Sie sind auf Seite 1von 212

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

Department of Fundamental Electricity and Instrumentation

Modelling and Optimization of Algorithms


for Multiuser Multicarrier systems
Thesis submitted in the fulfilment of the requirements to the degree of Doctor in
Engineering by

Hernan Xavier Cordova Junco

Brussels, 2012

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Department of Fundamental Electricity and Instrumentation

Modelling and Optimization of Algorithms


for Multiuser Multicarrier systems
Thesis submitted in the fulfilment of the requirements to the degree of Doctor in
Engineering by

Hernan Xavier Cordova Junco


Chair:

Prof. Dr. ir. J. Tiberghien

Vice chair:

Prof. Dr. ir. J. Deconinck

Secretary:

Prof. Dr. K. Steenhaut (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

Promotor:

Prof. Dr. Ir. Leo Van Biesen (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

Jury:

Prof. Dr. ir. Philippe De Doncker


Dr. ir. Patrick Boets (Alcatel-Lucent-Bell)
Prof. Luis M. Correia (IST-TV Lisbon - Portugal)

Print: Silhouet, Maldegem


2012 Hernan Xavier Cordova Junco
2012 Uitgeverij VUBPRESS Brussels University Press
VUBPRESS is an imprint of ASP nv (Academic and Scientific Publishers nv)
Ravensteingalerij 28
B-1000 Brussels
Tel. +32 (0)2 289 26 50
Fax +32 (0)2 289 26 59
E-mail: info@vubpress.be
www.vubpress.be
ISBN 978 90 5718 217 4
NUR 918
Legal deposit D/2012/11.161/153
All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the author.

To my mother, for all.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my greatest gratitude to Prof. Leo Van Biesen who has been a
great promoter, who is a wonderful friend and an exceptional human being.
I would like to thank my former colleagues at ELEC, Dr. Mohamed Zekri, Dr. Patrick
Boets, and Dr. Indira Nolivos for supporting me especially at the initial stage of this
work.
I also want to thank the financial support received during the first year (pre-doctoral
training) from VLIR (Belgium) and ESPOL (Ecuador) and during three more years from
FUNDACION CAPACITAR (Ecuador) to complete part of the present research work.
I would like to thank all the staff from the Physical Layer Department of TNO
(Informatie and Communicatie Technologie), first for giving me the opportunity to
conduct applied research in practical DSL networks and secondly, to be such a nice team.
I enjoyed very much all fruitful discussions about the practical roll-out of VDSL2 as well
as the nice working environment. Special thanks to Bas van den Heuvel for providing
new perspectives and encouraging finding practical solutions to real complex problems. A
note of appreciation to Dr. Rob F.M van den Brink for sharing his wide experience in
DSL gained over more than 20 years working at Standardization bodies (an active
member of ETSI and strongly contributor to Spectrum Management). Moreover, thanks
to Bas Gerrits for being such a nice office room-mate and making work a fun place to be.
In addition, my thanks also go to very good colleagues and friends at TNO: Teun van der
Veen, Relja Djapic and Archi Delphinato.
I also want to express my gratitude to Dr. Paschalis Tsiaflakis at Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven for fruitful discussions given in some areas (related to Dynamic Spectrum
Management) of this thesis and to Prof. Marc Moonen who accepted to be the promoter
of my master thesis developed during 2005-2006 at Katholieke Universiteit of Leuven.
Finally, my gratitude and deep love goes to my family (parents, wife and daughters) who
has been holding me up and encouraging me to finalize this project. Thanks a lot for all
your support, love and (hopefully) understanding. It has been quite a challenge to balance
work, PhD research and family time.

Abstract
Ideally, Optical Fiber should be the technology to be deployed to reaching the end-users
in an access network. However, the investment and maintenance costs are still prohibitive
for some countries. Digital subscriber line (DSL) technology is currently the most widely
deployed broadband access technology, however, and will continue to play an important
role during the coming years. Nevertheless, to cope with the bandwidth-intensive and a
mixed set of quality-of-service (QoS) and quality-of-experience (QoE) requirements of
the many emerging broadband applications and services (i.e. VoIP, triple-play services
including HDTV, IPTV, video-conferences, etc), it is essential to further improve the
DSL technology. The bitrates reached (especially in the period 2006-2008) over practical
DSL systems were smaller than the potential capacity (up to 500Mbps over a single
twisted pair), however. One of the key causes of this performance degradation is the
presence of crosstalk interference amongst the twisted pairs; as a consequence, the overall
noise floor increases too and thereby decreasing the actual bitrate of a particular line. This
effect turns out to increase also the probability to deteriorate the stability and quality of
the DSL line. Therefore, without an effective design and implementation of practical
algorithms that help reach bit rates similar to Fiber (and even wireless) systems, DSL
technology adoption were in danger.
Multi-user coordination techniques such as spectrum and signal coordination (i.e.
Vectoring) are recognized as a key approach for crosstalk mitigation. These techniques
consist of coordinating the transmission of multiple users so as to prevent, mitigate or
even remove the impact of crosstalk, resulting in big performance gains. The effective
implementation of these techniques makes by itself DSL competitive against Fiber (and
wireless) systems.
The spectrum coordination algorithms developed on this thesis are mainly focused on
crosstalk mitigation so as to maximize physical layer line rates. The main focus is thus on
the (practical) development of low-complexity algorithms that achieve near-optimal
performance; we cover this objective along the chapters of the thesis, for example:

In chapter 4 the near-far effect challenge of deploying VDSL2 in the Netherlands


was solved by helping the DSL operator answering key questions: till what
distance would it make sense to protect a specific bitrate for their customers and
whether reaching that specific bitrate was feasible or not given the specific noise
conditions?. To answer these key questions, we started by finding the global
9

optimum given certain conditions (a very time consuming solution); we explored


some other optimization criteria and evaluate different alternatives; next to this,
we significantly simplified the approach (via fitting) and tested it under several
other scenarios. Right after, we implemented the results of the algorithm in
VDSL2 equipment (2006) in a lab setup to assess how accurate could a real
deployment look like, analyzing trade-offs in the model.
Finally, a policy was proposed and agreed by ETSI and Spectrum Management
Regulator in the Netherlands to ensure all operators can implement it and all users
(indistinctive of which operator they belong to) can preserve their acquired DSL
service level.

In chapter 5, the performance of an ADSL signal when VDSL2 was rolled out
(without any measures) was preserved by helping the DSL operator optimize the
shaping of the PSD signal in the shaping frequency band (up to 2.2MHz for
ADSL2+ systems) in a manual and algorithmic manner. The algorithm approach
taken was tested in a lab setup and showed (2006) how accurate legacy DSL
systems (e.g. ADSL2+) were protected when VDSL2 is rolled out. Because the
initial algorithm was more static and relying on pre-defined crosstalk, we
proposed and deployed a Level-2 DSM algorithm to cope with this challenge. The
results were very similar but now the algorithm could cope with any change in the
crosstalk setup and was DSM-compatible (therefore, a Spectrum Management
Center is required).

Chapter 6 presents the general spectrum management problem for a two user
scenario and, after evaluating all state-of-the-art proposed algorithms, a different
approach was pursued by using a mix of meta-heuristic algorithms. Particle
Swarm Optimization proved to be the best in terms of leading to near-optimal
results whilst reducing its convergence time. Another key variable in metaheuristic algorithms is its reliability: in that respect, GBNM offers superior
performance as it consistently reaches the same (near-optimal) values at slightly
longer convergence time. In addition, two greedy algorithms for bit/power
allocation were proposed in this chapter, showing both superior performance
compared to state-of-the-art algorithms in this domain.

10

Table of Content
CHAPTER 1: Thesis Overview...................................................................................................17
1.1 Problem statement....................................................................................................................17
1.2 Research goal and objectives....................................................................................................17
1.3 General System Model.............................................................................................................19
1.4 Thesis Context..........................................................................................................................21
1.5 Contributions and Benefits.......................................................................................................22
1.6 References................................................................................................................................26
CHAPTER 2: Multicarrier Systems...........................................................................................27
2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................27
2.2 Analysis of advantages and drawbacks of OFDM systems......................................................30
2.2.1 Intro and ISI Cancellation.................................................................................................30
2.2.2 A higher spectral efficiency and bitrate.............................................................................31
2.2.3 Good performance over frequency selective channels......................................................32
2.2.4 High peak-to-average power ratio.....................................................................................33
2.3 Modelling Multicarrier systems...............................................................................................33
2.3.1 Channel Modelling............................................................................................................34
2.3.2 Cyclic Prefix......................................................................................................................36
2.3.3 Modelling ICI and ISI.......................................................................................................36
2.4 Concluding Remarks................................................................................................................38
2.5 References................................................................................................................................39
2.6 My contribution........................................................................................................................42
CHAPTER 3: Digital Subscriber Lines......................................................................................43
3.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................43
3.2 DSL Fundamentals...................................................................................................................44
3.2.1 System Model....................................................................................................................44
3.2.2 Crosstalk............................................................................................................................44
3.2.3 Crosstalk Summation Rule................................................................................................46
3.2.4 Self-Crosstalk in VDSL2...................................................................................................46
3.2.5 FEXT noise in a distributed environment..........................................................................47
3.3 Initial DSL Simulations............................................................................................................48
3.3.1Simulation 1: ADSL (POTS) performance........................................................................49
11

3.3.2Simulation 2: VDSL2 performance (bitrate versus noise margin variations)...................51


3.3.3 Simulation 3: VDSL2 performance analysis (noise margin)............................................52
3.3.4 Simulation 4: ADSL2+ performance when VDSL2 disturbers are present......................54
3.4 An Algorithmic Architecture model for xDSL systems..........................................................56
3.4.1 PSD band constructor.......................................................................................................58
3.4.2 PSD Shaper.......................................................................................................................59
3.4.3 PSD Notcher.....................................................................................................................60
3.4.4 PSD Power Restrictor.......................................................................................................61
3.4.5 Testing the proposed Architecture....................................................................................62
3.4.5 Concluding Remarks.........................................................................................................67
3.5 References................................................................................................................................67
3.6 My contributions:.....................................................................................................................69
CHAPTER 4: Upstream Spectrum Management.....................................................................71
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................71
4.2 System Model and Problem Statement....................................................................................73
4.2.1 Preliminaries: Overview of UPBO in the VDSL2 standard..............................................73
4.2.2 System Model...................................................................................................................75
4.2.3 Problem Statement............................................................................................................75
4.3 Proposed Algorithms...............................................................................................................75
4.3.1 Criterion 1.........................................................................................................................77
4.3.2 Criterion II........................................................................................................................77
4.3.3 Criterion III.......................................................................................................................78
4.3.4 Criteria Max-Min..............................................................................................................79
4.4 Scenario under study................................................................................................................80
4.5 Simulation Results...................................................................................................................81
4.5.1 Initial Results from the Exhaustive Search.......................................................................81
4.5.2 Algorithms Simplification.................................................................................................82
4.5.3 Evaluating performance at different values of

............................................................85

4.5.4 Performance Evaluation: Distinguishing between cabinets..............................................85


4.5.5 Evaluating other criteria....................................................................................................86
4.5.6 Ambiguity when evaluating

.......................................................................................89

4.6 Lab Measurement Results........................................................................................................89


4.7 How to deploy UPBO in practice?...........................................................................................91
4.8 DSM Compatible Algorithms.................................................................................................94
12

4.8.1 Introduction to Globalized-Bounded Nelder-Mead Algorithm.........................................94


4.8.2 Introduction to Globalized-Bounded Nelder-Mead (GBNM) Algorithm..........................95
4.8.3 Proposed Algorithm...........................................................................................................96
4.8.4 Simulation Results.............................................................................................................98
4.9 Concluding Remarks..............................................................................................................101
4.10 References...........................................................................................................................102
4.11 My Contributions................................................................................................................103
CHAPTER 5: Downstream Spectrum Management..............................................................105
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................105
5.2 PSD Shaping...........................................................................................................................108
5.3 Performance penalty when shaping VDSL2 spectra..............................................................110
5.4 Effectiveness of PSD shaping to ADSL2+.............................................................................113
5.4.1 Experimental verification at specific cabinet location (via Measurements)....................113
5.4.2 Experimental verification at multiple cabinet locations (via Measurements).................115
5.4.3 Sensitivity to badly shaped VDSL2 spectra....................................................................117
5.5 A Compatible Level-2 DSM Algorithm.................................................................................120
5.5.1 System Model and Objective...........................................................................................120
5.5.2 Spectrum Management Problem for the downstream.....................................................120
5.5.3 Proposed Level-2 DSM Algorithm.................................................................................121
5.5.4 Simulation Results...........................................................................................................123
5.6 PSD shaping Performance Validation via Simulation and Measurements.............................125
5.6.1 Scenario Description ....................................................................................................... 125
5.6.2 Performance Analysis in an overlay scenario.................................................................. 127
5.6.2.1 Performance Analysis via Simulations ................................................................ 127
5.6.2.2 Performance Analysis via Measurements............................................................ 129
5.6.3 Performance Analysis in self (VDSL2-only) scenario .................................................... 131
5.6.3.1 Performance Analysis via Simulations ................................................................ 131
5.6.3.2 Performance Analysis via Measurements............................................................ 132
5.7 Concluding Remarks..............................................................................................................133
5.8 References..............................................................................................................................134
5.9 My Contributions...................................................................................................................137
CHAPTER 6: Dynamic Spectrum Management Spectrum Coordination........................139
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................139
6.2 Spectrum Management Problem............................................................................................139

13

6.3 Problem Definition.................................................................................................................141


6.3.1 General Modelling of the Spectrum Coordination Problem ........................................... 141
6.3.2 Our focus: weighted bitrate sum problem ....................................................................... 142
6.4 Fundamentals of the Proposed Algorithms............................................................................143
6.4.1 Using a (optimized) Simplex Search Algorithm ............................................................. 144
6.4.2 Using the SIMPSA Algorithm ........................................................................................ 145
6.4.3 Using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)..................................................................... 146
6.4.4 Proposed Algorithms ...................................................................................................... 148
6.5 Simulation Results and Observations....................................................................................148
6.5.1 Scenario under study ....................................................................................................... 148
6.5.2 Results and Observations ................................................................................................ 149
6.6 Greedy Algorithms.................................................................................................................154
6.6.1 System Model and Objective .......................................................................................... 154
6.6.2 Proposed Algorithm ........................................................................................................ 156
6.6.3 Simulation Results .......................................................................................................... 160
6.6.4 Improvements to the Proposed Algorithm ...................................................................... 162
6.7 Concluding Remarks..............................................................................................................166
6.7 References..............................................................................................................................167
6.8 My Contributions...................................................................................................................172
6.9 Other Contributions...............................................................................................................173
CHAPTER 7: Concluding Remarks........................................................................................175
7.1 Contributions of the thesis.....................................................................................................175
7.2 Future work............................................................................................................................177
CHAPTER 8: Appendices.........................................................................................................179
8.1 Upstream: Near-Far Problem.................................................................................................179
8.2 Upstream: Evaluating performance at all lengths and other

(500m)................................180

8.3 Upstream: Polynomial fitting for US2...................................................................................184


8.4 Upstream: Other criterion evaluation.....................................................................................184
8.5 Upstream: Simulation Results for Max-Min Criterion..........................................................184
8.6 Upstream: Lab Measurement Results....................................................................................186
8.7 Downstream: Measurement Results.......................................................................................189
8.8 Extra analysis: Shape10 vs no-shape.....................................................................................190
8.9 Validating theoretical Impulse Noise Requirements..............................................................193
Publications................................................................................................................................197
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................201
14

List of Abbreviations, Mathematical Notation and Symbols.................................................202


List of Tables...............................................................................................................................207
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................209

15

16

CHAPTER 1: Thesis Overview


1.1 Problem statement
Ideally, Optical Fiber should be the technology to be deployed to reaching the end-users
in an access network. However, the investment and maintenance costs are still prohibitive
for some countries. Digital subscriber line (DSL) technology is currently the most widely
deployed broadband access technology, however, and will continue to play an important
role during the coming years. Nevertheless, to cope with the bandwidth-intensive and a
mixed set of quality-of-service (QoS) and quality-of-experience (QoE) requirements of
the many emerging broadband applications and services (i.e. VoIP, triple-play services
including HDTV, IPTV, video-conferences, etc), it is essential to further improve the
DSL technology. Without special measures (i.e. implementation of algorithms), it would
be impossible to make DSL a more competitive technology and attractive to consumers
whilst safeguarding the performance of (DSL) legacy systems.
In theory, over a single twisted pair, bitrates of up to 500Mbps can be realized, as later
indicated (and referenced) in the body of this thesis. The bitrates in practical DSL systems
are much smaller, however. One of the key causes of this performance degradation is the
presence of crosstalk interference amongst the twisted pairs, which increases the overall
noise floor and therefore, decreases the actual bitrate of a particular line, increasing also
the probability to deteriorate the stability (i.e. staying synchronized with the central
system) and quality of the DSL line. The presence of crosstalk transforms DSL systems
into a challenging multi-user multi-carrier interference environment, where different users
could significantly impact each other.
Without the effective design and implementation of practical algorithms that help reach
bit rates similar to Fiber (and even wireless) systems, DSL would be soon starting to
decay in adoption. Such a goal is obtained by effectively managing the trade-off between
near-optimal performances versus complexities in the implementation of the algorithms.
1.2 Research goal and objectives
Multi-user coordination techniques such as spectrum and signal coordination (i.e.
Vectoring) are recognized as a key approach for crosstalk mitigation. These techniques
consist of coordinating the transmission of multiple users so as to prevent, mitigate or
even remove the impact of crosstalk, resulting in big performance gains (e.g. line rate).
17

The effective implementation of these techniques makes by itself DSL competitive


against Fiber systems.
The spectrum coordination algorithms developed on this thesis are mainly focused on
crosstalk mitigation so as to maximize physical layer line rates. The main focus is thus on
the development of numerically robust and low-complexity algorithms that achieve nearoptimal performance.
For example, in chapter 4 the near-far effect challenge of deploying VDSL2 in the
Netherlands was solved by helping the DSL operator answering key questions: till what
distance would it make sense to protect a specific bitrate for their customers and whether
reaching that specific bitrate was feasible or not given the specific noise conditions?. To
answer these key questions, we started by finding the global optimum given certain
conditions (a very time consuming solution); we explored some other optimization
criteria and evaluate different alternatives; next to this, we significantly simplified the
approach (via fitting) and tested it under several other scenarios. Right after, we
implemented the results of the algorithm in VDSL2 equipment (2006) in a lab setup to
assess how accurate could a real deployment look like, analyzing trade-offs in the model.
Finally, to be able to successfully deploy this solution, it was required to make sure all
different operators follow similar guidelines and therefore, a proposal was made to ETSI
and SOO (Spectrum Regulator in the Netherlands) to enforce this. The proposal was well
received and accepted by both entities. The entire solution ended being implemented over
practical Dutch subscriber networks (via the operator: KPN).
Similarly, in chapter 5, the performance of an ADSL signal when VDSL2 was rolled out
(without any measures) was preserved by helping the DSL operator optimize the shaping
of the PSD signal in the shaping frequency band (up to 2.2MHz for ADSL2+ systems) in
a manual and algorithmic manner. The algorithm approach taken was tested in a lab setup
and showed (2006) how accurate legacy DSL systems (e.g. ADSL2+) were protected
when VDSL2 is rolled out. Because the initial algorithm was more static and relying on
pre-defined crosstalk, we proposed and deployed a Level-2 DSM algorithm to cope with
this challenge. The results were very similar but now the algorithm could cope with any
change in the crosstalk setup and was DSM-compatible (therefore, a Spectrum
Management Center is required).
Further, extensive simulations and measurements for two very common (Dutch) noise
scenarios were performed showing the (degradation) impact on VDSL2 systems under
different situations.
18

Chapter 6 presents the general spectrum management problem for a two user scenario
and, after evaluating all state-of-the-art proposed algorithms, a different approach is
pursued by using a mix of meta-heuristic algorithms. Particle Swarm Optimization proved
to be the best in terms of leading to near-optimal results whilst reducing its convergence
time. Another key variable in meta-heuristic algorithms is its reliability: in that respect,
GBNM offers superior performance as it consistently hits same (near-optimal) values at
slightly longer convergence time. In addition, two greedy algorithms for bit/power
allocation were proposed in this chapter, showing both superior performance (in terms of
convergence time and power savings) compared to state-of-the-art algorithms in this
domain.
1.3 General System Model
In this thesis, the focus is on explicitly incorporating the impact of crosstalk by using a
multi-user model. A multiuser (MU) DMT channel environment of M users with a
maximum number of N tones can be represented (in the time-domain) by [7],[10]:
y

, i

where n

1, 2, , N and i

1,2, , M
(1.1)

where H is the diagonal representing the main channel transfer function of user i at tone
n; H (i

j corresponds to the off-diagonal elements, representing the crosstalk transfer

function from user j to user i at tone n; Z represents the additive white Gaussian noise
(AWGN) of user i at tone n whose power is given by , . Expression (3.1) states that
the QAM symbol x at the input of the DMT transmitters IFFT is transmitted over tone
h without any interference from the other symbols x

for m

n and with a noise

component corresponding to the receive noise on tone n. So, DMT transmission achieves
a full decoupling over tones which constitutes a very important property of this
technology.
The vector
vector

and

represent the domain, for tones and users, respectively.

x , x , , xM
z ,z ,,z

M T

represents the

transmitted signals on tone

; the

represents the vector additive noise on tone n, containing

thermal noise, alien crosstalk, and radio-frequency interference. The transmit power is
defined as s

fE x

, the noise power is defined as

19

fE z

; the vector

containing the transmit power of user i on all tones is given by


vector containing the transmit power of all users on subcarrier n is

s , s , , sN T ; the
s , s , , sM T .

The general expression for bitloading in a multiuser environment, assuming that each
modem treats interference from other modems as noise (so, leading to a Gaussian
distribution) is given (in bits) by [7]:
b

S |

log 1

|
(1.2)

is the transmitted power by user i at tone n, and the total noise power is given

where
by:

(1.3)
and quantifies the effective loss in SNR with respect to the theoretical one [6] and is
dependent on the bit-error rate, coding gain and noise margin. When a typical BER
of10

is used for DMT systems, the can be calculated as [4], [5]:

9.75

dB
(1.4)

where

is the noise margin (typically 6dB) and

is the coding gain (typically in the

order of 3 to 5dB.
The goal of any loading algorithm is to maximize the total capacity, or equivalently the
total datarate with respect to some constraints. Any reliable and deployed system must
operate under limited total power, finite complexity and delay constraints. Thus in
practice, such a system must transmit at a line rate below the Shannon capacity [6]. More
details on bitloading (and power allocation) will be provided in Chapter 6.
The maximum bitrate of a victim modem is usually evaluated as a function of the loop
length (characteristics of the type of cable). There are 2 different kinds of bitrate that are
envisaged:
20

The Line Rate, represents the rate of all bits that are transported over the line,
including the overhead. Its value is always higher (or equal) than the datarate
(usually in the order of 0% to 30%) to transport overhead bits for error correction,
signalling and framing.

The net data rate (payload bits, ignoring all overhead) is the effective rate at which
the pure data is being transmitted, not taking any overhead into account.

Once we know the bitloading distribution, the line rate of a particular user m could be
expressed by [7]:
N

bni bits/seconds

(1.5)
The aggregate line rate in a multiuser environment is thus given by:

b bits/seconds

(1.6)
where f

is

the symbol rate (a typical value for DMT systems is 4000 symbols/s).

Spectrum coordination consists of allocating the available transmit power resources


across the users and frequencies (tones) so that the crosstalk interference is mitigated (or
cancelled, ideally). This results into a non-convex optimization problem where the
objective and constraints are functions of the transmit powers and some class of service
variables (also translated sometimes to Quality of Service -QoS- levels).
Along the thesis, we will use lower case to represent signals in the time-domain, upper
case to indicate signals in the frequency domain, and bold letter when referring to either
vectors or matrices (unless clearly indicated in the text).
We come back to this model along the entire thesis for different analysis (and therefore,
we will refer back to this section).
1.4 Thesis Context
This thesis shows the results from a) simulations, lab measurements and further analytical
21

studies on DSL developed from end 2005 till mid 2008, mainly, mostly related to the
proper deployment of VDSL2 systems and b) from 2010 till begin 2012, the studies have
been focused on theoretical analysis (mathematical) and simulations about spectrum
management challenges on DSL systems.
Most of the (analytical, simulation and lab measurements) studies related to static
spectrum management for digital subscriber lines (DSL) were accomplished while
working for the Physical layer department at TNO ICT, located in Delft, the Netherlands
(end 2005- mid 2008). A majority of the work performed in TNO was to provide advice
to KPN (and other companies whose names cannot be disclosed) on how to efficiently
rollout VDSL2 (special focus on the Netherlands). There are two main consequences on
this: on one hand, some results cannot be published due to confidential manners (e.g.
impulse noise modeling with lab and field measurements) and on the other hand, the
majority of these studies are based on Dutch subscriber lines (noise scenarios, cable
measurements, statistics about noise behavior, etc) though the finding on these studies can
be easily extended to other DSL systems (a further analysis might be needed to match
other scenarios).
Furthermore, this department (TNO Physical layer-DSL department) makes use of a
specific DSL simulator (called SPOCS). The author of this thesis has contributed to the
development of this tool though his major focus has been in the development of VDSL2
algorithms applicable to optimize performance.
Some of the work that was allowed to be disclosed has been published in some
conference papers (ICC, Broadband forum, etc). However, some others have not because
of, by the time the results were disclosed (during 2010 and 2011), other research groups
had already published similar results in the field.
In the development of this thesis, though some of this work made use of existing
MATLAB routines (i.e. SPOCS simulator, FSAN simulator, VUB simulator, etc) -and it
is acknowledged when applicable-, a very significant part has been created and/or adapted
by the author. Hence, a huge amount of own code has been developed by the author along
the years as a result of the development of this thesis.
1.5 Contributions and Benefits
In the following table, a description of the chapter and the authors contribution is
22

described per chapter.


Chapter
Chapter 2

Description
Description
This chapter reviews basic concepts of multi-carrier systems and
shows some basic simulations performed by the author related to
power spectral densities of these systems. Next to this work, a clear
analysis of the mathematics related to the modeling of the channel is
presented.
Contribution
VDSL2 Modeling

Chapter 3

Description
This chapter focuses on discrete multi-tone (xDSL) systems. Herein,
simulation examples performed by the author are presented related to
different scenarios in DSL systems, tailored to Dutch subscriber lines
noise scenarios. A first example about the effect of VDSL2 systems
over ADSL2 is shown; again tailored to Dutch subscriber lines (that
is, using the a typical cable found over Dutch subscriber lines and
considering its specific crosstalk environment, coming out from an ongoing statistical analysis),
Contribution
VDSL2 modeling, library creation and simulations. A VDSL2
algorithmic architecture model and validation through simulations

Chapter 4

Description
This chapter studies (static spectrum management) upstream
performance and reveals in detail the near-far effect and its
consequences in upstream performance for VDSL2 systems. This
investigation was based on the specific Dutch subscriber lines
situation, evaluating how the street cabinets are distributed in the
Netherlands and the different crosstalk noise scenarios most
frequently found there.

23

The study is split into two parts: simulations performed at the


beginning to find the most suitable UPBO parameters and
measurements where the effectiveness of the settings is shown.
As a result of this study, optimal Upstream Power Back-off (UPBO)
settings for typical Dutch scenarios were proposed and accepted by
KPN and the Dutch spectrum regulatory entity (SOO). KPN plays a
key role in the development of Dutch policies.
Therefore, an additional (simulation) study was performed by the
author to show the necessity of a national policy where all operators
get committed to deploy VDSL2 in a similar manner. This policy was
nationwide adopted and accepted in ETSI-Spectrum Management
studies track.
A DSM algorithm using a non-linear simplex search approach was
proposed.
Contribution
An Exhaustive search algorithm for finding the optimal UPBO
parameters per cable bundle (tailored to Dutch cables). Validation of
the model via simulations and measurements

Chapter 5

Description
This chapter reviews the necessity of implementing (static spectrum
management) downstream power back-off (also known as PSD
shaping) and the consequences when this is not accomplished
properly.
Again, the study consists of two parts: simulations where the
performance deterioration of ADSL2+ systems is clearly observed
when no measures are taken at the VDSL2 transmitter and a second
part where measurements show this effect in a real scenario as well as

24

the validation and effectiveness of the method to preserve ADSL2+


performance. The method on how to cope with this phenomenon and
preserve ADSL2+ performance (or any other xDSL legacy systems) is
also explained.
Moreover, a more general algorithm was proposed to cope with both
a) being compliant with current spectrum management specifications
and b) preparing for better performance gains when using DSM. An
algorithm to facilitate full Level-2 DSM capabilities was proposed and
its performance was validated via simulations.
Contribution
A practical algorithm for protecting DSL legacy systems and
optimizing VDSL2 performance.
Validation of the model via simulations, sensitivity analysis and
measurements.
An algorithm for enabling Level-2 DSM capabilities was delivered
and validated via simulations and lab measurements
Chapter 6

Description
This chapter consists of two parts: the initial one when the spectrum
management challenge is presented and resolved by a metaheuristic
approach and the second when a greedy algorithm is proposed to
improve the bitloading efficiency and complexity.
Both topics are covered via proposed algorithms and their simulations.
Contribution
Several algorithms using different metaheuristics mechanisms were
tested and PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization) was found to lead to
the best results.
Greedy removal and parallel algorithms were proposed, reducing
running time by ~40% when compared to other algorithms.

Chapter 7

Conclusions

25

This chapter summarizes the conclusions of the thesis

1.6 References
[1] Bello P.A., Characterization of Randomly Time-Variant Linear Channels, IEEE
Trans. on Comm. Systems, Vol. CS.11, No 4, pp. 360393, December 1963.
[2] Hahm M.D., Mitrovski Z.I., and Titlebaum E.L., Deconvolution in the Presence of
Doppler with Application to Specular Multipath Parameter Estimation, IEEE Trans. on
Signal Proc., Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 22032219, September 1997.
[3] Schafhuber D., Matz G., and Hlawatsch F., Adaptive Wiener filters for timevarying
channel estimation in wireless OFDM systems, IEEE ICASSP03, Hong Kong, Vol. 4,
pp. 688691, April 6-10, 2003,
[4] Chaparro L.F., and Alshehri A.A., Channel Modeling for Spread Spectrum via
Evolutionary Transform, IEEE ICASSP04, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 609
612, May 1721, 2004.
[5] Bingham J.A.C., ADSL, VDSL2 and Multicarrier modulation, Wiley 2000,
ISBN:0-471-29099-8.
[6] Zervos N. A. and Kalet I., Optimized decision feedback equalization versus
optimized orthogonal frequency division multiplexing for highspeed data transmission
over the local cable network, in Proc. ICC89, Boston, MA, pp. 10801085, June 1989.
[7] Berberidis K. and Palicot J., A frequency domain decision feedback equalizer for
multipath echo cancellation, in Proc. Globecom95, vol.1, Singapore, pp. 98102,
November 1995.
[8] Benvenuto N. and Tomasin S., On the Comparison Between OFDM and Single
Carrier Modulation With a DFE Using a Frequency-Domain Feedforward Filter, IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol 50, no 6, pp. 947-955, June 2002.
[9] Cioffi J., The essential merit of bit-swapping, online report available at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/cioffi/documents/bit_swapping.pdf.
[10] Starr T., Cioffi J. M. and Silverman P. J., Understanding Digital Subscriber Line
Technology, Prentice Hall PTR 1999, ISBN: 0137805454.

26

CHAPTER 2: Multicarrier Systems


2.1 Introduction
The basic idea of multicarrier modulation consists of dividing the available spectrum into
several sub-carriers (also called subchannels or tones). Commonly, placing carriers too
closely to each other would cause interference among the carriers due to the decay of the
side-lobes. However, when properly spaced from each other, orthogonality at the receiver
side can be maintained between the sub-carriers. Orthogonality is highly desired because
it ensures uncorrelated side tones, which enhances the reception at the receiver (none or
less errors caused by intercarrier interference -ICI-). The channel frequency response is
considered constant during the small frequency interval occupied by each sub-carrier and
is thus considered a flat fading channel with additive noise.
This effect (flat fading assumption) certainly simplifies the channel equalization although
this is not always a true practical assumption [1], [2]. When this cannot be accepted as a
valid assumption, several proposals for equalization are found in the literature [3], [4].
For certain applications, the channel behaviour can be considered static over several
symbols as it is the special case in wire-line systems where (channel) characteristics are
assumed to vary slowly (opposed to wireless systems where the channel may be
considered as highly time-variant).
Ideal Single Carrier Modulation (SCM) pulses are limited in bandwidth and infinite in
duration; they maintain orthogonality because they are zero at regular sampling instants.
In the same way, focusing on the duality cited by [5] ideal MCM pulses that are generated
by an Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform (IDFT) are limited in time and infinite in
bandwidth, maintaining also the orthogonality because they are zero at regular frequency
intervals. Further studies show that performance of an SCM plus a Decision-FeedbackEqualizer (actually a time-domain -TD- unconstrained length DFE) leads to similar
performance than a typical Multi Carrier Modulation (MCM) system [6], [7], [8].
In multicarrier modulation, a channel is partitioned into a set of orthogonal, independent
subchannels, each of which supports a distinct carrier which is orthogonal to the others
but still overlap as depicted in Figure 2.1. The power spectral density of such signal is
depicted in Figure 2.2.
27

1
Signals in the frequency domain (Normalized Amplitude)
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

10

15
f

20

25

30

25

30

Figure 2.1: OFDM signals are orthogonal but do overlap (N=8)


PSD for Complex Envelope of OFDM for N=8
5

PSD of Complex Envelope, Pg(f), in dB

0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40

10

15
f

20

Figure 2.2: Power Spectral Density of an OFDM signal when the number of subcarriers,
N= 8.
Discrete multi-tone (DMT) modulation achieves excellent performance with finite
complexity. Because it offers many advantages for transmission on twisted-pair lines,
DMT has been standardized world-wide for ADSLx and VDSL2.
As in any multi-carrier modulation, a DMT transmitter partitions a channels bandwidth
into a large number of subchannels. Each subchannel is characterized by an SNR, which
28

is measured whenever a connection is established and monitored thereafter. The source


bitstream is encoded into a set of QAM subsymbols, each of which represents a number
of bits determined by the SNR (at the midpoint of its associated subchannel), the desired
overall error probability, and the target bit rate. The set of sub-symbols is then input as a
block to a complex-to-real inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT), which is often
implemented using the fast Fourier transform (FFT). Following the IDFT, a cyclic prefix
is appended to the output samples to mitigate intersymbol interference (ISI).

The

resulting time-domain samples are converted from digital to analog format and applied to
the channel.

At the receiver, after analog-to-digital conversion, the cyclic prefix is

stripped, and the noisy samples are transformed back to the frequency domain by a DFT.
Each output value is then scaled by a single complex number to compensate for the
magnitude and phase of its subchannels frequency response.

The set of complex

numbers, one per subchannel, is called the frequency-domain equalizer (FEQ). After the
FEQ, a memory-less (that is, symbol-by-symbol) detector decodes the resulting subsymbols. Thus, in contrast to CAP/QAM systems, DMT systems do not suffer from error
propagation because each subsymbol is decoded independently of all other (previous,
current, and future) subsymbols. The block diagram is depicted in Figure 2.3.
Imput
bit stream
Encoder

Add
cyclic
prefix

IDFT

D/A

Channel
Output
bit stream

Memoryless
decoder

FEQ

DFT

Strip
cyclic
prefix

Figure 2.3: Block Diagram of an OFDM system


During steady-state operation, the SNRs in the subchannels are monitored in a data driven
manner by the receiver. Upon detecting degradation in one or more subchannel SNRs,
the receiver computes

modified bit distribution that better achieves the desired error

performance. Depending on the SNR of a degraded subchannel, some or all of its bits
29

may be moved to one or more (different) subchannels that can support additional bits
(that is, subchannel with noise margins greater than zero). The required bit distribution
change is reported to the transmitter, where it is implemented. This technique is known
as bit swapping, and it allows the system to maintain near-optimal system performance as
the channel and noise conditions change [9] without forcing any re-synchronization of the
modem (so, without losing connectivity).
Bit swapping algorithms are designed to provide the maximum noise margin at the
desired bitrate and error probability [9].
2.2 Analysis of advantages and drawbacks of OFDM systems
2.2.1 Intro and ISI Cancellation
OFDM systems make use of Fast Fourier transform (FFT) to accomplish transmission
through parallel subcarriers so that it eliminates possible interference or overlap between
them. Therefore, the number of data subcarriers is linked to the number of samples using
the FFT (NFFT). So, in general, OFDM refers to the transmission of a digital frame that
requires large transfer rates by NFFT slower parallel lines that are adjacent and
orthogonal subcarriers, which carry separate symbols that are the product of some type of
digital modulation as QPSK, 16-QAM, 64-QAM, etc, where these N orthogonal
subcarriers that are used for any OFDM system, are separated in frequency by the value
.

precisely the reverse of the time span of the OFDM symbol, say

So if the signal is encoded by the QPSK (or other I / Q modulation), the signal can be
expressed as follows:
2

(2.1)
where

and

take values according to their corresponding constellation.

This technique has found high adoption for systems with demanding datarate
requirements, e.g. for wireless LAN, broadcasting, xDSL, WiFi systems, video
conferencing and recently since a few years ago, WIMAX (802.16e/f/g/k). Furthermore,
it is being adopted as well by other emerging wireless broadband systems like Flash OFDM and LTE (fourth generation -4G- cellular systems).

30

The popularity of OFDM results from its application for transmission of high datarate and
its immunity/mitigation properties in the ISI, i.e.

for highly dispersive channels

[10],[11],[12],[13].
In WiMAX systems, where there is often no line of sight, there is a high probability to be
affected by ISI; therefore, special techniques are required to minimize this effect in the
transmitters and receivers such as OFDM [10],[14],[15].
Table 2.1 summarizes the main points of differentiation between single-carrier and
multicarrier systems.
Table 2.1: Key Differences between single carrier and multicarrier systems
Single Carrier

Multi Carrier

Uses the entire bandwidth

Split bandwidth into subchannels

It has short symbol times

Sends information in parallel

The latter causes ISI

It uses orthogonal sub-carriers

Therefore, it needs a
complex equalizer.

Avoids ISI by using Cyclic Prefix

Subsections 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 provides a more detailed yet high-level overview of the
differences between these systems.
Multicarrier systems (e.g. OFDM, DMT, etc.) are especially suitable for high-speed
communication due to their resistance to ISI. As communication systems increase their
information transfer speed, the time for each transmission necessarily becomes shorter.
Since the delay time caused by multipath remains constant, ISI becomes a limitation in
high-data-rate communication [14],[16],[17],[18]. OFDM avoids (at least mitigates) this
problem by sending many low speed transmissions simultaneously.
2.2.2 A higher spectral efficiency and bitrate
The capacity for a single-carrier system (e.g. FDM) is given by [5],[10]:
R

log

(2.2)

31

where the ratio R/W represents capacity density (bit rate R (in bits/s) per W (in Hertz))
and M stands for the number of points in the signal constellations. For multi-carrier
systems (and when N is sufficiently large), the capacity is approximated given by [5],
[10]:
R

log

(2.3)

In multicarrier systems, extra capacity is obtained because of the overlapping (in


frequency) among the sub-carriers. Though this occurs, multicarrier systems (like OFDM)
aim at ensuring the orthogonal principle among the subcarriers (to ensure ICI free).
2.2.3 Good performance over frequency selective channels
It becomes evident from Figure 2.4 that the performance (and the quality of the system) is
significantly deteriorated when using single carrier modulation over frequency selective
channels because any attenuation over even a small frequency range may affect the whole
system; instead, in a multicarrier system, it is possible to lower the number of capacity
(bits) allocated to each sub-carrier independently (or even completely shut down that
subcarrier or set of subcarriers); therefore, the multicarrier system is more robust to
frequency selective channels and the quality over the channel can be preserved. Thus, the
frequency selective DSL channel can be viewed as being approximated by consecutive
independent tones with a flat frequency response. This decomposition over the tones
(considering that each tone is approximately flat) makes each of the per-tone QAM
transmission free of ISI. In contrast, single carrier modulation systems can see a non-flat
channel (frequency) response; hence, then more complex equalization techniques need to
be used to tackle this (ISI) problem, for instance, by adding some processing to the
receiver or transmitter to flatten the channel within a tone.

Figure 2.4: A view on a frequency selective channel


32

2.2.4 High peak-to-average power ratio


One of the main drawbacks of multicarrier systems is the high probability of having a lot
of peaks formed around the different OFDM frames. That is, having N number of subcarriers (given that N is sufficiently large to have some of the advantages discussed
earlier) the probability of having 2 or more subcarriers that can add them up and create a
big peak increases; when this occurs, the power amplifier becomes saturated (a nondesired effect) and other disturbances may occur (as out-of-band radiation, signal
distortion, etc), [5],[10]. Several algorithms and methods exist to mitigate this effect ([19]
to [33]).
2.3 Modelling Multicarrier systems
The original data stream of rate
resulting in a rate of

is multiplexed into

parallel data streams

. Each of the data streams is modulated with a different

frequency (each subcarrier might actually be modulated with a different kind of


modulation). The resulting signals are transmitted together in the same band. The idea is
then, to use IDFT for this purpose (IDFT is a more efficient algorithm when the number
of carriers is greater than 10, as it is often the case).
The same holds for the receiver, which consists of

parallel receiver paths. Now, if the

channel has a delay , the resulting intersymbol interference will be

. Thus,

comparing to the single carrier transmission, this amount of ISI can be removed or
reduced with less complexity. This, clearly, is one of the biggest advantages of using
multicarrier modulation.
In order to estimate the impact of the number of subcarriers when working with the power
spectral density, we have drawn (in Figure 2.5) the variations of the PSD for different
values of sub-carriers, that is, for N= 512, 2048 and 4096, which are typical values used
in DMT wire-line systems (see [5]).

33

PSD for Complex Envelope of OFDM

PSD of Complex Envelope, Pg(f), in dB

N= 512
N= 2048
N= 4096

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-10

-5

0
f, MHz -->

10

Figure 2.5: PSD for a complex OFDM envelope, varying the number of subcarriers
2.3.1 Channel Modelling
We start assuming that h t corresponds to the impulse response of the cascade of the
transmitter filters, the transmission channel and receiver filters, and we also assume that
this impulse response can be approximated in discrete time by a finite impulse response
of length . In order to eliminate the overlap between the successive transmit multi-carrier
symbols, i.e. intersymbol interference ISI, and the contribution on the amplitude of a
given carrier at the sampling point of the other carriers spectrum, i.e. intercarrier
interference ICI, the so-called cyclic prefix of length greater or equal to

is used to

extend the transmitted symbol and avoiding ISI and ICI.


In discrete time representation, the input-output relationship of a multi-carrier system will
be given by:

(2.4)

is the vector of the channel output samples

where:
,
,,

is the vector of the channel input samples


is the channel matrix

34

where is the additive white Gaussian noise vector.


In , the first row corresponds to the channel impulse response, as follows:

0
0

Note that the input vector

0
0

0
0

(2.5)

is obtained by transforming the binary data stream into blocks

of bits; each block is mapped onto a complex symbol to form the frequency vector
,

,,

. The vector

is then transformed by the modulator into vector

as:
(2.6)

Where

is the modulator matrix constructed with the transmit basis vectors.

At the receiver, the inverse operation is performed by demodulating the vector

into

as:
(2.7)

Where

denotes the demodulator matrix constructed with the receive basis vectors.

Solving for

yields to (showing all intermediate steps):

Step 1
Starting from

Step 2

considering

Step 4
.

Leads to

Knowing that

and replacing it into the Which can be reformula obtained in


arranged to :

.
and

Step 3

Step 2 leads to

(2.8)

35

The choice of basis vectors of the matrices

and

defines the type of the multi-carrier

modulation to be used.
2.3.2 Cyclic Prefix
In order to assure that the received time-domain DMT symbol is demodulated from the
channels steady state rather than from its transient response, each time-domain DMT
symbol is extended by the so-called cyclic prefix or guard interval. Otherwise, an effect
caused by the delay spread will take place.
This extension will permit to overcome the interference due to the channel memory. Peled
and Ruiz [34] in 1980 introduced the cyclic prefix (CP), solving also the orthogonality
problem. Instead of using an empty guard space -which was supposed to be used-, they
proposed to use one with a cyclic prefix extension of the DMT symbol.
This extension is a copy of the last part of the DMT symbol. This makes the transmitted
signal periodic, which plays a decisive role to avoid the intersymbol and intercarrier
interferences. The signal samples received during the guard interval are discarded at the
receiver. The frequency DMT symbol is then obtained by demodulating the remaining N
samples.
The use of a cyclic prefix of length

for a DMT symbol of length

efficiency of DMT transmissions by a factor of


transmitted samples only

will reduce the

, because from the

samples represent the net bitrate. The same holds for the

transmitted power, since the average power for each sample is reduced by a factor

The advantage of using a cyclic prefix is that the extra noise introduced by ISI and ICI is
eliminated or reduced, which implies improvement of the transmission performance, i.e. a
decrease of the bit error rate (BER).
There is a trade-off in the amount of overhead that can be introduced by the CP against
the level of protection to ISI and ICI, as demonstrated in [35].
2.3.3 Modelling ICI and ISI
Suppose that the length of the composite discrete-time impulse response of the channel
combined with the transmit and receive filters is at most , and denoted by
,

,,

, where

.
36

The frequency DMT symbol


domain DMT symbol

,,

Here we will consider


0

is modulated by means of the IFFT and the obtained time


is extended by a cyclic prefix of length .

as variable in order to show the effect of the cyclic prefix length,

. The output of the parallel-to-serial converter, which is the input of the

channel, is then the vector


of the symbol

. Hence, the DMT signal

at the output of the channel can be expressed as:

(2.9)

One uses a cyclic prefix length


samples

, the samples

respectively, and the samples

,, ,

previous DMT symbol (or block) ,

,, ,

,,

are equal to the


belong to the

Using the matrix notation, the equation

, which is the input of FFT

transformer, and taking into account the white Gaussian noise at the output of the
channel, can be written as:

where
h0

0
...

H hl
h
l 1
.
h
1

and

(2.10)

is a

circular matrix with the channel impulse response as the first row.

h1

hl

h0
.

.
.

hl 1
.

hl
.

.
.

0
hl

.
.

h0
0

h1
h0

.
.

h2

...
.

hl

.
0

.
.

0
.

hl 1 ,
hl 2

.
h0

(2.11)

are given by:

0 ( N l )
H1
0 (l )

0
H cp

0 ( N l )(l )
H2
H cp

,
0 (l )( N l )
0

(2.12)

0 ( N l )( N l )
,
0

(2.13)

where
37

0 ( N l )(l )
H2
H cp

H cp

hl
h
l 1

h 1

0 ( N l )( N l )
,
0

0
0
.

hl

hl

h 2

(2.14)

(2.15)

The second and third terms at the right side of (2.10) represent ICI and ISI, respectively.
Let the noise introduced by a short CP to be represented by [35]:

n cp ( ) H1x k H 2 x k 1

(2.16)

The contribution of this noise at the decision device is given by:

N cp () QH1x k QH 2 x k 1

Where

(2.17)

is the FFT matrix.

The average power of this distortion can be written as:

H H
diag QH 1R xx H1 Q QH 2 R xx H 2H Q H

H
Pcp ( ) diag E [ N cp ( ) N cp
( )]

. stands for the expected value,

gives the diagonal of matrix ,

stands for the conjugate transpose and

is the input correlation matrix defined

Where
.

(2.18)

as:

Rxx E xk xkH

(2.19)

2.4 Concluding Remarks

We have analyzed the main advantages and drawbacks of multicarrier systems. We have
also studied a mathematical model for multicarrier technologies. Next to this work, an
analysis of the mathematics related to the modelling of the channel is presented.
38

2.5 References

[1] Bello P.A., Characterization of Randomly Time-Variant Linear Channels, IEEE


Trans. on Comm. Systems, Vol. CS.11, No 4, pp. 360393, December 1963.
[2] Hahm M.D., Mitrovski Z.I., and Titlebaum E.L., Deconvolution in the Presence of
Doppler with Application to Specular Multipath Parameter Estimation, IEEE Trans. on
Signal Proc., Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 22032219, September 1997.
[3] Schafhuber D., Matz G., and Hlawatsch F., Adaptive Wiener filters for timevarying
channel estimation in wireless OFDM systems, IEEE ICASSP03, Hong Kong, Vol. 4,
pp. 688691, April 6-10, 2003,
[4] Chaparro L.F., and Alshehri A.A., Channel Modeling for Spread Spectrum via
Evolutionary Transform, IEEE ICASSP04, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 609
612, May 1721, 2004.
[5] Bingham J.A.C., ADSL, VDSL2 and Multicarrier modulation, Wiley 2000,
ISBN:0-471-29099-8.
[6] Zervos N. A. and Kalet I., Optimized decision feedback equalization versus
optimized orthogonal frequency division multiplexing for highspeed data transmission
over the local cable network, in Proc. ICC89, Boston, MA, pp. 10801085, June 1989.
[7] Berberidis K. and Palicot J., A frequency domain decision feedback equalizer for
multipath echo cancellation, in Proc. Globecom95, vol.1, Singapore, pp. 98102,
November 1995.
[8] Benvenuto N. and Tomasin S., On the Comparison Between OFDM and Single
Carrier Modulation With a DFE Using a Frequency-Domain Feedforward Filter, IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol 50, no 6, pp. 947-955, June 2002.
[9] Cioffi J., The essential merit of bit-swapping, online report available at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/cioffi/documents/bit_swapping.pdf.
[10] Starr T., Cioffi J. M. and Silverman P. J., Understanding Digital Subscriber Line
Technology, Prentice Hall PTR 1999, ISBN: 0137805454.
[11] Saltzberg, B. R., Performance of an Efficient Parallel Data Transmission System,
IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. COM-15, No. 6, pp. 805813, December 1967.

39

[12] Chang, R. W., Synthesis of Band-Limited Orthogonal Signals for Multichannel


Data Transmission, Bell Sys. Tech. J., Vol. 45, pp. 17751796, December 1966.
[13] Weinstein S. B., and Ebert P. M., Data Transmission by Frequency-Division
Multiplexing Using the Discrete Fourier Transform, IEEE Trans. Commun. Technol.
Vol. COM-19, pp. 628634, October 1971.
[14] Bingham J. A. C., "Multicarrier Modulation for Data Transmission: An Idea Whose
Time Has Come", IEEE Commun. Mag., pp. 5-14, May 1990.
[15] Gusmo A., Dinis R., Coneico R., and Esteves N., Comparison of two modulation
choices for broadband wireless communications, in Proc. VTC00Spring, Tokyo,
Japan, vol. 2, pp. 13001305, May 2000.
[16] Sari H., Karam G., and Jeanclaude I., Transmission techniques for digital terrestrial
TV broadcasting, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 100109, February 1995.
[17] Czylwik A., Comparison between adaptive OFDM and single carrier modulation
with frequency domain equalization, in Proc. VTC97, Phoenix, AZ, vol. 2, pp. 865-869,
May 1997.
[18] Willink T. J. and Wittke P. H., Optimization and performance evaluation of
multicarrier transmission, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 43, pp. 426440, March.
1997.
[19] Han S. H. and Lee J.H., An Overview of Peak-To-Average Power Ratio reduction
techniques for multicarrier transmission, IEEE Commun. Mag., pp. 56-65, April 2005,
[20] Sharif M., et al, On the Peak-To-Average Power of OFDM Signals based on
Oversampling, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 72-78, January 2003
[21] Mestdagh D. J. G., Spruyt P. M. P. and Biran B., Effect of Amplitude Clipping in
DMT-ADSL Transceivers, Electron. Lett., Vol. 29, No. 15, pp.1354-1355, July 1993.
[22] Gross R. and Veeneman D., Clipping distortion in DMT ADSL systems, Electron.
Lett., Vol. 29, No. 24, pp.2080-2081, November 1993.
[23] Mestdagh D. J. G., Spruyt P. and Biran B., Analysis of Clipping Effect in DMTBased ADSL Systems, in Proc. Of The IEEE Int. Conf. On Commun., pp. 293-300, May
1994.

40

[24] Cioffi J. et al, Draft ADSL Issue 2 Text for Dynamic Clip Scaling,T1E1. 4
Committee contribution number 97-226R1, September 1997.
[25] Mestagh D. J. G. and Spruyt P. M. P., A Method to Reduce the Probability of
Clipping in DMT-Based Transceivers, IEEE Trans. On Commun., Vol. 44, No. 10, pp.
1234-1238, October 1996.
[26] Bauml R.W., Fischer R. F. H., and Huber J. B., Reducing the Peak-to-Average
Power ratio of Multi-carrier Modulation by Selected Mapping, Electron. Lett., Vol. 32,
No. 22, pp.2056-2057, October 1996.
[27] Muller S. H. and Huber J. B., OFDM with reduced peak-to-average power ratio by
optimum combination of partial transmit sequences, Electron. Lett., Vol. 33, No. 5,
pp.368-369, February 1997.
[28] Crdova H, Evaluation of Multicarrier Modulation Technique using Linear
Devices, in the proceeding of IRMA 2006, Washington, DC, US., Telecommunications
and Networking Technologies, May 21-24, 2006.
[29] Zekri M. and van Biesen L., Super algorithm for clip probability reduction of DMT
signals, in Proc. Of the 13th Intl. Conf. on Information Networking (ICOIN-13), Cheju
Island-Korea, Vol. 2, pp. 8B-3.1-6, January 1999.
[30] Zekri M, Boets P. and Van Biesen L., A peak-power reduction for multi-carrier
modulation, in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Telecommunications ICT99, Cheju-Korea,
vol. 2, pp.402-406, 15-18 June 1999
[31] Zekri M, Boets P. and Van Biesen L.,, DMT Signals with Low Peak-to-Average
Power Ratio, in Proc. of The Fourth IEEE Symposium on Computers and Commun.
ISCC99, Red Sea, Egypt, pp. 362-368, July 6-8, 1999.
[32] Zekri M, Boets P. and Van Biesen L.,, Peak-to-Average Power Reduction for Multicarrier, in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Telecommunications ICT2001, BucharestRomania, vol. 1, pp.464-467, 4-7 June 2001.
[33] Zekri M and Van Biesen L., Method and arrangement to reduce clipping of
multicarrier signals. European Patent Office. International Application Number.
PCT/EP99/01960.

41

[34] Peled A.

and Ruiz A., Frequency domain data transmission using reduced

computational complexity algorithms, In proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustic, Speech, Signal
Processing, pages 964-967, Denver, CO, 1980.
[35] Zekri M., Al-Dhahir N., Boets P. and Van Biesen L., DMT Transmission with
short cyclic prefix, The 6th Asia Pacific Conference on Communication, Seoul, Korea,
Proceedings I, pp. 423-426, 30 Oct.-2 Nov.2000.
2.6 My contribution

Crdova H., Evaluation of Multicarrier Modulation Technique using Linear


Devices, on the proceedings of IRMA 2006, Telecommunications and
Networking Technologies, Washington, DC, US, May 21-24, 2006.

42

CHAPTER 3: Digital Subscriber Lines


3.1. Introduction

The physical channel used in DSL systems consists of electrical transmission lines.
Twisted copper pair loops are provided between the central office (CO) / Cabinet (Cab)
and the customer (CPE). This channel will be assumed to be stationary, which would
make it possible to measure the system during the start-up phase in order to allocate the
constellation sizes on the different channels (i.e. bit allocation).
Since the DMT signal is transmitted in baseband, the signal

transmitted on the line

must be real-valued, thereby imposing a requirement for the IFFT output

. In the

frequency domain, this corresponds to Hermitian symmetry, meaning that only half of the
N subcarriers can be used. This limit corresponds to the Nyquist frequency.
The ADSL system described by the ITU-T standard [1],[2] uses up to 512 subcarriers, a
subspacing of 4.3125kHz and a cyclic prefix = 32 samples. This places the highest used
subcarrier to 255 at 1.1 MHz (ADSL system). In the frequency plan, the lowest band is
reserved for the analogue telephone system (POTS or ISDN). The remaining part of the
spectrum is split between upstream and downstream digital communication.
In VDSL, a different number of subcarriers (also called tones, indistinctively) can be used
depending on the profile that has been selected to be used. The bandwidth used in VDSL
systems vary from 8MHz to 30 MHz (in VDSL2), [3].
In wireless systems, an improvement in terms of power consumption is highly desired
(e.g. to increase battery life at the consumer device). For wire-line systems, a similar
requirement takes place. For instance, the issue therein is to dissipate the power and to
feed the number of lines per line card as high as possible (thus, achieving line-driver
efficiency); otherwise, it becomes not only a problem of the requirement of equipment,
but also a problem of spacing, maintenance, etc., leading to higher service costs, which of
course it is not allowed. Last but not least, there is also an environmental impact (green
ICT) which cannot be ignored.

43

3.2 DSL Fundamentals


3.2.1 System Model

We will use the same model as described in section 1.3


3.2.2 Crosstalk

Crosstalk caused by a given noise source will always be proportional to the transmit PSD
of the noise source, [7].
Each loop has multiple wire pairs, and the electromagnetic coupling between these wire
pairs cause that systems in other wire-pairs generate crosstalk noise in the wire pair that
interconnects the victim modem pair. This is illustrated in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.
(Local Exchange)
modem

(Customer Premises)

downstream
upstream

LT-side

NT-side modem

under
study

under
study

mixture of
xDSL

mixture of
xDSL

disturbers

disturbers

cable

wire pair

Figure 3.1: Crosstalk coupling in the loop

For both NEXT and FEXT, analytical expressions have been proposed to model the one
percent worst case behaviour of the crosstalk coupling function (or the corresponding
99% worst case), following the ETSI recommendation [14]. This means, that in 99% of
the cases, there will be no crosstalk that surpasses this value. In practice, this worst case
(percentage) is, in a significant amount of cases 1 , too pessimistic and average values
based on field measurements (from each provider, region, country) are used instead [8].
For the NEXT coupling function, the following behaviour was found [7]:
.

(3.9)
Only in this section and formula,

represents the number of disturbing systems and is

the frequency (in Hz). A typical value for the proportionality constant is K
@1MHz. On the other hand, The FEXT coupling function is typically modelled as:

Particularly, in the Netherlands, where all lab and field measurements took place.

44

50dB

(3.10)
Here,

is the length of the line and

is the transfer function of a line of length

45dB at 1MHz and

is the proportionality constant. A typical value of


1km of reference (also called EL-FEXT, Equalized Length-FEXT).

NEXT coupling is commonly avoided by the use of frequency-division duplex (FDD)


which simply means that a different set of independent tones are allocated for upstream
and downstream transmission. Most practical DSL systems use NEXT-avoiding
mechanisms, which makes the crosstalk FEXT-dominant [7]. Thus, in the rest of this
thesis, we will only consider FEXT-dominant (NEXT-free) DMT systems and thereby
combating the FEXT crosstalk problem, only.
Figure 3.2 indicates that for simulation (and lab measurement) purposes, we consider
interference as noise (equivalent noise at each side). This is in line with the ETSI
recommendations [14].
DSL under test

DSL under test

LT transmitter DS

NT receiver DS.

LT receiver US

NT transmitter US
NEXT

NEXT

Downstream

Upstream
disturber
systems

FEXT

disturber
systems

modem

modem

under test

under test

LT-side

NEXT

FEXT

FEXT

CO/CAB
equivalent
disturber
at LT side

DS disturbers

NT-side
CPE

downstream
upstream

Figure 3.2: Modeling NEXT and FEXT in xDSL systems

45

NEXT

equivalent
disturber
at NT side

US disturbers

3.2.3 Crosstalk Summation Rule

The crosstalk coupling functions represent worst case situations.

If two sources of

crosstalk (both of the same type, either FEXT or NEXT) are added, the disturbing pairs
cannot all be in the worst-case positions with respect to the disturbed line. Doing this
analysis, and considering each FEXT noise independent (hence we could apply a power
sum), it would follow that a simple power sum of two FEXT noises will be overly
pessimistic.
From work performed by FSAN, it was found that a modified summation rule is more
adequate for combining two crosstalk noise contributions [15].

When F1 and F2

represent the noise power coming from two different FEXT sources, the total FEXT noise
should be calculated as:

FEXTtot ( F1

0.6

F2

0.6 0.6

(3.11)

This rule is often referred as the FSAN summation rule [14], [15].
It has been proven in [9] that the FSAN rule is a specific solution from the Minkowski
equality (with = 0.6).
3.2.4 Self-Crosstalk in VDSL2

Initially, it was assumed that a VDSL system would typically share a binder with 20 other
VDSL systems and that all disturbing systems would have similar length; i.e. the length
of the victim pair (co-located system).
These assumptions, however, overlook the important fact that lines that share a binder can
have different lengths and that typically a distributed topology is found in real scenarios.
This will make a significant difference, especially in the upstream transmission direction,
causing performance degradation of the farthest nodes (CPEs) due to the high level of
FEXT of the closer nodes (to the CAB/CO). Then, the need to apply power back-off
models in order to reduce the transmission power level of the nodes (CPEs) closer to the
CO/CAB becomes an important issue.

46

3.2.5 FEXT noise in a distributed environment

The assumption of having equal-length disturbers is not correct in a practical scenario,


where lines of different lengths can be combined in the same binder. This is the case in a
distributed topology, where a number of VDSL lines of different lengths emanate from a
central node towards a number of customers (see Figure 3.3).

FEXT_N

CAB

CPE

CAB
FEXT_k-1

CPE

CAB
FEXT_k-2

CPE

CAB
FEXT_1

CPE

CAB
CPE

Figure 3.3: Distributed topology in VDSL2 systems

In the downstream direction, the FEXT experienced by any customer modem will never
exceed FEXT experienced in the equal-length case, under the assumption that the
transmitter remains equal in co-located and distributed topology2. This means that in the
downstream direction, the equal-length disturber model is sufficiently adequate as a
conservative estimate of the crosstalk experienced by a victim line.
In the upstream direction, however, the situation is entirely different.

The main

difference is caused by the fact that, unlike the downstream transmitters, the upstream
transmitters all have different positions. Because the modems at the customer side are not
colocated, the (strong) transmit signal from the shorter lines will couple into a (long)
victim line over the last portion of the line, at a section where the useful signal on this line
could already be severely attenuated.
It is clear from this analysis that the upstream capacity (on long lines) can be dramatically
reduced. This is often called the near-far problem [10],[11],[12],[13].
In the distributed environment, as presented in Figure 3.3, it can be shown that the FEXT
experienced by a modem on a line of length

is given by [3],[7] ,[15].

There might be some cases where this assumption does not apply, e.g. VDSL2 17a profile.

47

FEXT K FEXT f 2 ( min( L , Li )

1
0.6 RxPSD 0.6 ) 0.6
i

i 1

where

(3.12)

is the received PSD in the upstream direction on line (user) .

To remedy the near-far problem, transmitters which are closer to the central node should
reduce their transmit power in a systematic way. This reduction in transmit power will
reduce the relatively strong FEXT from these lines into the longer lines. The process of
reducing the power on shorter line is called power back-off (PBO) and is crucial for the
operation of VDSL systems. As the reduction is on the upstream side, the name upstream
power back-off, which is given to this control strategy, is straightforward. We will cover
this topic in Chapter 4.
3.3 Initial DSL Simulations

A few examples about the performance are provided for ADSL and VDSL2 systems. All
the examples are performed considering the 99% worst case leading to very pessimistic
(performance) values, which might not be used in practice. These values are commonly
obtained according to the carrier/operator experience in running DSL systems (statistical
analysis).
The initial simulation model used for ADSL/ADSL2+ systems were based on a
MATLAB program called SPOCS (TNO proprietary simulator for DSL). Further
simulations were done by means of a self developed simulator. The models used in this
simulator have been validated from practical networks via several measurements
campaign performed in the Netherlands.
The contribution in this chapter are manifold: a) algorithmic transmitter model for
VDSL2, b) creation of the ADSL/ADSL2+ and VDSL2 models and c) the (algorithmic)
model implementation regarding the analysis of ADSL2+ performance when VDSL2 is
present
First order simulations will be presented here. A more detailed view is built and
developed in each of the chapters corresponding to upstream (chapter 4) and downstream
(chapter 5), respectively, both related to traditional spectrum management challenges and
intermediate steps towards higher levels of DSM implementations.

48

The parameters used for all these studies are described as follows (unless explicitly
mentioned):

Cable used is TP150

NEXT = -50 dB (at 1MHz, 1km), FEXT= -45 dB(at 1MHz, 1km)

Noise Margin is set at 6dB (for both receivers: upstream and downstream)

Noise Floor (AWGN) is set to -140 dBm/Hz (for both receivers)

3.3.1Simulation 1: ADSL (POTS) performance

In this example, the ADSL bitrate versus loop length is shown. The disturbers are
equivalent to the FA Noise Model, as explained in the ETSI specification [14].
In ADSL systems there are two well known techniques: Echo Cancelling (EC) and
Frequency-Division Duplexing (FDD). Discussion about these topics is out of the scope
of this thesis. However, from Figure 3.5 we can notice that EC behaves better than FDD
because it takes the full available bandwidth for transmitting in both directions. However,
simultaneous transmission in both directions can cause enhanced NEXT which limits
completely the behaviour for higher frequencies.
Total Length

= 3500 m

Noise Model FA
CPE
Victim

CO/CAB

Figure 3.4: Scenario for simulation under study

49

Upstream Calculation
1.6

bit rate [Mbps]

ADSL Testing Scenario Nr 1 EC


ADSL Testing Scenario Nr 2 FDD

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

loop length [m]


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Figure 3.5. Upstream Performance of ADSL system with EC and FDD duplexing

methods versus length


Downstream Calculation
12

bit rate [Mbps]

ADSL Testing Scenario Nr 1 EC


ADSL Testing Scenario Nr 2 FDD

10

loop length [m]


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Figure 3.6: Downstream Performance of ADSL system with EC and FDD duplexing

methods versus length


Observations: As expected, EC performs better than FDD because it makes use of the full
available bandwidth, under the assumption that there are no losses due to the EC.
However, good isolation must be provided in the duplexers which is not an easy task
[7],[15]. Further, the use of FDD is now a common practice in new DSL systems (e.g.
VDSL2).
50

3.3.2Simulation 2: VDSL2 performance (bitrate versus noise margin variations)

This study assumes a fixed bitrate of 5.12Mbps for the upstream receiver and 20.48Mbps
for the downstream receiver. In this scenario, the noise floor (AWGN) is set to 135dBm/Hz and INP protection is set to 2/8 [symbols/ms] for both receivers.
VDSL2 B8-4-A
20 disturbers, Self-Crosstalk
CPE

CO/CAB

Victim

Figure 3.7: Scenario under study

Upstream Calculation

bit rate [Mbps]

25

VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing

20

Scenario Nr 1 [Distance = 250 ]


Scenario Nr 2 [Distance = 500 ]
Scenario Nr 3 [Distance = 750 ]
Scenario Nr 4 [Distance = 1000 ]
Scenario Nr 5 [Distance = 1500 ]

Common Choice, 6 dB Noise Margin

15

10

Noise Margin Variation [dB]


0

10

12

14

16

Figure 3.8: Upstream performance, Bitrate versus Noise Margin variation

51

18

20

Downtream Calculation

bit rate [Mbps]

50

VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing
VDSL2 Testing

45
40

Scenario Nr 1 [Distance = 250 ]


Scenario Nr 2 [Distance = 500 ]
Scenario Nr 3 [Distance = 750 ]
Scenario Nr 4 [Distance = 1000 ]
Scenario Nr 5 [Distance = 1500 ]

Common Choice, 6 dB Noise Margin

35
30
25
20
15
10

Noise Margin Variation [dB]


5

10

12

14

16

18

20

Figure 3.9: Downstream performance, Bitrate versus Noise Margin variation

Observations: As the noise margin is increased, the performance drops which underlines
that the scenario is becoming more conservative. However, the latter will be very robust
to external sort of noises. If the noise margin is decreased, the performance will become
better at the risk that the system becomes more vulnerable to any kind of external noise.
3.3.3 Simulation 3: VDSL2 performance analysis (noise margin)

This study follows the same topology, number of disturbers (20) and assumptions (fixed
rate, AWGN, and INP/delay ratio) used in Simulation 2. The performance is now
measured in terms of the noise margin. Commonly, 6 dB Noise Margin is used and this
value has become a reference when evaluating DSL systems [3],[7],[14],[15].

52

VDSL2, Upstream Calculation


22

Noise Margin [dB]

20

VDSL2 Testing Scenario Nr 1

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

loop length [m]


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Figure 3.10: Upstream performance, Noise Margin versus loop length


VDSL2, Downstream Calculation
22

Noise Margin [dB]

VDSL2 Testing Scenario Nr 1

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

loop length [m]


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Figure 3.11: Downstream performance, Noise Margin versus loop length

Observations: VDSL2 systems are foreseen to be used for shorter distances, often up to
1500-2000 meters. The example here exposed plots the noise margin versus the loop
length. This is provided here only to gain an insight into the calculations that are
performed, since most commonly, the bitrate versus the loop length is investigated and
drawn.
53

3.3.4 Simulation 4: ADSL2+ performance when VDSL2 disturbers are present

The topology description is shown in Figure 3.12. First, only the ADSL2+ system
performance will be evaluated taking into account the ADSL disturbers only. Then,
VDSL2 disturbers will be added and their effect is studied and evaluated.
In this scenario, the noise floor (AWGN) is set to -135dBm/Hz and INP protection is not
set for both ADSL2+ receivers.
From Figures 3.13 and 3.14, one can notice the FEXT in the downstream has increased
significantly while in the upstream there are negligible differences. That is why the
performance is only focused on the downstream and is depicted in Figure 3.15 for the
different scenarios depicted in Figure 3.12.
Scenario 1

ADSL2+/A - FDD
Total Length

= 3000 m

200 disturbers ADSL-POTS


CPE
Victim

CO/CAB

Scenario 2 ... 5

ADSL2+/A - FDD plus VDSL2 disturber(s)


Total Length

= 3000 m

Total Distubers

= 200

NrADSL disturbers ADSL-POTS


NrVDSL VDSL2/M1c-A-7 disturber(s)

LPAN [m]
CAB

LSAN [m]

CPE
Disturb.

CPE
Victim

Figure 3.12: Topologies to be studied ADSL2+ only and ADSL2+ and VDSL2

54

ADSL2+ CO/CAB Spectra: Upstream signal at 1000m

-20

PSD [dBm /Hz]

Transmitted Signal, @100 ohm


Received Signal, @100 ohm
Received Noise, @100 ohm
Received FEXT, @100 ohm

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Freq [kHz]

-200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

ADSL2+ CPE Spectra : Downstream signal at 1000m

-20

PSD [dBm /Hz]

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140

Transmitted Signal, @100 ohm


Received Signal, @100 ohm
Received Noise, @100 ohm
Received FEXT, @100 ohm

-160
-180

Freq [kHz]

-200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Figure 3.13: upper: Upstream signal spectra perceived by the ADSL2+ receiver (at the

cabinet side); lower: downstream signal spectra perceived by the ADSL2+receiver (at the
CPE side)
ADSL2+ CPE spectra: Downstream signal

-20

Transmitted Signal, @100


Received Signal, @100

PSD [dBm/Hz]
-40

Received Noise, @100


Received NEXT, @100
Received FEXT, @100

-60

-80

FEXT when VDSL disturber


is present

-100

-120

-140

-160

FEXT when only ADSL


Disturbers are present

-180

Freq [kHz]
-200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Figure 3.14: Downstream signal spectra perceived by the ADSL2+ transmitter (at the

CPE side)
55

18

ADSL2+ Downstream Performance


bit rate (Mbps)

Sc Nr 1- Total Length 3000m, 200 ADSL disturbers

16

Sc Nr 2- LPAN=2000, LSAN=1000, NrADSL = 199, NrVDSL = 1


Sc Nr 3- LPAN=2000, LSAN=1000, NrADSL = 150, NrVDSL = 50

14

Sc Nr 4- LPAN=1500, LSAN=1000, NrADSL = 150, NrVDSL = 50


Sc Nr 5- LPAN=1000, LSAN=1000, NrADSL = 150, NrVDSL = 50

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

loop length (m)


500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Figure 3.15: ADSL2+ degradation performance when VDSL2+ disturbers are present

Observations: There is a clear dependency of the LPAN (Primary Length) for ADSL2+
systems. It becomes obvious that the downstream signal of the ADSL2+ system needs to
be somehow protected; hence, the need to apply (downstream) power back-off
mechanisms (also called PSD Shaping).
3.4 An Algorithmic Architecture model for xDSL systems

When studying the capabilities of VDSL2 modems in an operational environment, such


as reach and maximum bitrate, a range of various simulation models is required. The
ETSI Spectral Management standard [14] offers all kinds of models in the frequency
domain for receivers, transmitters, loops, and crosstalk coupling to enable well defined
(unambiguous) SpM studies.
A frequency domain transmitter model is to provide a template PSD of the signal
spectrum, and the usual way of doing that is by means of a template PSD. A simple
break-point table works well for modems like ADSL, SDSL, HDSL and VDSL1 and a
similar approach was followed initially in ETSI to be applied to VDSL2 as well [3].
However, such a simple approach is inadequate for modelling the full capabilities of
56

VDSL2 transmitters. The different combination of band-plans, masks and profiles, all
together with power limit restrictions, notching and power back-off (PBO) concerns has
made VDSL2 transmitters a device that is very complex to model.
More complicated models can be built, but this does not automatically mean that different
SpM studies based on such models can be intercompared. This occurs when the
underlying assumptions about the transmitter models are not well-specified.
However, unambiguous interpretations of different studies are essential when solving
disputes among DSL operators to regulate how VDSL2 should be deployed in an
(unbundled) access network.
The nature of the current ITU specification [14] is not very helpful on this, because it has
left too many choices open. For instance, details on power limitations are undefined, PSD
masks are provided instead of templates, a simple way to specify what assumptions have
been made is not offered, etc.
To combine (a) the flexibility of a complex model needed for VDSL2 transmitters, with
(b) a straight forward specification on which choices have been made, we developed a
model (based on four building blocks) as being presented in this section. It is on one hand
an algorithmic model, offering all flexibility required for VDSL2 developments. On the
other hand it acts like a toolbox with a limited number of (compact) predefined tables,
enabling a simple specification of all assumptions/choices being made in the model.
Our model provides the same PSD template values that can be derived from ITU standard
for all combinations being supported by the latter. The model here presented was
proposed in [16] for inclusion in the ETSI SpM2 standard [14].
Complexity of VDSL2 (many flavours, power restrictions, many kinds of PSD
shaping/PBO in downstream and upstream, notching, etc) requires a break-down of the
specification of a PSD template for a particular scenario. Figure 3.16 illustrates how the
VDSL2 transmitter model is broken down into four individual building blocks, following
the key areas and parameters found in ETSI recommendation [14]. Each block has its
own set of controlling parameters, to control one or more aspects of the output spectrum
of VDSL2.

57

[0]
noise floor

PSD
[1]
Band
Constructor

PSD
Shaper

[2]

Parameters:
(a) In-band PSDs
to be enabled
(b) Boundary freq

Parameters:
(a) Victim PSD
(b) Loop model
(c) Shaping length

for interpolation

(d) Min useable signal


(e) UPBO parameters
(f) etc.

PSD
Notcher

[3]

PSD
Power
Restrictor

[4]

Parameters:
Parameters, like:
(a) Notching PSDs (a) Power Limit Level
(b) Restriction Method
(b1-pre attenuation)
(b2-water fill method)
(b3-curtain method)
(bX-etcetera)

Figure 3.16: Algorithmic Model Block Diagram


3.4.1 PSD band constructor

Building block #1 for the PSD band constructor generates a static PSD template,
selected from a set of spectra (in-band PSDs). Pre-defined spectra are provided by means
of break point tables [14], up to 30 MHz, but the use of the algorithmic model is not
restricted to these tables.
The model in Figure 3.17 starts from a PSD, representing a noise floor, and combines it
subsequently with as many in-band PSDs as required. A pre-defined noise floor
(currently, as indicated in the standards [3],[14]) is provided as well.
That is, combining means taking the maximum of two PSD levels, where one PSD is the
selected in-band PSD, and the other is a PSD being built-up in previous steps (defined by
the user, starting with a noise floor). This maximum is to be evaluated for all frequencies
within the band of the selected in-band PSD. Outside that band, the PSD will remain
unchanged (pre-defined PSD floor). In section 3.4.5, an example is presented where all
these issues are considered.
The in-band PSDs can have arbitrary spectra and can be defined in many ways. A
commonly used approach is a PSD definition by means of break-point tables.
The PSD spectra (output of this block) is derived from the selected break points by means
of interpolation, which it is a common practice. Such a PSD is derived via either linear or
logarithmic interpolation or a mixed interpolation when both methods are applied in
different frequency bands, following the recommendations in the Standard [3]. When
58

mixed interpolation applies, the boundary frequencies are to be specified as well.

PSD
Input: noise Floor

PSD "0"

Output
PSD "1"

Band
Constructor

- selected spectra
- Interpolation Frequency, Fipb

Figure 3.17: Description of the PSD Band Constructor block

PSD
Selected PSD

noise floor (frequency dependent)

f
Figure 3.18: Illustration on how building block #1 combines two PSDs for creating a

third
For the purpose of VDSL2 modelling pre-defined in-band spectra are provided by means
of breakpoint tables, and specified in [17] for all band plans and profiles being identified
in G993.2 [3]. For all cases only one boundary frequency applies, (f

), based on the

following convention:

if f < f

do logarithmic interpolation

if f > f

do linear interpolation

3.4.2 PSD Shaper

This block is typically algorithmic in nature, roughly following the way it is formulated in
G997.1 [18]. A difference is that shaping is to be applied in this building block to PSD
templates and not to PSD masks. The model in Figure 3.19 provides the generic idea.

59

Input
PSD "1"

PSD

Output
PSD "2"

Shaper

- Downstream parameters
( [fmin, fmax], DPBO_Fmin, others)
- Upstream parameters
( [a,b] per band, Fklo, others)

Figure 3.19: Conceptual description of the PSD Shaper block

The implementation of this block includes both upstream and downstream, that is, UPBO
and DPBO (PSD Shaping), respectively.
The algorithms for implementing either UPBO or DPBO are not provided. However, our
model is able to include any implementation of these algorithms (including, of course,
those defined in the standard).
3.4.3 PSD Notcher

This block enables to punch notches in the spectrum, to reduce the effect of unwanted
radiated emissions from VDSL2 causing undue interference to existing licensed users of
that part of the spectrum. The description of this building block is roughly the same as for
building block #2 (PSD band constructor), but its influence on the overall PSD will be
different when shaping (in block #3) has been applied. The model in Figure 3.20 starts
from an input PSD and combines it subsequently with as many notching PSDs as
required.
Combining means within this context: taking the minimum of two PSD levels, where one
PSD is the selected notching PSD, and the other is a PSD being built-up in previous steps.
This minimum is to be evaluated for all frequencies within the band of the selected
notching PSD. Outside that band, the PSD will remain unchanged (pre-defined PSD
floor).

60

Input
PSD "2"

PSD
Notcher

Output
PSD "3"

- (set of) notching PSDs

Figure 3.20: Conceptual description of the PSD Notcher block


3.4.4 PSD Power Restrictor

This block enables to cut-back the overall PSD when its aggregate power appears to be
above a certain power limit. Such a cut-back is to be applied when for instance a modem
implementation is unable to generate powers beyond that limit, or when the output PSD
has to be compliant with maximum values specified by the profiles from G993.2 [3].
Different modem implementations may follow different strategies to cope with power
limitations, and therefore different restriction methods can be applied to this model. A
few restriction methods that can ensure that the aggregate power of a modified PSD does
not exceed a certain maximum value are pre-defined below, but other methods are not
excluded [3],[7]:
Attenuator method. This power restriction requires an algorithm that causes a

(frequency independent) attenuation of the full PSD. When the aggregate power of the
PSD exceeds a specified limit, the algorithm is to increase this attenuation until a value
that makes the aggregate power of the PSD equal to the specified limit. This method is
very simple, and is often inadequate to approximate the power restriction in a real modem
implementation.
Water-filling method. This power restriction requires an algorithm that clips all PSD

values above a certain (frequency independent) ceiling PSD value. When the aggregate
power of the PSD exceeds a specified limit, the algorithm is to lower this ceiling down
to a value that makes the aggregate power of the PSD equal to the specified limit. This
method is typically iterative in nature but rather straightforward and currently is the used
method by default.

61

Curtain method. This power restriction requires an algorithm that replaces all PSD

values up to a certain curtain frequency by a pre-defined (frequency independent)


floor PSD value. When the aggregate power of the PSD exceeds a specified limit, the
algorithm is to raise this curtain frequency up to a value that makes the aggregate
power of the PSD equal to the specified limit. This method is also typically iterative in
nature and rather straightforward as well.

Input
PSD "3"

PSD

Output
PSD "4"

Power
restrictor

- Restriction method
- Power Limit

Figure 3.21: Input/Output Baseline PSD Power Restrictor


3.4.5 Testing the proposed Architecture
Example 1: Generating an upstream signal (US2 out)

Figure 3.22 shows an intermediate power spectrum at the output of block #1 (the PSD
band constructor) of an upstream signal that is compliant with ITU profile 8c starting
from Mask B8-4. This profile is mainly characterized by the property that only the
signal bands US0 and US1 are enabled, while US2 is disabled.
Figure 3.22 also enables a comparison between the (template) PSD generated by block #1
with the PSD-mask specified in ITU G993.2 [3]. The result is in line with G993.2, and
that can be summarized as follows:

The (template) PSD is 3.5 dB below the PSD mask in frequency bands in which the
PSD is above 96.5 dBm/Hz (as specified in clause B.4.1 of G993.2 [3])

The (template) PSD is set to 110 dBm/Hz between 4 and 5.1 MHz, and 112
dBm/Hz above 5.1 MHz.

The aggregate power of this signal does not exceed the limits specified by profile 8c,
and therefore block #4 (the Power restrictor) does not modify the intermediate
spectrum. This is demonstrated by the red curve in Figure 3.23 that equals the green one
62

in Figure 3.22.

Using the model 'MSK.up:VDSL2.B8-4-(998-M2x-A)'


-30

dBm/Hz

Output: PSD Band Constructor

-40

ITU G993.2 Mask

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110

Frequency (MHz)
-120

10

12

14
6

Figure 3.22: Intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1, while generating ITU

profile 8c from mask B8-4 for upstream.

Using the model 'MSK.up:VDSL2.B8-4-(998-M2x-A)'


-30

dBm/Hz

Output: PSD Pow er Restrictor

-40

ITU G993.2 Mask

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110

Frequency (MHz)
-120

10

12

14
6

Figure 3.23: Output spectrum (at the output of block#4), while generating ITU profile

8c from mask B8-4 for upstream.


Note that the spectrum is flattened due to the interpolation performed in the simulator as
in practice the signal would not be flat (following the waterfilling method). This note
applies to the other examples as well.

63

Example 2: Generating a downstream signal with power restrictions

Figure 3.24 shows an intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1 (the PSD band
constructor) of a downstream signal that is compliant with the same ITU profile 8c
starting from Mask B8-4. One of the characteristics of this profile is that the power is
restricted to 11.5 dBm.
Figure 3.24 enables a comparison between the (template) PSD generated by block #1 with
the PSD-mask specified in ITU G993.2 [3].
The aggregate power of this signal exceeds the limits specified by profile 8c, and
therefore the signal processing in block #4 (the Power restrictor) has a significant
impact on the spectrum: The spectrum in the DS1 band is flattened by the water-fill
algorithm, in order to meet this power requirement. This is demonstrated by the curve in
Figure 3.25

Using the model 'MSK.dn:VDSL2.B8-4-(998-M2x-A)'


-30

dBm/Hz

Output: PSD Band Constructor

-40

ITU G993.2 Mask

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110

Frequency (MHz)
-120

10

12

14
6

Figure 3.24: Intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1, while generating ITU

profile 8c from mask B8-4 for downstream.

64

Using the model 'MSK.dn:VDSL2.B8-4-(998-M2x-A)'


-30

dBm/Hz

Output: PSD Pow er Restrictor

-40

ITU G993.2 Mask

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110

Frequency (MHz)
-120

10

12

14
6

Figure 3.25: Output spectrum (at the output of block#4), while generating ITU profile

8c from mask B8-4 for downstream.

Example 3: Generating a downstream signal up to 30MHz

Figure 3.26 shows an intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1 (the PSD band
constructor) of a downstream signal that is compliant with the same ITU profile 30a
starting from Mask B8-13. One of the characteristics of this profile is that the power is
restricted to 14.5 dBm.
Figure 3.26 enables a comparison between the (template) PSD generated by block #1 with
the PSD-mask specified in ITU G993.2 [3].
The aggregate power of this signal exceeds the limits specified by profile 30a, and
therefore the signal processing in block #4 (the Power restrictor) has a significant
impact on the spectrum: The spectrum in the DS1 band is flattened by the water-fill
algorithm, in order to meet this power requirement. This is demonstrated by the curve in
Figure 3.27.

65

-30
Output: PSD Band Constructor
ITU G993.2 Mask

-40

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
0

x 10 [Hz]
0.5

1.5

2.5

Figure 3.26: Intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1, while generating ITU

profile 30a from mask B8-13 for downstream.

-30
Output: PSD Power Restrictor
ITU G993.2 Mask

-40

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
0

x 10 [Hz]
0.5

1.5

2.5

Figure 3.27: Output spectrum (at the output of block#4), while generating ITU profile

30a from mask B8-13 for downstream.

66

3.4.5 Concluding Remarks

Specifying models for DSL transmitters by means of fixed PSD tables were successful in
the past for modelling systems like ADSL and SDSL, but is not favourable for VDSL2.
Such an approach would easily result in an exploding number of tables when all VDSL2
variants from ITU G993.2 are to be combined with capabilities like power limitations,
downstream power back-off (PSD shaping), upstream power back-off and notching.
The specification of such a complicated system can easily result in ambiguous Spectral
Management studies, because the underlying assumptions of the models are difficult to be
described in a simple way.
By our proposed algorithmic architecture model, we prevent complex specification that
enables unambiguous spectral management studies. Our solution is thus a model which
combines (a) the flexibility needed to model VDSL2 transmitters, with (b) a straight
forward specification on which capabilities have been selected. The output of our model
is compliant with current ITU specifications on VDSL2, and supports all flavours being
defined in that standard. This has been demonstrated by means of a few examples though
it has not been exhaustive to all possible combinations.
3.5 References

[1] ITU-T G.992.3, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) transceivers 2


(ADSL2), International Telecommunication Union, 01/2005.
[2] ITU-T G.992.5, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) transceivers
Extended bandwidth ADSL2 (ADSL2+), International Telecommunication Union,
01/2005.
[3] ITU-T Recommendation G993.2 Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line 2
(VDSL2), March 2006
[4] Chow, P. S.; Cioffi, J. M.; Bingham, J. A. C., A Practical Discrete Multitone
Transceiver Loading Algorithm for Data Transmission over Spectrally Shaped Channels,
IEEE Trans. on Commun., Vol. 43, no. 234, pp. 773-775, February/March/April 1995.
[5] Chow, P. S.; Cioffi, J. M. (1995). Method and Apparatus for Adaptive, Variable
Bandwidth High-Speed Data Transmission of a Multicarrier Signal Over Digital
Subscriber Lines, U.S. Patent 5,479,447 (December 1995)

67

[6] Shannon C. E., A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell Syst. Techn. J.,
Vol. 27, pp.379-423, 623-656, July, October, 1948.
[7] Starr T., Cioffi J. M. and Silverman P. J., Understanding Digital Subscriber Line
Technology, Prentice Hall PTR 1999.
[8] Crdova H, van der Veen T, and Biesen L. van, Spectrum and Performance Analysis
of VDSL2 systems: Band-Plan Study, in the proc. of the Interl. Conference on
Communications, ICC 2007, Glascow, Scotland.
[9] Galli S., and Kerpez K.J., The problem of summing crosstalk from mixed sources,
IEEE Comm. Letters, vol 4, No 11, November 2000
[10] Schelstraete S., Defining upstream power backoff for VDSL, IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 10641074, May 2002.
[11] Jacobsen K.S., Methods of Upstream Power Backoff on Very High-Speed Digital
Subscriber Lines, IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 210-216, March 2001.
[12] Oksman V., General Issues of Upstream Power Back-off Technique in VDSL,
Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, California, September 2000.
[13] Cioffi J. and Olcer S.. Very High-Speed Digital Subscriber Line, IEEE Commun.
Mag., pp. 62-64, May 2000.
[14] ETSI TR 101 830-2 V1.1.1 (2005-10) Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Access
networks; Spectral management on metallic access networks; Part 2: Technical methods
for performance evaluations
[15] J.A.C. Bingham, ADSL, VDSL2 and Multicarrier modulation, Wiley 2000,
ISBN:0-471-29099-8
[16] Rob F.M van den Brink, H. Cordova Algorithmic model for VDSL2 transmitters,
ETSI TM6 contribution 072t10, April 2007.
[17] R. van den Brink and T. van der Veen, Description of VDSL2-NL1 signals, for
spectral management in the Netherlands, ETSI contribution STC TM6 meeting, Sophia
Antipolis, France, Sept 11-14, 2006.
[18] ITU-T Recommendation G997.1: Physical layer management for digital subscriber
line (DSL) receivers, June 2006.

68

3.6 My contributions:

Crdova H, van der Veen T, and Biesen L. van, Spectrum and Performance
Analysis of VDSL2 systems: Band-Plan Study, in the proc. of the Interl.
Conference on Communications, ICC 2007, Glascow, Scotland.

Crdova H, van den Brink Rob F.M. and van Biesen Leo, An Algorithmic
Architecture Model for VDSL2 Spectrum Management studies, in the
proceedings of the Intl. Conference on Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition and
Applications (SPPRA), IASTED 2011.

Rob F.M van den Brink, H. Cordova Algorithmic model for VDSL2
transmitters, ETSI TM6 contribution 072t10, April 2007.

Crdova H. and Vargas P., Anlisis de Sistemas de Comunicaciones Almbricas


de Banda Ancha: ADSL y VDSL2, ESPOL CIENCIA 2006.

Crdova H. and Vargas P., Definition of noise scenarios and Performance


Evaluation for ADSL and ADSL2+ Systems: One step forward for limited tripleplay services, IEEE JST 2007.

Crdova H, van der Veen T., and van Biesen L, What is needed to deploy
VDSL2 systems: Practical Considerations and Performance Evaluation, IEEE
JST 2007.

69

70

CHAPTER 4: Upstream Spectrum Management


4.1 Introduction

It used to be common practice in performance studies to assume that all DSL systems
(e.g. ADSL/2+) deployed from the central office are also co-located at the customer
premises side. If this approximation would have been applied to VDSL2, then we get a
first estimation on the performance of VDSL2 in both directions. However, such an
approximation may be valid for many ADSL deployments, but is inadequate for most
VDSL2 deployments (due to relatively short loops). In those cases, the CPE-modems are
distributed along the cable, as illustrated in Figure 4.1. In this case, when all upstream
modems transmit in a distributed topology at full power, those modems connected via
longer loops are in a disadvantage; the crosstalk from upstream modems connected via
shorter loops will then dominate, causing the performance of modems connected via
longer loops to be lower than would have been achieved if all loops were equally long.
This effect is typically called the near-far problem [2], [3], and can be alleviated by
means of adequate measures (i.e. upstream power back off UPBO).
UPBO alleviates the performance loss by, for instance, reducing the transmit PSD level of
the shorter nodes (thus, reducing the FEXT crosstalk noise induced in the farther nodes)
and therefore allowing longer nodes to achieve a better upstream performance. Figure 4.2
shows there is no performance left (without enabling US0) after 600m when no UPBO
measures are taken (in a distributed topology). Thus, for a distributed topology, there is a
trade-off in the upstream: for shorter distances, there is a loss in performance but for
farther distances there is a gain in performance (as observed in Figure 4.2). This trade-off
brings the motivation of finding the right balance (and defining the criteria) for getting the
optimal UPBO parameters for a specific situation (constraints).
FEXT_M

CAB

CPE

CAB
FEXT_k-1

CPE

CAB
FEXT_k-2

CPE

CAB
FEXT_1

CPE

CAB
CPE

Figure 4.1: A typical topology for VDSL2 deployment with a DSLAM located at the

cabinet and the users placed at different distances from that cabinet.
71

UPSTREAM

25

b it ra te (M b p s )

No UPBO
ETSI V D SL1:CabA

20

15
LOSS in performance

10
GAIN in performance

5
lo o p le n g th (m )
0

100

2 00

300

400

500

6 00

70 0

800

900

1 0 00

Figure 4.2: UPBO trade-off demonstration. US0 is not taken into account to stress the

effect of not applying UPBO

Different methods to address the near-far problem have been proposed, [5-7], [9-10].
Nevertheless, the only one in the standard by 2006 [4] was the reference power spectral
density (reference) length method where different reference PSDs have been defined for
each upstream sub-band. The actual parameters used for the reference PBO in the current
VDSL standards were established in [6] and in [7]. They both used a kind of exhaustive
search to find optimized UPBO parameters, which is time consuming. To circumvent this
problem, a method to calculate the UPBO parameters using the Nelder-Mead simplex
algorithm has been proposed in [8]. The concept of user-unique PBO (UUPBO) was
introduced in [9], where the UPBO parameters are optimized for each line, separately. In
[10], the concept of cable-bundle PBO (CBPBO) was introduced, where the UPBO
parameters are optimized per cable. We follow the same principle of optimizing the
UPBO parameters per cable (CBPBO) but at some specific length, say

. Therefore, we

do not maximize the minimum bitrate of user as in [10] but, instead, it maximizes the
bitrate of user at some specific length,

In practice, it is very common to find this approach pursued by DSL operators: maximize
the capacity of the system up to some specific distance, for instance, to deliver and
guarantee a specific class of service.

72

Annex 8.1 further analyzes the difference when moving from ADSL-based system to a
VDSL-based system though the impact of not applying UPBO is visible already in Figure
4.2.
4.2 System Model and Problem Statement
4.2.1 Preliminaries: Overview of UPBO in the VDSL2 standard

The reference PSD method requires that the received PSD on any line in the distributed
topology is approximately equal to the received PSD of a line with a given reference
length LR (when no power back-off is applied).
The transmit PSD on a line of length L can then be calculated as:

TxPSD f, L

|H f, LR |
. TxPSD f
|H f, L |

(4.1)
Where
TxPSD

is the PSD mask defined as given in the standard

H f, LR

is the transfer function at the reference length

H f, L

is the transfer function at the length L

It is expected that the performance starts dropping after the reference length is reached.
Therefore, the choice of the reference length plays a major role when defining the
deployment rules.
The UPBO mask is calculated in the standard [4] as follows:
UPBO

kl , f

UPBOPSD f

LOSS kl , f

3.5 dBm/Hz

(4.2)

73

Where
UPBOPSD f
LOSS kl , f
kl

min

(4.3)

kl f dB

(4.4)

LOSS f

(4.5)

The UPBOPSD , depends on two parameters: and . These are the parameters that have
to be configured in expression 4.3 to obtain the adequate PSD level (expression 4.2).
In expression (4.5), LOSS f is the insertion loss in dB of the loop at frequency . If the
loss of the cable cannot be fit as f using kl as in (4.5), it might lead to incorrect
estimations of the attenuation (and therefore, of the term LOSS kl , f ). This
term, LOSS kl , f , is, in practice, evaluated by the CPE modem (thus, becoming
manufacturer-dependent as manufacturers take different methods to evaluate it).
We illustrate the variation of the (upstream) spectra for different length values in the subloop. Using the UPBO settings established in the ETSI standard in 2006 [12], we can
show (illustrated in Figure 4.3/left) that the US2 has a reference length equal to ~950m
(using cable TP150, also known as KPN_L1 [13]). A similar analysis allows us finding
the corresponding reference length for US1, which is equal to ~1300m (using a typical
Dutch cable: TP150).
0

PSD (dBm/Hz)

VDSL PSD
SAN: 250m
SAN: 500m
SAN: 750m
SAN: 1000m

-20
-40
a=47.30
b=28.01

-60

a=54.00
b=19.22

-80
-100
-120

Frequency (kHz)
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Figure 4.3: Left: Upstream Spectra for different (secondary access network) SAN lengths
; right: showing impact on performance for different reference lenghts
In Figure 4.3/left we can also observe that there are three sub-bands that compose the
overall upstream signal (though this study will not cover the use of sub-band US0).

74

Figure 4.3/right shows clearly the performance trade-off when selecting a particular
reference length.
4.2.2 System Model

The model is the same as the one described in section 1.3


4.2.3 Problem Statement

In this specific (upstream) study, we will focus on the following optimization problem: to
find {,}, values per upstream sub-band (not taking into account US0) such that the
upstream performance is maximized at some specific reference length LR . Mathematically
expressed as:
max R

(4.10)

_ _LR

Subject to
UPBO kl , f
40
P

UPBO

80, 1

, i, i

(4.10.1)
40

1, M

(4.10.2)
(4.10.3)

This optimization problem results in optimizing the performance of all the users located
up to LR of distance from the cabinet. Those users located after LR will get a performance
based on best effort and its performance is expected to decrease rapidly. Constraint
(4.10.1) ensures that there is no violation according to the levels specified in [4].
Constraint (4.10.2) indicates the search space boundaries for the pair {,} per upstream
sub-band, as indicated in the Standard [4]. Constraint (4.10.3) enforces the power per line
(P ) to be equal or less than the minimum between the maximum possible power (P

limited by the equipment (CPE modem) and the specification in [4].


4.3 Proposed Algorithms

We will hereby make use of an (off-line) exhaustive search to find the optimal parameters
under the constraints (4.10.1 to 4.10.3) and under specific criterion (Criterion I, II and III
which are described later in this section). We will use a typical Dutch cable (0.5mm) [13]
for this study though it is straightforward to extend it to other cables.

75

The exhaustive search (ES) algorithm consists of evaluating the bit-rate performance for
all possible values of and (as described in [4]) in steps of 0.5dB. We have limited the
range of this study up to 1000m.
The generic off-line exhaustive search algorithm is time-consuming but provides all the
details to find the best possible UPBO parameters depending on the specific criteria (and
cable characteristics). Its implementation and explanation is straightforward.
The exhaustive search needs, in principle, to be run for every cable loop such that the
optimal UPBO parameters can be found. However, implementing the optimal UPBO
parameters found in one specific cable into another might be a good starting point for a
practical deployment though the penalty in terms of performance can be non-negligible
(up to 4Mbps as shown later in section 4.5; this varies depending on the type of cable).
Hence, final evaluation of accepting this penalty needs to be decided (by operators)
against the complexity of managing several UPBO parameters per cable.
We defined three criteria to be considered in our analysis. Criteria II and III are included
to show the flexibility and robustness of the proposed algorithm and should be used when
one has conflicting constraints: i.e. maximizing a weighted sum rate instead of
maximizing the bitrate at LR .
Algorithm 1a: Generic Off-line Exhaustive Search

for all upstream bands {US , . . , US _ }


(where max_us corresponds to the maximum number of upstream bands to be
considered in the study)
for all possible values of
for all possible values of
for all nodes in the study
, according to (4.3)
Get
Calculate bitrate of (for
i 1, , M), according to (4.9)
Store Results in where
is the set of
([USUS ] { , }, ] that has been
stored.
end
end
end
end

76

Table 4.1: Overview of Criteria used for creating the optimization problem
Description

Optimization Problem

max R

Criteria I

Criteria II
max
(Relaxed
Optimization)

_ _
_ _

Comments

As described in (4.9 and 4.10)

Where
(0
1 ) represents a
weight given to the bitrate of user ,
where, for example,
could follow a
regional (local or national) user
distribution.
It follows the same constraints as
described in (4.10).
We create a new set that contains all
that are close
combinations{,},
optimal performance
This corresponds to optimize the
aggregate weighted bitrate over all
possible combinations of { , } up to
some specific value of

Criteria III

max

_ _

4.3.1 Criterion 1

Criterion 1 is built upon the information gathered by the Exhaustive Search algorithm.
Thus, it retrieves the information from it and finds the user(s) at the selected reference
length, LR , where the (upstream) performance is maximum. Such UPBO parameters
({,} per upstream sub-band) are stored and applied to all the modems in the system.

Criteria I: Algorithm for finding the Maximum Upstream Performance at


some specific (reference) length,

1. Find one user, , at LR , that is, the user at node where represents the
different nodes of the distributed topology ( M .
2. Search within the values of { , } for this user that maximize the
performance at LR .
3. Get UPBOPSD for all i users, i 1, , M , according to (4.3).
4. Calculate bitrate of R (for i 1, , M), according to (4.9).
4.3.2 Criterion II

Criterion II is a relaxation of Criterion I. Instead of searching for the optimal point at a


specific reference length, LR , it introduces a parameter that can be interpreted as the
distance of how close the selected set of points is from the optimal point (a tolerance). In

77

case of other conflicting constraints, this criterion can be very useful to find a sub-optimal
trade-off between the maximum bitrate at LR and the specific constraint.
Criteria II: Quasi-Optimum aggregate weighted bitrate in a subset of the
(relaxed-maximum) performance at some specific (reference) length, .

1. Find one user, , at LR , that is, the user at node where represents the
different nodes of the distributed topology ( M .
2. Search within the values of { , } for this user that are close to the
maximum performance at LR where is a value between 0 and 1.
3. Create a new set where all new elements of this set are created based on
point 2.
4. Within this set , search for the values of { , } that maximize the
aggregate weighted bitrate.
5. Get UPBOPSD for all i users, i 1, , M , according to (4.3).
6. Calculate bitrate of R (for i 1, , M), according to (4.9).
4.3.3 Criterion III

Criterion III focus on maximizing the aggregate (weighted) bitrate up to some specific
reference length, LR . For this purpose, Algorithm 1 has to be slightly modified to also
store the aggregate bitrate. Note that in this case, specific weights need to be given to
each of the users up (or Service Level Agreements SLA) to the specific reference length,
LR such that the R

is calculated as:
R

w R

(4.11)
where w represents the weights (level of importance) given to each user line rate.
Algorithm 1b: Generic Off-line Exhaustive Search, storing also the
aggregated bitrate
for all upstream bands {US , . . , US _ }
(where max_us corresponds to the maximum number of upstream bands to
be considered in the study)
for all possible values of
for all possible values of
for all nodes in the study
Get UPBOPSD , according to (4.3)
Calculate bitrate of R (for
i 1, , M), according to (4.9)
Calculate aggregate weighted bitrate
Store Results in where is the set of
78

([USUS ] { , }, R , R
has been stored.
end

,] that

end
end
end
Criterion III: Maximum aggregate weighted bitrate small variant of
Algorithm 1
1. Find one user, , at LR , that is, the user at node where represents the
different nodes of the distributed topology ( M .
2. Search within the values of { , } for this user that maximize the
R ,
at LR .
3. Get UPBOPSD for all i users, i 1, , M , according to (4.3).
4. Calculate bitrate of R (for i 1, , M), according to (4.9).
5. Calculate the aggregate weighted bitrate, R ,
In addition, we have noticed that the gain in reducing the step-size for { , } and LR lead
to very small gains in terms of bitrate performance (e.g. less than 1% increase) which is,
in practice, negligible, particularly as the exercise is very time-consuming.
Algorithm 1b stores also the aggregate weighted line rate. This is the only difference with
algorithm 1a and this difference enables criterion 3 to be defined. All three criteria serve
different purposes: Criterion I seeks for the global optimum; Criterion II relaxes the
optimum (seeking for near-optimal results) but can include any other constraint (e.g.
market average line rate) whilst Criterion III aims at maximizing the aggregate weighted
line rate.
4.3.4 Criteria Max-Min

There is a common criterion used in other papers (see [10]) which we could also
accommodate for; it consists of finding the user with less capacity and maximizing it, also
known as max-min objective.
Criteria: Maximum the minimum upstream performance across the
cable bundle
1. Find the user, , with the minimum upstream bitrate (that is not zero
without considering upstream 0 capacity) across the cable bundle
without UPBO, that is, the user at node where represents the
different nodes of the distributed topology ( M . is in any of the
nodes
2. Find the corresponding length at which this user is located from the
cabinet (L
3. Initial values of { , }, according to [3], so in this case when LR
79

L (see Table 4.3).


4. Calculate initialR (most likely, this will meet the R
constraint)
5. While R
R
Search within the values of { , } for this
6.
7.
user that maximize the performance at
8.
L
L
9. end
10. Calculate bitrate of R (for i 1, , M), according to (4.9).
4.4 Scenario under study

The topology to be used consists of several disturbers in a distributed topology as


depicted in Figure 4.4.
Distributed Topology
Total Length

= 1000 m

Total Disturbers = 20 (not equally distributed)


100
CAB

100
CPE

100
CPE

100
CPE

100
CPE

100

CPE

100
CPE

100
CPE

100
CPE

100
CPE

CPE

100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000

Figure 4.4: Distributed Topology for scenario under study

The distribution of the customers follows the national average (more than 80% of the
users are located up to 1000m) for the Netherlands though the results are almost 3
topology independent. The concept of crosstalk (Xtalk) offset level is re-used as proposed
in [1]4 Table 4.2 shows the parameters used in our simulation setup.

After extensive simulations, not more than 5% differences have been observed
Xtalk offset means to lower the overall crosstalk noise by some determined offset value, according to a
statistical analysis from the loops (typically coming from measurement results)
4

80

Table 4.2: Overview of the Parameters used in the Simulation


Description

VDSL 2 Configuration
B8-4 / A
12a (using US1 and US2 only)
to profile 12b
TP 150 (0.5mm)
6 dB
20 x VDSL B8-4 / A (self-Xtalk
only)
- 12 dB
2 symbols
8 ms
12.75 dB [9.75 + 6dB noise
margin 3dB coding gain]
4000 [symbols/s]
10
FSAN
40
80.95,
1 40.95

VDSL Type
Profile
Cable Type
Noise Margin
Disturbers Type
Xtalk-Offset level
INP
Delay
SNR ,
f
BER
Crosstalk summation method
, range

4.5 Simulation Results


4.5.1 Initial Results from the Exhaustive Search

Initial results from the proposed exhaustive search algorithm are depicted in figures 4.5
and 4.6, which indicate that a global maximum (or near max) in both upstream bands can
be found, at some specific distance(in this case, LR =800m). However, we can fairly
conclude that there is some freedom to select values of and therefore, the main
challenge remains in finding the optimal . Furthermore, additional constraints can
(should) be added to enhance the overall optimization problem due to the fact that there
are several points close to the maximum optimal; so there is not too much gain in really
finding the optimal but instead in achieving other constraints (e.g. maximize aggregate
bitrate, minimize power, maximize class average rates, etc).

81

US1

Performance [Mbps]

6
4

2
0
40
30

80
70

20

60

10

50
0

40

Figure 4.5: Overview of upstream US1 performance for different values of { , }, LR

=800m

US2

Performance [Mbps]

3
2

1
0
40
30

80
70

20

60

10

50
0

40

Figure 4.6: Overview of upstream US2 performance for different values of { , }, LR

=800m
Similar results have been found for other values of LR . Simulation results for LR
500m, other reference lengths and other additional studies can be found in Annex 8.2.
4.5.2 Algorithms Simplification

Though our exhaustive search algorithm provides the possibility to practically meet any
criteria, it is time-consuming and might be difficult to implement in practice, at least in
82

very dynamic environments. To give an idea of the time spend in a simulation, a full
simulation for one particular cable lasts for about 1.5 days. Thus, having run the
simulations for different scenarios, cables and crosstalk noise levels, it was possible to
explore a practical yet accurate approach to simplify the selection of the UPBO
parameters (tailored to typical Dutch cables). Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show the polynomial
fitting (for upstream sub-band 1, that is, US1 and up to LR
obtained by the exhaustive search algorithm.

500m ) of the results

Clearly, this motivates the linear

simplification of the selection of the UPBO parameters. Annex 8.3 presents a similar
analysis for US2.

60

Fitting for parameter , US1


Neper [Np]

50
40
Exhaustive Search Results

30

Fitting

20
10
0
0

Lr, Reference Length [m]


50

100 150 200

250

300

350

400

Figure 4.7: Fitting for US1. Average correlation factor is 0.92

83

450

500

Fitting for parameter , US1

25

N
H

20

]
Exhaustive Search Results
Fitting

15
10
5
0
0

Lr, Reference Length [m]


50

100 150

200

250

300

350

400

450 500

Figure 4.8: fitting for US1. Average correlation factor is 0.94

The set depicted in Table 4.3 is derived from averaging different results, with an
estimated error in finding the exact UPBO parameters of approximately 2.25%. These
results have been further validated in the lab tailored to typical Dutch noise scenarios,
reaching similar results to the exhaustive search method5.
Table 4.3 shows just one possibility in the linearization of the model to find nearoptimal UPBO parameters. As shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, the choice of provides a
very broad set of values to start the fitting from. The slope of is by design selected in
that way (similar for both upstream bands) to simplify the choices.
Table 4.3: UPBO parameters model as result of Best fitting
UPBO
parameters

US1

US2

46.3

49.3

4.5

18.8LR 6

3.3

18.8LR

5
TheresultsfromthefieldmeasurementsareomittedinthisstudyastheyweredevelopedforKPN.
6

Lrefisgiveninkm

84

This approach substantially simplifies the calculation; therefore, the problem is reduced to
define till what specific length (reference length) the operator would like to maximize and
secure the performance. Furthermore, the adoption of the algorithm has no impact at
the CPE-side (user side).

4.5.3 Evaluating performance at different values of

Selecting the adequate reference length LR is crucial in our proposed algorithm.


Therefore, an overview of the potential performance gain/loss for different values of LR is
provided in Figure 4.9. In practice, the value of LR is expected to be chosen by the
operator, according to some criterion, e.g. the distribution of the customers.
We can observe again the trade-off in selecting a reference length: better performance for
users close to the cabinet versus better performance for users farther away. We also notice
that the selected reference length is the break-point where the performance starts to drop
(see blue curve, 500m and red curve, 800m). The green curve, 1000m, represents only
slighter better performance after 800m as US2 starts to decay (shutting subcarriers off) at
those frequencies.

40

UPSTREAM PERFORMANCE

bit rate(Mbps)

Optimized for Lref =500m

Optimized for Lref =800m


Optimized for Lref =1000m

35

30

25

20

15

10

loop length (m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.9: Optimized Performance at different reference lengths.


4.5.4 Performance Evaluation: Distinguishing between cabinets

The operator has the possibility to distinguish between cabinets, e.g, understanding what
the user distribution is and defining more than one (reference) length LR to be optimized.
This will bring performance benefits in terms of clustering the different users per cabinet
and setting different optimal UPBO parameters per cabinet (per cable). Figure 4.10 shows
85

the resulting gain when distinguishing among cabinets. We can also notice that when
introducing another cabinet classification after 800m lead to only slightly better results after the 800m- (see green curve in Figure 4.9).

40

UPSTREAM
bit rate(Mbps)

Lref US1 = Lref US2 = 500m


Lref US1 = 1000m / Lref US2 = 800m

35
30
25

Gain ~7.5 Mbps when


distinguishing cabinets

20
15
10

noise: - 12 dB

5
0
0

loop length (m)


100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.10: Performance Comparison for two values of LR .


4.5.5 Evaluating other criteria

Inspecting expression (4.10), we can infer that further constraints might be added to the
problem statement and hence, other criteria (II and III) can be included.
Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show the performance comparison using all criteria defined in
section 4.3. We can notice that the difference among these optimization constraints is
minor (for each reference length). The curve corresponding to Criterion I in Figure 4.11
reaches the maximum performance at 800m (done per design) without any other
constraint. The Criterion II curve (Figure 4.11), in this case (800m), relaxes the objective
of reaching maximum performance by 10% to be able to add an extra constraint (e.g. user
distribution), and we can observe that the difference starts to become noticeable (after
800m). The Criterion III curve (Figure 4.11) uses weights for the users (those weights are
based on the user distribution); therefore follows similar curve as the criterion II. The
curve corresponding to ETSI CabA was drawn for illustration purposes, showing that
using optimum UPBO settings surpasses general indications from the Standard (2006).
Figure 4.12 performs similar study at different LR (500m). This time, the differences at
this length are minor (coincidence), given by the fact that the optimum settings for the

86

maximum performance (criterion I) are the same (or very similar) as the ones that provide
maximum performance based on other constraints (criterion II or III).
Given the current (noise) conditions (see Table 4.2), we can further observe (in Figure
4.13) that maximizing the aggregate weighted bitrate leads to better performance at
distances greater than the selected value of LR (500m).
Figure 4.13 shows an interesting result: for distances up to ~600m, criteria II (and
practically, criteria I as well) and criteria III lead to similar results. This is because the
weighted value per user equals the distribution of customers in the Dutch region up to that
distance. After 700m, there is a gap, making the gap smaller again around 1000m. Notice
that the

axis represents the different values of LR and not the loop length.

Other criterion (not mentioned here) was also explored: for instance, evaluating what is
the remaining performance at some specific length (e.g. 1000m) when using a specific
reference length in the study. The results are shown in Annex 9.4.
The results for the Max-Min criterion can be found on Annex 9.5 as they follow the
similar logic herein described.
UPSTREAM PERFORMANCE
20

[Mbps]

18

UPBO: CriteriaI: [KPNL1] offset: -12


UPBO: CriteriaII: [KPNL1] offset: -12

16

UPBO: CriteriaIII: [KPNL1] offset: -12

14

UPBO: ETSI CabA: [KPNL1] offset: -12

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

loop length (m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.11: Performance Comparison using other optimization criteria, at LR

87

800m

UPSTREAM performance at 500m


40

bit rate(Mbps)

Criteria I: Maximize performance


Criteria II: Quasi-Optimal of aggregate weighted datarate
Criteria III: Maximize aggregate weighted datarate

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

loop length (m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.12: Performance Comparison using other optimization criteria, at LR

500m.

Note that Figure 4.13 uses an aggregated weighted datarate based on the user distribution
for the Netherlands. After 800m, the difference in relaxing the maximum performance by
10% and optimizing the product (bitrate times user distribution) becomes noticeable and
the criterion II curve (Figure 4.13) drops significantly (at 900m, ~30%). In this case, an
aggregated weighted approach is preferred.
Criterio Analysis: Comparison

40

Bit rate [Mbps]

Criteria II
Criteria III

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Lr, Reference Length [m]


0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Figure 4.13: Performance Comparisons between Criteria II and III

88

900

1000

4.5.6 Ambiguity when evaluating

There is some uncertainty on how kl is evaluated for each manufacturer. Evaluating kl at


different frequencies will translate in an error. We investigate here this effect (by
simulation) by evaluating kl at 1 MHz and 3.75 MHz using cable TP150, [13].
25

Evaluation of

at different frequencies for cable TP 150

k (dB/

at 1MHz

at 3.75MHz

20
15
10
5
0
200

loop length (m)


300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.14: Attenuation when

is evaluated at different frequencies

From many simulations and studies, we observed that the difference in terms of
performance (for this specific cable, TP150) varies between ~1 to 3Mbps, depending
(now more heavily) on the crosstalk environment.
4.6 Lab Measurement Results

We studied and assessed during 2006 and 2007 several state-of-the-art VDSL2
equipment.
We plot the expected (analytically simulated) spectra versus the measured one for
different secondary lengths. The results are depicted in the figure below when using the
UPBO settings at a reference length equals to 1000m

89

Spectra Analysis UPBO Settings GPLK nation

-20

Measured PSD at 335


Template PSD at 335
Measured PSD at 819
Template PSD at 819
Measured PSD at 1546
Template PSD at 1546

-30
-40

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-50

1546

-60
819
-70
335

-80
-90
-100
-110
-120

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 4.15: Simulated spectra versus measured spectra at CPE side. Note that at 1546

meter, the second upstream band (US2) is no longer used.

Figure 4.16 shows the spectra up to 12 MHz for the case of SAN = 335m. The total power
measured is 4.95 dBm at 100. However, this power accounts for all the spectra (up to 12
MHz), that is for upstream (transmitted signal) and downstream (received signal). The
received downstream signal looks higher than the transmitted upstream signal because of
the short loop length being used (335m): the downstream signal is only weakly attenuated
by the loop, while the upstream signal is strongly attenuated by the UPBO mechanism
Spectra Analysis UPBO Settings GPLK nation
-30
Measured
Mask
Template

-40

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 4.16: Simulated spectra versus measured spectra. Note that at 1546 meter, the

second upstream band (US2) is no longer used.

90

Annex 8.6 provides an overview of the peak and nominal mask violations which are in
general in the order of 1-2 dBs, and easily adjustable in the deployment of practical
networks (these measurements were performed during 2006-2008).
In addition to measuring the masks, the performance was also measured and compared
against its simulation model (see Figure 4.17).
20

XTOffset6dB/Shape25/UPBOat1000m/INP2/Delay8
bit rate [Mb/s]

UPBO at 1000m: Measurement


UPBO at 1000m: Simulation

15

10

0
0

length [m]
200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 4.17: Performance Comparison for Simulated and Measured UPBO settings at

1000m using (overlay) scenario; the receiver noise and the Shannon gap for the
simulation were set to -135 dBm and 6.75 dB, respectively.

There are clear differences (of the order of 2 to 3 Mbps) between the measured (orange)
and the simulated (blue) curves. This happens because US0 does not reach the desired
PSD level therefore, some degradation is expected. It was observed that this particular
equipment turns off some carriers in the US2 band, even at short loops, i.e. 335m. This
was fixed in upcoming software and hardware versions of the equipment.
Annex 8.6 provides a view on the spectra and bitloading of these curves.
4.7 How to deploy UPBO in practice?

Our work is further motivated by the fact that current operators need to deal with local
and international (standards) regulations. However, the management of the spectrum is
typically managed per country and thus local policies can always be deployed.
In this section, we demonstrate that the gain in performance when applying effective
UPBO measures is jeopardized when only one single node (composed by one or more
users) does not apply the (optimal) UPBO settings. Thus, a single failure degrades the
91

performance. Therefore, the proposed solution works well only when it is used by all
modems (from all different operators). Hence, a local rule needs to be in place to
safeguard the performance of the whole system.
Figure 4.18 shows the performance degradation when one node fails at applying the
(agreed) UPBO parameters. Curve [1] in all plots correspond to a UPBO at LR
1000m. Certainly the (negative) effect is more severe for nodes (and so the users) located

closer to the cabinet. Curve [2] corresponds when the users at that specific node
(distance) work at full PSD, degrading the performance on the other users.

UPSTREAM/ Ref -6dB

UPSTREAM/ Ref -6dB

20

20
[1] Backoff between0-1000m
[2] One failure at 800m

[1] Backoff between0-1000m


[2] One failure at 600m
15
bit rate(Mbps)

bit rate(Mbps)

15

[1]

10

[2]
5

[1]

10

5
[2]

0
0

(c) TNO2007

200

400

600

0
0

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


looplength(m)

(c) TNO2007

200

400

600

UPSTREAM/ Ref -6dB


20
[1] Backoff between0-1000m
[2] One failure at 400m

[1] Backoff between0-1000m


[2] One failure at 200m
15
bit rate(Mbps)

15
bit rate(Mbps)

UPSTREAM/ Ref -6dB

20

[1]

10

0
0

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


looplength(m)

[1]

10

5
[2]

(c) TNO2007

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


looplength(m)

0
0

[2]

(c) TNO2007

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000


looplength(m)

Figure 4.18: The performance loss is shown when a failure occurs at different

distances (between 200m and 800m). Ref-6dB means a crosstalk offset level of -6dB, as
explained in [1]. After ~1400m, only US0 remains active.

The next question is how to define UPBO in a rule such that can be deployed in every
region/country environment? A classic (very common) approach is to apply spectra
policing only at the transmitter side.

92

However, UPBO should pursue a different approach, thus, applying spectra policing at
both sides. Figure 4.19 displays both approaches.
a)
CAB

CPE

upstream link

transmit limit

b)
CAB

CPE

upstream link

receive limit

transmit limit

Figure 4.19: a) Classic approach; policing only at the transmitter b) Proposed UPBO

approach, policing at both sides

Several ways to establish the received spectra can be pursued, depending on the number
of UPBO parameters that are going to be accepted per region or country. But, it is
advisable to start with one single set of UPBO parameters that cover more than 80% of
the users-distribution (when feasible). Then, other settings (i.e. following our cabinet
classification concept) might be added as required. One example of pursuing a nationwide
transmit and receive PSD limit is depicted in Figure 4.20, for LR

1000m.

When available (and feasible), a Spectrum Management Center (SMC) could further help
to improve the spectrum and signal coordination at the receiver side and/or send some
information via message-passing (depending on the algorithm) to all (or certain number
of) modems.
Furthermore, applying and/or enforcing this policy has no impact at the CPE-side (the
user side) because all operators must apply the policy at the cabinet (DSLAMs)
equipment.

93

Feasibility of Transmit Limit

Feasibilityof Receive Limit


-40

-60

-60

-80

-80

-100

-100
-120
0

dBm/Hz

-40

dBm/Hz

-120
2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Frequency [kHz]

(c)
(c) TNO
TNO 2007
2007

Frequency[kHz]

(c) TNO2007

12000

2000

4000

8000 10000 12000

6000

Figure 4.20: a) Feasibility of Receive Limit left b) Feasibility of Transmit Limit - right.
4.8 DSM Compatible Algorithms
4.8.1 Introduction to Globalized-Bounded Nelder-Mead Algorithm

We follow the same principle of optimizing the UPBO parameters per cable (CBPBO) as
in [10] and [11] but at some specific length, e.g. LR . The problem formulation
mathematically can be expressed as:
max R _

_LR

(4.12)
Subject to
UPBO kl , f
40

UPBO

R UPBO klR , f
kl
P

min
P

80.95 , 1

40.95
i, f

PSD

i, i

1, M

LOSS f
f

, i, i

1, M

Where R UPBO klR , f is the received PSD for all i-users (i

1, M); that is, the power

spectral density at the upstream is shaped by the expression


PSD

f
(4.13)

94

This optimization problem results in optimizing the performance of all the users located
up to LR of distance from the cabinet. Those users located after LR will get a performance
based on best effort, only, and its performance is expected to decrease rapidly.
4.8.2 Introduction to Globalized-Bounded Nelder-Mead (GBNM) Algorithm

A good intro on search methods for global and local searches is provided in [14]. The
GBNM algorithm is suitable for functions of less than 20 variables, following the localglobal strategy, which basically implements a restart procedure based on adaptive
probability density that keeps a memory of past local searches.
The probability function, f x , of having sampled at point x is described by a GaussianParzen-windows approach, as described in [16], given by:

f x

f x

(4.14)
where

corresponds to the number of points that have been already sampled, and

f x is the normal multidimensional probability density function given by:


1

f x
2

. exp

det

1
x
2

(4.15)
where n is the dimension (number of variables, i.e. two per upstream band under study)
and is the covariance matrix, given by:

(4.16)

where each of the variances is described by the following expression:

(4.17)

where is a positive parameter that manages the lengths of the Gaussians; x


are the bounds in the j

direction. In our study, in order to keep the approach simple and


95

and x

cost-effective, we fix the variances to be constant. However, this approach might lead to
an increase in the total number of analysis. Despite of this cost, the author thinks this is
still a good overall strategy for the problem under study; moreover, it is supported by the
simulation results performed during this work. This probabilistic restart procedure can be
applied to almost any local optimizer. In this case, we follow the proposal in [14],
applying the probabilistic restart leading to an improved Nelder-Mead algorithm. Clearly,
the probability of having located a global optimum increases with the number of
probabilistic restarts.
As the problem depicted in expression (4.12) is non-convex, the application of GBNM
suits well, supporting also discontinuities (so, no gradient information needed); hence, the
improvement over a typical Nelder-Mead Algorithm [15] consists of the proper detection
of simplex degenerations and handling this through proper re-initialization. The simplex
is said to be degenerated if it has collapsed into a subspace of the search domain. This is
the most common symptom of a failed NelderMead search [17] because the method
cannot escape the subspace. More precisely, a simplex is called degenerated in this study
(as in [14]) if it is neither small, nor touches a variable bound, and one of the two
following conditions is satisfied:
,,
,,

or

(4.18)

Where e is the k edge, e is the edge matrix, . represents the Euclidean form, and
and

are small positive constants. Further details of this algorithm are extensively

described in [14].
Notice that the Kuhn and Tucker conditions of mathematical programming are not
applicable to the present non-differentiable but direct search approach.

4.8.3 Proposed Algorithm

The main focus is on the maximization of the line rate of user i at some specific length,
LR . However, an improved algorithm (Algorithm 2) is also proposed for the maximization

of the minimum line rate (as in [10]) over the lines. Algorithm 2 outperforms the

96

algorithm as proposed in [10] because it provides a better estimation of the UPBOPSD_R


in practical DSL lines and converges faster to the optimal results.
To solve the optimization problem presented in (4.12) we make use of an optimized
Nelder-Mead (GBNM) Algorithm as proposed in [14]. Similar concerns as described in
[10] are relevant in this study. However, because we use the initial results obtained in
Section 4.5.2, we can better estimate the minimum target rates ensuring we can indeed
achieve a feasible target line rate up to a certain specific (reference) length, LR , ensuring
convergence. This allows operators to easily select line rates (characteristics of service
per cable) so that a majority of users can be served at specific line rates. It was proved in
[11] that significant improvement is achieved when distinguishing among cabinets that
have different user-distributions. In this manner, DSL operators can offer different types
of speed services to users, depending on how far they are from a particular cabinet.
The first step defines the expected power signal at the receiver for all users. This initial
estimation is done by following the approach as described in [11] -which is the same as
described at the beginning of this chapter-. Step 2 calculates the normalized FEXT
coupling by holding the value of UPBOPSD_R as proposed in [10], assuming that each
modem provides a good estimation of the background noise , and the total noise N .
This way, the parameters to be found ({ , }) become almost independent of the
topology of the network. Next, the main loop starts where initial values of { , } are
provided to the main function (GBNM). This is repeated until the target bitrate at
(reference) length LR is reached.
Algorithm 1: Optimal GBNM variant 1
1. Select a suitable PSD
using the simplified approach proposed in [11]
as a best starting point.
2. Calculate normalized FEXT couplings for each line as in [10].
3. for i= {US , . . , US _ } all upstream bands
a. (where max_us corresponds to the maximum
b. number of upstream bands to be considered in
c. the study)
4.
= { , }
5.
Repeat
a.
= GBNM (@RateCalc_at_ , )
until a specific accuracy (target) is reached
6.
7. end for
1. function
= RateCalc_at_ (
2. Calculate PSD with = { , }, as given by (4.13).
97

3. Calculate R for all lines, that is, for i 1, , M according to (4.12).


4. Create a new set l , LR of length (where M) where all lines with
LR are selected
distances l
5. CalculateR for i 1, , according to (4.12).
min R , in the set where
and
1, ,
6. Calculate
Algorithm 2 addresses a similar problem statement as described in [10]. The difference is
twofold: on one hand, Algorithm 2 makes use of a better initial estimation as proposed in
[11] and on the other hand, it makes use of an enhanced direct simplex algorithm, GBNM
as proposed in [14]. Further analysis (considering the comparison between GBNM and
NM in [14]) shows that even not using the initial estimation as proposed in [11],
Algorithm 2 will still perform better than [10] because it does not get trapped into any
simplex degeneration that is likely probable by only using the typical Nelder-Mead
approach as in [15].

Algorithm 2: Optimal GBNM, variant 2 (the max-min)


1. Select a suitable PSD
using the simplified approach proposed in [11] as a
best starting point.
2. Calculate normalized FEXT couplings for each line as in [10].
3. for i= {US , . . , US _ } all upstream bands
a. (where max_us corresponds to the maximum
b. number of upstream bands to be considered in
c. the study)
4.
= { , }
5.
Repeat
a.
=GBNM(@RateCalcMin, )
6.
until a specific accuracy (target) is reached
7. end for
8. function
= RateCalcMin (
9. Calculate PSD with = { , }, as given by (4.13).
10. Calculate R for all lines, that is, for i 1, , M according to (4.12).
min R
11. Calculate

4.8.4 Simulation Results

We have setup a VDSL2 environment using band-plan 998, mask B8-12b. The design is
based on a TP150 cable which is a Dutch 0.5mm cable, also known as KPN_L1. A
multi-user setup has been considered for this analysis. The focus is on the upstream and a
maximum power of 14.5dBm is applied to the system (per user). The was chosen to be
98

12.75dB corresponding to a BERof10 , 3dB of coding gain and a noise margin of 6dB.
No power mask constraints have been setup (though it is straightforward to incorporate
them). Default value for EL-FEXT is used (-45dBm/Hz at 1km and 1MHz). The scenario
under study is depicted in Figure 4.21. Our target reference,LR , is 500m; hence, we will
maximize the upstream line rate at this distance, providing best effort for users behind
this length (e.g. the user at 700m).
VDSL2 (upstream) Scenario
1x VDSL2 200m

CAB

CAB

CPE

1x VDSL2 500m

CPE

1x VDSL2 700m

CAB

CPE

Figure 4.21: Simulation Scenario for VDSL2 -upstream-

First step in the proposed algorithm is to estimate the initial transmitted upstream signal
according to the proposed algorithm [11].
Figure 4.23 shows the initial received FEXT at the LT side when each user is considered
under study; thus, three runs are shown, having one per user when no UPBO measures
have been considered. The devastating affect for user 2 and 3 becomes obvious.
Once Algorithm 1 is implemented, a better estimation of PSD

is obtained, leading to

better performance results at the selected value of LR (e.g. 500m). From extensive
simulations, we have observed an average gain of 1-2 dB (per band).
The blue curve in Figure 4.23 (corresponding to the Received FEXT:user1) provides the
highest FEXT (as expected), because it corresponds to the user closer to the CAB. The
received FEXT for users 2 and 3 (other curves) are the same as the algorithm will treat
equal all users after 500m (selected reference length).
As the proposed algorithm makes use of a good initial estimation of PSD
converges after very few iterations (in average, less than 5).

99

, it

Transmitted Upstream Signal and PSD reference


PSD[dBm/Hz]

VDSL PSD MASK


user 1: 200m

-20

US1:
=46.30
=13.91

-40

US2:
=49.30
=12.64

user 2: 500m
user 3: 700m
PSD Reference

-60
-80
-100
-120

f [MHz]
0

10

12

14

Figure 4.22: Transmit Upstream Signal for each user. Clearly user 3 (at 700m) will

transmit at full power. User 2 does this by design so the curves from user 2 and 3 are
transmitting at full power. PSD

(at LR =1000m) is shown in light green.

-100

PSD
[dBm/Hz]

-110
-120
-130
-140
-150
-160
-170

Received FEXT: user1


Received FEXT: user2
Received FEXT: user3

-180
-190
-200

2000

4000

Length[m]
6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Figure 4.23: Comparison of the total FEXT received at the upstream side.

Results from the implementation of Algorithm 2 lead to similar results. This is easy to
explain: variant 2 (as well as the proposal in [10]) is a subclass of our proposed algorithm
where LR equals the distance corresponding to the user with the minimum line rate.
Optimizing up to this reference length leads to better (performance) results, because the
gain in spectra is about 1-2 dBs, as mentioned earlier (See Figure 4.24).

100

PSD Reference Comparison

-50
PSD[dBm/Hz]

Proposed Algorithm: GBNM


Initial Starting value as in [11]

-60
-70
-80
-90
-100

f [MHz]
0

10

12

14

Figure 4.24: Comparison of PSD

calculated as proposed here via the GBNM algorithm

vs the best estimation as discussed in [11]


4.9 Concluding Remarks

We described the near-far problem in Multiuser VDSL2 systems. We started proposing


an off-line exhaustive search algorithm to find the optimal UPBO parameters for different
criterions, within a cable-bundle. By inspecting the results under different scenarios, we
could perform a polynomial fitting, leading to a very simple formula that provides the
optimal UPBO parameters that maximize the line rate up to the (given) specific reference
length at negligible performance loss (less than 2%). We further investigate how to
deploy the proposed method over practical VDSL2 lines from an operator perspective.
We demonstrate that a national policy is needed among all DSL operators in order to
successfully benefit from the implementation of UPBO.
Our algorithm has no impact at the user-side due to neither any special information is
needed nor message-passing is required. However, we also demonstrate that there might
be a non-negligible difference (in the order of up to 3Mbps for the cable under test,
TP150) when calculating the insertion loss at the CPE-side due to a manufacturerdependent way of evaluation.
Furthermore, in section 4.7, we have focused on the optimization of the upstream
performance within a cable-bundle as in [10] but following the same principle as in [11],
that is, committing to certain line rate until some to distance LR . In order to find the
optimal UPBO parameters, we have used a Global Bounded Nelder-Mead algorithm,
101

which leads to improvements of 1-to-2 dBs in average (related to PSD

). This is

translated into a better optimization of the line rate at user(s) located up to the selected
distance, LR . Furthermore, the algorithm proposed in [10], which is covered in our study
by variant 2, proves to be a subcase of our general proposed algorithm (Algorithm 1),
when LR equals the distance corresponding to the user with the minimum line rate.
However, the proposed application of the GBNM algorithm has higher probabilities to
reach a better solution than [10] due to its probabilities restart procedure.
4.10 References

[1] Crdova H, van der Veen T, and Biesen L. van, Spectrum and Performance Analysis
of VDSL2 systems: Band-Plan Study, in the proc. of the Interl. Conference on
Commun, ICC 2007, Glascow, Scotland.
[2] Cioffi J. and Olcer S. Very High-Speed Digital Subscriber Line, IEEE Commun.
Mag., pp. 62-64, May 2000.
[3] Jacobsen K.S., Methods of Upstream Power Backoff on Very High-Speed Digital
Subscriber Lines, IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 210-216, March 2001.
[4] ITU-T Recommendation G993.2 Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line 2
(VDSL2), Geneva, March 2006
[5] Schelstraete S., Upstream power back-off in VDSL, IEEE digital object 0-78037206-9/01, 2001.
[6] Schelstraete S., Defining upstream power backoff for VDSL, IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 10641074, May 2002.
[7] Oksman V., Optimization of the PSD REF for upstream power back-off in VDSL,
ANSI T1E1.4 contribution 2001-102R1, Feb. 2001.
[8] Oksman V., Statovci D., Nordstrom T. and Nilsson R., Revised upstream power
back-off for VDSL, on the IEEE Intl. Conf. On Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing, ICASSP, Vol 4, pp IV, 14-19 May, 2006.
[9] D. Statovci, T. Nordstrom, and Nilsson, Dynamic spectrum management for
standardized VDSL, in the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing (ICASSP 2007), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, Apr. 2007.
[10] M. Jakovljevic, D. Statovci , T. Nordstrom, R. Nilsson, and S. Zazo VDSL power
back-off parameter optimization for a cable bundle, EURASIP 2007, pag. 550-554,
2007.

102

[11] Crdova H, van der Veen T, van den Heuvel B, van den Brink R.F.M., and Biesen L.
van, Optimizing Upstream Power Back-off, as defined in the VDSL2 standard,
submitted to Intl. Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, ISBN: 20856830, submitted Nov. 2011
[12] ETSI TS 101 270-1 v1.4.1, Very high speed digital subscriber line, 10/2005.
[13] ETSI TS 101 270-1 (V1.4.1): "Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Access
transmission systems on metallic access cables; Very high speed Digital Subscriber
Line (VDSL); Part 1: Functional requirements".
[14] Luersen M, and Le Riche R., Globalized Nelder-Mead method for engineering
applications, Computer and Structures, ELSEVIER, 2004.
[15] Nelder JA, and Mead R., A simplex for function minimization, Comput J, 7:30813, 1965
[16] Duda OR, Hart PE, Stork DG. Pattern classification. 2nd ed.. New York: John Wiley
& Sons; 2001, ISBN: 978-0-471-05669-0
[17] Wright MH. Direct search methods: one scorned, now respectable. In: Dundee
Biennal Conference in Numerical Analysis, Harlow, UK, pp. 191208, 1996.
[18] Starr T., Cioffi J.M. and Silverman P. J., Understanding Digital Subscriber Line
Technology, Prentice Hall PTR 1999, ISBN: 0137805454
[19] Cordova H., and Van Biesen L., A simple polynomial method for optimizing
upstream performance in multiuser VDSL2 lines, accepted and to appear in the XX
IMEKO World Congress, which will be hold on 9 - 14 Sep. 2012 at BEXCO, Busan,
Korea.
4.11 My Contributions

Crdova H, van der Veen T, van den Heuvel B, van den Brink R.F.M., and Biesen L.
van, Optimizing Upstream Power Back-off, as defined in the VDSL2 standard,
submitted to Intl. Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, ISBN: 20856830,submitted Nov 2011.

Cordova H, and Van Biesen L., Using an Off-line Exhaustive Search Algorithm for
Optimizing Max-Min UPBO Performance over DSL lines, in the proceedings of the
Conference on Signal Processing, IASTED 2011.

103

Rob van den Brink, Cordova H, van der Veen Teun, Description of VDSL2-NL1
and VDSL2-NL2 signals using UPBO, for spectral management in the Netherlands,
ETSI STC TM6 meeting, April 23-26, 2007.

Cordova H., and Van Biesen L., A simple polynomial method for optimizing
upstream performance in multiuser VDSL2 lines, accepted and to appear in the XX
IMEKO World Congress, which will be hold on 9 - 14 Sep. 2012 at BEXCO, Busan,
Korea, September 2012.

104

CHAPTER
Management

5:

Downstream

Spectrum

5.1 Introduction

Though optical fibre is a strong candidate for achieving higher bandwidths in the last
mile, the investment and maintenance costs are still prohibitive in many cases [1]. On
contrast, copper infrastructures are already present and several techniques (e.g. vectoredDSM) are being proposed to increase dramatically the bitrates over copper lines, [8-12].
As VDSL2 has to be deployed in unbundled loops, it has to share the cable with legacy
systems deployed from the local exchange (like ADSL and ADSL2+). This leads to
(downstream) spectra overlapping with other DSL systems (in frequencies below 2.2
MHz). Therefore, without special measures, VDSL2 (or any other sub-loop technology
using frequencies below 2.2 MHz) can easily deteriorate the performance from these
legacy systems.
Hence, spectral compatibility plays a major role when deploying VDSL2 systems due to
the (alien and self) crosstalk impact over on-going DSL systems, especially ADSL2+
systems. Therefore, any operator interested in rolling out VDSL2 systems should be
aware of the impact of PSD shaping. Moreover, an accurate evaluation of the insertion
loss is not always possible in practice. For this purpose, we also include a sensitivity
analysis which quantifies the impact of wrong shaping.
Figure 5.1 illustrates that signals injected from the cabinet (CAB) -labelled as 2- will
impair signals injected from the central office (CO) -labelled as 1- when they are
overlapping in frequency and injected at equal level. The level injected at the cabinet is
significantly higher than the attenuated level from the central office (in another wire pair)
at the same location.
We will also present in section 5.3 a (lab) test evaluation of the degraded impact of legacy
ADSL systems when no measures are taken. This will prove the reliability of our
proposed algorithm.

105

High FEXT interference

ADSL2+ deployed
from local exchange

VDSL2/Cab deployed
from cabinet

B
1000-3000m

C
100-1000m

Central
Office (CO)

Cabinet
(CAB)

Customer
Premises

Figure 5.1: ADSL2+ and VDSL2 signals from the CO and CAB.

Figure 5.2 illustrates how much ADSL2+ will deteriorate when VDSL2 lines are
deployed from the cabinet without any measures.
The simulated curves show the ADSL2+ bitrate for different loop lengths, for the cases
that several ADSL2+ systems are replaced by an equal amount of VDSL2 systems from
the cabinet. We assume the victim and disturbers are placed in adjacent pairs to account
for the worst case crosstalk.
The curves are evaluated for different locations of these cabinets (1km, 1.5km and 2km
from central office). They show that a single VDSL2 system can half the bitrate of
ADSL2+ when deployed from a cabinet at 2km in a loop of 2.5km. Multiple VDSL2
systems can easily do even worse.

106

20

Downstream Evaluation
bit rate (Mbps)

Total Length 3000m, 200 ADSL disturbers


LPAN=2000, NrADSL = 199, NrVDSL = 1
LPAN=2000, NrADSL = 150, NrVDSL = 50
LPAN=1500, NrADSL = 150, NrVDSL = 50
LPAN=1000, NrADSL = 150, NrVDSL = 50

18
16
14

ADSL2+ only

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

loop length (m)


500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Figure 5.2: Simulated performance degradation of ADSL2+ systems when VDSL2

disturbers are present 7 . LPAN represents the distance between the CO and the CAB.
NrADSL and NrVDSL account for the number of ADSL2+ and VDSL2 disturbers,
respectively, summing up in all scenarios 200 disturbers, as the case where only ADSL2+
disturbers are present (blue square line).

1) Only ADSL2+ systems (200 disturbers)


CO

CPE

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

2) ADSL2+ systems (mix disturbers: ADSL2 + VDSL2)


CAB

CO

Lpan

CPE

Lsan

ADSL2+

ADSL2+
VDSL2

VDSL2

Lpan --- Length of the primary access network


Lsan --- Length of the secondary access network

Figure 5.3: Topology corresponding to performance obtained in Figure 5.2. Blue square

line in Figure 5.2 corresponds to the first scenario in Figure 5.3. The other curves
correspond to scenario 2, varying the number of disturbers between ADSL2+ and VDSL2
and varying the distance between the CO and CAB.

7
ThesesimulationswereperformedusingFSANmodel,thoughtheimpactofVDSL2inxDSLlegacy
systems(e.g.ADSL2+)ispresentwithanymodel.

107

5.2 PSD Shaping

It may be clear that when VDSL2 in the sub-loop is to coexist with legacy systems in the
local loop of the same cable (like ADSL2+ from the local exchange), a solution is needed
to protect the local loop systems. An effective solution is the use of PSD shaping for
the VDSL2 spectrum (also known as downstream power back-off, DPBO).
In principle, PSD Shaping consists of reducing the downstream VDSL2 signal to a level
similar to the attenuated ADSL2+ signals near the cabinet. This is only required up to
some maximum usable frequency in a particular loop (e.g. for ADSL2+, 2.2MHz). In
practice, the shape is a few dB different, and is considered as optimal when the FEXT
received at the customer premises, from downstream VDSL2 and from downstream
ADSL2+, are equal. This is considered an optimal solution as the VDSL2 disturber is
seen as yet another ADSL2+ disturber (e.g. as if it would have been at the central
office). Thus, we will follow this approach, also known as the FEXT equal criterion.
PSD shaping can be specified in a technology-independent way, by defining upper signal
limits within a given resolution bandwidth (PSD-masks). The specification in [1], [2],
illustrates how this can be achieved in practice. It specifies a set of different PSD masks
for different values of the insertion loss (IL) of the loop between central office and
cabinet. In total 46 shaped masks for each dB insertion loss, measured at 300kHz, up to
45dB. The design is based on a TP150 cable [3] which is a Dutch 0.5mm cable, also
known as KPN_L1.
Figure 5.4 shows the PSD template of signals compliant with the specification in [1],[2]
for IL values 0, 10 and 25dB (roughly equivalent to loops of 0, 1 and 2.5km). The
changes up to 2.2MHz are due to the required shaping. Above 2.2MHz nothing is
changed by the shaping.
The precise shapes of the PSD masks in [1],[2] were designed by simulation according to
the above mentioned optimization criteria, and are fully tailored to the TP150 cable.
These limiting masks are mandatory for the Netherlands and have been included in the
ETSI Spectral Management standard of 2006, [5]. The shapes may be somewhat different
for other type of cables, but the principle remains the same.

108

Spectra Comparison
-30
[1] Shape 00
[2] Shape 10
[3] Shape 25

-40
[1]

Spectrum (dBm / Hz)

-50
-60
[2]
-70
-80
[3]

-90
-100
-110
-120

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 5.4: Simulated PSD templates when VDSL2 is shaped as shape-10, shape-25 or as

shape-0.
Shaping VDSL2 spectra in this way will be fair to legacy deployments (like ADSL2+
from the local exchange) but it may be obvious that it has a penalty for VDSL2. The
forced reduction in power up to 2.2 MHz will translate into some degradation in its
performance, in a typical noise environment. We will show the impact of shaping in the
sequel.
The concept of PSD shaping is not always restrictive for the transmit power of VDSL2.
Many practical implementations lack the power to fill up the full spectrum as granted by
the limits specified in [1],[2] when the loop between local exchange and cabinet is short.
Therefore the penalty in performance is not always significant.
Spectra Analysis Shape 10
-40

Measured
Mask
Template

-50

Spectrum (dBm)

-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

Figure 5.5: Spectra Analysis at LSAN = 335m.


109

10000

12000

The total power measured in Figure 5.5 is 15.2 dBm at 100. However, this power
accounts for all the spectra (up to 12 MHz), that is for downstream (transmitted signal)
and upstream (received already attenuated- signal). The upstream (attenuated) signal
looks relatively high because of the short loop length being used (335m) in this particular
measurement.
Figure 5.6 shows the comparison between the simulated and the measured curve,
corresponding to a shape of 25dB, xtalk offset of -6dB, INP/delay of 8/16 [symbols/ms]
and a mixed scenario (20xVDSL2 and 20xADSL)
40

XToffset6/Shape25/INP8/Delay16
bitrate [Mb/s]

Baseline: Simulation
Baseline: Measurement

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

length
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 5.6: VDSL2 (Downstream) Performance Comparison for Simulated and

Measured Baseline settings using (overlay) scenario.


There is a reasonably good match in terms of performance between the simulated and
measured curves. For shorter distances (less than 400m), there is a difference in terms of
performance. Further measurements on shorter loops (<300m) would be useful. However,
due to a limitation in the cable plant, these measurements are currently not possible.
For longer distances, there is even better measured performance. This can be explained by
the fact that the system under test makes use of a higher transmit PSD (in the order of ~2
dB) than the nominal PSD mask (template).
5.3 Performance penalty when shaping VDSL2 spectra

As cited, the use of PSD shaping for VDSL2 helps preserve the performance of local loop
systems like ADSL2+ but it may have a penalty in the performance of VDSL2. This
110

penalty may be lower than expected, since shaping will not only reduce signal power in
the victim, but also crosstalk noise power from neighbouring VDSL2 systems.
To quantify this penalty, we studied the change in (predicted) downstream VDSL2
performance, between two equivalent (noise) scenarios. Equivalence means in this
context that the number of disturbers is kept the same, but the type of disturbers (shaped
or non-shaped) changes. All scenarios being studied within this context assume a
disturber mix of 40 broadband systems, as summarized in Table 5.1, a topology shown in
Figure 5.7, performance predictions at 6 dB noise margins and worst case values of FEXT
and NEXT typically found in the Netherlands.
Table 5.1: Noise Scenario used for evaluating VDSL2 performance by simulation
Type of Disturbers
VDSL2 (B8-4, 12a)
ADSL (POTS)
ADSL (ISDN)
ADSL2+ (POTS)
ADSL2+ (ISDN)
SDSL
Total Broadband disturbers
Total Narrowband-ISDN

Number of disturbers
20
8
1
8
2
1
40
14

Total

54

CO

CAB

Lpan

CPE

Lsan

ADSL / ADSL2+
SDSL

ADSL / ADSL2+
SDSL
VDSL2

VDSL2

Lpan --- Length of the primary access network


Lsan --- Length of the secondary access network

Figure 5.7: Topology being used in the simulations.

When applicable, the models being specified in part 2 of the ETSI Spectral Management
standard [6] were used. In addition, cable model TP150 [3] was used to evaluate the
signal loss, and the crosstalk noise level was set to 6dB below the 99% near worst-case
limits (the limits that will not be exceeded in 99% of the cases for the Netherlands) to
avoid overly pessimistic performance predictions.
111

Additionally, the receiver performance model assumed 25% line rate overhead to be used
by the INP (Reed-Solomon) mechanism. This value can be further justified as follows:
the quantities INP, delay and overhead are related as follows: OH

INP
, with INP
2 Delay

expressed in symbols, and the Delay in ms. Therefore, a INP/Delay ratio of 4/8 or 8/16
[symbols/ms] leads to the same Overhead but a ratio of 8/16 [symbols/ms] is preferred for
quality of service purposes (QoS). See Annex 8.9 for further details.
Using cable TP150 (approximately 10dB loss per km) leads to a rule of thumb: shape 10
is equivalent to a distance of 1km between CO and CAB. Shape 20 will be equivalent to
2km distance between CO and CAB and so forth. The entire algorithm can be used for
any other cable by using the right conversion factor (in terms of the attenuation from the
TP150 cable to the new cable in use).
Figure 5.8 shows the change in performance predicted for VDSL2 modems. This means
that they have sufficient power to fill-up the full spectrum being granted. The curve
associated with shape-0 represents the case that VDSL2 could inject the same power in
the loop from cabinets at 25 dB distance as ADSL2+ is granted from the exchange. As
expected, the VDSL2 performance under shape-25 conditions is significantly lower than
the maximum performance under shape-0 conditions. It is observed that Shape-10
follows slightly lower performance than shape-0
XToffset6dB/DownstreamPerformance

40

bit rate [Mbps]

35

Shape00 / IL =25
Shape10 / IL =10
Shape25 / IL =25

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

loop length [m]


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 5.8: Performance drop when shaping prevents VDSL2 to operate at ADSL2+

levels.

112

For shorter distances (<200m), there is a framer limitation (due to limited memory) that is
not captured in the simulator.
The near worst case for the Netherlands is higher than the commonly used values of ELFEXT= -45 dB and NEXT=-50 dB. Though important, impulse noise was not considered
in this study. Including it would bring to the study the trade-off when selecting the proper
INP parameters, which is, reducing the INP/Delay ratio to protecting your system from
unpredicted impulse noise but reducing your data rate or vice-versa. This impact is briefly
analyzed in Annex 8.9.
Similar results have been observed if the power limitations of the equipment under test
(during 2006 and 2008) are taken into account in our simulations (compliant with ITU
band plan 998, using a boosted mask B8-4 and profile 12a, [4])
We validated the penalty of shaping by measurements, using state-of-the-art VDSL2
equipment (during 2006 and 2008) under conditions that are similar as above. Only the
cable characteristics of the test loop were a slightly different, but the distance in terms
of insertion loss was kept the same. The results were consistent to our theoretical analysis
(by simulation) with minor differences.
5.4 Effectiveness of PSD shaping to ADSL2+

It will be now demonstrated how effective PSD shaping can protect the deployment of
ADSL2+ from the local exchange (when it complies with [1],[2]). Next, we present a lab
experiment to show its effectiveness.
5.4.1 Experimental verification at specific cabinet location (via Measurements)

Four experiments have been elaborated to illustrate that PSD shaping according to [1],[2]
is effective for protecting legacy ADSL2+ services. In all these experiments the same
cable is used with four twisted wire pairs, each with 0.5mm wire gauge (NKF N92 cable).
The cable is shielded over its full length to prevent ingress and egress. As a consequence,
parasitic crosstalk is also avoided when winded on a common drum, and is assured that
all crosstalk is caused by the coupling between the four wire pairs.
Figure 5.9a shows how the modems were connected to the cable for each experiment, and
Table 5.2 summarizes the associated bitrate reported as attainable by the (disturbed)
ADSL2+ modem.

113

The results in Table 5.2 clearly demonstrate that the impact from VDSL2 on ADSL2+
becomes significant if no shaping is applied (a performance drop of about 45% from the
original bitrate). This performance drop is prevented by PSD shaping (even a minor
performance gain in this experiment). Due to the fact that coupling between twisted wire
pairs is never homogeneously over the full cable length, the difference in observed bitrate
between experiment #1 and #4 is of no concern.
experiment #1
ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

experiment #2
ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

experiment #3 and #4
ADSL2+

ADSL2+
VDSL2

VDSL2

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+

ADSL2+
335m

3000m

Figure 5.9a: Scenarios being used to verify the effectiveness of PSD Shaping

Table 5.2: ADSL2+ performance for different number and type of disturbers.

Scenario:
an(ADSL2+)modemdisturbedby...

#1 3(ADSL2+)

14,8

#2 2(ADSL2+)

15,6

#3 2(ADSL2+)and
1(VDSL2,unshaped)

9,9

#4 2(ADSL2+)and1(VDSL2,shaped)

15,5

Average taken over more than 100 samples, with an error of

114

Bitrate
[Mbps]8

3%

5.4.2 Experimental verification at multiple cabinet locations (via Measurements)

The previous experiments have been repeated for a range of PAN lengths (copper
length between exchange and cabinet) and SAN length (copper length between cabinet
and customer premises).
Figure 5.10 illustrates the change in bitrate, reported by the victim ADSL2+ modem as
attainable, for customers at different SAN-lengths, served from a cabinet at 1km from the
exchange. The same applies in Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12 for cabinets located more
remotely. The PSD shape being applied was different for each cabinet location, to comply
with the requirements defined in [1],[2].
The curves clearly demonstrate that when PSD shaping is applied to downstream VDSL2,
as specified in [1],[2] an ADSL2+ victim modem does not observe the difference of being
disturbed by shaped VDSL2 or by ADSL2+. In other words, adequate shaping causes that
VDSL2 has no other impact than legacy disturbers. This demonstrates how effective PSD
shaping can be.
On the other hand, when no shaping is applied, VDSL2 has a negative impact on
ADSL2+. Therefore, the drop in ADSL2+ performance increases with the distance of the
cabinet as it becomes more difficult for ADSL2+ to make itself heard through the noise.
The following diagram shows how the lab measurements have been performed.

CO

CAB

Lpan

CPE

Lsan

1000m for Shape08 using GPEW cable


variable length -using GPEW lab cable-

2000m for Shape16 using GPEW cable


3000m for Shape24 using GPEW cable

Ltotal

Figure 5.9b: Setup for lab measurements performed in Figures 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12

Figure 5.10 to Figure 5.12 shows the result of lab measurements at different shapes using
GPEW cable (cable available in the lab and in 40% of Dutch networks). As expected, for
cabinets that are farther away from the central office, the (negative) impact is more
115

severe. We can observe in Figure 5.11 that for those users close to the Cabinet, the impact
of No Shape VDSL2 is minimum (e.g. at ~2600m, so about 600m away from the CAB
for the VDSL2 user), whilst for those users that are just a few meters away (e.g. ~2800,
so 800m away from the CAB for the VDSL user), the degradation becomes very
noticeable (about 30% drop).
This behaviour is explained as follows: for user close to the CAB (for VDSL2) and still
close to the CO (for ADSL2+) the signals are not too degraded and therefore though there
is an impact (on the shaped band, up to 2.2MHz), it is not that critical.
However, for those CAB that are farther away from the CO (see Figure 5.12), the
(negative) impact becomes notorious for all users.

35

ADSL2+ Performance -Shape08


bit rate [Mbps]

ADSL2+ only
Shaped VDSL2 / IL = 08
No Shape VDSL2 / IL = 08

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1000

loop length [m]


1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

Figure 5.10: ADSL2+ performance under different disturber conditions for cabinets at

8dB distance

116

35

ADSL2+ Performance -Shape16


bit rate [Mbps]

ADSL2+ only
Shaped VDSL2 / IL = 16
No Shape VDSL2 / IL = 16

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000

loop length [m]


2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

Figure 5.11: ADSL2+ performance under different disturber conditions for cabinets at

16dB distance
35

ADSL2+ Performance -Shape24


bit rate [Mbps]

ADSL2+ only
Shaped VDSL2 / IL = 24
No Shape VDSL2 / IL = 24

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3000

loop length [m]


3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

4600

Figure 5.12: ADSL2+ performance under different disturber conditions for cabinets at

24dB distance
5.4.3 Sensitivity to badly shaped VDSL2 spectra

PSD shaping has been introduced to protect legacy local loop systems (from the local
exchange), and therefore its use is a mandatory requirement in the Netherlands for
deploying sub-loop systems (from the cabinet). This is why the signal limits in [1], [2] are
so tightly specified. However the shapes change with the insertion loss of the loop
between exchange and cabinet, so a value should be allocated to each involved cabinet.
Preferably this value is estimated from length information in a cable database (easy to do
117

for ten thousand cabinets) but even when it is measured on a per-cabinet basis it will
not be obvious what the insertion loss value should be. Typical distribution cables in
the Netherlands contain 900 concentric layered wire pairs, therefore, a few percent
variation in length (or dB in loss) between wire pairs is common, so what value to
choose? To identify how critical an accurate value for the insertion loss should be, we
analyzed for a typical Dutch scenario how much the ADSL2+ performance changes when
the actual insertion loss differs from the allocated value being used for selecting the
shape.
In this study, we assume that the distribution cable (between CO and CAB) will split-up
at the cabinet into smaller cables with a split ratio of 1:9. This means that the 20 local
loop systems beyond the cabinet (non VDSL2) share the distribution cable with
920=180 local loop systems. To enable a fair analysis, the disturber mix should be
equivalent with the consisting of 180 non-VDSL2 systems (over the local loop) plus the
same 20 VDSL2 systems (in the sub-loop)9. Figure 5.13 shows a simulation with such a
scenario of the ADSL2+ performance. The study shows for a fixed cabinet location what
the attainable ADSL2+ bitrate would be in case (a) VDSL2 is correctly-shaped, referred
as Ref in each of the following figures (assumed loss equal to the actual loss), (b) in
case it is over-shaped (assumed loss 5dB above actual loss) and (c) when it is undershaped

(assumed
10

loss

5dB

below

actual

loss).

Downstream Sensitivity Analysis/Shape25/CableTP150


bit rate [Mbps]

Ref
Overshaping
Undershaping

8
6
4
2
0
2500

loop length [m]


3000

3500

4000

Figure 5.13: Sensitivity Analysis (via Simulations) of the impact to ADSL2+ when

VDSL2 is under/over shaped in 25dB loops.

This was performed to be able to make the results comparable with the previous scenarios used in the
Netherlands.

118

10

Downstream Sensitivity Analysis/Shape30/CableTP150


bit rate [Mbps]

Ref
Overshaping
Undershaping

8
6
4
2
0
3000

loop length [m]


3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

4600

Figure 5.14: Sensitivity Analysis (via Simulations) of the impact to ADSL2+ when

VDSL2 is under/over shaped in 30dB loops.

10

Downstream Sensitivity Analysis/Shape40/CableTP150


bit rate [Mbps]

Ref
Overshaping
Undershaping

8
6
4
2
0
4000

loop length [m]


4200

4400

4600

4800

5000

5200

5400

5600

Figure 5.15: Sensitivity Analysis (via Simulations) of the impact to ADSL2+ when

VDSL2 is under/over shaped in 40dB loops.


All these figures illustrate that under-shaping deteriorates the attainable ADSL2+ and
should be avoided in operational networks. In the case of overshaping, the performance
deteriorates for some ADSL customers on the line while some other ADSL customers get
it slightly better. Additionally, we observed in our studies that undershaping reduces
VDSL2 performance in most cases, so undershaping should be always avoided. This
motivates why estimating the insertion loss between the CO and the CAB (e.g. using a
119

database) is not recommended; it is better to measure it for each cabinet being prepared
for VDSL2. However the impact to ADSL2+ of over-shaping is significantly lower
compared to under-shaping. This means that when some wire pairs are longer than others
in the same cable, it is better to choose the longest one for measuring the insertion loss
value.
5.5 A Compatible Level-2 DSM Algorithm

Dynamic spectrum algorithms were not fully deployed in practice (by 2007, e.g. in the
Netherlands). Therefore, it was also of interest to evaluate performance over current
practical networks under (at that time) the current spectrum management specifications
[23]; therefore, we proposed a simple yet efficient Level-2 DSM algorithm (as defined in
[22]) to protect legacy xDSL systems from new technology implementations (e.g.
VDSL2, which might use the full frequency band up to 30 MHz).
Our proposed algorithm was validated by extensive simulations (over typical Dutch
subscriber lines). Initial results of our work were published in [23].
5.5.1 System Model and Objective

The model is the same as the one described in section 1.3.


5.5.2 Spectrum Management Problem for the downstream

The spectrum management optimization problem is related to maximize (or minimize the
loss given the protection to legacy systems) the line rate of the incumbent modem given
that it does not cause additional noise as if it were a disturber from the legacy modem
family (in the specific frequency-range).
Mathematically this can be expressed as:
M

max R

(5.5)
subject to
0
0

S
|H

DSL

| S

f, L

S,

120

forn
forn

where R is the line rate of user i; b

andb

are the maximum and minimum possible

values of bits to be loaded; S is the power in each subchannel n (for n


each user i (for i

1, , M , S

1, , N) and for

is the power mask typically imposed by regulatory

entities and Standardization bodies to safeguard other existing systems and


the shaped band. The expression n

represents

means all tones that do not belong to the specific

frequency-disturbed-band. The term H

DSL

f, L

corresponds to the estimated

attenuation expected at the cabinet as if the VDSL2 system would have been deployed
from the central office (in that specific band only; e.g. up to 2.2MHz for an
ADSL2+system). Dual decomposition can be used to enforce the constraints as in [9],
leading to find the right spectra in a per-tone manner. If we analyze the difference in
performance when only ADSL2+ disturbers are present compared to when only one
VDSL2 disturber is added, we can see a performance loss up to 60%. (e.g. at 2500m, see
Figure 5.2). To better understand this observation, we draw (see Figure 5.16) the FEXT of
this particular situation, leading i.e. to a difference of up to ~20dB around 1MHz.
FEXT at the Downstream side, at 2500m

-80

PSD [dBm/Hz]

only ADSL2+
1 VDSL2 disturber

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

-140
Freq [kHz]
-150

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Figure 5.16: Further view on the FEXT for the case with a) only ADSL2+ disturbers and

b) when 1 VDSL2 disturber is added.


5.5.3 Proposed Level-2 DSM Algorithm

PSD shaping can be specified in a technology-independent way, by defining upper signal


limits within a given resolution bandwidth (PSD-masks). The specification in [1], [2]
illustrates how this can be done in practice resulting in 46 shaped masks for each dB
121

insertion loss, measured at 300 kHz, up to 45 dB. That design was based on a TP150
cable which is a Dutch 0.5mm cable, also known as KPN_L1. However, this approach
is rather static though compliant with the spectrum regulatory entities. We, instead,
propose to make use of the Spectrum Management Center (SMC) to evaluate whether
xDSL legacy systems exist in that cabinet; if this is the case, estimation on the attenuation
level (insertion loss) where this xDSL (legacy) system is coming from needs to be
performed. Therefore, the algorithm depends on how accurate this parameter is measured,
though it pursues the same assumption as in [23] and therefore similar sensitivity analysis
can be applied.
We propose the following algorithm to deal with the optimization problem in (5.5). This
algorithm only suffers from linear complexity (over the N-tones).

Algorithm: Level-2 DSM Algorithm for protecting downstream legacy


systems
1. if xDSL legacy in this cabinet
2.
Do per cabinet
3.
For all M-modems (within this cabinet or line-based)
For all tones n (within the frequency
4.
disturbed-band)
Estimate H DSL f, L
Attenuation Loss
5.
at L
6.
Lower allPSD (for alli 1, , M by a
factor H DSL f, L
Incorporate this result in the optimization
7.
problem in (5.5).
8.
end
9.
end
end
10.
11. end

The proposed algorithm is an important step to enable full Level-2 DSM algorithm
capabilities. Our proposed algorithm might be used in conjunction with other efficient
spectrum management (or bit-loading) algorithms (e.g. [19],[20],[21]) to consider the
constraints cited in expression (5.5). This algorithm is also compatible with the proposed
tables in [1],[2] where the values of H

DSL

f, L

are determined off-line and thus, the

different points (via pre-defined tables) of the spectra in the specific frequency region
(n

) as well. This leads to suboptimal (traditional) performance. Thus, providing pre-

defined values of PSD (for all users within that cabinet) is considered as a particular case
of the proposed algorithm, and is not always practical in all DSL deployments.
122

5.5.4 Simulation Results

A maximum power of 14.5dBm is applied to the downstream (VDSL2) system (per user).
The was chosen to be 12.75dB corresponding to a BERof10 , 3dB of coding gain
and a noise margin of 6dB. The crosstalk offset level (as used in [24]) was set to 6dB
below the 99% near worst-case10 limits (the limits that will not be exceeded in 99% of the
cases for the Netherlands) to avoid overly pessimistic performance predictions.
We will use the same scenarios as described in Table 5.4: Scenario 1 being an Overlay
with a mixed of ADSL/ADSL2+ and Scenario 2 with only VDSL2 disturbers.
We can observe (in Figure 5.17) that using Shape 25 (so ~2.5km) degrades significantly
the performance for longer distances up to e.g. ~4.5 Mbps at 1500m compared to the noShape case. From several experiments, Shape 25 always leads to worst performance
results. Therefore, we further investigate this behaviour in Figure 5.18 where we can
observe and thereby conclude that because of the PSD reduction applied to VDSL2
modems, deep valleys in the frequency region up to 2.2MHz are generated, where the
signal cannot recover as fast as it should (this will also appear in practical DSL systems at
that time -2007- due to equipment limitations). This effect might vary for other type of
cables (we use here TP150 as indicated in the initial setup).
Dowsntream /XToffset6dB /OverlayScenario

40

bit rate [Mbps]

35

No Shape
Shape10
Shape25

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

loop length [m]


0

500

1000

1500

Figure 5.17: VDSL2 performance degradation when using the proposed method in an

overlay scenario (as described in Table 5.3).

10

ThenearworstcasefortheNetherlandsishigherthanthecommonlyusedvaluesofELFEXT=45dBandNEXT=50dB

123

FEXT Overview at the downstream side

-80

PSD [dBm/Hz]

NoShape
Shape10
Shape25

-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
-220
-240
Freq [kHz]
-260

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Figure 5.18: FEXT overview at different shape levels


Dowsntream /XToffset6dB /VDSL2onlyScenario

40

bit rate [Mbps]

No Shape
Shape10
Shape25

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

loop length [m]


0

500

1000

1500

Figure 5.19: VDSL2 performance degradation when using the proposed method in a

VDSL2-only scenario (as described in Table 5.3).


It might be not obvious the reason to use Scenario 2 (i.e. enabling PSD shaping when
only VDSL2 is deployed in the sub-loop, from the cabinet). However, our motivation is
to investigate the situation when there are new customers deployed from the central office
and therefore, the need of co-existing with legacy systems. Figure 5.19 depicts the results
from our simulation. We can observe that the performance loss in this situation is up to
~2.4Mbps (at 1500m), when using shape25. Shape10 results in performance loss of less
than ~0.6Mbps. It can be noticed that the impact of shaping is more noticeable for loops
longer than 500m and much more stressed for loops longer than 800m. Similar sensitivity
analysis as followed in [23] is applicable here, given the dependency on the estimated
value of the insertion loss.
124

5.6 PSD shaping Performance Validation via Simulation and Measurements


5.6.1 Scenario Description

The Xtalk offset concept is used throughout our studies, as presented in [24].
In the Netherlands, it has been common practice to set a Xtalk offset level of -12dB for
ADSL deployment, and thus we will use that value for simulations as a best practice to
avoid having unrealistic performance results (pessimistic scenario -worst case-).
This might be too optimistic, however, for the case of VDSL2, considering that unknown
issues are still open for further investigation, e.g. the high frequency crosstalk properties
of the secondary network. Therefore, a Xtalk offset level of -6dB aims as a more
conservative assumption, which, however, must be verified in the field.
It has been shown by simulation and measurements that the selected INP settings (i8_d16:
equivalent to INP 8 symbols and Delay 16ms) lead to the most resiliency combination for
impulse noise (evidence of these results are not disclosed due to confidentiality
agreement).
The following configuration has been setup in the VDSL2 system, as shown in Table 5.3
Table 5.3: Configuration setup in the VDSL2 system
Area

Description
Mask
VDSL
Profile
Transmitter Cable Type
Cable
VDSL2
Receiver

Assignation
B8-4
12a
GPLK11 and GPEW For simulations
GPEW
For measurements
NEXT
-49.5dB (at 1MHz)
EL-FEXT
-37.4dB (at 1MHz, at 1km )
Xtalk offset
- 6dB
Noise Margin 6dB
INP
8 symbols
Delay
16ms

The noise scenarios used in this study are described in Table 5.4

11
GPLKisalsoknownasTP150(KPNL1)andGPEWisalabcablefortestingpurposes(NKFN92,
25x4x0.5mm)

125

Table 5.4: (Dutch) Noise Scenarios for Performance Analysis


Overlay

VDSL2
12

scenario

scenario

SubA

SubB

(# of disturbers)

(# of disturbers)

20

40

ADSL.FDD/POTS

ADSL.FDD/ISDN

ADSL2plus.EC/POTS

ADSL2plus.EC/ISDN

SDSL1024

SDSL2304

HDSL.CAP/2

Total broadband

40

40

ISDN (narrowband)

14

14

Subloop mix

deployed from Cabinet


VDSL2-NL1 (for dedicated IL
values)
deployed from CO

Overlay Scenario: SubA


CO

CAB

Lpan

CPE

Lsan

ADSL / ADSL2+

ADSL / ADSL2+
VDSL2

VDSL2

VDSL2 only Scenario: SubB


CAB

CPE

Lsan
VDSL2

VDSL2

Figure 5.20: Graphical view of the scenarios under study

12

Overlayscenarioisthesameasdiscussedinsection5.2

126

only

For the measurements validation, the systems were configured to use Band plan 998 and
mask B8-4. The selected profile was 12a (includes the use of US0). In addition, the
shaped PSD templates derived from [1] were programmed in the DSLAM. The CPE was
connected to the DSLAM via the GPEW cables (NKF N92, 25x4x0.5mm) present in
TNO cable plant.
5.6.2 Performance Analysis in an overlay scenario

The simulations (as well as the measurements) make use of the proper selection of the
Shape according to the PAN length (see Table 5.4). In order to be able to compare the
simulations with the measurements, we will use a scale factor such that the LPAN will
result in the same insertion loss IL- for both type of cables.
Table 5.5: Shape equivalent to LPAN for GPLK and GPEW cables.
Shape Type

LPAN (m)

LPAN (m)

IL (dB)

GPLK

GPEW

10

1000

1235

20

2000

2469

25

2500

3086

30

3000

3704

40

4000

4938

5.6.2.1 Performance Analysis via Simulations

Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22 show each the performance for different type of shapes (and
their corresponding LPAN, see Table 5.4) for two different cables, GPLK and GPEW,
respectively.
In general, it can be noticed that the performance spread due to different kind of shapes is
bigger in the GPLK cable than when using the GPEW cable. In both cables, Shape 25
turns out to be the worst case in terms of performance (as explained earlier, shape 25
takes a lot of the DS1 band, and cannot recover that fast when getting out of the
overlapping band up to 2.2MHz-) and Shape 10 leads to equal performance as if there
were no shaping applied to the modems.

127

40
35

Dowsntream /XToffset6dB /INP8/Delay16/ScenTNO/2006:SubA


bit rate(Mb/s)

No Shape
Shape10
Shape20
Shape25
Shape30
Shape40

30
25
20
15
GPLKCable

10
5
0
0

loop length (m)


500

1500

1000

Figure 5.21: Performance Impact for different Shapes using an overlay scenario and

GPLK cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m. When all curves
approach 1000m, we can notice some severe degradation, that is, a few subcarriers,
typically in US2 are shut down.
40
35

Dowsntream /XToffset6dB /INP8/Delay16/ScenTNO/2006:SubA


No Shape
Shape10
Shape20
Shape25
Shape30
Shape40

bit rate(Mb/s)

30
25
20
15

GPEWCable

10
5
0
0

loop length (m)


500

1000

1500

Figure 5.22: Performance Impact for different Shapes using an overlay scenario and

GPEW cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m.

The following more cable-specific observations can be devised:


For GPLK cable

Performance is degraded up to ~3.5 Mbps when applying Shape 25 (compared to


the no-Shape case, at longer distances).

128

When applying Shape 10 (in the simulation), performance is preserved when


compared to the case when no Shape is applied.

For GPEW cable

Performance is degraded up to ~2 Mbps when applying Shape 25 (compared to


the no-Shape case, at longer distances).

When applying Shape 10 (in the simulation), performance is preserved (or even
higher) when compared to the case when no Shape is applied.

5.6.2.2 Performance Analysis via Measurements

Figure 5.23 and Figure 5.24 show each the performance for different type of shapes when
GPEW cable is used in the lab setup.
40
35

XToffset6/INP8/Delay16
Shape 10
Shape 20
Shape 25
Shape 30
Shape 40

bitrate(Mb/s)

30
25
20
15

GPEWCable

10
5
0
0

length (m)

(c) TNO 2006

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 5.23: Performance Impact for different Shapes using an overlay scenario and

GPEW cable.

In general, it can be noticed that the worst-case performance scenario is when using
Shape 25. Shape 10, on the contrary, leads even to better (or at least equal) performance
as if there were no shaping applied to the modems. Annex 8.7 shows the spectra for
Shape 40 as well as other performance curves for different PSD shaping levels.
Furthermore, as depicted in Figure 5.24, the performance is almost independent of the
PAN length, when no shape is applied.
The simulations and also the measurements confirm that the impact of shaping is in the
order of (max) 3.5 Mbps in the worst case (shape 25 and GPLK cable). It has been
129

demonstrated by simulations and measurements that shape 10 (corresponding to LPAN =


1000 GPLK) presents equal or slightly better performance than the no-shape case (see
Annex 8.7). A spectra analysis is depicted in Figure 5.25 for different shape
configurations.
XToffset6/INP8/Delay16

40

bitrate(Mb/s)

35

GPEWCable

30
25
20
15

No Shaping (PAN = 1000 GPLK)


No Shaping (PAN = 2500 GPLK)
Shape 10
Shape 25

10
5
0
0

length (m)

(c) TNO 2006

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 5.24: Performance comparison for Shape 10, Shape 25 and non-Shape using an

overlay scenario and GPEW cable.


Spectra Analysis Shape 20

Spectra Analysis Shape 10


-40

-40
Measured
Measured corrected
Mask
Template

-50

-70
-80
RBW = 10000 Hz

-90

-60
S p e c t ru m (d B m )

S p e c t ru m (d B m )

-60

VBW = 1000 Hz

-100

-70
-80

RBW = 10000 Hz
VBW = 1000 Hz

-90
-100

-110
-120

Measured
Mask
Template
Measured corrected

-50

-110

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

-120

12000

2000

4000

Spectra Analysis Shape 25

12000

-40
Measured
Measured Corrected
Mask
Template

-50
-60
-70
-80
RBW = 10000 Hz
-90
VBW = 1000 Hz

-100

Measured
Measured Corrected
Mask
Template

-50
-60

S p e c t ru m (d B m )

S p e c t ru m (d B m )

10000

Spectra Analysis Shape 30

-40

-70
-80
RBW = 10000 Hz
-90

VBW = 1000 Hz

-100
-110

-110
-120

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

-120

12000

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 5.25: Spectral Views on different Shape configurations (Shape10, 20, 25, 30)
130

Due to crosstalk characteristics, we can observe (all up to 2.2MHz) that Shape 25 is


severely attenuated and cannot recover fast. Instead, Shape 10 curve is smoother and
recovers faster to its full PSD capacity.

5.6.3 Performance Analysis in self (VDSL2-only) scenario

As cited before, it might be not obvious to perform this study. However, it might happen
that there are some new customers deployed from the central office and therefore, the
need for coexisting with legacy systems becomes compulsory.
The impact evaluation in an VDSL2 (only) scenario (as SubB, see Table 5.3) is shown for
different type of shapes.
5.6.3.1 Performance Analysis via Simulations

Figure 5.26 and Figure 5.27 show each the performance for different type of shapes (and
their corresponding LPAN, see Table 5.4) for two different cables, GPLK and GPEW,
respectively.
Dow sntream /XToffset6dB /INP8/Delay16/ScenTNO/2006:SubB

40

bit rate(Mb/s)

35

No Shape
Shape10
Shape20
Shape25
Shape30
Shape40

30
25
20
15
10

GPLKCable

5
loop length (m)

(c) TNO 2006

500

1000

1500

Figure 5.26: Performance Impact for different Shapes using a VDSL2 only scenario and

GPLK cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m.


In general, it can be noticed that the performance spread due to different kind of shapes is
bigger in the GPLK cable than when using the GPEW cable. In both cables, Shape 25
turns out to be the worst case in terms of performance and Shape 10 leads to equal
performance as if there were no shaping applied to the modems.

131

Dow sntream /XToffset6dB /INP8/Delay16/ScenTNO/2006:SubB

40

bit rate(Mb/s)

35

No Shape
Shape10
Shape20
Shape25
Shape30
Shape40

30
25
20
15

GPEWCable

10
5

loop length (m)

(c) TNO 2006

500

1000

1500

Figure 5.27: Performance Impact for different Shapes using a VDSL2 only scenario and

GPEW cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m.


The following more cable-specific observations can be devised:
For GPLK cable

Performance is degraded up to ~3.3 Mbps when applying Shape 25 (compared to


the no-Shape case, at longer distances).

When applying Shape 10 (in the simulation), performance is preserved when


compared to the case when no Shape is applied.

It can be noticed that the impact of shaping is noticeable for loops longer than
800m and stressed for loops longer than 1000m (see Figure 5.24 ).

For GPEW cable

Performance is degraded up to ~1 Mbps when applying Shape 25 (compared to


the no-Shape case, at longer distances).

When applying Shape 10 (in the simulation), performance is preserved (or even
better) when compared to the case when no Shape is applied.

5.6.3.2 Performance Analysis via Measurements

Figure 5.28 depicts the performance for different shapes (No shape, 10 and 25), using
GPEW cable

132

XToffset6dB/INP8/Delay16

40

bit rate [Mb/s]

35

No Shape
Shape 10
Shape 25

30
25
20
15
10

GPEWCable

5
length

(c) TNO 2006

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 5.28: Performance Comparison for No-Shape, Shape10 and Shape25

Measurements (interpolation was performed to smooth the curves).


We can observe (from Figure 5.28) that Shape25 leads to the worst performance
degradation compared to the no-shape case. Again, it can be noticed a better performance
of Shape10 than the no-shape case.
Considering shaping to protect future ADSL/ADSL2+ systems to be deployed from the
central office (CO) does not lead to severe performance degradation. The simulations and
also the measurements confirm this statement, having a performance degradation of less
than 3.3 Mbps in the worst case (shape 25 and GPLK cable).
It has been demonstrated by simulations and measurements that shape 10 (corresponding
to LPAN = 1000 GPLK) presents equal or slightly better performance than the no-shape
case. A visual demonstration and analysis of this finding can be encountered on Annex
8.8
5.7 Concluding Remarks

When VDSL2 is deployed in the sub-loop (from a street cabinet) it will often share the
cable with legacy systems like ADSL2+ in the local loop (from the local Exchange). To
let VDSL2 coexist with ADSL2+ in the same cable, it should be equipped with the
capability to modify the downstream PSD. We started illustrating how severe ADSL2+
will deteriorate in performance if VDSL2 is deployed without the use of any PSD
shaping.

133

We verified experimentally that PSD shaping of VDSL2 is very effective in protecting


legacy systems from the exchange, like ADSL2+. Shaping has as consequence a negative
impact on the VDSL2 performance that cannot be neglected.
In addition, we demonstrated that the selection of an adequate shape from a list with
many shapes, requires a proper selection of the insertion loss value of the loop between
exchange and cabinet should. We advised against a pure estimation of this loss, and
showed why it is recommended to measure the loss of the longest wire pairs.
We have further elaborated on the initial findings and proposed a DSM-compatible
algorithm. We have demonstrated by simulations that our algorithm fully protects
ADSL2+ systems to coexist with VDSL2 in the same cable. We have evaluated the
penalty (performance loss) observed by VDSL2 systems in two (very likely found in
Dutch networks) different scenarios. Our algorithm might be used in combination with
any other optimal (or suboptimal) algorithm for either spectrum or bitloading
optimization.
In order to be able to propose and work on these algorithms, we have extensively
analyzed, simulated and measured VDSL2 performance across two (typically Dutch)
noise configurations. The simulations and also the measurements confirm that the impact
of shaping is not that severe, having a performance degradation of less than 3.5 Mbps in
the worst case (shape 25 and GPLK cable in the PAN, overlay scenario), for both
scenarios discussed in this chapter (SubA -overlay- and SubB -VDSL2only).
5.8 References

[1]

van den Brink R. and van der Veen T., Description of VDSL2-NL1 signals, for

spectral management in the Netherlands, contribution 063t07r1 to ETSI TM6 meeting,


Sophia Antipolis, France, Sept 11-14, 2006.
[2]

van den Brink R. and van der Veen T., Description of VDSL2-NL2 signals, for

spectral management in the Netherlands, contribution 064t25 to ETSI TM6 meeting,


Sophia Antipolis, France, Nov, 2006.
[3]

ETSI TS 101 270-1 (V1.4.1): "Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Access

transmission systems on metallic access cables; Very high speed Digital Subscriber Line
(VDSL); Part 1: Functional requirements".
[4]

ITU-T Recommendation G993.2: Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line 2

(VDSL2), March 2006.


134

[5]

ETSI TR 101 830-1 " Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Access networks;

Spectral management on metallic access networks; Part 1: Technical methods for


performance evaluations. V1.4.1, March 2006
[6]

ETSI TR 101 830-2 " Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Access networks;

Spectral management on metallic access networks; Part 2: Technical methods for


performance evaluations. V1.1.1, October 2005.
[7]

SPOCS, Simulator of Performance of Copper Systems, TNO, 1996, 2007,

http://www.spocs.nl
[8]

Cioffi J. M. and Mohseni M., Dynamic Spectrum Management - A methodology

for providing significantly higher broadband capacity to the users, 15th International
Symposium on Services and Local Access (ISSLS), Edinburgh, Scotland, March 2004.
[9]

Song K. B., Chung S. T., Ginis G., and Cioffi J. M., Dynamic spectrum

management for next-generation DSL systems, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol.


40, no. 10, pp. 101-109, October. 2002.
[10]

Ginis G. and Cioffi J. M., Vectored transmission for digital subscriber line

systems, IEEE J. Select. Areas. Comm., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1085-1104, June 2002.
[11]

Cioffi J. M., Jagannathan S., et. al., Full Binder Level 3 DSM Capacity and

Vectored DSL Reinforcement, ANSI NIPP-NAI Contribution 2006-041, Las Vegas,


NV, March 2006.
[12]

Cioffi J. M. , et al, CuPON: the Copper alternative to PON 100 Gb/s DSL

networks, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 132-139, June 2007,
[13]

Yu W., Ginis G. and Cioffi J., Distributed Multiuser Power Control for Digital

Subscriber Lines, IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 11051115, Jun. 2002.
[14]

Cendrillon R., Moonen M., Verlinden J., Bostoen T. and Yu W., Optimal Multi-

user Spectrum Management for Digital Subscriber Lines, in IEEE ICC, vol. 1, pp. 15,
June 2004.
[15]

Cendrillon R., Yu W., Moonen M., Verlinden J. and Bostoen T., Optimal Multi-

user Spectrum Management for Digital Subscriber Lines, IEEE Trans. Comm, vol 54, no
5, pp. 922-933, May 2006.
[16]

Yu W., Lui R. and Cendrillon R., Dual Optimization Methods for Multiuser

Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplex Systems, in IEEE Globecom, vol. 1, pp. 225


229, December 2004.

135

[17]

Tsiaflakis P., Vangorp J., Moonen M., Verlinden J., Van Acker K. and Cendrillon

R., An efficient Lagrange Multiplier search algorithm for Optimal Spectrum Balancing
in crosstalk dominated xDSL systems, IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., 2005.
[18]

Papandriopoulos, J.; Evans, J.S.; "SCALE: A Low-Complexity

Distributed

Protocol for Spectrum Balancing in Multiuser DSL Networks", Information Theory,


IEEE Transactions on Volume: 55 Issue: 8, August 2009.
[19]

Cendrillon R., Moonen M., Iterative Spectrum Balancing for Digital Subscriber

Lines," IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun. (ICC), 2005.


[20]

Tsiaflakis P., Diehl M., and Moonen M., Distributed Spectrum Management

Algorithms for Multiuser DSL Networks, IEEE Trans. On Signal Processing, Vol. 56,
no. 10, October 2008
[21]

Tsiaflakis P., and, Moonen M., Low-Complexity Dynamic Spectrum

Management Algorithms for Digital Subscribre Lines, in Proc. ofvthe IEEE International
Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 27692772, Las
Vegas, Nevada, Apr. 2008.
[22]

Starr T., Sorbara M., Cioffi J.M., and Silverman P., DSL Advances, Prentice Hall,

2003, ISBN: 0130938106


[23]

Crdova H.X., van den Brink R.F.M., van der Veen T. and van den Heuvel B.M.,

Impact Analysis of effective PSD shaping in VDSL2 systems, Broadband Forum,


Antwerp, 2007.
[24]

Crdova H, van der Veen T, and Biesen L. van, Spectrum and Performance

Analysis of VDSL2 systems: Band-Plan Study, in the proc. of the Interl. Conference on
Commun, ICC 2007, Glascow, Scotland.
[25] Chowdhery A. and Cioffi J. M., Dynamic spectrum management for upstream
mixtures of vectored & non-vectored DSL. In IEEE Global Telecomm. Conf., Miami,
USA, 2010.
[26] Guenach M., Louveaux J., Vandendorpe L., Whiting P., Maes J., and Peeters M.,
On signal-to-noise ratio-assisted crosstalk channel estimation in downstream DSL
systems, IEEE Trans. on Signal Process., 58(4):23272338, 2010.
[27] Maes J., Nuzman C., Van Wijngaarden A., and Van Bruyssel D., Pilot-based
crosstalk channel estimation for vector-enabled VDSL systems. In Anual Conference on
Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton, USA, 2010.

136

[28] Moraes R. B., Paschalis T., Maes J., Van Biesen Leo and Moonen M., The rate
maximization problem in DSL with mixed spectrum and signal coordination, in the 19th
European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 2011), September 2011.
5.9 My Contributions

Crdova H.X., van den Brink R.B.M., van der Veen T. and van den Heuvel B.M.,
Impact Analysis of effective PSD shaping in VDSL2 systems, Broadband Forum,
2007.

Cordova H.X., van Biesen L., van den Brink R.F.M. and van den Heuvel B.,
Towards a compatible Level-2 DSM Algorithm to protect downstream Multiuser
xDSL legacy systems, in the proceedings of ISCC 2011.

Several internal reports delivered to KPN, Huawei, Samsung, Alcatel-Lucent and


TNO.

137

138

CHAPTER 6: Dynamic Spectrum Management


Spectrum Coordination
6.1 Introduction

Dynamic Spectrum Management (DSM) refers to a set of practical techniques to optimize


transmission (e.g. OFDM/DMT applications like DSL, WiMAX, WiFi). The techniques
are applied depending on the level of coordination and consist of optimizing the resources
by considering all users in the bundle into account.
DSM Techniques (our focus will be primarily on DSL systems) can be classified into
four-levels based on the level of coordination among the interfering (DSL) modems [1],
[4], [5].
DSM Level-0

No DSM coordination.

DSM Level-1

Management of each twisted pair


transmission. SMC independently
optimized the resources for each single
line transmission

DSM Level-2

Joint coordination of the DSL parameters


(tx spectra, line rates, etc) of multiple
users by using full channel knowledge
(available at the SMC)

DSM Level-3

Corresponds to signal coordination, also


referred as Vectored/Precoding DSL

6.2 Spectrum Management Problem

The model is the same as the one described in section 1.3


Spectrum coordination consists of allocating the available transmit power resources
across the users and frequencies (tones) so that the crosstalk interference is mitigated (or
cancelled, ideally). This results from a non-convex optimization problem where the
objective and constraints are functions of the transmit powers and some class of service
(also translated sometimes to Quality of Service -QoS- levels).

139

In spite of this, there are two13 common spectrum management optimization problems to
be addressed:

The weighted rate sum problem, that is maximizing a weighted bitrate given a set
of power constraints

Minimize the total power used in the system, given a set of bitrate (minimum or
weighted) targets.

We will start focusing on the rate adaptive problem: that is, to maximize the weighted line
rate of all users, under different power constraints (i.e. total power per user is less or
equal than the maximum power and/or PSD at every tone should be lower than the power
spectral mask). Mathematically this can be expressed as:

max R

wR

(6.5)

Subject to
0

; n

,i

S
b

S,
b

; i

Where w R is weighted line rate to account for different class of services; b

andb

are the maximum and minimum possible values of bits to be loaded; S is the power in
each subchannel n (for n

1, , N) and for each user i (for i

1, , M and S

is

the power mask typically imposed by regulatory entities and Standardization bodies to
safeguard other existing systems.

13

In fact, the third known challenge is the optimization of the Bit Error Rate though it is not widely
discussed in the literature and the focus remains on the two challenges here described, [22].

140

6.3 Problem Definition


6.3.1 General Modelling of the Spectrum Coordination Problem

The main purpose of management and optimization of the transmit power across all users
and tones is to balance the impact of crosstalk; this is based on a set of objectives and/or
constraints. Higher line rates and (recently also very important) power minimization (for
green purposes) problems are of common interest.
For the first case (line rate optimization), the achievable region

features the set of all

possible combinations of line rates that can be achieved. This is defined as:
R :i

b s , s ,i

(6.6)
With

being defined as:


s : n

,i

: N S

S,

,0

(6.7)
Where the vector containing the transmit power of user i on all tones is given by s
s , s , , sN T ; the vector containing the transmit power of all users on tone n is s
s , s , , s M T , and where

models the set of constraints on the transmit powers.

Most likely, the rate region is not known in advance and depends on the DSL scenario
(direct -cable in use- and crosstalk channel frequency response, other noises, etc). We can
also notice a non-convex relation between the transmit powers and line rates -see
equations (6.2), (6.3) and (6.4)-; hence we are dealing with NP-hard non-convex
optimization type of problems.
There are different variants of the (maximization) bitrate optimization problem. Some of
them include a minimum bitrate proportional to other users (a base rate) [9]; other
problems including fairness in different variants: proportional fairness, harmonic-rate
fairness, max-min fairness, etc [17]. Others, e.g. [18], [19], [20] refer to balanced capacity
where a point in the boundary of the rate region is found and then each user will
experience a similar loss in bitrate with respect to its maximum (single-user) capacity.

141

6.3.2 Our focus: weighted bitrate sum problem

This problem is also called constrained weighted rate sum maximization, cWRS. The
primal problem formulation is given by:
M

max

wR

(6.8)
Subject to
0

; n

,i

WhereR

S,

; i

This problem (cWRS) corresponds to a non-convex NP-hard problem. The number of


optimization variables, i.e. transmit powers, {s : n

,i

} is equal to NM, where

the number of users M might ranges between 2-100 and the number of tones, N, varies
from 256 up to 4096 (for higher profiles of VDSL2). Depending on the direct and
crosstalk channel frequency responses, noise levels, etc, the cWRS problem can have
multiple local optimal solutions and they might significantly differ among them in terms
of optimality, as cited in [21]. We use dual decomposition, as suggested in [9] to decouple
the problem over the tones.
The dual problem (master) formulation for the cWRS problem is expressed as:
min g

(6.9)

Subject to
Where

, , . . , M are the dual variables, also referred to as Lagrange multipliers

and where g:

is the Lagrange dual function which is defined as an optimization

problem with parameter as follows (dual problem slave):


g

max

S;

, S ,

(6.10)
142

S.t.
0

; n

,i

With
M

, s : n

Where

, s : n

wR

S,

is called the Lagrangian. The solution to (6.10) depends on the

value of the Lagrange multipliers () and will be denoted as {s ; n

The duality gap is assumed to be zero, given that the number of tones (N) is sufficiently
high, as it is the case for practical DSL systems.
The main advantage of this approach is that it is separable over the tones, which allows
decomposing the problem into multiple independent problems for each tone n as follows:
N

(6.11)
Where
M

max b S

S;

S,

s.t.
0

; n

,i

b S

wf

b s

This is referred as dual decomposition. Each per-tone problem, g , is of dimension M.


6.4 Fundamentals of the Proposed Algorithms

To lower the complexity of the spectrum management problem, Optimal Spectrum


Balancing ([7], [8]) makes use of dual decomposition [9], performing an exhaustive
search per tone over all possible combinations of power spectral density (PSD) levels
(and PSD levels per users), where the feasibility of each combination is determined by the
power and weighted bitrate constraints. Mathematically, for a two-user scenario, this can
be expressed as:

143

fun

fori

,S

argmaxS

,S

w R

w R

M S ,

N s

1,2

(6.12)

Where only the total power constraint has been considered. However, as shown in [10],
the addition of a Lagrange multiplier variable does not make the objective more complex
because the Lagrangian can be resolved in parallel.
Our objective is thus to further reduce the complexity of the algorithm and thereby
making it tractable for a large number of users. For this initial study, we focus on the twouser scenario. We still make use of dual decomposition to have linear complexity in N
(total number of tones). We also use the same method to update the Lagrange multipliers
as in [10]. However, instead of performing an exhaustive search over all possible
combinations of power levels, we perform three metaheuristic approaches:

We start using a simplex search algorithm and then we adapt the problem by using
a Global-Bounded (certainly improved), as described in [22].

We adapt our problem to use the SIMPSA algorithm which is a combination of


simulated annealing and a non-linear simplex, as defined in [23]

We apply the Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm with a constriction factor as


proposed in [24] which belongs to the class of swarm intelligence algorithms.

6.4.1 Using a (optimized) Simplex Search Algorithm

The Global Bounded Nelder-Mead (GBNM) algorithm is suitable for functions of less
than 20 variables as indicated in [23], following the local-global strategy, which basically
implements a restart procedure based on adaptive probability density that keeps a memory
of past local searches. This probabilistic restart procedure can be applied to almost any
local optimizer. In this case, we follow the proposal in [23], applying the probabilistic
restart leading to an improved (simplex search) Nelder-Mead algorithm. Clearly, the
probability of having located a global optimum increases with the number of probabilistic
restarts. Hence, the improvement over a typical Nelder-Mead Algorithm [24] consists of:
a) a proper detection of simplex degenerations and b) handling this through proper reinitialization using knowledge from previous searches.

144

In general, we say that the simplex is degenerated if it has collapsed into a subspace of the
search domain. This is the most common symptom of a failed NelderMead search [25]
because the method cannot escape the subspace. More precisely, a simplex is called
degenerated in our study (as in [23]) if it is neither small, nor touches a variable bound,
and one of the two following conditions is satisfied:
,,
,,

or

(6.13)
Where e is the k edge, e is the edge matrix, . represents the Euclidean form, and
and

are small positive constants. Further details of this algorithm are extensively

described in [23]. The tolerances for small and degenerated simplices may be difficult to
adjust, so that a simplex which is becoming small may be tagged as degenerated before.
Thus, if a degeneration is detected twice consecutively at the same point, the point is
taken as a possible optimum, and a probabilistic restart is called. Similarly, if a
degeneration is detected after a small test, this point is also saved as a possible optimum,
and a large test is ordered.
Notice that the Kuhn and Tucker conditions of mathematical programming are not
applicable to the present non-differentiable method, [23].
6.4.2 Using the SIMPSA Algorithm

Simulated annealing is a powerful technique for combinatorial optimization, i.e. for the
optimization of large-scale functions that may assume several distinct discrete
configurations, [26]. Algorithms based on simulated annealing employ stochastic
generation of solution vectors and share similarities between the physical process of
annealing and a minimization problem. Annealing is the physical process of melting a
solid by heating it, followed by slow cooling and crystallization into a minimum free
energy state. During the cooling process transitions are accepted to occur from a low to a
high energy level through a Boltzmann probability distribution. For an optimization
problem, this corresponds to 'wrong-way' movements as implemented in other
optimization algorithms. Thus, simulated annealing may be viewed as a randomization
device that allows some ascent steps during the course of the optimization, through an
adaptive acceptance/rejection criterion, [27].

145

It is recognized that these are powerful techniques which might help in the location of
near optimum solutions, despite the drawback that they may not be rigorous (except in an
asymptotic way) and may be computationally expensive.
Simulated annealing algorithms thus have a two-loop structure [26] whereby alternative
configurations are generated at the inner loop and the temperature is decreased at the
outer loop. For unconstrained continuous optimization, a robust algorithm in arriving at
the global optimum is the simplex method of Nelder and Mead ([24]). This method
proceeds by generating a simplex (with N dimensions; i.e. a simplex is a convex hull
generated by joining N+ l points which do not lie on one hyperplane [28]) which evolves
at each iteration through reflections, expansions and contractions in one direction or in all
directions, so as to mostly move away from the worst point.
The correct way to use stochastic techniques in global optimization seems to be as an
extension to, and not as a substitute for, local optimization ([27]). An algorithm based on
a proposal by Press and Teukolsky [29] that combines the non-linear simplex of Nelder
and Mead [24] and simulated annealing, the SIMPSA algorithm, was developed for the
global optimization of unconstrained and constrained NLP problems, [30].
This algorithm showed good robustness [26], [30], i.e. insensitivity to the starting point,
and reliability in attaining the global optimum, for a number of difficult NLP problems
described in the literature, [30]. However, it is possible that the simplex moves in the
SIMPSA algorithm do not maintain ergodicity of the Markov chain, since the search
space is constrained to the evolution of mostly unsymmetric simplexes around their
centroids. As a consequence, the algorithm might not reach the global optimum, though
this was not apparent in the tested NLP problems in [30].
Thus, this strategy matches with our current challenge: by using simulated annealing we
find the right trajectory and by using the simplex Nelder-Mead we locate and converge
quickly to the nearby optimal. In the study reported in [17], we observed near-optimal
results at tractable computation complexity, similar to [15].
6.4.3 Using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

PSO is a class of swarm intelligence algorithms. The ideas behind PSO are inspired by
the social behaviour of flocking organisms, such as swarms of birds and fish schools. It
has been observed that the behaviour of the individuals that comprise a flock adheres to
fundamental rules like nearest-neighbour velocity matching and acceleration by distance.

146

PSO is a population-based algorithm that exploits a population of individuals, to


synchronously probe promising regions of a search space, [31]. In this context, the
population is called a swarm and the individuals are called particles. Each particle moves
with an adaptable velocity within the search space, and retains in its memory the best
position it ever encountered. There are two main variants of PSO as suggested in [31]: in
the global variant, the best position ever attained by all individuals of the swarm is
communicated to all the particles; in the local variant, each particle is assigned a
neighbourhood consisting of a predefined number of particles. In this case, the best
position ever attained by the particles that comprise the neighbourhood is communicated
among them.
Assuming a n-dimensional search space (

), that is, and a swarm consisting of NP

particles, the i-th particle is in effect an n-dimensional vector, X

x ,x ,,x

velocity of this particle is also an n-dimensional vector, given by V


bp , bp , , bp

. The

v ,v ,,v

The best previous position encountered by the ith particle is a point in


BP

denoted by

If we assume g to be the index of the particle that attained the best previous position
among all the individuals of the swarm, and G to be the iteration counter, then according
to the constriction factor version of PSO, the velocity of the ith particle of the swarm is
determined by the following equation [31]:
V .G

V .G

c r BP ,G

X ,G

c r BP ,G

X ,G

(6.14)
Where i

1, 2, , NP; is the constriction factor; c and c are the cognitive and social

parameters, respectively and r and r are random numbers uniformly distributed in the
interval [0,1].
The position of the ith particle in iteration G
X ,G

1 is computed by:

X ,G

V ,G

(6.15)
The constriction factor is derived analytically by [31] and is valid for
c

c and k

4 , where

1:

2k
2

(6.16)

147

6.4.4 Proposed Algorithms

We will use the same efficient (Multi-user search) algorithm to update the Lagrange
multipliers as suggested in [10].
For a given P

,P

, w

w ,w

, and

, we propose the

following algorithms to reduce the complexity of OSB. We will compare their


performance (in all cases significantly better than the traditional OSB)
Step 1 consists of getting the first estimated values of ( , ), for the two-user case
following the algorithm proposed in [10]. Defining the lower and upper bounds is also
part of the initialization process (addressed in step 2) as well as the starting points for the
power level of each user (step 3). Step 4 describes the power constraints and steps 5 to 7
describe the inner loop where the best power levels for user 1 and user 2
(S

n ,S

n ) are calculated based on the solver under use (which depends on the

algorithm being implemented: GBNM, SIMPSA and PSO for our study).
Algorithm 1: Improving
Search in OSB in a twouser case via GBNM
(Solver=GBNM)

Algorithm 2: Improving
Search in OSB in a twouser case via SIMPSA
(Solver=SIMPSA)

Algorithm 3: Improving
Search in OSB in twouser case via Particle
Swarm Optimization
(PSO), with a
constriction factor
(Solver=PSO)

1. Get best values of , , as in [10]


2. Define lower (LB) and upper bounds (UB) for S , S
3. Initial guess

4. Define set of constraints,

,S

(e.g. P

,P

; S

,S

5. For n=1:N (number of tones)


6.

Define fun as a function of S , S as in (6.5)

7.

n ,S

n = Solver(@fun,

, LB, UB, )

8. End for

6.5 Simulation Results and Observations


6.5.1 Scenario under study

The algorithm has been tested in an ADSL (N=256 tones; 224 tones used for the
downstream) environment as shown in Figure 1. The design is based on a simplified
148

version of TP150 cable which is a Dutch 0.5mm cable, also known as KPN_L1.
Only two users have been considered though it is straightforward to extend the analysis to
any number of users. The focus is on the downstream and a maximum power of 20.5dBm
is applied to the system (per user). The was chosen to be 12.9dB corresponding to a
BERof10 , 3dB of coding gain and a noise margin of 6dB. For this study, S
40

B
H

andS

110

B
H

. Our initial weights are w

,w

0.4, 0.6 . No power mask constraints have been setup (though it is straightforward to

incorporate them).
We have limited the maximum number of -evaluations (MAX- ) to 110, given the
results found in [10] where less than 40 -evaluations are suggested for the two-user case.
However, we did not make this a strong constraint (and therefore we allow a tolerance of
25% without having a significant performance impact). A typical value for all nearoptimal algorithms regarding the total number of -evaluations resulted to be 33.
ADSL Scenario
1x ADSL 5000m

CO

CPE
1x ADSL 2000m

RT

CPE

Figure 6.1: Two-user Simulation Scenario


6.5.2 Results and Observations

Table 6.1 summarizes the results from extensive Monte Carlo simulations. From Table
6.1 (column B), we can observe that the initial attempt to reduce the convergence time
when using a simple simplex approach was beneficial. However, the convergence time
remained intractable (and certainly it becomes worse for a larger number of users).
In column C (Table 6.1) we further improve the convergence time by using a Globalized
version of the simplex Nelder-Mead algorithm which makes use of a probability re-start
mechanism to improve the effectiveness of the algorithm, as explained before.

149

We observed that the GBNM algorithm converges much faster than the algorithm in [8]
(it actually allows more granularities for the simulations); and still benefits from
achieving near-optimal results.
This was our first step towards trying to find near-optimal results (practically, the global
optimum) whilst significantly reducing the convergence time by using a very simple
approach.
Furthermore, if we examine the other results obtained from the combined meta-heuristic
algorithm (column D and E) and PSO (column F), we might properly conclude that the
global optimum (near-optimal with negligible differences) has been reached.
We have further explored and exploited intrinsic characteristics of the GBNM algorithm
demonstrating that only 2 to 3 random points are needed in each evaluation, reducing the
width of the variance to a realistic average of ~42s.
We furthermore performed an extensive simulation (GBNM-based) where this claim was
properly proved. In spite of this study, we also analyzed the minimum number of function
evaluations to be used, and this results to be around 10. Reducing this further will lead to
non-acceptable suboptimal results. Therefore, we recommend to stay close to the 10
number of function evaluations (small variations work fine and might provide small
improvements).
This result differs with the ones found when using Algorithm 2 (SIMPSA) where we
could observe that our SIMPSA-based algorithm (columns D and E, Table 6.1) allows to
reduce further the number of function evaluations (from 10 to 5) at reasonable payoff
(weight sum bitrate), achieving up to 27% reduction compared with the situation with the
initial number of function evaluations set to 10.
These results in terms of performance and complexity are very similar to those found in
[13] when using only GBNM, for the case with the same number of function evaluations.
However, with a small relaxation in the objective function (column E, Table 6.1) we
could actually reduce the convergence time and then those results differ for about 10%
above for user1 (who has the lowest priority); a trade-off that might be worthwhile under
certain considerations.
There is no need for such tradeoff when using PSO (Table 6.1, column F) where we
reached performance very close to (very negligible differences) the optimum point at
slightly more than 50% time reduction when compared to [17].
150

Furthermore, it converges slightly faster (for the two-user scenario) than the proposed
global optimal algorithm in (see [22], Branch-and-Bound OSB algorithm). Thus, our
approach using PSO (with the constriction factor) provides (practically) optimum results
at significantly lower convergence time (which might be translated to the complexity
reduction factor term as used in [22]).
Other type of variants to further improve performance of guarantee the global optimum
can be used together with PSO as suggested in [33], like the proper initializations of the
swarms and the velocities.
Though theoretical (and simulated) investigations of the convergence properties of PSO
analyzing the trajectories of the particles are provided in [34], [35, [36], we have left
these studies as a future work.
Figure 6.1 depicts the results from an extensive Monte Carlo simulation related to the
convergence time and comparing different parameters among the algorithms herein
discussed (Algorithm 1 (GBNM), Algorithm 2 (SIMPSA) and Algorithm 3 (PSO)).
Figures 6.2 and 6.3 do the same for the bitrates achieved by user1 and 2, respectively.
Figure 6.2 depicts the convergence time for each algorithm, from where we can observe
clearly notice that PSO leads to superior performance (lower convergence time).
However, this comes with a trade-off: convergence time versus variance for the bitrate in
users 1 and 2. In terms of bitrate (Figures 6.3 and 6.4), GBNM leads to superior
performance (lowest variance among these algorithms) compared to both SIMPSA and
PSO (both with an asymmetric variance related to the mean, >10% variance).
However, it is worth to mention that this is within a 90% confidence area, given the
number of times this simulation has been generated.
In Table 6.1, the criterion for the maximum number of function evaluations is the number
that does not lead to more than 5% penalty in the objective function. Each value has been
averaged after an extensive Monte Carlo simulation.

151

Table 6.1: Comparing results among the different proposed algorithms.

Description

# of evaluations
(MAX =
125)
Max
number of
function
evaluations
Average
time
to
converge
[seconds]
Rate User
1 [Mbps]
Rate User
2 [Mbps]

B
Initial Results
from using
simplex
search
Bounded
Nelder-Mead
S ,S
S
,S

C
Results
from
applying
GBNM
GBNM
starting
with
S ,S
S
,S

D
E
Results from [17]

SIMPSA
S ,S
S
,S

SIMPSA
S ,S
S
,S

PSO
S ,S
S
,S

34

104

33

33

33

33

n/a

n/a

10

10

10

1954.4

1955

920

42.33

43.58

31.87

21.05

2.48

3.07

2.71

3.0038

3.026

3.37

3.075

14.56

16.41

16.38

16.227

16.227

16.02

16.27

AA
Results
from
relaxation
of [8]
SubOptimal
OSB

A
Results
from
[8]

132

Classic
OSB

F
PSO results

GBNM

44

SIMPSA

49

Convergence Time

Convergence Time

48

43.5

47
43

46

42.5

45
44

42

43
41.5
41

42
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

41

500

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) with constriction factor

26

Convergence Time

24
22
20
18
16

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Figure 6.2: Convergence time results for a) GBNM b) SIMPSA c) PSO

152

500

Rate User 1

3.0038

Rate User 1

4.5

Bitrate [Mbps]

Bitrate [Mbps]

3.0038

3.5
3.0038
3
3.0038
2.5
3.0038
3.0038

2
# of Montecarlo runs
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1.5

500

# of Montecarlo runs
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rate User 1

Bitrate [Mbps]

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

# of Montecarlo runs
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Figure 6.3: Bitrate results for user 1 using a) GBNM (upper left) b) SIMPSA (upper

right) c) PSO (bottom center)


Rate User 2

16.2275

Rate User 2

18

Bitrate [Mbps]

Bitrate [Mbps]

17.5

16.2275

17

16.2275

16.5
16.2275
16
16.2275

15.5

16.2275
16.2275

15
# of Montecarlo runs
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

14.5

500

# of Montecarlo runs
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Rate User 2

18

Bitrate [Mbps]

17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14

# of Montecarlo runs
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Figure 6.4: Bitrate results for user 2 using a) GBNM (upper left) b) SIMPSA (upper

right) c) PSO (bottom center)


153

6.6 Greedy Algorithms

The interference produced in a multi-user DSL environment is not easy to mitigate


because the interference cancellation requires coordination between users. When the users
are physically separated and the coordination is hard to achieve, an effective powerallocation can alleviate this interference effect, [36]. Furthermore, the power allocation
problem is strongly related to the bit-allocation challenge, as described at the beginning of
this chapter (spectrum management problem).
For the single-user case, the bitrate is maximized by the waterfilling algorithm. However,
waterfilling assumes the possibility to assign fractional bits which does not hold true for
practical systems. Several optimal algorithms for the discrete bit-loading problems have
been developed [37], [38], [39], [40]. In addition, due to the complexity that optimal
algorithms bring for practical implementations, several sub-optimal algorithms have been
proposed [41],[42],[43],[44].
In this section, we study and extend the analysis performed in [58] where a suboptimal
greedy algorithm was presented by applying the bit removal approach which help
reducing the complexity required to implement the algorithm in [57].
6.6.1 System Model and Objective

The model is the same as the one described in section 1.3


The problem of multiuser bit loading is an optimization problem which can be related
either to maximize the bitrate (rate-adapting loading, [51]) or to minimize the power
consumption with a fixed bitrate (margin-adaptive loading). The purpose, for instance, for
bitrate maximization, is to find the bit allocation scheme b n for all M-users on each
subchannel n ( n

1 N such that the aggregate bitrate of all M -users is optimized.

Mathematically this is expressed as:


M

max R

b n

(6.20)
Subject to
0

P n

154

N P n
b

Where f

is

b n

andb n isinteger

the symbol rate (a typical value for DMT systems is 4000 symbols/s). By

extending the single user bit loading to the multiuser case, the noise that appears at the
receiver is the summation of AWGN and crosstalk from all other users in the same
binder. Thus, if we consider the total noise power to be:
M

N n

P n H n

(6.21)
And then extending (6.18) for the multiuser case by replacing (6.21) into the N term, we
get the bit loading expression for a multiuser environment:
b n

log 1

P n |H n |

M P n H n

(6.22)
Several algorithms have been proposed to address this optimization problem. Distributed
iterative waterfilling has been proposed in [52] employing the single-user waterfilling
method [53],[54] to allocate power iteratively, user by user, until all M -users and N
subchannels are filled. This algorithm assumes an achievable target bitrate (otherwise it
cannot converge) and therefore it implies some central control (level-1 coordination
needed). The optimal algorithm for discrete multiuser bit loading is a natural extension of
the single-user greedy algorithm [56] where a cost matrix is calculated. The elements in
the matrix represent the power increment to transmit additional bits for each subchannel
and each user. The subchannel, then, in a specific user with minimum cost is found and
additional bits are assigned to it. The process will continue until all the power has been
allocated, [57]. However, a major drawback of this algorithm is its complexity: for a
single iteration of the algorithm, only one subchannel on one user who has the minimum
cost is selected to get additional bits.
Therefore, a more efficient method is needed. It has been shown in [58] that in most of
the cases, the bit removal algorithm converges in less number of iterations than the
optimal greedy algorithm. Therefore, we extend this concept to the multiuser environment
155

and present the results. Though there are other methods (centralized, distributed and
hybrids) [7],[15],[11], our focus in this work is merely on the greedy algorithms.
6.6.2 Proposed Algorithm

For the single-user case, the rationale for the bit removal algorithm was shown in [58]:
first, by reversing (6.18) we can get the power that is required to transmit b bits in
subchannel n, as:
P b

. N
H

1 .

(6.23)
Where

. N
andmanipulatingit, willleadto
H

P
SINR

(6.24)
Therefore, it is straightforward to show that the amount of power saved if one bit is
removed from a subchannel is given by:
P R
P R

P b
2
P R

P b

2
2

1
1 .

(6.25)
Therefore, the bit removal greedy algorithm first allocates the maximum possible number
of bits b

to all subchannels. Then, the bits are removed from the subchannel that

may save the largest amount of power till they are compliance with the power and bitrate
constraints. It becomes obvious that the goal is to minimize the power (margin-adaptive
loading) at a given target bitrate.

For the multiuser case, the algorithm extends the rationale allocating the maximum
number of bits (b

to all users and subchannels. Then, the bits are removed from the

156

subchannel and user that save the largest amount of power. The process will continue
until the number of bits complies with the total power and bitrate constraints.
The total power minimization problem is described as in [57]:
M

min

P n

(6.26)
subject to:
M N b n

b n

b n

P n

where B is the aggregate bitrate, b

is the maximum number of possible bits to allocate

(also referred as bit cap in [57]), Z

is a set of elements of 0, 1, , b

, B is (given)

minimum bit rate to prevent having zero bit rate for a particular user i, and P n is the
power to be minimized in each subchannel n and i

user (for i

1, , M .

It was proved in [57] that the SINR necessary for user i to transmit b n bits in
subchannel n can be expressed as:
b n

f b n ,P ,

(6.27)
where P , is the average probability of symbol error of user i. b n
calculated in [57].

157

equals SINR as

We assume an equal BERof10 for all DMT systems under this study, as suggested in
[22]. With this simplification, the function f , in (6.27), will depend only from the number
of bits assigned to subchannel n and user i.
It was also demonstrated in [57] that the powerP n, b
b n , , bM n

should satisfy (for all i

b n ,

1, M) the following condition:

P n, b |H n |

for a distribution b

M P n, b

f b n ,P

H n

(6.28)
and that this condition can be represented in a matrix form as:
I

A .x b

(6.29)
where A , x b , and y are expressed exactly as [22].

The optimal solution is the Pareto optimal solution given by:


x b

.y

(6.30)
where x b

P n, b , , PM n, b

As it turns out we start allocating the maximum number of bits, b

, we need then to

define how to obtain this value.


b

n, i

min b

n , RP

(6.31)
where R P

is the result of calculating the possible allocated number of bits when the

power is set to P

The extension of (6.25) to the multiuser environment is straightforward: by defining an


unit vector, e , whose i

element is one and all the other elements are zero, and an utility

158

green function n, i (the function that will find where the largest savings in power
exist) given by:
n, i

P n, b

P n, b

(6.32)
2

. n

where P corresponds to the power at tone n with b bits allocated to that particular tone.
Therefore, the subtraction in expression 6.32, n, i , corresponds to the savings in power
when removing one bit in user i at tone n.
M P n H n

n
n

|H n |

(6.33)
and this relationship also holds true:
P n
SINR n

(6.34)
Bit Removal Greedy Algorithm for a Multiuser environment

Step1: Initialize variables

Define a matrix F such that:


,

0;to indicate that it is possible to remove more bits.

1;to indicate that we leave it as it is

Step2: For all

subchannels and

users (for

,,

),

we allocate the maximum possible number of bits according to (6.31)


-

We check whether

: If the aggregate bitrate target

not met, then the algorithm stops and asks for a feasible value of

is
and

repeats this step.


Step3: With this set of b n , we calculate the corresponding x b

(6.30), that is, the required set of

Following [51], we use the approximation of b n

Check power mask constraint: if

set

can still be removed.


159

using

. 2
,

1 .
0 so that bits

Step4: Calculate all the elements of the utility function


Step5: Find the user

using (6.32)

that provides the maximum power savings (utility) in

each subchannel and the corresponding value of power saved (utility),

: for

1
arg

max

max
:

Step6: Find the subchannel

with the maximum power savings (utility),


arg max

,,

Step7: Remove one bit to user

in subchannel

, such that

Step8: Update the power utility of removing one bit to subchannel

For i

1, , M:

o Calculate x

o Calculate

, using (6.32)

using (6.30)

o Check power mask constraint: if max


,

set

0 so that bits can still be removed.

Step9: Find the user

that provides the maximum power utility in subchannel

and the corresponding utility,

:
arg

max
,

max
:

,
,

Step10: Check that the target number of bits is still reached after removal of user

. If

holds true, then go to step 6

6.6.3 Simulation Results

The algorithm has been tested in a VDSL2 environment as shown in Figure 6.6. The
design is based on a TP150 cable [62], which is a Dutch 0.5mm cable, also known as
KPN_L1. Only two users have been considered and the focus is on the downstream.
The selected profile for VDSL2 is (bandplan 998) B84-12a whose maximum power at the
downstream is 14.5dBm. The was chosen equals to 12dB with a BERof10 , 3.75dB
of coding gain and a noise margin of 6dB.
160

VDSL2 Scenario

600m

600m

CAB

CPE

CPE

1x VDSL2 (B84-12a) -600m


1x VDSL2 (B84-12a) -1200m

Figure 6.6: Scenario used for the proposed bit loading algorithm

Figure 6.7 shows the bit loading results when waterfilling is used. For this particular case
(Figure 6.6), user 1 meets a bitrate of 43.8Mbps while user 2 achieves 32.1Mbps. So we
can define an aggregate target bitrate of for instance, 75Mbps and apply our proposed
algorithm to compare the results aiming at minimizing the total powers spend on these
two users.
[KPNL1_SelfCrosstalk_2disturbers]

16

Number of Bits

user1, at 600m
user2, at 1200m

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
tones
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Figure 6.7: Showing bit loading when waterfilling is used. In this case, each user spends

14.42dBm which is close to the mask constraint


When applying the algorithm, we get the results presented in the following table (Table
6.2):

161

Table 6.2: Comparison between waterfilling and proposed algorithm


Power-

Power-

Bitrate

- Bitrate

Waterfilling

Proposed

waterfilling

Algorithm

proposed
algorithm

User 1

14,42 dBm

14,34 dBm

43,8 Mbps

49,5Mbps

User 2

14,42 dBm

12,75dBm

32,1Mbps

25,7Mbps

We can see that the proposed algorithm minimizes the power compared to multiuser
waterfilling. We can also observe that without fairness, the users with better channel and
noise conditions (typically those closer to the cabinet street) will get better bitrates than
those ones with poor channel and more severe crosstalk conditions (typically farther away
from the cabinet).
Due to the similarity in terms of performance (both suboptimal greedy algorithms)
between [57] and our proposed algorithm, we only proceed to the comparison about
convergence (running time of the algorithm). Though they are following the same
complexity, in reality it happens that the number of bits to be reduced is less than the
number of bits to be increased and therefore the running time of the algorithm decreases
substantially. This can be even improved by either selecting a better initial value for the
number of bits or (even and) by removing bits simultaneously (in parallel) for those users
and subchannels that have similar values in the power utility function.
Table 6.3: Running time comparison against Lee et al. algorithm

Average
Running
time

Algorithm in
[22]
Bx O N
O M

Proposed
Algorithm
Bx O N
O M

8180

7075

6.6.4 Improvements to the Proposed Algorithm

We propose now an improved version of the algorithm described in the previous


subsection, by adding the possibility to remove bits simultaneously (in parallel) from
users at some specific subcarrierm; thus shortening the convergence time. We introduce
162

a parameter which will relax the original algorithm by only removing bits from one
user (at some subcarrier m) and allowing to remove bits from several users at the same
time (at some subcarrier m) that have a power utility function close to the maximum. This
alleviates the complexity and speed up the convergence of the algorithm, significantly, as
it will be depicted in the next subsection.
Bit Removal Greedy Algorithm for a Multiuser environment

Step1: Initialize variables

Define a matrix F such that:


,

0;to indicate that it is possible to remove more bits.

1;to indicate that we leave it as it is

Step2: For all


,,

subchannels and

users (for

), we allocate the maximum possible number of bits according to

(6.31).
-

We check whether

: If the aggregate bitrate target

is not met, then the algorithm stops and asks for a feasible value of
and repeats this step.
Step3: With this set of b n , we calculate the corresponding x b
,

using (8) that is, the required set of


-

-.
. 2

Following [51], we use the approximation of b n


1 .

Check power mask constraint: if

set

0 so that

bits can still be removed.


Step4:

Calculate all the elements of the utility function

Step5a: Find the user

using (6.32).

that provides the maximum power savings

(utility) in each subchannel and the corresponding value of power saved


(utility),

: for

1
arg

max

max
:

Step5b:

Find the set of users

1, ,

where is the number of users

that have a power saved (utility) close to the maximum (utility) power

163

saving,

, in each subchannel and the corresponding value of power saved


1

: for

(utility),

arg

max

end

for

Step6: Find the subchannel

1, ,

with the maximum power savings (utility),

:
arg max

,,

Step7a: Remove one bit to user

in subchannel

, such that

Step7b: Remove one bit also to the users

whose power is close to

the parameter , with the equivalent utility power saving given by


1, ,

for

by
, so

end
Step8: Update the power utility of removing one bit to subchannel

different set of users,


-

For i

(and of course to user

1, , M:

o Calculate x

o Calculate

, using (6.32)

using (6.30)

o Check power mask constraint: if max

set

Step9a: Find the user

subchannel

0 so that bits can still be removed.

that provides the maximum power utility in

and the corresponding utility,


arg

max

max
:

Step9b: Find the set of users

that provides the power close to the


and the corresponding utility,

maximum power utility in subchannel


:
arg

164

at all

max

for

1, ,

Step10: Check that the target number of bits is still reached after removal of

user

and

for

1, , . If

holds true,

then go to step 4.

Simulation Results

We used the same scenario as in the previous algorithm (subsection 6.6.3) only for sake
of comparison. The algorithm has been tested in a VDSL2 environment as shown in
Figure 6.6. The design is based on a TP150 cable which is a Dutch 0.5mm cable, also
known as KPN_L1. Only two users have been considered though the analysis can be
easily extended to any number of users. The focus is on the downstream. The selected
profile for VDSL2 is (bandplan 998) B84-12a whose maximum power at the downstream
is 14.5dBm. The was chosen equals to 12dB with a BERof10 , 3.75dB of coding gain
and a noise margin of 6dB.
We proceed to compare the running time of the proposed algorithm against the algorithm
in [57] and also to the algorithm derived in the previous section (subsection 6.6.2)
It is straightforward to show that the complexity is lowered for the proposed algorithm as
a (certainly non-linear) function of the parameter . However, a note of caution is
important to mention: our proposed algorithm heavily depends on a proper selection of
the parameter whose selection might be dependent on the user interference conditions.
That is, when there are clear power utility savings differences among the users at one
specific subchannel, a high value of might be suitable; on the other hand, when the
differences are tight, a small value of might be preferred. As VDSL2 occupies up to
4094 subcarriers, we can even think of having two different values of for each part of
the spectrum, or even to estimate a function that determines the proper value of per
subcarrier. However, these additional studies were left out of the scope of this thesis.
No equal fairness or proportional fairness among the users has been considered in our
proposed algorithm, either (fairness here implies priority to certain users, as described in
[61]). That is, no enforcement of a similar type of service or different class of services,
respectively. This can be easily solved by adapting the problem optimization by
incorporating the proportional fairness factors as suggested in [61]. No comparisons

165

against other DSM algorithms have been performed (e.g. [11], [15]) because the
structures and conditions are different (e.g. these algorithms need coordination and/or
message passing between Spectrum Management Center and users).
Table 6.4: Running time comparison against Lee et al. [57] algorithm and algorithm in
subsection 6.6.3
Algorithm in [57]

MU-Bit

Proposed

Bx O N

Removal

Algorithm

Algorithm,

Bx O N

O M

Bx O N

f .O M

O M

Average
Running time

8.18

7.08

4.64

Gain (%)

Baseline 0%

13.5%

43.3%

6.7 Concluding Remarks

We have pursued a new approach to find the optimal spectra for Multi-user DSL systems
by using a combination of Meta-heuristics algorithms and non-linear (bounded and
certainly improved) version of simplex Nelder-Mead. Results obtained for the simple
two-user case look quite promising and convincing. We have observed that all proposed
algorithms achieve near-optimal results with very negligible differences related to the
global optimum. However, from all, PSO outperforms all methods by reaching the
(almost) global optimum in 21 seconds, more than half the time needed by the GBNM
and SIMPSA algorithm to converge and slightly better than the Branch-and-Bound OSB
algorithm.
We have also studied and proposed a bit-removal greedy algorithm for a multiuser
environment. It has been proved that the proposed algorithm converges faster than the
traditional multiuser greedy algorithm under the scenario under study. Both algorithms
need to determine the bit and power allocation from a spectrum management center
which is not required for other algorithms. It has also been shown that our proposed
algorithm performs significantly better than waterfilling.
166

This proposed algorithm should be considered as an intermediate step towards the


relaxation of the optimal greedy algorithm which was currently prohibitive to be deployed
in practical DMT-systems (at this time, 2008) for its well-known complexity.
We have further worked on the greedy algorithm and proposed an enhanced multiuser bit
removal greedy algorithm which by exploiting parallel removal of bits, allows lowering
up to ~40% the running time when compared against a traditional multiuser greedy
algorithm or even a ~30% improvement when compared to other algorithms.
6.7 References

[1] J. M. Cioffi , et al, CuPON: the Copper alternative to PON 100 Gb/s DSL
networks, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 132-139, June 2007,
[2] J. M. Cioffi and M. Mohseni, Dynamic Spectrum Management - A methodology for
providing significantly higher broadband capacity to the users, 15th International
Symposium on Services and Local Access (ISSLS), Edinburgh, Scotland, Mar. 2004.
[3] K. B. Song, S. T. Chung, G. Ginis, and J. M. Cioffi, Dynamic spectrum management
for next-generation DSL systems, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 40, no. 10, pp.
101-109, Oct. 2002.
[4] G. Ginis and J. M. Cioffi, Vectored transmission for digital subscriber line systems,
IEEE J. Select. Areas. Comm., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1085-1104, June 2002.
[5] J. M. Cioffi, S. Jagannathan, et. al., Full Binder Level 3 DSM Capacity and Vectored
DSL Reinforcement, ANSI NIPP-NAI Contribution 2006-041, Las Vegas, NV, Mar.
2006.
[6] W. Yu, G. Ginis and J. Cioffi, Distributed Multiuser Power Control for Digital
Subscriber Lines, IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 11051115, Jun. 2002.
[7] R. Cendrillon, M. Moonen, J. Verlinden, T. Bostoen and W. Yu, Optimal Multi-user
Spectrum Management for Digital Subscriber Lines, in IEEE ICC, vol. 1, Jun. 2004, pp.
15.
[8] R. Cendrillon, W. Yu, M. Moonen, J. Verlinden and T. Bostoen, Optimal Multi-user
Spectrum Management for Digital Subscriber Lines, IEEE Trans. Comm, vol 54, no 5,
pp. 922-933, May 2006.

167

[9] W. Yu, R. Lui and R. Cendrillon, Dual Optimization Methods for Multiuser
Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplex Systems, in IEEE Globecom, vol. 1, Dec.
2004, pp. 225229.
[10] P. Tsiaflakis, J. Vangorp, M. Moonen, J. Verlinden, K. Van Acker and R.
Cendrillon, An efficient Lagrange Multiplier search algorithm for Optimal Spectrum
Balancing in crosstalk dominated xDSL systems, IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., 2005.
[11] Papandriopoulos, J.; Evans, J.S.; "SCALE: A Low-Complexity Distributed Protocol
for Spectrum Balancing in Multiuser DSL Networks", Information Theory, IEEE
Transactions on Volume: 55 Issue: 8, August 2009.
[12] R. Cendrillon, M. Moonen, Iterative Spectrum Balancing for Digital Subscriber
Lines," IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun. (ICC), 2005.
[13] Cordova H, and van Biesen L., Using simplex bounded search for Optimum
Spectrum Balancing in multiuser xDSL systems, internal report, VUB.
[14] Cordova H, and van Biesen L., A Low-Complexity Centralized Dynamic Spectrum
Management Algorithm for Multiuser xDSL Systems, internal report, VUB.
[15] P. Tsiaflakis, M. Diehl, and, M. Moonen, Distributed Spectrum Management
Algorithms for Multiuser DSL Networks, IEEE Trans. On Signal Processing, Vol. 56,
no. 10, October 2008
[16] P. Tsiaflakis, and, M. Moonen, Low-Complexity Dynamic Spectrum Management
Algorithms for Digital Subscribre Lines, in Proc. ofvthe IEEE International Conference
on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 27692772, Las Vegas,
Nevada, Apr. 2008.
[17] Cordova H and van Biesen Leo, A Hybrid Meta-Heuristic Algorithm for Dynamic
Spectrum Management in Multiuser systems: Combining Simulated Annealing and NonLinear Simplex Nelder-Mead, in the proceedings of International Journal of Applied
Metaheuristic Computing (IJAMC), IJAMC Vol. 2(4), 2011, IGI.
[18] Z. Q. Luo and S. Zhang, Dynamic spectrum management: Complexity and duality,
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 2, no. 1, Feb. 2008.
[19] T. Sartenaer, L. Vandendorpe, and J. Louveaux, Balanced capacity of wireline
multiuser channels, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 2029
2042, Dec. 2005.
168

[20] A. Kalakech, J. Louveaux, and L. Vandendorpe, A balanced capacity


implementation of DSM for DSL systems, in Proc. of the Symposium on
Communications and Vehicular Technology, Nov. 2006, pp. 4448.
[21] , Applying the balanced capacity concept to DSL systems, in Proc. of the
IEEE International Conference on Communications, Jun. 2007, pp. 27172721.
[22] P. Tsiaflakis, Resource Management and Optimization in Multi-user DSLSystems,
PhD Thesis, December 2009, available at:
ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/ptsiafla/reports/phd_Tsiaflakis2009.pdf
[23] Luersen M, and Le Riche R., Globalizaed Nelder-Mead method for engineering
applications, Computer and Structures, ELSEVIER, 2004.
[24] Nelder JA, and Mead R., A simplex for function minimization, Comput J , 1965,
7:308-13.
[25] Wright MH. Direct search methods: one scorned, now respectable. In: Dundee
Biennal Conference in Numerical Analysis, Harlow, UK, 1996. p. 191208
[26] M. E Cardoso, R. L. Salcedo*, S. Feyo de Azevedo and D. Barbosa , A simulated
annealing approach to the solution of MINLP problems, Computers chem. Engng Vol.
21. No. 12. pp. 1349-1364, Elsevier 1997.
[27] Schoen, F. (1991) Stochastic techniques for global optimization: a survey of recent
advances. J. Global Opt. 1, 207
[28] Mangasarian, O. L. (1994) Nonlinear Programming. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, p. 42.
[29] Press, W. H. and Teukolsky, S. A. (1991) Simulated annealing optimization over
continuous spaces. Comput. Phys. 5(4), 426
[30] Cardoso, M. E, Salcedo, R. L. and de Azevedo, S. E (1996) The simplex-simulated
annealing approach to continuous non-linear optimization. Comput. Chem. Eng. 20(9),
1065
[31] M. Clerc and J. Kennedy, The particle swarm-explosion stability, and convergence
in a multidimensional complex space, IEEE Trans. On Evol. Comput., 6(1) (2002) 5873.

169

[33] N.G. Pavlidis, K.E. Parsopoulos, and M.N. Vrahatis, Computing Nash Equilibria
through computational intelligence methods, Journal of Computational and Applied
Mathematics, 175 (2005) 113-136, ELSEVIER 2004.
[34] M.Clerc, J.K ennedy, The particle swarm-explosion stability, and convergence in a
multidimensional complex space, IEEE Trans.Ev ol.Comput.6 (1) (2002) 5873.
[35] R.D.McK elvey, A.McLennan, Computation of equilibria in finite games, in: H.M.
Amman, D.A.K endrick, J.Rust (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics,
Handbooks in Economics (13), vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996, pp.87 142.
[36] K.E. Parsopoulos, M.N. Vrahatis, Initializing the particle swarm optimizer using the
nonlinear simplex method, in: A. Grmela, N.Mastorakis (Eds.), Advances in Intelligent
Systems, Fuzzy Systems, Evolutionary Computation, WSEAS Press2002, pp.216 221.
[36] J. Lee and J. M. Cioffi, The Optimal Power Allocation for Equal-Length TwistedPair Channels, IEEE digital object: 0-7803-7802-4/03, 2003.
[37]D. Hughes-Hartgogs, Ensemble modern structure for imperfect transmission media,
U.S. patents 4 679 227 (july 1987), 4 731 816 (March 1988) and 4 833 706 (May
1989)
[38] J. Campello, Optimal discrete bitloading for multicarrier systems, Intl. Symposium
in Information theory (ISIT), p-193, 1998.
[39] B.S. Krongold, K. Ramchandran, D.L. Jones, Computationally efficient optimal
power allocation algorithms for multicarrier communication systems, IEEE Trans.
Commun, vol. 48, pp. 23-27, Jan, 2000.
[40] R.V. Sonalkar and R. R. Shively, an efficient bit-loading algorithm for DMT
application, IEEE Comm. Letters, vol 4, pp. 80-82, March 2000
[41]

P.S. Chow, J.M Cioffi and J.A.C Bingham , a practical discrete multitone

transceiver loading algorithm for data transmission over spectrally shaped channels,
IEEE Trans Commun. vol 43, pp-773-775, Feb/Mar/Apr 1995.
[42] R.F.B Fischer, and J.B Huber , A new loading algorithm for discrete multitone
transmission, Proc. IEEE GLobecom 96, pp. 724-728, Nov. 1996
[43] A. Leke and J.M. Cioffi, A maximal rate loading algorithm for discrete multitone
modulation systems, Proc. IEEE Globecom 97, pp. 1514-1518, Nov 1997.

170

[44] J. Campello, Practical bitloading for DMT, IEEE International Conference on


Communications (ICC), pp. 796-800, 1999.
[45] I. Kalet and S. Shamai, On the capacity of a twisted-wire pair: Gaussian model,
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 38, pp. 379-383, March 1990.
[46] J. T. Aslanis and J. M. Cioffi, Achievable information rates on digital subscriber
loops: Limiting information rates with crosstalk noise, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol.
40, pp. 361-372, Feb. 1992.
[47] A. Sendonaris, V. V. Veeravalli, and B. Aazhang, Joint signaling strategies for
approaching the capacity of twisted-pair channels, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 46,
pp. 673-685, May 1998.
[48] Wonjong Rhee, and John M. Cioffi, Increase in Capacity of OFDM Multiuser
Systems using Dynamic Subchannel Allocation. IEEE object: 0-7803-5718-3/00,
2000
[49] Chow, P. S.; Cioffi, J. M.; Bingham, J. A. C. (1995). A Practical Discrete Multitone
Transceiver Loading Algorithm for Data Transmission over Spectrally Shaped
Channels, IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 43, no. 234, pp. 773-775,
February/March/April 19955
[50] Chow, P. S.; Cioffi, J. M. (1995). Method and Apparatus for Adaptive, Variable
Bandwidth High-Speed Data Transmission of a Multicarrier Signal Over Digital
Subscriber Lines, U.S. Patent 5,479,447 (December 1995)
[51] Starr, T.; Cioffi, J. M.; Silverman, P. J. (1999). Understanding Digital Subscriber
Line Technology, Prentice Hall, New York.
[52] W. Yu, G. Ginis, and J. Cioffi, Distributed Multiuser power control for digital
subscriber lines, IEEE J. Select. Areas Communications, vol. 20, no 5, pp. 11051115, June 2002.
[53] T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas, Elements of information theory, New York: Wiley,
1991
[54] I.C. Wong, D. Wang, and B.L. Evans, High-speed wireline communication
systems, Report, University of Texas at Austin, May 31, 2005.
[55] Yu, W.; Cioffi, J. M. On Constant Power Water-filling, Proc. IEEE International
Conference on Communications, Vol. 6, pp. 16651669, June 2001.

171

[56]Hughes-Hartogs, D. (1987-1989). Ensemble Modem Structure for Imperfect


Transmission Media, U.S. Patent 4,679,227 (July 1987), 4,731,816 (March 1988), and
4,883,706 (May 1989).
[57] Lee, J.; Sonalkar, R. V. and Cioffi, J. M. (2002). Multi-user discrete bit-loading for
DMTbased DSL Systems, IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, Vol. 2, pp.
1259-1263, November 2002.
[58] Sonalker, R. V. & Shively, R. R. (1998). An Efficient Bit-Loading Algorithm for
DM Applications, IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, Vol. 5, pp 8-12,
November 1998
[59] Crdova H, van der Veen T, and Biesen L. van, Spectrum and Performance
Analysis of VDSL2 systems: Band-Plan Study, in the proc. of the Interl. Conference
on Communications, ICC 2007, Glascow, Scotland.
[60] Z. Shen, J. G. Andrews, and B. L. Evans, ``Optimal Power Allocation in Multiuser
OFDM Systems'', Proc. IEEE Int. Global Communications Conf., Dec. 1-5, 2003, vol.
1, pp. 337-341, San Francisco, CA USA. 126 citations
[61] Z. Shen, J. G. Andrews, and B. L. Evans, ``Adaptive Resource Allocation in
Multiuser OFDM Systems with Proportional Rate Constraints'', IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 2726-2737, Nov. 2005. 278 citations.
[62]

ETSI TS 101 270-1 (V1.4.1): "Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Access

transmission systems on metallic access cables; Very high speed Digital Subscriber
Line (VDSL); Part 1: Functional requirements".
[63] S. Jagannathan, Interference and Outage optimization in multi-user multicarrier
communication systems, Stanford University, California, USA: PhD Thesis, Jun. 2008.
6.8 My Contributions

Cordova H and van Biesen Leo, A Hybrid Meta-Heuristic Algorithm for


Dynamic Spectrum Management in Multiuser systems: Combining Simulated
Annealing and Non-Linear Simplex Nelder-Mead, in the proceedings of
International Journal of Applied Metaheuristic Computing (IJAMC), IJAMC Vol.
2(4), 2011, IGI.

Cordova H, and Van Biesen L, A Fast Bit Removal Greedy Algorithm for
Multiuser DMT-based systems, in the proceedings of the International
Conference on Communications, ICC 2011.
172

Cordova H, and Van Biesen L, A Parallel Bit Removal Greedy Algorithm for
Multiuser DMT systems, in the proceedings of PIRMC 2011

6.9 Other Contributions

Crdova H., Boets P., Van Biesen L.,Analysis and Study of the WiMax
standard, in the proceedings of the Global Mobile Congress, GMC, October
2005, Chongqing, China.

Crdova H, Vergara J, Nemer F,A Fading Channel Testbed for Fixed Broadband
Wireless NLOS Systems, MOBICOM 2005, September 2005, Kohn, Germany.

Crdova H, Boets P, Van Biesen L., Insight Analysis into WI-MAX Standard
and its trends, in the proceedings of IWWAN 2005, London, UK.

Van Biesen L., Boets P., Uytdenhouwen F., Neus C., Deblauwe N. and Cordova
H, Impact and Challenges of Rendering Wireless Broadband Communications in
Rural and Remote Areas, published in Joint International IMEKO TC1+ TC7
Symposium September 21 24, 2005, Ilmenau, Germany.

Crdova H and Chvez P, Estudio de Spread Spectrum y Simulacin de Direct


Sequence y Frequency Hopping, TECNOCOM 2005, Colombia.

Crdova H. and Chvez P., Study, Modelling and Implementation of a Spread


Spectrum system and Analysis & Simulation of its variants: Direct Sequence and
Frequency Hopping into the Telecommunications Laboratory of ESPOL,
Technological Magazine of ESPOL, November 2005, ISSN: 0257-1749.

Crdova H., Alternatives of Communication for the rural areas of the Ecuadorian
coast: Part I, Technological Magazine of ESPOL, November 2005, ISSN: 02571749.

Crdova H. and Van Biesen L., A Survey to Emerging and On-Going


Technologies in Broadband Wireless Systems, 12th Annual Symposium of the
IEEE Joint Chapter on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the
Benelux, November 3, 2005, Enschede, The Netherlands

Crdova H., Boets P. and Van Biesen L., Trade-off Analysis of a NLOSOFDM/MIMO Wireless System in WiMAX, in the Australian Communications
Theory Workshop 2006.

173

174

CHAPTER 7: Concluding Remarks

7.1 Contributions of the thesis

This dissertation deals with the challenge of performance optimization in DSL networks.
To represent this challenge, a multi-user multicarrier model was adopted to help define
the key problem and thus focusing on defining and testing algorithms that maximize the
bitrate at different noise scenarios, conditions and constraints; we cover this objective by
following the chapters mentioned below.
Chapter One formulates the objectives of the research work, detailing the general system

model to be used along the entire thesis work. Key research contributions per chapter are
described.
Chapter Two reviews basic concepts of multi-carrier systems and shows some basic

simulations performed by the author related to power spectral densities of these systems.
Next to this work, an analysis of the mathematics related to the modeling of the channel is
presented.
Chapter Three focuses on discrete multi-tone (xDSL) systems. Herein, simulation

examples performed by the author are presented related to different scenarios in DSL
systems, tailored to Dutch subscriber lines noise scenarios. A first example about the
effect of VDSL2 systems over typical Dutch ADSL2 is shown (using a cable typically
found over Dutch subscriber lines and considering a specific crosstalk environment, as a
result from on-going statistical analysis and measures).
Chapter Four studies upstream performance and reveals in detail the near-far effect and

its consequences in upstream performance for VDSL2 Dutch DSL systems. This
investigation helped evaluating how the street cabinets are distributed in the Netherlands
and the different crosstalk noise scenarios most frequently found there.
The study is split into two parts: simulations performed at the beginning to find the most
suitable UPBO parameters and lab measurements where the effectiveness of the settings
is shown.

175

As a result of this study, optimal UPBO settings for typical Dutch scenarios were
proposed and accepted by KPN and the Dutch spectrum regulatory entity (SOO) -KPN
plays a key role in the development of Dutch policies-.
In addition, a (simulation) study was performed by the author to show the necessity of a
national policy where all operators get committed to deploy VDSL2 in a similar manner.
This policy was nationwide adopted and accepted in ETSI-Spectrum Management studies
track.
A DSM algorithm using a non-linear simplex search (an improved Nelder-Mead
algorithm) approach was also proposed leading to near-optimal results at very low
complexity (considering only Cable Bundle modems).
Chapter Five reviews the necessity of implementing downstream power back-off (also

known as PSD shaping) and the consequences when this is not properly accomplished.
This study also consists of two parts: simulations where the performance deterioration of
ADSL2+ systems was clearly observed when no measures are taken at the VDSL2
transmitter and a second part where lab measurements showed this effect in a real
scenario as well as the validation and effectiveness of the method to preserve ADSL2+
performance. The method on how to cope with this phenomenon and preserve ADSL2+
performance (or any other xDSL legacy systems) was also explained.
Moreover, a more general algorithm was proposed to cope with both a) being compliant
with current spectrum management specifications and b) preparing for better performance
gains when using DSM. An algorithm to facilitate full Level-2 DSM capabilities was
proposed and its performance was validated via simulations.
Chapter Six consists of two parts: the initial refers to the spectrum management

challenge which is now solved by a novel metaheuristic approach and the second when a
greedy algorithm is proposed to improve the bitloading efficiency and complexity.
Both topics are covered via proposed algorithms and their simulations.
We can summarize the main contributions of this thesis as follows:

VDSL2 modeling, library creation and simulations.

A VDSL2 algorithmic architecture model and validation through simulations

An algorithm for finding the optimal UPBO parameters per cable bundle (tailored
to Dutch cables) and its validation via simulations and measurements.
176

A practical Level-2 DSM algorithm for protecting DSL legacy systems and
optimizing VDSL2 performance and its validation via simulations, sensitivity
analysis and measurements.

Three metaheuristics algorithms (GBNM, SIMPSA and PSO) to solve the twouser spectrum management problem. PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization) was
found to lead to the best results respect to convergence time whilst GBNM was
found to lead to the most reliable results (lowest variance).

Two greedy algorithms: Greedy removal and parallel greedy removal, reducing
running time by up to ~40%.

7.2 Future work

The application of signal coordination (e.g. vectoring) could cancel the impact of
crosstalk, under specific scenarios (e.g. transmitters and receivers fully co-located, no
power restrictions, etc), which can result in huge performance gains.
However, its not always possible to find these conditions in practical scenarios. For these
situations, one may combine spectrum and signal coordination, where signal coordination
is applied to colocated subsets of transmitters and/or receivers and in addition the transmit
spectra are coordinated over all subsets. Metaheuristic algorithms could be used to solve
the spectrum coordination problem whilst combined with another signal coordination
algorithm. The design of low-complexity distributed procedures for such mixed settings
can be seen as highly interesting and relevant.
Further, most of the current algorithms for spectrum and signal coordination assume that
the channel environment is perfectly known and that the channel does not change
during showtime (remains stable). In practice, however, only an estimate of the channel
environment is known and the channel itself might be subject to time-variation due to any
type of change (new interfering users, impulse noise, temperature and weather conditions,
etc). This imperfect channel knowledge may lead to suboptimal performance and even
instability of the DSL transmission. This is another interesting topic that could be further
explored.
Third, though there has been some work to link the effect of physical layer into higher
layers (i.e. application layer), there is yet not optimal approach on how to integrate the
177

different optimization constraints into one big optimization problem, directly linked to
Quality of Experience.
Finally, wireless systems present similar challenges in managing the spectrum, in a very
dynamic channel, where different techniques (like combined metaheuristic algorithms
with NP-convex techniques) could be used to find optimal and near-optimal solutions.

178

CHAPTER 8: Appendices
8.1 Upstream: Near-Far Problem

The near-far problem in VDSL2 is more severe because of two main differences:

Short distances used when compare to ADSL/ADSL2+ systems. That is, moving
from a (quasi) co-located topology into a true distributed topology.

Higher frequencies used in VDSL2 system. This implies higher attenuation,


higher crosstalk levels, etc. e.g. In ADSL/ADSL2+ systems, the maximum
frequency used by the upstream is less than 276 KHz while for VDSL2 systems
the upstream band used is greater than 3 MHz (then, the FEXT in VDSL2 systems
becomes critical at the upstream side)

Figure 8.1 shows how the performance is degraded when moving from a co-located
topology (as it may be assumed for the case of ADSL/ADSL2+ systems due to the long
distances therein involved) towards a distributed topology (as it will most probably be the
case for VDSL2 systems, where the sub-loop distance is shortened). The scenarios used
in this section are for illustrative purposes and clearly emphasize the problem and
mitigation measures. Details on the scenario were provided in Chapter 4.
UPSTREAM
40

bit rate(Mbps)

Co-Located
Distributed

30

20

10
loop length (m)
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 8.1: Co-located versus distributed scenario. This uses the assumed worst crosstalk

values for the Netherlands. US0 is not used.

179

8.2 Upstream: Evaluating performance at all lengths and other

(500m)

US1

Performance [Mbps]

10
8
6
4
2
0
40
30

80
70

20

60

10

50
0

40

Figure 8.2: Overview of upstream US1 performance for different values of { , }, LR

=500m

US2

Performance [Mbps]

15

10

0
40
30

70

20
10

80

60

50
40

Figure 8.3: Overview of upstream US2 performance for different values of { , }, LR

=500m

180

Upstream Performance Calculation for US1 at RefLen = 500 m


80

6
7

70

75

60

7
8

65

7
1

50

55

5
8

45

6
7

10

40

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 8.4: Contour view of upstream US1 performance for different values of { , },

LR =500m

Upstream Performance Calculation for US2 at RefLen = 500 m

7
8

5
6

9
10

11
10

65

2
3
4

6
5

11

9
8
7

70

4 3

75

5
6

9
10

11
10

80

7
8

9
8
7

5
6

9
10

1110

50

2
3
4

11

6
5

55

4 3 2

60

2
3
4

15

7
8
11

10

6
5

9
78

40

4 3 2

45

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 8.5: Contour view of upstream US2 performance for different values of { , },

LR =500m

181

UPSTREAM

40

bit rate(Mbps)

Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria

35
30
25
20

I at 300m
I at 400m
I at 500m
I at 600m
I at 700m
I at 800m
I at 900m
I at 1000m

15
10
5
0
0

loop length (m )
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 8.6: Performance Comparison using Criteria I for Lref = 300 to Lref = 1000, using TP150
(KPN-L1) cable.

Let Case 1 be when we set the UPBO parameters taking Lref = 800m for both upstream
bands and Case 2 when we set the UPBO parameters taking Lref = 1000m for US1 and
Lref = 800 for US2.

Case 1 Lref US1 = Lref US2 = 800m

Case 2 Lref US1 = 1000m / Lref US2 = 800m

It can be noticed that the performance obtained in Case 1 at 1000 m is lower than the
obtained in Case 2 (as expected because case 2 is optimized for Lref = 1000m and at that
distance the contribution of US2 is negligible if not zero because US2 dies out earlier
than US1. ) while the performance for shorter distances is only slightly lower for Case 2
(figure 58).
This selection allows delivering the maximum performance at 1000 m which is ~6.1
Mbps compared with ~3.7 Mbps when the UPBO parameters corresponding to case 1 are
configured. The performance for shorter distances (in Case 2) is slightly inferior (~0.6
Mbps) compared to the performance obtained in Case 1.

182

40

UPSTREAM
bit rate(Mbps)

AS at Lref = 700
AS at Lref = 800
AS at Lref = 900
AS at Lref = 1000
AS at Lref = 500

35
Class500_GPLK

30
25
20

noise: - 12 dB

15
10
5
0
0

100

200

300

400

loop length (m)


500
600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 8.7: Variation of upstream performance for different values of Lref

(700,800,900,1000) and comparing against Lref = 500 (Class500_TP150cable).

40

UPSTREAM
bit rate(Mbps)

Case 1
Case 2

35
30
25

Slightly lower performance


for distances lower than
1000m (case 2) ~0.6 Mbps

20
15

Better performance
at 1000 m for Case 2
~2.4Mbps

10
noise: - 12 dB

5
0
0

loop length (m)


100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 8.8: Upstream performance for Case 1 and Case 2 using GPLK cable.

183

8.3 Upstream: Polynomial fitting for US2

Fitting for parameter , US2

60
50

Fitting

20

40

15

Exhaustive Search Results


Fitting

30

10

20

Exhaustive Search Results


Fitting

10
0

Fitting for parameter , US2

25

Fitting

Lr, Reference Length


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Lr, Reference Length


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Figure 8.9: Upstream Polynomial fitting for US2.


8.4 Upstream: Other criterion evaluation

There is clearly a trade-off: if the reference length is taken for shorter distances (e.g.
distances up to 400m), the upstream performance will be considerably improved but there
is no performance left at 1000m.
Upstream Performance Analysis

40
US Perf [Mbps]
35

Maximum US Performance per Ref. Length


US Performance remaining at 1000 m at every Ref. Length

30

Trade-off!

25

noise: - 12 dB

20
At 900 m there is a
remaining performance at
1000 m of ~5 Mbps

At 700 m there is a
remaining performance at
1000 m of 2.62 Mbps

15
10
5
0
0

Reference Length
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 8.9: Another criterion showing what is the remaining performance at 1000m
8.5 Upstream: Simulation Results for Max-Min Criterion

We can observe in Figure 8.2 that the implementation of this criterion leads to very
similar performance as obtained in other algorithms (including the one suggested in [3] of
Chapter 4).
184

UPSTREAM
40

bit rate(Mbps)

Approximation in [3]
ETSI CabA
no UPBO
Proposed Algorithm max min

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 8.10: Performance Comparison of the proposed Algorithm

Only when zooming into the region where the user with minimum performance is located
(in this case, LR

800m ), we can see a small difference in terms of

performance.
.
UPSTREAM
Approximation in [3]
ETSI CabA
no UPBO
Proposed Algorithm max min

7.1
7
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
790

800

810

820

830

Figure 8.11: Zooming into the region between 790m-850m

185

840

850

This difference is the gain obtained by the proposed algorithm at the cost of only one or
two iterations. We also see a minor gain for distances greater than L . We might infer
that our algorithm might lead to better results when the user with the lowest performance
does not belong to a long-distance cabinet distribution (where typically the worst user
will be located very far from the cabinet); that is, its capacity is not close to zero(so there
are still subcarriers that might be loaded).
In this study, we covered the optimization performance challenge in upstream VDSL2 by
applying the same (generic) off-line exhaustive search algorithm (as proposed in Chapter
4) to maximize the minimum upstream performance on a cable bundle by finding the
optimal UPBO parameters. By using the approach suggested in [3] (Chapter 4), we could
find the optimal parameters in one or two iterations, reducing the optimization problem to
a linear problem that consists of finding where the user with the minimum bitrate is
located
8.6 Upstream: Lab Measurement Results

Key observations on these measurements are:

Regarding Peak PSD Masks


o There is one peak mask violation at 3.887 MHz, in the order of 0.5 dB
o There are no more peak (mask) violations in the rest of the frequency

range (up to 12MHz).

Regarding Nominal PSD Masks


o In the US1 band there are nominal mask violations in the order of 2 dBs
o In the US2 band there are nominal mask violations in the order of 1 to 1.5

dBs

General
o The PSD level of US0 is more than 10dB lower than the template (see

Figure 8.12Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden., left side). This implies that
the equipment can not reach high bitrates in this low frequency region.
o The system does not use the complete US2 band, but stops at 11.5 MHz.

186

-82
Measured
Mask

-40

Measured
Mask

-80

-86

-60
-70
-80

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-85

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

Measured
Mask

-84

-50

-90

SmallViolation

-95
-90

20

40

60
80
100
Frequency (kHz)

120

140

160

-90
-92
-94
-96
-98

-100

-100

-88

3800

Spectra Analysis UPBO Settings GPLK none

4000

4200

4400
4600
Frequency (kHz)

4800

5000

-100
0.85

5200

0.9

Spectra Analysis UPBO Settings GPLK none

0.95

1
1.05
Frequency (kHz)

1.1

1.15

1.2
x 10

Spectra Analysis UPBO Settings GPLK none

-30
Measured (Smoothed at RBW = 100 kHz)
Template

-50

-40

Measured (Smoothed at RBW = 100 kHz)


Template

-55

-55
-60

-60
Measured (Smoothed at RBW = 100 kHz)
Template

-70

-80

-65
-70

-65

-70

-75
-75

-90

-100

-60

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-50

-80

20

40

60
80
100
Frequency (kHz)

120

140

160

-85

3800

4000

4200

4400
4600
Frequency (kHz)

4800

5000

5200

-80
0.85

0.9

0.95

1
1.05
Frequency (kHz)

1.1

1.15

1.2
x 10

Figure 8.12: Simulated spectra versus measured spectra. Note that at 1546 meter, the

second upstream band (US2) is no longer used.


Similar behavior can be observed at other SAN lengths as depicted below.
Spectra Analysis UPBO Settings GPLK nation
-30
Measured
Mask
Template

-40

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120

2000

4000

6000

8000

Figure 8.13: Spectra Analysis at LSAN = 575m.

187

10000

12000

-65

-30

-70

-85

-90

-90

-95

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-80

-80

-80

-100

160

-90
-95

-105

3800

4000

4200

4400
4600
Frequency (kHz)

4800

5000

-110
0.85

5200

0.9

0.95

1.05

1.1

1.15

Frequency (kHz)

-72

1.2
x 10

-70

-74

-40

-85

-100

Frequency (kHz)
-30

Measured
Mask

-75

-75

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-60

-100

-70
Measured
Mask

-70

Measured
Mask

-50

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-40

Template
Measured (Smoothed at RBW =100 kHz)

-75

-76
-80

Template
Measured (Smoothed at RBW =100 kHz)

-70

-78
-80

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-60

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-50

Template
Measured (Smoothed at RBW =100 kHz)

-82
-84

-80

-85

-90

-95
-86

-90

-100

-100

-88

20

40

60
80
100
Frequency (kHz)

120

140

160

-90

3800

4000

4200

4400
4600
Frequency (kHz)

4800

5000

5200

-105
0.85

0.9

0.95

1
1.05
Frequency (kHz)

1.1

1.15

1.2
x 10

Figure 8.14: Simulated spectra versus measured spectra at LSAN = 575m.


Spectra Analysis No UPBO

-30

Measured
Mask
Template

-40
-50

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 8.15: Simulated spectra versus measured spectra at LSAN = 575m when no UPBO is

configured at the VDSL2 system


Normalized PSD
-30
Simulated
Measured

-40
-50

Spectrum (dBm/Hz)

-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 8.16: Comparing spectra of simulated and measured PSD at 335m.


188

Upstream Bit Loading


15
Simulated
Measured

Bits per Carrier

10

6
8
Frequency (MHz)

10

12

Figure 8.17: Upstream bit loading comparison. The blue curve shows the simulated bit

loading and the orange curve shows the bit-loading obtained from the equipment under
study.
8.7 Downstream: Measurement Results
XToffset6/INP8/Delay16
40
bitrate(Mb/s)

No Shaping (PAN = 1235)


No Shaping (PAN = 3086)
No Shaping (only VDSL2)
Shape 10
Shape 20
Shape 25
Shape 30
Shape 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5
length (m)

(c) TNO 2006

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 8.18: Performance Comparison using different PSD Shaping levels

189

Spectra Analysis Shape 40


-40
Measured
Measured Corrected
Mask
Template

-50

Spectrum (dBm)

-60
-70
-80
RBW = 10000 Hz
VBW = 1000 Hz

-90
-100
-110
-120

2000

4000

6000
8000
Frequency (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 8.19: Spectral View on different Shape 40


8.8 Extra analysis: Shape10 vs no-shape

The difference lies on the first part of the frequency spectrum. In the region up to
~500kHz, the transmitted level of the shaped signal is higher than the no shape signal (see
Figure 8.20 and Figure 8.21) while the received noise (not seen on the plots) remains the
same. This results in a slightly higher performance for the shape case.

XToffset6/ INP8/ Delay16

40

bitrate(Mb/s)

Shape 10 (PAN Length = 1000 GPLK)


No Shape (PAN Length = 1000 GPLK)

35
30
25
20
15

noise 6 dB
10
5
0

length (m)

(c) T N O 2006

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 8.20: Performance comparison Shape versus No Shape for PAN length = 1000m

TP150 (GPLK), using TNO/2006:SubA (overlay) scenario.


190

Spectra Analysis at 1099m


Power density (dBm/Hz in 100 ohm)

-40
Shape 10
No Shape

-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120

2000

4000

6000
8000
Freq (kHz)

10000

12000

Figure 8.21: Spectra Analysis for Shape and No Shape at PAN Length = 1000m TP150

(GPLK).
Spectra Analysis at 1099m
Power density (dBm/Hz in 100 ohm)

-40
-50
-60
-70
-80

Shape 10
No Shape

-90
-100
-110
-120

500

1000
Freq (kHz)

1500

2000

Figure 8.22: Zoom in into the Spectra for Shape and No Shape at PAN Length = 1000

GPLK (up to 2 MHz).


The bit loading curve (presented in Figure 8.23) also confirms the higher performance for
the case of shape 10.

191

Xtalk6dB /INP8/Delay16 / PAN1000(GPLK)/SANLength335


14 Bitloading [bits]

Shape10
NoShape

12
10

noise 6 dB

8
6
4
2
0

Frequency [KHz]

(c) TN O 2006

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Figure 8.23: Equivalent Bit loading (to Figure 8.21).

192

8000

9000

10000

8.9 Validating theoretical Impulse Noise Requirements

INP denotes the number of DMT symbols or fractions thereof in one interleaving delay
period for which errors can be completely corrected by the error correcting code
mechanism.
The Error correction method deployed in VDSL2 systems comprise of Reed-Solomon
(RS) coding and interleaving. The number of redundant bytes in a RS codeword,
interleaver depth, interleaver block length and the number of bits per DMT symbol
determine a systems capability to mitigate the effects of an impulse noise event. VDSL2
makes use of the following parameters to alleviate the effect of impulse noise:

INPmin minimum impulse noise protection. The disruption of at least this number of
DMT symbols can be overcome by the system in case transmitted data is hit by a
strong impulse.

Delaymax maximum interleaving delay. A maximal time interval over which data
symbols may be spread.

Note that the system itself chooses the actual values of INP and Delay so that they
optimally meet other requirements such as minimum noise margin and line rate.

Parameter

Description

NFEC

Code word length

Rp

Number of redundant bytes per


FEC data frame

Ep = Dp x t

[bytes]

Maximum number of sequential


bytes that can be corrected

Dp

Interleaving depth

tp = Rp / 2

Number of correctible bytes per


codeword, also called correcting
capacity

Lp

Number of bits transmitted per


DMT symbol

Sp = (NFEC x 8 ) / Lp

Number of DMT symbols per RS


codeword

193

1/Sp

Number of RS codewords that


may need to be decoded within a
single

DMT

symbol

(#

RS

codeword per DMT symbols )


INP = (8 x Dp x tp) / Lp

Number

INP = (Dp x Sp x tp) / NFEC

protected per frame

of

DMT

symbols

INP = 0.5x(DpxSpxRp) / NFEC


INP = 2 x TD x OH
TD=(Dp-1)x(NFEC-1) [bytes]

Total delay of the interleaver/deinterleaver


Total delay given in ms

TD=(Dp-1)x(NFEC-1) / (Lp/2)
TD= (Dp x Sp) / 4 [ms]
OH = Rp / NFEC

Overhead ratio

As we can observe. INP = 2 x TD x OH, therefore, the following ratios of INP/Delay (e.g.
4/8, 8/16) lead to similar overhead (and thus to very similar performance -bitrates- as
shown in Figure 8.22).
40

XToffset6/Shape25
bitrate(Mb/s)

INP 4 Delay 16
INP 8 Delay 16
INP 4 Delay 8
INP 0 Delay 0

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

length

(c) TNO 2006

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Figure 8.22: Performance comparison for different INP settings using the overlay

scenario

It is worth to mention that the quality in terms of (QoE) packet loss (RTP packets) might
differ even when similar performance is obtained; thus, INP/Delay of 4/8 and 8/16 might
lead to different user experiences.

194

195

196

Publications
Journal papers:

Cordova H and van Biesen Leo, A Hybrid Meta-Heuristic Algorithm for


Dynamic Spectrum Management in Multiuser systems: Combining Simulated
Annealing and Non-Linear Simplex Nelder-Mead, in the proceedings of
International Journal of Applied Metaheuristic Computing (IJAMC), IJAMC Vol.
2(4), 2011.

Crdova H, van der Veen T, van den Heuvel B, van den Brink R.F.M., and Biesen
L. van, Optimizing Upstream Power Back-off, as defined in the VDSL2
standard, submitted to Intl. Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics,
ISBN: 2085-6830, 2010.

Conference papers:

Cordova H., and Van Biesen L., A simple polynomial method for optimizing
upstream performance in multiuser VDSL2 lines, accepted and to appear in the
XX IMEKO World Congress, which will be hold on 9 - 14 Sep. 2012 at BEXCO,
Busan,Korea

Cordova H, and Van Biesen L, A Fast Bit Removal Greedy Algorithm for
Multiuser DMT-based systems, in the proceedings of ICC2011.

Cordova H, and Van Biesen L, A Parallel Bit Removal Greedy Algorithm for
Multiuser DMT systems, in the proceedings of PIRMC 2011

Cordova H, and Van Biesen L., Using an Off-line Exhaustive Search Algorithm
for Optimizing Max-Min UPBO Performance over DSL lines, in the proceedings
of the Conference on Signal Processing, IASTED 2011.

Crdova H, van den Brink Rob F.M. and van Biesen Leo, An Algorithmic
Architecture Model for VDSL2 Spectrum Management studies, in the
proceedings of the Intl. Conference on Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition and
Applications (SPPRA), IASTED 2011.

Cordova H.X., van Biesen L., van den Brink R.F.M. and van den Heuvel B.,
Towards a compatible Level-2 DSM Algorithm to protect downstream Multiuser
xDSL legacy systems, in the proceedings of ISCC 2011.

197

Crdova H, van der Veen T, and Biesen L. van, Spectrum and Performance
Analysis of VDSL2 systems: Band-Plan Study, in the proc. of the Interl.
Conference on Communications, ICC 2007, Glascow, Scotland.

Crdova H. and Vargas P., Definition of noise scenarios and Performance


Evaluation for ADSL and ADSL2+ Systems: One step forward for limited tripleplay services, IEEE JST 2007.

Crdova H, van der Veen T., and van Viesen L, What is needed to deploy
VDSL2 systems: Practical Considerations and Performance Evaluation, IEEE
JST 2007.

Crdova H.X., van den Brink R.B.M., van der Veen T. and van den Heuvel B.M.,
Impact Analysis of effective PSD shaping in VDSL2 systems, Broadband
Forum, 2007.

Crdova H., Boets P. and Van Biesen L., Trade-off Analysis of a NLOSOFDM/MIMO Wireless System in WiMAX, in the Australian Communications
Theory Workshop 2006.

Crdova H. and Vargas P., Anlisis de Sistemas de Comunicaciones Almbricas


de Banda Ancha: ADSL y VDSL2, ESPOL CIENCIA 2006.

Crdova H, Evaluation of Multicarrier Modulation Technique using Linear


Devices, on the proceedings of IRMA 2006, Telecommunications and
Networking Technologies, May 21-24, 2006, Washington, DC, US.

Crdova H. and Van Biesen L., A Survey to Emerging and On-Going


Technologies in Broadband Wireless Systems, 12th Annual Symposium of the
IEEE Joint Chapter on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the
Benelux, November 3, 2005, Enschede, The Netherlands

Crdova H., Alternatives of Communication for the rural areas of the Ecuadorian
coast: Part I, Technological Magazine of ESPOL, November 2005, ISSN: 02571749.

Crdova H., Boets P., Van Biesen L.,Analysis and Study of the WiMax
standard, in the proceedings of the Global Mobile Congress, GMC, October
2005, Chongqing, China.

Crdova H, Vergara J, Nemer F,A Fading Channel Testbed for Fixed Broadband
Wireless NLOS Systems, MOBICOM 2005, September 2005, Kohn, Germany.

198

Crdova H, Boets P, Van Biesen L., Insight Analysis into WI-MAX Standard
and its trends, in the proceedings of IWWAN 2005, London, UK.

Van Biesen L., Boets P., Uytdenhouwen F., Neus C., Deblauwe N. and Cordova
H, Impact and Challenges of Rendering Wireless Broadband Communications in
Rural and Remote Areas, published in Joint International IMEKO TC1+ TC7
Symposium September 21 24, 2005, Ilmenau, Germany.

Crdova H and Chvez P, Estudio de Spread Spectrum y Simulacin de Direct


Sequence y Frequency Hopping, TECNOCOM 2005, Colombia.

Crdova H. and Chvez P., Study, Modelling and Implementation of a Spread


Spectrum system and Analysis & Simulation of its variants: Direct Sequence and
Frequency Hopping into the Telecommunications Laboratory of ESPOL,
Technological Magazine of ESPOL, November 2005, ISSN: 0257-1749.

ETSI Contributions:

Rob F.M van den Brink, H. Cordova Algorithmic model for VDSL2
transmitters, ETSI TM6 contribution 072t10, April 2007.

Rob van den Brink, Cordova H, van der Veen Teun, Description of VDSL2NL1 and VDSL2-NL2 signals using UPBO, for spectral management in the
Netherlands, ETSI STC TM6 meeting, April 23-26, 2007.

199

200

Bibliography
Hernan Cordova is born in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He studied the Bachelor in Electrical
Engineering in the Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral from 1995-1999, Summa Cum
Laude. Whilst studying this career, he worked in several public and private companies in
the telco, electronics and services industry, taking on several roles, like field engineer,
network engineer, pre-sales engineer, product manager, chief installation officer,
customer service innovation, technology manager, operational manager, among others.
Hernan also worked at Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral, particularly in three areas
a) leading the Cisco Academy SC and as Cisco Instructor b) as associate professor of the
engineering faculty and c) working in national and international projects (e.g. developing
the joint research agreement between VLIR and ESPOL for Telecom Research
development). In 2004, he finalized his MBA with major in strategy development for
telecom companies with Summa Cum Laude. In 2004, he joined the Vrije Universiteit
Brussel where he finished pre-doctoral studies whilst still working at ESPOL and other
private entities. Since 2005, he joined a management consultancy company where he lead
and developed applied research over broadband access networks at TNO, in the
Netherlands. Whilst working, he also pursued a master in electrical engineering at
Katholieke Universiteit of Leuven (Cum Laude, 2005-2006). In 2008, he obtained the
degree in master of business information management at VUB/Solvay Business School,
Cum Laude. Since 2009, he works in Royal Philips International and has been in several
positions, including Strategic Project Director, Digital/Mobile Marketing Director and
currently holds the position of Senior Director Business Transformation Leader.
His research interests are diverse nowadays: non-convex optimization algorithms applied
to several engineering fields, and leadership and strategic best practices in the managerial
domain.

201

List of Abbreviations, Mathematical Notation


and Symbols

Abbreviations
ADSL(2plus)
AFE
ASB
AWG
AWGN
BB-OSB
BER
CAB
CAP/CAM
CA-DSB
CO
CPE
cWRS
DAC
DBS
DFE
DELT
DMT
DPBO
DSB
DSL
DSLAM
DSM
EC
EL-FEXT
EMC
ETSI
FA
FEQ
FEXT
FD
FDD
FDM
FFT
FSAN
FTTB/C/H/N
FUT
GP
GPEW

Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (2 plus)


Analog front-end
Autonomous Spectrum Balancing
American Wire Gauge
Additive White Gaussian Noise
Branch-and-Bound Optimal spectrum Balancing
Bit Error Rate
Cabinet
Carrierless Phase Modulation/ Carrierless
Amplitude Modulation
Convex Approximation Distributed Spectrum
Balancing
Central Office
Customer Premises Equipment
Constrained Weigthed rate sum maximization
Digital-Analog-Converter
Direct Broadcast Satellite
Decision-Feedback Equalizer
Dual Ended Line Testing
Discrete MultiTone
Downstream Power Back-off
Distributed Spectrum Balancing
Digital Subscriber Line
DSL Access Multiplexer
Dynamic Spectrum Management
Echo Cancellation
Equal Level Far End Crosstalk
Electro-Magnetic Compatibility
European
Telecommunications
Standards
Institute
Fluctuation Asymmetry
Frequency-Domain Equalizer
Far-End Crosstalk
Frequency Domain
Frequency Division Duplexing
Frequency Division Multiplexing
Fast-Fourier Transform
Full Service Access Network
Fiber-to-the-Building/Cabinet/Home/Node
Friendly User Trial
Geometric Programming
Plastic
Insulated
Cable
(Gepantserde

202

GPLK
HDSL
HDTV
ICI
IFFT
ICT
IDFT
ISDN
ISI
INP
IT
ITU
IW/IWF
kbps
kHz
KKT
KVD
LT
LTE
MAB
MAC
MAC-ISB/OSB
Mbps
MCM
MHz
MIMO
MMSE
MU-DMT
NEXT
NT
OFDM
OSB
PAN
PBO
POTS
PSD
QAM
QoE
QoS
QPSK
RFI
SAN
SC
SCALE
SCM

PolyEthyleen isolatie met Waterstoppen)


Paper-Lead Insulated Cable (Gepantserde PapierLoodKabel)
High-Speed Digital Subscriber Line
High Definition Television
Inter-Carrier-Interference
Inverse Fast-Fourier Transform
Information and Communications Technology
Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform
Integrated Services Digital Network
Inter-Symbol-Interference
Impulse Noise Protection
Information Technology
International Telecommunication Union
Iterative Waterfilling
Kilobits per second
Kilohertz
Karush-Kuhn-Tucker
Kabelverdeler
Line Terminal
Long Term Evolution
Market Average Bitrate
Multiple-Access Channel
Multiple-Access Channel Iterative Spectrum
Balancing/Optimal Spectrum Balancing
Megabits per second
Multi Carrier Modulation
Megahertz
Multiple-Input-Multiple Output
Minimum mean Square Error
Multi-User Discrete Multitone
Near-End Crosstalk
Network Terminal
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
Optimum Spectrum Balancing
Primary Access Network
Power Back-Off
Plain Old Telephone System
Power Spectral Density
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
Quality of Experience
Quality of Service
Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
Radio-Frequency Interference
Secondary Access Network
Spectrum Coordination
Successive Convex Approximation for LowComplexity
Single Carrier Modulation

203

SDSL
SELT
SINR
SMC
SNR
SOO
SP/SpM
SPOCS
s.t.
TD
T&R
UPBO
US
VDSL2
WiMAX
xDSL
ZF

Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line


Single Ended Line Testing
Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise ratio
Spectrum Management Center
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Spectraal Overleg Orgaan
Spectrum Management
Simulator of Performance of Copper Systems
Subject to
Time Domain
Test and Release Lab (of KPN)
Upstream Power Back-Off
Upstream
Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line 2
Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave
Access
Generic DSL
Zero Forcing

204

MathematicalNotation
.
.
.
| |

Transpose equation
Matrix Hermitian transpose
Euclidean norm
Absolute value of (real or complex) scalar
0,
0,
min , ,
Complex conjugate of complex scalar
Component-wise inequality between vectors and
element of vector
Element from
row and
column of matrix
Component-wise inequality between matrices and
Matrix determinant
Diagonal matrix with vector as diagonal
Gradient function of
Statistical average operation
Statistical average operation
Maximum of scalars and
Minimum of scalars and
Order

.
.
,
,
.
Definitions and Symbols

M
N
H
H (i

Z
x
z

x , x , , xM
z , z , , zM
fE x

Noise power of user i at tone n

fE z
s , s , , sN

s , s , , sM

log 1 SNR
SNR

9.75

Frequency distance between two subcarriers


Total number of users
Total number of subcarriers/tones
the diagonal representing the main channel transfer
function of user i at tone n;
corresponds to the off-diagonal elements, representing the
crosstalk transfer function from user j to user i at tone n
represents the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) of
user i at tone n whose power is given by ,
represents the transmitted signals on tone
represents the vector additive noise on tone n
Transmit power of user i at tone n

Is the vector containing the transmit power of user i on all


tones
Is the vector containing the transmit power of all users on
subcarrier n
Is the channel capacity in QAM-DMT
Signal-to-Noise-Ratio gap (depends on the bit-error rate,
coding gain and noise margin)
Signal-to-Noise-Ratio gap
is the noise margin (typically 6dB)
Is the coding gain (typically in the order of 3 to 5 dB)
refers to the capacity of subchannel

205

SINR

PH
log 1
N

log

log 1

Number of bits at tone n

Number of bits at tone n


is the power allocated to subchannel
is the channel gain
is the total noise power
Number of bits at user i at tone n

S |Hnii |
N

Noise power at user i at tone n

S H
N

bitrate of a particular user m


bni

aggregate bitrate in a multiuser environment

is the symbol rate (a typical value for DMT systems is


4000 symbols/s).

N
S
,

LR
f x

, S
S ,
S,
P
P ,
P R
Z
b
P,

Total noise power of user i at tone n


Transmit power of user at tone n, where user acts as a
disturber on user i
is the transfer function of a line of length
Reference length
Probability function of having sampled at point x
Covariance matrix
Region where all possible combinations of bitrates can be
achieved
Region that models the set of constraints on the transmitted
powers
Lagrange Dual function
Lagrangian
Spectral mask of transmit power of user i at tone n
Total transmitted power budget available at user i
Total transmitted power for all users
Total transmitted power for user 1
Different in power at tone n when one bit is removed

is a set of elements of 0, 1, , b
is the maximum number of possible bits to allocate
is the average probability of symbol error of user i

206

List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1

Key Differences between single carrier and multicarrier systems

Chapter 4
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3

Overview of criteria used for creating the optimization problem


Overview of the parameters used in the simulation
UPBO parameters model as result of Best fitting

Chapter 5
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5

Noise Scenario used for evaluating VDSL2 performance by simulation


ADSL2+ performance for different number and type of disturbers
(Dutch) Noise Scenarios for Performance Analysis
Shape equivalent to LPAN for GPLK and GPEW cables.
Shape equivalent to LPAN for GPLK and GPEW cables.

Chapter 6
Table 6.1

Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4

Comparing results among the different proposed algorithms. The criterion


for the max. number of function evaluations is the number that does not lead
to more than 5% penalty in the objective function. Each value has been
averaged after an extensive Montecarlo simulation.
Comparison between waterfilling and proposed algorithm
Running time comparison against Lee et al. Algorithm
Running time comparison against Lee et al. [57] algorithm and algorithm in
subsection 6.6.3

207

208

List of Figures
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5

OFDM signals are orthogonal but do overlap


Power Spectral Density of an OFDM signal when the number of subcarriers, N,
equals 8
Block Diagram of an OFDM system
A view on a frequency selective channel
PSD for a complex OFDM envelope, varying the number of subcarriers

Chapter 3
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11
Figure 3.12
Figure 3.13
Figure 3.14
Figure 3.15
Figure 3.16
Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19
Figure 3.20
Figure 3.21
Figure 3.22
Figure 3.23
Figure 3.24
Figure 3.25
Figure 3.26
Figure 3.27

Crosstalk coupling in the loop


Modeling NEXT and FEXT in DSL systems
Distributed topology in VDSL2 systems
Scenario for simulation under study
Upstream Performance of ADSL system with EC and FDD duplexing methods
versus length
Downstream Performance of ADSL system with EC and FDD duplexing methods
versus length
Scenario under study
Upstream performance, Bitrate versus Noise Margin variation
Downstream performance, Bitrate versus Noise Margin variation
Upstream performance, Noise Margin versus loop length
Downstream performance, Noise Margin versus loop length
Topologies to be studied ADSL2+ only and ADSL2+ and VDSL2
Upstream signal spectra perceived by the ADSL2+ transmitter (at the cabinet side)
Downstream signal spectra perceived by the ADSL2+ transmitter (at the CPE
side)
ADSL2+ degradation performance when VDSL2+ disturbers are present
Algorithmic Model Block Diagram
Description of the PSD Band Constructor block
Illustration on how building block #1 combines two PSDs for creating a third
Conceptual description of the PSD shaper block
Conceptual description of the PSD notcher block
Input/Output baseline PSD power restrictor
Intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1, while generating ITU profile 8c
from mask B8-4 for upstream
Output spectrum (at the output of block #4), while generating ITU profile 8c
from mask B8-4 for upstream
Intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1, while generating ITU profile 8c
from mask B8-4 for downstream
Output spectrum (at the output of block #4), while generating ITU profile 8c
from mask B8-4 for downstream
Intermediate spectrum at the output of block #1, while generating ITU profile
30a from mask B8-13 for downstream
Output spectrum (at the output of block #4), while generating ITU profile 30a
from mask B8-13 for downstream

209

Chapter 4
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.17

A typical topology for VDSL2 deployment with a DSLAM located at the cabinet
and the users placed at different distances from that cabinet
UPBO trade-off demonstration. US0 is not taken into account to stress the effect
of not applying UPBO
Upstream Spectra for different (secondary access network) SAN lengths
Distributed topology for scenario under study
Overview of upstream US1 performance for different values of { , }, LR =800m
Overview of upstream US2 performance for different values of { , }, LR =800m

Fitting for US1


fitting for US1.
Optimized Performance at different reference lengths
Performance Comparison for two values of LR .
Performance Comparison using other optimization criteria, at LR 800m
Performance Comparison using other optimization criteria, at LR 500m
Performance Comparisons between Criteria II and III
Attenuation when
is evaluated at different frequencies
Simulated spectra versus measured spectra. Note that at 1546 meter, the
second upstream band (US2) is no longer used.
Simulated spectra versus measured spectra. Note that at 1546 meter, the
second upstream band (US2) is no longer used.
Performance Comparison for Simulated and Measured UPBO settings at
1000m using (overlay) scenario; the receiver noise and the Shannon gap for
the simulation were set to -135 dBm and 6.75 dB, respectively.

Figure 4.18

The performance loss is shown when a failure occurs at different distances


(between 200m and 800m). Ref-6dB means a crosstalk offset level of -6dB, as
explained in [1].

Figure 4.19

a) Classic approach; policing only at the transmitter b) Proposed UPBO


approach, policing at both sides
a) Feasibility of Receive Limit upper left b) Feasibility of Transmit Limit
-upper right c) an example at 335m
Simulation Scenario for VDSL2 -upstreamTransmit Upstream Signal for each user. Clearly user 3 (at 700m) will
transmit at full power. User 2 does this by design. PSD is shown in light
green.
Comparison of the total FEXT received at the upstream side. Axis x
represents the frequency in kHz and axis y the PSD in dBm/Hz
Comparison of PSD calculated as proposed here via the GBNM
algorithm vs the best estimation as discussed in [11]

Figure 4.20
Figure 4.21
Figure 4.22

Figure 4.23
Figure 4.24

Chapter 5
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2

ADSL2+ and VDSL2 signals from the CO and CAB.


Simulated performance degradation of ADSL2+ systems when VDSL2
disturbers are present14. LPAN represents the distance between the CO and
the CAB. NrADSL and NrVDSL account for the number of ADSL2+ and

14
ThesesimulationswereperformedusingFSANmodel,thoughtheimpactofVDSL2inxDSLlegacy
systems(e.g.ADSL2+)ispresentwithanymodel.

210

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.8

VDSL2 disturbers, respectively, summing up in all scenarios 200


disturbers, as the case where only ADSL2+ disturbers are present (blue
square line).
Topology corresponding to performance obtained in Figure 5.2. Blue
square line in Figure 5.2 corresponds to the first scenario in Figure 5.3. The
other curves correspond to scenario 2, varying the number of disturbers
between ADSL2+ and VDSL2 and varying the distance between the CO
and CAB.
Simulated PSD templates when VDSL2 is shaped as shape-10, shape-25 or
as shape-0.
Spectra Analysis at LSAN = 335m.
Performance Comparison for Simulated and Measured Baseline settings
using (overlay) scenario.
Topology being used in the simulations.
Performance drop when shaping prevents VDSL2 to operate at ADSL2+
levels.
Scenarios being used to verify the effectiveness of PSD Shaping

Figure 5.9a
Figure 5.9b: Setup for lab measurements performed in Figures 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12
Figure 5.10
Figure 5.11
Figure 5.12
Figure 5.13
Figure 5.14
Figure 5.15
Figure 5.16
Figure 5.17
Figure 5.18
Figure 5.19
Figure 5.20
Figure 5.21
Figure 5.22
Figure 5.23
Figure 5.24
Figure 5.25
Figure 5.26

ADSL2+ performance under different disturber conditions for cabinets at


8dB distance
ADSL2+ performance under different disturber conditions for cabinets at
16dB distance
ADSL2+ performance under different disturber conditions for cabinets at
24dB distance
Sensitivity Analysis (via Simulations) of the impact to ADSL2+ when
VDSL2 is under/over shaped in 25dB loops.
Sensitivity Analysis (via Simulations) of the impact to ADSL2+ when
VDSL2 is under/over shaped in 30dB loops.
Sensitivity Analysis (via Simulations) of the impact to ADSL2+ when
VDSL2 is under/over shaped in 40dB loops.
Further view on the FEXT for the case with a) only ADSL2+ disturbers and
b) when 1 VDSL2 disturber is added.
VDSL2 performance degradation when using the proposed method in an
overlay scenario (Scenario 1 as in [17]).
FEXT overview at different shape levels
VDSL2 performance degradation when using the proposed method in a
VDSL2-only scenario (Scenario 2 as in [23]).
Graphical view of the scenarios under study
Performance Impact for different Shapes using an overlay scenario and
GPLK cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m.
Performance Impact for different Shapes using an overlay scenario and
GPEW cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m.
Performance Impact for different Shapes using an overlay scenario and
GPEW cable.
Performance comparison for Shape 10, Shape 25 and non-Shape using an
overlay scenario and GPEW cable.
Spectral Views on different Shape configurations (Shape10, 20, 25, 30)
Performance Impact for different Shapes using a VDSL2 only scenario and
GPLK cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m.

211

Figure 5.27
Figure 5.28

Performance Impact for different Shapes using a VDSL2 only scenario and
GPEW cable. The No Shape case corresponds to a LPAN = 1000m.
Performance Comparison for No-Shape, Shape10 and Shape25
Measurements

Chapter 6
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.7

Two-user Simulation Scenario


Convergence time results for a) GBNM b) SIMPSA c) PSO
Bitrate results for user 1 using a) GBNM (upper left) b) SIMPSA (upper
right) c) PSO (bottom center)
Bitrate results for user 2 using a) GBNM (upper left) b) SIMPSA (upper
right) c) PSO (bottom center)
Crosstalk in a multi-user channel environment
Scenario used for the proposed bit loading algorithm
Showing bit loading when waterfilling is used. In this case, each user
spends 14.42dBm which is close to the mask constraint

212