278 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 58, No.

2, May 2012
Contributed Paper
Manuscript received 01/09/12
Current version published 06/22/12
Electronic version published 06/22/12. 0098 3063/12/$20.00 2012 IEEE
Performance Analysis on Demodulation of the Base Layer
in the AT-DMB System
Wan-Jin Kim, and Hyoung-Nam Kim, Member, IEEE

Abstract In the advanced T-DMB (AT-DMB) system, the
performance of the base layer is affected by both modulation
noise and a demodulation method. The amount of modulation
noise is determined by the hierarchy parameter of the
transmitter, and thus it is not controllable at the receiver. On
the other hand, a demodulation method for the base layer can
be freely selected by the designer and it dominates the
performance of the base layer. This paper focuses on the
performance analysis of the base layer in the AT-DMB system
according to the choice of a demodulation method and
provides useful information for designing receivers for the
AT-DMB system
1
.

Index Terms Hierarchical modulation, layered modulation,
T-DMB, AT-DMB.
I. INTRODUCTION
Hierarchical modulation (HM) is a signal processing
technique to combine two separated streams into a single
stream for transmission. Signals corresponding to the base
layer and the additional layer are called a high-priority (HP)
signal and a low-priority (LP) signal, respectively [1]. The use
of HM makes it possible for the system to increase data
payload without using additional bandwidth while securing
backward compatibility and also broaden the selectivity of
service quality depending on the reception SNR. HM has been
widely used in many broadcasting systems which may be
divided into two types: an inherent type and a supplementary
type. The former originally adopted HM in order to provide
various data rates. The corresponding systems to this type are
DVB-T and Media-FLO [2], [3]. On the other hand, the latter
newly introduces HM to the existing system to increase the
data rate. The advanced T-DMB (AT-DMB) belongs to this
type [4]. In the supplementary-type system, however,
hierarchically modulated signal is only useful for brand-new
receivers and legacy receivers have to withstand the reception
performance penalty caused by the added LP signal.
To guarantee a stable operation of the legacy receivers, the
power of the LP signal should be minimized as low as
possible. On the other hand, brand-new receivers could not
enjoy the enhanced service unless LP signal has sufficient
power. This trade-off was the critical point in developing the

1
This work was supported for two years by Pusan National University
Research Grant.
Wan-Jin Kim and Hyoung-Nam Kim are with the School of Electrical
Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea (e-mail:
hnkim@pusan.ac.kr).
AT-DMB system. Researches had been performed to deal
with this problem [5], [6] and their results were contributed to
the design of the AT-DMB system [4]. The performance
degradation of the T-DMB system was expected to be about
1.5 dB [4] but this might vary with the adopted demodulation
method in each receiver. Moreover, this performance variation
problem may also appear to the base layer of AT-DMB
receivers. For the successful launch of the AT-DMB system, it
is needed to analyze this problem.
The base layer of the AT-DMB system is identical to the T-
DMB system and it has adopted the differential quadrature
phase shift keying (DQPSK) and the coded OFDM (COFDM)
scheme [7]. The COFDM scheme can mitigate the time and
frequency selectivity of channels by using a guard interval and
the forward error correction (FEC) coding [8]. The FEC coding
of the T-DMB system is the concatenation of convolutional
coding and Reed Solomon (RS) coding. While the error
correction capability of RS coding is determined by the number
of added parity symbols, that of convolutional coding is affected
not only by the code rate but also by the integrity of its input
when using the soft-decision Viterbi decoder. In other words,
the bit error rate (BER) may vary with a demodulation method
which extracts information from the received signal and makes
suitable soft inputs for the Viterbi decoder [9]. It is well known
that channel-state information (CSI) is very useful for
generating the soft inputs [8], [10] but it is not easy to do in the
T-DMB system because the differential demodulation is used in
T-DMB receivers and it does not require any channel estimation.
It is fortunate that there is a differential demodulation method
obtaining CSI without channel estimation [9] but there exist
some other competitive demodulation methods in terms of only
symbol error rate (SER) of the base layer data. The problem lies
in the absence of information which demodulation method is
used for T-DMB or AT-DMB receivers. Additionally, in the
AT-DMB system, the HP signal is exposed to modulation noise
caused by the LP signal and is undesirably spread by the
differential demodulation. Under these undesirable
environments of the AT-DMB system, well-operation of legacy
T-DMB receivers or brand-new AT-DMB receivers cannot be
guaranteed.
To reduce the operational uncertainty of various T-DMB
receivers, we analyze the performance of the legacy T-DMB
receivers and the base layer of new AT-DMB receivers under
the AT-DMB service environment. To show the performance
difference by differential demodulation methods, we consider
four possible DQPSK demodulation methods. By the
numerical analysis, it is shown that demodulation methods are
W.-J. Kim, and H.-N. Kim: Performance Analysis on Demodulation of the Base Layer in the AT-DMB System 279

Fig. 1. The block diagram of the AT-DMB transmitter.

AT-DMB
signal
Data Sink
(HP)
Soft-Decision
Viterbi Decoder
Time
Deinterleaver
/4-DQPSK
demapper
QPSK
demapper
Frequency
Deinterleaver
Phase
Correction
OFDM
demodulator
Decision
Device
/4-DQPSK
demapper
Channel
Estimator
Data Sink
(LP)
Soft-Decision
Viterbi Decoder
Time
Deinterleaver
BPSK/QPSK
demapper
Frequency
Deinterleaver


Fig. 2. The block diagram of the AT-DMB receiver.

indistinguishable in terms of SER but affect the performance
of the FEC decoder in terms of bit error rate (BER).
This paper is organized as follows. In section II, we briefly
describe the AT-DMB system. Four differential demodulation
methods of the HP signal are discussed in detail in section III.
The overall performances by the two HM modes of the AT-
DMB system and the demodulation methods are presented in
section IV. Section V concludes the paper.
II. OVERVIEW OF THE AT-DMB SYSTEM
The AT-DMB system is composed of the conventional T-
DMB system and the additional transmission system as shown
in Fig. 1 [4]. Signals of each system are called a high priority
(HP) and a low priority (LP) signal, respectively. The HP
signal carries basic data for video or audio services and the LP
signal loads the additional data for upgrading service quality
or serving other information [1], [4]. The LP signal is buried
within the HP signal for transmission and the size of the LP
symbol is determined by the HM parameter as shown in Fig.
3. is defined by the inter-LP symbol distance to inter-HP
symbol distance ratio, s
2
/s
1
[1]. Here, s
1
represents half of the
minimum distance between HP symbols and s
2
represents half
of the distance between LP symbols within one quadrant. For
example, if has the value of 0, the hierarchically modulated
signal becomes a QPSK signal. If has value of 0.5, the
hierarchically modulated signal becomes a 16-QAM signal. In
the inherent-type HM system, the hierarchically modulated
signal is demodulated as only HP signal or both HP and LP
signals depending on their own reception quality. However, in
the supplementary-type HM system, the LP signal just seems
to be noise against the HP signal at the legacy receivers.
While it is desirable to raise for securing stable increased
data rate in brand-new receivers, should be lowered as
possible to guarantee the backward compatibility with legacy
receivers. To cope with this trade-off, the AT-DMB system
supports multiple HM parameters and two HM modes:
DQPSK/BPSK (B mode), and DQPSK/QPSK (Q mode) [4].
Note that the HM parameter is differently defined in [4] as =
(2s
1
2s
2
)/2s
2
but it has 1-to-1 correspondence to with the
relationship of = (1 )/. For the notational consistency,
we use in the rest of this paper. Even though the level of
the modulation noise caused by the LP signal is controllable
by adjusting hierarchy parameter but the performance
degradation by the modulation noise is inevitable in the AT-
DMB system. Moreover, this modulation noise effect
identically appears in both of the transmitter and the receiver
in the all types of HM system but it becomes worse in the
supplementary type HM system because HP symbols are
spread by the differential demodulation as shown in Fig. 4. To
minimize the performance degradation of receivers, this

Fig. 3. An example of hierarchical modulation scheme.

280 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 58, No. 2, May 2012
constellation spreading problem of HP symbols should be
eliminated but cannot be solved because we have to know
exactly LP symbols which are obtained after HP demodulation.
Since the modulation noise and the spreading problem are
inevitable in the AT-DMB system, receivers should endure the
side effects caused by HM and the differential demodulation.
In both T-DMB and AT-DMB receivers, fortunately, the side
effects can be dealt with by the FEC decoder. It is known that
channel state information (CSI) is required to maximize the
performance of the FEC decoder. However, since the T-DMB
system adopts the differential demodulation which does not
require any channel estimation, it may be impossible to obtain
CSI in T-DMB receivers. Although in the AT-DMB system,
some receivers adopted a channel estimator [4], [11], its main
purpose was not to provide CSI but to help extraction of LP
symbols. Therefore, in both legacy and brand-new receivers, it
is still required to generate CSI. There was a previous research
on the optimal solution for a soft input generation method
including CSI and it was shown that the BER performance at
the FEC decoder mainly depends on the shape of the soft
inputs in differentially-modulated systems [9]. Besides the
optimal solution in the differential demodulation, other
possible demodulation methods should be considered for the
backward compatibility and the implementation of brand-new
receivers.
III. DQPSK DEMODULATION METHODS
To maximize the performance of the FEC decoder, it is very
common to use channel state information (CSI) [8]-[10].
However, since channel estimation and equalization for HP
symbols do not exist in the AT-DMB system, the performance
of the FEC decoder may vary with the integrity of soft-
decision input symbols. In /4-DQPSK modulation,
information is carried by the phase difference of successive
symbols. Letting x
k
and z
k
be the HP signal and the DQPSK-
modulated signal, respectively, z
k
can be expressed as follows:

/ 4
1 1
where 2 , {0,1, 2, 3}
j n
k k k k
z z x x s e n
t

= = =
, (1)
where

/ 2
0 1
2 , {0,1, 2, 3}
j n
z s e n
t
= =
.

Here, k is a symbol-time index and greater than 0. Then, the
transmitted signal t
k
can be expressed as the sum of the
modulated signal and its LP signal which is given by

k k k
t z c = +
, (2)

where

/ 4
2
/ 2
2
2 , is odd
, {0,1, 2, 3}.
2 , is even
j m
k
j m
k
c s e k
m
c s e k
t
t

Letting h
k
and n
k
be channel and noise coefficients,
respectively, the received signal r
k
can be expressed as r
k
= t
k

h
k
+ n
k
. For the base layer, since all terms except for z
k
are
considered as noise, we can rewrite the received signal as
follows:

k k k k k k k k k
r z h c h n z h n' = + + = +
. (3)

Differentially-modulated transmitted information is
extracted by various demodulation schemes. For example, we
can demodulate r
k
using the commonly used scheme [12]
given by

1 k k k
d r r
-

=
(4)

or the simple inverse method of division operation given by

1
/
k k k
d r r

=
, (5)

where d
k
denotes the demodulated symbol. In terms of symbol
error rate (SER) at the demodulator output, the two methods
above do not make any difference because they yield the same
phase difference. Even in terms of bit-error rate (BER) at the
conventional soft-decision algorithm for /4-DQPSK, the
performance is not affected by the demodulation scheme
because the phase difference is used as the input of the soft-
decision decoder [9].
However, some previous researches show that the
performance of the soft-decision decoder, such as a
convolutional decoder or a turbo decoder, can be improved by
using the soft bits based on the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) for
the amplitude information [9], [10]. In multi-carrier OFDM
systems, the received subcarriers have various SNR values
because each subcarrier passes through different channel
attenuation due to the frequency selective fading of a channel.
So, the amplitude information as well as phase difference may
contribute to the performance enhancement of receivers [8],
[10]. In other words, the key of the performance improvement

Fig. 4. Constellations of various hierarchically demodulated signals in
AT-DMB system: (a) The constellation of B mode after demodulation
when =1/5, (b) The constellation of Q mode after demodulation when
=1/5 (Constellations of B mode and Q mode for transmission are
presented in [4].)
W.-J. Kim, and H.-N. Kim: Performance Analysis on Demodulation of the Base Layer in the AT-DMB System 281
for T-DMB and AT-DMB receivers lies in how to utilize
amplitude information. To achieve this goal, we introduce a
soft decision method for DQPSK demodulation presented in
[9]. This method was proposed for a system using DQPSK
modem and it may be valid to the HM system using DQPSK
modem because the constellation spreading is considered as
noise like in (3). In the case of a Rayleigh fading channel, the
optimal soft bits b
1
and b
2
for the soft-decision Viterbi
decoder are evaluated as follows:

1 1
1 2 2 1 2 1
2 Re{ } 2 Im{ }
,
( 2) ( 2)
k k k k
N N
r r r r
b b
SNR SNR o o
- -



= =
+ +
, (6)

where
2
N
o
denotes noise variance including a spread symbol
and Re{} and Im{} mean the real and imaginary part of
{} , respectively. If we assume that
2
N
o
and SNR are constant
for all HP symbols, (4) can be simplified as

1 1 2 1
Re{ }, Im{ }
k k k k
b r r b r r
- -

= =
. (7)

To achieve a good performance, it is needed to use the
optimal method of (7). However, there is no guarantee that all
receivers use the optimal method. That is, the performance
may be different according to a demodulation method to make
the soft inputs. Besides the method given in (7), possible soft-
input generation methods can be usually given as follows:

, 1 1
1 2
Re{ }, Im{ }
k k k k
j r r j r r
k k
b r e b r e
- -

Z Z
= =
, (8)
1 1 2 1
Re{ / }, Im{ / }
k k k k
b r r b r r

= =
, (9)
1 1
1 2
Re{ }, Im{ }
k k k k
j r r j r r
b e b e
- -

Z Z
= =
, (10)

where {} Z is the phase of {} . Let demodulation methods
(DM) I, II, III, and IV denote the equations from (7) to (10).
DM II represents the case of using current amplitude
information and phase difference. In DM III, the soft bits are
obtained using division operation. DM IV shows the case of
using only the phase difference.
To grasp the understanding of the channel effect on generation
of CSI, ignoring the noise term of (3) and using (1), the real parts
of equations from (7) to (10) can be rewritten as follows:

{ }
1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1
.
1
1 1 1
1
DM I : Re{ } | | Re{ }
DM II : Re{ } | | Re{ }
DM III : Re Re
DM IV : Re{
k k k
k k k k k k k
k k k
k
j x h h
k k k k k k
j z z h h j x h h
k k k
j x h h k k k
k k k
j z z
b z z h h h h e
b z h e h e
z h h
b e
z h h
b e
-

- - -

-

Z +Z - - -

Z +Z Z +Z
Z +Z

Z
= =
= =

= =
`

)
=
1 1 1
} Re{ }
k k k k k k
h h j x h h
e
- - -

+Z Z +Z
=

The amplitude of the received signal may become large or
small according to the channel condition. The channel

coefficients changing the amplitude of the transmitted signal
are usually called CSI. We can find that CSI is differently
reflected on the soft bits in DM I, II, and III, or hardly appear
in the soft bits in DM IV. Since CSI can be considered as the
degree of confidence of the bits [8], it is important to provide
more informative CSI to the FEC decoder for maximizing the
performance of a receiver. In DM I, channel states of the
consecutive symbols are correctly transferred to the FEC
decoder. This implies that DM I is the best one out of four
possible DMs. The performance of the other three DMs can be
easily predicted. DM II is better than DM III and IV because it
uses the current CSI. On the other hand, DM IV uses only
phase difference. DM III uses both amplitude information of
the previous and current symbol but it may suffer from the
singularity of division operation. In other words, since the CSI
may be distorted by division of the amplitudes of two
consecutive symbols, we can deduce that the performance of
DM III may be inferior to DM II. The simulation results on
the DM I to IV performance will be presented in section IV.
In terms of the complexity of the algorithms, DM I may be
the best solution because it can be implemented only using
operations of multiplication and addition. The other methods
use operations of division or arc tangent, and thus they require
more computational power than DM I. This difference may be
ignored when calculating a single symbol. However, since
received signal is processed by an OFDM symbol which
consists of 1,536 symbols, it may be a best choice to use DM I
for saving hardware resources.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
To show the performance degradation of the base layer by
the use of various demodulation methods in T-DMB receivers,
we performed computer simulations under both B mode and Q
mode of AT-DMB [13]-[14]. Simulation parameters are
presented in Table I. Note that phase correction can improve
TABLE I
SIMULATION PARAMETERS [7], [13], [14]
Parameters Specifications
DAB transmission mode Mode I
Carrier frequency 200 MHz
Bandwidth 1,536 MHz
No. symbols/frame 76
No. sub-carriers/symbol (N) 1536
Total symbol duration (T
s
) 1.246 ms
Useful symbol duration (T
u
) 1 ms
Guard interval duration ( ) 246 s
Frame duration (T
f
) 96 ms
FFT size 2048
Modulation
DQPSK / BPSK (B Mode)
DQPSK / QPSK (Q Mode)
Convolutional code (R
c
) R
c
= 1/2, constraint length = 7
Time interleaving Depth = 384 ms
Frequency interleaving Width = 1.536 MHz
Channel model COST 207 TU6

282 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 58, No. 2, May 2012
the performance up to 1.7 dB in the AT-DMB system [5] but
it is not considered to show the performance according to
demodulation methods. Out of three possible HM parameters:
= {1/3, 1/4, 1/5} (or = {2, 3, 4}) [13], we used the value of
1/4 for simulations. Fig. 5 shows the performance of DM I to
IV with and without B and Q mode. In Fig. 5, the performance
of the legacy T-DMB receiver, which corresponds to DM I
without B or Q mode, is better than the others due to the
absence of the spreading problem. As mentioned in section III,
the SER performance at DQPSK demodulation does not depend
on the demodulation method. On the contrary, Fig. 6 shows that
the BER performance at the Viterbi decoder depends on a
demodulation method in an additive white Gaussian noise
(AWGN) channel. DM I shows the best BER performance and
DM III shows the worst BER performance as expected.
In an AWGN channel, the performance gap may be
acceptable but it may be critical in mobile channels. For the
mobile channel simulations, COST 207 TU6 channel is used
[14] and simulation results for legacy T-DMB receivers are
summarized in Table II where the target BER is 10
-4
. Except
for DM, other conditions are the same but the performances
are quite different. DM I and II stably works for all speeds but
DM III and IV do not work at the speed of 300 km/h even in
high SNRs. That is, soft input which is generated by DM has
the key of the mobile reception.
This trend is also kept at the AT-DMB system. The
performances of the receivers under B mode and Q mode are
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
SNR [dB]
B
E
R

DM I, 0km/h
DM II, 0km/h
DM III, 0km/h
DM IV, 0km/h
DM I, 60km/h
DM II, 60km/h


DM III, 60km/h
DM IV, 60km/h
DM I, 300km/h
DM II, 300km/h
DM III, 300km/h
DM IV, 300km/h


Fig. 8. BER performances of a T-DMB receiver (or the base layer of an
AT-DMB receiver) with DM I-IV by various vehicle speeds at Viterbi
decoder output under Q mode of the AT-DMB system.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
SNR [dB]
B
E
R

DM I, 0km/h
DM II, 0km/h
DM III, 0km/h
DM IV, 0km/h
DM I, 60km/h
DM II, 60km/h


DM III, 60km/h
DM IV, 60km/h
DM I, 300km/h
DM II, 300km/h
DM III, 300km/h
DM IV, 300km/h

Fig. 7. BER performances of a T-DMB receiver (or the base layer of an
AT-DMB receiver) with DM I-IV by various vehicle speeds at Viterbi
decoder output under B mode of the AT-DMB system.

TABLE II
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED SNRS CORRESPONDING TO THE TOV
ACCORDING TO DEMODULATION METHOD AND SPEED UNDER THE T-DMB
SYSTEM (TOV IS ABOUT 10
-4
BER AT THE VITERBI-DECODER OUTPUT)
Vehicle
Speed
DM I DM II DM III DM IV
AWGN 5.1 dB 5.2 dB 5.6 dB 5.3 dB
5 km/h 8.1 dB 9.1 dB

11.9 dB 11.8 dB
60 km/h 8.4 dB 9.4 dB 12.4 dB 12.4 dB
120 km/h

8.8 dB

10.1 dB 13.2 dB 13.2 dB
200 km/h 9.9 dB 11 dB 15.7 dB 15 dB
300 km/h 12.2 dB 15 dB N/A N/A

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
SNR [dB]
B
E
R

DM I w/o B/Q mode
DM II w/o B/Q mode
DM III w/o B/Q mode
DM IV w/o B/Q mode
DM I with B mode
DM II with B mode
DM III with B mode
DM IV with Q mode
DM I with Q mode
DM with Q mode
DM III with Q mode
DM IV with Q mode

Fig. 6. BER performances of a T-DMB receiver (or the base layer of an
AT-DMB receiver) according to differential demodulation methods at
the Viterbi decoder output under B and Q mode of the AT-DMB system.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
SNR [dB]
S
E
R

T-DMB
B mode with DM I
B mode with DM II
B mode with DM III
B mode with DM IV
Q mode with DM I
Q mode with DM II
Q mode with DM III
Q mode with DM IV

Fig. 5. SER performances of a T-DMB receiver (or the base layer of an
AT-DMB receiver) according to differential demodulation methods at
the demodulator output under B and Q mode of the AT-DMB system.
W.-J. Kim, and H.-N. Kim: Performance Analysis on Demodulation of the Base Layer in the AT-DMB System 283

presented in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The results are
summarized in Tables III and IV. The adoption of HM yields
the performance degradation of legacy receivers and the base
layer of brand-new receivers. Since the modulation-noise
power in Q mode is greater than that in B mode as shown in
Fig. 4, the performance of the receiver under Q mode is lower
than that under B mode. As the speed increases, the
performance of the receivers under B mode and Q mode of the
AT-DMB system becomes poor as shown in Figs. 7 and 8 but
DM I or DM II is still available for providing services even at
the extremely high speed. These results lead to know that DM
I and DM II are still robust under the AT-DMB system. The
best choice for receivers is to use DM I but there is no
guarantee that all receivers use DM I. It is not easy to replace
the demodulation method of all legacy receivers but the
analysis results above should be considered in newly designed
receivers for the AT-DMB system.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper analyzed the performance degradation of the base
layer in the AT-DMB system caused by modulation noise and
demodulation methods. In the AT-DMB system, the
modulation noise by added LP signal is inevitable but its
influence may be mitigated using the optimized demodulation
method. To verify this problem, we showed that BER
performances of the receivers can be changed by an adopted
demodulation method. This implies that the optimal
differential demodulation method should be considered in
newly designed AT-DMB receivers to minimize the
performance variations. The analysis results are expected to be
very useful for implementing brand-new receivers and
contribute to the successful launch of the AT-DMB system.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Jiang and P. A. Wilford, A Hierarchical Modulation for Upgrading
Digital Broadcast Systems, IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 51, no. 2, pp.
223-229, Jun. 2005.
[2] Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB): Framing, channel coding and
modulation for digital terrestrial television, ESTI EN300 744 V1.4.1, Jan.
2001.
[3] M. R. Chari, F. Ling, A. Mantravadi, R. krishnamoorthi, R. Vijayan, G.
K. Walker, and R. Chandhok, FLO Physical Layer: An Overview,
IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 53, no. 1, pp.145-160, March. 2007.
[4] J. H. Lee, J.-S. Lim, S. W. Lee and S. W. Choi, Development of
Advanced Terrestrial DMB System, IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 56,
no. 1, pp. 28-35, Mar. 2010.
[5] J.-H. Kim, W.-J. Kim, S. D. Ha, H. S. Lim, and H.-N. Kim, Detection
of Hierarchically-Modulated Data for Advanced T-DMB Receivers,
IEEE Trans. Consumer Electron., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 39-46, Feb. 2008.
[6] D.-K. Kwon, W.-J. Kim, K.-H. Suh, H. S. Lim, H.-N. Kim, A Higher
Data-Rate T-DMB System Based on a Hierarchical A-DPSK
Modulation, IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 42-50, Mar.
2009.
[7] Radio broadcast systems; digital audio broadcasting (DAB) to mobile,
portable and fixed receivers, ETSI EN 300 401, May 2001.
[8] J. H. Stott, The how and why of COFDM, EBU Tech. Rev., pp.43-50,
1998.
[9] T. C. Hewavithana and M. Brookes, Soft decisions for DQPSK
demodulation for the Viterbi decoding of the convolutional codes, in
Proc. of ICASSP 03, Apr. 2003, vol. 4, pp. 1720.
[10] F. Tosato and P. Bisaglia, Simplified soft-output demapper for binary
interleaved COFDM with application to HIPERLAN2, in IEEE Int.
Conf. Comm., Japan, 2002, pp. 664668.
[11] J-H. Kim, J.-b. Lee, H.-N. Kim, H.S. Lim, J. S. Lim, Coherent
Detection for T-DMB Receivers in Hierarchical Modulation Mode,
IEEE Trans. Consumer Electron., Vol. 53, No. 2, pp.294-299, May 2007.
[12] J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Inc., 2001,
pp.231-242, 272-276.
[13] Specification of the Advanced Terrestrial Digital Multimedia
Broadcasting (AT-DMB) to Mobile, Portable and Fixed Receivers,
TTAS.KO.07-0070/R1, Sep. 2010.
[14] COST 207 Report, Digital land mobile radio communications,
Commission of European Communities, Directorate General,
Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation, Luxemburg,
1989.

BIOGRAPHIES
Wan-Jin Kim received the BS, MS, and PhD degrees in
electronic and electrical engineering from Pusan National
University (PNU), Busan, Korea, in 2005, 2007, and 2011,
respectively. He is currently working for Agency for Defense
Development (ADD), Jinhae, Korea. His main research interests
are in the area of digital signal processing, OFDM systems,
adaptive filtering, RADAR/SONAR signal processing, in
particular, signal processing for digital broadcasting, and digital communications.

Hyoung-Nam Kim (M00) received the BS, MS, and PhD
degrees in electronic and electrical engineering from
Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH),
Pohang, Korea, in 1993, 1995, and 2000, respectively. From
May 2000 to February 2003, he was with Electronics and
Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Daejeon,
Korea, developing advanced transmission and reception
technology for terrestrial digital television. In 2003, he joined the faculty of
the Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering at Pusan National
University (PNU), Busan, Korea, where he is currently an associate professor.
From February 2009 to February 2010, he was with the Department of
Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, as a
Visiting Scholar. His research interests are in the area of digital signal
processing, adaptive IIR filtering, bio signal processing, and
RADAR/SONAR signal processing, in particular, signal processing for digital
broadcasting, digital communications, and multimedia systems. Dr. Kim is a
member of IEEE, IEICE, IEEK, and KICS.
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED SNRS CORRESPONDING TO THE TOV
ACCORDING TO DEMODULATION METHOD AND SPEED UNDER Q MODE OF
THE AT-DMB SYSTEM (TOV IS ABOUT 10
-4
BER AT THE VITERBI-
DECODER OUTPUT)
Vehicle
Speed
DM I DM II DM III DM IV
AWGN 6.7 dB 6.8 dB 7.4 dB 7 dB
5 km/h 10.3 dB 10.4 dB

13.5 dB 13 dB
60 km/h 10.5 dB 10.9 dB 14.2 dB 14 dB
120 km/h

11 dB

11.4 dB 15.8 dB 15.4 dB
200 km/h 12.3 dB 13.2 dB 21.5 dB 18.6 dB
300 km/h 18 dB 20.2 dB N/A N/A
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED SNRS CORRESPONDING TO THE TOV
ACCORDING TO DEMODULATION METHOD AND SPEED UNDER B MODE OF
THE AT-DMB SYSTEM (TOV IS ABOUT 10
-4
BER AT THE VITERBI-
DECODER OUTPUT)
Vehicle
Speed
DM I DM II DM III DM IV
AWGN 5.7 dB 5.8 dB 6 dB 6.4 dB
5 km/h 8.6 dB 9.4 dB

11.5 dB 12 dB
60 km/h 9 dB 10.1 dB 12.8 dB 13.3 dB
120 km/h

9.4 dB

10.5 dB 13.5 dB 14.2 dB
200 km/h 10 dB 11.9 dB 16.1 dB 16 dB
300 km/h 13 dB 16.8 dB N/A N/A