Transcript May 2004

May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks
(WPANs)
Submission Title: [Multi-band OFDM Physical Layer Proposal Update]
Date Submitted: [10 May, 2004]
Source: [Presenter 1: Charles Razzell] Company [Philips ]
[[see page 2,3 for the complete list of company names, authors, and supporters]
Address [1109, McKay Drive, San Jose, CA 95131, USA]
Voice:[408-474-7243 ], FAX: [408-474-xxxx], 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 March and May 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
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Supporters
In addition, the following 99 affiliated companies support this proposal:
AboCom Systems : Wen Tsay
Adamya Computing Technologies: S.Shetty
Adaptive Labs: Siamack Haghighi
Adimos: Michael Genossar
Advanced science and Technology Institute: Billly
Pucyutan
Allion Computer: mark Lai
Appairent Technologies: James Gilb
Arounda: Rico Biriah
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
Compliance Certification Services: Barbara Judge
Concrete Logic: Nanci Vogtli
Coventive Technologies : IABU
CoWare : Sylvia Nessan
CWINS, WPI: Xinrong Li
Submission
Cypress Semiconductor: Drew Harrington
Denali Software : Kevin Silver
EIZO: Ryotaro Imai
ESRD of CSIST: Dr. Kuo-Chan Han
ETS Product Service (USA) : Thomas Dickten
Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc: A. Agrawal
Furaxa: E. Goldberg
Genesys Logic : Miller Lin
Genius Instituto de Tecnologia: Izaias Silva
Hewlett Packard: M. Fidler
Hisignal Minervian: Jean Tsao
INEX Multimidia : Paulo Campos
Infineon Technologies: Y. Rashi
Innovative Wireless Technologies: Kent Colling
Inphi : Loi Nguyen
Invisible Computer :Jay Prince
JAALAA: A. Anandakumar
Leviton Voice Data Division: Julius Ametsitsi
Litepoint: Greg Ravenscroft
Logitech: Rene Somer
Marvel: Hui-Ling Lou
Maxim: C. O’Connor
M.B. International – Stefano Bargauan
MCCI : Joe Decuir
Slide 3
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Supporters (Contd)
SVC Wireless: A. Yang
Synopsys: Xerxes Wania
TDK: P. Carson
Telegateway: Rah Haqqi
TimeDerivative : Kai Siwiak
Toppan Chunghwa Electronics : Frank Hsieh
Toshiba : John Shi
TRDA: Mike Tanahashi
TrellisWare Technologies: Metin Byram
Trendchip Technologies: Harris Zhou
TUV Rheinland of North America : Rolf W Bienert
tZero: Oltak Unsal
Unwired Connect: David D. Edwin
UWB Wireless: R. Caiming Qui
Vabric: Sean Parham
Verisity Design : Pete Heller
Vestel: Haluk Gokmen
VIA Networking Technologies: Chuanwei Liu / Walton
Li
Virage Logic: Howard Pakosh
Wi-LAN : Shawn Taylor
Wipro: Vivek Wandile
Wireless Experience : Pär Bergsten
WiQuest: Matthew B. Shoemake
Wisme: N. Y. Lee
WPANS: Baris Dunda
ZyDAS: Jonny Cheng
MeshDynamics : Francis daCosta
Mewtel Technology : Park, Seog-Hong
Microsoft: A. Hassan
Mindready Solutions : Frederic Le Bouar
Multirate Systems: Vinay Sathe
NEC Electronics: T. Saito
Netac Technology : Flight Shi Xuejin
NewLogic technologies: Anil Gercekci:
Nokia: P. A. Ranta
OEA International: Jerry Talenger
Olympus : Yoshiro Yoda
Open Interface : Greg Burns
Oxygen Development: Jonny Richardson
Positive Edge ASICs: HungMun Lam
Prancer: Frank Byers
Profilo Telr@ : Gamze Yildiz
Pulse-Link: Paul Dillon
RadioPulse: Sungho Wang
Raritan Computer : Sev Onyshkevych
Realtek Semiconductor Corp: T. Chou
Renesas Technology: Larry Arnett
RFDomus: A. Mantovani
RF Micro Devices: Baker Scott
Sharp : Hiroshi Akagi
Sipex: George Dixon
SiWorks: R. Bertschmann
Stonestreet One: Tim Reilly
String Logix: Naren Erry
Submission
Slide 4
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
No Vote Responses
 MB-OFDM authors have studied the no-vote responses
 Most of the technical and performance issues have already been
addressed in previous presentations.
 We think the most important issue is the FCC certification
 Summary of presentation
 MB-OFDM solution advantages
 Update on the FCC Regulatory approval
 Update on Guard tones issue
Submission
Slide 5
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Multi-band OFDM Advantages (1)
 A mature solution that has been optimized by a large number of
engineers from a number of companies
 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 may be turned on/off to comply with changing
regulations.
 Coexistence with current and future systems:
 Bands and tones may be turned on/off for enhanced coexistence with the
other devices.
Submission
Slide 6
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Multi-band OFDM Advantages (2)
 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
 Suitable for CMOS implementation
 Lower cost and power solution
 Antenna and pre-select filter are easier to design (can possibly use offthe-shelf components).
 Low cost, low power, and CMOS integrated solution leads to:
 Early market adoption!
Submission
Slide 7
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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 8
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
MB-OFDM Band plan
Band Group #1
Band Group #2
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 #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.
Submission
Slide 9
f
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
TF Codes for Multiple Access
 Mapping of TF Codes and Preambles to Logical Channels in a Band
Group:
Band Preamble TF Code
Groups Pattern
Length
1,2,3,4
5
Submission
Time Frequency Code
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
–
–
Slide 10
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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 11
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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 12
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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
1.2
1.5
CM2 (dint/dref)
0.4
1.2
1.5
CM3 (dint/dref)
0.4
1.2
1.5
CM4 (dint/dref)
0.4
1.5
1.9
 Results incorporate SIR estimation at the receiver.
Submission
Slide 13
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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 14
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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:
Complete Analog*
Complete Digital
90 nm
2.7 mm2
1.9 mm2
130 nm
3.0 mm2
3.8 mm2
* Component area.
Submission
Slide 15
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
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 16
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
FCC Certification Update
Submission
Slide 17
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
FCC Update
 As mentioned in the last meeting, both the FCC and NTIA have
decided to pursue their own testing to reconcile the claims from
both sides
 We have had continued discussions with FCC and ITS
regarding their respective test plans
 We are providing information as requested to aid in
understanding of MB-OFDM waveform
 MBOA companies filed with the FCC a critique of the
interference study previously filed by the Coalition of C-Band
Constituents (ET Dockets 98-153 and 02-380)
 The FCC respects the need to resolve the rules interpretation
issue quickly and is doing everything they can to progress in a
timely manner
Submission
Slide 18
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Guard Tone Update
Submission
Slide 19
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Previous Definition of Guard Tones
 By using a contiguous set of orthogonal carriers, the transmit spectrum
will always occupy a bandwidth greater than 500 MHz.

Total of 128 tones:




100 data tones used to transmit information (constellation: QPSK).
12 pilot tones used for carrier and phase tracking.
10 user-defined pilot tones.
Remaining 6 tones including DC are NULL tones.
 User-defined pilot tones:
 Carry no useful information.
 Energy is placed on these tones to ensure that the spectrum has a
bandwidth greater than 500 MHz.
 Can trade the amount of energy placed on tones for relaxing analog filtering
specifications.
 Ultimately, the amount of energy placed on these tones is left to the
implementer. Provides a level of flexibility for the implementer.
Submission
Slide 20
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Motivation for Change
 DS-UWB has shown concern over the use of Guard Tones
within the MBOA system.
 Exact comment:
Previous "No" comments have pointed out the unacceptable
approach of using PN-modulated guard tones to achieve the
minimum 500 MHz bandwidth required by the FCC for operation
under the UWB rules. Recent public documents emphasize that
this approach would both be unacceptable to the NTIA and
would violate FCC general technical requirements for Part 15
operations (for details see document 04/140r2 pages).
Submission
Slide 21
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
New Mapping onto Guard Tones
 The Guard Tones can also be used in a manner that is similar to excess BW in
single-carrier systems.

This is equivalent to spreading a fraction of the data tones.
 We can map the tones at the edge of the 100 data tones onto the Guard tones.
 The advantage of this approach is that the information on the Guard Tones can
be coherently combined with the information on the Data Tones to improve the
robustness at the end of the band.

This case may become more important when we have co-channel interference.
 We can also relax the filter specifications by allowing different power levels on
the Guard Tones.

Submission
Relaxing the exact power requirements on these tones would allow for trade-offs in the
order and complexity of the TX and RX filters.
Slide 22
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Mapping Specification
 Below we provide an illustration of the mapping from the edge
Data Tones to the Guard Tones:
Copy
Copy
c0
-61
c4 c0 P -55 c1
-55
c9 P -45 c10
c18 P -35 c19
c27 P -25 c28
c36 P -15 c37
c45 P -5 c46
c49 DC c50
c53 P 5 c54
c62 P 15 c63
c71 P 25 c72
c80 P 35 c81
c89 P 45 c90
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
0
5
15
25
35
45
c98 P 55 c99c95
55
Subcarrier numbers
 The advantage of this mapping is ease of implementation and
ease of combining information from Guard Tones and Data
Tones.
Submission
Slide 23
c99
61
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Conclusions
 Specified an unique mapping onto the Guard Tones that is
analogous to using excess BW in single-carrier systems.
 The information contained on the Guard Tones can be used to
make the information carried at the edge of the band more
robust, especially in the presence of co-channel interference.
 This approach should address the DS-UWB concerns.
Submission
Slide 24
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Summary
 MBOA proposal has seen significant improvements since its
inception
 Updated band plan gives better SOP performance with total 18
piconet channels
 Document 02/268 r3 provides all the information needed to build
inter-operable PHY based on this proposal.
 A number of companies are at advanced stages of developing
chips based on this document
 FCC committed to addressing issue quickly
 MBOA actively engaged with FCC to provide all requested
information and resources
Submission
Slide 25
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Additional Slides
Submission
Slide 26
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Sculpting the Spectrum (1)
 The DS-UWB camp is concerned that it may not be possible to null out tones
within the preamble and protect services such as the Radio Astronomy Bands
within Japan.
 Exact comment:
In addition, although it seems possible to turn off one or more tones in an OFDM
symbol by modulating one or more tones with a "zero" value, it seems this is
only feasible for the PAYLOAD portion of the MB-OFDM signal transmission.
Every single MB-OFDM packet also contains a PHY preamble that is specifically
defined in the time domain according to a fixed time sequence of samples. This
PREAMBLE occupies the entire OFDM channel for most of the 10-microsecond
preamble. Thus, it is NOT POSSIBLE to "turn off" individual tones or groups of
tones in the PREAMBLE portion of each transmission. How could this approach
for “sculpting” the spectrum be used to meet a regulatory requirement for lower
emissions in some band (for example, a radio astronomy band, as proposed in
document 03/267r5, page 7) if every packet PREAMBLE still results in
emissions across the whole band?
Submission
Slide 27
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
Sculpting the Spectrum (2)
 The PREAMBLE is composed of three sections:
 A packet synchronization sequence (time-domain).
 A frame synchronization sequence (time-domain).
 A channel estimation sequence (frequency-domain). It is possible to zero
out tones and "sculpt the spectrum" for this portion of the sequence.
 For the time-domain sequences, it is also possible to "sculpt the
spectrum" when needed.
 One obvious approach is to pass the sequence through a filter that has
notches in the appropriate locations.
 The preamble sequences are typically pre-stored, so we can pre-compute
the modified preambles.
 Question: Is it even possible to sculpt the DS-UWB without using
expensive off-chip analog filters or having to rely on the overly-complex
and power hungry SSA technique?
Submission
Slide 28
May 2004
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0220r0
CMOS Solutions
 DS-UWB does not believe MBOA companies are developing a CMOS solution.
 Exact comment:
Previous statements indicated that the MB-OFDM solution was specifically
designed to enable a low power all-CMOS implementation (including the RF
chip)-- [see document 03/267 r5, pages 39 and 41]. Is it still the case that MBOFDM enables an all-CMOS implementation, given that all initial implementation
efforts seem to be based on SiGe process technology?
 We refer the DS-UWB camp to the following web site:
http://www.staccatocommunications.com
 Extracted quote from web page:
The company is leading industry development of the first UWB [MBOA] silicon in
all-CMOS to enable universal wireless connectivity of high-speed devices using
available UWB spectrum.
Submission
Slide 29