Technical Seminar Report on

TURBO CODE
A technical seminar report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of bachelor of engineering under BPUT

SUBMITTED BY:

PRASANTA KUMAR BARIK

REGISTRATION NO: 0701106246
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Techno Campus, Kalinga Nagar, Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar-751003
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that PRASANTA KUMAR BARIK is a

student of 8th semester B.Tech Computer Science and Engineering in the College of
Engineering & Technology, with registration number 0701106246 in the batch 2007-2011
has taken active interest in the preparing report on "TURBO CODE".

This is in partial fulfillment of requirement for the

Bachelor of Technology degree in Computer Science , under Biju Pattnaik University of
Technology ,Orissa.This report is verified and attested by

Prof Jibitesh Mishra

HOD,Department of CSE

College of Engineering & Technology,Bhubaneswar

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many people have contributed to the success of this. Although

a single sentence hardly suffices, I would like to thank God for blessing me with His grace. I
am profoundly indebted to my seminar guide Er Sarita Tripathy for innumerable acts of
timely advice, encouragement and I sincerely express my gratitude to her.

I express my immense pleasure and thankfulness

to all the teachers and staff of the Department of Computer Science, College Of Engineering
& Technology, for their cooperation and support.

Last but not least, I thank all others, and especially my

classmates who in one way or another helped me in successful completion of this work .

Prasanta Kumar Barik

Regd no.: 0701106246

8th Semester, CSE

Turbo Code
 ABSTRACT

During the transmission of data from transmitter to receiver, there is loss

of information in the communication channel due to noise. This loss is
measured in terms of bit error rate (BER) and several decoding
algorithms and modulation techniques used to minimize it. . Turbo codes
are one of the most powerful types of error control codes currently
available, which could achieve low BERs at signal to noise ratio (SNR)
very close to Shannon limit. Nevertheless, the specific performance of the
code highly depends on the particular decoding algorithm used at the
receiver. In this sense, the election of the decoding algorithm involves a
trade off between the gain introduced by the code and the complexity of
the decoding process.

Prasanta Kumar Barik

CSE-0701106246
 INDEX

CHAPTER PAGE NO

I.Introduction 1

II.Channel Coding 2-4

Backword Correction

Forward Error Correction

Need For Better Code

III. Turbo Code 5-15

Encoding with Interleaving

Recursive Systematic Convolutional Encoder

Decoding

Perfomance

Example

IV. Conclusion 16

V. Reference 17

Turbo Code
 Turbo Codes
1.Introduction

Concatenated coding schemes were first proposed by Forney as a method for

achieving large coding gains by combining two or more relatively simple
buildingblock or component codes (sometimes called constituent codes). The
resulting codes had the error-correction capability of much longer codes, and they
were endowed with a structure that permitted relatively easy to moderately
complex decoding. A serial concatenation of codes is most often used for power-
limited systems such as transmitters on deep-space probes. The most popular of
these schemes consists of a Reed-Solomon outer (applied first, removed last) code
followed by a convolutional inner (applied last, removed first) code .
A turbo code can be thought of as a refinement
of the concatenated encoding structure plus an iterative algorithm for decoding the
associated code sequence. Turbo codes were first introduced in 1993 by Berrou,
Glavieux, and Thitimajshima, and reported in ,where a scheme is described that
achieves a bit-error probability of 10-5 using a rate 1/2 code over an additive white
Gaussian noise channel and modulation at an Eb/N0 of 0.7 dB. The codes are
constructed by using two or more component codes on different interleaved
versions of the same information sequence. Whereas, for conventional codes, the
final step at the decoder yields hard-decision decoded bits (or, more generally,
decoded symbols), for a concatenated scheme such as a turbo code to work
properly, the decoding algorithm should not limit itself to passing hard decisions
among the decoders. To best exploit the information learned from each decoder,
the decoding algorithm must effect an exchange of soft decisions rather than hard
decisions. For a system with two component codes, the concept behind turbo
decoding is to pass soft decisions from the output of one decoder to the input of the
other decoder, and to iterate this process several times so as to produce more
reliable decisions.
2.Channel Coding

The task of channel coding is to encode the information sent over a communication
channel in such a way that in the presence of channel noise, errors can be
detected and/or corrected. We distinguish between two coding methods:

• Backward error correction (BEC)

requires only error detection: if an error

is detected, the sender is requested to retransmit the message. While this
method is simple and sets lower requirements on the code’s error-correcting

[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the
text box anywhere in the document. Use the Text Box Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull
quote text box.]

+ +

xi−1 xi−2 xi−3

+ +

Figure 1: A convolutional encoder

properties, it on the other hand requires duplex communication and causes

undesirable delays in transmission.

• Forward error correction (FEC)

requires that the decoder should also be

capable of correcting a certain number of errors, i.e. it should be capable of
locating the positions where the errors occurred. Since FEC codes require
only simplex communication, they are especially attractive in wireless
communication
systems, helping to improve the energy efficiency of the system.
Turbo Code
In the rest of this paper we deal with binary FEC codes only.
Next, we briefly recall the concept of conventional convolutional codes.
Convolutional
codes differ from block codes in the sense that they do not break the
message stream into fixed-size blocks. Instead, redundancy is added continuously
to the whole stream. The encoder keeps M previous input bits in memory. Each
output bit of the encoder then depends on the current input bit as well as the M
stored bits. Figure 1 depicts a sample convolutional encoder. The encoder produces
two output bits per every input bit, defined by the equations

y1,i = xi + xi−1 + xi−3,

y2,i = xi + xi−2 + xi−3.

For this encoder, M = 3, since the ith bits of output depend on input bit i, as well
as three previous bits i − 1, i − 2, i − 3. The encoder is nonsystematic, since the
input bits do not appear explicitly in its output.
An important parameter of a channel code is the code rate. If the input size (or
message size) of the encoder is k bits and the output size (the code word size) is n
bits, then the ratio k
n is called the code rate r. Since our sample convolutional encoder
produces two output bits for every input bit, its rate is 1
2 . Code rate expresses
the amount of redundancy in the code—the lower the rate, the more redundant the
code.
Finally, the Hamming weight or simply the weight of a code word is the number
of non-zero symbols in the code word. In the case of binary codes, dealt with in
this paper, the weight of a code word is the number of ones in the word.

3.A Need for Better Codes

Designing a channel code is always a tradeoff between energy efficiency and

bandwidth efficiency. Codes with lower rate (i.e. bigger redundancy) can usually
correct more errors. If more errors can be corrected, the communication system can
operate with a lower transmit power, transmit over longer distances, tolerate more
interference, use smaller antennas and transmit at a higher data rate. These
properties make the code energy efficient. On the other hand, low-rate codes have
a large overhead and are hence more heavy on bandwidth consumption. Also,
decoding complexity grows exponentially with code length, and long (low-rate)
codes set high computational requirements to conventional decoders. According to
Viterbi, this is the central problem of channel coding: encoding is easy but
decoding is hard .
For every combination of bandwidth (W), channel type, signal power (S) and
received noise power (N), there is a theoretical upper limit on the data transmission
rate R, for which error-free data transmission is possible. This limit is called
channel capacity or also Shannon capacity (after Claude Shannon, who introduced
the notion in 1948). For additive white Gaussian noise channels, the formula is

S
(
R<W log 2 1+
N)[bits/second]

In practical settings, there is of course no such thing as an ideal error-free channel.

Instead, error-free data transmission is interpreted in a way that the bit error
probability can be brought to an arbitrarily small constant. The bit error
probability, or bit error rate (BER) used in benchmarking is often chosen to be
10−5or 10−6.
Now, if the transmission rate, the bandwidth and the noise power are fixed, we get
a lower bound on the amount of energy that must be expended to convey one bit
of information. Hence, Shannon capacity sets a limit to the energy efficiency of a
code.
Although Shannon developed his theory already in the 1940s, several decades
later the code designs were unable to come close to the theoretical bound. Even
in the beginning of the 1990s, the gap between this theoretical bound and practical
implementations was still at best about 3dB. This means that practical codes
required about twice as much energy as the theoretical predicted minimum.1
Hence, new codes were sought that would allow for easier decoding. One way
of making the task of the decoder easier is using a code with mostly high-weight
code words. High-weight code words, i.e. code words containing more ones and
less zeros, can be distinguished more easily.
Another strategy involves combining simple codes in a parallel fashion, so that
each part of the code can be decoded separately with less complex decoders and
each decoder can gain from information exchange with others. This is called the
Turbo Code
divide-and-conquer strategy. Keeping these design methods in mind, we are now
ready to introduce the concept of turbo codes .

4.Turbo Codes: Encoding with Interleaving

The first turbo code, based on convolutional encoding, was introduced in 1993 by
Berrou et al. Since then, several schemes have been proposed and the term
“turbo codes” has been generalized to cover block codes as well as convolutional
codes. Simply put,
a turbo code is formed from the parallel concatenation of two codes separated by
an interleaver.
The generic design of a turbo code is depicted in Figure. Although the general
concept allows for free choice of the encoders and the interleaver, most designs
follow the ideas presented
• The two encoders used are normally identical;
• The code is in a systematic form, i.e. the input bits also occur in the output
• The interleaver reads the bits in a pseudo-random order.
The choice of the interleaver is a crucial part in the turbo code design . The task
of the interleaver is to “scramble” bits in a (pseudo-)random, albeit predetermined

*A decibel is a relative measure. If E is the actual energy and Eref is the theoretical
lower
bound, then the relative energy increase in decibels is

E
10 log 10
Eref
.

Sincelog 10 2 ≅ 0.3,

A twofold relative energy increase equals 3dB.

 Systematic output
INPUT Xi

Encoder 1 Output 1

Interleaver

Encoder 2
Output 2

Figure 2: The generic turbo encoder

fashion. This serves two purposes. Firstly, if the input to the second encoder is
interleaved,its output is usually quite different from the output of the first encoder.
This means that even if one of the output code words has low weight, the other
usually does not, and there is a smaller chance of producing an output with very
low weight. Higher weight, as we saw above, is beneficial for the performance of
the decoder. Secondly, since the code is a parallel concatenation of two codes, the
divide-and-conquer strategy can be employed for decoding. If the input to the
second decoder is scrambled, also its output will be different, or “uncorrelated”
from the output of the first encoder. This means that the corresponding two
decoders will gain more from information exchange.
We now briefly review some interleaver design ideas, stressing that the list is by no
means complete. The first three designs are illustrated in Figure 3 with a sample
input size of 15 bits.

1. A “row-column” interleaver: data is written row-wise and read columnwise.

While very simple, it also provides little randomness.

2. A “helical” interleaver: data is written row-wise and read diagonally.

3. An “odd-even” interleaver: first, the bits are left uninterleaved and

encoded,but only the odd-positioned coded bits are stored. Then, the bits are
scrambled and encoded, but now only the even-positioned coded bits are
stored. Odd-even encoders can be used, when the second encoder produces
one output bit per one input bit.

Turbo Code
4. A pseudo-random interleaver defined by a pseudo-random number generator
or a look-up table.
Turbo Codes 6

Input
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
X6 X7 X8 X9 X10
X11 X12 X13 X14 X15

Row-column interleaver output

X1 X1 X1 X1
X1 X6 X2 X7 X3 X8 X4 X9 X5 X10 X15
1 2 3 4

Helical interleaver output

X1 X1 X1
X11 X7 X3 X14 X1 X8 X4 X15 X6 X2 X9 X5
0 2 3

Odd-even interleaver output

Encoder output without interleaving

X1 X1 X1 X1
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X14 X15
0 1 2 3
Y1 Y1
Y1 - Y3 - Y5 - Y7 - Y9 - - - Y15
1 3
Encoder output with row-column interleaving

X1
X1 X6 X11 X2 X7 X12 X3 X8 X13 X4 X9 X5 X10 X15
4
- Z6 - Z2 - Z12 - Z8 - Z4 - Z14 - Z10 -
Final output of the encoder

Y1 Y1
Y1 Z6 Y3 Z2 Y5 Z12 Y7 Z8 Y9 Z4 Z14 Z10 Y15
1 3
 Figure 3: Interleaver designs

There is no such thing as a universally best interleaver. For short block sizes, the
odd-even interleaver has been found to outperform the pseudo-random interleaver,
and vice versa. The choice of the interleaver has a key part in the success of the
code and the best choice is dependent on the code design. For further reading,
several articles on interleaver design can be found.

5.Recursive Systematic Convolutional (RSC) Encoder

The recursive systematic convolutional (RSC) encoder is obtained from the
nonrecursive nonsystematic (conventional) convolutional encoder by feeding back
one of its encoded outputs to its input. Figure shows a conventional convolutional
encoder.

+ g1

x D D
+

g2

Figure 4.1: Conventional convolutional encoder

Turbo Code
The conventional convolutional encoder is represented by the generator sequences
g1 =[111] and g2 =[101] and can be equivalently represented in a more compact
form as G=[g1, g2]. The RSC encoder of this conventional convolutional encoder
is represented as G=[1, g2 / g1] where the first output (represented by g1) is fed
back to the input. In the above representation, 1 denotes the systematic output, g2
denotes the feedforward output, and g1 is the feedback to the input of the RSC
encoder. Figure 4.2 shows the resulting RSC encoder.

+ D D

Figure 4.2: The RSC encoder obtained from the previous figure
6.Turbo Codes: Some Notes on Decoding

In the traditional decoding approach, the demodulator makes a “hard” decision

of the received symbol, and passes to the error control decoder a discrete value,
either a 0 or a 1. The disadvantage of this approach is that while the value of some
bits is determined with greater certainty than that of others, the decoder cannot
make use of this information.
A soft-in-soft-out (SISO) decoder receives as input a “soft” (i.e. real) value of
the signal. The decoder then outputs for each data bit an estimate expressing the
probability that the transmitted data bit was equal to one. In the case of turbo
codes, there are two decoders for outputs from both encoders. Both decoders
provide estimates of the same set of data bits, albeit in a different order. If all
intermediate values in the decoding process are soft values, the decoders can gain
greatly from exchanging information, after appropriate reordering of values.
Information exchange can be iterated a number of times to enhance performance.
At each round, decoders re-evaluate their estimates, using information from the
other decoder, and only in the final stage will hard decisions be made, i.e. each bit
is assigned the value 1 or 0. Such decoders, although more difficult to implement,
are essential in the design of turbo codes.

Turbo Code
7.Working Of Turbo Code with the Example

Figure 5.1: Encoding

 Figure 5.2:Decoding

Turbo Code
8.Turbo Codes: Performance

We have seen that the conventional codes left a 3dB gap between theory and
practice. After bringing out the arguments for the efficiency of turbo codes, one
clearly wants to ask: how efficient are they?
Already the first rate 1/3 code proposed in 1993 made a huge improvement: the
gap between Shannon’s limit and implementation practice was only 0.7dB, giving
a less than 1.2-fold overhead. (In the authors’ measurements, the allowed bit error
rate BER was 10−5). In [2], a thorough comparison between convolutional codes
and turbo codes is given. In practice, the code rate usually varies between 1/2 and
1/6 . Let the allowed bit error rate be 10−6. For code rate 1/2 , the relative increase
in energy consumption is then 4.80dB for convolutional codes, and 0.98dB for
turbo codes. For code rate 1/6 , the respective numbers are 4.28dB and -0.12dB2. It
can also be noticed, that turbo codes gain significantly more from lowering the
code rate than conventional convolutional codes.

Figure 6: Perfomance
9.The UMTS Turbo Code

+ +
Input Xi Xi-1 Xi-2 Xi-3

Interleaver + ++

+ +

X’i-1 X’i-2 X’i-3

X’i

+ +

Figure 7: The UMTS turbo encoder

Turbo Code
The UMTS turbo encoder closely follows the design ideas presented in the original
1993 paper .The starting building block of the encoder is the simple convolutional
encoder depicted in Figure 1. This encoder is used twice, once without
interleaving and once with the use of an interleaver, exactly as described above.
In order to obtain a systematic code, desirable for better decoding, the following
modifications are made to the design. Firstly, a systematic output is added to the
encoder. Secondly, the second output from each of the two encoders is fed back
to the corresponding encoder’s input. The resulting turbo encoder
is a rate 1/3 encoder, since for each input bit it produces one systematic
output bit and two parity bits. Details on the interleaver design can be found in
the corresponding specification .
Although the relative value is negative, it does not actually violate the Shannon’s
limit. The negative value is due to the fact that we allow for a small error, whereas
Shannon’s capacity applies for perfect error-free transmission.

As a comparison, the GSM system uses conventional convolutional encoding in

combination with block codes. The code rate varies with the type of input; in the
case of speech signal, it

260 1
<
456 2
10.Conclusions

Turbo codes are a recent development in the field of forward-error-correction

channel coding. The codes make use of three simple ideas: parallel concatenation
of codes to allow simpler decoding; interleaving to provide better weight
distribution; and soft decoding to enhance decoder decisions and maximize the
gain from decoder interaction.
While earlier, conventional codes performed—in terms of energy efficiency or,
equivalently, channel capacity—at least twice as bad as the theoretical bound
suggested,turbo codes immediately achieved performance results in the near range
of the theoretically best values, giving a less than 1.2-fold overhead. Since the first
proposed design in 1993, research in the field of turbo codes has produced even
better results. Nowadays, turbo codes are used in many commercial applications,
including both third generation cellular systems UMTS and cdma2000.

Turbo Code
11.References

[1] University of South Australia, Institute for Telecommunications Research,

Turbo coding research group. http://www.itr.unisa.edu.au/
~steven/turbo/.
[2] S.A. Barbulescu and S.S. Pietrobon. Turbo codes: A tutorial on a new class of
powerful error correction coding schemes. Part I: Code structures and interleaver
design. J. Elec. and Electron.Eng., Australia, 19:129–142, September
1999.
[3] S.A. Barbulescu and S.S. Pietrobon. Turbo codes: A tutorial on a new class of
powerful error correction coding schemes. Part II: Decoder design and
performance.
J. Elec. and Electron.Eng., Australia, 19:143–152, September 1999.