Common detectors for shaped offset QPSK (SOQPSK) and Feherpatented QPSK (FQPSK)
ABSTRACT Symbolbysymbol detection of SOQPSK and FQPSK using detectors designed for offset QPSK represents a simple common detector architecture for these two interoperable waveforms. Unfortunately, this detection method results in a 2 dB loss in bit error rate performance. This paper describes detection methods for recovering this loss without the need for knowing which modulation is used by the transmitter. An equivalent crosscorrelated trelliscoded quadrature modulation (XTCQM) representation for SOQPSK is developed which forms the basis of a common TCM detector. An equivalent CPM representation for FQPSK is developed which forms the basis for a common CPM detector. The common XTCQM detector performs slightly better than the common CPM detector, but achieves this gain at the expense of higher complexity

Conference Paper: Coded FQPSK and SOQPSK with iterative detection
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We investigate the performance of Feherpatented quadrature phaseshift keying (FQPSK) and shapedoffset QPSK (SOQPSK) when serially concatenated with an outer code. We show that the receiver complexity for FQPSK and SOQPSK can he greatly reduced by viewing them as continuous phase modulation (CPM) waveforms. We use the pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) representation of CPM, which allows nearoptimum detection of both modulations using a simple 4state trellis. We compare the performance of the PAMbased approximation with another common approximation known as frequency/phase pulse truncation (PT). We use both of these reducedcomplexity designs in serially concatenated coding schemes with iterative detection. In the end, we show that the PAM approximation has a slight performance advantage over PT, but both approximations achieve large coding gains in the proposed serially concatenated systemsMilitary Communications Conference, 2005. MILCOM 2005. IEEE; 11/2005  SourceAvailable from: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Spacetime coding with offset modulations  SourceAvailable from: people.eecs.ku.edu[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We investigate the performance of Feherpatented quadrature phaseshift keying (FQPSK) and shapedoffset QPSK (SOQPSK) when serially concatenated with an outer code. We show that the receiver complexity for FQPSK and SOQPSK can be greatly reduced by viewing them as continuous phase modulation (CPM) waveforms. We use the pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) representation of CPM, which allows nearoptimum detection of both modulations using a simple 4state trellis. We compare the performance of the PAMbased approximation with another common approximation known as frequency/phase pulse truncation (PT). We use both of these reducedcomplexity designs in serially concatenated coding schemes with iterative detection. In the end, we show that the PAM approximation has a slight performance advantage over PT, but both approximations achieve large coding gains in the proposed serially concatenated systems.
Page 1
Common Detectors for Shaped Offset QPSK
(SOQPSK) and Feherpatented QPSK (FQPSK)
Tom Nelson∗, Erik Perrins†, and Michael Rice∗
∗Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602
†Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
Abstract—Symbolbysymbol
FQPSK using detectors designed for offset QPSK represents a
simple common detector architecture for these two interoperable
waveforms. Unfortunately, this detection method results in a 2 dB
loss in bit error rate performance. This paper describes detection
methods for recovering this loss without the need for knowing
which modulation is used by the transmitter. An equivalent
crosscorrelated trelliscoded quadrature modulation (XTCQM)
representation for SOQPSK is developed which forms the basis
of a common TCM detector. An equivalent CPM representation
for FQPSK is developed which forms the basis for a common
CPM detector. The common XTCQM detector performs slightly
better than the common CPM detector, but achieves this gain at
the expense of higher complexity.
detectionofSOQPSKand
I. INTRODUCTION
Power and bandwidth constraints present challenges to
waveform and modulation design. These challenges are exac
erbated when the power amplifiers must operate in their non
linear (saturated) mode. In this case, the additional constraint
of constant envelope is often imposed. Usually some form of
continuous phase modulation (CPM) is used since it possesses
both constant envelope and is bandwidth efficient. Examples
include, GMSK [1] in digital mobile telephony and PCM/FM
in aeronautical telemetry [2].
PCM/FM has been the modulation of choice in aeronautical
telemetry since the early 1970s. However, as data rates have
increased and available bandwidth has decreased, the need for
more spectrally efficient modulations has intensified. In 2000,
Feherpatented QPSK (FQPSK) [3] was adopted as a standard
in the aeronautical telemetry standard IRIG 106 [2]. FQPSK
is a form of offset QPSK (OQPSK) where the inphase and
quadrature pulse shapes are selected from a set of 16 pulses.
The selection is determined by the inphase and quadrature
data transitions and constrained to produce a quasiconstant
envelope. This constraint produces an I/Q modulation that
is termed cross correlated since the quadrature waveform is
constrained by the inphase waveform and vice versa. Three
of the pulses were redefined by Jefferis and Formeister [4] to
produce a version of FQPSK, denoted FQPSKJR, that has a
true constant envelope. FQPSKJR was adopted as an option
in the IRIG 106 standard in 2004. Simon [5] showed that
FQPSK can be interpreted as a crosscorrelated trelliscoded
quadrature modulation (XTCQM).
A competing modulation, known as shaped offset QPSK
(SOQPSK) was also adopted as an option in the 2004 version
of IRIG 106. SOQPSK is a constrained ternary CPM with
modulation index h = 1/2. The IRIG 106 version, known
as SOQPSKTG, is a partial response version of the full
response SOQPSK defined in MILSTD 188181 [6], the
military standard for UHF satellite communications.
SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR were selected as interoperable
standards in aeronautical telemetry because both have approx
imately the same bandwidth and approximately equivalent bit
error rate performance when detected using a simple offset
QPSK detector. The simple symbolbysymbol detector has
two attractive features: 1) low complexity, and 2) it does not
have to “know” which modulation is used by the transmitter.
These attractive features are achieved at the expense of detec
tion efficiency: the bit error rate performance of this simple
detector is about 2 dB worse than what could be achieved with
optimum detection.
Since SOQPSKTG is a CPM and FQPSKJR is a XTCQM,
it is natural to assume that the optimal detector must be
equipped with two different detection algorithms and endowed
with the knowledge of which modulation is used by the
transmitter. In this paper we show that a single detection
algorithm can be used for both modulations and that this
algorithm does not have to “know” which modulation is used
(that is, its bit error rate performance is the same for both
SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR and that this performance is
within 0.1 dB of the SOQPSKTG optimum and equal to the
FQPSKJR optimum). We refer to such a detector as a common
detector.
This remarkable result is derived as follows. SOQPSKTG
is shown to have an equivalent XTCQM representation in
Section III. The corresponding maximum likelihood detector,
which follows naturally from this representation, is modified
to form an XTCQM detector that is fully compatible with
both SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR. The common XTCQM
detector performs within 0.1 dB of optimal for SOQPSK
TG and achieves optimal performance for FQPSKJR. In
Section IV, an equivalent CPM representation for FQPSK
JR is derived. This representation is simplified and used to
produce a common CPM detector. The common CPM detector
performs within 0.25 dB of optimal for SOQPSKTG and
essentially achieves optimal for performance for FQPSK
JR. While the common XTCQM detector outperforms the
common CPM detector, it does so with greater complexity as
measured by the number of matched filters and trellis states.
matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings.This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings.This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject
IEEE Globecom 2005IEEE Globecom 20050780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE0780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
37433743
Page 2
−4−3−2−101234
t/Tb
SOQPSK−TG
MIL−STD SOQPSK
Fig. 1.The frequency pulses for SOQPSKTG and MILSTD SOQPSK.
II. INTEROPERABLE MODULATIONS
A. SOQPSKTG
SOQPSK (both the MILSTD and TG versions) is defined
as a CPM. The baseband modulated signal may be expressed
as
s(t) =
Tb
where
?t
n=−∞
for nTb ≤ t ≤ (n + 1)Tb; φ0 is an arbitrary phase which,
without loss of generality, can be set to 0; h = 1/2 is
the modulation index; and αn ∈ {−1,0,1} are the ternary
symbols and are related to the input binary symbols an ∈
{−1,1} by [7]
αn= (−1)n+1an−1(an− an−2)
The frequency pulse for SOQPSKTG, g(t), is a spectral raised
cosine windowed with a temporal raised cosine with length
L = 8Tb [8] and is shown in Fig. 1. Also shown is the
frequency pulse for MILSTD SOQPSK which is a 1REC.
The performance of the maximum likelihood CPM detector
was analyzed by Geoghegan [9], [10], [11]. The asymptotic
probability of bit error is given by
??
?2Eb
exp[j (φ(t,α) + φ0)]
(1)
φ(t,α) = 2πh
−∞
∞
?
αng(τ − nTb)dτ
(2)
2
.
(3)
Pb=1
2Q
1.60Eb
N0
?
.
(4)
B. FQPSKJR
FQPSKJR is defined as an offset QPSK modulation of the
form
?
with data dependent pulses sI,m(t) and sQ,m(t) each drawn
in a constrained way from a set of 16 waveforms [4]. The 16
pulses are listed in [4] and [5] and, due to space constraints,
s(t) =
k
sI,m(t − kTs) + jsQ,m(t − kTs− Ts/2).
(5)
are not reproduced here. Simon showed that FQPSK has an
XTCQM interpretation from which the optimum maximum
likelihood detector followed [5]. This representation consists
of 16 waveforms for the inphase component and 16 waveforms
for the quadrature component for a total of 32 possible
complexvalued waveforms when the constraints on possible
combinations are taken into account. Due to the symmetries
of the waveforms, 16 realvalued matched filters are required
together with a 16state trellis. The corresponding performance
analysis showed that the asymptotic bit error probability is
??
Pb=1
2Q
1.56Eb
N0
?
.
(6)
The application to FQPSKJR is straightforward and the
corresponding optimum XTCQM detector has the same per
formance as its FQPSK counterpart and is given by (6).
C. SymbolbySymbol Detection
SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR are considered to be interop
erable because of their similar performance with an integrate
anddump detector normally used with offset QPSK without
any pulse shaping. Using this detector with FQPSK (and its
variants) is natural since FQPSK is defined as an offset QPSK
with data dependent pulse shapes. The use of this detector
with SOQPSKTG is motivated by the well established con
nection between CPM with modulation index h = 1/2 and
offset QPSK [12]–[15]. Symbolbysymbol detection has been
thoroughly investigated for SOQPSKTG by Geoghegan [9]
and for FQPSK by Simon [5]. Our own simulation results are
shown in Fig. 2 where we see that SOQPSKTG performs
about 2.0 dB worse than its optimum CPM detector and that
FQPSKJR performs about 2.2 dB worse than its optimum
XTCQM detector. Symbolbysymbol detection with better
detection filters has also been investigated for SOQPSKTG
in [9] and for FQPSK in [5]. The XTCQM representations for
both modulations can be used to define detection filters for use
with a symbolbysymbol detector as explained in Section III.
The bit error rate performance of SOQPSKTG and FQPSK
JR using the improved detection filter is also plotted in Fig. 2.
Observe that the use of this detection filter improves the bit
error rate performance by 0.5 dB for SOQPSKTG and 0.6 dB
for FQPSKJR. This improvement is well short of the 2 dB
loss relative to the bit error rate performance corresponding to
(4) and (6), respectively. This observation motivates the search
for common detectors with improved detection efficiency.
III. XTCQM DETECTOR
Since FQPSKJR can be interpreted as an XTCQM, we
seek an equivalent XTCQM representation for SOQPSKTG.
This representation allows the design of a common XTCQM
detector. The XTCQM representation of SOQPSKTG is de
rived as follows. Inserting (3) into (2), exchanging the order
of integration and summation and extending the sum to n+1
to get a waveform of duration 2Tb= Tsresults in
matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings.This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings. This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject
IEEE Globecom 2005IEEE Globecom 20050780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE0780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
37443744
Page 3
46810 12
10
−6
10
−5
10
−4
10
−3
10
−2
10
−1
Eb/N0 (dB)
bit error rate
Theory (Tx=SOQPSK−TG)
Theory (Tx=FQPSK−JR)
I&D (Tx=SOQPSK−TG)
Common det. filter (Tx=SOQPSK−TG)
I&D (Tx=FQPSK−JR)
Common det. filter (Tx=FQPSK−JR)
Fig. 2.
anddump (I&D) detector and the common symbolbysymbol detector along
with the theoretical curves for each modulation. The I&D detector performs
about 2.0 dB worse than optimum for SOQPSKTG and about 2.2 dB worse
than optimum for FQPSKJR at Pb= 10−5while the average matched filter
detector performs about 0.5 dB better than I&D for SOQPSKTG and about
0.6 dB better for FQPSKJR.
Bit error rates for SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR for the integrate
φ(t,an) =
θn+ 2πh
n+1
?
i=n−L+1
(−1)i+1ai−1(ai− ai−2)
2
q(t − iTb)
(7)
where
an=?an−L−1
θn= πh
an−L
···
an+1
?,
(8)
n−L
?
i=−∞
αi,
(9)
and
q(t) =
?t
−∞
g(x)dx.
(10)
With L = 8 there are 9 terms in the sum and 11 bits that
contribute to φ(t,an) during the interval nTb≤ t ≤ (n+2)Tb.
There are 4 phase states, but they do not increase the number of
waveforms because the phase state θnis a function of the last
two bits in an, an−Land an−L−1. As a result, 2048 complex
waveforms are needed to exactly represent SOQPSKTG. The
I and Q waveforms are given by
sI,m(t) = cos(φ(t,an)),sQ,m(t) = sin(φ(t,an))
(11)
where the index m is given by
m = 210bn+1+ 29bn+ ... + 20bn−L−1
and bn∈ {0,1} is related to the bipolar bits an∈ {−1,1} by
bn= (an+ 1)/2. Then the modulated signal takes the form
?
(12)
s(t) =
k
sI,m(t − kTs) + jsQ,m(t − kTs)
(13)
with sI,m(t) and sQ,m(t) defined in (11). Thus, even though
SOQPSKTG is defined as a constrained ternary CPM, it can
also be viewed as a XTCQM consisting of 2048 waveforms.
This view suggests an alternate form for the optimal detector.
The fact that the XTCQM representation of SOQPSK
TG uses 2048 waveforms while FQPSKJR uses 32 wave
forms presents a difficulty in defining a common XTCQM
detector. The number of waveforms required by the XTCQM
representation of SOQPSKTG can be reduced by averaging
the timedomain waveforms that differ in the first and last
bits. (This technique was used by Simon [16] to reduce the
number of waveforms required to represent FQPSK.) Applying
this technique once reduces the number of waveforms from
2048 to 512. Repeating two more times reduces the number
of waveforms to 32. (Simulations, not presented here, show
that an XTCQM detector for SOQPSKTG based on this
approximation performs within 0.1 dB of (4).) Since the 32
waveforms used in this approximate XTCQM representation
of SOQPSKTG are different from the 32 waveforms used by
the XTCQM representation of FQPSKJR, the two sets can
be averaged to obtain a set of 32 waveforms which form the
basis of a common XTCQM detector. This detector requires 16
realvalued length2Tbmatched filters together with a 16state
trellis.
The bit error rate performance of the common XTCQM
detector is shown in Fig. 3. A plot of (4) and (6) are also
inlcuded for reference. The bit error rate performances of both
modulations with this detector are equivalent. Note that the
BER curves coincide with the FQPSKJR bound (6) and are
0.1 dB worse than the SOQPSKTG bound (4).
Note that the process for reducing the number of wave
forms in the XTCQM approximation for SOQPSKTG can be
continued until only one waveform remains. This waveform
can be averaged with the average of the FQPSK waveforms
to produce a common representation consisting of only one
waveform. A detection filter matched to this waveform forms
the basis of the common symbolbysymbol detector whose
bit error rate performance is summarized in Fig. 2.
IV. CPM DETECTOR
Another candidate for the common detector is the CPM
detector. SOQPSKTG is defined as a CPM, as explained in
Subsection IIA. The CPM approximation of FQPSKJR is
obtained by determining the phase pulse φ(t) as a function of
the XTCQM waveforms. The length of φ(t) is L = 2 because
the waveforms are defined over a two bit interval. The phase
of the signal as it transitions from one constellation point to
an adjacent point determines φ(t).
For example, consider the case where the initial phase state
is π/4 and αn = −1. In that case the I and Q waveforms
(sI(t) and sQ(t), respectively) are given by
?
sI(t)=1 − A2cos2
?π(t − Tb)
?πt
2Tb
?
sQ(t)=
−Asin
2Tb
?
matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings. This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings.This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject
IEEE Globecom 2005 IEEE Globecom 20050780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE 0780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
3745 3745
Page 4
34567891011
10
−6
10
−5
10
−4
10
−3
10
−2
10
−1
Eb/N0 (dB)
bit error rate
Theory (Tx=SOQPSK−TG)
Theory (Tx=FQPSK−JR)
Common XTCQM det. (Tx=SOQPSK−TG)
Common XTCQM det. (Tx=FQPSK−JR)
Fig. 3.
XTCQM detector along with the theoretical curves for each modulation.
Bit error rates for SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR for the common
for 0 ≤ t ≤ 2Tb. (A is an adjustable parameter that appears
in the definitions of the 16 waveforms for both FQPSK and
FQPSKJR. This parameter is set to 1/√2 to produce quasi
constant envelope FQPSK or constant envelope FQPSKJR.)
The phase pulse in this case is given by
The frequency pulse g(t) is then the derivative of φ(t) and is
given by
Aπ
2Tb
?
φ(t)=tan−1
−Asin
?
?π(t − Tb)
2Tb
?πt
?πt
?πt
?
?
1 − A2cos2
2Tb
?
= tan−1
−Acos
2Tb
?
1 − A2cos2
2Tb
?
.
(14)
g(t) =
sin
?πt
2Tb
?πt
?
1 − A2cos2
2Tb
?
(15)
and is plotted in Fig. 4. It is easy to show that starting with
the three other phase states this approach produces the same
g(t). The same is true for all four phase states when αn= 1.
When αn= 0 no phase transition occurs and the g(t) in (15)
can be assumed. Thus g(t) in (15) is the frequency pulse for
the CPM approximation of FQPSKJR.
Since g(t) is partial response, sequences of αnreveal how
the CPM representation is an approximation to the XTCQM
representation. An example of such a sequence is illustrated
in Fig. 5 which shows the instantaneous frequencies of the
two representations with the αn overlaid on the plot. When
the frequency pulses do not overlap (i.e. when consecutive
00.5 11.52
t/Tb
Fig. 4.The frequency pulse for the CPM approximation of FQPSKJR.
02468 10 1214 16
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
+1 0 −1 0 +1 0 0 +1+1 0 0 +1+1+1 0
t/Tb
Normalized Instantaneous Frequency
CPM FQPSK−JR
FQPSK−JR
Fig. 5.
mation. The ternary data symbols are as shown. The two waveforms match
exactly except for when two or more adjacent nonzero symbols occur.
The instantaneous frequency of FQPSKJR and its CPM approxi
nonzero αn do not occur), the CPM signal exactly equals
the XTCQM signal. On the other hand, when two or more
consecutive nonzero αndo occur, the FQPSKJR waveform
becomes sin(πt/2Tb) (i.e. the instantaneuos frequency is
constant) while in the CPM approximation, the instantaneous
frequency is determined by the overlap of shifted versions of
the partial response frequency pulse g(t). As a consequence,
the CPM representation is only an apprximation1although the
approximation is quite good. Even though the instantaneous
frequencies are different, the accumulated phases are equal
at the symbol boundaries. Since the phase shift due to non
zero values of αnis ±π/2, the modulation index of the CPM
approximation is h = 1/2.
Several options exist for forming the frequency pulse to
be used in the common CPM detector. These options include
using a truncated version of the SOQPSKTG pulse (truncated
to L = 2 because that is the length of the FQPSKJR pulse),
using the FQPSKJR pulse, and using an L = 2 pulse that is
the average of the first two pulses. A mismatched receiver
1Note that an exact CPM representation could be envisioned as a multi
pulse CPM consisting of two frequency pulses that are selected by the data.
Space limitations do not allow us to pursue this observation here.
matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings.This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings.This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject
IEEE Globecom 2005 IEEE Globecom 20050780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE 0780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
37463746
Page 5
345678910 11
10
−6
10
−5
10
−4
10
−3
10
−2
10
−1
Eb/N0 (dB)
bit error rate
Theory (Tx=SOQPSK−TG)
Theory (Tx=FQPSK−JR)
Common CPM det. (Tx=SOQPSK−TG)
Common CPM det. (Tx=FQPSK−JR)
Fig. 6. Bit error rates for SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR for the common CPM
detector (based on the FQPSKJR frequency pulse) along with the theoretical
curves for each modulation. SOQPSKTG performs about 0.25 dB worse than
optimum and FQPSKJR performs about 0.05 dB worse than the optimum for
that waveform
analysis similar to [17], [18] for SOQPSKTG shows that
among the three options listed, the FQPSKJR pulse pro
vides the best theoretical performance for the CPM detector.
Since this pulse is also the closest match to the FQPSK
JR modulation, this is the pulse used in the common CPM
detector. The common detector requires 8 realvalued length
Tbmatched filters together with an 8state trellis. The bit error
rate performance of this detector with the two modulations
is illustrated in Fig. 6. Plots of (4) and (6) are included for
reference. As expected, the performance of SOQPSKTG is
slightly worse than that of FQPSKJR since the matched filters
and phase trellis are derived from the CPM approximation
to FQPSKJR. However, the difference is small. Note also
that the bit error rate performance of FQPSKJR and (6)
are very close. This reinforces the observation that the CPM
approximation of FQPSKJR is quite good.
V. CONCLUSIONS
SOQPSKTG and FQPSKJR share many similarities. We
have shown that both may be represented as crosscorrelated
trelliscoded quadrature modulations; and both may be rep
resented as continuous phase modulations (although the CPM
interpretation for FQPSKJR is only an approximation). These
common views of these modulations confirm their interoper
ability and suggest architectures for common detectors. We
have shown that common detectors based on both views
produce good performance for both modulations and that
the performance is a great improvement over the existing
common detector based on symbolbysymbol detection. The
attractive feature of these common detectors is that they do
not require knowledge of which modulation is employed by
the transmitter. The common XTCQM detector has a slightly
better bit error rate performance than the common CPM
detector. However, the common XTCQM detector requires
16 realvalued, length2Tbmatched filters together with a 16
state trellis while the common CPM detector requires 8 real
valued lengthTbmatched filters and an 8state trellis. In this
way, these two architectures provide a performance/complexity
tradeoff.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice. New
York: Prentice Hall PTR, 2nd ed., 2001.
[2] Range Commanders Council Telemetry Group, Range Commanders
Council, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, IRIG Stan
dard 10600: Telemetry Standards, 2000.
http://jcs.mil/RCC/manuals/10600).
[3] P. S. Leung and K. Feher, “FQPSK–a superior modulation technique
for mobile and personal communications,” IEEE Transactions on Broad
casting, vol. 39, pp. 288–294, June 1993.
[4] R. P. Jefferis, “Evaluation of constant envelope offset quadrature phase
shift keying transmitters with a software based signal analyzer,” in
Proceedings of the International Telemetering Conference, (San Diego,
CA), October 2004.
[5] M. K. Simon and T.Y. Yan, “Performance evaluation and inter
pretation of unfiltered feherpatented quadrature phaseshift keying
(FQPSK),” Telecommunications and Mission Operations Progress Re
port, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, May 1999.
http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/tmo/progress report/42137/137C.pdf.
[6] D. I. S. Agency, “Department of defense interface standard, interoper
ability standard for singleaccess 5kHz and 25kHz UHF satellite com
munications channels,” Tech. Rep. MILSTD188181B, Department of
Defense, March 1999.
[7] L. Li and M. K. Simon, “Performance of coded OQPSK and MILSTD
SOQPSK with iterative decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Communica
tions, vol. 52, pp. 1890–1900, November 2004.
[8] T. J. Hill, “An enhanced, constant envelope, interoperable shaped off
set QPSK (SOQPSK) waveform for improved spectral efficiency,” in
Proceedings of the International Telemetering Conference, (San Diego,
CA), October 2000.
[9] M. Geoghegan, “Optimal linear detection of SOQPSK,” in Proceedings
of the International Telemetering Conference, (San Diego, CA), October
2002.
[10] M. Geoghegan, “Implementation and performance results for trellis
detection of SOQPSK,” in Proceedings of the International Telemetering
Conference, (Las Vegas, NV), October 2001.
[11] M. Geoghegan, “Bandwidth and power efficiency tradeoffs of SO
QPSK,” in Proceedings of the International Telemetering Conference,
(San Diego, CA), October 2002.
[12] A. Svensson and C.E. Sundberg, “Optimum MSKtype receivers for
CPM on Gaussian and Rayleigh fading channels,” IEE Proceedings,
pp. 480–490, August 1984.
[13] A. Svensson and C.E. Sundberg, “Serial MSKtype detection of partial
response continuous phase modulation,” IEEE Transactions on Commu
nications, vol. 33, pp. 44–52, January 1985.
[14] P. Galko and S. Pasupathy, “Linear receivers for correlatively coded
MSK,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 33, pp. 338–347,
April 1985.
[15] R. Rhodes, S. Wilson, and A. Svensson, “MSKtype reception of contin
uous phase modulation: Cochannel and adjacent channel interference,”
IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 35, pp. 185–193, February
1987.
[16] M. K. Simon, BandwidthEfficient Digital Modulation With Application
to DeepSpace Communications. New York: Wiley, 2003.
[17] A. Svensson, C.E. Sundberg, and T. Aulin, “A class of reduced
complexity Viterbi detectors for partial response continuous phase
modulation,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 32, pp. 1079–1087, Oct. 1984.
[18] E. Perrins and M. Rice, “The detection efficiency of ARTM
CPM in aeronautical telemetry.” submitted to IEEE Transactions on
Aerospace & Electronic Systems, 2004.
https://dspace.byu.edu/handle/1877/59).
(Available online at
[Online]. Available:
(Also available online:
matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings.This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE GLOBECOM 2005 proceedings. This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject
IEEE Globecom 2005IEEE Globecom 20050780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE0780394151/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
3747 3747