3464 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO.

7, JULY 2009

Transactions Papers

Adaptive Generalized Rake Reception in

DS-CDMA Systems
Tracy L. Fulghum, Senior Member, IEEE, Douglas A. Cairns, Senior Member, IEEE,
Carmela Cozzo, Senior Member, IEEE, Y.-P. Eric Wang, Member, IEEE,
and Gregory E. Bottomley, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Direct-sequence code-division multiple-access (DS-
CDMA) cellular systems, such as Wideband CDMA (WCDMA),
are limited in performance by interference. Linear equalization,
such as generalized Rake (G-Rake) receivers and transversal
chip equalizers, can theoretically provide significant gains in
performance by suppressing interference. In this paper, an
adaptive G-Rake receiver is developed, employing practical
algorithms for finger placement and weight computation. Finger
placement is determined by selecting delays from a candidate
set using a “maximal-weight” criterion. Weight computation
includes estimation of an impairment covariance matrix using
a parametric approach. While described in the context of the
downlink, these algorithms can be used in the uplink as well.
Both single-antenna and dual-antenna receivers are considered.
Link and system performance are evaluated for the downlink,
showing significant gains in high-rate coverage.
Index Terms—Coherent demodulation, channel estimation,
rake receivers.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HIRD generation cellular systems using direct-sequence
code-division multiple-access (DS-CDMA), such as
Wideband CDMA (WCDMA) and CDMA2000, are currently
being deployed worldwide. On the downlink, performance of
these systems is limited by various forms of interference.
Within a cell, symbols are transmitted orthogonally, but the
dispersive radio channel destroys this orthogonality. Between
cells, transmissions are not orthogonal. Performance can be
improved by employing advanced receiver structures that
suppress interference, such as linear equalization. The focus
of this paper is on developing practical, adaptive algorithms
for advanced receivers and on evaluating link and system
performance of such receivers.
Manuscript received June 5, 2006; revised December 13, 2007; accepted
February 7, 2009. The associate editor coordinating the review of this paper
and approving it for publication was M. Sawahashi.
T. L. Fulghum, D. A. Cairns, Y.-P. E. Wang, and G. E. Bottom-
ley are with Ericsson, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA (e-mail:
tracy.fulghum@ericsson.com).
C. Cozzo is with Enerdyne Technologies - Viasat, Inc., El Cajon, CA, USA.
This work was presented in part at the IEEE Digital Signal Processing
Workshop, Taos Ski Valley, NM, Aug. 2004, and at the IEEE Vehicular
Technology Conference, Melbourne, Australia, May 2006.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TWC.2009.060330
There are many advanced downlink receiver approaches,
providing different combinations of performance and com-
plexity. Here we consider a relatively simple class of single-
user linear equalizers that employ coherent reception1. A
representative receiver in this class is the generalized Rake
(G-Rake) receiver [3], a type of symbol-level equalizer. It is
based on a maximum-likelihood (ML) formulation, though a
minimum mean-square error (MMSE) formulation can also
be used [4]-[6]. Another member of this class is the MMSE
transversal chip equalizer [4], [5], [7]-[9], which has been
shown to be equivalent to the G-Rake receiver (for the same
tap and finger placements) [10]. Such receivers were originally
developed for the uplink [11], [12] and have a similar structure
to noncoherent phased-array processing [13].
The G-Rake receiver has the same structure as a Rake re-
ceiver [14], in that “fingers” (correlators) are used to despread
the received signal at different delays and the despread values
are combined to form symbol estimates. With a coherent Rake
receiver, the goal is to collect signal energy by placing fingers
on the path delays of the dispersive channel and combining the
despread values coherently using weights that correspond to
channel coefficient estimates. With a G-Rake receiver, finger
placement and weight computation are used to both collect
signal energy and suppress interference.
One contribution of this paper is the synthesis of practical
algorithms for finger placement and weight computation,
building on approaches taken from work on G-Rake receivers,
chip equalizers, and linear equalizers. The goal is to achieve
most of the potential performance gains with reasonable com-
plexity2 . Finger placement is based on selecting delays from
a candidate set using a “maximal-weight” criterion. Weights
are computed from estimates of the channel response and an
impairment covariance matrix. A key aspect of these algo-
rithms is that the weights are computed in a way that simplifies
finger placement. While the focus is on the downlink, these
1 The receivers are single-user in the sense that only spreading codes
of desired and pilot symbols are needed, and only for the purpose of
despreading. Other, more advanced linear receivers, require knowledge of
the spreading codes of other symbols to determine combining weights [1] or
chip equalization filter coefficients [2].
2 A detailed comparison of approaches is beyond the scope of this paper.

1536-1276/09$25.00 
c 2009 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 FULGHUM et al.: ADAPTIVE GENERALIZED RAKE RECEPTION IN DS-CDMA SYSTEMS
algorithms can be used in the uplink as well.
A second contribution of this paper is the evaluation of link
and system performance for the practical G-Rake receiver.
These results complement existing link results for ideal G-
Rake receivers and MMSE chip equalizers (e.g., [3], [5],
[9]) and system results for ideal G-Rake receivers [15]–[17].
The existing results show that linear equalization can provide
significant gains. For example, with an ideal single-antenna
receiver, link gains of 1 - 3.5 dB [3] and system capacity
gains of 30% [15], [16] have been shown.
We examine link and system performance of an adaptive
G-Rake receiver in the High-Speed Downlink Packet Access
(HSDPA) system. HSDPA is an evolution of WCDMA to
support high-speed packet data. Both single-antenna and dual-
antenna reception are considered. Significant gains in system
performance are shown.
The paper is organized as follows. A system model is
given in Section II. In Section III, the adaptive receiver
is described, including algorithms for finger placement and
weight computation. Performance is evaluated in Section IV,
and Section V concludes the paper.
II. S YSTEM MODEL
Our complex baseband system model extends the model in
[15] to multiple receive antennas and is general to both uplink
and downlink. Some of the model development is repeated
here for convenience. Only a single transmitter is considered,
though extension to multiple transmitters is straightforward.
The radio channel is characterized by discrete, Rayleigh fading
signal paths. We assume a common path profile (average
strength and path delays) to all antennas, but assume the
realization of the fading coefficients is independent across
antennas and paths. The impulse response between the trans-
mitter and Na receive antennas can be written as a vector
function
L−1

g(τ ) = g()δ(τ − τ ()), (1)
=0
where g() is an Na -length medium coefficient vector at the
th of L resolvable paths for the transmitter, and τ () is the
corresponding path delay.
Combining (1) and (2) of [15], the signal from the trans-
mitter can be written as a sum of K individually spread signal
components,
 K−1 ∞
  N
 −1
x(t) = Ec sk (j) ck,j (m)p(t − mTc ), (2)
k=0 j=−∞ m=0
where index j represents the symbol period, index k represents
the spreading code of K possible codes in a multicode system,
index m represents the chip period, Ec is the total energy per
chip, sk (j) is the modulated symbol, ck,j (m) is the spreading
sequence, and p(t) is the chip pulse shape.
The vector of baseband signals received across the receiver
antennas is
L−1

r(t) = g()x(t − τ ()) + n(t),
=0
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3465
where n(t) represents thermal noise across the receiver anten-
nas and is assumed to be a white, Gaussian, and independent
across receive antennas.
The receiver is a standard Rake receiver in structure. Com-
bining fingers are used to despread the ath receive antenna
signal to produce a despread value according to
 ∞ N −1 ∗
1 
ya (d) = √ ra (t + d) ck,j (m)p(t − mTc ) dt,
N −∞ m=0
(4)
where d is a delay specific to the finger.
We will assume, without loss of generality, that the desired
symbol is s0 (0). The despread value can be written as ya (d) =
ha (d)s0 (0) + ua (d), which describes the despread value as a
net response times the desired symbol, lumping all undesired
components (interference and noise) into ua (d). From (6) of
[15], the net response of the transmitter is defined as
 L−1

ha (d) = Es ga ()Rp (d − τ ()), (5)
=0
where Rp (·) is the autocorrelation of the chip pulse shape
and Es is the transmit symbol energy of the spreading code
of interest. The output despread values from the combining
fingers from all antennas can be collected into a J-length
vector, y, where J is the total number of combining fingers.
This gives us a convenient vector notation, y = hs0 (0) + u,
where h and u contain the corresponding values of ha (d) and
ua (d).
The despread values are combined with weight vector w
to form the decision statistic for the desired symbol, z =
wH y. For the Rake receiver, the combining weight vector w
is simply the vector of medium coefficients (w = g, where
g is a stacked vector of all L vectors g()). For the G-Rake
receiver, w is given by
w = R−1
u h, (6)
where Ru = E{uuH }, with expectation being conditioned
on the fading channel coefficients.
From (3) and typical independence assumptions, Ru is
theoretically given by
Ru = Ec Ri (g) + N0 Rn , (7)
where these terms represent own-cell interference (or self-
interference in the uplink) and noise, which models thermal
noise and other-cell interference. (see (12) in [15]). Matrix
Ri (g) is the normalized interference covariance, and Ec is
the total received energy per chip of the transmitted signal.
The normalized noise covariance is represented as Rn , and
N0 is the one-sided noise power spectral density. An element
in Rn corresponding to fingers f1 and f2 is given by

Rp (d1 − d2 ) a1 = a2
rn (f1 , f2 ) = (8)
0 a1 = a2 ,
where the delay and antenna settings for finger f1 are given
by d1 and a1 , respectively (similarly for finger f2 ).
Similar to (13) in [15], elements in Ri (g) are given by [Eq.
(3) 9] where Tc is the chip duration. The term 1 − δ(m) indicates
that for the desired transmission at chip lag m = 0, there is
 3466
ri (f1 , f2 ) = ga1 (1 )ga∗2 (2 )
antenna
signal(s) combining
combiner
fingers
combining delays
path
delays
path finger
placement
weight
searcher computation
weights
measurement
delays
candidate delays
measurement
fingers
Fig. 1. Adaptive receiver block diagram.
no interference due to spreading code orthogonality. Note that
the infinite summation in m can also be expressed in closed
form [18].
The SINR of symbol estimate z, important for transmission
rate adaptation, is given by
({wH h})2
SINR = , (10)
w H Ru w + 
where {·} denotes the real part of a complex number. The
interfering effect of the quadrature part of the symbol, denoted
by , can be neglected.
III. A DAPTIVE R ECEIVER S TRUCTURE
The main components of the receiver are finger placement
and weight computation as shown in Figure 1. The purpose
of finger placement is to generate a set of delays for fingers
that will be combined (combining delays) to produce soft
symbol values. To determine the combining delay set, the
finger placement algorithm generates a superset of delays
called candidate delays. This set includes the set of mea-
surement delays (used to estimate receiver parameters), which
incorporates the set of path delays (i.e. L resolvable paths of
(1)). Weight computation provides set(s) of coefficients used
by the combiner to generate soft symbol values for forward
error correction decoding. An overview of finger placement
and weight computation is given below, along with detailed
design equations.
A. Finger Placement Overview
For finger placement, a “channel probing” approach is used,
in which the combining delay set is chosen from a set of
candidate delays. The candidate delay set is determined from
path delays of the channel response, which change slowly
over time and can be determined using a form of “channel
sounding” [19]. The candidate delay set is determined using
an ad hoc “mirroring” approach that considers pairs of paths
and determines a number of candidate delays corresponding
to an inverse channel response. The selection process is
performed at a relatively high rate (the fading rate), using
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 7, JULY 2009
 L−1
L−1  ∞

(1 − δ(m))
1 =0 2 =0 m=−∞
× Rp (d1 − mTc − τ (1 )) Rp (d2 − mTc − τ (2 )), (9)
a maximal-weight criterion. Specifically, combining weights
corresponding to the candidate delay set are computed3, and
the delays with the largest weight magnitudes are selected.
weights
Then, “combining fingers” despread traffic symbols that are
coherently combined to form soft symbol estimates.
The channel probing approach is motivated by the fact that
it is difficult to determine instantaneously where to place a
measurements
limited number of fingers. However, it is easier to determine
potentially good finger locations on average (the candidate
set). The mirroring approach is based on identifying delays
corresponding to the inverse channel response, as suggested
in [3], [20]. The approach is somewhat ad hoc, as it considers
pairs of paths and their associated inverse response. Inverting
the channel results in own-cell interference suppression, due
to the orthogonality property of the spreading codes. The
maximal-weight criterion is used due to its simplicity.
The notion of selecting delays from a candidate set can
be found in traditional equalization [21]-[23]. In a deci-
sion feedback equalizer (DFE), feedforward tap locations
are selected from an evenly-spaced grid using the maximal-
weight criterion [21], [22], thresholding the weight magnitudes
[23], or evaluating an approximate expression for the signal-
to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) [22]. For DS-CDMA
equalization, both SINR [24] and mean-square error (MSE)
[25] have been used as criteria for combining finger delay
selection in a recursive sequential search approach. In [26], an
incremental SINR criterion is used in an iterative procedure.
The procedure terminates when either the incremental SINR
falls below a threshold or the number of available fingers is
reached.
The mirroring approach for determining the candidate set
is related to existing approaches for finger placement in G-
Rake receivers and chip equalizers. It can be viewed as an
extension of the approach in [27], [28], which places only two
extra fingers or taps for each pair of path delays. The approach
in [29], motivated by locating interfering symbol images, only
places one extra finger per pair. In [26], the approach in [27] is
used to obtain an initial candidate set, and additional candidate
delays are added as finger delays are selected.
An analytical approach to finger placement is given in
[25]. It is based on approximating the convolutional inte-
gral for continuous-time linear equalization. Sampling times
are determined from a density function that is optimized.
Interestingly, the optimized density function depends on the
magnitude-square of the continuous-time equalizer weighting
function, indicating that more samples should be taken where
the weighting function is large. The maximal-weight approach
can be interpreted as a coarse approximation, as selecting
maximal-weight fingers from the candidate set provides a
simple way of sampling more where the weighting function
3 Note that it is possible to compute weights for arbitrary delays due to the
parametric approach to covariance estimation.
 FULGHUM et al.: ADAPTIVE GENERALIZED RAKE RECEPTION IN DS-CDMA SYSTEMS
is larger.
Other approaches for finger/tap placement have been sug-
gested. In [30], approaches for tap placement for DFE feed-
forward filters and linear transversal equalizers are given, with
the intent of identifying tap locations with the largest corre-
sponding filter coefficients. Another approach is to adaptively
position a grid of contiguous finger/tap delays [9], [20].
B. Finger Placement Details
Finger placement involves assigning delays to both mea-
surement and combining finger delay sets. Since the measure-
ment delay set (total of B delays) is a subset of the candidate
delay set from channel probing, we focus on describing chan-
nel probing and comment on the measurement finger delay
set as appropriate. Channel probing consists of constructing
a candidate delay set and selecting a subset. We consider the
construction of the candidate delay set first and then describe
the subset selection procedure. We conclude with an example
of channel probing.
1) Candidate Delay Set Generation: We begin by consider-
ing a single-antenna receiver. Our approach to constructing the
candidate delay set is motivated by considering two extreme
impairment scenarios. In the first scenario, the impairment
consists solely of white noise. In this case, the receiver should
put fingers on the channel delays. In the second scenario, the
impairment consists solely of own-cell interference. In this
case, the receiver should put fingers at delays corresponding
to the channel inverse filter to restore orthogonality. We con-
jecture that the union of the delays from these two scenarios
will provide a good candidate delay set.
To control complexity, computation of the full channel
inverse is not performed. Instead, an approximate channel
inverse is considered based on decomposing the actual channel
into multiple two-tap channels. The effect of this decomposi-
tion is to simplify the calculation of the channel inverse delays.
For a two-tap channel with the stronger tap at τ and the weaker
tap at τ + Δ, the stable channel inverse delays are at τ , τ − Δ,
τ − 2Δ, etc. Similarly, for a two-tap channel with the stronger
tap at τ and the weaker tap at τ − Δ, the stable channel
inverse delays are at τ , τ + Δ, τ + 2Δ, etc. As either case
just described could be valid depending on the instantaneous
fading values, the finger placement algorithm takes the union
of these two cases for different pairwise combinations of path
delays.
A key question is how many candidate delays must be
considered to approximate the inverse of each two-tap chan-
nel. Our approach is based on assigning more fingers to
“dominant” pairs, which correspond to larger average path
strengths. If we number the paths in order of decreasing
strength, then more fingers are assigned to the pair (1,2) than
to the pairs (1,3) and (2,3). We have empirically determined
the number of fingers to be allocated per pair based on
wireless channels given in [31, §25.101]. The method should
be generally applicable, since the channels in [31, §25.101]
are representative of wireless channels.
The procedure for candidate delay set construction assumes
that path delays are ordered in decreasing strength (P (τ (1)) >
P (τ (2)) > · · · > P (τ (L))). The full procedure is shown
below in terms of Δmn , where Δmn = τ (n) − τ (m):
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3467
1) Assign L path delays to candidate delay set.
2) Add candidate delays at τ (m) − Δmn for n =
2, . . . , min(L, 5)4 and m = 1, . . . , n − 1.
3) Add candidate delays at τ (n) + Δmn for n =
2, . . . , min(L, 4) and m = 1, . . . , n − 1.
4) Add candidate delays at τ (m) − 2Δmn for n =
2, . . . , min(L, 4) and m = 1, . . . , n − 1.
5) Add candidate delays at τ (n) + 2Δmn for n =
2, . . . , min(L, 3) and m = 1, . . . , n − 1.
6) Add candidate delays at τ (m) − 3Δmn for n =
2, . . . , min(L, 3) and m = 1, . . . , n − 1.
7) If L > 1, add candidate delay at τ (2) + 3Δ12 .
8) If L > 1, add candidate delay at τ (1) − 4Δ12 .
Candidate delays must be at least 0.5Tc away from existing
delays or no new finger is generated. The procedure above
generates Nc candidate delays, where Nc depends on L
and the path delays5 . To illustrate the procedure, consider a
channel with path delays of [0, Tc , 2Tc , 3Tc]. The candidate
delays for such a channel according to steps 1-8 are [0, Tc ,
2Tc , 3Tc , −Tc , −2Tc , −3Tc, 4Tc , 6Tc , 5Tc , −4Tc, −6Tc].
With multiple receive antennas, we found that fewer can-
didate delays are needed. Therefore, we omit steps 7 and 8
and modify the upper limit on the min operation to one less
than that given in steps 2 through 6 (e.g. min(L, 4) instead
of min(L, 5) in step 2). The procedure is repeated on each
antenna for a total of P = Nc Na candidate delays.
2) Subset Selection: We then choose J of P candidate de-
lays for combining finger placement. Usually J is a hardware
limitation of the receiver. Here we have used values for J that
were found empirically to provide most of the performance
gains of G-Rake. For a single-antenna receiver, there are two
cases. For L <= 4, J = 2L as suggested in [3]. Otherwise,
J = 3L. For a dual-antenna receiver, J is 1.5 times the value
for a single-antenna receiver.
A maximal-weight selection approach is employed. First,
weights corresponding to using all P candidate delays are
computed. The J largest magnitude weights then determine
the selected delays. Finally, weights for just the J selected
delays are re-computed. A similar solution has been suggested
for linear equalization [21], [22].
3) Example: Consider a channel with two chip-spaced
paths (delays 0 and Tc ) of equal average strength, used to
produce the results of Figures 2 and 3. The receiver has a
single antenna. Let us contrast the channel probing approach
with the finger placement approach described in [27]. For
this channel, the approach in [27] employs four fingers at
[−Tc , 0, Tc , 2Tc]. The channel probing approach considers
candidate delays of 0, Tc (the path delays) and −Tc , 2Tc ,
−2Tc , 3Tc , . . . , −4Tc, stopping early when the number of
candidate delays is limited.
In Figure 2, the CDF of symbol SINR is plotted for several
receivers. The legend indicates the number of candidate delays
and combining fingers (e.g. 8/4 indicates 8 candidate delays
and 4 combining fingers). The curve labeled 4/4 shows the
performance of [27]. One can see that a receiver employing
channel probing gains approximately 0.5 dB in median SIR
4 min(x, y) gives the minimum value of the integers x and y.
5 the first B/Na delays generated for each antenna are measurement delays.
 3468 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 7, JULY 2009

1 C. Weight computation overview

For weight computation, weights are determined from esti-
mates of the channel response and an impairment covariance
matrix. This “indirect” approach6 was used because with
DFEs, it was found that direct computation of the weights
using an adaptive filtering approach did not perform as well
cdf

0.5
[32], [33]. The channel response is estimated from a common
4/4 pilot channel using the subset of measurement fingers placed
8/4 on the path delays. The impairment covariance matrix is es-
8/6 timated using a parametric approach, in which the covariance
12/12 matrix is estimated based on a model of the impairment. With
Rake the parametric approach, there are fewer quantities to estimate,
0
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 improving estimation accuracy. Also, combining weights can
SINR (dB) be computed at arbitrary delays, allowing the maximal-weight
finger selection approach to be performed without the need of
Fig. 2. CDF of G-Rake SINR, two equal strength tap channel, various
combinations of candidate delays/combining fingers.
placing measurement fingers on all candidate delays.
The impairment covariance is estimated using the channel
response estimate and estimates of total base station signal
1 power and noise power. These powers, generally unknown at
the receiver, are obtained by fitting a measured impairment
covariance matrix to the modeled one. The measured impair-
ment covariance matrix is typically too noisy to use directly,
and smoothing the measured value over an extended period
prob. of select

can degrade performance in a packet-data system in which

0.5
4/4
8/4
8/6
8/4 IO
8/6 IO
0 a parametric form is used that requires desired signal power,
−4 −2 0 2 4
finger locations (chip periods)
Fig. 3. Probability of selecting finger locations, channel with two equal
strength taps, various combinations of candidate delays/combining fingers.
with four combining fingers (8/4 curve), and approximately
1 dB with six combining fingers (8/6 curve), relative to [27].
The 12/12 curve, using a chip-spaced grid of fingers, is given
as a bound to illustrate that most of the gain is realized by the
channel probing approach.
It is also useful to know how the maximal-weight selection
approach compares to a subset selection technique that is
optimum in some sense. A constrained version of the instan-
taneous optimum (IO) approach described in [3] can be used,
constrained to the candidate delay set. With the IO approach,
all combinations of J delays out of the set of P delays
are considered. The combination which gives the best SIR
is selected. This approach is much more complex than the
maximal-weight approach.
The comparison of maximal-weight selection with con-
strained IO finger selection is shown in Figure 3 in terms
of the probability of finger selection. One can see that for
both the 8/4 case and the 8/6 case, the results for maximal-
weight selection mirror those for IO selection quite closely.
Thus, simple maximal-weight approach selects roughly the
same delays as the more complex IO approach.
interference statistics can vary rapidly. With multiple receive
antennas, the combining weights are determined jointly across
antennas and delays as in [11], though weight computation per
path is also possible [12], [13], [34].
Parametric estimation of the impairment covariance for G-
Rake reception can be found in [27], [35], [36]. In [27], [35],
total base station power, and noise power estimates. The
signal powers are estimated from embedded pilot symbols, a
common pilot channel, and an assumed overhead percentage
[27]. In [36], the impairment covariance is computed as a
convex sum of interference and noise terms, and the convex
weighting is determined adaptively using an output SINR
measurement.
Parametric impairment covariance estimation for G-Rake
reception is similar to other parametric covariance estimation
problems. In chip equalization, parametric estimation of the
chip impairment covariance [8] or data covariance [37], [38]
can be used. In [8], [37], signal and noise powers are estimated
by fitting the modeled covariance to a measured covariance.
In [38], the noise power is estimated from estimates of the
total receive power and pilot channel powers as well as an
assumed overhead percentage.
By contrast, nonparametric estimation of the impairment
covariance or other covariance matrices does not impose a
model on the impairment. One approach is to use the sample
matrix inversion (SMI) technique [41], obtaining impairment
samples from unused codes [39] or pilot symbols [40]. An-
other approach is to use the sample data correlation before and
after despreading to solve for the impairment covariance [12],
[13]. A third approach is to use the sample data correlation
before despreading and subtract a vector outer product of
6 Direct adaptation of the weights has also been studied in, e.g., [5] and
[7].

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 FULGHUM et al.: ADAPTIVE GENERALIZED RAKE RECEPTION IN DS-CDMA SYSTEMS 3469

weights where the (j, ) element of A is Aj, = Rp (dj − τ ()).

candidate weight The medium coefficient vector can then be estimated as
delays solver
g̃a = A−1
1 h̃a , (14)
~
measurements channel
h
subset combining
where A1 relates the L medium coefficients to the L net
estimation formation delays response at the path delays. Finally, the net channel response
~
g vector for all fingers is

impairment
^
Ru weight h̃a = A2 g̃a , (15)
covariance solver
estimation where A2 relates the L medium coefficients to the J elements
weights
of the net response vector.
2) Covariance estimation: To estimate Ru , we employ
candidate
delays a parametric approach similar to [35] that estimates model
parameters from pilot symbols. From (7), Ru can be estimated
Fig. 4. Adaptive receiver weight computation. as
R̂u = αRi (g̃) + βRn , (16)
channel estimates [42]. Finally, it is possible to replace the where theoretically β = N0 and α = Ec /Ep , with
impairment covariance estimate with an estimate of the data Ep representing the energy per pilot symbol. The fitting
correlation, either before despreading [5], [43]-[45] or after parameters α and β need to be estimated. The elements of
despreading [43]. Rn are given in (8) and the elements of Ri (g̃) are given in
(9).
D. Weight Computation Details The fitting parameters are obtained as follows. Measure-
Based on (6), the practical combining weights, ŵ, are ment fingers are used to obtain a short-term measurement
(p)
obtained by solving of Ru given by [Eq. 17] where yp (m) stacks ya (m) from
different receive antennas and h̃ is the net channel response
R̂u ŵ = h̃ , (11)
vector obtained by stacking h̃a from all antennas. The fitting
where h̃ is a scaled estimate of h and R̂u is an estimate of parameters are then obtained using a least-squares fit between
Ru . The vector h̃ is a scaled estimate because it is based on the measurement and the model, i.e.,
pilot symbols which may differ in symbol energy from traffic
Ru ≈ αRi (g̃) + βRn , (18)
symbols. Similar to [35], [36], [46], (11) is solved using the
Gauss-Seidel method [47]. where ≈ is used to signify equivalence in a least-squares
The weight computation process is illustrated in Figure 4. sense. The least-squares fit is formulated by stacking the upper
Measurements are used for channel estimation and impairment triangular elements of the constituent matrices. Complex-
covariance estimation. The weights are computed for the set of valued equations are treated as two real equations, as the
candidate delays for the purpose of finger selection, and then fitting parameters are purely real. As the fitting parameters
recomputed for the set of combining delays for the purpose of are positive by definition, negative values are clipped to zero.
combining. Recomputing involves taking a subset of the rows
and columns of R̂u and h̃. E. Example
1) Channel estimation: Correlation-based estimation of the To better understand the impact of estimation error, consider
net channel response at all candidate delays may be too noisy, the following dual-antenna example. The channel consists of
as the channel is estimated in locations where the signal energy 4 chip-spaced paths at relative powers of 0, -3, -6, and -
is low or absent. For this reason, we first “measure” the net 9 dB (exponential profile)7 , and each path is block faded.
channel response at the path delays using pilot symbols, then SINR distributions (over the fading) are shown in Figure 5 for
compute the vector of medium coefficients at the path delays, practical Rake and G-Rake weights. Results with ideal weights
and finally estimate the net channel response for all fingers, are also provided for Rake (“Rake w id”) and G-Rake (“G-
similar to [48]. Rake ref” with unlimited fingers8 and “G-Rake w id” with a
For the ath receive antenna, the net channel response vector limit of B=18 candidate delays (9 per antenna), select J=10).
at the path delays is estimated as Semi-ideal results for G-Rake (“G-Rake w semi”) correspond
1 
Ns −1 to using ideal values for the fitting parameters α and β but
h̃a = s∗ (j)y (p)
a (j) , (12) practical channel estimates. For the practical G-Rake results
Ns j=0
(“G-Rake w pract”), measurement fingers were placed on
where j is a time index, s(j) is a known pilot symbol, Ns B = 12 (6 per antenna) of the candidate delays: delays 0
(p)
is the number of pilot symbols, and ya (j) is the vector of through 3 (the path delays in chip periods) as well as -1 and
despread pilot symbol values during symbol period j. -2.
From (5), we can write the relation of the net response 7 This can be recognized as the multipath profile of the 3GPP Case 3 channel

vector to the medium coefficient vector of the channel as [31, §25.101].

8 Approximated by a chip-spaced grid extending 8 chips before the first
h̃a = Ag̃a , (13) path delay to 8 chips past the last path delay.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3470 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 7, JULY 2009

N
s −1
1
Ru = (s∗ (m)y(p) (m) − h̃)(s∗ (m)y (p) (m) − h̃)H , (17)
Ns − 1 m=0

1 All channels employ QPSK unless otherwise noted. The

channel is dispersive with an exponential profile as defined
in section III-E, except now the fading corresponds to a speed
0.8 of 3 km/hr at a carrier frequency of 2 GHz. To simulate other-
cell interference, white, complex Gaussian noise is added to
0.6 the received signal at a ratio of Ior /Ioc = 10 dB, where Ior
and Ioc are the power spectral densities of the desired base
CDF

station signal and the interference, respectively.

0.4 G−Rake ref
G−Rake w id
G−Rake w semi
G−Rake w pract
0.2
Rake w id
Rake w pract
0 P = 12, J = 8, and B = 12 while P = 18, J = 12, and
−5 0 5
SINR (dB)
Fig. 5. CDF of SINR for Rake and G-Rake, exponential channel, 2 receive
antennas, 18 candidate delays (9 per antenna), 12 combining fingers.
Observe that there is a substantial gain in median SINR
between the ideal G-Rake and Rake receivers. Most of this
gain is realized with the practical G-Rake receiver. Note that
the loss due to estimated quantities for the practical G-Rake
receiver is mostly due to weight computation rather than finger
placement, specifically channel estimation.
IV. E VALUATION OF P ERFORMANCE
In the following section, we investigate downlink perfor-
mance of the proposed adaptive G-Rake receiver via link
simulation and system simulation based on WCDMA/HSDPA
[31, §25.943].
A. Link Performance
Link performance is evaluated for a single base station
transmitting several physical channels according to Table C.8
of [31, §25.101]:
• a common pilot at spreading factor SF = 256, compris-
ing 10% of total transmitter power,
• a primary common control/synchronization channel at
SF = 256, 6% of total power 9 ,
• a paging channel at SF = 256, 3% of total power,
• desired user traffic channel consisting of 10 spreading
codes at SF = 16 (unless otherwise specified), with the
percentage of total power as a variable quantity,
• and 6 voice user signals at SF = 128, filling the
remainder of the transmitter power according to the
power of the desired traffic channel.
9 In the G-Rake weight formulation, we have ignored the fact that the
synchronization channel is not transmitted orthogonally to the other physical
channels.
For the “practical” receivers of the simulations, the common
pilot channel is utilized for estimating receiver quantities,
and all estimation is performed on a per-slot basis (10 pilot
symbols). G-Rake fingers are assigned as described in Section
III-B. Finger assignment for single antenna simulations uses
10 B = 12 are used for two antenna simulations. For the “ideal”
receivers used for comparison, the channel coefficients and
impairment covariance are assumed to be known perfectly,
and the G-Rake fingers are placed on a chip-spaced grid that
extends 8 chips before the first path delay and 8 chips past
the last path delay. In all cases the path searcher is ideal (i.e.
the receivers know the path delays and average path strengths
perfectly).
In discussing subsequent results, we use Raken and G-
Raken to denote receivers with n antennas. In the first set of
simulations, the data rate is fixed. A block of 3090 information
bits is rate-1/3 turbo coded, and the resulting coded bits are
rate matched (punctured in this case) to give an effective
coding rate of r = 0.32. A Log-MAX turbo decoder with 8
decoding iterations is used. Figures 6 and 7 show the resulting
coded block error rate (BLER) versus the fraction of the
transmitter power devoted to the desired traffic channel. This
fraction is represented by the ratio Ec /Ior , where Ec is the
total energy per chip devoted to the desired traffic channel
(summed over all desired user spreading codes).
In the single antenna case of Figure 6, ideal G-Rake1 gains
3.4 dB in Ec /Ior over ideal Rake1 at 10% BLER. Most of
this gain (2.4 dB) is achieved with a practical receiver.
In the two antenna case of Figure 7, we see the same quali-
tative relationship between the G-Rake2 and Rake2 receivers.
The ideal G-Rake2 gain is 5.5 dB, and most of this (4.0 dB)
is achieved in practice. Compared to the Rake1 receivers, the
practical and ideal G-Rake2 receivers gain 7.0 dB and 8.5 dB
respectively. The relatively large gains can be attributed to
the interference reduction capabilities of the receiver in this
particularly interference dominated case.
In the second set of simulations, the fraction of transmit-
ter power devoted to the desired traffic channel is fixed at
Ec /Ior = −3 dB, and the coding and data rate are varied
according to the rate matching algorithm defined in [31,
§25.212] based on QPSK modulation and 10 channelization
codes. In this case only practical receivers were simulated,
with the results shown in Figure 8. We note that over a fairly
wide range of data rates, G-Rake1 works about as well as

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 FULGHUM et al.: ADAPTIVE GENERALIZED RAKE RECEPTION IN DS-CDMA SYSTEMS 3471

0 0
10 10

−1
10
BLER

BLER
−1
10

−2
10
Ideal G−Rake1 Practical G−Rake2
Practical G−Rake1 Practical G−Rake1
Ideal Rake1 Practical Rake2
−2 Practical Rake1 −3 Practical Rake1
10 10
−9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Ec/Ior (dB) Rate (Mb/s)

Fig. 6. Link results, BLER vs. Ec /Ior , exponential channel, ideal and Fig. 8. Link results, BLER vs. data rate, exponential channel, one and two
practical receivers, one receive antenna, Ior /Ioc = 10 dB. receive antennas, practical receivers, Ior /Ioc = 10 dB, Ec /Ior = −3 dB.

0 TABLE I
10 M APPING BETWEEN INFORMATION RATE AND SYMBOL SINR. ( COMPILED
Ideal G−Rake2
BASED ON AWGN SIMULATIONS USING 12 CHANNELIZATION CODES )
Practical G−Rake2
Ideal Rake2 symbol SINR (dB) range bits per symbol
Practical Rake2 (−∞, −11.5) 0.0626
[−11.5, −10.5) 0.0758
[−10.5, −9.5) 0.0990
[−9.5, −8.5) 0.1253
BLER

−1 [−8.5, −7.5) 0.1516

10 [−7.5, −6.5) 0.1980
[−6.5, −5.5) 0.2506
[−5.5, −4.5) 0.3032
[−4.5, −3.5) 0.3958
[−3.5, −2.5) 0.5011
[−2.5, −1.5) 0.6063
[−1.5, −0.5) 0.7116
[−0.5, 0.5) 0.8814
−2
10 [0.5, 1.5) 1.0427
−12 −10 −8 −6 −4 [1.5, 2.5) 1.2041
Ec/Ior (dB) [2.5, 3.5) 1.3654
[3.5, 4.5) 1.5267
Fig. 7. Link results, BLER vs. Ec /Ior , exponential channel, ideal and [4.5, 5.5) 1.6881
practical receivers, two receive antennas, Ior /Ioc = 10 dB. [5.5, 6.5) 1.8494
[6.5, 7.5) 2.0108
[7.5, 8.5) 2.5135
[8.5, 9.5) 2.7659
Rake2. G-Rake2 significantly lowers the BLER for all data [9.5, 10.5) 3.0182
rates. [10.5, 11.5) 3.2705
[11.5, 12.5) 3.5228
For HSDPA, adaptive rate control is used to adjust the [12.5, 13.5) 3.7751
transmission data rate according to fading variations as well [13.5, ∞) 4.0000
as receiver capability to suppress interference. In this case,
the transmission data rate varies according to feedback of the
channel quality indicator (CQI), which indicates the highest
data rate that the mobile can receive with a BLER less 16-QAM in adaptive rate control.
than 10% [31, §25.214]. An exemplary mapping between Figure 9 shows the median HSDPA transmission data rates
information rate in terms of number of bits per symbol for the various receivers. Here, we assume that 75% of base
and symbol SINR is shown in Table I. The switch points station power and 15 channelization codes are allocated to
in Table I were found through link simulations based on a scheduled HSDPA user. All user terminals are assumed to
the use of 12 channelization codes. For a fixed coding and be category 10 mobiles according to the definition of [31,
modulation scheme, BLER performance does not vary by §25.214], capable of receiving this transmission. Observe that
much for information block sizes over a few thousands bits. the G-Rake2 receiver achieves a much higher median data rate
Thus, these switch points also work for assignments of 8-15 when own-cell interference dominates (high Ior /Ioc ). When
channelization codes. Perfect CQI estimation, based on actual other-cell interference dominates (low Ior /Ioc ), both G-Rake2
net response vector and impairment covariance matrix, and and Rake2 achieve array gain. Also, G-Rake1 is as good or
error-free feedback are assumed. We consider both QPSK and better than Rake2 at Ior /Ioc > 10 dB.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3472
12
G−Rake2
G−Rake1
10
median data rate (Mbps)
Rake2
Rake1
8 10
4 5
0 0
−5 0 5 10
Ior/Ioc (dB)
Fig. 9. Link results, median data rate vs. Ior /Ioc , exponential channel, one
and two receive antennas, practical receivers.
B. System Performance
The performance of the practical receivers is evaluated in a
macro-cell environment, where the site deployment consists of
a uniform hexagonal pattern containing 19 sites, each equipped
with three sectorization antennas. This results in a total of 57
cells. The sector antenna is normalized to have a constant 0
dBi gain in the 120 degree sector illumination directions and
infinite attenuation in other directions. The site-to-site distance
is 3 km, and the users are uniformly distributed. This cell
layout is wrapped around to achieve continuity at the edges.
The total transmission power per cell is 20 Watts (W) for
all the base stations in the system, including 4.4 W allocated
to downlink overhead channels (e.g. common pilot channel,
synchronization channel, and signaling channels). Power and
code allocation to a scheduled data user are the same as those
used to generate the results in Figure 9. Path loss, shadowing
loss, and receiver noise figure are based on the recommended
parameters for the Vehicular Environment given in [49] (see
also Table I in [15]). While [49] specifies a receiver noise
figure of 5 dB, the requirement in [31, §25.101] allows the
noise figure to be much higher. We assume a 9 dB receiver
noise figure. Other-cell interference is modeled as white noise
in both weight formulation and SINR evaluation.
Figure 10 shows the median achievable data rate for the
practical receivers in the exponential profile channel as a func-
tion of distance from the serving base station. As expected,
data rate goes down as the user moves farther away from the
base station. Both G-Rake2 and G-Rake1 effectively reduce
own-cell interference and thus reach higher data rates than
Rake1 and Rake2 for users close to the base station. At the
cell border, performance is more noise-limited, so the G-Rake
receivers perform only slightly better than the Rake receivers
and the dual-antenna receivers provide array gain.
Results in other channel conditions are summarized in Table
II. Specifically, results are produced for Pedestrian A (mildly
dispersive), Pedestrian B (heavily dispersive), and Vehicular
A (heavily dispersive) channels [31, §25.101]. Path delays of
these channels are quantized to half-chip grids in our simula-
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 7, JULY 2009
15
G−Rake2
G−Rake1
median data rate (Mbps)
Rake2
Rake1
15 0 0.5 1 1.5
distance (km)
Fig. 10. System results, median data rate vs. distance, exponential channel,
one and two receive antennas, practical receivers.
tions as specified in [50]. Like the case of exponential profile
channel, G-Rake fingers are assigned as described in Section
III-B. For all cases B = 12. For single antenna simulations,
(P = 16, J = 6) for Pedestrian A, and (P = 27, J = 18) for
Pedestrian B and Vehicular A. For two antenna simulations,
(P = 20, J = 9) for Pedestrian A, (P = 30, J = 27) for
Pedestrian B, and (P = 32, J = 27) for Vehicular A. We
see that G-Rake2 achieves a median data rate higher than
10 Mb/s at a distance of 0.5 km from the base station, even
in heavily dispersive channels. Also, within this distance, G-
Rake1 outperforms Rake2. At the edge of the cell (1 km),
G-Rake2 achieves median data rates higher than 5 Mb/s in
heavily dispersive channels.
V. C ONCLUSION
Practical algorithms have been provided for both finger
placement and weight computation in a G-Rake receiver. Fin-
gers are placed by selecting delays from a candidate set using
a maximal-weight criterion. Weights are determined using
channel estimates and a parametric estimate of an impairment
covariance. The parametric approach allows weights to be
determined for the candidate delay set without having to place
measurement fingers at all delays. While the algorithms are
described in the context of a G-Rake receiver and the down-
link, they can be used in other linear equalization contexts (a
chip equalizer, uplink). Link and system performance results
show that significant improvements in coverage for high-rate
services in HSDPA can be achieved with practical receivers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge A. S. Khayrallah and H.
Björkegren for guiding and supporting this work; J.-F. Cheng
for providing the data in Table I; and K. Hooli for help in
identifying and obtaining references. The authors would also
like to thank H. Koorapaty, R. Ramésh, and the anonymous
reviewers for helpful comments.
 FULGHUM et al.: ADAPTIVE GENERALIZED RAKE RECEPTION IN DS-CDMA SYSTEMS
TABLE II
M EDIAN ACHIEVABLE DATA RATES IN VARIOUS DISPERSIVE CHANNELS (75% POWER ALLOCATION AND 15 CHANNELIZATION CODES , QPSK AND
16-QAM)
receiver PA
0.5 km 1 km
Rake1 6.66 Mbps 3.75 Mbps
G-Rake1 11.77 Mbps 3.75 Mbps
Rake2 10.87 Mbps 5.50 Mbps
G-Rake2 14.40 Mbps 6.66 Mbps
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Tantikovit, A. U. H. Sheikh, and M. Z. Wang, “Combining schemes
in rake receiver for low spreading factor long-code W-CDMA systems,"
Electron. Lett., vol. 36, no. 22, pp. 1872-1874, Oct. 26, 2000.
[2] A. Klein, G. K. Kaleh, and P. W. Baier, “Zero forcing and minimum
mean-square-error equalization for multiuser detection in code-division
multiple-access channels," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 45, pp. 276-
287, May 1996.
[3] G. E. Bottomley, T. Ottosson, and Y.-P. E. Wang, “A generalized RAKE
receiver for interference suppression," IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.,
vol. 18, pp. 1536-1545, Aug. 2000.
[4] I. Ghauri and D. T. M. Slock, “Linear receivers for the DS-CDMA
downlink exploiting orthogonality of spreading sequences," in Proc. 32nd
Asilomar Conf. Signals, Systems Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov.
1998, pp. 650-654.
[5] C. D. Frank, E. Visotsky, and U. Madhow, “Adaptive interference
suppression for the downlink of a direct sequence CDMA system with
long spreading sequences," J. VLSI Signal Processing, special issue sig-
nal processing wireless commun.: algorithms, performance, architecture,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 30, pp. 273-291, Jan.-Mar. 2002.
[6] S. Mudulodu, G. Leus, and A. Paulraj, “An interference-suppressing
RAKE receiver for the CDMA downlink," IEEE Signal Processing Lett.,
vol. 11, pp. 521-524, May 2004.
[7] M. J. Heikkilä, P. Komulainen, and J. Lilleberg, “Interference suppression
in CDMA downlink through adaptive channel equalization," in Proc.
IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Sept.
1999, vol. 2, pp. 978-982.
[8] A. Jarosch and D. Dahlhaus, “Linear space-time diversity receivers for
the downlink of UMTS with WCDMA," European Trans. Telecommun.,
vol. 12, pp. 379-391, Sept./Oct. 2001.
[9] T. P. Krauss, W. J. Hillery, and M. D. Zoltowski, “Downlink specific
linear equalization for frequency selective CDMA cellular systems," J.
VLSI Signal Processing, special issue signal processing wireless com-
munications: algorithms, performance, architecture, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, vol. 30, pp. 142-162, Jan.-Mar. 2002.
[10] H. Hadinejad-Mahram, “On the equivalence of linear MMSE chip-level
equalizer and generalized RAKE," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 8, pp. 7-8,
Jan. 2004.
[11] T. F. Wong, T. M. Lok, J. S. Lehnert, and M. D. Zoltowski, “A linear
receiver for direct-sequence spread-spectrum multiple-access systems
with antenna arrays and blind adaptation," IEEE Trans. Infom. Theory,
vol. 44, pp. 659-676, Mar. 1998.
[12] J. Choi, “Pilot channel-aided techniques to compute the beamforming
vector for CDMA systems with antenna array," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 49, pp. 1760-1775, Sept. 2000.
[13] A. F. Naguib and A. Paulraj, “Recursive adaptive beamforming for
wireless CDMA," in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Seattle,
WA, June 1995, pp. 1515-1519.
[14] R. Price and P. E. Green, Jr., “A communication technique for multipath
channels," Proc. IRE, vol. 46, pp. 555-570, Mar. 1958.
[15] Y.-P. E. Wang and G. E. Bottomley, “DS-CDMA downlink system
capacity enhancement through interference suppression," IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1767-1774, July 2006.
[16] Y.-P. E. Wang, J.-F. T. Cheng, and E. Englund, “The benefits of advanced
receivers for high speed data communications in WCDMA," in Proc.
IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Vancouver, Canada, Sept. 2002, pp.
132-136.
[17] R. Love, K. Stewart, R. Bachu, and A. Ghosh, “MMSE equalization for
UMTS HSDPA," in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Orlando, FL,
Oct. 2003, pp. 2416-2420.
[18] L. A. Jatunov and V. K. Madisetti, “Closed-form for infinite sum in
bandlimited CDMA," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 8, pp. 138-140, Mar.
2004.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3473
PB VA
0.5 km 1 km 0.5 km 1 km
3.17 Mbps 2.18 Mbps 3.17 Mbps 2.56 Mbps
6.08 Mbps 3.17 Mbps 6.66 Mbps 3.75 Mbps
4.92 Mbps 3.75 Mbps 4.92 Mbps 3.75 Mbps
10.87 Mbps 5.50 Mbps 14.40 Mbps 6.08 Mbps
[19] G. L. Turin, “Introduction to spread-spectrum antimultipath techniques
and their application to urban digital radio," Proc. IEEE, vol. 68, pp.
328-353, Mar. 1980.
[20] G. E. Bottomley, “Optimizing the RAKE receiver for the CDMA
downlink," in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Secaucus, NJ, May
1993, pp. 742-745.
[21] P. A. M. Buné, “Effective low-effort adaptive equalizers for digital
mobilophone systems," in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), San
Francisco, CA, May 1989, pp. 147-154.
[22] S. Ariyavisitakul, N. R. Sollenberger, and L. J. Greenstein, “Tap-
selectable decision-feedback equalization," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol.
45, pp. 1497-1500, Dec. 1997.
[23] M. Stojanovic, L. Freitag, and M. Johnson, “Channel-estimation-based
adaptive equalization of underwater acoustic signals," in Proc. IEEE
OCEANS ’99, Seattle, WA, Sept. 1999, pp. 985-990.
[24] A. S. Khayrallah and D. A. Cairns, “Fast finger selection for GRAKE,"
in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Stockholm, May 2005, pp.
728-732.
[25] H. Sui, E. Masry, and B. D. Rao, “Chip-level DS-CDMA downlink
interference suppression with optimized finger placement," IEEE Trans.
Signal Processing, vol. 54, pp. 3908-3921, Oct. 2006.
[26] N. Piazzese, G. Avellone, and E. Messina, “On the timing placement
in the G-Rake detector," in Proc. Intl. Symp. Wireless Commun. Syst.
(ISWCS), Siena, Italy, Sept. 2005, pp. 250-254.
[27] G. Kutz and A. Chass, “On the performance of a practical downlink
CDMA generalized RAKE receiver," in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf.,
Vancouver, Canada, Sept. 2002, pp. 1352-1356.
[28] G. Kutz and A. Chass, “Sparse chip equalizer for DS-CDMA downlink
receivers," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 9, pp. 10-12, Jan. 2005.
[29] T. Hasegawa and M. Shimizu, “Multipath interference reduction method
using multipath interference correlative timing for DS-CDMA systems,"
in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Birmingham, AL, May 2002,
pp. 1205-1209.
[30] F. K. H. Lee and P. J. McLane, “Design of nonuniformly spaced
tapped-delay-line equalizers for sparse multipath channels," IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 52, pp. 530-535, Apr. 2004.
[31] 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification
Group Radio Access Networks: UE Radio Transmission and Reception
(FDD) (3GPP TR 25.101, version 6.8.0, Jun. 2005), Deployment aspects
(3GPP TR 25.943, v6.0.0, Dec. 2004), multiplexing and channel coding
(FDD) (3GPP TR 25.212, version 6.5.0, June 2005), and physical layer
procedures (FDD) (3GPP TR 25.214, version 6.6.0, June 2005).
[32] M. Stojanovic, J. G. Proakis, and J. A. Catipovic, “Analysis of the impact
of channel estimation errors on the performance of a decision-feedback
equalizer in fading multipath channels," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 43,
pp. 877-886, Feb./Mar./Apr. 1995.
[33] N. W. K. Lo, D. D. Falconer, and A. U. H. Sheikh, “Adaptive equal-
ization for co-channel interference in a multipath fading environment,"
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 43, pp. 1441-1453, Feb./Mar./Apr. 1995.
[34] J. Ramos, M. D. Zoltowski, and H. Liu, “A low-complexity space-
time RAKE receiver for DS-CDMA communications," IEEE Signal
Processing Lett., vol. 4, pp. 262-265, Sept. 1997.
[35] G. Kutz and A. Chass, “Low complexity implementation of a downlink
CDMA generalized RAKE receiver," in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf.
(VTC), Vancouver, Canada, Sept. 2002, pp. 1357-1361.
[36] J. S. Nielsen, “Adaptive generalized matched filter rake receiver system
and method," U.S. Patent Publication US 2002/0080863 A1, June 27,
2002.
[37] M. Lenardi and D. T. M. Slock, “A RAKE structured SINR maximizing
mobile receiver for the WCDMA downlink," in Proc. 31st Asilomar Conf.
Signals, Systems Computers, 2001, pp. 410-414.
[38] T. Kawamura, K. Higuchi, Y. Kishiyama, and M. Sawahashi, “Com-
parison between multipath interference canceller and chip equalizer in
HSDPA in multipath channel," in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC),
Birmingham, AL, May 2002, pp. 459-463.
 3474
[39] K. Li and H. Liu, “A new blind receiver for downlink DS-CDMA
communications," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 3, pp. 193-195, July 1999.
[40] I. N. Psaromiligkos and S. N. Batalama, “Recursive short-data-record
estimation of AV and MMSE/MVDR linear filters for DS-CDMA antenna
array systems," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 52, pp. 136-148, Jan. 2004.
[41] I. S. Reed, J. D. Mallett, and L. E. Brennan, “Rapid convergence rate in
adaptive arrays," IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electronic Systems, vol. AES-
10, pp. 853-863, Nov. 1974.
[42] J. Vidal, M. Cabrera, A. Agustin de Dios, and M. A. Lagunas, “En-
hanced MDIR receiver for space-time dispersive channels," IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 2, pp. 99-107, Jan. 2003.
[43] T. Hasegawa and M. Shimizu, “A chip correlation MMSE receiver
with multipath interference correlative timing for DS-CDMA systems,"
in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Stockholm, May 2005, pp.
1740-1744.
[44] M. Lenardi and D. T. M. Slock, “A RAKE receiver with intracell
interference cancellation for a DS-CDMA synchronous downlink with
orthogonal codes," in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Tokyo,
Japan, May 2000, pp. 430-434.
[45] E. Tiirola and J. Ylitalo, “Performance of smart antenna receivers
in WCDMA uplink with spatially coloured interference," in Proc. IST
Mobile Commun. Summit, Sitges, Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 2001.
[46] L. Mailaender, “Low-complexity implementation of CDMA downlink
equalization," in Proc. IEE Intl. Conf. 3G Mobile Commun. Technol.,
Mar. 2001, pp. 396-400.
[47] G. H. Golub and C. Van Loan, Matrix Computations. Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
[48] B. C. Ng, M. Cedervall, and A. Paulraj, “A structured channel estimator
for maximum-likelihood sequence detection," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol.
1, pp. 52-55, Mar. 1997.
[49] “Selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies
of the UMTS (UMTS 30.03)," ETSI Tech. Rep. 101 112, version 3.1.0,
Nov. 1997.
[50] “Modified channel models and channelisation codes for LMMSE sim-
ulations," 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP); Technical Speci-
fication Group Radio Access Networks; Working Group 4, R4-050112,
Feb. 2005.
Tracy L. Fulghum (S’87 - M’88 - SM’05) received
the B.S. and Ph. D. degrees in electrical engineer-
ing from North Carolina State University in 1987
and 1997, respectively, and received the M.S. in
electrical engineering from University of Florida in
1993.
From 1988 to 1994, he was with Motorola, Inc.,
working in land mobile radio research and develop-
ment. Since 1997, he has been with Ericsson Inc., in
Research Triangle Park, NC. His research interests
are mobile radio systems and signal processing
for mobile communications, including equalization, array processing, and
interference cancellation, having contributed to 19 patents in these areas.
Dr. Fulghum is a member of the IEEE Communications, Signal Processing,
and Vehicular Technology Societies, and is Secretary and Board Member for
the VTS. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Florida.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 3, 2009 at 07:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 7, JULY 2009
Doug Cairns received a B.S. in electrical engineer-
ing from the Milwaukee School of Engineering in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1989 and the M.S and
Ph.D degrees, both in electrical engineering, from
Duke University in Durham, North Carolina in 1991
and 1995 respectively.
He worked for IBM from 1991 to 1998 and
then joined Ericsson Research in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina where he is currently em-
ployed. His work focuses on wireless communica-
tions, particularly equalization, channel estimation,
and transceiver design.
Carmela Cozzo received the Laurea degree in
Electrical Engineering from the University of Rome,
La Sapienza, Italy, and the Ph.D. in Electrical
Engineering from North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, in 2001. From 2001 to Nov. 2008 she
was with Ericsson Research, NC, USA. Her work
focused on wireless receiver algorithms, interference
suppression for CDMA systems and HSPA physical
layer. Since Nov. 2008 she has been a Senior Mem-
ber of Technical Staff at Enerdyne Technologies -
ViaSat, CA, USA. Her work focuses on wireless
communications for unmanned aerial systems. Her research interests include
signal processing for wireless communications, interference cancellation and
multi-antenna systems. She has authored 19 issued or pending patents in the
field of wireless communications. Dr. Cozzo is an Associate Editor for the
IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON V EHICULAR T ECHNOLOGY, and a member of the
IEEE Vehicular Technology Society BoG serving as VTS Liaison to the IEEE
Women in Engineering Committee.
Y.-P. Eric Wang (S’91 - M’96) received the B.S. de-
gree in electrical engineering from National Taiwan
University in 1988, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees,
both in electrical engineering, from the University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1991 and 1995, respec-
tively. He has been a member of Ericsson Research
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA,
since 1995. His work focuses on wireless com-
munications, including both mobile satellite com-
munication systems and terrestrial cellular systems.
His research interests include coding, modulation,
synchronization, MIMO, and interference cancellation and suppression. He
holds over 40 U.S. patents in the area of wireless communications.
Gregory E. Bottomley (S’81 - M’85 - SM’99 -
F’07) received the B. S. and M. S. degrees from
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, in 1983 and 1985, respectively, and the
Ph.D. degree from North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, in 1989, all in electrical engineering.
From 1985 to 1987 he was with AT&T Bell
Laboratories, Whippany, NJ, working in the area
of sonar signal processing. In 1990, he was a Vis-
iting Lecturer at North Carolina State University,
Raleigh. Since 1991, he has been with Ericsson Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, NC, where he is currently a member of Ericsson
Research. He has contributed to over 80 patents in the area of wireless
communications. His research interests are in baseband signal processing,
including channel equalization and interference suppression.
Dr. Bottomley is a member of Sigma Xi. He served as an Associate
Editor and then as the Editor for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON V EHICULAR
T ECHNOLOGY. He also served as Technical Program Committee Co-chair for
the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference Fall 2007.