Digital Signal Processing Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 3.10
The normalized
energy distributions of the
transmit-signal and effective
target-returns across different
subchannels in (
a
) Scenario I
and (
b
) Scenario II
carrier at which the target response is stronger, and thus makes the effective
target-return more prominent along that subcarrier.
As a further confirmation, we did a similar analysis with values of
{
ε
S
,l
}
and
ε
T
,l
/(
L
−
1
{
}
for Scenario II. Results are shown in Fig.
3.10
(b). Observing the
two left-most vertical bars, we again notice that the transmitted-signal energy was
amplified along the first subchannel after the waveform design. The two right-most
vertical bars indicate a noticeable redistribution of the effective target-energies
among the different subchannels. After the adaptive waveform design, we found
that the normalized values of
0
ε
T
,l
)
l
=
{
ε
T
,l
}
{
}
changed from
0
.
5414
,
0
.
0775
,
0
.
3811
to
{
. This reconfirms our conclusion that the Pareto-optimal
waveform design tries to further enhance the stronger target-returns. Moreover,
since we kept the noise-energy fixed and varied only the target-energy over dif-
ferent subchannels, we can extend our conclusion to assert that the solution of the
Pareto-optimal design redistributes the energy of the transmitted signal by putting
the most energy to that particular subcarrier in which the signal-to-noise ratio is the
strongest.
0
.
7447
,
0
.
0775
,
0
.
1779
}
Search WWH ::
Custom Search