Transcript 15-04-0122-04-003a-15-04-0122-00-003a-multi-band-ofdm

March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks
(WPANs)
Submission Title: [Multi-band OFDM Physical Layer Proposal Update]
Date Submitted: [15 March, 2004]
Source: [Presenter 1: Joy Kelly] Company [Alereon ]
[[see page 2,3 for the complete list of company names, authors, and supporters]
Address []
Voice:[512-345-4200 x2160 ], FAX: [512-345-4201], E-Mail: [[email protected]]
Re: [This submission is in response to the IEEE P802.15 Alternate PHY Call for Proposal (doc.
02/372r8) that was issued on January 17, 2003.]
Abstract: [This document describes the Multi-band OFDM proposal for IEEE 802.15 TG3a.]
Purpose: [To give proposal updates between January and March 04.]
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for
discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this
document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s)
the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of
IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.
Submission
Slide 1
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Authors of the MB-OFDM Proposal
from 17 affiliated companies/organizations
Femto Devices: J. Cheah
FOCUS Enhancements: K. Boehlke
General Atomics: N. Askar, S. Lin, D. Furuno, D. Peters, G. Rogerson, M. Walker
Institute for Infocomm Research: F. Chin, Madhukumar, X. Peng, Sivanand
Intel: J. Foerster, V. Somayazulu, S. Roy, E. Green, K. Tinsley, C. Brabenac, D. Leeper, M. Ho
Mitsubishi Electric: A. F. Molisch, Y.-P. Nakache, P. Orlik, J. Zhang
Panasonic: S. Mo
Philips: C. Razzell, D. Birru, B. Redman-White, S. Kerry
Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology: D. H. Kwon, Y. S. Kim
Samsung Electronics: M. Park
SONY: E. Fujita, K. Watanabe, K. Tanaka, M. Suzuki, S. Saito, J. Iwasaki, B. Huang
Staccato Communications: R. Aiello, T. Larsson, D. Meacham, L. Mucke, N. Kumar, J. Ellis
ST Microelectronics: D. Hélal, P. Rouzet, R. Cattenoz, C. Cattaneo, L. Rouault, N. Rinaldi,, L.
Blazevic, C. Devaucelle, L. Smaïni, S. Chaillou
Texas Instruments: A. Batra, J. Balakrishnan, A. Dabak, R. Gharpurey, J. Lin, P. Fontaine,
J.-M. Ho, S. Lee, M. Frechette, S. March, H. Yamaguchi
Alereon: J. Kelly, M. Pendergrass, Kevin Shelby, Shrenik Patel, Vern Brethour, Tom Matheney
University of Minnesota: A. H. Tewfik, E. Saberinia
Wisair: G. Shor, Y. Knobel, D. Yaish, S. Goldenberg, A. Krause, E. Wineberger, R. Zack, B. Blumer,
Z. Rubin, D. Meshulam, A. Freund
Submission
Slide 2
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Supporters
In addition, the following 69 affiliated companies support this proposal:
Adamya Computing Technologies: S.Shetty
Adaptive Labs: Siamack Haghighi
Adimos: Michael Genossar
Appairent Technologies: James Gilb
Artimi: Mark Moore
Asahi: Shin Higuchi
Blue7 Communications: Shinji Inoue
Broadcom: J. Karaoguz
Centro de Tecnologia de las
Comunicaciones S.A. : Alejandro Torrecilla
Chief Tek Electronics : Chieftek
ClearComet Ventures : William Ahern
Codified Telenumerics : Paul Harvey
CommStack : Brian Ebert
Coventive Technologies : IABU
CoWare : Sylvia Nessan
Cypress Semiconductor: Drew Harrington
Submission
Denali Software : Kevin Silver
ETS Product Service (USA) : Thomas Dickten
Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc: A.
Agrawal
Furaxa: E. Goldberg
Genesys Logic : Miller Lin
Hewlett Packard: M. Fidler
INEX Multimidia : Paulo Campos
Infineon Technologies: Y. Rashi
Inphi : Loi Nguyen
Invisible Computer :Jay Prince
JAALAA: A. Anandakumar
Leviton Voice Data Division – Julius Ametsitsi
Maxim: C. O’Connor
M.B. International – Stefano Bargauan
MCCI : Joe Decuir
MeshDynamics : Francis daCosta
Mewtel Technology : Park, Seog-Hong
Slide 3
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Supporters (Contd)
TDK: P. Carson
TimeDerivative : Kai Siwiak
Toppan Chunghwa Electronics : Frank Hsieh
Toshiba : John Shi
TRDA: Mike Tanahashi
TUV Rheinland of North America : Rolf W
Bienert
tZero: Oltak Unsal
Unwired Connect: David D. Edwin
UWB Wireless: R. Caiming Qui
Verisity Design : Pete Heller
Vestel: Haluk Gokmen
VIA Networking Technologies: Chuanwei Liu /
Walton Li
Virage Logic: Howard Pakosh
Wi-LAN : Shawn Taylor
Wireless Experience : Pär Bergsten
WiQuest: Matthew B. Shoemake
Wisme: N. Y. Lee
Microsoft: A. Hassan
Mindready Solutions : Frederic Le Bouar
NEC Electronics: T. Saito
Netac Technology : Flight Shi Xuejin
Nokia: P. A. Ranta
Olympus : Yoshiro Yoda
Open Interface : Greg Burns
Prancer: Frank Byers
Profilo Telr@ : Gamze Yildiz
RadioPulse : Sungho Wang
Raritan Computer : Sev Onyshkevych
Realtek Semiconductor Corp: T. Chou
RFDomus: A. Mantovani
RF Micro Devices: Baker Scott
Sharp : Hiroshi Akagi
SiWorks: R. Bertschmann
String Logix: Naren Erry
SVC Wireless: A. Yang
Synopsys: Xerxes Wania
Submission
Slide 4
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Presentation Outline
 Summary of proposal
 Includes Proposal Update with release of specification 02/268 r3
 Enhancements to the band plan
 Update on the FCC Regulatory approval
Submission
Slide 5
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Summary of Updated Proposal
Submission
Slide 6
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Overview of Multi-band OFDM
 Basic idea: divide spectrum into several 528 MHz bands.
 Information is transmitted using OFDM modulation on each band.
 OFDM carriers are efficiently generated using an 128-point IFFT/FFT.
 Internal precision requirement is reduced by limiting the constellation size to
QPSK.
 Information is coded across all bands in use to exploit frequency
diversity and provide robustness against multi-path and interference.
 60.6 ns prefix provides robustness against multi-path even in the worst
channel environments.
 9.5 ns guard interval provides sufficient time for switching between
bands.
Submission
Slide 7
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Update to MB-OFDM band plan
 Combine the advantages of FDMA and Time-Frequency Coding.
 Divide the 7.5 GHz of spectrum into band groups that occupy spectrum
of around 1584 MHz (3 bands).
3168
MHz
Band Group #1
Band Group #2
4 TF Codes
4 TF Codes
4752
MHz
Band Group #3
Band Group #4
4 TF Codes
6336
MHz
4 TF Codes
7920
MHz
9504
MHz
 4 available TF Codes  support for up to 4 piconets per band group.
 FDMA approach ensures better SOP performance.
Submission
Slide 8
f
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Update to MB-OFDM Band plan
 Updated band plan for 3.1 – 10.6 GHz allocation
Band Group #1

Submission
Band Group #3
Band Group #4
Band Group #5
Band
#1
Band
#2
Band
#3
Band
#4
Band
#5
Band
#6
Band
#7
Band
#8
Band
#9
Band
#10
Band
#11
Band
#12
Band
#13
Band
#14
3432
MHz
3960
MHz
4488
MHz
5016
MHz
5544
MHz
6072
MHz
6600
MHz
7128
MHz
7656
MHz
8184
MHz
8712
MHz
9240
MHz
9768
MHz
10296
MHz
There are 5 Band Groups:





Band Group #2
Band group #1 is mandatory, remaining (#2 – #5) are optional.
Define 4 Time-Frequency coded Logical Channels for Band groups #1 – #4.
Define 2 Time-Frequency coded Logical Channels for Band group #5.
This yields 18 potential Logical Channels  support for 18 piconets.
Can avoid Band group #2 when interference from U-NII is present.
Slide 9
f
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Update to MB-OFDM Band plan
TF Code map
 Mapping of TF Codes and Preambles to Logical Channels in a Band
Group:
Band
Groups
Preamble
Pattern
TF Code
Length
1,2,3,4
1
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
6
1
3
2
1
3
2
3
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
6
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
–
–
2
4
1
1
2
2
–
–
5
Submission
Time Frequency Code
Slide 10
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Update to MB-OFDM band plan
SOP & RF Properties
 Because of path loss, the maximum range that can be supported by
each Band Group will be different, i.e.,
Rmax,1 > Rmax,2 > Rmax,3 > Rmax,4 > Rmax,5
 Range differential can be used to advantage – for example:
 For applications that require larger range (e.g. DVD to HDTV), use Band
Group #1 or #2.
 For applications that do not require quite as much range use Band Group
#3, #4, or #5.
 Efficiently uses spectrum for optimized SOP performance
 not every application uses the same spectrum
Submission
Slide 11
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Update to MB-OFDM Band plan
Piconet Association
 Band Group # 1 is mandatory
 All devices must be able to tune to Band Group #1 and search for
beacon.
 Support for other Band Groups can be added over time.
 When a device supports more than one Band Group, it should
be able to scan for beacons in each of the different Band
Groups supported by the device
 Example: Start with Band Group #1 and look for a beacon. If no
beacon is found, switch to Band Group #2 and look for a beacon,
etc.
 Similar operation to IEEE 802.11b and IEEE 802.15.3 devices.
Submission
Slide 12
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Frequency Synthesis
 All center frequencies can be generated using a single PLL.
 Can use similar types of architectures as defined before for the
Band Group #1:
Sampling
Clock
528 MHz
Select
4224 MHz
PLL
/8
264 MHz
/2
SSB
792 MHz
SSB
Submission
Slide 13
Desired
Center
Frequency
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Multi-band OFDM Advantages (1)
 Suitable for CMOS implementation (all components).
 Only one transmit and one receive chain at all times, even in the
presence of multi-path.
 Antenna and pre-select filter are easier to design (can possibly use offthe-shelf components).
 Early time to market!
 Low cost, low power, and CMOS integrated solution leads to:
 Early market adoption!
Submission
Slide 14
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Multi-band OFDM Advantages (2)
 Inherent robustness in all the expected multipath environments.
 Excellent robustness to ISM, U-NII, and other generic narrowband
interference.
 Ability to comply with world-wide regulations:
 Bands and tones can be dynamically turned on/off to comply with
changing regulations.
 Coexistence with current and future systems:
 Bands and tones can be dynamically turned on/off for enhanced
coexistence with the other devices.
 Scalability with process:
 Digital section complexity/power scales with improvements in technology
nodes (Moore’s Law).
 Analog section complexity/power scales slowly with technology node.
Submission
Slide 15
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Multi-band OFDM System Parameters
 System parameters for mandatory and optional data rates:
Info. Data Rate
55 Mbps*
80 Mbps**
110 Mbps*
160 Mbps**
200 Mbps*
320 Mbps**
480 Mbps**
Modulation/Constellation
OFDM/QPSK
OFDM/QPSK
OFDM/QPSK
OFDM/QPSK
OFDM/QPSK
OFDM/QPSK
OFDM/QPSK
FFT Size
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
Coding Rate (K=7)
R = 11/32
R = 1/2
R = 11/32
R = 1/2
R = 5/8
R = 1/2
R = 3/4
Spreading Rate
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
Data Tones
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Info. Length
242.4 ns
242.4 ns
242.4 ns
242.4 ns
242.4 ns
242.4 ns
242.4 ns
Cyclic Prefix
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
Guard Interval
9.5 ns
9.5 ns
9.5 ns
9.5 ns
9.5 ns
9.5 ns
9.5 ns
Symbol Length
312.5 ns
312.5 ns
312.5 ns
312.5 ns
312.5 ns
312.5 ns
312.5 ns
Channel Bit Rate
640 Mbps
640 Mbps
640 Mbps
640 Mbps
640 Mbps
640 Mbps
640 Mbps
Multi-path Tolerance
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
60.6 ns
* Mandatory information data rate, ** Optional information data rate
Submission
Slide 16
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Link Budget and Receiver Sensitivity
 Assumption: Logical channel 1, AWGN, and 0 dBi gain at TX/RX antennas.
Submission
Parameter
Value
Value
Value
Information Data Rate
110 Mb/s
200 Mb/s
480 Mb/s
Average TX Power
-10.3 dBm
-10.3 dBm
-10.3 dBm
Total Path Loss
64.2 dB
(@ 10 meters)
56.2 dB
(@ 4 meters)
50.2 dB
(@ 2 meters)
Average RX Power
-74.5 dBm
-66.5 dBm
-60.5 dBm
Noise Power Per Bit
-93.6 dBm
-91.0 dBm
-87.2 dBm
CMOS RX Noise Figure
6.6 dB
6.6 dB
6.6 dB
Total Noise Power
-87.0 dBm
-84.4 dBm
-80.6 dBm
Required Eb/N0
4.0 dB
4.7 dB
4.9 dB
Implementation Loss
2.5 dB
2.5 dB
3.0 dB
Link Margin
6.0 dB
10.7 dB
12.2 dB
RX Sensitivity Level
-80.5 dBm
-77.2 dBm
-72.7 dB
Slide 17
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Multipath Performance
 The distance at which the Multi-band OFDM system can achieve a
PER of 8% for a 90% link success probability is tabulated below:
Range*
AWGN
CM1
CM2
CM3
CM4
110 Mbps
20.5 m
11.4 m
10.7 m
11.5 m
10.9 m
200 Mbps
14.1m
6.9 m
6.3 m
6.8 m
4.7 m
480 Mbps
7.8 m
2.9 m
2.6 m
N/A
N/A
Notes:
1.
Simulations includes losses due to front-end filtering, clipping at the DAC, DAC precision, ADC
degradation, multi-path degradation, channel estimation, carrier tracking, packet acquisition, overlap and
add of 32 samples (equivalent to 60.6 ns of multi-path protection), etc.
2.
Increase in noise power due to overlap and add is compensated by increase in transmit power (1 dB)
 same performance as an OFDM system using a cyclic prefix.
Submission
Slide 18
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Simultaneously Operating Piconets
Performance with TF Codes
 Assumptions:
 operating at a data rate of 110 Mbps with Band Group #1.
 Simultaneously operating piconet (SOP) performance as a function of
the multipath channel environments:
Channel Environment
2 SOPs
3 SOPs
4 SOPs
CM1 (dint/dref)
0.4
1.18
1.45
CM2 (dint/dref)
0.4
1.24
1.47
CM3 (dint/dref)
0.4
1.21
1.46
CM4 (dint/dref)
0.4
1.53
1.85
 Results incorporate SIR estimation at the receiver.
Submission
Slide 19
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Signal Robustness/Coexistence
 Assumption: Received signal is 6 dB above sensitivity.
 Value listed below are the required distance or power level needed to
obtain a PER  8% for a 1024 byte packet at 110 Mb/s and a Band
Group #1 device
Interferer
Value
IEEE 802.11b @ 2.4 GHz
dint  0.2 meter
IEEE 802.11a @ 5.3 GHz
dint  0.2 meter
Modulated interferer
SIR  -9.0 dB
Tone interferer
SIR  -7.9 dB
 Coexistence with 802.11a/b and Bluetooth is relatively straightforward
because these bands are completely avoided with Band group #1
devices
Submission
Slide 20
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Complexity
 Unit manufacturing cost (selected information):
 Process: CMOS 90 nm technology node in 2005.
 CMOS 90 nm production will be available from all major SC foundries by early
2004.
 Die size for Band Group #1 device:
90 nm
130 nm
* Component area.
Complete Analog*
Complete Digital
2.7 mm2
1.9 mm2
3.0 mm2
3.8 mm2
* Component area.
Submission
Slide 21
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Power Consumption
 Active CMOS power consumption
Submission
Block
90 nm
130 nm
TX AFE (110, 200 Mb/s)
76 mW
91 mW
TX Digital (110, 200 Mb/s)
17 mW
26 mW
TX Total (110 Mb/s)
93 mW
117 mW
RX AFE (110, 200 Mb/s)
101 mW
121 mW
RX Digital (110 Mb/s)
54 mW
84 mW
RX Digital (200 Mb/s)
68 mW
106 mW
RX Total (110 Mb/s)
155 mW
205 mW
RX Total (200 Mb/s)
169 mW
227 mW
Deep Sleep
15 mW
18 mW
Slide 22
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
FCC Certification Update
Submission
Slide 23
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
FCC Update
 Last meeting…
 Presented analysis, simulation, and measurement results of interference
into a C-band satellite receiver showing the MB-OFDM waveform causes
less interference than an impulse radio already allowed under the current
rules
 Since the last meeting…
 We have presented the results to both the FCC and NTIA
 We have sent both a more detailed write-up of the testing procedures
 Both the FCC and NTIA have decided to pursue their own testing to
reconcile the claims from both sides
 ITS initial estimate to complete the testing for NTIA was 9 months
 FCC testing is targeting a significantly shorter period (on the order of a few
months)
 We have offered to support their testing by providing equipment as needed
and review test plans or procedures as requested
 We have provided feedback to ITS regarding their test plan (per NTIA request)
 We will review FCC test procedures for their independent testing per FCC request
Submission
Slide 24
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
FCC Update
 Implications…
 FCC still maintains that the issue is about interference and not
technicalities in the measurement procedure
 FCC initially asked for this issue to be resolved within the IEEE
 Several studies have been contributed to the IEEE
 However, final decision must be made by the FCC (IEEE cannot make
decisions that affect other spectrum-holders)
 We have asked the FCC to make a ruling on this matter in a timely
manner so that the UWB industry can move forward quickly
 Practicality of doing this testing will likely take a few months
 The FCC understands the need to close this issue quickly and is doing
everything they can to speed up this process
Submission
Slide 25
March 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r4
Summary
 Updated band plan
 Based on application requirements, wanted to provide better SOP
performance than what is specified in Selection Criteria
 FDMA with TF codes
 18 total piconet channels
 Uses all available spectrum from 3.1 – 10.6 GHz
 Eliminates 7 band (mode 2) from previous versions
 FCC committed to addressing issue quickly
 MBOA actively engaged with FCC to provide all requested
information and resources
 Minor changes yielding significant performance gain based on a
mature and stable proposal
Submission
Slide 26