Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 4343–4364 | Cite as

Non-binary Tail-Biting LDPC Convolutional Code Encoding for Image Transmission

  • Tanaporn Payommai
  • Kosin ChamnongthaiEmail author


In current image transmission, data channel encoding is needed to consider noise and bit-error protection in order to enhance and guarantee image-data quality. This paper focuses on a problem of image transmission with high bit error rate (BER) and additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel, and proposes a method of non-binary tail-biting low-density parity-check convolutional (NB TB-LDPCC) code encoding for image transmission. In this method, image data compressed by JPEG are used to construct finite fields in non-binary, then construct a base matrix in column weight two, and finally create tail biting LDPC convolution code for modulation in the next process in image transmission. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated by 30 images on USC-SIPI Image Database, and the comparison results with conventional method reveal BER is improved at most 1 dB, and PSNR is increased 2.01 dB approximately.


Channel encoding Non-binary tail-biting LDPC convolutional code Additive white Gaussian noise Image transmission 


  1. 1.
    Gallager, R. G. (1963). Low-density parity-check codes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mavkay, D. J. C., & Neal, R. M. (1996). Near Shannon limit performance of low density parity check codes. Electronic Letters, 32(18), 1645–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacKay, D.J.C., & Davey, M.C. (2001). Evaluation of Gallager codes for short block length and high rate applications. In: Marcus, B., Rosenthal, J. (Eds.), Codes, Systems, and Graphical Models. The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications (vol. 123, pp. 113–130). Springer: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ryan, W. E., Wang, F., et al. (2004). Optimal code rates for the Lorentzian channel: Shannon codes and LDPC codes. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 40, 3559–3565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yongqing, H., Qicong, P., & Huaizong, S. (2006). The application of high-rate LDPC codes in image transmisson over wireless channel. In: International Conference on Communications Circuits and Systems Proceedings, Guilin, China, (pp. 62–65), June 25–28, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson S.J., & Weller, S.R. (2002). Quasi-cyclic LDPC codes from difference families. In: 3rd Australian Communications Theory Workshop (AusCTW), Canberra, Australia, February 4–5, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fossorier, M.P.C. (2004). Quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check from circulant permutation matrices. IEEE Transaction of Information Theory, 50(8), 1788–1793.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, Z., & Cui, Z. (2005). A memory efficient partially parallel decoder architecture for quasi-cyclic LDPC codes. In: Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2005. Conference Record of the Thirty-Ninth Asilomar. Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 30 Oct–2 Nov 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kodani, N. (2003). Traveling crane using H2 controller based on minimum order observer. In SICE Annual Conference, Fukui University, Japan, August 4–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tanaporn, P., Werapon, C., & Kosin, C. (2011). Sub-block encoder design of high-rate QC-LDPC code for image transmission. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual summit and conference of the asiapacific signal and information processing association (APSIPA ASC’11)—Short Paper, Grand New World Hotel Xian, Xi’an, China, (pp. 1–4), October 18–21.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tanaporn, P., Werapon, C., & Kosin, C. (2011). Improved sub-block encoder of irregular LDPC code for image transmission. In The 4th IEEE/SICE international symposium on system integration (SII’11), Kyoto University, Yoshida Campus, Kyoto, Japan, (pp. 41–44), December 20–22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanaporn, P., Werapon, C., & Kosin, C. (2012) Sub-block encoder of high-rate LDPC code over fading channel for image transmission. In The 9th annual international conference of the electrical engineering/electronics, computer, telecommunications, and information technology association (ECTI-CON’12), Novotel Hua Hin - Cha Am Beach Resort and Spa, Cha-Am, Phetchaburi, Thailand, (pp. 1–4), May 16–18.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hehn, T., & Huber, J. (2009). LDPC codes and convolutional codes with equal structural delay: A comparison. IEEE transactions on communication, 57, 1683–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costello, Jr., D. J., Pusane, A. E., Bates, S., & Zigangirov, K. Sh. (2006). A comparison between LDPC block and convolutional codes. In: Proceedings of Information Theory and Applications Workshop, San Diego, CA, USA, February 6–10, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    UL Hassan, N., Lentmaier, M., Fettweis, G.P. (2012). Comparison of LDPC block and LDPC convolutional codes based on their decoding latency, In: 7th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Iterative Information Processing (ISTC), Gothenburg, Sweden, (pp. 225–229), August 27–31, 2012.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tavares, M.B., Zigangirov, K.S., & Fettweis, G.P. (2007). Tail-biting LDPC convolutional codes. In: IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Nice, France, (pp. 2341–2345), June 24–29, 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKing Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations