Channel estimation in OFDM systems operating under high mobility using Wiener filter combined basis expansion model
 Ke Zhong^{1}Email author,
 Xia Lei^{1},
 Binhong Dong^{1} and
 Shaoqian Li^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1186/168714992012186
© Zhong et al; licensee Springer. 2012
Received: 16 January 2012
Accepted: 31 May 2012
Published: 31 May 2012
Abstract
In this article, we first thoroughly analyze Wiener filter combined least squares based channel estimation (WFLS) and then illustrate its limitation in highspeed mobile environments. Based on the analysis, we propose to combine WF with basis expansion model (BEM) based channel estimation to deal with channel estimation in various mobile environments, especially in highspeed cases. The expression for Wiener filter combined BEM based channel estimation (WFBEM) is derived and the result explicitly considers the effect of intercarrier interference (ICI) that occurs in orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) systems when operating under high mobility. The simulation results demonstrate that our proposed WFBEM is better than WFLS in timevarying channels, and the performance improvement is significant especially in fast timevarying channels.
Keywords
1 Introduction
Due to its high data rate transmission capability and its robustness to multipath delay spread, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) has been adopted in most parts of modern wireless communication sytstems, such as wireless local area networks (WLAN) [1], digital audio and video broadcasting [2], and so as OFDM being standardized for the future wireless communication systems, such as wireless metropolitan area networks (WiMAX) [3] and 3GPP long term evolution (LTE) [4]. On the other hand, with highspeed railway construction worldwide, the moving speed of highspeed train has been reported to be able to operate as high as more than 400 km/h, or, even higher onboard highspeed vehicles such as aircraft. Consequently, mobility support is widely regarded as one of the key features in the abovementioned OFDM systems. Meanwhile, for coherent detection in a wireless communication system, channel state information is indispensable. Therefore, to ensure effective communication of OFDM systems operating in high speed scenarios or alternatively very fast timevarying wireless channels, channel estimation method applicable to such highspeed environments has remained largely an open issue.
Basis expansion model (BEM) based channel estimation method can accurately estimate both slow and fast timevarying coefficients of the wireless channel in an OFDM symbol period using the coefficients of BEM that are far less than the length of wireless channel [13, 14]. Combining BEM based channel estimation with WF, in this article we derive the expression for Wiener filter combined BEM based channel estimation (hereafter called WFBEM), which explicitly considers the effect of ICI. The simulation results show that WFBEM is better than WFLS in timevarying channels, especially in fast timevarying cases.
The organization of this article is as follows. Section 2 describes the OFDM system model. Section 3 gives further analysis of WFLS and then illustrates its limitation in timevarying channels. Section 4 derives the expression for WFBEM based channel estimation. Section 5 gives some simulation results that demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. Finally, conclusions are drawn in the final Section 6.
Notation: Matrices and vectors are denoted by boldface letters. A(m, n) is the (m, n)th entry of the matrix A. x(m) denotes the mth element of the vector x. A hat over a variable indicates an estimate of the variable (e.g.,$\widehat{H}$). E{·} denotes the expectedvalue operator. Superscripts [·]^{ T } , [·]^{1}, [·]^{ H } , and [·]* denote the transpose, the matrix inversion, the Hermitian and the complex conjugate operations, respectively. I is the identity matrix.
2 System description
Dong et al. [11] and Zheng and Xiao [12] uses LS based channel estimation to obtain ${\widehat{\mathbf{P}}}_{k}^{\mathsf{\text{LS}}}$ and then derive the interpolation vector of WFLS ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}$, which completely neglects the effect of ICI. Therefore, the expression for WFLS is expressed as ${\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{d}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(k\right)={\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}{\widehat{\mathbf{P}}}_{k}^{\mathsf{\text{LS}}}$.
In this article, Channel and noise are assumed to be independent from each other and noise is complex Gaussian distribution with zero mean and σ^{2} variance.
3 Further analysis of WFLS based channel estimation
Therefore we conclude that we should carefully avoid these "convergence points" when we are trying to improve the performance of WFLS with low orders by using WFLS with higher orders, otherwise this goodwill will prove to be in vain. Of course, we can choose p_{ m } arbitrarily close to p_{m 1}, but this will cause transmitting more pilot symbols, which will significantly reduce the spectral efficiency. However, we can not choose p_{ m } arbitrarily large to increase the spectral efficiency, as have been proved that this will result in no performance improvement. Meanwhile the choose of p_{ m } is related to f_{ D }T. For example, we observe that when SNR = 30 dB and f_{D}T = 0.01, in order for ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(3O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(0\right)$, ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(3O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(1\right)$ and ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(3O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(2\right)$ to have a negligible difference between ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(2O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(0\right)$, ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(2O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(1\right)$ and 0, respectively, p_{2} should be bigger than about 54 and 56. When SNR = 30 dB and f_{ D }T = 0.1, for ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(3O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(0\right)$, ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(3O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(1\right)$ and ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(3O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(2\right)$ to have a negligible difference between ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(2O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(0\right)$, ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k\left(2O\right)}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{LS}}}\left(1\right)$ and 0, respectively, p_{2} should be bigger than 9. The above observations are also approximately true for other SNR values. Therefore, from the above observations and analysis we may conclude that the combined parameter f_{ D }T (p_{ m }  p_{m 1}) should be smaller than about 0.5 to avoid the degradation of WF with higher orders. This result is coincide with the sampling theorem in the time domain [18], which is, f_{ D }T (p_{ m }  p_{m 1}) < 0.5. Till this point we can say that we have just proved the sampling theorem in the time domain, from a new perspective, i.e., from the coefficients of WFLS point of view. The optimal value of f_{ D }T (p_{ m }  p_{m 1}) that will simultaneously increase the performance while maintaining the spectral efficiency is dependent on the specific problem at hand and related to the pilot symbol and system design problems, which is beyond the scope of this article, but will be an interesting and a meaningful topic for the future work.
Although the performance of WFLS can be improved by adopting more pilot symbols provided that the above conditions are satisfied, WFLS has an intrinsic weakness that will lead to its decreased performance in high speed mobile environments. As will be seen in Section 5, the performance of WFLS is acceptable in slow to moderate mobile environments, but decreases significantly in high speed environments. This degradation of WFLS is due mainly to the fatal weakness of the underlining assumption of LS based channel estimation that the channel coefficients within one OFDM symbol period are constants. This assumption will generally not hold true in timevarying channels, especially in fast timevarying cases. In light of the above analysis and considering that BEM based channel estimation method [13, 14] can accurately estimate the timevarying channel coefficients of an OFDM symbol, we propose to combine BEM based channel estimation with WF to deal with channel estimation in timevarying channels.
4 The expression for the proposed WFBEM based channel estimation
where ${h}_{{p}_{i}}\left(n,l\right)$ represents the channel impulse response of the lth path at time n within the p_{ i }th pilot symbol period and is assumed to be modeled as a wide sense stationary (WSS) complex Gaussian process with a statistically independent path, n = 0, 1, ..., N  1, N is the symbol length (N_{ p } ≤ N), l = 0, 1, ..., L  1, L is the length of wireless channel, η_{q,l}(p_{ i }) is the coefficient of BEM, b_{n,q}is the base that captures channel time variations, and Q is the number of BEM bases. BEM is motivated by the observation that the temporal (n) variation of h(n, l) is usually rather smooth due to the channel's limited Doppler spread, and therefore, ${\left\{{b}_{n,q}\right\}}_{q=0}^{Q}$ can be chosen as a small set (i.e., Q ≪ N) of smooth functions.
is the ICI coefficient, which is the the offdiagonal element in the channel frequency response matrix. Since the ICI term consists of a large number of random interferences and is based on the assumption that ${h}_{{p}_{i}}\left(n,l\right)$ is WSS complex Gaussian process, we can model the term as additive white Gaussian noise according to the central limit theorem [21].
To derive the expression for WFBEM that considers the effect of ICI, the following steps are proposed:

Step (1) Substitute (17) into (13). We can get the estimate of BEM based channel impulse response as${\u0125}_{{p}_{i}}\left(n,\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}l\right)=\sum _{q=0}^{Q}\sum _{k=0}^{{N}_{p}1}{\mathbf{A}}_{q}\left(l,\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}k\right){\mathbf{Y}}_{{p}_{i}}\left(k\right){b}_{n,q},$(21)

Step (2) Substitute (21) into (19). Then we can obtain the estimate of BEM based channel estimation ${\widehat{\mathbf{P}}}_{k}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}$ with each element given by${\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}\left(k\right)=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{l=0}^{L1}\sum _{n=0}^{N1}\sum _{q=0}^{Q}\sum _{s=0}^{{N}_{p}1}{\mathbf{A}}_{q}\left(l,\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}s\right){\mathbf{Y}}_{{p}_{i}}\left(s\right){b}_{n,q}{e}^{\frac{j2\pi kl}{N}}.$(22)

Step (3) Substitute (18) into (22). Hence, the relationships among ${\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}\left(k\right)$, ${\mathbf{H}}_{{p}_{i}}\left(k\right)$ and the ICI term can be established. Therefore, $E\left\{{\mathbf{H}}_{d}\left(k\right){\left({\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}\left(k\right)\right)}^{*}\right\}$ can be derived as$\begin{array}{c}E\left\{{\mathbf{H}}_{d}\left(k\right){\left({\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}\left(k\right)\right)}^{*}\right\}={J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left(d{p}_{i}\right){f}_{D}T\right)\hfill \\ \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\underset{{\beta}_{{p}_{i}}\left(k\right)}{\underset{\u23df}{\times \frac{1}{N}\sum _{l=0}^{L1}\sum _{n=0}^{N1}\sum _{q=0}^{Q}\sum _{s=0}^{{N}_{p}1}\sum _{u=0}^{L1}{\mathbf{A}}_{q}^{*}\left(l,s\right){\mathbf{X}}_{{p}_{i}}^{*}\left(s\right){b}_{n,q}^{*}{\sigma}_{u}^{2}{e}^{\frac{j2\pi \left(su+k\left(lu\right)\right)}{N}}}}.\hfill \end{array}$(23)

Step (4) Use (20) to derive the correlation function of ${\mathbf{H}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{IC}}1}\left(k,\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}v\right)$ and ${\mathbf{H}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{IC}}1}\left(k,\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}z\right)$ as$\begin{array}{c}E\left\{{\mathbf{H}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{IC}}1}\left(k,\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}v\right){\left({\mathbf{H}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{IC}}1}\left(k,\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}z\right)\right)}^{*}\right\}=\frac{1}{{N}^{2}}\sum _{{n}_{1}=0}^{N1}\sum _{{n}_{2}=0}^{N1}\sum _{l=0}^{L1}{\sigma}_{l}^{2}\hfill \\ \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\times {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left({n}_{1}{n}_{2}\right){f}_{D}{T}_{s}\right){e}^{\frac{j2\pi \left(\left(vz\right)l+\left(\left(kv\right){n}_{1}\left(kz\right){n}_{2}\right)\right)}{N}}.\hfill \end{array}$(24)
Through the proposed Steps (1)(4) and by using (22) and (24), $E\left\{{\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}\left(k\right){\left({\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{{p}_{j}}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}\left(k\right)\right)}^{*}\right\}$ can be derived as follows:
where we have used the fact that $E\left\{{h}_{{p}_{i}}\left({n}_{1},l\right){h}_{{p}_{j}}^{*}\left({n}_{2},l\right)\right\}={\sigma}_{l}^{2}{J}_{0}\left(2\pi {f}_{D}\left(\left({p}_{i}{p}_{j}\right)T+\left({n}_{1}{n}_{2}\right){T}_{s}\right)\right)$ and its corresponding function in the frequency domain, ${\sigma}_{l}^{2}$ is the power of the lth path and without loss of generality we assume ${\sum}_{l=0}^{L1}{\sigma}_{l}^{2}=1,$ T_{ s } is the sampling period. It is noted that based on the assumption that ${h}_{{p}_{i}}\left(n,l\right)$ within a single OFDM symbol period are constants, the effect of ICI is neglected (i.e., in (20) ${\mathbf{H}}_{{p}_{i}}^{\mathsf{\text{ICI}}}\left(k,z\right)\equiv \phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}0$), the authors Dong et al. [11] and Zheng and Xiao [12] only consider the noise variance σ^{2}. However, we consider the variation of ${h}_{{p}_{i}}\left(n,l\right)$ within a single OFDM symbol period in timevarying channels and our derived result explicitly considers both the noise variance and the effect of ICI, which can provide us with details about channel variations in various mobile environments.

Step (5) Substitute (23), (25) and (26) into (2). Then, the interpolation vector of WFBEM can be obtained as${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k}^{\mathsf{\text{WFBEM}}}=\left[{J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left(d{p}_{0}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\beta}_{{p}_{0}}\left(k\right){J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left(d{p}_{1}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\beta}_{{p}_{1}}\left(k\right)\dots {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left(d{{p}_{M}}_{1}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\beta}_{{p}_{M1}}\left(k\right)\right].$$\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill {\phi}_{{p}_{0}}\hfill & \hfill {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left({p}_{0}{p}_{1}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\varphi}_{{p}_{0},{p}_{1}}\hfill & \hfill \dots \hfill & \hfill {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left({p}_{0}{p}_{M1}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\varphi}_{{p}_{0},{{p}_{M}}_{1}}\hfill \\ \hfill {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left({p}_{1}{p}_{0}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\varphi}_{{p}_{1},{p}_{0}}\hfill & \hfill {\phi}_{p1}\hfill & \hfill \cdots \phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\hfill & \hfill {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left({p}_{1}{p}_{M1}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\varphi}_{{p}_{1},{{p}_{M}}_{1}}\hfill \\ \hfill \vdots \hfill & \hfill \vdots \hfill & \hfill \ddots \hfill & \hfill \vdots \hfill \\ \hfill {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left({{p}_{M}}_{1}{p}_{0}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\varphi}_{{p}_{M1,}{p}_{0}}\hfill & \hfill {J}_{0}\left(2\pi \left({{p}_{M}}_{1}{p}_{1}\right){f}_{D}T\right){\varphi}_{{p}_{M1},{p}_{1}}\hfill & \hfill \dots \hfill & \hfill {\phi}_{{p}_{M1}}\hfill \end{array}\right]$(27)
Comparing (27) with the interpolation vector of WFLS ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k}^{\mathsf{\text{WFLS}}}$given in [11, Eq. (2931)] and [12, Eq. (29)], it can be seen that the coefficients ${\beta}_{{p}_{i}}\left(k\right)$, ${\varphi}_{{p}_{i},{p}_{c}}$ and ${\phi}_{{p}_{i}}$ are related with channel variations (for both the base b_{n,q}and the effect of ICI) and unique to WFBEM.

Step (6) Multiply the estimate of BEM based channel estimation ${\widehat{\mathbf{P}}}_{k}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}$ obtained in Step (2) by the interpolation vector of WFBEM ${\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k}^{\mathsf{\text{WFBEM}}}$ obtained in Step (5). Finally, the expression for WFBEM is given by${\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}_{d}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}\left(k\right)={\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}_{d,k}^{\mathsf{\text{WF}}\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}{\widehat{\mathbf{P}}}_{k}^{\mathsf{\text{BEM}}}.$(28)
The proposed algorithm is summarized as follows. First, we use expression (22) to obtain the channel estimate of pilot symbols (corresponding to the Step 1 in Figure 1); then, we use expression (28) to obtain the channel estimate of data symbols (corresponding to the Step 2 in Figure 1).
In this section the interpolation vector of WFBEM at the frequency dimension is not considered for the reason that by using BEM based channel estimation, the channel impulse response at a pilot symbol can be obtained by expression (21). Then, through transferring the channel impulse response into frequency domain by expression (22), the estimate of channel frequency response at required subcarriers of the pilot symbol can be obtained.
5 Simulation results and discussions
Simulation parameters
Types of modulation  16QAM and 64QAM 

Velocity  30, 120, 350 and 480 km/h 
Transmission bandwidth  20 MHz 
Transmission block  50 resource blocks 
Carrier frequency  2.3 GHz 
Channel model  Rayleigh fading 
Doppler spectrum  Jake's model 
Transmit and receive antenna numbers  One transmit antenna and two receive antennas 
5.1 MSE comparison
As stated in Section 1, the channel estimation accuracy at data symbols is determined by both the channel estimation accuracy at pilot symbols and the accuracy of the interpolation method. WF is the best interpolation method at the time dimension to estimate channel at data symbols in terms of minimizing MSE. The optimality of WF is independent of the channel estimation method adopted at pilot symbols. Therefore we can infer that the reason that WFLS underperforms is because the channel estimation accuracy of LS based channel estimation is worse than that of BEM based channel estimation at pilot symbols in timevarying channels, which have been proved by Figure 5. This is also the main reason for our motivation to combine BEM based channel estimation with WF and derive the expression for WFBEM based channel estimation to deal with channel estimation in timevarying channels.
Besides BEM based channel estimation can more accurately estimate fast timevarying channels than LS based channel estimation does, another reason that a channel estimator with higher accuracy results in improved performance in timevarying channels is illustrated as follows. In OFDM systems, Doppler effects and instabilities of the transmitter and receiver carrier frequency oscillators will cause a loss of orthogonality between the subcarriers, resulting in ICI. The carrier frequency offset caused by Doppler effects in timevarying channels is a fraction of the subcarrier spacing (i.e., in most practical cases the normalized Doppler frequency is less than 0.2). If we want to compensate this effect, we are dealing with the problem of finefrequency adjustment. One effect of carrier frequency offset is the detrimental effect of a rotation of the subcarriers [23, 24]. This effect will be recognized by a channel estimator, which does not distinguish between phase offsets caused by the channel and those caused by a frequency offset. Thus, a channel equalizer appears also to have fine frequency synchronization capabilities. Therefore it can be inferred that a channel estimator with higher accuracy can more accurately compensate this rotation caused by Doppler effects and thus will perform better in timevarying channels.
5.2 BLER comparison
Figure 8 illustrates that since the wireless channel changes not that fast enough during an OFDM symbol period at 120 km/h compared with that at 350 and 480 km/h, the performance gap between WFBEM and WFLS is still not that obvious, there is only about 1 dB SNR gain for WFBEM compared with WFLS in this situation (for both 16 and 64QAM). And still, there is only less than 1 dB gap between the proposed WFBEM and the ideal channel case.
However, in highspeed environments (350 and 480 km/h), the wireless channel changes quickly and drastically. Hence, in these cases the wireless channel can not be regarded as nearly static and even slow changing during one OFDM symbol period anymore. Therefore, at mobile speed of 350 km/h, compared with WFLS, about 2.5 and 3.5 dB SNR gain can be obtained in 16 and 64QAM modulation mode respectively through WFBEM, as can be seen from Figure 9. It is observed from Figure 9 that even at 350 km/h, compared to the ideal channel case, there is only about 1.5 dB loss of the proposed WFBEM in 16QAM modulation mode and about less than 3 dB loss in 64QAM mode. From Figure 9 we can infer that the use of efficient multilevel modulations, which make use of multiple signal phase and amplitude levels to carry multiple bits per symbol, may demand more precise channel estimation to demodulate the received signal, especially in highspeed environments.
Finally, the performance of WFBEM with WFLS at extremely high speed 480 km/h is presented in Figure 10. As can be observed from Figure 10, the performance of both WFBEM and WFLS rapidly degrade for an increasing speed. However, our proposed WFBEM is still much better than WFLS in 16QAM modulation mode, there is more than 3 dB SNR gain. There are two reasons for this degradation. Firstly, the wireless channel is changing so fast that by merely interpolating to obtain the channel estimate of data symbols becomes difficult and inaccurate. In this case we may need to insert pilot tones in data symbols (e.g., combtype pilot pattern) to actually estimate the channel at all OFDM symbols. Secondly, the ICI is so evident that in this case it can not be just "equalized out" as explained above. In this case, we may have to turn to ICIcancelation schemes (e.g., self ICI cancelation [25], the use of windowing [26] or the use of pilot tones [27, 28]) to mitigate or suppress the ICI. Nevertheless, to change the pilot pattern at the transmitter or to implement ICIcancelation scheme at the receiver will necessitate altering the transceiver's structure, increasing the computational complexity significantly, and moreover, the use of more pilot tones will inevitably decrease the capacity and/or throughput of the overall system. Hence, considering that the sensitivity of MQAMOFDM signals to Doppler frequency increases significantly with the alphabet size M, we recommend that in order to strike a compromise between complexity and performance as well as data transmission rate, low level modulation such as 8PSK, QPSK or BPSK modulation schemes should be adopted at 480 km/h. When operating under (including) 350 km/h the use of high level modulation 16 or 64QAM can be adopted to increase data transmission rate while at the same time maintain good performance.
5.3 ICI analysis
6 Conclusions
In this article, we have further analyzed WFLS, including the asymptotical relationship between WFLS with orders 2 and linear interpolation, the asymptotical relationships among WFLS with different orders. Considering the limitation of WFLS is that LS based channel estimation assumes the channel coefficients within one OFDM symbol period are constants, we propose to combine BEM based channel estimation, which can accurately estimate the timevarying channel coefficients during one OFDM symbol period, with WF to deal with the challenging problem of channel estimation in OFDM systems operating under various mobile environments, especially in highspeed cases. The expression for WFBEM based channel estimation has been derived, and under the hypothesis of approximating the ICI term as additive white Gaussian noise, the derived result explicitly considers the effect of ICI. The simulation results showed that the proposed WFBEM provides a substantial gain, in terms of estimation accuracy in timevarying channels, with respect to WFLS, especially in fast timevarying channels.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Chinese Important National Science & Technology Specific Projects under Grant 2011ZX0300100701 and the National Science Foundation of China under Grant nos. 61032002, 60972029 and 60902026.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 ETSI TS 101 475 V1.2.2, ETSI Broadband Radio Access Networks (BRAN), HIPERLAN Type2: Physical Layer 1999.Google Scholar
 DVB, A122: framing structure, channel coding and modulation for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcasting system (DVBT2)Google Scholar
 IEEE, Part 16: air interface for fixed and mobile broadband wireless access systems  amendment 2: physical and medium access control layers for combined fixed and mobile operation in licensed bands 2005.Google Scholar
 Sesia S, Toufik I, Baker M: LTEThe UMTS Long Term EvolutionFrom Theory to Practice. Wiley Press, Chichester; 2009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Muquet B, de Courville M, Duhame P: Subspacebased blind and semiblind channel estimation for OFDM systems. IEEE Trans Signal Process 2002, 50(7):16991712. 10.1109/TSP.2002.1011210View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Li C, Roy S: Subspacebased blind channel estimation for OFDM by exploiting virtual carriers. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 2003, 2(1):141150. 10.1109/TWC.2002.806383View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen S, Yao T: Intercarrier interference suppression and channel estimation for OFDM system in timevarying frequencyselective fading channels. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 2004, 50(2):429435. 10.1109/TCE.2004.1309404View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 van de Beek JJ, Edfors O, Sandell M, Wilson SK, Börjesson PO: On channel estimation in OFDM systems. In Proc IEEE VTC'1995. Volume 2. Chicago, USA; 1995:815819.Google Scholar
 Zhao YP, Huang AP: A Novel channel estimation method for OFDM mobile communication systems based on pilot signals and transformdomain processing. In Proc IEEE VTC'1997. Volume 3. Phoenix, AZ; 1997:20892093.Google Scholar
 Hoeher P, Kaiser S, Robertson P: Twodimensional pilotsymbolaided channel estimation by Wiener filtering. In Proc IEEE Intl conf on Acoustic, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP). Volume 3. Munich; 1997:18451848.Google Scholar
 Dong X, Lu W, Soong ACK: Linear interpolation in pilot symbol assisted channel estimation for OFDM. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 2007, 6(5):19101920.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zheng YR, Xiao CS: Channel estimation for frequencydomain equalization of singlecarrier broadband wireless communications. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2009, 58(2):81582.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ma X, Giannakis GB, Ohno S: Optimal training for block transmissions over doubly selective wireless fading channels. IEEE Trans Signal Process 2003, 51(5):13511366. 10.1109/TSP.2003.810304MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tang Z, Cannizzaro RC, Leus G, Banelli P: Pilotassisted timevarying channel estimation for OFDM systems. IEEE Trans Signal Process 2007, 55(5):22262238.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 3GPP TS36.211 v8.7.0, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA); physical channels and modulation (release 8) 2009.Google Scholar
 Ma X, Giannakis GB: Maximumdiversity transmissions over doubly selective wireless channels. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 2003, 49(7):18321840. 10.1109/TIT.2003.813485MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ma X, Oh MK, Giannakis GB, Park DJ: Hopping pilots for estimation of frequencyoffsets and multiantenna channels in MIMO OFDM. IEEE Trans Commun 2005, 53(1):162172. 10.1109/TCOMM.2004.840663View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ozdemir MK, Arslan H: Channel estimation for wireless OFDM systems. IEEE Commun Surv Tut 2007, 9(2):1848.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ancora A, Bona C, Slock DTM: Downsampled impulse response leastsquares channel estimation for LTE OFDMA. In Proc IEEE Intl conf on Acoustic, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP). Volume 3. Honolulu, HI; 2007:293296.Google Scholar
 Mostofi Y, Cox DC: ICI mitigation for pilotaided OFDM mobile systems. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 2005, 4(2):765774.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Stark H, Woods JW: Probability and Random Processes with Applications to Signal Processing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River; 2002.Google Scholar
 3GPP TS36.212 v8.7.0, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA); multiplexing and channel coding (release 8) 2009.Google Scholar
 van de Beek JJ, Börjesson PO, Boucheret ML, Landström D, Arenas J, Ödling P, Östberg C, Wahlqvist M, Wilson S: A time and frequency synchronization scheme for multiuser OFDM. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 1999, 17(11):19001914. 10.1109/49.806820View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Morelli M: Timing and frequency synchronization for the uplink of an OFDMA system. IEEE Trans Commun 2004, 52(2):296306. 10.1109/TCOMM.2003.822699View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhao Y, Häaggman SG: Sensitivity to Doppler shift and carrier requency errors in OFDM systemsthe consequences and solutions. In Proc IEEE VTC'1996. Volume 3. Atlanta, GA; 1996:15641568.Google Scholar
 Muschallik C: Improving an OFDM reception using an adaptive Nyquist windowing. IEEE Trans Consumer Electron 1996, 42: 259269. 10.1109/30.536046View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hou SW, Ko CC: Intercarrier interference suppression for OFDMA uplink in time and frequencyselective fading channels. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2009, 58(6):27412754.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Huang X, Wu H: Robust and efficient intercarrier interference mitigation for OFDM systems in timevarying fading channels. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2007, 56(5):25172528.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.