1.

INTRODUCTIONS OF SDR
Software-defined radio is a radio communication system where components that have been
typically implemented in hardware (i.e mixers, filters, amplifiers, modulators, demodulators,
detectors etc.) are instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer
or embedded system. While the concept of SDR is not new, the rapidly evolving capabilities
of digital electronics render practical many processes which used to be only theoretically
possible. Traditional hardware radios are implemented with Analog hardware and solid polySi elements. In SDR, The traditional hardware are replaced by software modules such as SDR
was proposed by Josef Mitola in the beginning of 1990. Unlike adopt applications specific
integrated circuit (ASIC) to implement radio elements. In the past, the technologies such as
Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA).Digital Signal Processor (DSP) and General
Purpose Processor (GPP) are used to build the software defined radio element. These
Components have reconfigurable capability which making these Components tend to
Generalization In order to implement a variety of different radio-applications.

Figur.1 Basic SDR architecture [4]

In the same way that automotive engines have rested for more than 100 years on the same
principle and mechanical parts, radio has been resting on the same architecture and electronic
1

parts. Some technological evolutions, such as the transistor, have of course enabled
miniaturization of the systems and increasing their performance, but the same basis of
discreet electronic components has been kept. Software radio is the most recent major
technological change in the field. Indeed, the amazing evolution of digital technologies
during the 1980s enabled this well established paradigm to be challenged, and since the
beginning of the 1990s,2 certain baseband processing techniques started to be performed and
gathered within digital integrated circuits. This development led to software radio, the main
ideas of which are that circuit processing is a general-purpose processor, and that some of the
processing that was previously performed analogically by means of several discreet
components can now be performed by a sole processor. First of all, it is interesting to put
software radio in its historical context in order to fully understand the interests that led to its
advent, at both the design and utilization phases of equipment. Software radio is a
convergence of different technological fields. Hence, each concerned scientific community
has appropriated the concept and uses this naming to illustrate its work. This fact entails as
many standpoints as there are concerned communities: this is dealt with in the third section.
The objective reality of software radio, due to the technological developments it has
generated, are highlighted after that. The software radio vs. velcro approach is discussed in
the final section, in which we also present our vision for the future of software radio.

Figur 1.1. Evolution of software-radio-related articles pub- lished since[3]

1.1 Cognitive radio:

It is a form of wireless communication in which a transceiver can intelligently detect which
communication channels are in use and which are not, and instantly move into vacant
channels while avoiding occupied ones. In response to the operator's commands, the
2

cognitive engine is capable of configuring radio-system parameters. These parameters include

"waveform, protocol, operating frequency, and networking". This functions as an autonomous
unit in the communications environment, exchanging information about the environment with
the networks it accesses and other cognitive radios (CRs). A CR "monitors its own
performance continuously", in addition to "reading the radio's outputs"; it then uses this
information to "determine the RF environment, channel conditions, link performance, etc.",
and adjusts the "radio's settings to deliver the required quality of service subject to an
appropriate combination of user requirements, operational limitations, and regulatory
constraints".
Some "smart radio" proposals combine wireless mesh network dynamically changing the
path messages take between two given nodes using cooperative diversity; cognitive radio
dynamically changing the frequency band used by messages between two consecutive nodes
on the path; and software-defined radio dynamically changing the protocol used by message
between two consecutive nodes.

1.2 Software-defined networking (SDN):

It is an approach to computer networking that allows network administrators to
manage network services through abstraction of higher-level functionality. Software-defined
networking (SDN) is an architecture purporting to be dynamic, manageable, cost-effective,
and adaptable, seeking to be suitable for the high-bandwidth, dynamic nature of today's
applications. SDN architectures decouple network control and forwarding functions, enabling
network control to become directly programmable and the underlying infrastructure to be
abstracted from applications and network services. The Open Flow protocol is a foundational
element for building SDN solutions. The SDN architecture is:
Directly programmable: Network control is directly programmable because it is decoupled
from forwarding functions.
Agile: Abstracting control from forwarding lets administrators dynamically adjust networkwide traffic flow to meet changing needs.
Centrally managed: Network intelligence is centralized in software-based SDN controllers
that maintain a global view of the network, which appears to applications and policy engines
as a single, logical switch.
Programmatically configured: SDN lets network managers configure, manage, secure, and
optimize network resources very quickly via dynamic, automated SDN programs, which they
can write themselves because the programs do not depend on proprietary software.
1.3 Software-defined radio (SDR):
3

It is a radio communication system where components that have been typically implemented
in hardware (e.g. mixers, filters, amplifiers, modulators/demodulators, detectors, etc.) are
instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer or embedded system. The
ideal receiver scheme would be to attach an analog-to-digital converter to an antenna.
A digital signal processor would read the converter, and then its software would transform the
stream of data from the converter to any other form the application requires. An
ideal transmitter would be similar. A digital signal processor would generate a stream of
numbers. These would be sent to a digital-to-analog converter connected to a radio antenna.
The ideal scheme is not completely realizable due to the actual limits of the technology. The
main problem in both directions is the difficulty of conversion between the digital and the
analog domains at a high enough rate and a high enough accuracy at the same time, and
without relying upon physical processes like interference and electromagnetic resonance for
assistance.
Most receivers use a variable-frequency oscillator, mixer, and filter to tune the desired signal
to a common intermediate frequency or baseband, where it is then sampled by the analog-todigital converter. However, in some applications it is not necessary to tune the signal to an
intermediate frequency and the radio frequency signal is directly sampled by the analog-todigital converter (after amplification).
Real analog-to-digital converters lack the dynamic range to pick up sub-microvolt, nanowattpower radio signals. Therefore, a low-noise amplifier must precede the conversion step and
this device introduces its own problems. For example, if spurious signals are present (which
is typical), these compete with the desired signals within the amplifier's dynamic range. They
may introduce distortion in the desired signals, or may block them completely. The standard
solution is to put band-pass filters between the antenna and the amplifier, but these reduce the
radio's flexibility. Real software radios often have two or three analog channel filters with
different bandwidths that are switched in and out.

2.THE FUNDAMENTAL ARCHITECTURE OF SDR

Figur 2 Fundamental architecture of SDR[4]

The fundamental architecture of SDR is shown in figure above. It include front end,
processing engine and application, the radio frequency front-end module digitizes the radio
frequency data from antenna after the baseband is digitized by front-end. The processing
engine converts baseband data and data frames. The applications side receives data frames at
last. Implementation of the ideal software-defined radio would require either the digitization
at the antenna, allowing complete flexibility in the digital domain, or the design of a
completely flexible radio frequency (RF) front-end for handling a wide range of frequencies
and modulation. The receiver begins with a smart antenna that provides a gain versus
direction characteristic to minimize interference, multipath, and noise. The smart antenna
provides similar benefits for the transmitter. Most practical software-defined radios digitize
the signal as early as possible in the receiver chain while keeping the signal in the digital
domain and converting to the analog domain as late as possible for the transmitter using a
digital to analog converter (DAC). Often the received signal is digitized in the intermediate
frequency (IF) band. Conventional radio architectures employ a super heterodyne receiver, in
which the RF signal is picked up by the antenna along with other spurious/unwanted signals,
filtered, amplified with a low noise amplifier (LNA), and mixed with a local oscillator (LO)
to an IF. Depending on the application, the number of stages of this operation may vary.
Finally, the IF is then mixed exactly to baseband.

Figur.3 Hardware architecture of SDR[5]

Implementation of the ideal software-defined radio would require either the digitization at the
antenna, allowing complete flexibility in the digital domain, or the design of a completely
flexible radio frequency (RF) front-end for handling a wide range of frequencies and
modulation. A model of a practical software-defined radio is shown in Figure 1. The receiver
begins with a smart antenna that provides a gain versus direction characteristic to minimize
interference, multipath, and noise. The smart antenna provides similar benefits for the
transmitter. Most practical software-defined radios digitize the signal as early as possible in
the receiver chain while keeping the signal in the digital domain and converting to the analog
domain as late as possible for the transmitter using a digital to analog converter (DAC). Often
the received signal is digitized in the intermediate frequency (IF) band. Conventional radio
architectures employ a super heterodyne receiver, in which the RF signal is picked up by the
antenna along with other spurious/unwanted signals, filtered, amplified with a low noise
amplifier (LNA), and mixed with a local oscillator (LO) to an IF. Depending on the
application, the number of stages of this operation may vary. Finally, the IF is then mixed
exactly to baseband. Digitizing the signal with an analog to digital converter (ADC) in the IF
range eliminates the last stage in the conventional model in which problems like carrier offset
and imaging are encountered. When sampled, digital IF signals give spectral replicas that can
be placed accurately near the baseband frequency, allowing frequency translation and
digitization to be carried out simultaneously. Digital filtering (channelization) and sample rate
conversion are often needed to interface the output of the ADC to the processing hardware to
6

implement the receiver. Likewise, digital filtering and sample rate conversion are often
necessary to interface the digital hardware that creates the modulated waveforms to the
digital to analog converter. Processing is performed in software using DSPs, field
programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), or application specific integrated circuits (ASICs). The
algorithm used to modulate and demodulate the signal may use software methodologies, such
as middleware, e.g., common object request broker architecture (CORBA) or virtual radio
machines, which are similar in function to JAVA virtual machines.

3.SCA ARCHITECTURE
Common SCA Perceptions The previous section provided a brief description of the SCA. It is
a truism that any technology is often received and perceived differently by each individual:
Some of the perceptions are based in fact and some are based on an incomplete understanding
of the technology. The following paragraphs discuss some of the commonly cited
misconceptions about the SCA.
There is nothing in the SCA specification that provides technical data or guidance on the
design and implementation of a software radio. The SCA, based on the CORBA Components
Model, defines an architecture for the deployment of applications. In the case of a software
radio, those applications tend to be waveforms. The SCA enhances reusability from two
perspectives. First, the SCA specification defines a common set of interfaces for basic
deployment configuration, and control of applications. So, from the perspective of user
interfaces and external control of the system, the same interface calls that are used to load,
start, and stop a SINCGARS waveform are identical to the FM3TR waveform. Second, the
Application Programmer Interface (API) appendix to the specification is intended to promote
reusability of waveform software components through common waveform interfaces. This
continues to be an area of on-going discussion because all radio system developers have
different perspectives as to what the interfaces should be for a specific waveform. A
waveform can be moved from one SCA platform to another without modification many
individuals have interpreted the portability objective of the SCA as reusability without
modification. The SCA specification defines common, high-level interfaces for deploying,
configuring, controlling, and monitoring the hardware and software applications within an
SCA-based radio system. This simplifies the effort required to port applications because the
interfaces do not change. However, deploying waveforms across multiple radio systems
without modification was never a stated requirement. The SCA results in a waveform
performance impact on my system The simple fact is that, once the SCA deploys the
waveform on the radio system, the SCA Core Framework goes into a quiescent state and does
not utilize significant processor cycles. Also, for waveforms implemented largely in FPGA or
DSP processors, there is typically no impact due to the SCA on functioning waveforms in
those processors. There are some impacts in terms of the memory footprint required to
support an SCA framework. However, the SDR Forum, NASA, and other groups are looking
into reduced footprint architectures. Where the framework is running on the same GPP being
7

used for waveform processing, some performance impact may be encountered. In this case,
standard systems analysis to evaluate the load margins is necessary.

Figur.4 Functional architecture of SDR[3]

CORBA should be the starting point but is not mandatory if performance reasons prohibit it.
Also, individuals often confuse the latency impacts of the underlying transport mechanism,
which typically defaults to TCP/IP, as being synonymous with CORBA. In reality, CORBA is
a protocol layer, much like Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), that rides on top of the data
transport mechanism. Most modern ORBs support plugable transports allowing
customization and optimization of the actual data transport. The SCA is only applicable for
small radios The SCA is not specifically targeted for any one type or class of radio system.
Small form- factor, resource-limited radio systems have a more significant set of issues to
overcome when building an SCA-compliant handheld or manpack radio, due to their Size
Weight, and Power (SWaP) constraints. This is usually due to the fact that the GPP on the
small radio is already used extensively for waveform code, and processing impacts due to
adding the framework can be significant.
Electronic design automation (EDA) tools that have tremendously progressed in number and
quality for the digital domain these last 20 years and Digital compensation of analog defects
(dirty RF) and Cheaper digital solutions than analog
The SCA and/or CORBA is not suitable for large, complex systems The origins of the SCA
are based on the JTRS program which focused on tactical radio systems. These systems
8

ranged from small handhelds to rack-mount systems in vehicles, ships, and aircraft. Although
these systems do not have the complexity of large terminal systems, it is possible to apply the
SCA to larger systems. More thought must go into the architecture of the system, however. It
may be the case that the SCA manages the core set of radio equipment and waveform
deployment under the direction of a higher-level system or network management operation.
The key aspect is that the SCA is targeted towards the management of the hardware and
software that implement and support the end-to-end waveform application. As for the
applicability of CORBA to large scale systems, it can be said that it is in wide use throughout
industry. Large, distributed Java-based applications are, in fact, using CORBA and Java
remote procedure calls are using the CORBA protocol. Also, the Iridium satellite Command
and Control segment integrated a COTS-based system, OS/COMET, within a comprehensive
CORBA framework. The resultant system ran on over 50 computers and was comprised of
several hundred processes.

4.FEATURE OF SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.

Reprogrammability or reconfigurability
Require adequate hardware at runtime
Need adequate software deployment
Digital way that opens a new era merging IT and telecommunations:
Convergence of radio and computer science
At both the radio equipment and network levels (SDN)
Earlier design of the hardware platform in the development cycle.
Delay resulting from needed hardware adjustments is not so painful
New versions can be made within the specified time limit
Reuse of pre-existing hardware components:
Processing units instead of dedicated hardware components
New components instability is avoided
Standard instead of tailor made
Software (application) can be improved until the very last minute before its
delivery:
Last moment errors can be fixed at reduced cost
Application changes do not entail any hardware ad
9

5.NEW SERVICES
Adapt all processing thanks to a simple change of software. Offer an ubiquitous connection,
that is, which is able to demodulate at reception. More comfort and better robustness is
obtained. Reutilization of the same platform for different products is achieved. Several radio
applications in a unique multi-standard product (unlike a velcro design, which comprises as
many circuits as there are radio applications). Several products whose operations are specific
to different software versions Radio application waveforms. Radio design environments and
software facilities.
Benefits of software radio In terms of functionality This is the main and true novelty of
software radio, due to the possibility it offers to benefit from added flexibility during the
lifetime of the product, that is, once it has been manufactured and is on the market. In that
respect, software radio still remains a driver of wireless innovation since this capacity is far
from being fully used in most radio systems. For mobile phone providers, wireless operators
and users and respectively to modulate at transmission all communication standards with the
same equipment.
Minimize the impact on clients of maintenance operation thanks to OTAR Extend product life
duration thanks to software update can concern an improvement of
the radio equipment, or even the download of a new standard taht did not exist when the
product was sold, such as for satellite industry and remote radio access point for operations
and maintenance

6. DISADVANAGES
6.1 COST AND POWER
The most common argument against SDR is cost. The argument is particularly important for
high-volume, low-margin consumer products. Consider a garage or car door remote opener
key fob. This extremely simple device has one and only function. The mechanical design a
single button precludes the addition of new functionality in the future. Millions of essentially
identical devices are sold every year, amortizing the development cost of an ASIC. The cost
of the ASIC is then proportional to the size of the chip, which is in turn a function of the chip
com- plexity. An SDR chip for garage door openers could be used in many other devices as
well, but the increased market volume would not drive the cost of the chip down. In fact,
since an SDR is necessarily more complex than a single-function radio, the SDR chip cost
would be higher. The same cost argument has been made for AM and FM radio receivers.
These products are also high-volume and potentially very low cost
6.2 COMPLEXITY
One generic argument against SDR is the additional complexity it requires. The complexity
argument has at least three components. Increased time and cost to implement the radio. It
10

takes more engineering effort to develop software and rmware to support multiple
waveforms than to support just one. Some argue that the increase in complexity is super
linear (i.e., it takes more than twice as long to implement a radio that supports two
waveforms than to implement two radios that each support one waveform). This claim is not
unreasonable if the radio has to conform to a complex standard such as JTRS. Specialized
expertise required to develop on a particular SDR platform may disappear soon after the radio
is delivered to the customers. Developing new waveforms for that platform in the future can
easily be more expensive than starting from scratch. Longer and more costly specications
and requirements denition. An SDR design has to support a set of baseline waveforms but
also anticipate additional waveforms. Some DSP resource margin must be provided to
support future waveforms. Risk is Increased. At least two sources of risk must be considered:
Inability to complete the design on-time and on-budget due to the concerns presented
above. Since SDR is still a relatively new technology, it is more difcult to anticipate
schedule problems. Inability to thoroughly test the radio in all of the supported and
anticipated modes. Testing SDR is a very active area of research. In the authors opinion, it is
the single strongest argument against SDR. How does one test a radio that supports a huge
number of waveforms? It is clearly not possible to test every combination of supported
parameters (modulations, codes, data rates, etc.). Dening corner cases is nontrivial since
interaction between components is not obvious (e.g. the performance of a tracking loop
stressed at low rates or high rates). Combinations of FEC block lengths and time constants of
adaptive loops introduce a new level of complexity. Errors in SDR design can affect not only
the faulty radio, but also the entire network. In fact, a wideband SDR could conceivably
transmit a signal in an unauthorized band, thereby jamming other life-critical signals. Testing
an SDR in steady-state (i.e., once a waveform has been selected) is not sufcient. Problems
may be observed only when switching from one specic waveform to another. Concerns with
security and information assurance problems in an SDR are related to the complexity
argument. Most modern wireless standards include some form of encryption and
authentication. We expect our phone conversations to be relatively immune from interception.
The ability to change many aspects of a waveform also implies that the security-related
aspects could be changed.

The most common argument against SDR is cost. The argument is particularly important for
high-volume, low-margin consumer products. Consider a garage or car door remote opener
key fob. This extremely simple device has one and only function. The mechanical designa
single buttonprecludes the addition of new functionality in the future. Millions of
essentially identical devices are sold every year, amortizing the development cost of an ASIC.
The cost of the ASIC is then proportional to the size of the chip, which is in turn a function of
the chip com- plexity. An SDR chip for garage door openers could be used in many other
devices as well, but the increased market volume would not drive the cost of the chip down.
In fact, since an SDR is necessarily more complex than a single-function radio, the SDR chip
cost would be higher. The same cost argument has been made for AM and FM radio
receivers. These products are also high-volume and potentially very low costThe second most
11

common argument against SDR is increased power consumption. Two sources contribute to
higher power consumption in an SDR: increased DSP complexity and higher mixedsignal/RF bandwidth. Power con- sumption in an FPGA or GPP used to implement exible
signal processing is easily 10 times higher than in an equivalent ASIC.2 Wideband ADCs,
DACs, and RF front ends required for SDR consume more power than their narrowband
equivalents. The difference is especially dramatic for wideband power ampliers, which
account for at least 70 % of the total power in a radio. A wideband amplier is often half as
efcient as a narrowband one.3 Power consumption in the ADCs varies approximately
linearly with bandwidth, but is less than linear for DACs. A wideband ADC often also
requires higher dynamic range (more bits) to tolerate in-band interferers. Increasing ADC
dynamic range signicantly increases the power consumption . However, waveform
adaptation enabled by SDR can reduce the required transmit power; thereby saving power
(see Sect. 3.5). Cost and power consumption arguments are combined when considering the
amount of signal processing margin to be included in an SDR. The margin is dened as the
ratio of the DSP horsepower (e.g. measured in FLOPS) provided by an SDR relative to that
required for the baseline set of waveforms. For example, an SDR is initially developed to
support two waveforms, with the more complex one requiring 1 GFLOPs. A 100 % margin
requires the SDR to provide 2 GFLOPs. It is difcult to predict what waveforms a user may
wish to host on an SDR and even a small underestimate of the margin can preclude the must
have future waveform. Consider some of the early deep space missions that relied on simple
and computationally non-demanding FEC codecs. Thirty years ago the designers could not
imagine the enormous computational requirements of modern iterative codecs. It would have
been (then) unreasonable to include enough DSP margin to enable an upgrade to the powerful
codecs of today. Lack of sufcient DSP margin is a very strong argument against the futureproof promise offered by SDR. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that SDR only
addresses the physical layer. The user cannot take advantage of link throughput
improvements made possible by SDR without cooperation from upper layers. One example
demonstrating the need for cross-layer adaptation is described in Another example is
described below. The ubiquitous network protocol, TCP/IP, was developed for xed-rate
chan- nels. A TCP transmitter sends data packets at the highest possible rate. The receiver
responds with an acknowledgment packet (ACK) as it receives the data. If the transmitter
does not get an acknowledgement, the protocol determines that the link is congested and
quickly decreases the data rate. If more acknowledgement packets are not received,
transmitter rate falls even further. The rate increases slowly once the ACK packets are
received once again. Performance of TCP in the context of time-varying throughput caused
by SDR adaptation to the environment has been extensively studied. Results show that endto-end throughput is much lower than the physical layer throughput. Moreover, some
combinations of channel fade rate and TCP settings lead to instability and throughput drops
dra- matically. Achieving the average throughput made possible by ACM may also require
large buffers at the network routers or in the SDR. Consider a xed-rate data source9 with the
rate equal to the average physical layer throughput, Ravg. The SDR supports two waveforms
for good and bad channel conditions with rates Rhigh and Rlow. When the instantaneous
throughput drops to Rlow due to a fade, data will start getting backed up. The buffer must be
large enough to hold (Ravg - Rlow) for the duration of the fade, as shown in Fig. 6.2
12

Figur 6.2 Queue level versus time[7]

Since the fading channel is random, fade duration is theoretically unlimited. The buffer must
be sized such that data is not lost more than some specied percentage of the time (e.g., no
more than 0.01 %). The average throughput and buffer size can be derived analytically by
assuming a Markov model for transitions between different ACM waveforms . Transition
probabilities are derived by analyzing long-term channel statistics.

7.SOFTWARE-DEFINED RADIO EMERGING CONCEPTS

The emerging concepts of software-defined radios are in the field of smart antennas,
networking, digital preprocessing, and software. Smart antennas digitally combine antenna
channels to adaptively form beams and point nulls and equalize the received signal . Space
Time Coding and Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) Antenna System are the
techniques used in SDR among many techniques to improve the performance in hostile
wireless environment. Software radio architectures, originally developed for military
applications, are now becoming economically viable in commercial products because of the
rapid advance of DSP technology. Razavilar extends to algorithms and traffic engineering
aspects. This paper considers a wireless network with beam forming capabilities at the
receiver which allows two or more transmitters to share the same channel to communicate
with the base station. The concrete computational complexity and algorithm structure of a
base station are considered in terms of a software radio system model, initially with an
omnidirectional antenna. Hatchel and Fetweiss address the critical question of providing
13

clock references for multiple air interfaces needed for multiple SDR software
personalities. Given the accuracy requirements for diverse air interfaces, the authors show
that deriving multiple clocks from a single master clock has more to do with antialiasing and
preserving frequency domain properties than with time domain interpolation. Papers by
Munro and Shepherd address emerging aspects of software. Shepherd sets the software
issues in a deployment context. The paper proposes a consistent software architectural
framework for the dynamic implementation of these different protocols within an embedded
environment. Munro critically examines the emerging needs for middleware that
insulates radio applications from the rapidly evolving radio hardware platforms. The paper
explores the issues of integration, the components of mobile middleware, and likely demands
placed on such systems when mobile access comes to dominate personal communications.
The Cognitive Radio [18] extends the SDR by enhancing the flexibilities of personal services
through a Radio Knowledge Representation Language. The cognitive radio empowers SDRs
to conduct expressive negotiations among peers about the use of radio spectrum across
fluents of space, time and user context.

8.TECHNILOGICAL SOLUTIONS AND CHALLENGES

An effective solution to implement SDR consists in the combination of programmable digital
baseband engines and reconfigurable analog front-end circuits. For the programmable digital
baseband engine, one has to carefully trade off flexibility and energy efficiency. Flexibility
should only be introduced where its impact on the total average power is sufficiently low or
where it offers a broad range of control options that can be exploited effectively later in the
control step. For the reconfigurable analog front end, architectures and circuits should be
designed for a broad range of requirements in carrier frequency, channel bandwidth and noise
performance with minimal penalty in power consumption, while also offering energy
scalability. A major challenge is to enable low energy reconfigurable radio implementations,
suited for handheld multimedia terminals and competitive with fixed hardware
implementations. To make such terminals a reality; firstly effective energy scalability is
enabled in the design of the radio baseband and front end. And secondly, the scalability is
exploited to achieve low power operation by across layer controller that follows at run time
the dynamics in the application requirements and propagation conditions. Future
communication systems will have to seamlessly and opportunistically integrate multiple radio
technologies and heterogeneous wireless access networks to offer context dependent
ubiquitous connectivity and content access. The growing demand for large data rates reveals
an increasing spectrum scarcity. So, new paradigms for efficiently exploiting the spectrum are
clearly needed. A continuously growing role for adaptive spectrum radios exploiting the
14

capabilities of reconfigurable radio architectures is to be expected. Pushed to the limit, this

leads to the disruptive concept of cognitive radio . Cognitive radio is defined as a radio that
can autonomously change its transmission parameters based on interaction with the complex
environment in which it operates. The spectrum data/mining and agile air interface
requirements of such cognitive radios also claim for SDR based implementations. These CR
systems can in fact be thought of as extensions of the concepts introduced above, i.e., a
reconfigurable radio coupled with a now cognitive adaptive control that can sense, adapt
and learn. The need to detect and/or generate virtually any kind of waveform in any band
pushes, on the other end, the specification of the underlying reconfigurable radio to the limit.

9. CONCLUSIONS
With the emergence of new standards and protocols, wireless communication is developing at
furious pace. The software defined radio represent a major change in the design paradigm for
radios in which a large portion of the functionality is implemented through programmable
signal processing devices, giving radio the ability to change its operating parameters to
accommodate new features and capabilities. A software radio approach reduces the content of
RF and other analog components of conventional radio and emphasizes DSP to enhance
overall receiver flexibilities. The mobile wireless communications infrastructure developers
and service providers are now coming up with applications of software-defined radio in their
business solutions and that is a great success of the concept of the future technology radiothe SDR

15

10.REFERANCE
[1] J. Mitola, The Software Radio Architecture, IEEE Com- mun. Mag., May 1995
[2] Claude Belisle, Vince Kovarik, Lee Pucker, and Mark Turner, The Software
Communications Architecture: Two Decades of Software Radio Technology Innovation
IEEE Communications Magazine., September 2015
[3] Christophe Moy and Jacques Palicot,Software Radio: A Catalyst for Wireless
Innovation IEEE Communications Magazine September, 2015
[4] www.sdrfuram.org/.../documents
[5] Mehul R. Naik1, C. H. VithalaniThe software-defined radio is now a
realityIJAREEIE , Issue 7, July 2013
[6] J. Bard and V. Kovarik, Jr., Software Defined Radio: The Software Communications
Architecture, Wiley, Apr. 2007
[7] Eugene Grayver., Implementing Software Dened Radio,Springer, 2013

16