1. Introduction
In this paper, we present a hybrid impulse radio ultra-wideband (IR-UWB) communication system employing optical pulse train signaling over free space optical (FSO) and radio-frequency (RF) links. UWB communication systems are able to provide high data rates over radio channels. However, low duty cycle and power requirement on UWB communication limits its use for only short-range (up to 10 m) applications such as those envisioned by the wireless personal area networks (WPANs). This short coverage distance implies that access network should provide efficient distribution over many small cells to extend the coverage of UWB radios. Recently, UWB-over-fiber transmission has emerged as a solution to this range problem where UWB signals are carried over long distances via fiber optical cables without the need for any conversion in the signal format [
1
W. P. Lin and J. Y. Chen, “Implementation of a new ultra-wideband impulse system,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.
17(11), 2418–2420 (2005). [CrossRef]
–
3
M. Jazayerifar, B. Cabon, and J. A. Salehi, “Transmision of multi-band OFDM and impulse radio ultra-wideband signals over single mode fiber,” J. Lightwave Technol.
26(15), 2594–2603 (2008). [CrossRef]
]. In order for these systems to be feasible, optical UWB pulses are designed satisfying the spectral mask requirements of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) as presented in [
1
W. P. Lin and J. Y. Chen, “Implementation of a new ultra-wideband impulse system,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.
17(11), 2418–2420 (2005). [CrossRef]
,
2
F. Zeng and J. Yao, “An approach to ultra-wideband pulse generation and distribution over optical fiber,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.
18(7), 823–825 (2006). [CrossRef]
,
4
F. Zeng and J. Yao, “Ultra-wideband impulse radio signal generation using a high-speed electrooptic phase modulator and a fiber-bragg-grating-based frequency discriminator,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.
18(19), 2062–2064 (2006). [CrossRef]
,
5
P. C. Peng, W. R. Peng, J. H. Lin, W. P. Lin, and S. Chi, “Generation of wavelength- tunable optical pulses using EDFA as external-injection light source and amplifier for Fabry-Pérot laser diode,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.
16(11), 2553–2555 (2004). [CrossRef]
]. Despite their advantages, UWB-over-fiber systems suffer from the drawback of large installation cost and time. On the other hand, free-space optical (FSO) communication systems (such as those proposed in [
6
X. Zhu and J. M. Kahn, “Free-space optical communication through atmospheric turbulence channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun.
50(8), 1293–1300 (2002). [CrossRef]
,
7
S. M. Navidpour, M. Uysal, and M. Kavehrad, “BER performance of free-space optical transmission with spatial diversity,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Comm.
6(8), 2813–2819 (2007). [CrossRef]
]) have the potential of overcoming this drawback while still achieving significantly high data rates. Motivated by this potential, we propose a FSO transceiver architecture for the transmission of UWB signals over distances much longer than a few meters without the need to deploy fiber optic cables.
The proposed system is able to generate an optical UWB signal or convert an RF UWB signal into an optical one through a simple electo-optical conversion. The optical UWB pulses transmitted over the FSO channels are received by the detector that either uses the bit decisions as end information or delivers them to the UWB end-users through the RF UWB channels. Optical UWB pulses are not only easy to generate but also known to reduce the interference between electrical devices. In addition, pulsed transmission over FSO channels is not impaired by multipath fading as in the case of radio frequency UWB systems. Moreover, producing optical UWB pulse trains is more cost efficient than on-off keying (OOK) that is frequently used in most FSO communication systems (e.g., [
6
X. Zhu and J. M. Kahn, “Free-space optical communication through atmospheric turbulence channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun.
50(8), 1293–1300 (2002). [CrossRef]
,
7
S. M. Navidpour, M. Uysal, and M. Kavehrad, “BER performance of free-space optical transmission with spatial diversity,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Comm.
6(8), 2813–2819 (2007). [CrossRef]
]). For these reasons, the proposed FSO-UWB system is a feasible alternative not only to the UWB-over-fiber architectures over the links where direct line of sight (LOS) is available but also to the conventional FSO systems employing OOK. Hence, with the proposed system architecture, two attractive technologies UWB and FSO are converged to provide high data rates with less installation time and cost.
On the other hand, inhomogeneities induced by the temperature and atmospheric pressure in the FSO links cause fluctuations both in the amplitude and phase of the received optical signal intensity [
6
X. Zhu and J. M. Kahn, “Free-space optical communication through atmospheric turbulence channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun.
50(8), 1293–1300 (2002). [CrossRef]
]. Because the optical UWB signals are transmitted over FSO channels, they are impaired by these atmospheric effects, the most important of which is the turbulence induced fading. That is why, we evaluate the performance of the proposed FSO-UWB system under weak, moderate and strong turbulence regimes, each described by precise statistical models. In each case, we provide an exact or closely approximated theoretical error analysis and verify the derivations via the simulation results. We also provide the error analysis of the transmission over the UWB links and present the error performance of the composite FSO + UWB system. Both the theoretical and numerical results indicate the feasibility of the proposed hybrid FSO + UWB transceiver architecture for high data rate UWB transmission over long distances.
The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows: In Section 2, the system model is presented. Then in Section 3, the detection error probability analysis of the FSO and RF sections of the system is provided, together with the overall error probability analysis. Simulation results are presented in Section 4 followed by the conclusive remarks in Section 5.
2. Proposed system model
We consider the system model shown in
Fig. 1
and particularly adopt the approach in [
3
M. Jazayerifar, B. Cabon, and J. A. Salehi, “Transmision of multi-band OFDM and impulse radio ultra-wideband signals over single mode fiber,” J. Lightwave Technol.
26(15), 2594–2603 (2008). [CrossRef]
] and [
4
F. Zeng and J. Yao, “Ultra-wideband impulse radio signal generation using a high-speed electrooptic phase modulator and a fiber-bragg-grating-based frequency discriminator,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.
18(19), 2062–2064 (2006). [CrossRef]
] that employs gain-switched Fabry-Pérot laser diode (FPLD), a tunable-filter (TF) and an erbium-dope fiber amplifier (EDFA) to generate wavelength-tunable optical pulses and is primarily developed for UWB-over-fiber communication links. In our system model, the binary source outputs {u
k}’s are TH PPM modulated via Gaussian pulse train and passed through a bias-tee circuit to drive the FPLD into gain-switched operation. The 1550-nm FPLD operates with a threshold current of 18 mA at 25° C with 0.8 nm mode spacing and in this configuration, it is biased at 16 mA and gain-switched at 4 GHz. The generated optical signal is fed to the EDFA which serves both as an external-injection source and an amplifier for the FPLD output and it consists of a 980-nm pump laser diode that pumps 50 mW output power to couple an erbium-doped fiber via 980/1550-nm wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) and an isolator to reduce back reflections. The output of EDFA is passed through TF which operates in the range of 1527 to 1562 nm. The central wavelength of the TF is chosen to be close to that of FPLD output so that the system has a single wavelength output before it is sent to FSO channel.
Fig. 1 System model of the proposed communication link over FSO.
The generated optical TH-PPM signal can be represented as
where
Ep
denotes the pulse energy amplified by EDPA,
p(t) denotes the Gaussian pulse,
dn
and {
cj
} are the binary information and pseudo-random code sequences for time hopping, respectively.
Td
,
Tf
,
Tc
and
Tp
represent the symbol, bit, chip and pulse durations, respectively and bits are repeated
Ns
times in a symbol period.
The FSO channel is described by the unit impulse response
h(t) = I(t) + Ib
where
I(t) and
Ib
are the instantaneous light intensity and the background radiation whose effects are removed at the receiver as in [
6
X. Zhu and J. M. Kahn, “Free-space optical communication through atmospheric turbulence channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun.
50(8), 1293–1300 (2002). [CrossRef]
], respectively. Also, experiments show that the coherence time of the FSO links is large enough to approximate the intensity as a constant during the transmission of a frame, i.e.,
The photo-detector receives the photon flux incident on the detector area and produces a current that is proportional to the received photons, providing the optical to electrical conversion of the received signal. The conversion coefficient
η(
) indicates the efficiency of the photodetector. After the removal of the background radiation bias
, the resulting signal can be represented as
where
n(t) represents the combined effects of both the thermal noise and the shot noise, which can jointly be modeled as an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with zero mean and variance
N0/2. Assuming perfect synchronization, the received signal is passed through the matched filter
xr(t) which can be written as
resulting in the sampled output
where the noise term
is also AWGN with zero mean and variance
N0/2. Zero-threshold detection is employed at the matched filter output. Notice that the decision output of the FSO subsystem can be used directly or can be to the users over an UWB channel. In this case,
’s or the decision on the signals transmitted over the FSO channel are modulated by an UWB transmitter where the modulated signal is expressed as
where
EF
denotes the energy pulse,
q(t) denotes the Gaussian monocycle pulse train. The UWB channel can be modeled as
where
κ denotes the RF log-normal fading random variable,
N and
K(j) denotes the number of observed clusters and multipaths within each cluster, respectively.
Tj
is the delay of the
j
th cluster.
αjk
denotes the channel coefficient of the
j
th cluster and the
k
th multipath and can be expressed as
αjk = pjkβjk
, where
pjk
is a Bernoulli random variable taking values of ± 1 and
βjk
is the log-normal distributed channel coefficient. To normalize each channel realization to unity requires that
The amplitude gain
κ is also assumed to be a log-normal random variable with the relation
, where
g is a normal random variable with mean
g0
and variance
. The mean
g0
depends on the average total multi-path gain
G and expressed as
where ln(⋅) is the natural logarithm.
G is dependent on average attenuation exponent
Λ by
G = G0/DΛ
, and
G0
is the reference power gain evaluated at
D = 1 m.
A0
= 10 log
10 (
ETX /ERX
) denoting the path loss at a reference distance
D0
= 1 m in dB is related to
G0
by
G0 = 10
–A
0
/10.
Assuming the FCC compliant Gaussian monocycle pulse train defined in
Eq. (5) is transmitted, the received signal at the UWB receiver can be expressed as
Using an UWB receiver, estimates of the signal passed through RF, are obtained. We present the average detection error probability (DEP) analysis for the hybrid system performance over the FSO and RF links below in Section 3.
3. Detection error probability analysis
The overall error probability for the complete hybrid system can be found as
where
,
and
,
are the error probabilities and symbol signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the FSO and RF systems, respectively. Notice that, the scope of this paper is to analyze the FSO system performance for different channel regimes. Thus, the performance analysis of the RF channel is described briefly in this section and a detailed analysis of the FSO system error performance is given in the following subsections.
Assuming normalized channel coefficients, i.e.,
Eq. (7) holds, the received SNR at UWB receiver can be expressed as
γRF = (κ2 Ns γp) where
γp = EF/N0
denotes the pulse SNR and results in error probability of
where erfc(⋅) is the complementary error function. After averaging out the probability density function (PDF) over
κThis can be solved by Gauss-Hermite expansion given by
where
yi
and
ωi
,
i = 1,…,
n, are the
ith
root (abscissa) and associated weight, respectively [
8M. Abramowitz, and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables (Dover, 1972).
]. After the change of variables such that
,
As for the FSO link, assuming perfect channel state information (CSI) is available at the FSO receiver, the DEP for the binary TH-PPM signal model over FSO channel can be expressed as
where
γFSO = Nsγp
and
γp = Ep/(N0/2) are the symbol and pulse SNRs, respectively. Notice that due to the random fluctuations in its amplitude, the light intensity is modeled as a random variable whose distribution is dependent on the turbulence region. Therefore, in order to find the average DEP of the FSO link, one needs to evaluate the expectation over the distribution of the light intensity such that
Notice that the system proposed in
Fig. 1 can also be implemented with a channel encoder-decoder pair to protect the information bits transmitted over the FSO channel against channel effects. If a convolutional encoder is employed together with the Viterbi decoding on the receiver side, the coded bit eror probability
in terms of the uncoded error probability
is expressed approximately as ([
9S. Lin, and D. J. Costello, Error Control Coding, 2nd ed. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004).
] , pp. 531)
where
dfree
is the minimum free distance of the convolutional code, and
Nb
is the sum of the Hamming weight of all the input sequences whose associated convolutional codeword have a Hamming weight of
dfree
.In FSO channels, the light intensity is closely related to the strength of the atmospheric turbulence that is generally divided into three different regimes: weak, moderate and strong turbulence regimes. All three regimes are characterized by accurate statistical models, which can be used to compute the average error probability term in
Eq. (16) as presented in the following.
3.1 Error performance of FSO system in weak turbulence
For weak turbulence regime, the received signal intensity at the photodetector is related to the amplitude fluctuations by
where
I0
represents the light intensity without turbulence and
X denotes the random fluctuations in amplitude which has Gaussian distribution with mean
μx
and variance
[
6
X. Zhu and J. M. Kahn, “Free-space optical communication through atmospheric turbulence channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun.
50(8), 1293–1300 (2002). [CrossRef]
]. The variance of log-amplitude fluctuations is closely related to atmospheric conditions and link distance and for a plane wave, it is given by
, where
is an altitude-dependent parameter and in literature often referred as refractive-index structure parameter,
k =
2π/λ is the optical wave number, where
λ is the wavelength of the transmitted pulse and
L is the link distance [
7
S. M. Navidpour, M. Uysal, and M. Kavehrad, “BER performance of free-space optical transmission with spatial diversity,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Comm.
6(8), 2813–2819 (2007). [CrossRef]
]. For this case, the PDF of the log-normal distributed received intensity is given by
The scintillation index is the normalized variance of fading intensity and it is defined as
For instance, the log-normal distribution for the light intensity in
Eq. (18) represents the condition where the amplitude fluctuations are weak and single scatters dominate the channel, which is valid for the
.
The average DEP can be computed by the expectation in
Eq. (16) over the log-normal intensity distribution given in
Eq. (18) assuming zero mean such as
which can be rewritten by the change of parameters as
where
., we can approximate
Eq. (21) using the expansion in
Eq. (13)As shown in the simulation results, the Gauss-Hermite expansion up to 20th order whose parameters are given in [
8M. Abramowitz, and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables (Dover, 1972).
] provides a close approximation to the actual integral in
Eq. (20).
3.2 Error performance of FSO system in moderate turbulence
Under moderate turbulence conditions, both the small and large scatterers are effective and the intensity fluctuations are modeled by the Gamma-Gamma distribution described by the PDF
where Γ(⋅) and K
n
(⋅) are the Gamma function and the
n
th order modified Bessel function of the second kind, respectively [
7
S. M. Navidpour, M. Uysal, and M. Kavehrad, “BER performance of free-space optical transmission with spatial diversity,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Comm.
6(8), 2813–2819 (2007). [CrossRef]
,
10E. Bayaki, R. Schober, and R. K. Mallik, “Performance analysis of free-space optical systems in Gamma-Gamma fading,” in Global Telecommunications Conference 2008. GLOBECOM `08 (IEEE, 2008), 1–6.
]. In
Eq. (23), small and large scale scattering effects that are represented by
α and
β, respectively, are related to the atmospheric conditions by
where
is the Rytov variance for a plane wave and the parameters
,
k and
L are given as above. These
α and
β parameters are related to the scintillation index by
. Also, moderate turbulence regime is often characterized as the one with
.
The average DEP can be computed by the expectation in
Eq. (16) over the Gamma-Gamma intensity distribution given in
Eq. (23) such as
Using the formulation in [
11] the integrands erfc(⋅) and K
n(⋅) in
Eq. (25) can be expressed in terms of Meijer's G-function as
which, using Eq. (07).34.21.0011.01 of [
11], results in a closed-form expression such that
3.3 Error performance of FSO system in strong turbulence
Finally, the strong turbulence conditions are modelled as one-sided negative exponential distribution given by
where
denotes the mean light intensity [
12
S. G. Wilson, M. B. Pearce, Q. Cao, and M. Baedke, “Optical repetition MIMO transmission with multipulse PPM,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Comm.
23(9), 1901–1910 (2005). [CrossRef]
]. This case represents the condition with many non-dominating scatterers and is usually valid for propagation over several kilometers. This saturation regime corresponds to scintillation index
.
Using
Eq. (16) and the distribution given in
Eq. (28), the average DEP for strong turbulence conditions can be written as
which again has a closed form expression.
4. Simulation results
In this section, we present the simulation results for the error performance of the proposed FSO-UWB system under weak, moderate and strong turbulence conditions and compare with the theoretical results derived in Section 3. The frame size, repetition rate and the efficiency of the photo-detector are chosen as N = 1000 symbols, Ns
= 2 and η = 0.9, respectively. The channel parameters change at every 200 symbols, i.e., τc
/(NTd
) = 0.2 where τc
is the channel coherence time and NTd
is the total duration of a frame.
For each turbulence condition, a constant
is assumed through the horizontal path that is taken as 5.1x10
−15 for weak turbulence. For link distances over 2, 2.5, 3 and 4 km, the corresponding channel parameters are
μx
= 0 and
σX
= 0.3, 0.37, 0.44 and 0.57. From
Eq. (19), these values correspond to
= 0.095, 0.15, 0.209 and 0.380, respectively. The comparison between the analytical approximation derived in
Eq. (22) and the Monte-Carlo simulations for these values of
is shown in the group of first 4 BER curves in
Fig. 2
. As seen in the figure, the theoretical derivations, represented with dashed-lines show a good correspondence to the simulated performances, depicted in solid lines.
Fig. 2 Comparison of the simulated and theoretical DEP’s for weak, moderate and strong turbulence fading conditions.
For moderate turbulence condition, we assume
= 1.76x10
−14 and consider link distances over 2, 2.5 and 3 km. Using the formulation in
Eq. (24), the (
α,β) parameter pairs are (4.16,2.21), (4.00,1.75) and (4.05,1.51). These values correspond to the following scintillation index values
= {0.8, 0.96, 1.07}, respectively. The simulation results in
Fig. 2 for all three cases are in full accordance with the exact closed form expressions given in terms of the Meijer functions.
For strong turbulence, unit mean light intensity is considered E[
I] = 1 and
≅1. The analytical and the Monte-Carlo simulated results are also shown in
Fig. 2 and as expected, the system exhibits the worst performance in this case due to the saturation characteristics in this regime.
For the transmission of the received signals over FSO through UWB environment, we consider the channel model 1 (CM1) in [
13
S. S. Ghassemzadeh, L. J. Greenstein, A. Kavcic, T. Sveinsson, and V. Tarokh, “An empirical indoor path loss model for ultra-wideband channels,” J. Commun. Network
5, 303–308 (2003).
] with the suggested values for
A0
and
Λ in LOS environment chosen as 47 dB and 1.7, respectively. The two cases where the UWB signals are transmitted over a FSO link of 2 km length at 30 and 45 dB, respectively, are considered. For weak and moderate conditions, we assume constant
values as 5.1x10
−15 and 1.76x10
−14 and the corresponding channel parameters are
σX
= 0.3 and (
α,β) = (4.16,2.21), respectively. The RF UWB simulations adopt CM1 conditions and assume a link distance of
D = 2 meters and
σg
is taken as 3 dB. The results are shown in
Fig. 3
. The error performance of the UWB transmission over CM1 channels without any FSO link errors is included as a reference curve. Our results show that for weak turbulence conditions, FSO channel does not introduce additional performance degradation up to 10
−6 BER limit at 30 dB. On the other hand, for moderate and strong turbulence conditions, error floors appear at relatively high BER levels due to the high error rates carried from the FSO subsystem.
Fig. 3 FSO + RF UWB system performance of a link distance of 2 km. For weak, moderate and strong FSO turbulences, channel parameters are taken as σX
= 0.3, (α,β) = (4.16,2.21) and E[I] = 1, respectively. For RF environment, CM1 is assumed.
Employing a simple convolutional encoder/Viterbi decoder pair within the FSO subsystem is considered so as to reduce the FSO errors and thus to improve the overall system performance. A rate ½ convolutional code with generator (27,31)
8 and
Nb
= 2,
dfree
= 7 ([
9S. Lin, and D. J. Costello, Error Control Coding, 2nd ed. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004).
], pp. 540) is employed together with a Viterbi decoder. The coded system performance under each turbulence regime is shown in
Fig. 4
. Notice that the use of even a very simple code reduces the error floors significantly. For instance, error floors are decreased to the 9x10
−20 at 32 dB and 4.8x10
−43 at 42 dB for weak turbulence, 6.5x10
−8 at 24 dB and 2.2x10
−13 at 30 dB for moderate turbulence, 7.4x10
−5 at 20 dB and 2x10
−7 at 24 dB for strong turbulence. In
Fig. 4, only the error floors under strong turbulence conditions are shown for comparison purposes with uncoded signaling scheme.
Fig. 4 (27,31)8 convolutional coded FSO + RF UWB system performance over 2 km.