arxiv: v2 [cs.it] 19 Jun 2012

Transcription

1 EVM and Achievable Data Rate Analysis of Clipped OFDM Signals in Visible Light Communication Zhenhua Yu 1 and Robert J. Baxley and G. Tong Zhou 1 arxiv: v [cs.it] 19 Jun 1 1 School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 333-5, USA Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA , USA Zhenhua Yu - zhenhuayu@gatech.edu; Corresponding author Abstract Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) has been considered for visible light communication (VLC) thans to its ability to boost data rates as well as its robustness against frequency-selective fading channels. A major disadvantage of OFDM is the large dynamic range of its time-domain waveforms, maing OFDM vulnerable to nonlinearity of light emitting diodes (LEDs). DC biased optical OFDM (DCO-OFDM) and asymmetrically clipped optical OFDM (ACO-OFDM) are two popular OFDM techniques developed for the VLC. In this paper, we will analyze the performance of the DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM signals in terms of error vector magnitude (EVM), signal-to-distortion ratio (SDR), and achievable data rates under both average optical power and dynamic optical power constraints. EVM is a commonly used metric to characterize distortions. We will describe an approach to numerically calculate the EVM for DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM. We will derive the optimum biasing ratio in the sense of minimizing EVM for DCO-OFDM. Additionally, we will formulate the EVM minimization problem as a convex linear optimization problem and obtain an EVM lower bound against which to compare the DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM techniques. We will prove that the ACO-OFDM can achieve the lower bound. Average optical power and dynamic optical power are two main constraints in VLC. We will derive the achievable data rates under these two constraints for both additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel and frequencyselective channel. We will compare the performance of DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM under different power constraint scenarios. 1

2 eywords Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), Visible light communications (VLC), DC biased optical OFDM (DCO-OFDM), Asymmetrically clipped optical OFDM (ACO-OFDM), Error vector magnitude (EVM), Achievable data rate, Clipping 1 Introduction With rapidly growing wireless data demand and the saturation of radio frequency (RF) spectrum, visible light communication (VLC) [?,?,?,?] has become a promising candidate to complement conventional RF communication, especially for indoor and medium range data transmission. VLC uses white light emitting diodes (LEDs) which already provide illumination and are quicly becoming the dominant lighting source to transmit data. At the receiving end, a photo diode (PD) or an image sensor is used as light detector. VLC has many advantages including low-cost front-ends, energy efficient transmission, huge (THz) bandwidth, no electromagnetic interference, no eye safety constraints lie infrared, etc [?]. In VLC, simple and low-cost intensity modulation and direct detection (IM/DD) techniques are employed, which means that only the signal intensity is modulated and there is no phase information. At the transmitter, the white LED converts the amplitude of the electrical signal to the intensity of the optical signal, while at the receiver, the PD or image sensor generates the electrical signal proportional to the intensity of the received optical signal. The IM/DD requires that the electric signal must be real-valued and unipolar (positive-valued). Recently, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) has been considered for VLC thans to its ability to boost data rates and efficiently combat inter-symbol-interference (ISI) [?,?,?,?,?,?]. To ensure that the OFDM time-domina signal is real-valued, Hermitian symmetry condition must be satisfied in the frequency-domain. Three methods have been discussed in the literature for creating real-valued unipolar OFDM signal for VLC: 1) DC biased optical OFDM (DCO-OFDM) adding a DC bias to the original signal [?,?,?]; ) Asymmetrically clipped optical OFDM (ACO-OFDM) only mapping the data to the odd subcarriers and clipping the negative parts without information loss [?]; 3) Flip-OFDM transmitting positive and negative parts in two consecutive unipolar symbols [?]. One disadvantage of OFDM is its high pea-to-average-power ratio (PAPR) due to the summation over a large number of terms [?]. The high PAPR or dynamic range of OFDM maes it very sensitive to nonlinear distortions. In VLC, the LED is the main source of nonlinearity. The nonlinear characteristics of LED can

3 be compensated by digital pre-distortion (DPD) [?], but the dynamic range of any physical device is still limited. The input signal outside this range will be clipped. A number of papers [?,?,?,?] have studied the clipping effects on the RF OFDM signals. However, clipping in the VLC system has two important differences: i) the RF baseband signal is complex-valued whereas time-domain signals in the VLC system are real-valued; ii) the main power limitation for VLC is average optical power and dynamic optical power, rather than average electrical power and pea power as in RF communication. Therefore, most of the theory and analyses developed for RF OFDM are not directly applicable to optical OFDM. A number of papers [?,?,?,?] have analyzed the LED non-linearity on DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM and compared their bit error rate (BER), power efficiency, bandwidth efficiency, etc. In this paper, we will investigate the performance of DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM signals in terms of EVM, signal-to-distortion ratio (SDR), and achievable data rates. EVM is a frequently used performance metric in modern communication standards. In references [?,?], the EVM is measured by simulations for varying power bac-off and biasing levels. In this paper, we will describe an approach to numerically calculate the EVM for DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM, and derive the optimum biasing ratio for DCO-OFDM. We will formulate the EVM minimization problem as a convex linear optimization problem and obtain an EVM lower bound. In contrast to reference [?] which investigated the achievable data rates for ACO-OFDM with only average optical power limitation, we will derive the achievable data rates subject to both the average optical power and dynamic optical power constraints. We will first derive the SDR for a given data-bearing subcarrier based on the Bussgang s Theory. Upon the SDR analysis, we will derive the achievable data rates for AWGN channel and frequency-selective channel. Finally, we will compare the performance of two optical OFDM techniques. System Model The system model discussed in this wor is depicted in Fig. 1. In an OFDM system, a discrete timedomain signal x = [x[], x[1],..., x[n 1]] is generated by applying the inverse DFT (IDFT) operation to a frequency-domain signal X = [X, X 1,..., X N 1 ] as x[n] = IDFT(X ) = 1 N 1 X exp(jπn/n), n N 1, (1) N = where j = 1 and N is the size of IDFT assumed to be an even number in this paper. In a visible light communication system using LED, the IM/DD schemes require that the electric signal be real-valued and unipolar (positive-valued). According to the property of IDFT, a real-valued time-domain signal x[n] 3

4 Data in Subcarrier assignment N-point IDFT Clipping and Biasing DPD DAC Electrical to Optical Conversion (LED) Hermitian symmetry Optical Channel Data out Subcarrier extraction N-point DFT ADC Optical to Electrical Conversion (PD or Image Sensor) Figure 1: OFDM system model in visible light communication corresponds to a frequency-domain signal X that is Hermitian symmetric; i.e., X = X N, 1 N 1, () X R, =, N/, where denotes complex conjugate. In Fig. 1, y[n] is obtained from x[n] after some clipping and biasing operations, and the resulting y[n] and has a limited dynamic range. In a VLC system, the light emitted is used for illumination and communication simultaneously. The intensity of light emitted by the LED is proportional to y[n], while the electrical power is proportional to y [n]. In the optical communication literature, the average optical power of the LED input signal y[n] is defined as O y E{y[n]}, (3) where E[ ] denotes statistical expectation. Usually the VLC system operates under some average optical power constraint P A ; i.e., O y P A. (4) This constraint is in place for two reasons: (i) the system power consumption needs to be ept under a certain limit, (ii) the system should still be able to communicate even under dim illumination conditions. The VLC system is further limited by the dynamic range of the LED. In this paper, we assume that the DPD has perfectly linearized the LED between the interval [P L, P H ], where P L is the turn-on voltage (TOV) 4

5 for the LED. If the TOV is provided by an analog module at the LED and we assume that LED is already turned on, the linear range for the input signal is [, P H P L ]. We define the dynamic optical power of y[n] as G y max (y[n]) min (y[n]). (5) G y should be constrained by P H P L as G y P H P L, (6) Moreover, y[n] must be nonnegative; i.e., y[n]. According to the Central Limit Theorem, x[n] is approximately Gaussian distributed with zero mean and variance σ with probability density function (pdf): p (x[n] = z) = 1 σ φ ( z σ ), (7) where φ(x) = 1 π e 1 x is the pdf of the standard Gaussian distribution. As a result, the time-domain OFDM signal x[n] tends to occupy a large dynamic range and is bipolar. In order to fit into the dynamic range of the LED, clipping is often necessary; i.e., c u, x[n] > c u x[n] = x[n], c l x[n] c u (8) c l, x[n] < c l where c u denotes the upper clipping level, and c l denotes the lower clipping level. In order for the LED input y[n] to be non-negative, we may need to add a DC bias B to the clipped signal x[n] to obtain y[n] = x[n] + B, n N 1. (9) For y[n], we need B = c l. To facilitate the analysis, we define the clipping ratio γ and the biasing ratio ς as γ (c u c l )/ σ (1) ς Thus, the upper and lower clipping levels can be written as B = c l (11) c u c l c u c l c u = σγ(1 ς), (1) 5

6 c l = σγς. (13) The ratios γ and ς can be adjusted independently causing c u and c l to vary. Clipping in the time-domain gives rise to distortions on all subcarriers in the frequency domain. On the other hand, DC-bias only affects the DC component in the frequency-domain. The clipped and DC-biased signal y[n] is then converted to analog signal and subsequently modulate the intensity of the LED. At the receiver, the photodiode, or the image sensor, converts the received optical signal to electrical signal and transforms it to digital form. The received sample can be expressed as r[n] = ( x[n] + B + P L ) h[n] + w[n], (14) where h[n] is the impulse response of the wireless optical channel, w[n] is additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), and denotes convolution. By taing the DFT of Eq. (14), we can obtain the received data on the th subcarrier as R = X H + W,, (15) where H is the channel frequency response on the th subcarrier. Based on the subcarrier arrangement, DC-biasing or transmission scheme, several optical OFDM techniques have been proposed in the literature. In this paper, we will focus on the performance analysis of two widely studied optical OFDM techniques, namely, DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM. In the following, we shall use superscripts (D) and (A) to indicate DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM, respectively. In DCO-OFDM, subcarriers of the frequency-domain signal X (D) are arranged as X (D) = [ X (D) 1 X (D)... X (D) X (D)... X (D) X (D) 1 ] (16) where the th and N/th subcarriers are null (do not carry data). Eq. (16) reveals Hermitian symmetry with respect to = N/. Let K d denote the set of information-bearing subcarriers with cardinality K d. The set of information-bearing subcarriers for DCO-OFDM is K (D) d = {1,,..., N/ 1, N/ + 1,..., N, N 1} and K (D) d = N. The time-domain signal x (D) [n] can be obtained as x (D) [n] = ( N =1 R(X (D) ) ) cos(πn/n) I(X (D) ) sin(πn/n), (17) which is real-valued. In DCO-OFDM, we first obtain a clipped signal x (D) [n] similar to the procedure in 6

7 (8), and then add DC-bias B = c l to obtain the LED input signal c u c l, x (D) [n] > c u y (D) [n] = x (D) [n] + B = x (D) [n] c l, c l x (D) [n] c u (18), x (D) [n] < c l In the frequency domain, Y (D) where C is clipping noise on the th subcarrier. = X (D) + C,, (19) In ACO-OFDM, only odd subcarriers of the frequency-domain signal X (A) carry data X (A) = [ X (A) 1 X (A) 3... X (A) X (A)... X (A) 3 X (A) 1 ], () and X (A) meets the Hermitian symmetry condition (). The set of information-bearing subcarriers for ACO- OFDM is K (A) d as = {1, 3,..., N 1} and K (A) d = N/. Thus, the time-domain signal x (A) [n] can be obtained x (A) [n] = N/4 1 ( ) R(X (A) q+1 ) cos (π(q + 1)n/N) I(X(A) q+1 ) sin (π(q + 1)n/N), (1) N q= which is real-valued. It follows easily that x (A) [n] satisfies the following negative half symmetry condition: x (A) [n + N/] = x (A) [n], n =, 1,..., N/ 1. () Denote by z[n] a generic discrete-time signal that satisfies z[n + N/] = z[n], n =, 1,..., N/ 1 and by z[n] its clipped version where the negative values are removed; i.e., z[n] = { z[n], z[n],, otherwise. (3) It was proved in [?] that in the frequency-domain, Z = 1 Z, odd. (4) In ACO-OFDM, we obtain the LED input signal y (A) [n] via c u, x (A) [n] > c u y (A) [n] = x (A) [n], x (A) [n] c u, x (A) [n] < Eq. (5) can be regarded as a -step clipping process, whereby we first remove those negative values in x (A) [n], and then replace those x (A) [n] values that exceed c u by c u. Since x (A) [n] satisfies (), we infer based on (4) that (5) Y (A) = 1 X(A) + C,, (6) 7

8 Table 1: DCO-OFDM subcarrier arrangement for transmitting 8 QPSK symbols an example X (D) 1 + j 1 j 1 j 1 + j 1 j 1 + j 1 j 1 j X (D) 1 + j 1 + j 1 j 1 + j 1 j 1 + j 1 + j 1 j Table : ACO-OFDM subcarrier arrangement for transmitting 8 QPSK symbols an example X (A) 1 + j 1 j 1 j 1 + j X (A) 1 j 1 + j 1 j 1 j X (A) 1 + j 1 + j 1 j 1 + j X (A) 1 j 1 + j 1 + j 1 j where C is clipping noise on the th subcarrier in the frequency-domain. For ACO-OFDM, no DC-biasing is necessary and thus the biasing ratio ς =. As an example, suppose that we need to transmit a sequence of 8 QPSK symbols. Table 1 shows the subcarrier arrangement for DCO-OFDM, and Table shows the subcarrier arrangement for ACO-OFDM. The time-main signals x (D) [n] and x (A) [n], and the corresponding LED input signals y (D) [n] and y (A) [n] are shown in Fig.. We see that in x (A) [n], the last 16 values are a repeat of the first 16 values but with the opposite sign. It taes ACO-OFDM more bandwidth than DCO-OFDM to transmit the same message, although ACO-OFDM is less demanding in terms of dynamic range requirement of the LED and power consumption. 3 EVM Analysis EVM is a figure of merit for distortions. Let X = [X, X 1,..., X N 1 ] denotes the N-length DFT of the modified time-domain signal x. EVM can be defined as [ ] ξ(x (r), X ) E Kd X(r) X [ ], (7) E X(r) Kd where X (r) = [X (r), X(r) 1,..., X(r) N 1 ] denotes the reference constellation. For DCO-OFDM, X(r) = X (D) for K (D) d. For ACO-OFDM, X (r) = 1 X(A) for K (A) d. 8

9 5 5 x (D) [n] y (D) [n] n n x (A) [n] y (A) [n] n n Figure : An example of x (D) [n], y (D) [n], x (A) [n] and y (A) [n] to convey a sequence 8 QPSK symbols. For DCO-OFDM, γ = 1.41 = 3 db, ς =.45, c l = 1.7, c u =.7, B = 1.7; For ACO-OFDM, γ =.79 = db, ς =, c l =, c u = 1.59, B = 9

10 3.1 EVM Calculation In DCO-OFDM, clipping in the time-domain generates distortions on all the subcarriers. We denote the clipping error power by P (D) γ,ς = K (D) d E[ X (D) (D) X ]. Since the sum distortion power on the th and N/th subcarriers is small relative to the total distortion power of N subcarriers, according to the Parseval s Theorem, we can approximate P (D) γ,ς = K (D) d N 1 n= P (D) γ,ς E[ X (D) as E[ x (D) [n] x (D) [n] ] ( = N (z c u ) 1 ( z c u σ φ σ X (D) ] (8) ) cl dz + c l ) (z 1 ( z ) ) σ φ dz σ = Nσ ( 1 + 4γ (1 ς) γ(1 ς)φ ( γ(1 ς) ) γςφ ( γς ) Φ ( γ(1 ς) ) 4γ (1 ς) Φ ( γ(1 ς) ) + Φ ( γς ) + 4γ ς Φ ( γς )), where Φ(x) = x φ(t)dt. Thus, we obtain the EVM for the DCO-OFDM scheme as ξ (D) γ,ς = = P (D) γ,ς Nσ ( 1 + 4γ (1 ς) γ(1 ς)φ ( γ(1 ς) ) γςφ ( γς ) (9) Φ ( γ(1 ς) ) 4γ (1 ς) Φ ( γ(1 ς) ) + Φ ( γς ) + 4γ ς Φ ( γς )) 1/. To find the optimum biasing ratio ς, we tae the first order partial derivative and the second order partial derivative of P (D) γ,ς with respect to the biasing ratio ς P (D) γ,ς ς = Nσ (4γφ ( γ(1 ς) ) 4γφ ( γς ) (3) We can see that if ς =.5, Hence, if ς <.5, which minimizes 8γ (1 ς)φ ( γ(ς 1) ) + 8γ ςφ ( γς )), (D) ( P γ,ς ς = Nσ 8γ Φ ( γ(ς 1) ) + 8γ Φ ( γς )). (31) P (D) γ,ς / ς =. The second order partial derivative P (D) γ,ς / ς > for all ς. (D) (D) P γ,ς / ς <. If ς >.5, P γ,ς / ς >. Therefore, ς =.5 is the optimum biasing ratio P (D) γ,ς. By substituting ς into Eq. (9) we obtain the EVM for the DCO-OFDM scheme 1

11 at the optimum biasing ratio as ξ (D) γ,ς = P (D) γ,ς Nσ (3) = (1 + γ )Φ( γ) γφ(γ). Remar 1. (i) ς =.5 is the optimum biasing ratio for DCO-OFDM, regardless of the clipping ratio. (ii) When ς =.5, we infer that c u = c l. i.e. when the x (D) [n] waveform is symmetrically clipped at the negative and positive tails, the clipping error power is always less than that when the two tails are asymmetrically clipped (i.e., when c u c l or when ς.5). Denote by e[n], n =, 1,..., N 1 a generic discrete-time signal with DFT E, =, 1,..., N 1. When is odd, E can be written as E = = = N 1 1 ( e[n] exp jπ n ) N N n= 1 ( e[n] exp jπ n ) + 1 N N n= 1 N n= N n= ( (e[n] e[n + N/]) exp jπ n N ( e[n + N/] exp jπ n ) N jπ ). (33) Let = q + 1, q =, 1,..., N/ 1, Eq. (33) can be further written as E q+1 = = 1 ( (e[n] e[n + N/]) exp jπ qn N N/ jπ n ) N n= 1 ( exp jπ n ) ( (e[n] e[n + N/]) exp jπ qn ) N N N/ n= (34) Therefore, {E = E q+1 } q= can be viewed as the DFT coefficients of a new discretetime sequence {exp ( ) jπ n N (e[n] e[n + N/])} n=. Applying the Parseval s Theorem to {exp ( ) jπ n N (e[n] e[n + N/])} n=, we obtain, =odd E = q= E q+1 = 1 In ACO-OFDM, we denote the clipping error power by n= (e[n] e[n + N/]). (35) P (A) γ = K (A) d E [ X (A) / X (A) ]. Accord- 11

12 ing to (35), we can calculate P (A) γ = K (A) d P (A) γ E as [ X (A) / X (A) [ = 1 (x (A) [n] E x (A) [n] x(a) [n + N/] n= = N [ ( ) ] 4 E x (A) [n] x (A) [n] + x (A) [n + N/] = N 4 cu (z + c u ) 1 σ φ ( z σ ] (36) ) dz + N 4 = N σ ( γφ (γ) + Φ ( γ) + 4γ Φ ( γ) (z c u ) 1 ( z c u σ φ σ ). ) ] + x (A) [n + N/] ) dz Then we obtain the EVM for the ACO-OFDM scheme as ξ γ (A) P γ (A) = [ X (A) E / ] = K (A) d = 4γφ (γ) + Φ ( γ) + 8γ Φ ( γ). (A) 4 P γ, Nσ (37) 3. Lower Bound on the EVM Let us consider the setting ˆx[n] = x[n] + c[n], n N 1, (38) where x[n] is the original signal, c[n] is a distortion signal, and the resulting ˆx[n] is expected to have a limited dynamic range max(ˆx[n]) min(ˆx[n]) γσ. (39) In (38), all quantities involved are real-valued. Clipping can produce one such ˆx[n] signal, but there are other less straightforward algorithms that can generate other ˆx[n] waveforms that also satisfy (39). In the frequency-domain, ˆX = X + C. (4) Since x[n], c[n], and ˆx[n] are all real-valued, X, C, and ˆX all should satisfy the Hermitian symmetry condition (). Therefore, c[n] has the form c[n] = ( ) R(C ) cos(πn/n) I(C ) sin(πn/n) + 1 C + 1 C N/ cos(πn) (41) N N N =1 1

13 We are interested in nowing the lowest possible EVM, E [ C Kd ] ξ = E [ K d X ] (4) among all such ˆx[n] waveforms. Afterwards, we can compare the EVM from the DCO-OFDM and ACO- OFDM methods to get a sense of how far these algorithms are from being optimum (in the EVM sense). We formulate the following linear optimization problem: minimize subject to K d C max (ˆx[n] ) min (ˆx[n] ) γσ ˆx[n] = x[n] + ( ) R(C ) cos(πn/n) I(C ) sin(πn/n) N =1 + 1 N C + 1 N C N/ cos(πn), n N 1 (43) C, C N/ R When the distortion of each OFDM symbol is minimized by the above convex optimization approach, the corresponding EVM of ˆx[n] (which is proportional to E [ K d C ] ) serves as the lower bound for the given dynamic range γσ. 3.3 Optimality for ACO-OFDM In this subsection, we will prove that the ACO-OFDM scheme achieves the minimum EVM and thus is optimal in the EVM sense. For ACO-OFDM, let us write ˆx[n] = x (A) [n] + c[n], (44) where c[n] is the clipping noise to ensure that ˆx[n] has a limited dynamic range as described in (39). In the frequency-domain, we have: where the X (A) in (43) can be written as ˆX = X (A) + C. (45) subcarriers are laid out as in (). According to (35), when is odd, the objective function =odd C = 1 n= (c[n] c[n + N/]). (46) The dynamic range constraints in problem (43) can be viewed as two constraints put together: max ( x (A) [n] + c[n] ) min ( x (A) [n] + c[n] ) γσ, n N/ 1, (47) 13

14 max ( x (A) [n] + c[n] ) min ( x (A) [n] + c[n] ) γσ, N/ n N 1. (48) Since x (A) [n] = x (A) [n N/] when N/ n N 1, Eq. (48) can be further written as max ( x (A) [n] c[n + N/] ) min ( x (A) [n] c[n + N/] ) γσ, n N/ 1. (49) From Eq. (46), Eq. (47) and Eq. (49), the problem (43) can be recast as: minimize n= c [n] subject to max ( x (A) [n] + c[n] ) min ( x (A) [n] + c[n] ) γσ, n N/ 1 (5) which is equivalent to minimize n= c [n] subject to x (A) [n] + c[n] γσ, n N/ 1 (51) x (A) [n] + c[n], n N/ 1 In Appendix I, we prove that the solution c [n] to (51) yields γσ, x (A) [n] > γσ x (A) [n] = x (A) [n] + c [n] = x (A) [n], x (A) [n] γσ, x (A) [n] < (5) and thus the ACO-OFDM scheme is optimum in the EVM sense. 4 Signal to Distortion Ratio Analysis Based on the Bussgang s Theorem [?], any nonlinear function of x[n] can be decomposed into a scaled version of x[n] plus a distortion term d[n] that is uncorrelated with x[n]. For example, we can write, x[n] = α x[n] + d[n], n =,..., N 1. (53) Let R xx [m] = E{x[n]x[n+m]} denote the auto-correlation function of x[n], and let R xy [m] = E{x[n]y[n+m]} denote the cross-correlation function between x[n] and y[n] at lag m. For any given m, the correlation functions satisfy R xd [m] =, (54) R xx [m] = αr xx [m]. (55) 14

15 Thus the scaling factor α can be calculated as α = R xx[] R xx [] = E{ x[n]x[n]} σ = 1 σ xx p(x)dx (56) Let f( ) denote the function lining the original signal to the clipped signal, it is shown in reference [?] that the output auto-correlation function R x x [m] is related to the input auto-correlation function R xx [m] via where the coefficients R x x [m] = l= b l l! [ ] l Rxx [m], (57) σ b l = ( 1)l σ l 1 π f(x) dl [exp( x σ )] dx l dx. (58) The input auto-correlation function R xx [m] can be obtained from taing IDFT of the input power spectrum density (PSD) R xx [m] = IDFT{P X, } m, m =,..., N 1, (59) where P X, = E[ X ] is the expected value of the power on the th subcarrier before clipping. Then it is straightforward to calculate the output PSD by taing the DFT of the auto-correlation of the output signal: P X, = DFT{R x x [m]}, =,..., N 1, (6) Taing the DFT of the Eq. (53), the data at the th subcarrier is expressed as X = DFT{α x[n]} + DFT{d[n]} (61) = α X + D, K d. Here, we assume that D is Gaussian distributed, which is the common assumption when N is large [?]. The signal to distortion ratio (SDR) at the th subcarrier is given by SDR = E[ α X ] E[ D ] = α P X, α P X, = P D, P X, α, K d, (6) P X, where P D, = E[ D ] = P X, α P X, is the average power of the distortion on the th subcarrier. 15

16 According to Eq. (56), we can obtain the scaling factor α as a function of the clipping ratio γ and the biasing ratio ς: α = 1 σ xx p(x)dx (63) = 1 cu σ z 1 ( z ) c l σ φ dz + 1 cl σ σ c l z 1 ( z ) σ φ dz + 1 σ σ c u z 1 ( z ) c u σ φ dz σ = Φ (γ(1 ς)) Φ ( γς). Note that in (63) we have used Eq. (13) and Eq. (1) for c l and c u. According to Eq. (58), we can obtain the coefficient b l as a function of the clipping ratio γ and the biasing ratio ς: σφ(γς) σφ (γ(1 ς)) σγςφ ( γς) + σγ(1 ς)φ ( γ(1 ς)), l = b l = σφ (γ(1 ς)) σφ( γς), l = 1 σ π exp ( γ ς ) He (l ) ( γς) σ π exp ( γ (1 ς) ) He (l ) (γ(1 ς)), l > 1 ( ) where He n (t) = ( 1) l t exp d l [exp( t )] is the probabilists Hermite polynomials [?]. dt l (64) 5 Achievable Data Rate In VLC, average optical power and dynamic optical power are two main constraints. Recall from Eq. (3), we can obtain the average optical power of y[n] as O y = E{y[n]} (65) = E{ x[n]} + B cu = z 1 ( z ) c l σ φ 1 ( z ) cl dz + c u σ c u σ φ 1 ( z ) dz + c l σ σ φ dz c l σ ( ) = σ φ(γς) φ (γ(1 ς)) γςφ ( γς) + γ(1 ς)φ ( γ(1 ς)) + γς. Let σ w = E{w [n]} denote the power of AWGN w[n], we define the optical signal to noise ratio (OSNR) as Recall from Eq. (5), we can obtain the dynamic optical power of y[n] as OSNR = O y σ w. (66) G y = max (y[n]) min (y[n]) = c u c l = σγ. (67) We define the dynamic signal to noise ratio (DSNR) as DSNR = G y σ w. (68) 16

17 Let η OSNR = P A /σ w denote the OSNR constraint and η DSNR = (P H P L )/σ w denote the DSNR constraint, we have σ σ w η OSNR O y /σ, (69) σ σ w η DSNR G y /σ. (7) The maximum σ/σ w value can be obtained as ( σ η OSNR = min σ w φ(γς) φ (γ(1 ς)) γςφ ( γς) + γ(1 ς)φ ( γ(1 ς)) + γς, ) η DSNR, (71) γ by substituting (65) and (67) into the right hand side of (69) and (7), respectivly. The ratio η DSNR /η OSNR = (P H P L )/P A is determined by specific system requirements 5.1 AWGN Channel For AWGN channel, recall from Eq. (15), the received data on the th subcarrier can be expressed as R = X + W = αx + D + W, K d. (7) The signal-to-noise-and-distortion ratio (SNDR) for the th subcarrier is given by SNDR = α E{ X } E{ D } + E{ W } (73) = = α P X, P D,K + σw 1 SDR 1. + σw 1 α P X, In this paper, we assume the power is equally distributed on all information-bearing subcarriers, then Eq. (73) is reduced to SNDR = P X, = Nσ K d, (74) SDR σ w σ K d Nα. (75) By substituting Eq. (71) into Eq. (75), we obtain the reciprocal of SNDR at the th subcarrier: (SNDR ) 1 = (SDR ) 1 + K d Nα (76) ( ) φ(γς) φ (γ(1 ς)) γςφ ( γς) + γ(1 ς)φ ( γ(1 ς)) + γς 4γ max,. η OSNR η DSNR 17

18 Therefore, the achievable data rate, as a function of clipping ratio γ, ς, η OSNR and η DSNR, is given by R (γ, ς, η OSNR, η DSNR ) = 1 N K d log (1 + SNDR ) bits subcarrier. (77) 5. Frequency-selective Channel In the presence of frequency-selective channel, the received data on the th subcarrier obeys the following in the frequency-domain: R = H X + W = H (αx + D ) + W, K d. (78) In this paper, we consider the ceiling bounce channel model [?] given by 6a 6 h(t) = H() u(t), (79) (t + a) 7 where H() is the gain constant, a = 1 11/3D and u(t) is the unit step function. D denotes the rms delay. From Eq. (78), the SNDR is given by SNDR (H ) = = H α E{ X } H E{ D } + E{ W } (8) 1 SDR 1. + σw 1 H α P X, (81) With the assumption of equal power distribution, we can obtain the 1/SNDR as (SNDR ) 1 = (SDR ) 1 K d + N H α (8) ( ) φ(γς) φ (γ(1 ς)) γςφ ( γς) + γ(1 ς)φ ( γ(1 ς)) + γς 4γ max,. η OSNR η DSNR The achievable data rate, in the presence of frequency-selective channel, is given by R (γ, ς, η OSNR, η DSNR, H) = 1 N K d log (1 + SNDR (H )) bits subcarrier. (83) 6 Numerical Results In this section, we show EVM simulation results and achievable data rates of clipped optical OFDM signals under various average optical power and dynamic optical power constraints. 18

19 6.1 EVM Simulation The EVM analyses for DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM are validated through computer simulations. In the simulations, we chose the number of subcarriers N = 51, and QPSK modulation. 1 OFDM symbols were generated based on which we calculated the EVM. In order to experimentally determine the optimum biasing ratio for DCO-OFDM, we used biasing ratios ranging from.3 to.7 in step size of., and clipping ratios ranging from 5 db to 9 db in step size of 1 db. Their simulated and theoretical EVM curves are plotted in Fig. 3. As expected, the minimum EVM was achieved when the biasing ratio was.5, regardless of the clipping ratio. This agrees with the analysis in Section 3.1. Next, we compared the EVM for DCO-OFDM with biasing ratio.5, EVM for ACO-OFDM with biasing ratio, and their respective lower bounds. To obtain the lower bounds, we used CVX, a pacage for specifying and solving convex programs [?], to solve Eq. (43). The resulting EVM curves for DCO-OFDM are plotted in Fig. 4. The resulting EVM curves for ACO-OFDM are plotted in Fig. 5. We see that the EVM for ACO-OFDM achieves its lower bound, thus corroborating the discussion in Section 3.3. For DCO-OFDM, the gap above the lower bound increases with the clipping ratio (i.e., with increasing dynamic range of the LED). This implies that there exists another (more complicated) way of mapping x D [n] into a limited dynamic range signal ˆx[n] that can yield a lower EVM. 6. Achievable Data Rates Performance We now show achievable data rates of clipped OFDM signals under various average optical power and dynamic optical power constraints. The number of subcarriers was N = 51. For the frequency-selective channel, we chose the rms delay spread D = 1 ns and sampling frequency 1 MHz. The normalized frequency response for each subcarrier is shown in Fig. 6. As examples, we chose η OSNR = db, η DSNR = 3 db, and AWGN channel. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the achievable data rate as a function of the clipping ratio and the biasing ratio for DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM, respectively. We see that for given η OSNR and η DSNR values, a pair of optimum clipping ratio γ and optimum biasing ratio ς exist that maximize the achievable data rate. It is worthwhile to point out that the optimum biasing ratio ς is different from ς (recall that ς minimizes the EVM). If the system is only subject to the dynamic power constraint, ς should be equal to ς. If the dominant constraint is the average power, ς should be less than or equal to ς because reducing the biasing ratio can mae the signal average power lower. We can obtain the optimum clipping 19

20 3 Simulation Theory 5 Clipping ratio = 5, 6,..., 9 db EVM (%) Biasing ratio Figure 3: EVM as a function of biasing ratio for DCO-OFDM with clipping ratio = 5, 6,..., 9 db ratio and biasing ratio for given η OSNR, η DSNR by (γ, ς ) = argmax (γ,ς) R ηosnr,η DSNR (84) Fig. 9 (a) shows the optimal clipping ratio as a function of η OSNR for DCO-OFDM. Fig. 9 (b) shows the optimum biasing ratio as a function of η OSNR for DCO-OFDM. Similar plots are shown as Fig. 1 (a) and Fig. 1 (b) for ACO-OFDM. In all cases, η OSNR varied from db to 5 db in step size of 1 db, η DSNR /η OSNR = 1 db, and the channel was AWGN. The main observation is, with a lower average optical power constraint, the clipping ratio and the biasing ratio can be increased to achieve higher data rates. Intuitively, when η OSNR is large, the channel noise has little effect and the nonlinear distortion dominates. Next, we chose the ratio η DSNR /η OSNR from 6dB, 1dB and no η DSNR constraints. For each pair of η OSNR, η DSNR, AWGN channel or frequency-selective channel, we can calculate the optimum clipping ratio γ and biasing ratio ς according to Eq. (84) and the corresponding achievable data rates. Fig. 11, Fig. 1, and Fig. 13 show the achievable data rates with optimal clipping ratio and biasing ratio for the case η DSNR /η OSNR = 6 db, η DSNR /η OSNR = 1 db, and no η DSNR constraint, respectively. We observe

21 18 Simulation Theory Lower bound EVM (%) Clipping ratio (db) Figure 4: EVM as a function of the clipping ratio γ for DCO-OFDM along with the EVM lower bound for a given dynamic range limit γσ. that the performance of ACO-OFDM and DCO-OFDM depends on the specific optical power constraints scenario. Generally, DCO-OFDM outperforms ACO-OFDM for all the cases. With the increase of the ratio η DSNR /η OSNR, the average optical power becomes the dominant constraint. The ACO-OFDM moves closer to the DCO-OFDM. 7 Conclusions In this paper, we analyzed the performance of the DCO-OFDM and ACO-OFDM systems in terms of EVM, SDR, and achievable data rates under both the average optical power and dynamic optical power constraints. We numerically calculated the EVM and compared with the corresponding lower bound. Both the theory and the simulation results showed that ACO-OFDM can achieve the EVM lower bound. We derived the achievable data rates for AWGN channel as well as frequency-selective channel scenarios. We investigated the trade-off between the optical power constraint and distortion. We analyzed the optimum clipping ratio and biasing ratio and compared the performance of two optical OFDM techniques. Numerical results showed 1

22 18 Simulation Theory Lower bound EVM (%) Clipping ratio (db) Figure 5: EVM as a function of the clipping ratio γ for ACO-OFDM along with the EVM lower bound for a given dynamic range limit γσ. that DCO-OFDM outperforms the ACO-OFDM for all the optical power constraint scenarios. Appendix I. Proof that c [n] = x (A) [n] x (A) [n] is optimum for Eq. (51) Denote by u(c[n]) the objective function for the problem in (51): u(c[n]) = and denote by g i (c[n]) the ith constraint function for the problem in (51): { g i (c[n]) = Let µ i denote the ith KT multiplier. We inter that n= (c[n]), (85) x (A) [i] + c[i] γσ, i N 1 x (A) N [i N/] c[i N/], i N 1. (86) u(c[n]) = [c[], c[1],..., c[n/ 1]], (87)

23 H Subcarrier index Figure 6: Normalized frequency response for each subcarrier (rms delay spread D = 1 ns, 1 MHz sampling rate). N 1 i= µ i g i (c[n]) = [ µ µ N/, µ i µ N/+1,..., µ µ N 1 ]. (88) Next, we prove that c [n] = x (A) [n] x (A) [n] satisfies the Kuhn-Tucer (KT) conditions [?]: Stationarity Primary feasibility N 1 u(c[n]) + µ i g i (c[n]) =, (89) i= µ i, i =, 1,..., N 1, (9) Dual feasibility g i (c[n]), i =, 1,..., N 1, (91) Complementary slacness µ i g i (c[n]) =, i =, 1,..., N 1. (9) 3

24 .5 Achievable data rates (bits/subcarrier) Clipping ratio (db) Biasing ratio Figure 7: Achievable data rate as a function of the clipping ratio and the biasing ratio for DCO-OFDM with η OSNR = db, η DSNR = 3 db, and AWGN channel. Substituting c [n] into Eq. (89), we obtain, µ i µ i+n/ = x (A) [i] + x (A) [i], i =, 1,..., N 1. (93) In order to satisfy all the other conditions (9)-(9), we can choose µ i as follows (1) if x (A) [i] = x (A) [i], µ i = µ i+n/ = ; (94) () if x (A) [i] > γσ and x (A) [i] = γσ, µ i = x (A) [i], µ i+n/ = x (A) [i]; (95) (3) if x (A) [i] < and x (A) [i] =, µ i = x (A) [i], µ i+n/ = x (A) [i]. (96) Therefore, there exits constants µ i (i =, 1,..., N 1) that mae c [n] = x (A) [n] x (A) [n] satisfy the KT conditions. It was shown in reference [?] that if the objective function and the constraint functions are 4

25 1.8 Achievable data rates (bits/subcarrier) Clipping ratio (db) Biasing ratio.1. Figure 8: Achievable data rate as a function of the clipping ratio and the biasing ratio for ACO-OFDM with η OSNR = db, η DSNR = 3 db, and AWGN channel. continuously differentiable convex functions, KT conditions are sufficient for optimality. It is obvious that u and g are all continuously differentiable convex functions. Therefore, c [n] is optimal for the minimization problem (51). Acnowledgements This wor was supported in part by the Texas Instruments DSP Leadership University Program. 5

26 16 (a) Optimum clipping ratio (db) η OSNR (db). (b) Optimum biasing ratio η OSNR (db) Figure 9: Optimal clipping ratio and biasing ratio of DCO-OFDM for η OSNR =, 1,..., 5 db (in step size of 1 db), η DSNR /η OSNR = 1 db, and AWGN channel. 6

27 4 (a) Optimum clipping ratio (db) η OSNR (db) (b).5 Optimum biasing ratio η OSNR (db) Figure 1: Optimal clipping ratio and biasing ratio of ACO-OFDM for η OSNR =, 1,..., 5 db (in step size of 1 db), η DSNR /η OSNR = 1 db, and AWGN channel. 7

28 3 AWGN channel Frequency selective channel.5 Achievable data rate (bits/subcarrier) DCO-OFDM.5 ACO-OFDM (db) OSNR Figure 11: Achievable data rate with optimal clipping ratio and optimal biasing ratio for η OSNR =, 1,..., 5 db (in step size of 1 db), and η DSNR /η OSNR = 6 db. 8

29 3 AWGN channel Frequency selective channel.5 Achievable data rate (bits/subcarrier) DCO-OFDM ACO-OFDM (db) OSNR Figure 1: Achievable data rate with optimal clipping ratio and biasing ratio for η OSNR =, 1,..., 5 db (in step size of 1 db), and η DSNR /η OSNR = 1 db. 9

30 3 AWGN channel Frequency selective channel.5 Achievable data rate (bits/subcarrier) DCO-OFDM ACO-OFDM (db) OSNR Figure 13: Achievable data rate with optimal clipping ratio and biasing ratio for η OSNR =, 1,..., 5 db (in step size of 1 db), and no η DSNR constraint. 3