially detected (C-DD and DF-DD) GMSK systems in the presence of static and Rayleigh faded ACI is obtained. It is found that the best performance is achieved by the 2-bit DF-DD receiver and has resulted in BER performance improvements for the static ACI channel and error floor reductions for the Rayleigh faded ACI channel. The effects on the BER performance of a cascade of imperfect GMSK quadrature modulators and a nonlinear amplifier in conjunction with the resulting ACI are also investigated. The combination of 'typical' and 'extreme' operating conditions for the modulator are considered. For all combinations, it was found that the DF-DD receivers perform better than the C-DD receivers. However, for systems operating under 'typical' operating conditions, the 2-bit DF-DD receiver exhibits the best performance.

show abstract

“…In this work, we only consider discrimination detection. Discrimination detection has drawn wide attention for the mobile radio channel because of its immunity against fast fading and carrier frequency drift [1]- [3]. The disadvantage of discrimination detection, when compared with the coherent detection, is the degraded static biterror-rate (BER) performance due to the presence of intersymbol interference (ISI) caused by the premodulation filter and/or the receiver IF bandpass filter.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viterbi detector for narrow-band digital FM with limiter-discriminator detection

Tung

Livingston

1994 IEEE GLOBECOM. Communications: The Global Bridge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, we consider a Viterbi detector for narrowband digital FM with limiter-discriminator detection. It is shown that the bit-error-rate performance of a four-state Viterbi detector is better than that of a two bit (or four-level) decision feedback method for GMSK on an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel. The four-state Viterbi detector can be applied to duobinary FM, Generalized TF or any other continuous-phase modulation (CPM). Evaluating the relative performance between various digital FM schemes by minimum squared Euclidean distance is also discussed. simulated performance for MSK, duobinary FM and GMSK with a Viterbi detector is given.

show abstract

Performance analysis of GMSK frequency detection with decision feedback equalisation in digital land mobile radio

Cited by 32 publications

References 1 publication

Implementable phase‐coded radar waveforms featuring extra‐low range sidelobes and Doppler resilience

Implementable phase‐coded radar waveforms featuring extra‐low range sidelobes and Doppler resilience

Effects of ACI and nonlinearities on the performance of differentially detected GMSK signals

Viterbi detector for narrow-band digital FM with limiter-discriminator detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About