## 5 Results
### Performance Evaluation of DVB-T2 Using BER
#### 5.1.6 UFMC-Based DVB-T2 with LDPC Coder and 2D-NUCs  
Previously, QAM was substituted for 2D-NUCs (cf. Section 5.1.4) and OFDM was substituted for UFMC (cf. Section 5.1.5) in the DVB-T2 system. Their performance were independently estimated. In this part, the performance of NUCs and UFMC was jointly evaluated in the DVB-T2 system. In other words, QAM and OFDM were both substituted by 2D-NUCs and UFMC. The CFO was applied to check the induced losses on the system performance.  
Figure 22 shows the CFO performance when UFMC and NUCs were used together in DVB-T2. It was observed that at a BER of \(10^{-3}\), the SNR value of this system without CFO was 6.2 dB with UFMC/NUCs whereas this value was equal to 6.33 dB with UFMC (Figure 20). This result permits us to conclude about the gain of 0.13 dB induced by 2D-NUCs in the UFMC-based DVB-T2 system. Moreover, at a BER of \(10^{-3}\), the losses caused by CFO were 0.08 dB, 0.15 dB, 0.3 dB, 0.52 dB, and 0.83 dB for CFO values of 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, and 0.05, respectively. We can conclude that the CFO impact on both UFMC-based DVB-T2 and UFMC/NUC-based DVB-T2 is the same when only Gaussian noise is used.  
Figure 23 exposes the BER evolution as a function of the SNR when the TU6 channel was used. The CFO impact on the FBMC/NUC-based DVB-T2 system performance is highlighted. One can note that there was a negligible loss when the CFO was inserted in the system in comparison with the DVB-T2 native case (Figure 17) where the loss varied up to 1 dB, corresponding to a CFO value of 0.05.  
Figure 22: BER vs. SNR in the UFMC/NUC-based DVB-T2 system with coding: CFO evaluation in the AWGN-only case. The comparison of curves in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values obtained at different BER values (\(10^{-3}\), \(10^{-4}\), \(10^{-5}\)) is shown in the following table.  
In conclusion, the CFO impact decreased when LDPC coding was applied in the system. When the TU6 fading channel was used, the CFO losses were lower than those with Gaussian noise only in the native DVB-T2 system, UFMC-based DVB-T2, NUC-based DVB-T2, and UFMC/NUC-based DVB-T2. Furthermore, UFMC outperformed OFDM in the presence of a TU6 channel, and 2D-NUCs outperformed QAM in the presence of only Gaussian noise for the low-SNR region. For the high-SNR region (above 30 dB), we observed the system performance degradation for a CFO value of 0.05. In particular, when UFMC was applied in the system, this performance decrease was more noticeable above 30 dB when the CFO value increased. Table 5 presents the performance of native DVB-T2 (Figures 16 and 17) and NUC-based DVB-T2 (Figures 18 and 19) in the presence of a CFO. This table shows the performance of the systems (native DVB-T2 and NUC-based DVB-T2) when QAM in the native DVB-T2 system was substituted for NUCs. Table 6 presents the performance of native DVB-T2 (Figures 16 and 17) and UFMC based DVB-T2 (Figures 20 and 21) in the presence of a CFO. This table shows the performance of the systems (native DVB-T2 and UFMC based DVB-T2) when OFDM in the native DVB-T2 and UFMC, respectively. Results are highlighted for the BER values of \(10^{-3}\), \(10^{-4}\), and \(10^{-5}\) when only AWGN was considered and the BER values of \(10^{-2}\), \(2\times 10^{-3}\), and \(10^{-3}\) when the TU6 channel and AWGN were considered.