Signal Processing for High Throughput Satellite

Communications
The Force Awakens
International Conference on Signal Processing and Communications
(SPCOM)
June 12, 2016, Bengalooru

Bhavani Shankar, Sina Maleki

Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT)
University of Luxembourg

`
Acknowledgements

• SPCOM Organizing Committee

• Former and current members of SIGCOM
Research Group
– Prof. Bjorn Ottersten, Dr. Symeon Chatzinotas, Dr. Eva
Lagunas, Dr. Shree Sharma, Dr. Roberto Piazza, Dr.
Dimitrios Christopoulos, Dr. Ahmad Gharanjik
– http://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/research/sigcom
• Colleagues at European Space Agency and
Industry
• Audience
Outline
Part I : Setting the stage
• 4S : Systems, Scenarios, Services, Standards
• 2C : Channels, Challenges
Part II : The Interference Menace and SP strike back
• Origin and Impact
• Mitigation using SP Techniques
Part III : Cognitive SatComs: A New Hope
• Motivation and Scenarios
• Impact
Part IV : Sneak Peek and Conclusions
• Next generation architectures
 Satellite Systems : Introduction

• Initial Concept
– Extra-terrestrial Relays
• Traditional Association
– TV Broadcasting
– Remote Sensing
• Changing trends
– Ubiquitous Connectivity
Traditional Satellite Communication
System
Forward Link

Satellite

Feeder Link User Link

Return Link

User Beams
 Ground Segment
• Communications and control
systems
• Earth Station/ Gateway
• Critical Infrastructure
• Ground or Mobile Platforms
• Ground Station Network
• Connections to earth stations, Typical Dish size

terrestrial network 25.9m, 18 m C-band

(Goonhilly, UK)
• Typically “well endowed” 19 m, 8 m Ku-band
(Goonhilly, UK)
• Power, Antenna Size,
13.5m, 9.1m Ka-band
Redundancy (ViaSat)
Ground Segment : Functionality/ Constraints

Baseband/
Content RF System
IF
Modulator
Up-Convert
Content – Air Interface
Pre Amp
HPA

Similar system for receiving from satellite

• Processing Complexity not an issue
• Advanced algorithms in the Modulator/ Demodulator
• Power
• Typically not a constraint
• Constraint on transmission
• Spectral Mask
Space Segment : Orbits
• Orbital Classification
• GEO, MEO, LEO
• Van-Allen radiation belts
• GEO Stationary
• Satellite visible 24hrs
• Fixed Elevation
• LEO, MEO, HEO ……
• Satellite in relative motion
• Limited visibility per satellite

Orbit Altitude range Period/ hrs Delay Global

(km) ms Coverage
LEO (Low Earth) 150-1000 1.5-1.8 7.5 78 (LEOSAT)
MEO (Medium Earth) 6,000-20,000 3.8-6 75 12 (O3b)
GEO 36,000 24 270 3 (I4/
alphasat)
 Space Segment : Communication
Satellites

Sputnik 1, ‘57 Telstar 1, ‘62 Iridium, ‘97 OneWeb, 2017+

ViaSat 1, 2011
Syncom 3, ‘64

Intelsat 1, ‘65

SES12, 2017
 Multibeam Satellite Systems
• Single Beam Coverage
– Traditional systems, Wide coverage
• Multiple beams
– Smaller beams -> Directive transmission
• Higher gain, better reception/ smaller antennas
– Possibility to re-use frequency
• Enhanced spectral efficiency
– Other flexibility
• Transmit power, frequency plan, routing

82 narrow spot beams are flying in KA-SAT

(Eutelsat), launched in Dec. 2010 covering
Europe – System throughput ~90Gbps

Cellular reuse ?
 Space Segment : Satellite Constellations

Large LEO Constellations

SES GEO Fleet

O3b MEO Constellations

Traditional bent-pipe satellite: Functionality

Component Functionality
LNA Front end Low Noise Amplifier
LO Local Oscillator : Frequency conversion
IMUX Input Multiplexing Filter : Rejects out of band noise
HPA High Power Amplifier
OMUX Output Multiplexing Filter : Rejects out of band emissions

Pic Courtesy: Thales, L-3

Innovative Launch Technologies
SpaceX is disrupting the launch business
- Reuse of launch system (Falcon 9)
- Ion thruster (electric propulsion) for GEO
deployment
- Drastic cost reduction
- First commercial launcher to deliver to ISS
- Several successful commercial satellite launches
- Re-usable rockets
Space Segment Constraints
Mass Reliability
• Launch costs, Fuel on-board • Life time: 12-15 years
(life-time) • Space hardened components
• Addition of components • Analogue components : time-
tested
increases mass
• Digital components : few

Power Future proof

• Solar powered, total and max • Waveform Agnostic processing
power limited
• Communications, control etc.
• Preferable: passive components
• Limited on-board digital
processing
• Amplifier at high efficiency
 User Segment
• Different classes of equipment
• Mobility Classification
• Mobile Terminal (satellite phone)
• Nomadic Terminal (News
Gathering)
• Fixed Terminal (VSAT)
• Functionality based classification
• Terminal or Access provision
• Service Level based classification
• Consumer grade
• Professional grade
User Segment: Functionality and Constraints

Baseband/ RF System
Content IF (Tuner)
De-Modulator
Air Interface-Content Pre Amp
Down-Convert

Similar system for transmitting to satellite

• Processing Complexity and Power (uplink)
• Issue in consumer grade
• No wideband processing
• Not an issue in professional grade
• Wideband processing possible
• Constraint on transmission
• Spectral Mask
Spectrum Used (source ESA)

Sub 6GHz Shared with Shared with terrestrial

terrestrial services services (microwave links)
Services
• Traditional:
– Broadcast: Satellite DTH (Direct-to-Home) TV
• Still the core business but meeting increased competition
• Linear TV on the decline
• One way communication, no interaction
• New services and applications must be developed
– Broadband: Internet access
• Growing business – targets rural areas and developing countries
• Two way communication, user state available at transmitter
– Mobile/Maritime/Aeronautical satellite services is potentially a
growing market
• Ubiquitous coverage

• 5G backhauling, broadcast/multicast services

Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Services

Emerging Market for

Broadband & Telemetry
• Services
• Commercial airlines
• Passenger internet access
• Operational services Picture Courtesy: NBAA Satcomdirect

• Safety and maintenance

• ADS-B
• Telemetry data….
• Bands
• L (Inmarsat), Ku (Intelsat Epic)
• Ka band : Global Express
Maritime Mobile Satellite Services
• Niche Market
• Broadband Services
• LEO for global communication
(Iridium, Globalstar)
• GEO for broadband (Inmarsat)

• Coverage in the Arctic

• Provisioning more frequencies for ship-ship,
ship-shore communications
• Satellite to enhance coverage
• Challenges
• Low SNR
• Low Bandwidth Multiple Access Channel
 5G SatComs in Networld2020
• Networld2020 : European Technology Platform
for communications networks and services.
• Multimedia distribution
– Broadband-broadcast convergence
• Service continuity
– Seamless handovers
• Machine to Machine
– Energy efficiency and security
• Network control signaling offload
– Non-Geo satellites
Link Budget
Ka-band VSAT (SATELLITE -> VSAT TERMINAL ONLY)
Satellite
EIRP (Max) 60 dBW
Bandwidth 10 MHz
Frequency band 19.7– 20.2 GHz (Ku band)
Service
Broadband interactive, Carrier rate 8 MBaud

Roll_off : 0.25, BW = 10MHz

Minimum C/N for decoding S2x goes to -5 dB and lower.
Terminal
Rx antenna Gain 40 dBi (Midband)
Rx Bandwidth 10 MHz
Noise Temperature ~250K
Link Budget calculation
OBO (depends on number of carriers) 3 dB
GR
Receiver G/T
40 dB
15 dB/K
Exploiting antenna gain
FSL
Beam Edge Loss
210 dB
-3dB LoS !!
Clear sky atm. loss + Polarization loss + pointing loss + rain attenuation (fade -5dB
margin)
Terminal Noise
Boltzmann Constant -228.6 dBW/ K/Hz
System Noise Temperature (taking into account rain attenuation) 24 dBK (~250 K)

Noise Bandwidth (10 MHz) 70 dBW

Received noise power -134 dbW

C/N (beam centre) 16 dB

C/N (beam edge) 13 dB
C/I (multibeam, beam edge) 5 dB

C/I (multibeam, beam centre) 15 dB

C/I3 15dB
C/I (adj satellite) 25 dB
C/(N+I) : clear sky, beam centre 10.5 dB
C/(N+I) : clear sky, beam edge 4 dB
Channels : Fixed Terminals
– Position fixed to ensure LoS channel
• No scatterers at Satellite
– Tropospheric effects
• Attenuation due to rain
• Cloud attenuation
• Scintillations
• Gaseous absorptions
• Signal depolarization
– Ionospheric effects (< 3 GHz)
• Faraday rotation
Channels : Fixed Terminals

System Models
Negligible rain attenuation AWGN
Rain Attenuation (in dB) Log normal, Gamma
(depending on amount of
rainfall)
Cloud blockage Log normal -- On/ off
Scintillations Fast Fading
Channels : Mobile Terminals
– Longer-term variations : variations due to changes in
scenarios
• Line of Sight
• Blockage
• Shadowing
– 3 state Markov model
 Land Mobile Satellite (LMS) Channel
– Short-term variations
• Shadowing of the LoS component
• Scattering leading to NLoS
components
– Typical Model
• Loo

LoS Component
•Log-normally distributed amplitude NLoS Component
•Parameters : Mean, Standard Dev •Rayleigh distributed amplitude
•Uniform phase • Parameter : Power
•Uniform phase
Satellite Communication Standards

• Canvas of standard bodies

– Proprietary aspects
• DVB : well known family
– SH (satellite-handheld)
– S. (Satellite)
– RCS (return channel over satellite)
• Focus : DVB-S2
– Extension S2x
DVB-S2 PHY Layer
Physical Layer of DVB-S2
• Forward Error Correction
– Inner : LDPC, Outer : BCH
• Bit Interleaving
• Modulation
– BPSK, QPSK, APSK

• Framing
– Pilot insertion, scrambling
• Single Carrier Waveform
– Roll-offs : 0.05-0.35
Satellite Networks – Technical Challenges
• Design of a Communication Network rather than broadcast link capable of
delivering multiple services
• Satellite Communications (SatCom) striving to increase offered capacity
(analogous to terrestrial developments LTE, 5G)
• Reduce the cost per bit via satellite
• Broadband Internet penetration still low in rural areas
• Cope with changes in traffic evolution via satellite
– Traditional broadcasting of audio & video is changing: HDTV, 3DTV
– New services: P2P, Video-on-Demand, non-linearTV, growing Internet traffic
– Traffic imbalance between uplink/downlink is reducing
• Different challenges to increase capacity and deliver reliable services for:
– Fixed satellite terminals (Fixed SatCom)
– Mobile satellite terminal (Mobile SatCom)
SatCom vis-à-vis Terrestrial
• After satellite launch, no possibility of making big modifications
– Manufacturers & operators very conservative wrt novel DSP approaches
– Effort to add extra processing to the Gateway instead of on-board → vast
majority of commercial satellites are transparent (bent-pipe) – this is changing!
• Long propagation delay, especially for GEO (~0.5s for round-trip)
• SatCom extremely power limited (GEO is ~36,000km away)
– Necessary to operate close to saturation in non-linear HPA → intermodulation
& non-linear impairments
– In mobile SatCom deep urban reception not feasible → low coding rates and
long time interleaving are needed
• Large differences in terms of wave propagation & channel
characteristics
– SatCom > 10GHz: rain & cloud attenuation, gaseous absorption, scintillations
– Mobile SatCom: Fading depends on elevation – line-of-sight component often
necessary
– Longer coherence time for channel
Summary
• Satellite Systems
– Orbits, Segments
• Scenarios
– Broadcasting, Broadband
• Services
– DTH, Internet, Backhauling, 5G
• Standards
– DVB-S2
• Channels
– AWGN, Log-normal, LMS Calvin and Hobbes

• Challenges
References
Enhancing Throughput in SatCom
The menace of interference
Sources of Impairments
– Noise (dominated by receiver)
– Channel fading
– Intra System Interference
• Intermodulation
– Non-linear operation of the High Power Amplifier
• Co-channel
– Reuse of frequencies in multibeam systems
• Adjacent transponder (adjacent channel interference)
• Cross polarization
– Inter System Interference
• Adjacent Satellite interference
• Misalignments, jamming etc
Need to mitigate interference

• To enhance higher spectral efficiency

– High Rate Broadcast Applications (UHDTV, 3DTV)
– High Rate Broadband Internet (5G)
– Reduce the cost per bit
• To obtain higher on-board power efficiency
– Energy is a fundamental but scarce resource
• To achieve the required Link-budget
– Optimize the payload architecture
• Enabling HW resource sharing
• Reduce on-board HW/cost/weight
• Increase the number of payloads
Satellite Link : Impairments and Traditional
Mitigation
Impairments Mitigation Technique Remarks

Downlink Noise Improved System System dimensioning for noise

FEC pursued using link budgets
Fading on the Adaptive Coding and Traditional Fade Mitigation technique,
downlink induced by Modulation (ACM), useful for minor variations; Link
propagation Variable Coding and provisioned for worst case
Modulation (VCM), attenuation to achieve certain
Power Control availability
VCM Broadcast, ACM Interactive

Temporal diversity Long interleavers (upto 10s) are used

for LMS  suitable for broadcasting
Interference Power control Considered as noise and link
provisioned using link budgets
Traditional and novel approaches
• Traditional approach
– Link budget based
• Static and conservative
– Does not exploit structure, additional information

• Novel approach : Use of advanced Signal

processing algorithms
– Model, identify, estimate
– Exploit available information
– Adapt
Study Case 1: Non-linear interference caused by
Power Amplification
Scenario

• Multicarrier / Multi-GW Transmission:

– Multicarrier payload: Advantages:
• Joint Filtering (MUX) • Hardware saving
• Joint Power amplification (HPA) • Payload mass saving
• On-ground flexibility
Satellite Transponder Imperfections
Performance Metrics and Problem Definition

• Transponder Bandwidth 15

Utilization: 14
𝑅
– 𝑆𝑒𝑓𝑓 = [bit/s/Hz]
𝑊𝑇 13

C/(I+N) [dB]
• On-board power efficiency: 12
𝑃
– 𝑂𝐵𝑂 = 11
𝑃𝑆𝐴𝑇 Central Carrier of a Five Carriers Transponde

• Spectral and Power 10

efficiency trade-off 9
0 5 10 1
OBO[dB]

42
Multicarrier Non-linear Interference

• Single Carrier Distortion

– Warping
– Clustering
• Inter-Symbol Interference (ISI)

• Multiple Carrier Distortion

– Intermodulation Products
• Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI)
On-board Multiple Carrier Amplification

ON-GROUND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES ENABLING

HIGH SPECTRAL AND POWER EFFICIENCY

+ Payload Hardware/Mass saving SINGLE CARRIER MULTIPLE CARRIER

+ Flexibility
– Strong ACI due to Intermodulation
products
– Strong ISI at the transponder edge
– High penalty in power efficiency (OBO)

44
 Predistortion

• Data Predistortion:
– Operating on the
modulated symbols
– Based on polynomial or
Look-Up Table
– ISI and ACI pre-cancelling

• Signal Predistortion:
– Operating on the
waveform
– Based on polynomial or
Look-Up Table
– An attempt to invert the
channel function
 Equalization

• Single Carrier Fractionally Spaced

Equalization:
– Processing multiple samples per symbol
– Improve tolerance to sampling error
– ISI cancellation
– Centroids decoding to improve performance

• Multiple Carrier Equalization:

– Joint processing at receiver
– Based on polynomial function and filter
– Performs an MMSE cancellation of ISI and
ACI
Case Study : Data Predistortion
• Modelling the non-linear channel
– Channel : Feeder link, Satellite transponder, downlink
– Focus on AWGN downlink, ideal feeder link
– Identifying the parameters of the channel
– Mechanism for their identification
• Modelling the predistorter
• Methodology for parameter identification
– Direct
– Indirect
• Performance Assessment
• Reference : Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “Data Predistortion for
Multicarrier Satellite Channels based on Direct Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, Volume 62, Issue 22, pages 5868-5880, November 2014.

47
Channel Modelling for Data Predistortion

• Third order Volterra baseband model

𝐾 1 3 ∗
𝑦 𝑛 = 𝑘=0 ℎ𝑝 𝑘 𝑥 𝑛 − 𝑘 + 𝑘1 ,𝑘2 ,𝑘3 ℎ𝑘1 ,𝑘2 ,𝑘3 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , 𝑘3 𝑥 𝑛 − 𝑘1 𝑥 𝑛 − 𝑘2 𝑥 𝑛 − 𝑘3
+𝜂 𝑛
Kernel
• Multicarrier signal co-efficients
𝑀−1

𝑥(𝑛) = 𝑢𝑚 (𝑛)𝑒 −𝑗 2𝜋𝑚 ∆𝑓 + φ𝑚

𝑚=0

• Baseband model for carrier m

𝐾
1
𝑦𝑚 𝑛 = ℎ𝑝,𝑚 𝑘 𝑢𝑝 𝑛 − 𝑘 +
𝑝 𝑘=0
𝐾

+ ℎ𝑝31 ,𝑝2,𝑝3,𝑚 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , 𝑘3 𝑢𝑝1 𝑛 − 𝑘1 𝑢𝑝2 𝑛 − 𝑘2 𝑢𝑝3 𝑛 − 𝑘3 ∗ 𝑒 2𝜋 𝑓𝑝1 +𝑓𝑝2 −𝑓𝑝3 −𝑓𝑚 𝑛𝑇𝑠
+ 𝜂𝑚 𝑛
𝑝1 ,𝑝2 ,𝑝3 ∈Ω𝑚,3 𝑘𝑗
Channel Modelling for Data Predistortion

• Parameters for identification

– Memory depth : K
1 3
– Coefficients : ℎ𝑝,𝑚 𝑘 , ℎ𝑝1 ,𝑝2 ,𝑝3 ,𝑚 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , 𝑘3

• Output linear in coefficients

– Standard Linear Least Squares

• Low complexity model : Memory polynomials

𝐾
1
𝑦𝑚 𝑛 = ℎ𝑝,𝑚 𝑘 𝑢𝑝 𝑛 − 𝑘 +
𝑝 𝑘=0
𝐾
3
+ ℎ𝑝1 ,𝑝2 ,𝑝3 ,𝑚 𝑘 𝑢𝑝1 𝑛 − 𝑘 𝑢𝑝2 𝑛 − 𝑘2 𝑢𝑝3 𝑛 − 𝑘 ∗ 𝑒 2𝜋 𝑓𝑝1 +𝑓𝑝2 −𝑓𝑝3 −𝑓𝑚 𝑛𝑇𝑠
+ 𝜂𝑚 𝑛
𝑝1 ,𝑝2 ,𝑝3 ∈Ω𝑚,3 𝑘
Intermodulation Analysis

• Third degree terms analysis:

– Δ𝑓𝑚 ≜ 𝑓𝑝1 + 𝑓𝑝2 − 𝑓𝑝3 − 𝑓𝑚
• In-band distortion intermodulation terms
– Δ𝑓𝑚 = 0
• Example:
– Three equally spaced carriers
Predistortion Model
• Memory Polynomial Multicarrier Model:
– Less complex then full Volterra
– Linear in the parameters

• Parameters Estimation 𝒘𝑚 = [{𝑤𝑚1,⋯,𝑚𝑑,𝑚 𝑘 }]:

– Indirect Estimation
– Direct Estimation
Indirect Estimation
• Idea : Pre inverse is same as post inverse
• General Characteristics:
– The predistorter is estimated as a MMSE equalizer
– Low complexity derivation and implementation
– Receiver noise is in input to the predistortion during
estimation

• The Optimization Problem:

– Cost Minimization:

2
min 𝐸{ 𝑢(𝑛) − 𝑢(𝑛) }
 Standard Multiple Carrier
Indirect Estimation Method

• Standard Indirect Estimation:

– It can be reduced to standard LS
– Channel Inverse Estimation:
• Model input z(n)
• Desired model output v(n)
Direct Estimation

• General Characteristics
– Directly targets minimization of interference at RX
– High complexity derivation and implementation

• The Optimization problem

– Cost minimization

2
min 𝐸{ 𝑢(𝑛) − 𝑦(𝑛) }
Multiple Carrier Predistortion based on
Direct Estimation/Learning

Error Definition:

• Possible Optimization Approaches:

Individual Cost Function Joint Cost Function
𝐸 𝐶 𝒘𝑚 𝑛 with 𝐶 𝒘𝑚 𝑛 = 𝐸 𝐶 𝒘1 𝑛 , ⋯ , 𝒘𝑛 𝑛 with
𝑒𝑚 𝑛 2 𝐶 𝒘1 𝑛 , ⋯ , 𝒘𝑛 𝑛 = 𝑚 𝑒𝑚 𝑛 2

Least Mean Squares (LMS) LMS

Recursive Least Square (RLS) RLS
Direct Estimation Joint RLS

• M carriers : Single optimization problem:

– Error:
– Carrier Cost function minimized w.r.t

– where

– First Order Minimization

Functional Scheme of the Joint Direct
Estimation Method
Step by Step Derivation
Recursive Algorithm Definition
Performance Results
• Figure of Merit:

• Internal and External carrier: Three equally spaced carriers, 36 MHz transponder,
Rate=8 Mbaud, Mod=16APSK, Code Rate=2/3
• Take away
– Good Performance Gain
– Use in future wideband systems
Sensitivity to Noise
• Direct estimation is robust to receiver noise

• Three equally spaced carriers, 36 MHz transponder, Rate=8 Mbaud, Mod=16APSK, Code
Rate=2/3, OBO=1.7dB
• Take away
– Stable adaptive algorithm
Related Works
• Successive Predistortion
– Successively modifies the transmitted symbols to reduce
multicarrier distortion
– Exploits channel model
– Refs: [12], [14]

• Extension to distributed predistortion

– Different carriers uploaded by different Gateway
– Limited data exchange between Gateways
– Refs: [16]

• Use of non-linear equalization on the return link

– Single carrier predistortion for users
– Multicarrier equalization (+ decoding) at Gateway
– Refs: [24]

• Use in Time-Frequency packing

– Faster than Nyquist
– Refs: [15]

62
Multicarrier Predistortion in Industry
• Traditional approach : high OBO, high carrier spacing
– Multicarrier predistortion studies for improving OBO, carrier spacing
• Two European Space Agency projects
• Study Phase project: On-ground multi-carrier digital equalization/pre-distortion
techniques for single or multi gateway applications
– Partners : TZR (Germany), KTH (Sweden), Uni Lu, SES (Luxembourg)
– Data Predistortion, Equalization
– Completed: December 2013
– Conclusions
• Predistortion/ Equalization provides gains from simulations
• Next Step: Prototyping, Satellite Demonstration

• Implementation project: Prototyping and Testing of Efficient Multicarrier

Transmission for Broadband Satellite Communications
– Partners : Newtec(Belgium), Airbus D&S (France), Uni Lu, SES (Luxembourg)
– Over the satellite demonstration
• Different predistortion algorithms explored
– Ongoing, planned completion: December 2016
 References
1. S. Benedetto and E. Biglieri, “Nonlinear equalization of digital satellite channels,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 1, pp. 57 –62, Jan. 1983
2. M. Schetzen, The Volterra and Wiener Theories of Nonlinear Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Apr. 1980. [Online]. Available:
http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0471044555
3. G. Karam and H. Sari, “A data predistortion technique with memory for QAM radio systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 336 –
344, Feb 1991.
4. C. Eun and E. Powers, “A new Volterra predistorter based on the indirect learning architecture,” Signal Processing, IEEE Trans. on, vol. 45,
no. 1, pp. 223 –227, Jan 1997.
5. L. Ding, G. T. Zhou, D. R. Morgan, Z. Ma, J. S. Kenney, J. Kim, and C. R. Giardina, “A robust digital baseband predistorter constructed using
memory polynomials,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 159 – 165, Jan. 2004.
6. R. Raich, H. Qian, and G. Zhou, “Orthogonal polynomials for power amplifier modeling and predistorter design,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol.,vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1468 – 1479, Sept. 2004.
7. D. Morgan, Z. Ma, J. Kim, M. Zierdt, and J. Pastalan, “A generalized memory polynomial model for digital predistortion of RF power
amplifiers,” Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3852–3860, Oct 2006.
8. B. F. Beidas and R. Seshadri, “Analysis and compensation for nonlinear interference of two high-order modulation carriers over satellite
link,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1824 –1833, June 2010.
9. B. F. Beidas, “Intermodulation distortion in multicarrier satellite systems: Analysis and turbo Volterra equalization,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1580 –1590, June 2011.
10. L. Giugno, M. Luise, and V. Lottici, “Adaptive pre and post-compensation of nonlinear distortions for high-level data modulations,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 3, pp. 1490 –1495, 2004.
11. D. Zhou and V. E. DeBrunner, “Novel adaptive nonlinear predistorters based on the direct learning algorithm,” Signal Processing, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 120 –133, Jan. 2007.
12. B. F. Beidas, S. Kay, and N. Becker, “System and method for combined predistortion and interference cancellation in a satellite
communications system,” U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent 8 355 462, filed Oct. 2009 granted Jan. 2013.
13. T. Deleu, M. Dervin, K. Kasai, and F. Horlin, “Iterative predistortion of the nonlinear satellite channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 62, no. 8,
pp. 2916–2926, Aug. 2014.
14. B. F. Beidas, “ Adaptive Digital Signal Predistortion for Nonlinear Communication Systems Using Successive Methods,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol 64, no. 5, pp. 2166-2175, May 2016
15. A. Piemontese, A. Modenini, G. Colavolpe, and N. Alagha, “Improving the spectral efficiency of nonlinear satellite systems through time
frequency packing and advanced receiver processing,” Communications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 3404–3412, August 2013.
 Contributions by the group
16. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “Multi-gateway Data Predistortion for Non-linear Satellite Channels,”, IEEE
Transactions on Communications.
17. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “Data Predistortion for Multicarrier Satellite Channels based on Direct Learning,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Volume 62, Issue 22, pages 5868-5880, November 2014.
18. Efrain Zenteno, Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Daniel Ronnow, Bjorn Ottersten, “A MIMO Symbol Rate Signal Digital Predistorter
for Nonlinear Multicarrier Satellite Channels,” To Appear in IET Communications.
19. Efrain Zenteno, Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Daniel Ronnow, Bjorn Ottersten, “Low Complexity Predistortion and Equalization in
Nonlinear Multicarrier Satellite Communications,” EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, March 2015.
20. Nicolo Mazzali, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “On-board Signal Predistortion for Digital Transparent Satellites,” in Proceedings
IEEE SPAWC, June 2015.
21. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “Generalized Direct Predistortion With Adaptive Crest Factor Reduction Control ,”
in Proceedings of IEEE ICASSP, April 2015.
22. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Efrain Zenteno, Daniel Ronnow, Konstantinos Liolis, Frank Zimmer, Michael Grasslin, Tobias
Berheide, “Performance Analysis of Fractionally Spaced Equalization in Non-linear Multicarrier Satellite Channels,” in Proceedings of 32nd
AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC), SanDiego, August 2014.
23. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “Lookup Table based Data Predistortion for Multicarrier Non-linear Satellite
Channels,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference of Communications, June 2014.
24. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “'Carrier Rate Optimization on the Return Link of Interactive Mobile Satellite
Networks',” in Proceedings of European Wireless 2014, Barcelona.
25. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Efrain Zenteno, Daniel Ronnow, Konstantinos Liolis, Frank Zimmer, Michael Grasslin, Tobias
Berheide, Stefano Cioni, “Sensitivity Analysis of Multicarrier Digital Pre-distortion/ Equalization Techniques for Non-linear Satellite
Channels,” in Proceedings of 31st AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC), 2013.
26. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “Data Predistortion for Multicarrier Satellite Channels using Orthogonal Memory
Polynomials,” in Proceedings of 14th IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), July 2013.
27. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Bjorn Ottersten, “Non-parameteric Data Predistortion for Non-linear Channels with Memory,” in
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Vancouver, Canada, May 2013.
28. Roberto Piazza, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Efrain Zenteno, Daniel Ronnow, Joel Grotz, Frank Zimmer, Michael Grasslin, Frieder Heckmann,
“Multicarrier digital pre-distortion/ equalization techniques for non-linear satellite channels,” in Proceedings of 30th AIAA International
Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC), Ottawa, September 2012.
Study Case 2: Linear interference caused by
Frequency Reuse
Multibeam Satellite Systems
Forward link

Point-to-Point User
Feeder link Multiuser
link MIMO
Return link

GateWay (GW) Users

• Multiple antennas (feeds) at the satellite

– Single antenna receivers
• User downlink : Multiuser-MIMO
– Similar to cellular?
Multibeam Satellite Systems
• 𝐾users and 𝑁 antennas
– One antenna per beam
• Specific radiation pattern on ground
– Gain reduces with offset from beam centre
• 𝑩: Beam Gain matrix of dimension 𝐾 × 𝑁
– 𝑩 𝑖, 𝑗 : Gain from antenna 𝑗 to user 𝑖
• Dependent on user location
• Channel from antenna j to user i
– 𝒉 𝑖, 𝑗 = 𝑩 𝑖, 𝑗 𝒉 𝑖, 𝑗 Propagation effects

– 𝒉𝑖 : 1 × 𝑁 channel vector to user 𝑖

– 𝑯 = [𝒉𝑻𝟏 , 𝒉𝑻𝟐 , … , 𝒉𝑻𝑲 ]𝑻 : 𝐾 × 𝑁 MU-MIMO channel
Aggressive Frequency Reuse
• Shannon formula: 𝐶 = 𝑓 ⋅ log(1 + 𝑆𝐼𝑁𝑅)
• Aggressive frequency reuse: ↑ 𝑓 per user, but ↓ 𝑆𝐼𝑁𝑅
• Can SINR be improved by processing?

Today: Viasat1, 110Gbps Spectrally efficient, next gen satcoms: “Terabit Satellite: A myth or reality?”
Precoding
• Joint encoding of co-frequency signals y= 𝑯𝑾𝒔+𝒏
– Minimize the mutual interference W : Precoder
between co-channel beams
• Linear Precoding options:
– Zero-Forcing (ZF)
– Regularized Channel Inversion (MMSE)
• Non-Linear Precoding options
– Tomlinshon-Harashima
– Dirty Paper Coding

• Precoding @ beam space vs.

Precoding @ feed space
Design of Precoding Matrix
Figure of Merit Form
SINR of user 𝑖 ∈ |ℎ𝑖𝐻 𝑤𝑖 |2
[1, 𝐾] 𝛾i = 𝐻 2
𝑗≠𝑖 𝑖 𝑤𝑗 | + 𝑁0
|ℎ
Rate of user 𝑖 ∈ 𝑅i = log(1 + 𝛾i )
[1, 𝐾]
Total power 𝐾

𝑃= || 𝑤𝑖 ||2
𝑖=1
Power at antenna 𝐾
𝑖 ∈ [1, N] 𝜙𝑖 = 𝑤𝑗 𝑤𝑗 𝐻
𝑗=1
𝑖,𝑖
Classical optimization problems
Optimization Constraint Remarks
𝛾i
max min , Sum power constraint Max min fairness problem
Γ𝑖
Per antenna power Feasibility problem  Bisection
constraint
Ri Sum power constraint Rate Balancing problem
max min
𝐹𝑖 Per antenna power
constraint

min 𝑃 SINR Constraints Semi-definite relaxation and

Per antenna power Gaussian Randomization
constraint
Per antenna power Sum Rate maximization
max 𝑅𝑘
constraint Sub-gradient optimization
Sum power constraint
Frame-based Precoding

• Data from multiple users multiplexed on a single FEC frame

– Long lengths of FEC
• Difficult to have multiple precoders per frame
– Overhead
• How to devise one precoder per frame?
– [REF 9] posed it as PHY Multigroup, multicast
 Multigroup Multicasting
Related Problem
1
• PHY multicasting to multiple groups
RF Chain 1
• 𝐺 groups, each group receives same
info
RF Chain Nt Nt s 1w 1
• Formation of such groups  user
s 2w 2 scheduling
s 1w 1
In SatComs, each
antenna is driven by
G1
a dedicated RF
Chain

G3 G2
Problem Formulation

• 𝑤𝑙 precoder for all users in group 𝐺𝑙

• Less precoders than users
• SINR of user 𝑖 ∈ 𝐺𝑚
|ℎ𝑖𝐻 𝑤𝑚 |2
𝛾𝑖 = 𝐻 𝑤 |2 + 𝑁
|ℎ
𝑗≠𝑚 𝑖 𝑗 0

• Optimization problems presented earlier can

be recast
– SDR, Gaussian randomization [REFs 7, 9]
Fairness under Per Antenna Constraint

Average user throughput versus the number of users per group(left) and
SINR distribution over the coverage (right)
5 Transmit antennas, 4 users [REF 7]
SR: Sum Rate, SRA: Sum Rate with availability constraint, SRM: MODCOD constrained Sum rate with PAC
Non-convex QCQP approach
• Optimization problem
𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑚=1 | 𝑤𝑚 |2
𝑠. 𝑡. 𝛾𝑖 ≥ Γ𝑖
• NP-hard
• Recast as non-convex Quadratically Constrained Quadratic
Program

• Sub-optimal solution obtained after penalized

reformulation [REF 13]
– Faster and efficient than SDR
Impact on SatCom Ecosystem
• At least two European Space Agency projects
• Study Phase projects: SatNEx III, Next Generation Waveforms for improved spectral
efficiency
– Partners : Multiple universities from
– Beamforming and precoding
– Conclusions
• Modelling, Identification and Estimation of parameters
• Significant gain from simulations

• Software Demonstrator project: Precoding Demonstrator for broadband system

forward links
– Partners : DLR (German Aerospace Agency), Fraunhofer, Uni Lu, SES (Luxembourg)
– Software demonstration of gains from precoding in a system wide environment
– Ongoing, planned completion: December 2016
Related Work : Symbol Level Precoding
• Symbol level precoding
– Precoding dependent on channel as well as symbols
– [REFS 6, 8, 10, 11, 12]

• Additional degrees of freedom

– Exploit interference
– Higher complexity
• Constellation 𝜍 comprising symbols 𝑑𝑘

79
Symbol Level Precoding : Representative
Result 2 antennas, 2 users

CIPM: Symbol level precoding

OB: Optimal unicast channel
80
Symbol Level Precoding : Representative
Result (16 QAM, target SNR 11.76 dB)

CIPM: Symbol level precoding

OB: Optimal unicast channel
81
References
1. T. Yoo and A. Goldsmith, “On the optimality of multi-antenna broadcast
scheduling using zero-forcing beamforming", IEEE J. Select. Areas
Commun., vol. 24, Mar. 2006
2. N.D. Sidiropoulos, T.N. Davidson, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Transmit Beamforming
for Physical Layer Multicasting,"IEEE TSP, 54(6),2006.
3. M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, \ Optimal and Suboptimal Transmit
Beamforming," Handbook of Antennas in Wireless Communications, CRC
press, 2001.
4. Gesbert, D.; Hanly, S.; Huang, H.; Shamai Shitz, S.; Simeone, O, Wei Yu,
"Multi-Cell MIMO Cooperative Networks: A New Look at Interference,“
Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on , vol.28, no.9,
pp.1380,1408, December 2010.
5. Karipidis, E.; Sidiropoulos, N.D.; Zhi-Quan Luo, "Quality of Service and
Max-Min Fair Transmit Beamforming to Multiple Cochannel Multicast
Groups," Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on , vol.56, no.3,
pp.1268,1279, March 2008
6. C. Masouros, “Correlation Rotation for Linear Precoding for MIMO
Broadcast Communications," TSP, Jan, 2011.
Contribution from the group
7. Christopoulos D., Chatzinotas S., Ottersten B., “Weighted Fair Multicast Multigroup
Beamforming under Per-antenna Power Constraints", IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 62, no. 19, pp. 5132-5142, 2014.
8. Alodeh M., Chatzinotas S., Ottersten B., “Constructive Multiuser Interference in Symbol
Level Precoding for the MISO Downlink Channel", IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
vol. 63, no. ,2015.
9. Christopoulos D., Chatzinotas S., Ottersten B., “Multicast Multigroup Precoding and User
Scheduling for Frame-Based Satellite Communications", IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, 2015.
10. Alodeh M., Chatzinotas S., Ottersten B., “Energy-Efficient Symbol-Level Precoding in
Multiuser MISO Based on Relaxed Detection Region", IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, 2015, revised.
11. Alodeh M., Chatzinotas S., Ottersten B., “Symbol Based Precoding in the Downlink of
Cognitive MISO Channels", CROWNCOM 2015.
12. M. Alodeh, S. Chatzinotas and B, Ottersten, “Constructive Interference through Symbol
Level Precoding for Multi-level Modulation," Globecom 2015, available on arxiv.
13. Ahmad Gharanjik, M. R. Bhavani Shankar, Mojtaba Soltanalian, Bjorn Ottersten, “An
Iterative Approach to Nonconvex QCQP with Applications in Signal Processing,” in
Proceedings of IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop (SAM),
July2016.
Other Transceiver techniques
Transmission and Reception Technologies

• Interference detection and

localization
• Multi-user detection
• Multi-input, multi-output
systems
• Precoding + Predistortion
Resource Allocation for Cognitive Satellite Communications

Thanks to SnT Team Members: E. Lagunas, S.K. Sharma, S. Chatzinotas and B. Ottersten

Presenter: Sina Maleki

[email protected]

Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT)

University of Luxembourg

86
 Recap of Motivation
 Why Cognitive Satellite Communication in Ka Band?
 The satellite communications data traffic is increasing
 Access to broadband services above 100 Mb/s by 2020, at least 50% of households in
Europe.
 Access to at least 30 Mb/s data rate By 2020, the whole population in Europe.
 5 to 10 million households will choose satellite broadband communication by 2020.
 Ka band is the appropriate spectrum for high data rate services.
 Challenge: only 500 MHz of exclusive bandwidth for FSS!
 Possible solution: Cognitive Radio!

An example of satellite broadband systems. Courtesy: SES ASTRA2Connect

87
 Recap of Scenarios

 The most appropriate scenarios in terms of technology, regulations, standardization,

and market assessments:
 Scenario A: cognitive FSS downlink communication in the band 17.3-17.7 GHz where
incumbent users are BSS feeder links.

 Scenario B: cognitive FSS downlink communication in the band 17.7-19.7 GHz where the
incumbent users are FS microwave links (terrestrial).

 Scenario C: Cognitive FSS uplink communication in the band 27.5-19.5 GHz where the
incumbent users are FS microwave links (terrestrial).

88
 Scenario A
 17.3-17.7 GHz
 Incumbent users: BSS feeder links

Fig. 1. Scenario A. Cognitive downlink of Ka-band FSS system with

incumbent BSS feeder link. I stands for incumbent, C for cognitive.
 No interference from the cognitive FSS to the incumbent BSS.
Fig. 2. Scenario B. Co
 FSS terminals may receive interference from BSS feeders.
Service (FS) links with priority protection (incumbent incumbent FS link. I stand
systems), Figure 2;
 Cognitive downlink communication is possible provided
• Scenario C: thisthat
scenariothe
refersreceived
to the use of CRinterference
tech-

is not harmful. niques in the return link of a Ka-band FSS satellite system
(cognitive system) reusing frequency bands of FS links
 Challenge: BSS interference needs to be measured!with priority protection (incumbent systems), Figure 3.
All of these scenarios foresee the usage of non-exclusive
bands allocated in secondary use cases under different con-
ditions to satellite applications. Table I provides detailed
specifications of the considered frequency bands, which are
all in Ka-band [4]. It is worthwhile underlining that, in order
to assess the real applicability of CRs to SatCom system, it
89
is of paramount importance to analyze the current regulatory
regime in order to identify hooks and hurdles that are to be
 Scenario B
 17.7-19.7 GHz
 Incumbent users: FS microwave links

Fig. 1. Scenario A. Cognitive downlink of Ka-band FSS system with

incumbent BSS feeder link. I stands for incumbent, C for cognitive.

 No interference from the cognitive FSS transmitter toCognitive

Fig. 2. Scenario B. the incumbent
downlink of Ka-band FSS
Service (FS) links with priority protection (incumbent incumbent FS link. I stands for incumbent, C for cognitive
FSsystem
receiver
with due
to power flux density
systems), Figure 2; restrictions.
 FSS terminals mayreturnreceive interference
• Scenario C: this scenario refers to the use of CR tech-
niques in the link of a Ka-band from FS links.
FSS satellite system
 Cognitive(cognitive
downlink communication is possible provided that the received interference
system) reusing frequency bands of FS links
with priority protection (incumbent systems), Figure 3.
is not harmful.
All of these scenarios foresee the usage of non-exclusive
 Challenge: FS interference needs to be measured!
bands allocated in secondary use cases under different con-
ditions to satellite applications. Table I provides detailed
specifications of the considered frequency bands, which are
all in Ka-band [4]. It is worthwhile underlining that, in order
to assess the real applicability of CRs to SatCom system, it
is of paramount importance to analyze the current regulatory 90
regime in order to identify hooks and hurdles that are to be
 Scenario C
Fig. 1. Scenario A. Cognitive downlink of Ka-band FSS system with
incumbent BSS feeder link. I stands for incumbent, C for cognitive.

Fig. 2. Scenario B. Cognitive downlink of Ka-band FSS system with

 27.5-29.5 GHz Service (FS) links with priority protection (incumbent

systems), Figure 2;
incumbent FS link. I stands for incumbent, C for cognitive

 Incumbent users: FS microwave links

• Scenario C: this scenario refers to the use of CR tech-
niques in the return link of a Ka-band FSS satellite system
(cognitive system) reusing frequency bands of FS links
with priority protection (incumbent systems), Figure 3.
All of these scenarios foresee the usage of non-exclusive
bands allocated in secondary use cases under different con-
ditions to satellite applications. Table I provides detailed
specifications of the considered frequency bands, which are
all in Ka-band [4]. It is worthwhile underlining that, in order
to assess the real applicability of CRs to SatCom system, it
is of paramount importance to analyze the current regulatory
regime in order to identify hooks and hurdles that are to be
faced when adopting CR, and the source of interference that
a cognitive satellite system may have to tackle.
This analysis has been done in [8] and [9] highlighting that,
within ITU (International Telecommunication Union) region 2,
the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
Administrations (CEPT) has adopted the following decisions:
• /DEC/(05)08 [10] that gives guidance on the use of the

 Cognitive uplink communication is possible provided that the operation

17.3-17.7 GHz band by High Density applicati ons in FSS
of FSS does
Fig. 3. Scenario C. Cognitive uplink of Ka-band FSS system with incumbent
FS link. I stands
(HDFSS), i.e., Scenario A; for incumbent, C for cognitive
not interfere with FS. • ECC/DEC/(00)07 [11] that gives guidance on the use of
the 17.7-19.7 GHz band by FSS and FS, i.e., Scenario B; TABLE I
 FSS terminals may interfere with the FS links: multiple F
interferers.
• ECC/DEC/(05)01 [12] that foresees that the 27.5-30.0
-S OREQUENCY BA NDS CENA RI OS V ERV I EW

GHz band is divided between FS and FSS usage, i.e.,

In case of no database, the receivers need to be detected.
Scenario Band / Usage in cognitive satellite system / Incumbent usage
 Scenario C. 17.3-17.7GHz (Ka-band downlink)
A Satellite downlink band to user terminals
 Challenge: FSS interference towards FS links needs to Incumbent be mitigated
As it can be noted, these scenarios are all in the Ka-band,
by cognitive
user: Satellite gateway uplinks, BSS uplinks
and this selection is the outcome of regulatory, standardization,
17.7-19.7GHz (Ka-band downlink)
radio techniques. B Satellite downlink band to FSS user terminals
and market analyses [8]. Ka-band is mainly used for broadband
Incumbent user: Fixed terrestrial links (microwave links)
services, which are subject to market pressure for cost effective 27.5-29.5GHz (Ka-band uplink, including the HDFSS band
end-to-end broadband services for consumer internet access. C 28.4465-28.9465GHz)
It is also worthwhile highlighting that the ratio of the internet Satellite uplink band from the FSS user terminal to satellite
Incumbent user: Fixed services (terrestrial microwave links)
use is widening to 6:1 or higher, and thus the pressure is more
91
 Selected Group Outputs
[1] COgnitive Radio for SATellite Communications http://www.ict-corasat.eu/
[2] E. Lagunas, S.K. Sharma, S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, J. Grotz, J. Krause and B. Ottersten,
“Resource Allocation for Cognitive Satellite Uplink and Fixed-Service Terrestrial Coexistence in Ka-band,”
CROWNCOM, Apr. 2015.
[3] E. Lagunas, S.K. Sharma, S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Power Control for Satellite
Uplink and Terrestrial Fixed-Service Coexistence in Ka-band,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTCFall), Sep. 2015.
[4] S. K. Sharma, S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, J. Grotz, J. Krause and B. Ottersten, "Joint Carrier
Allocation and Beamforming for cognitive SatComs in Ka-band (17.3–18.1 GHz)," 2015 IEEE International
Conference on Communications (ICC), London, 2015, pp. 873-878.
[5] E. Lagunas, S.K. Sharma, S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, B. Ottersten, “Resource Allocation for
Cognitive Satellite Communications with Incumbent Terrestrial Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Cognitive
Communications and Networking, 2015.
[6] S. K. Sharma, E. Lagunas, S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, J. Grotz, J. Krause and B. Ottersten,
“Resource allocation for cognitive Satellite Communications in Ka-band (17.7–19.7 GHz)”, ICC Workshops
2015.
[7] S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, B. Evans, K. Liolis, J. Grotz, A. Vanelli-Coralli, N. Chuberre, “Cognitive
spectrum utilization in Ka band multibeam satellite communications”, IEEE Communications Magazine
2015.

92
 Joint Carrier Allocation and Beamforming for
Cognitive SatComs in Ka-band: Scenario A

Reference: ICC 2015

93
Proposed Cognitive Exploitation Framework

 Underlay CR approach
 Carrier Assignment (CA) and Beamforming (BF)

94
Representative Beam
 150 Km radius with its center located in Betzdorf, Luxembourg (49.6833° N and 6.35° E)
150

100

50
Distance in km

-50

-100

-150
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Distance in km

 Black lines: azimuthal directions of the FSS terminals with respect to the GEO FSS satellite
located at 25 ° E
 Red lines: azimuthal directions of the BSS feeder links from Betzdorf, Luxembourg
(49.6833° N and 6.35° E)
 21 BSS feeder links (carriers) towards five different satellites (Thanks to SES, Luxembourg)

95
Interference Analysis
 Received signal level at the mth FSS terminal from link analysis of the FSS system

 Interference level received at the mth FSS terminal

 SINR at the FSS terminal due to a single BSS interfering feeder link (carrier)

 Carrier bandwidth for both victim FSS and interfering BSS links are assumed to be
36 MHz.
 Aggregate interference calculation: summing all the contributions from interfering
BSS carriers

96
Applied Techniques: Beamforming
 A receive beamformer at the FSS terminal in order to mitigate interference
coming from BSS feeder links
 DoA information calculated from available database
 Important aspects of beamforming design
 Array geometry or antenna structure
 Weight design
 Antenna Structure
 A terminal reflector based feed array (Multiple Input LNB (MLNB) set up) system
with 75 cm reflector diameter (f/D=0.6)
 3 feeds that are aligned along the feed array horizontal line
 Out of these 3 LNBs, two side feeds are offset at 2 degrees (1.91 cm) from the centered beam and are
symmetrical.

 Array response vector calculated using GRASP software

 BF Weight Design
 LCMV beamformer
 BF applied only in the FSS terminals which receive harmful interference (below a certain threshold
defined based on modcod adaptation of the terminal)
97
Applied Techniques: Carrier Allocation
 Carrier assignment matrix

 SINR matrix

 CA problem to maximize the overall throughput of the system

 Hungarian Method

 H. W. Kuhn, “The Hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 83–97, 1955.
98
Numerical Results
Simulation and link budget parameters

99
Numerical Results
Per beam throughput comparison of various cases
2.5

1.5 w/ BSS int. (w/ CA+BF)

w/ BSS int. (w/ CA)
1
w/ BSS int. (w/o CA)
0.5 w/o BSS int. (w/ CA)
Exclusive only
0

 Case 1: exclusive only

 Conventional system without the use of shared carriers.
 Case 2: shared plus exclusive without BSS interference
 This case does not exist in practice but considered for the comparison purpose.
 Case 3: Shared plus Exclusive with BSS interference
 FSS systems share 17.3 − 18.1 GHz band, primarily allocated to the BSS system.

100
Numerical Results

CDF plots of SINR distribution with and without beamforming  Main Observations
 SINR distribution degrades in
the presence of the BSS
interference.

 In the presence of BSS

interference, almost 10 % users
have SINR less than 6 dB and
about 5 % users have SINR less
than 0 dB.

 Beam availability significantly

improves while employing the
BF.

101
 Numerical Results
CDF plots of per user rate for different cases  Main Observations
 By employing CA, beam
availability w/ BSS interference
approaches the availability that
would be obtained w/o BSS
interference.

 The minimum rate increases from

0.567 to 2.37 bps/Hz while
employing CA scheme.

 BF approach provides more than

3.5 bps/Hz to almost 8 % users
i.e., it allows these users to use
higher modcod than in the other
cases.

102
 Resource Allocation for Cognitive Satellite
Communications in Ka-band: Scenario B

References: ICC 2015, TCCN 2015.

103
Scenario and Problem Description (Recap)

 Spectral coexistence of FSS downlink

with FS microwave links in 17.7−19.7
GHz
 FS microwave link (incumbent)
 GEO FSS downlink (cognitive)
Cognitive FSS
downlink

 Interference from cognitive satellite to

Interference link
FS receivers is negligible due to the
limitation in the maximum EIRP density
of current Ka band satellite systems

Incumbent  Main interfering link: from FS Tx to the

FS link
cognitive FSS terminal

 K. Liolis, et al., “Cognitive radio scenarios for satellite communications: The CoRaSat approach,” in Proc. FUNMS, July 2013, pp.1-10.
 ITU, “Radio Regulations”, ITU-R, Article 21, 2004.
104
Cognitive Exploitation Framework

FSS System
Analysis

No
FS/FSS Interference SINR Metric SINR < SINR Carrier Throughput
Database Analysis Computation Threshold Assignment Calculation

Improved
Yes SINR

SINR Metric
Beamforming
Recomputation

 Underlay CR approach
 Carrier Assignment (CA) and Beamforming (BF)

105
Interference Analysis
 L FSS terminals and N FS stations

 Aggregate interference from N FS microwave stations received at the lth FSS

terminal at the frequency of fm

 Free space propagation model: worst case scenario

 Received signal level at the lth FSS terminal from link analysis of the FSS system

 SINR at the FSS terminal

 In case of asymmetry of carrier bandwidths of FS and FSS systems, compensation

factor
106
Applied Techniques: Beamforming
 A receive beamformer at the FSS terminal in order to mitigate interference
coming from FS links
 DoA information calculated from available database
 Important aspects of beamforming design
 Array geometry or antenna structure
 Weight design
 Antenna Structure
 A terminal reflector based feed array (Multiple Input LNB (MLNB) set up) system
with 75 cm reflector diameter (f/D=0.6)
 3 feeds that are aligned along the feed array horizontal line
 Out of these 3 LNBs, two side feeds are offset at 2 degrees (1.91 cm) from the centered beam and are
symmetrical.

 Array response vector calculated using GRASP software

 BF Weight Design
 LCMV beamformer
 BF applied only in the FSS terminals which receive receive harmful interference (below a certain
threshold defined based on modcod adaptation of the terminal)
107
Applied Techniques: Carrier Allocation
 Carrier assignment matrix

 SINR matrix

 CA problem to maximize the overall throughput of the system

 Hungarian Method

 H. W. Kuhn, “The Hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 83–97, 1955.
108
 Numerical Results
 Simulation parameters

109
Numerical Results
 Parameters about FS links are obtained via ITU-R BR IFIC database.
 Population density database from NASA SEDAC.
 FS distribution over France

110
Numerical Results
Beam pattern of FSS satellite over CDF of SINR distribution
Marseille

 SINR distribution degrades in the presence of FS interference

 Only 1.2% of FSS terminals experience SINR below 10dB in an interference-
free scenario, which increases up to 60% in the FSS-FS coexistence case.
111
Numerical Results
Per beam throughput comparison of various cases

 Case 1: exclusive only

 Case 2: shared plus exclusive without FS interference
 Case 3: shared plus exclusive with FS interference

 445.45 % throughput improvement with shared+exclusive (CA) w.r.t. the exclusive only case
 580.5% throughput improvement with shared+exclusive (CA+BF) w.r.t. the exclusive only
case 112
Numerical Results
CDF plots of per user rate for different cases

 Main Observations
 Beam availability in the presence of the FS interference improves while employing the
proposed schemes
 Minimum user rate in the cognitive scenario (Case 3) increases from 0 to 2.75 bps/Hz while
employing the CA

113
 Resource Allocation for Cognitive Satellite
Uplink Communications in Ka-band: Scenario C

Reference: CROWNCOM 2015, TCCN 2015.

114
Considered Scenario:

Band: 27.5 – 29.5 GHz

Incumbent User: FS links

115
 Related works and contribution
• Cognitive Satellite Uplink is one of the three promising scenarios
• This scenario falls within the underlay CR paradigm
• Many works on general interference channels
• Satellite-terrestrial co-existence, in contrast, have not received much
attention in the literature.

• No interference at the Satellite!

• The applicability of CR in the aforementioned scenario was discussed in [2-3]

• Here, we go a step further, and consider designing efficient resource
allocation algorithms for this scenario.
[1] COgnitive Radio for SATellite Communications http://www.ict-corasat.eu/
[2] A. Mohamed, M. Lopez-Benitez, and B. Evans, \Ka Band Satellite Terrestrial Co-Existence: A Statistical Modelling
Approach," Ka and Broadband Communications, Navigation and Earth Observation Conf., Salerno, Italy, Oct, 2014.
[3] S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, B. Evans, K. Liolis, J. Grotz, A. Vanelli-Coralli, and N. Chuberre, Cognitive Spectrum
Utilization in Ka Band Multibeam Satellite Communications," to appear in IEEE Communication 116 Magazine.
Joint Power and Carrier Allocation (JPCA)

117
Joint Power and Carrier Allocation (JPCA)

The cross-channel gain matrix is obtained from the DATABASE

118
 Joint Power and Carrier Allocation (JPCA)

Identication of the worst FS station in terms of interference consists in determining

the one with maximum cross-channel gain

119
 Joint Power and Carrier Allocation (JPCA)

The interference limit of the worst FS receiver, namely , is

divided into different portions according to the maximum number of FSS users
that can potentially interfere with it:

FSS
FS

BFSS frequency

BFS 120
 Joint Power and Carrier Allocation (JPCA)

Therefore, the transmit power limit is established to ensure that the following
individual interference constraint is satisfied,

121
 Joint Power and Carrier Allocation (JPCA)

At the end we have,

Frequency

FSS terminal

Any combination of the powers contained in P never results in an aggregate interference above the
acceptable threshold

122
 Joint Power and Carrier Allocation (JPCA)

Find the optimal power allocation by maximizing the sumrate of the FSS system,
which gives you the carrier allocation,

where and is the carrier assignment of l-th FSS user.

123
Numerical Evaluation
Simulation Setup

124
Numerical Evaluation
Simulation Results

• If they use Pmax  interference

exceeds the acceptable threshold
• With JPCA  the interference is
kept always below the threshold

SINR < 9.8 dB

•Sub opt JPCA  35% of FSS
•Optimal JPCA  22.5% of FSS
•w/o FS  9.3%

125
Numerical Evaluation
Simulation Results

Total throughput per beam:

405.8 %

378.6 %

126
 Power and Rate Allocation in Cognitive Satellite
Uplink Networks: Scenario C

Reference: VTC 2015, ICC 2016.

127
Some notes
 Question: What is the optimal power allocation strategy for overlapping
carriers in satellite uplink?

 Note that the satellite uplink works in an MF-TDMA mode.

 A good future direction: inclusion of bandwidth optimization.

128
System Model
- satellite terminals
- FS microwave stations
- transmit power of the k-th satellite terminal
- Maximum transmit power of a satellite terminal
- Channel power gain of the interference link between the k-th satellite terminal and the l-th
FS station.

The achievable rate by the k-th RCST is:

where
denotes the channel power gain of the
link from the k-th RCST to the satellite
denotes the noise power level of the k-
th satellite link.

129
Optimization problem
 Maximizing the user transmit rate and keeping the imposed interference to the
FS system below a given limit.

where

- Is a multi-objective optimization problem, since

- includes the L interference constraints required to guarantee
the protection of the incumbent FS system.
• Such limitations are defined by the regulatory authorities.
• Typical reference limitations are given by ITU such as ITU-R F.758, where the
interference level is recommended to be -10 dB below the receiver noise.

130
Optimization problem (cont’d)
 From the previous Multi-objective Optimization Problems it is clear that…

Each FSS terminal user aims at selfishly

maximizing its own rate and …
altruistically consume the interference limit
of the FS receivers.

 The are monotonically increasing functions of the corresponding then

the multi-objective problem is equivalent to

where denotes the set of feasible vectors satisfying

the two previous constraints and is convex.

Pareto feasible , i.e., the set that contains all the combinations of possible values
that are simultaneously attainable with the available resources.
131
Example
 Problem:

Any point in the

Pareto boundary is
an optimal point
 Example: K=2, L=3

132
General Iterative Framework for Pareto-
Optimization
 Considering:

 A Pareto-Optimal solution is given by the following iterative approach*:

Given , obtain as the solution to: (*) Proof given in the manuscript.

This always provide a solution in the Pareto boundary. The only constraint is that the initial
point should be within the Pareto region.

 Application to cognitive satellite uplink:

133
Multi-Objective to Single-Objective
transformation
 The solution of a multi-objective optimization problem consists of a set (the Pareto
boundary).
 However, we need a single solution for operation.
 Picking a desirable point out of the set of the Pareto boundary requires the incorporation of
preferences or priorities into the problem.

Multi-Objective to Single-Objective transformations considered here:

 Weighted sum
o It is the simplest multi-criteria decision making method.
o It is a compensatory method (“poor” user rates can be compensated by “good”
ones.
o The relation between weights and user rate requirements remains unsolved
 Fairness
o The rate of all users will be degraded to match the rate of the user with the
lowest quality channel
o We study: Max-Min Fairness and Proportional Fairness.

134
Maximization of weighted sum-rate

 Maximization of a weighted sum of user rates is one of the most popular figures of merit
for measuring the performance of a communication system

Where are non-negative weights assigned to the RCSTs, with

 Note that the objective function is concave with respect to the power values, so it can be
solved numerically using convex solvers, e.g. CVX.

135
 Max-Min Fairness
 Max-Min fairness is a type of resource allocation problem to make sure weakest users are not
penalized.

 In other words, it maximizes the user with the minimum rate:

 The most widely used algorithm for obtaining max-min fairness is the water-filling algorithm
(WF) [6]
 Intuitively, WF satisfies users with a poor conditions first, and distributes evenly the remaining
resource to the remaining users enjoying a good condition.

In our case, we focus first on assigning the power of the RCST transmitters (the bottleneck RCSTs)
affecting the worst FS station, i.e., the FS station which receives
the highest level of aggregate interference.

[6] T. Lan, D. Kao, M. Chiang, and A. Sabharwal, “An Axiomatic Theory of Fairness in Network Resource Allocation,” IEEE
Conf. on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), San Diego, CA, USA, Mar. 2010 136
 Proportional Fairness
 Max-Min fairness does not perform well in the presence of bottleneck users: if one user
imposes strong interference constraints it may prevent the others from improving.
 Proportional fairness (PF): a transfer of resources between two users is accepted if the
percentage increase in rate of one user is larger than the percentage decrease in rate of the
other user.

In [7], it is proved that a proportionally fair allocation of rates is given by

maximizing the sum of logarithmic utility functions.

 This is a concave problem, and thus can be solved by convex solvers, e.g. CVX.

137
[7] F. Kelly, “Charging and Rate Control for Elastic Traffic,” European Transactions on Telecommunications, vol. 8, pp. 33–37, 1997.
Numerical Evaluation
 K=2, L=3

For the proposed Pareto-Optimal algorithm, the

initial point is chosen at random
(*) For sum-rate and sum-power, we take weights equal to 1.

[10] E. Lagunas, S.K. Sharma, S. Maleki, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Power Control for Satellite Uplink and Terrestrial
Fixed-Service Coexistence in Ka-band,” IEEE VTC-Fall, Boston, USA, Sep. 2015. 138
Numerical Evaluation
 Summary of results

 The technique presented in [10] perfectly matches with the solution of the maximization of the
sum-powers.
 The Max-Min fairness gives the same rate to both users.
 The PF allows a small difference between individual rates to achieve higher sum-rate compared
to the max-min.
 The Pareto optimal solution lies in the Pareto boundary, but its value strongly depends on the
initial power assignment.

According to the achieved results, PF seems to be the best solution since it provides a good trade-
off between fairness and overall satellite throughput. Even so, the choice of appropriate
algorithm depends on the design criteria we want to follow.
139
Some current and future directions:
 Integrated satellite-terrestrial backhauling inspired by scenarios B and C, European project
SANSA: http://sansa-h2020.eu/

 Carrier, bandwidth and power allocation for multiple cognitive satellite systems.

 Coexistence of multiple antenna satellite systems with terrestrial and satellite networks

 Spectrum cartography of Ka band incumbent systems, National Project SATSENT:

http://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/research/research_projects2/satsent_satellite_sensor_networks_for_
spectrum_monitoring

 Other related projects:

 National project SeMIGod:
http://wwwen.uni.lu/snt/research/research_projects2/semigod_spectrum_management_and_interference_mitigation_i
n_cognitive_radio_satellite_networks
 ESA Project ASPIM:

140
Future Topics : On-Board Signal
Processing
On-Ground Techniques
• Work horse for enhancing performance
• Allows use of well established bent-pipe
design
– Saves on-board power, mass
– Payload design can be agnostic to
• Service and traffic
• Waveform
• Techniques used
• Incorporates Flexibility
– Use of new techniques
– Upgrade algorithm/ parameters
– Implementation platform
• Imposes Academic Challenges
– Differentiates with terrestrial communication
design Courtesy: DLR
On-Ground Processing Limitations
• High throughput  New techniques
• New techniques bring new challenges
– Can overload the workhorse
• Complex on-ground processing cannot
be implemented at UT
• Stronger impairments and poorer
efficiency
– Propagation effects
• Inefficient Feeder Link Utilization
– E.g., on-ground beamforming
• Higher Latency
– Large round trip delays affect MSS
applications (typically 250 ms)
On-Ground Processing Limitations
• Inadequacy of information
– Loss of useful information after multiplexing (e.g., angles of arrivals)

• Inadequacy of support
– Full-duplex relaying
– Network coding
– Anti-jamming
– Multiple interference tracking over one carrier
– Inter-satellite communications

Courtesy: DLR Institute for

Communication and Navigation
Benefits of OBP

• Increasesd flexibility creating more

networking capability in the sky
– Routing, mesh connectivity
– Lower latency
– Resource management

• Relieving the burden of on-ground

processing

• Less complex ground equipment

– Spectrum monitoring units
– Uplink gateways Courtesy: Thales Alenia Space
– User equipment
– Uplink Energy-efficiency

• Feeder link BW reduction, fewer GWs

Benefits of OBP
• Higher user and system throughput, link
spectral efficiency
– Predistortion and interference mitigation improve SINR
– Newer Waveforms
– Full Duplexing

• System Robustness
– Anti-jamming
– Higher resilience to the interference

TAS designed Digital Transparent Processor

On-board processing is an important
component in the next generation of satellites
to keep SatCom competitive in the market.
 Evolution of On-Board Processing

Wideband On-board
On-board Digital Digital Processing
Traditional Bent-pipe
Processing (DTP)
(Regenerative)

Analog processing, Digitize to IF for Demod/remod,

frequency shift, switching, beamforming, decode/uncode
amplification, bandwidth allocation, ultimately a fully activie
multiplexing, switching, frequency shifting, etc. network element
digital control
Current On-Board Processing
Technology
SATELLITE, BAND PROCESSOR FUNCTIONALITIES APPLICATIONS & BENEFITS

Multiplexing streams with audio, video and data content,

Hotbird6 Regenerative Turbo decoding. Internet and TV
(Ka, K-band) Skyplex Flexibility in (i) channel gains, (ii) uplink-downlink channel  Reduced latency
mapping, (iii) BW allocation on uplink.

Switching, Routing, user-user connectivity, Dynamic

SPACEWAY 3 Beamforming. Flexibility in (i) channel to beam assignment, (ii) Broadband IP services
Regenerative
(Ka band) Bandwidth and power allocation, (iii) uplink-downlink channel  Reduced latency
mapping.

Amazonas 1, 2
Regenerative Routing (DVB-S/S2/RCS support), Multiplexing, Mesh
(Ku-band) Multibeam broadband
AmerHis networking, Digital filtering, turbo decoding. user-user
multimedia services
connectivity, Flexibility in (i) channel to beam assignment, (ii)
HISPASAT-AG1 (Ku-  Reduced latency
REDSAT Bandwidth allocation, (iii) uplink-downlink channel mapping.
band)

Digital Beam forming;

Thuraya DTP Interactive services, GSM
Flexibility in (i) channel to beam assignment, (ii) Bandwidth
(L band) (Processing in IF) Real-time adaptation
allocation, (iii) channel gains, (iv) uplink-downlink mapping.

Global 3G Mobile
Digital Beam forming; Flexibility in (i) channel to beam
Inmarsat-4 DTP Communications
assignment, (ii) Bandwidth allocation, (iii) channel gains, (iv)
(L band) (Processing in IF)  Enhanced rate,
uplink-downlink mapping.
flexibility, capacity
Challenges with OBP
• Additional payload/hardware is required
– Higher mass and power consumption

– Manage processor heating

• Reliability
– Backup DSP chains is required in case of component failure

• Adaptivity
– Reconfiguring HW chains

• Limited sampling capability (ADC dynamics and power requirements)

• A key question to be answered: How much OBP?

Low cost but reliable processing techniques are required

Conclusions
• Driving applications for SatCom are changing:
• Absolute need to take advantage of new & advanced DSP solutions
overcoming conservative approach of the satellite industry
• New paradigms are emerging, large-LEO networks, small/cheap/redundant
satellites
• From link to communication network design
• Applicability of different DSP solutions
• Important differences between Sat/Terr: Not straightforward extension of
terrestrial solutions
• Long channel coherence time favors many advance DSP solutions
• High Throughput Satellites
• Interference mitigation required – MUD, pre-coding, interference
cancellation, resource management, etc.
• Cognitive radio techniques have great potential to exploit spectrum more
efficiently
• On-board Processing
• Networking functionality on-board
• Increased flexibility adapting to traffic demand
• Numerous challenges remain
Contact Info

Interdisciplinary Centre for Security,Reliability and Trust –

SnT
University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg
http://www.securityandtrust.lu