7 demonstrates the BER performance when the RISIC algorithm is employed.
According to the link-level simulation results, 2-D WFE used in channel estimation and the proposed RISIC with SHDB employed in channel equalization are recommended for use in ship-to-ship communications in coastline areas.
In M-RISIC, we modify RISIC by performing cyclicity removal (i.e., directly subtracting ICI of i-th symbol from the second path as illustrated in Fig.
In this part, the reliability of the RISIC and M-RISIC algorithms are analyzed according to the iteration procedure, which refers the steps of ICI iterative cancellation in RISIC-based algorithms.
The amount of the ISI for both RISIC and M-RISIC are same, and they are removed by the second terms in (7) and (8), respectively.
In the perspective of the desired power of [[??].sub.i,k], the RISIC uses the cyclicity restoration to save the desired power of the delayed path, while the M-RISIC subtracts the effect of the delay path.
In order to overcome the severe ISI problem, we modify the RISIC algorithm as shown in Fig.
Since the performances of RISIC and the proposed M-RISIC are related with the difference of (D - G), i.e., [C.sup.m], we further suggest a DFE system with the combination of the RISIC and the M-RISIC algorithms.
We compare the link-level performances of the RISIC and M-RISIC algorithms, where both of them work associated with the perfect time-domain channel estimation.
For example, 0.6dB gain is achieved in the case of RISIC with the HDB at target BER of 10-2.
For further comparison on the RISIC and M-RISIC with various DS values, we fix Eb/N0 as 15 dB and observe the BER performance based on the different channel DS.