Scribd
Upload
6 views

Unit6 Part3

1) Turbo codes were proposed in 1993 and can achieve performance within 0.5 dB of the channel capacity limit for BPSK modulation. 2) Turbo codes use parallel concatenated coding with recursive convolutional encoders and pseudo-random interleaving between the encoders. 3) Iterative decoding is used where soft information is passed between component decoders to improve the estimates with each iteration.

Uploaded by

i7aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views

Unit6 Part3

1) Turbo codes were proposed in 1993 and can achieve performance within 0.5 dB of the channel capacity limit for BPSK modulation. 2) Turbo codes use parallel concatenated coding with recursive convolutional encoders and pseudo-random interleaving between the encoders. 3) Iterative decoding is used where soft information is passed between component decoders to improve the estimates with each iteration.

Uploaded by

i7aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

Unit 6 Part 3

Error Control Coding


Turbo Codes
Dr. G R Patil
Professor & Head, Dept of E&Tc Engg.
Army Institute of Technology, Pune-
411015
Error Correction Coding

Channel coding adds structured redundancy to a
transmission.
m Channel x
Encoder

 The input message m is composed of K symbols.


 The output code word x is composed of N symbols.
 Since N > K there is redundancy in the output.
 The code rate is r = K/N.

Coding can be used to:
 Detect errors: ARQ
 Correct errors: FEC
Turbo Codes

Backgound
 Turbo codes were proposed by Berrou and Glavieux in the
1993 International Conference in Communications.
 Performance within 0.5 dB of the channel capacity limit for
BPSK was demonstrated.

Features of turbo codes
 Parallel concatenated coding
 Recursive convolutional encoders
 Pseudo-random interleaving
 Iterative decoding
Motivation: Performance
of Turbo Codes.
Theoretical Limit!

Comparison:
 Rate 1/2 Codes.
 K=5 turbo code.
 K=14 convolutional code.

Plot is from:
L. Perez, “Turbo Codes”, chapter 8
of Trellis Coding by C. Schlegel.
IEEE Press, 1997.

Gain of almost 2 dB!


Motivation: Performance
of Turbo Codes.
Concatenated Coding

A single error correction code does not always provide
enough error protection with reasonable complexity.

Solution: Concatenate two (or more) codes
 This creates a much more powerful code.

Serial Concatenation (Forney, 1966)

Outer Block Inner


Encoder Interleaver Encoder

Channel

Outer De- Inner


Decoder interleaver Decoder
Parallel Concatenated Codes

Instead of concatenating in serial, codes can also be
concatenated in parallel.

The original turbo code is a parallel concatenation of two
recursive systematic convolutional (RSC) codes.
 systematic: one of the outputs is the input.

Systematic Output
Input Encoder
#1
MUX
Interleaver

Parity
Output
Encoder
#2
Pseudo-random Interleaving

The coding dilemma:
 Shannon showed that large block-length random codes achieve
channel capacity.
 However, codes must have structure that permits decoding with
reasonable complexity.
 Codes with structure don’t perform as well as random codes.
 “Almost all codes are good, except those that we can think of.”

Solution:
 Make the code appear random, while maintaining enough
structure to permit decoding.
 This is the purpose of the pseudo-random interleaver.
 Turbo codes possess random-like properties.
 However, since the interleaving pattern is known, decoding is
possible.
Why Interleaving and
Recursive Encoding?

In a coded systems:
 Performance is dominated by low weight code words.

A “good” code:
 will produce low weight outputs with very low probability.

An RSC(Recursive Systematic Conv) code:
 Produces low weight outputs with fairly low probability.
 However, some inputs still cause low weight outputs.

Because of the interleaver:
 The probability that both encoders have inputs that cause
low weight outputs is very low.
 Therefore the parallel concatenation of both encoders will
produce a “good” code.
Iterative Decoding
Deinterleaver
APP
APP
Interleaver
systematic Decoder Decoder
data #1 #2 hard bit
parity decisions
data DeMUX

Interleaver


There is one decoder for each elementary encoder.

Each decoder estimates the a posteriori probability (APP) of
each data bit.

The APP’s are used as a priori information by the other
decoder.

Decoding continues for a set number of iterations.
 Performance generally improves from iteration to iteration, but
follows a law of diminishing returns.
Iterative Decoding
The Turbo-Principle

Turbo codes get their name because the decoder uses
feedback, like a turbo engine.
Error Corrections Old and New
Performance as a Function of
Number of Iterations
0

K=5
10

r=1/2
-1
10
1 iteration

L=65,536
-2
10

-3
2 iterations
10
BER

-4
10 6 iterations 3 iterations

-5
10 10 iterations

-6
10 18 iterations

-7
10
0.5 1 1.5 2
Eb/No in dB
Performance Factors
and Tradeoffs

Complexity vs. performance
 Decoding algorithm.
 Number of iterations.
 Encoder constraint length

Latency vs. performance
 Frame size.

Spectral efficiency vs. performance
 Overall code rate

Other factors
 Interleaver design.
 Puncture pattern.
 Trellis termination.
Uses

Cell Phone

Satellite Communication

Dial-up Communication

RF Communication (AutoID? WiFi?)
Conclusion

Turbo code advantages:
 Remarkable power efficiency in AWGN and flat-fading channels for
moderately low BER.
 Deign tradeoffs suitable for delivery of multimedia services.

Turbo code disadvantages:
 Long latency.
 Poor performance at very low BER.
 Because turbo codes operate at very low SNR, channel estimation
and tracking is a critical issue.

The principle of iterative or “turbo” processing can be applied to
other problems.
 Turbo-multiuser detection can improve performance of coded
multiple-access systems.

You might also like