> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

1

Abstract—In DVB-T2 the Single Frequency Network (SFN)

mode is an attractive planning alternative to the well-known

Multiple Frequency Network (MFN) mode. SFN networks

provide augmented spectrum efficiency as well as a quality of

service improvement due to a more homogeneous distribution of

the received signal strength over the coverage area. Nevertheless,

some areas will also show degradation in practice. In order to

improve the performance of the SFN operation, the second

generation broadcast system DVB-T2 standard incorporates

Multiple Input Single Output (MISO) antenna diversity

mechanisms. Based on empirical analyses and system level

simulations this paper analyzes the key factors affecting the

Single Frequency network operation. The work analyzes SFN

effects as well as the corresponding MISO gain margins for

commercial and custom SDR (software defined radio) receiver

implementations.

Index Terms—DVB, DVB-T2, SFN, SFN gain, MISO,

Terrestrial Broadcasting, Field Trials, Measurements

I. INTRODUCTION

HE Single Frequency Network (SFN) operation is an

attractive option for broadcasters. When operators deploy

a broadcast network they want to keep the total costs as low as

possible maintaining the number of transmitter sites as well as

the transmitting power as low as possible. Compared to the

Multiple Frequency Network (MFN) operation, an SFN will

theoretically deliver the same quality with a certain amount of

reduction in the transmitted power. This assumption is based

on the fact that the receiving field strength will be more

homogeneously distributed due to the spatial diversity

associated to SFN networks. Nevertheless, some areas of a

SFN will also show degradation caused by the reception of

multiple echoes from different transmitters. The number of

transmitters, the relative delay, as well as the power imbalance

between received paths will have an impact on the final shape

of the service area.

Manuscript received July 19 2013. This work was supported by the GV/EJ

(Basque Government) under grants GV/EJ-BI09.65 and Saiotek-3DSARHBB and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under project

HEDYT-GBB (TEC2012-33302).

†Javier Morgade, Pablo Angueira and Amaia Arrinda are with the Dpt. of Communications Engineering. UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain {email:

javier.morgade@ieee.org}; ‡ Ralf Pfeffer and Volker Steinmann are with Dpt.

of Radio Transmission Systems, Institut für Rundfunktechnik GmbH, Munich,Germany; ‡ Roland Brugger and Jürgen Frank are with Dpt. Of

Frequency Management, Institut für Rundfunktechnik GmbH,

Munich,Germany, {email:pfeffer@irt.de}. .

With the advent of second generation digital terrestrial

broadcast systems [1][2], new mechanisms have been adopted

to overcome the potential limitations of the first generation

standards like DVB-T [3]. An example is DVB-T2, the second

generation standard for terrestrial delivery produced by the

DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting) consortium [1]. The

standard was originated by the demands to increase the

spectral efficiency of digital terrestrial broadcast systems in

the UHF/VHF bands. DVB-T2 provides flexibility in

multiplex allocation, coding, modulation and RF parameters.

Like the first generation broadcast systems DVB-T or DAB,

DVB-T2 is based on Orthogonal Frequency Division

Multiplexing (OFDM), however, additional (and higher order)

FFT sizes of 1K, 4K, 16K and 32K subcarriers have been

defined. The standard also includes additional guard interval

values and other advanced features, like service specific

robustness modes thanks to the Physical Layer Pipes (PLPs)

technique.

A significant amount of the standardization effort has

focused on the improvement of the SFN operation. In DVB-

T2, new diversity mechanisms like Multiple Input Single

Output (MISO) antenna diversity have been defined.

Specifically, and based on the well-known Alamouti scheme

[4], the DVB-T2 standard has adapted this technique to

improve the traditional SFN (Single Frequency Network)

operation currently available in digital terrestrial broadcast

networks. However, the practical performance of distributed

MISO in real broadcast networks is something to be proved

yet.

In this paper, an analysis of the practical performance of the

SFN operation in second generation broadcast systems is

presented. This paper provides contributions to the system

behavior based on field test empirical results and system level

simulations.

This paper is organized as follows: In Section II, the related

current state of the art and the original contributions of this

paper are described. In Section III, the key factors affecting

both the SFN and distributed MISO operation are introduced.

Section IV contains the research methodology, while in the

last Sections V-VI the data analysis and the corresponding

discussion and conclusions are presented.

II. STATE OF THE ART AND CONTRIBUTIONS

A. SFN Gain

A review of the related literature at early stages of the SFNs

SFN-SISO and SFN-MISO Gain Performance

Analysis for DVB-T2 Network Planning

Javier Morgade †, Member, IEEE, Pablo Angueira †, Senior Member, IEEE, Amaia Arrinda †, Senior

Member, IEEE, Ralf Pfeffer ‡, Volker Steinmann ‡, Jürgen Frank ‡ and Roland Brugger ‡

T

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

2

[5]-[16], shows that most references have dealt with the SFN

gain optimistically, just considering the improvement of a

SFN in the homogeneity of the behavior of the field strength

in the coverage area, leaving aside the influence of both

synchronization and equalization stages at receiver and their

practical performance. In most of the cases, the SFN gain

calculation has been based on field strength measurements,

trying to obtain the statistical improvement on the field

strength distribution. In this sense, in [17] a methodology for

calculating the SFN gain was previously proposed by the

authors of this paper. The method was investigated using

empirical measurements from a DVB-H SFN network. This

work showed the practical degradation caused by the SFN.

The treatment of inter-symbol interference, the

synchronization strategy and the practical performance inside

the guard interval are crucial aspects to be considered when

planning SFNs. The receiver performance against inter-

symbol interference is strongly dependent on the positioning

of the FFT demodulation window relative to the received

signals present in a SFN multipath environment. The practical

degradation beyond and within the guard interval will be

different depending on the equalization and synchronization

strategies adopted. In [18] a general overview of the possible

strategies for FFT window synchronization in theoretical

OFDM receivers was presented for DVB-T. In [19] the

analytical performance degradation before and beyond the

guard interval is also analyzed for the case of DVB-T2 where

the role of the pilot pattern is also addressed. However, in both

cases the problem is treated from a theoretical point of view.

In [20] laboratory measurements were presented for a

commercial DVB-T2 receiver in the presence of multipath

where a “SFN channel” was modeled in the lab using two

single delayed and unbalanced paths. Results show the

performance degradation of the threshold requirements when

working in a multipath environment like in a SFN.

The SFN gain/degradation is therefore a key parameter to

be taken under consideration when deploying SFN networks.

In this paper we propose a novel methodology to study the

SFN gain using system level simulations and the results of a

field trial in Southern Germany. Following this methodology

the SFN margins in terms of minimum C/N requirements have

been analyzed. Both the methodology and performance results

are presented in Sections IV-VI.

B. Distributed MISO

This section describes a summary of the reference results

available in relation to MISO for DVB-T2. These references

can be divided into three sub-sections. The first one deals with

the different simulations and field trials that have been carried

out in France. The second one presents the conclusions which

are obtained from the measurement campaign that took place

in Helsinki. Finally, the MISO gain was also evaluated in a

realistic environment after a field trial in northern Germany.

The first set of results has been published by TDF France

and the Université Paul Verlaine in Metz [21]. Most of the

results by these authors are based on simulations of different

modes, reception scenarios and channel models proposed in

the DVB-T2 implementation guidelines [22]. The authors

have analyzed the impact of power imbalance and relative

delay between MISO components. The simulations provide

MISO gain values for a TU6 propagation channel and assume

perfect channel estimation. Simulations are therefore placed

for mobile reception characterization. The DVB-T2 modes

selected are also suited for this type of reception. MISO gain

values that range from -0.6 to 0.8 dB were obtained depending

upon the DVB-T2 mode and other factors. The authors

identified the power imbalance between MISO components as

the key factor. The results showed that power imbalance

values lower than 6 dB provide positive MISO gains, whereas

imbalance values higher than 6 dB present certain degradation.

Regarding the relative delay of the signals, the results did not

show any dependence. However, this conclusion should be

taken with care, as the simulations assume perfect channel

estimation. This simplification eliminates any degradation that

could arise from estimation errors of the channel transform

function, interpolation techniques and pilot pattern choice.

Recently, the same authors have carried out field

experiments in Metz [23]. This trial consisted of

measurements within the coverage area of a distributed MISO

network of two transmitters working with the Alamouti coding

as described by the DVB-T2 implementation guidelines. The

experiments included fixed and mobile reception but the

published data is restricted to mobile reception. It is

remarkable from this work that the receiver used was not

optimized for mobile reception. The major conclusion from

this trial is that the performance of the SISO mode was better

than MISO. However, the authors remark that the results

might be influenced by a lack of adequate channel estimation

for mobile reception.

A second set of experiments is composed of trials in

Finland to evaluate the feasibility of co-sited MISO using

polarization diversity techniques [24][25]. Similar approaches

have been followed in trials carried out by authors from the

Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, UPM [26][27]. However,

it should be remarked that these results relate to a co-sited

scenario and the distributed scenario is not analyzed.

The results that better compare to the ones provided in this

paper correspond to data obtained in the Northern Germany

DVB-T2 trial [28]. In these field trials, two transmitters

located in the south of Hamburg, separated by approximately

45 km were used. The DVB-T2 parameters used during the

measurements were 16K FFT with a guard interval of 19/128

and pilot pattern PP2. The authors conclude that the

correlation of received signals within a large SFN is rather

low. The authors propose also a method to estimate the MISO

gain. The method is based on a gain predictor composed by

two modules; a SISO SFN signal level predictor and a MISO

gain predictor. Both of them are calibrated independently with

real data collected. The authors conclude that the assumption

of low correlation between the signals received is correct and

the MISO gain is larger when the power of the transmitted

signals is comparable. The gain is also higher for higher code

rates. A remarkable feature of the proposed estimator is the

high variability of the statistical gain values.

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

3

C. Original contributions

In contrast to previous published papers, this work provides

practical performance margins of distributed MISO in

comparison to SFN operation. We also have evaluated the

dependency of the power imbalance but in addition we have

also taken into account the channel characteristics. This

additional factor has proven to be also critical.

In some previous literature the influence of the relative

delay between different MISO groups was neglected. This

effect is included in our study and we have proved that its

relevance is strongly depending on the receiver algorithms.

A remarkable novelty is that MISO gain and associated

factors have been analyzed from a practical perspective with

the aim of obtaining practical values for network planning.

This includes a description of the system constrains when

using MISO in DVB-T2. In Section IV a novel methodology

to analyze both SISO and MISO performance in a SFN is

presented. Unlike previous work, we include in our study the

analysis of the receiver architecture and receiving algorithms,

including measurements for both a commercial and a custom

software defined radio (SDR) DVB-T2 receiver.

The empirical and simulation results provided in Section V

describe accurately the SFN operation that applies to any SFN

architecture. There, the limits and advantages of MISO are

underlined. Finally, the analysis carried out has provided as

well updated C/N thresholds for DVB-T2 in both SISO and

MISO configurations and for two reference receivers.

III. FACTORS AFFECTING SFN AND DISTRIBUTED MISO

OPERATION

Different factors can influence the practical SFN gain. A

priori, key factors affecting are: Power imbalance (PI), relative

delay (Δt), propagation channel (σsp), pilot pattern, modulation

and code rate. Those parameters are relevant factors in both

SISO and MISO procedures. However there might be

differences in how each factor impacts on the final network

behavior.

A. SFN Signal model

Assuming that the index set of the transmitters of a SFN is

represented by γ={1,…,T} in a traditional SISO configuration

and the index set of transmitters is Ω={1,…,M} and

Ψ={1,…,N} for transmitters in MISO group1 and MISO

group2, respectively, the received complex signal ( ) in a

Single Frequency Network can be defined without loss of

generality for an equivalent SISO and MISO approaches as

follows:

( ) ∑ ( ) ( ) (1)

( ) ∑ ( ) ( ) ∑ ( ) ( ) (2)

where and represent the channel profile and delay from

each transmitter in the SFN seen by the receiver, denotes the

convolution operator while ( ) represent the transmitted

signal and x ( ) denotes the corresponding MISO encoding to

the original signal.

The diversity scheme used in DVB-T2 is based on the

methodology described by Alamouti in [4] using a 2x1 STBC

(Space Time Block Coder) antenna group diversity scheme.

However, the methodology adopted in DVB-T2 differs from

the original Alamouti scheme in a way that payload cells are

processed in the frequency domain as shown in [1][22]. The

basic procedure of the encoding relies on the fact that signals

transmitted from transmitters that belong to MISO group1 are

transmitted without any additional processing; nevertheless,

signals in MISO group2 are pair wise modified. The

transmitter group2 transmits ( ) while transmitter

group1 applies ( ), and transmitter group2 transmits ( )

while transmitter group 2 transmits ( ). The received complex values at pilots {k,l} and pilots

{k+1,l} can be written accordingly as;

( ) ( ) (3)

( ) ( ) (4)

where and represent the characterizing noise terms;

, and , represents the

Fig.1. DVB-T2 Frame structure and interpolation approach for SISO (a) and MISO (b) for a PP2 pilot pattern.

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

4

corresponding channel responses in the frequency domain

seen for each pair of Alamouti cells (k,k+1) from transmitters

that belong to the MISO group1 and MISO group2,

respectively.

B. Factors affecting the SFN operation

Attending to the given signal model we define the relative

delay as the difference in the arrival time of signals

received from transmitters belonging to the SFN. Since DVB-

T2 MISO allows two transmitter groups, we define the relative

delay as the difference in the arrival time of signals that have

been transmitted in MISO group1 and signals that have been

transmitted in MISO group2.

The same applies for the power imbalance PI between

MISO groups that describes the relative power level difference

at the receiver between signals from different transmitters of

the MISO network. It should be noted that an asymmetric

number of transmitters can be assigned to the two available

antenna MISO groups.

Another remarkable aspect that influences the SFN

operation and therefore the receiver performance is the

experienced propagation channel profile at the receiver. In this

sense, σsp represents the overall channel profile that the

OFDM receiver experiences. This channel profile can be

defined for the two SISO/MISO approaches as follows:

( ) ∑ ( ) (5)

( ) ∑ ( ) ∑ ( ) (6)

where both ( ) and ( ) represent the received channel

impulse responses in the SFN when working in SISO and

MISO mode, respectively. Following the signal model, we can

also define two independent channel profiles in the MISO

case ( ) and ( ) being the channel impulse responses

derived from the transmitters in MISO group1 and MISO

group2, respectively.

Finally, three main channel classifications are used in

practice to characterize the channel profile in broadcast

systems [22]: Gaussian, Rician or Rayleigh, being one of the

key parameter used for planning digital broadcasting services.

However, while these reference channel profiles are valid in a

non-SFN scenario, in a SFN the correct definition of the

channel profile is a key point to be taken into consideration.

C. MISO/SISO channel estimation and equalization

There are also other factors inherent to the system design

that might have influence on the final shape of the SFN

coverage area depending on the employed strategy: SISO or

MISO. The encoding procedure that applies for the MISO case

has additional consequences on the overall system design.

Figure 1 illustrates the frame structure in DVB-T2 when using

a PP2 pilot pattern. It has to be noted that to allow the

corresponding channel estimation at the receiver in MISO, the

corresponding pilot pattern and therefore the available margins

in terms of resolution for both synchronization and

equalization stages differ with respect to SISO. In DVB-T2

MISO, the pilots are partitioned into two subsets. The first set

is composed of pilots transmitted with the same phase from

each one of the two transmitter sets that form a 2x1 MISO

network. Under this assumption, the overall response is

equivalent to the sum of the individual channel responses;

meanwhile the other subset consists of pilots that are inverted

only in one of the transmitter groups of the 2x1 MISO network

giving the difference of the transmission channel in between

the MISO groups. As a consequence, the practical resolution

available decreases in MISO compared to the SISO case.

IV. ON THE SFN GAIN EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

A. General description

Testing digital broadcast systems includes a number of

elements that cover, among others, the available equipment

and the measurement system. Usually, the availability of all

the required elements is limited in time, a fact that is more

critical in field trials with the limited availability of spectrum

licenses and transmission equipment.

This paper overcomes this limitation by capturing RF

signals in the field, with minor processing. These signals will

be later analyzed in the laboratory. Additionally a third phase

will include the system level simulations to complement those

receiving situations where further analysis is required to

clarify the behavior in the field. Both in the laboratory and the

simulation phases a software based DVB-T2 MISO/SISO

receiver was used following the methodology already

advanced by the authors in [29].

B. Munich DVB-T2 SFN Field Trials

During the summer of 2012 operational field trials were

carried out in Munich using an experimental single frequency

network. The experiment was set up by a consortium formed

by Bayerische Rundfunk, Rhode & Schwarz and the Institut

für Rundfunktechnik GmbH and with the cooperation of the

University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), where a three

transmitter Single Frequency Network was tuned to provide

the empirical data used in this paper (Figure 2).

The trial consisted of capturing RF signals using general

purpose equipment such as real time vector signal analyzers

(in the field) and arbitrary waveform generators (in the

laboratory). The received signals were down-converted and

the baseband information was digitalized as IQ (In-phase and

Quadrature-phase) samples that can be recorded for further

processing. The resulting data from the measurement

campaign are therefore a set of files with the received signals

Fig. 2. Munich SFN network.

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

5

recorded as baseband IQ samples that can be later reproduced

at the laboratory without time constraints (Figure 3).

The measurement methodology has been validated with

measurements [30][31] of different digital broadcasting

systems such as DRM [32] and DVB-T [3], and it is being

used for testing the new generation of digital broadcasting

systems such as DVB-T2 [1] and DVB-SH [33]. Figure 2,

Table II and Table III summarize the main configuration

details of the SFN network in Munich. A 32K FFT Extended

Carrier, 1/16 GI, PP2 OFDM base configuration was selected

for all measured DVB-T2 parameter combinations.

The selected OFDM configuration was chosen to provide a

direct SISO/MISO comparison with a minimal MISO bitrate

loss. Each MISO/SISO configuration was measured using

different network topologies as shown in Table III. The table

shows that a large number of network configuration and

transmitter settings were measured at a given location

providing extensive empirical data that allow a direct SISO vs.

MISO performance comparison.

C. Software Based DVB-T2 SISO/MISO receiver

In general, when the technology behind a digital

broadcasting standard is mature, a number of professional and

commercial receivers are available from different

manufacturers. This is not the case with emerging

technologies like MISO where reference receiver

implementations have not been proven yet in the field.

Hence the characteristics of the particular receiver used in

the field test will influence the findings of the investigation. In

fact, this limitation is more evident when testing a Single

Frequency Network because the results will be affected by

synchronization, channel estimation and equalization

strategies. In order to mitgate this limitation, we have used

two reference receivers: A commercial receiver (STB A) and a

custom software based DVB-T2 receiver.

The STB A is a state of the art DVB-T2 receiver that

includes the chipset and tuner present in almost any DVB-T2

receiver in the market at the time of writing this paper.

The second receiver is a “software defined radio”

professional DVB-T2 SISO/MISO measurement receiver

designed and developed for DVB-T2 system performance

evaluation. The receiver (Figure 4) takes as input DVB-T2 IQ

baseband samples and performs all the signal resampling,

synchronization, channel estimation and equalization

processes.

A complete BICM decoder per PLP is also included where

all FEC and interleaving stages are processed. In addition to

the process of decoding of the source stream, the receiver is

also able to provide the detailed information that cannot be

collected using a commercial DVB-T2 receiver. In [29] an

analysis of this receiver was already presented using a Cubic

Spline interpolation algorithm in the frequency domain.

However, for this work an improved interpolation algorithm

based on a Sinc band limited interpolation filter [37] together

with a DFT based noise reduction scheme according to

[38][39] is employed.

TABLE II

CONFIGURED DVB-T2 MODES

T2 Parameter SISO (S1) MISO

(M1) SISO (S2) MISO (M2)

PLP Mode Single Single Single Single FFT Size 32K 32K 32K 32K

GI 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16

Symbols/Frame 64 64 64 64 PAPR P2 ACE P2 ACE P2 ACE P2 ACE

Frames/SFrame 2 2 2 2

Ext. Carrier

Pilot Pattern PP2 PP2 PP2 PP2

PLP Parameters

Type 1 1 1 1

Modulation 64QAM 64QAM 64QAM 64QAM FEC-Coderate 2/3 2/3 3/4 3/4

FEC Type 64K 64K 64K 64K

Type Inter. 1 1 1 1 Time Inter.

Length

3 3 3 3

Mode Adap. HEM HEM HEM HEM

TABLE III

PER LOCATION MEASURED SFN NETWORK COMBINATIONS

SFN Network

Configuration Ismaning Tx Freimann Tx Funkhaus TX

S1

S2

M1 1 Mg1 Mg2 Mg2

M1 2 Mg2 Mg1 Mg2

M1 3 Mg2 Mg2 Mg2

M2 1 Mg1 Mg2 Mg2

M2 2 Mg2 Mg1 Mg2

M2 3 Mg2 Mg2 Mg1

S1

S2 M1

1 Mg1 Mg2

M1 2 Mg2 Mg1

M2 1 Mg1 Mg2

M2 2 Mg2 Mg1

S1 S2

M1 1 Mg1 Mg2

M1 2 Mg2 Mg1

M2 1 Mg1 Mg2

M2 2 Mg2 Mg1

S1 S2

M1 1 Mg1 Mg2

M1 2 Mg2 Mg1

M2 1 Mg1 Mg2

M2 2 Mg2 Mg1

Fig. 3. Field measurement system.

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

6

The receiver provides information related to the already

introduced factors affecting the practical SISO/MISO

performance in a Single Frequency Network: Power

Imbalance, calculated using the estimated channel impulse

responses from each one of the MISO groups

and Relative delay: also derived using the channel impulse

responses from both MISO group1 and MISO group2. The

Channel Profile was estimated at the receiver following the

ITU-SM 1875 recommendation. This process consists of

measuring the spectrum variation ( ) of the receiver

overall channel response in the frequency domain [34].

Depending on the given standard deviation ( ) of the

channel frequency response, the channel characteristics can be

derived from the ITU-SM 1875 as shown in Table IV [34].

D. Laboratory playout: Processing the recorded signals

One key parameter for testing the performance of a digital

broadcast system is the minimum C/N (RF carrier to noise

ratio) requirement for achieving a threshold equivalent to

Quasi-Error-Free (QEF) condition at the end user receiver.

The given C/N will depend on the nature of the propagation

channel characteristics at the target receiver (Table IV).

The calculation of the minimum C/N threshold was carried

out increasing the underlying background noise to decrease

the effective C/N ratio, having this technique the advantage

that the minimum signal level is guaranteed at the receiver

input. With the proposed methodology all the recorded IQ

files in the field are reproduced offline using the play out of

Figure 5.

Fig. 5. DVB-T2 Laboratory playout.

TABLE IV . ITU-SM 1875 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION

Channel Profile Spectrum Variation (dB)

Gaussian 0 ≤ σsp ≤ 1

Rician 1 < σsp < 3

Rayleigh σsp ≥ 3

Fig. 4. Software based DVB-T2 Receiver.

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

7

The system accomplishes the functionality of two different

DVB-T2 receivers. In order to reproduce the RF signals from

the IQ files previously captured in the field test, an arbitrary

waveform generator (Dektec VHF/UHF RF Professional

Modulator) is used [35]. The reproduced RF signals are used

to test the performance of the commercial DVB-T2 receiver

(STB A) under different AWGN noise conditions. In order to

provide a valid QoS metric from the STB A, a chipset

monitoring system is used to check the correct reception of the

transport stream. All the available monitoring signals of the

chipset can be found in [36]. These status signals are captured

with a digital signal acquisition card. The second receiver is

the software based DVB-T2 receiver that provides the

required information to analyze the factors that might affect

the practical SISO/MISO performance in the coverage area.

V. MISO AND SISO SFN PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

In this section the results obtained for the SFN (MISO vs.

SISO) gain is presented. The whole process is based on

minimum C/N threshold calculations and further comparison

and analysis as a function of the already described planning

factors: DVB-T2 coding and transmission parameters, power

imbalance, relative delay and propagation channel

characteristics.

The results have been organized as follows. First of all, the

numerical results of the minimum C/N requirements are

summarized in Tables V and VI. Figures 6 and 7 introduce the

minimum C/N requirements for each receiver, STB A and SDR

DVB-T2, respectively, as a function of the power imbalance

and as a function of the propagation channel characteristics as

described previously with the spectrum variation sp.

In Figure 6, there are four different plots. Figures 6a and 6b

represent minimum C/N thresholds for 64QAM 2/3 as a

function of the propagation channel (sp) and as a function of

the power imbalance. Figures 6c and 6d display equivalent

results for mode 64QAM 3/4. The same information structure

is provided by Figure 7, in this case for the SDR DVB-T2

receiver. Finally, Figure 8 represents the corresponding MISO

gains for each mode as a function of the propagation

conditions.

A. Analysis of the C/N requirements

Tables IX, X, XI, XII provide numerical results for Ricean

and Rayleigh channels. The tables also provide a specific

category for measurements under relevant SFN transmitter

overlapping condition. The results are calculated mean values

from available measurements with the receivers used in this

work and described previously. For clarification, it must be

noted that the results classified as Rician and or Rayleigh

correspond with an SFN scenario where the signal

contribution comes from one single transmitter.

In addition, reference values available so far in the literature

are also included. Those are (columns from left to right in

Tables V and VI): values recommended by the DVB-T2

implementation guidelines (IGL) [22], values from NorDig

requirements [40] and empirical values from DVB-T2 trials in

Northern Spain [41]. In this latter case the thresholds apply to

equivalent SISO configuration with a PP4 pilot pattern.

Regarding the “SFN channel” profile, the reference figures

from the DVB-T2 implementation guidelines are values for a

theoretical 0dB echo profile at the 90%GI.

In most SISO cases (Rician and Rayleigh propagation

channel profiles), the difference between the values in

different field trials (Germany and Spain [41]) is very low

being this last reference thresholds placed for an equivalent

PP4 pilot pattern rather than the PP2 used in this paper.

Regarding the SISO results, the maximum observable

difference between C/N thresholds can be up to 5 dB higher

than the Rician behavior. This difference appears under SFN

conditions where the maximum power imbalance from

different transmitters of the SFN network is below 3dB at the

receiver and represents a severe SFN degradation in the

minimum requirement for correct reception. The result is

nevertheless in line with the work carried out in the past for

other OFDM standards by the same authors [17], [20].

The provided reference figures in the implementation

guidelines can be regarded as rather optimistic. The values

that best fit our results are those obtained by NorDig [40], the

NorDig values being slightly more pessimistic. The SFN

effect and the boundary limits where it occurs can be clearly

appreciated in Figures 6 and 7. The results show that the SFN

effect can be neglected for power imbalances between SFN

transmitters higher than 3 dB and this value will be considered

the limit that differentiates relevant and negligible SFN cases.

TABLE V

MINIMUM C/N REQUIREMENTS: COMPARATIVE RESULTS

64QAM 2/3 LDPC 64800, 32K FFT, GI 1/16

Channel

Profile

IGL *

C/Nmin

(dB)

NorDig

C/Nmin

(dB)

North Spain,

PP4 C/Nmin

(dB)

Munich PP2

C/Nmin (dB)

STB A Rx SDR DVB-

T2 Rx

SISO

SFN 15.5 19.7 - 18.2 19.0

Rician 13.8 - 14.7 14.7 15,3

Rayleigh 15.6 19.2 17.4 17.1 17.3

MISO

SFN - - - 16.3 17.8 Rician - - - 14.7 15.4

Rayleigh - - - 17.8 17.6

*DVB-T2 Implementation guideline values: A correction factor for pilot boosting of 0.4 dB (PP2)

must be added

TABLE VI

MINIMUM C/N REQUIREMENTS: COMPARATIVE RESULTS 64QAM 3/4 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16

Channel

Profile

IGL *

C/Nmin

(dB)

NorDig

C/Nmin

(dB)

North Spain,

PP4 C/Nmin

(dB)

Munich PP2

C/Nmin (dB)

STB A

Rx

SDR DVB-

T2 Rx

SISO

SFN 17.6 22.0 - 20.4 20.6 Rician 15.4 - 16.6 16.8 17.7

Rayleigh 17.7 21.6 19.6 18.9 19.3 MISO

SFN - - - 18.0 19.1

Rician - - - 16,6 17.3 Rayleigh - - - 19.8 19.5

*DVB-T2 Implementation guideline values: A correction factor for pilot boosting of 0.4 dB (PP2)

must be added

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

8

For power imbalance values higher than 3 dB, the overall

channel profile is characterized by the channel profile of the

most dominant transmitter path. Again, the impact of the

channel can be observed in Figures 6 and 7. The groups of

measurements in Figures 6a and 6b, on the right side of each

graph, have sp values of 3 dB and more. According to

Table IV those measurements correspond to Rayleigh

channels. Taking into consideration that those measurements

have power imbalance values higher than 3 dB, the signal

degradation is caused by the propagation channel and not by

the SFN effect. The behavior is very similar for both DVB-T2

modes, and the tendency is also observed if the behavior of

each one of the receiver models (Figure 6 STB A, Figure 7

SDR DVB-T2) is compared.

According to Figure 7, the behavior of the STB A receiver

is better than the SDR DVB-T2. However, the latter uses an

equalization strategy based on a Zero Forcing approach and

therefore there is room for a performance improvement. In

consequence, the results for the SDR T2 receiver can be kept

as upper bound thresholds.

Tables IX, X, XI and XII provide detailed information

about the behavior of each receiver under each one of the

channel conditions and for each one of the two modes under

test. Finally, the theoretical values of the implementation

guidelines should be considered with caution under some

circumstances (SFN) as they assume perfect channel

estimation at the receiver.

B. Analysis of the MISO gain

The MISO gain value is considered in this analysis as the

difference between the minimum carrier-to-noise threshold

under SISO and MISO conditions:

( ) ⁄

( ) ⁄ ( ) (7)

Figure 8 provides the reference data for MISO gain

analysis. Tables VII and VIII summarize the measured MISO

gain results for STB A and SDR DVB-T2. The detailed

numerical reference data are provided by Figure 8 and

Tables XIII and XIV. The procedure to explain the results is

similar to the one in the previous section. Figures 8a and 8b

provide the MISO gain as function of the propagation channel

sp and the power imbalance.

The results show that a valuable MISO gain can be

achieved in the SFN region (locations where the presence of

signals coming from transmitters of each one of the MISO

groups is relevant). The result depends again on the receiver.

However, when the SFN effect is negligible, also degradation

might happen, and this degradation is stronger in a Rayleigh

than in a Rician channel. The influence of the code rate can be

also appreciated, the achievable MISO gain being higher with

lower robustness of the DVB-T2 mode.

If we compare the gain and the minimum C/N ratios in

SISO and MISO scenarios, the main conclusion is that the

MISO gain is providing certain degree of enhancement in

those locations of the coverage area where the SFN effect was

degrading the minimum thresholds, and thus compensating

possible problematic situations (C/N degradations due to SFN

effect up to 5 dB over the expected minimum).

On the contrary, those locations where the SFN effect is not

relevant (locations with no or little transmitter overlapping)

will present some degree of degradation (negative MISO

gains) due to MISO operation. The results address the

dependency of the MISO performance with the power

imbalance.

C. Influence of Relative delay & Pilot pattern on MISO

After evaluating the impact of the channel propagation

conditions and the power imbalance, the influence of the

relative delay between signals coming from transmitters of

different MISO groups is now presented. As mentioned in

Section III, this parameter has been neglected in the previous

literature, mostly because of the assumption of perfect channel

estimation and synchronization at the receiver.

In our investigation the influence of the relative delay on

the MISO gain was analyzed using field data from the Munich

trial, but it was concluded that its influence is negligible due to

the short range of delays that could be measured during the

trials. The measured relative delays ranged from a few μs to

maximum measured delays close to 40 μs.

In order to analyze the potential influence of the relative

delay on the MISO gain, the analysis carried out by the

authors in [29] was extended providing system level

simulations with the practical performance of the SDR DVB-

T2 reference receiver implementation in a distributed scenario.

In the DVB-T2 implementation guidelines [22], specific

reference channel models and test configurations are defined to

study the theoretical performance of DVB-T2. Consequently

among the traditional P1 and F1 (Rayleigh and Rician,

respectively) channels, two additional P2 and F2 equivalent

but uncorrelated channels have been defined.

Different but limited scenarios are also presented in the

specification [22] where two possible relative delays (0.18Δ,

0.23Δ) and two possible power imbalance levels (0, -3dB) are

suggested, where Δ denotes the length of the guard interval.

Taking these values as reference, a set of scenarios has been

created by the authors as shown in Table XV.

TABLE VII MEASURED EMPIRICAL MISO GAIN

64QAM 2/3 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

CHANNEL PROFILE Munich MISO Gain (dB)

STB A SDR Rx

Mean σ Mean σ

SFN 1.84 0.28 1.13 0.16 Rician 0.32 0.1 -0.13 0.26

Rayleigh -0.76 0.48 -0.32 0.37

TABLE VIII MEASURED EMPIRICAL MISO GAIN

64QAM 3/4 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

CHANNEL PROFILE Munich MISO Gain (dB)

STB A SDR Rx

Mean σ Mean σ

SFN 2.45 0.23 1.58 0.21 Rician 0.17 0.26 0.25 0.18

Rayleigh -0.85 0.03 -0.13 0.15

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

9

(a) (c)

(b) (d)

Fig. 6. Empirical analysis of the SFN effect for the STB A T2 receiver. C/N thresholds.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

TABLE IX

MEASURED MINIMUM C/N REQUIREMENTS 64QAM 2/3 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

STB A DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel

Profile

Mean

(dB)

Var

(dB)

Min

(dB)

Median

(dB)

Max

(dB)

IGL *

(dB)

SISO

SFN 18.2 0.8 17.5 18.1 19.8 15.5

Rician 14.7 0.1 14.3 14.7 15.1 13.8 Rayleigh 17.1 0.4 16.5 16.9 18.3 15.6

MISO

SFN 16.3 1.2 14.8 16.4 18.3 15.5

Rician 14.7 0.3 14.1 14.6 15.3 13.8

Rayleigh 17.8 0.5 16.7 17.9 18.6 15.6

* A correction factor for pilot boosting of 0.4 dB (PP2) must be added

TABLE X MEASURED MINIMUM C/N REQUIREMENTS

64QAM 3/4 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

STB A DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel Profile

Mean (dB)

Var (dB)

Min (dB)

Median (dB)

Max (dB)

IGL * (dB)

SISO

SFN 20.4 0.5 19.5 20.4 21.2 17.6

Rician 16.8 0.3 15.9 17.1 17.3 15.4 Rayleigh 18.9 0.2 18.6 18.6 19.5 17.7

MISO

SFN 18.0 0.7 16.9 18.1 19.4 17.6

Rician 16,6 0.5 15.4 16.8 17.4 15.4

Rayleigh 19.8 0.1 19.6 19.6 20.1 17.7

* A correction factor for pilot boosting of 0.4 dB (PP2) must be added

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

10

(a) (c)

(b) (d)

Fig. 7. Empirical analysis of the SFN effect for the SDR T2 receiver. C/N thresholds.

TABLE XI

MEASURED MINIMUM C/N REQUIREMENTS 64QAM 2/3 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel

Profile

Mean

(dB)

Var

(dB)

Min

(dB)

Median

(dB)

Max

(dB)

IGL *

(dB)

SISO

SFN 19.0 1.0 17.7 18.8 20.7 15.5

Rician 15.3 0.1 14.6 15.4 15.6 13.8

Rayleigh 17.3 0.3 17.0 17.0 18.3 15.6

MISO

SFN 17.8 0.8 16.8 15.5 17.5 15.5 Rician 15.4 0.3 14.6 15.3 15.1 13.8

Rayleigh 17.6 0.3 16.9 17.7 18.4 15.6

* A correction factor for pilot boosting of 0.4 dB (PP2) must be added

TABLE XII

MEASURED MINIMUM C/N REQUIREMENTS 64QAM 3/4 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel

Profile

Mean

(dB)

Var

(dB)

Min

(dB)

Median

(dB)

Max

(dB)

IGL *

(dB)

SISO

SFN 20.6 0.2 20.1 20.5 21.2 17.6

Rician 17.7 0.4 17.8 17.8 18.4 15.4

Rayleigh 19.3 0.7 18.4 19.9 20.1 17.7

MISO

SFN 19.1 0.2 18.6 19.0 10.8 17.6 Rician 17.3 0.1 16.4 17.3 17.7 15.4

Rayleigh 19.5 0.9 18.2 19.9 20.6 17.7

* A correction factor for pilot boosting of 0.4 dB (PP2) must be added

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

11

(a) (c)

(b) (d)

Fig. 8. Empirical analysis of the MISO gain.

TABLE XIV

MEASURED EMPIRICAL MISO GAIN

64QAM 3/4 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

STB A DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel Profile

Mean (dB)

Var (dB)

Min (dB)

Median (dB)

Max (dB)

SFN 2.45 0.23 1.41 2.48 3.2

Rician 0.17 0.26 -0.7 0.23 0.94 Rayleigh -0.85 0.03 -0.95 -0.95 -0.65

SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel

Profile

Mean

(dB)

Var

(dB)

Min

(dB)

Median

(dB)

Max

(dB)

SFN 1.58 0.21 1.02 1.49 2.47

Rician 0.25 0.18 -0.4 0.31 0.8

Rayleigh -0.13 0.15 -0.68 0.02 0.22

TABLE XIII

MEASURED EMPIRICAL MISO GAIN

64QAM 2/3 LDPC 64800, 32KFFT, GI 1/16, PP2

STB A DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel

Profile

Mean

(dB)

Var

(dB)

Min

(dB)

Median

(dB)

Max

(dB)

SFN 1.84 0.28 0.76 2 2.71 Rician 0.32 0.1 -0.59 0.12 0.39

Rayleigh -0.76 0.48 -1.71 -0.62 -0.08

SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO DVB-T2 RECEIVER

Channel Profile

Mean (dB)

Var (dB)

Min (dB)

Median (dB)

Max (dB)

SFN 1.13 0.16 0.47 1.3 1.99

Rician -0.13 0.26 -0.79 -0.27 0.71 Rayleigh -0.32 0.37 -0.91 -0.39 0.58

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

12

Figure 9 represents the simulated performance of the C/N

requirements for both SISO and MISO equivalent

configurations in a two transmitters Single Frequency

Network. The results show how the relative delay and the pilot

pattern might influence the performance of MISO in long SFN

echo conditions.

The simulation scenario consisted of two SFN transmitters

where both power imbalance and relative delays between

transmitter paths were varied to provide a representative range

of emulated scenarios for both equivalent SISO and MISO

distributed configurations. The emulated channel scenarios

cover a range of delays from the ones suggested in the DVB-

T2 implementation guidelines (0.18Δ, 0.23Δ) to relative

delays beyond the guard interval. In this sense, the region of

inter-symbol-interference (ISI) is also analyzed.

Regarding the set of power imbalances considered, the values

cover a representative range to analyze the performance with

and without the SFN effect. Finally and regarding the

simulated distributed scenario, the provided results relate to

signals from two transmitters in two distributed Rician

channels with a K factor of 10. According to the DVB-T2

implementation guidelines a F1 channel profile is used to

emulated the path coming from transmitter 1 while the second

delayed and attenuated path from transmitter 2 is modeled

with the F2 channel profile [22].

(a) C/Nmin distributed Rician: 64QAM 2/3 LDPC 64800, 32K FFT, GI 1/32,

PP4

(c) C/Nmin distributed Rician: 64QAM 2/3 LDPC 64800, 32K FFT, GI 1/16,

PP2

(b) C/Nmin distributed Rician: 64QAM 3/4 LDPC 64800, 32K FFT, GI 1/32, PP4

(d) C/Nmin distributed Rician: 64QAM 3/4 LDPC 64800, 32K FFT, GI 1/16, PP2

Fig. 9. Distributed Rician Scenario; Evaluated Power Imbalances: -1.24, -3, -6, -9 dB; Evaluated Relative Delays: 8%, 18%, 23%, 36%, 46%,

50%, 58%., 68%, 73%, 86%, 96%, 100%, 109%, 118% of the guard interval.

TABLE XV SFN CHANNEL SCENARIO DEFINITION FOR TWO TRANSMITTERS

Scenario ADB µS

Distributed

Rician K= 10

-1. 24,-3,-6,-9,-12 0.08, 0.18,0.23,0.36,0.46,

0.5, 0.58, 0.68, 0.73, 0.86,

0.96, 1.00, 1.09, 1.18

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

13

Figure 9, shows the simulated performance results for the

DVB-T2 parameters studied in the field trials. The results

present the behavior of the C/N threshold for all the scenarios

of Table XV. In the figures, the horizontal axis represents the

power imbalance between transmitter paths while the vertical

axis represents the relative delay between paths for a given

power imbalance. Finally, the color map represents the

obtained minimum C/N thresholds. It should be remarked that

the provided results include all the synchronization,

equalization and signaling stages of the DVB-T2 standard. In

this sense, the followed methodology has been based on the

preliminary results advanced by the authors in [29].

Two pilot patterns (PP2 and PP4) are compared where the

available guard interval differs due to system constrains are

1/16 and 1/32 respectively while the employed channel

estimator has been like with the empirical data an Ideal Sinc

Band Limited channel estimation interpolator over the

frequency direction.

The performance results show that in a similar way to the

empirical data, the influence of the relative delay can be

neglected for short delays. The delay appears to be critical

when the second transmitter path goes further in the guard

interval. However and even if this degradation is more

relevant in the MISO case, the performance can be reasonably

kept for almost the complete guard interval.

If compared with the results provided by the authors in [29]

it can be clearly seen that the performance of MISO against

SISO might be influenced by the channel interpolator.

However, when using an appropriated strategy the lack of

resolution in the pilot pattern can be reasonably overcome for

almost the whole guard interval.

VI. CONCUSSIONS

In this paper an analysis of the performance of the second

generation broadcast system DVB-T2 is presented. An

exhaustive analysis of the SFN operation has been carried out

and updated empirical minimum C/N thresholds have been

provided. The paper focuses on the calculation of empirical

MISO gain values measured during the operational DVB-T2

distributed MISO network trials carried out in Munich during

the summer of 2012. The empirical results have been

complemented with system level simulations to cover further

planning situations. The research work has taken into account

the influence of the receiver architecture, providing results for

a custom and for a commercial DVB-T2 receiver.

The C/N thresholds obtained show that the SFN effect

considerably modifies the system performance. A significant

contribution of this paper is the provision of reference real

threshold values for SFN planning procedures. It has been

proved that the reference 0dB echo profile suggested by the

implementation guidelines seems to be optimistic if used as

reference SFN channel profile. The measured C/N thresholds

in non-SFN environments are in line with values suggested by

the DVB-T2 implementation guidelines and other empirical

thresholds available in the literature.

Regarding the MISO gain, the empirical results show that

the MISO performance is limited mainly to the transmitter

overlapping areas. The MISO gain is significant provided the

power imbalance from different transmitters of the network is

small. Also, it has been proved that the gain is higher for

lower robustness modes (higher code rates). For large power

imbalances and therefore the range where the SFN effect is

not present the MISO gain vanishes. Moreover, even

degradation might happen in non transmitter overlapping

areas, mainly under hard channel conditions like Rayleigh

channels.

Finally, the influence of the pilot pattern and relative delay

in both SISO and MISO approaches was analyzed by means of

system level simulations. The provided results complement

the empirical data and show that even if a lack of resolution in

the pilot pattern compared to SISO is present in MISO, its

performance can be reasonably kept for a wide range of delays

over the guard interval. Nevertheless, it should also be taken

into consideration that this performance highly depends on the

employed channel interpolation algorithm.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Bayerischer Rundfunk and

Rohde & Schwarz for operating and providing the network

infrastructure and transmission equipment used in this field

trials and for their essential cooperation during the

development of the measurement campaign.

REFERENCES

[1] Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);Frame structure channel coding and

modulation for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcasting system (DVB-T2), ETSI EN 302 755 V1.3.1 (2012-04)

[2] DVB BlueBook A160 (11/12), Next Generation broadcasting system to

Handheld, physical layer specification (DVB-NGH) [3] EN 300 744 V1.6.1 (01/09), „Framing structure, channel coding and

modulation for digital terrestrial television“ [4] Alamouti, S., "A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless

communications," Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on ,

vol.16, no.8, pp.1451,1458, Oct 1998 doi: 10.1109/49.730453 [5] “DVB-H Field Trials, Testing Mobile TV,” Instinct, Metz, France,

2005[Online].Available: ttp://dea.brunel.ac.uk/instinct/PublicDocs.htm#

Deliverables [6] P. Talmola et al., “Wing TV, Services to Wireless, Integrated, Nomadic,

GPRS-UMTS and TV handheld terminals,” Tech. Rep., Nov.2006

[Online]. Available: http://www.celtic-initiative.org/Projects/WING-

TV/default.asp

[7] G. Santella, R. D. Martino, and M. Ricchiuti, “Single frequency network

(sfn) planning for digital terrestrial television and radio broadcast services: The Italian frequency plan for t-dab,” in Veh. Technol. Conf.,

May 17–19, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 2307–2311.

[8] J. Boveda, G. Marcos, J. M. Perez, S. Ponce, and A. Aranaz, “MER degradation in a broadcast mobile network,” in 2009 IEEE Int. Symp.

Broadband Multimedia Syst. Broadcast., Bilbao, Spain, May 13-15,

2009mm09-71. [9] D. Plets, L. Verloock, W. Joseph, L. Martens, E. Deventer, and H.

Gauderis, “Weighing the benefits and drawbacks of an SFN by

comparing gain and interference caused by operation,” in 2009 IEEE Int. Symp. Broadband Multimedia Syst. Broadcast., Bilbao, Spain, May 13-

15, 2009mm09-34

[10] S. G. Tanyer, T. Yucel, and S. Seker, “Topography based design of the T-DAB SFN for a mountainous area,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 43,

no. 3, pp. 309–319, Sep. 1997.

[11] S. I. Park, S. R. Park, H. Eum, J. Young Lee, Y.-T. Lee, and H. M. Kim, “Equalization on-channel repeater for terrestrial digital multimedia

broadcasting system,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 752–

760, Dec. 2008. [12] R. Rebhan and J. Zander, “On the outage probability in single frequency

networks for digital broadcasting,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 39, no.

4, pp. 395–401, Dec. 1993.

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

14

[13] A. Ligeti and J. Zander, “Minimal cost coverage planning for single

frequency networks,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 78–87,

Mar. 1999.

[14] S. O’Leary, “Field trials of an MPEG2 distributed single frequency

network,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 194–205, Jun. 1998.

[15] T. Prosch, “The digital audio broadcast single frequency network project in southwest Germany,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 238–246, Dec. 1994.

[16] A. Mattsson, “Single frequency networks in DTV,” IEEE Trans.

Broadcast., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 413–422, Dec. 2005 [17] Plets, D.; Joseph, W.; Angueira, P.; Arenas, J.A.; Verloock, L.; Martens,

L., "On the Methodology for Calculating SFN Gain in Digital Broadcast

Systems," Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on , vol.56, no.3, pp.331,339, Sept. 2010doi: 10.1109/TBC.2010.2051176

[18] Roland Brugger, David Hemingway, “OFDM receivers – impact on

coverage of inter-symbol interference and FFT window positioning,” EBU Technical Review – July 2003.

[19] “Frequency and Network Planning Aspects of DVB-T2”, EBU-

Technical Report 3348. Geneva, May 2012. [20] Eizmendi, I.; Prieto, G.; Berjon-Eriz, G.; Velez, M.M.; Arrinda, A.;

Angueira, P.; , "DVB-T2 performance in presence of multipath

laboratory tests," Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2011 IEEE International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1-6, 8-

10 June 2011 doi: 10.1109/BMSB.2011.5954967

[21] Tormos, M.; Tanougast, C.; Kasser, P.; Bretillon, P.; Dandache, A.; , "Performance evaluation for different MISO - SFN network

combinations for DVB-T2 standard," Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2011 IEEE International Symposium on ,

vol., no., pp.1-4, 8-10 June 2011doi: 10.1109/BMSB.2011.5954920,

[22] Implementation guidelines for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcasting system (DVB-T2), TS 102 831 V1.2.1 (08/12)

[23] Tormos, M.; Tanougast, C.; Dandache, A.; Bretillon, P.; Kasser, P.; ,

"Experimental performance of mobile DVB-T2 in SFN and distributed MISO network," Telecommunications (ICT), 2012 19th International

Conference on , vol., no., pp.1-5, 23-25 April 2012

doi:10.1109/ICTEL.2012.6221324 [24] White Paper 205 : A simple model of the UHF cross-polar terrestrial

channel for DVB-NGH, Peter Moss, Tuck Yeen Poon and John Boyer,

URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper205.shtm [25] B21C – CELTIC project CP4-004, WP3 – Network & Channels,

http://projects.celtic-initiative.org/B21C/B21C%20-%20D08-2%20-

%20MIMO%20Channel%20modeling.pdf [26] Gomez-Calero, C.; Navarrete, L.C.; de Haro, L.; Martinez, R.; , "A 2 2

MIMO DVB-T2 System: Design, New Channel Estimation Scheme and

Measurements With Polarization Diversity," Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on , vol.56, no.2, pp.184-192, June 2010 doi:

10.1109/TBC.2010.2046433

[27] Gomez-Calero, C.; Cuellar, L.; de Haro, L.; Martinez, R.; , "A 2×2 novel MIMO testbed for DVB-T2 systems," Broadband Multimedia Systems

and Broadcasting, 2009. BMSB '09. IEEE International Symposium on ,

vol., no., pp.1-5, 13-15 May 2009, doi: 10.1109/ISBMSB.2009.5133823

[28] Qi, J.; Robert, J.; Chee, K.L.; Slimani, M.; Zoellner, J.; , "DVB-T2

MISO field measurements and a calibrated coverage gain predictor,"

Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2012 IEEE International Symposium on , vol., no., pp.1-6, 27-29 June 2012

doi: 10.1109/BMSB.2012.6264296

[29] Morgade J., Angueira P., Arrinda A., Ordiales J.L.; Brugger R., Frank J.; Kunert C., Pfeffer R, DVB-T2, „MISO/SISO Receiver Performance

Limits in Single Frequency Networks: First Practical Results“,

Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2013 IEEE International Symposium on

[30] Prieto, G.; V lez, M.; Eizmendi, I.; Berj n, G.; Fernandez, C.; Angueira,

P.; De la Vega, D., "Improving measurement techniques for testing digital broadcasting systems," Instrumentation and Measurement

Technology Conference (I2MTC), 2010 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1207,1210,

3-6 May 2010 doi: 10.1109/IMTC.2010.548801 [31] G. Prieto, D. Guerra, J. M. Matías, M. Vélez, and A. Arrinda, “Digital-

Radio-Mondiale (DRM) Measurement-System Design and Measurement

Methodology for Fixed and Mobile Reception,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. [32] Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM); System Specification, European

Telecommunications Standards Institute Std. ETSI ES 201 980 v2.2.1,

Oct. 2005. [33] Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Framing structure, channel coding

and modulation for satellite services to handheld devices (SH) below

3GHz, ETSI EN 302 583, Rev. V1.1.1, mar 2008 [34] ITU-SM.1875: “DVB-T coverage measurements and verification of

planning criteria” [35] http://www.dektec.com/Products/T2Toolset.asp

[36] http://www.sony.net/Products/SCHP/cx_news/vol66/np_cxd2834er_r.ht

ml [37] Unser, M., "Sampling-50 years after Shannon,"Proceedings of the IEEE,

vol.88, no.4, pp.569,587, April 2000doi: 10.1109/5.843002

[38] Coleri, S.; Ergen, M.; Puri, A.; Bahai, A., "Channel estimation techniques based on pilot arrangement in OFDM

systems," Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on , vol.48, no.3,

pp.223,229, Sep 2002doi: 10.1109/TBC.2002.804034 [39] Yong Soo Cho, Jaekwon Kim, Won Young Yang, Chung G. Kang

„MIMO-OFDM Wireless Communications with MATLAB“, Wiley,

ISBN: 978-0-470-82561-7 [40] Nordig, “Unified Test Specifications for DVB-T2”, addendum ver. 1.0.1

Meas., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 565–570, Mar. 2008

[41] Eizmendi, I.; Prieto, G.; Berjon-Eriz, G.; Landa, I.; Velez, M., "Empirical DVB-T2 Thresholds for Fixed Reception," Broadcasting,

IEEE Transactions on , vol.59, no.2, pp.306,316, June 2013 doi:

10.1109/TBC.2013.2241358