Fig 1.
The i × j MIMO-OFDM structure based on DWT utilizing WDE.
Fig 2.
a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices in the case of DWT. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices in the case of DWT.
Fig 3.
a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices using DWT for row number 20 of Fig. 2a. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices using DWT for row number 20 of Fig 2b.
Fig 4.
a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT.
Fig 5.
a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT for row number 20 of Fig 4a. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT for row number 20 of Fig 4b.
Table 1.
List of used parameters.
Fig 6.
a: The normalized magnitude against the sub-carrier indices of thematrix in the case of DWT. b: The normalized angle against the sub-carrier indices of thez
matrix in the case of DWT.
Fig 7.
a: The normalized magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of thematrix in the case of DWT illustrated in Fig 6a. b: The normalized angle vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of the
matrix in the case of DWT illustrated in Fig 6b.
Fig 8.
a: The normalized magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices of thematrix in the case of DFT. b: The normalized angle vs the sub-carrier indices of the
matrix in the case of DFT.
Fig 9.
a: The normalized magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of the. matrix in the case of DFT illustrated in Fig 8a. b: The normalized angle vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of the
. matrix in the case of DFT illustrated in Fig 8b.
Fig 10.
a: The BER against α at different SNR values. b: The elevation view of panel a. c: The side view of panel a.
Fig 11.
a: The BER against SNR at different compensation scenarios. b: The elevation view of panel a. c: The side view of panel a.
Fig 12.
a: The BER at different values of the compensation scenarios and CFO. b: The elevation view of panel a. c: The side view of panel a.
Table 2.
The SNR difference of different equalizers of Fig 4 at BER = 10-3.
Fig 13.
The BER vs the SNR for the considered schemes.
Table 3.
The SNR difference of different equalizers of Fig 4 at BER = 10-4.
Fig 14.
a: The BER against the estimation error percentage at SNR = 15 dB. b: The BER against the estimation error percentage at SNR = 20 dB. c: The BER against the estimation error percentage at SNR = 25 dB.
Table 4.
The number of flops related to different mathematical operations [36].
Table 5.
The number of flops related to different full-matrix operations [37].
Table 6.
The number of flops for different equalization methods.
Fig 15.
The flops number at different values of the channel configuration and length of the transmitted bits.
Table 7.
The average simulated time for different equalization methods.