Abstract

Illumination LEDs, but also infrared LEDs have limited bandwidth. To achieve high throughput, one needs to modulate the LED significantly above its 3 dB bandwidth. Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is a popular modulation technique to cope with the frequency selectivity of the LED channel. In this article, we challenge whether its large Peak-to-Average-Power Ratio (PAPR) and resulting large DC bias are justified. We compare systems using the same power and derive how PAM and OFDM variants reach their optimum throughput at different bandwidths and differently shaped spectral densities, thus at very different Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) profiles but nonetheless the same transmit power.When corrected for the path loss and normalized to the noise power in the 3 dB bandwidth of the LED, we call this the Normalized Power Budget (NPB). OFDM can exploit the low-pass LED response using a waterfilling approach. This is attractive if the NPB exceeds 60 dB. OFDM will then have to spread its signal over more than ten times the LED bandwidth and requires a DC bias of more than 4 times the rms modulation depth. Second-order distortion and LED droop may then become a limitation, if not compensated. At lower power (NPB between 30 and 60 dB), DCO-OFDM outperforms PAM, provided that it significantly reduces its bias and only if it uses an appropriate adaptive bit and power loading. Without adaptive bit loading, thus using a frequency–constant modulation order, for instance made feasible by a pre-emphasis, OFDM always shows lower performance than PAM; about 2.5 dB at a NPB around 60 dB. Below 30 dB of NPB, even waterfilling cannot outweigh the need for a larger bias in OFDM, and PAM should be preferred. We argue that a mobile system that has to operate seamlessly in wide coverage and short–range high–throughput regimes, needs to adapt not only its bandwidth and its bit–loading profile, but also its DCO-OFDM modulation depth, and preferably falls back from OFDM to PAM.

Highlights

  • The rapid growth of bandwidth-intensive mobile applications combined with the emerging Internet-of-Things (IoT) services are putting immense pressure on the Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum

  • To make a fair comparison among systems that optimize their transmit bandwidth, we introduce the Normalized Power Budget (NPB), defined as transmit power corrected for path loss, normalized to the noise in the 3 dB bandwidth of the Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)

  • We show that in a VLC context, where the extra power needs to be far below the illumination power, there is no difference in performance between pre-emphasized DCOOFDM and a DCO-OFDM and for (DCO-)Pulse Amplitude Modulation (PAM)

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of bandwidth-intensive mobile applications combined with the emerging Internet-of-Things (IoT) services are putting immense pressure on the Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum. In an OWC link, a pre-emphasis filter can be used in front of the LED to flatten the channel frequency response In this case, OFDM might no longer be needed. Optimum sub-carrier–dependent bit and power loading, optimized total bandwidth, and optimum bias current and modulation depth, in relation to the optimally tolerated clipping level, considering a realistic non-linear LED model (clipping, static and dynamic higher–order terms), includes for PAM:. M-PAM appeared to require a lower SNR to achieve the same Bit Error Rate (BER) Both LED clipping and low-pass memory effects are covered in numerical simulations. To optimize OFDM for frequency selective LED channels, different power and bit loading strategies have been discussed in the literature, e.g. This section includes the distortion power due to clipping (to reduce the DC penalty) of the LED current in the throughput and modulation bandwidth requirement.

OWC POWER CONSTRAINTS
Power Constraint
Channel Model
PAM Bias Penalty
Throughput of DCO-PAM over Low-Pass Channel
Throughput of DCO-OFDM over Low-Pass Channel
OFDM with Waterfilling
OFDM with Pre-emphasis
CLIPPING AND DISTORTION MODEL
Current Clipping
Invertible Distortion Model
Conservatively Choosing Low Modulation Depth
Optimizing for Throughput
COMPARISON OF DCO-PAM AND DCO-OFDM
Extra–Power Limited Channel
Optical–Power Limited Channel
Electrical–Power Limited Channel
CONCLUSIONS
Findings
VIII. COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call