March 2004 Slide 1 Submiss ion doc.: IEEE 802.15- 04/0122r0 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) 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.
Transcript
March 2004
Slide 1Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)(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]
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.
March 2004
Slide 2Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Authors of the MB-OFDM Proposal from 17 affiliated companies/organizations
Femto Devices: J. CheahFOCUS Enhancements: K. Boehlke General Atomics: N. Askar, S. Lin, D. Furuno, D. Peters, G. Rogerson, M. WalkerInstitute for Infocomm Research: F. Chin, Madhukumar, X. Peng, SivanandIntel: J. Foerster, V. Somayazulu, S. Roy, E. Green, K. Tinsley, C. Brabenac, D. Leeper, M. HoMitsubishi Electric: A. F. Molisch, Y.-P. Nakache, P. Orlik, J. ZhangPanasonic: S. MoPhilips: C. Razzell, D. Birru, B. Redman-White, S. KerrySamsung Advanced Institute of Technology: D. H. Kwon, Y. S. KimSamsung Electronics: M. ParkSONY: E. Fujita, K. Watanabe, K. Tanaka, M. Suzuki, S. Saito, J. Iwasaki, B. HuangStaccato 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. YamaguchiAlereon: J. Kelly, M. Pendergrass, Kevin Shelby, Shrenik Patel, Vern Brethour, Tom MatheneyUniversity of Minnesota: A. H. Tewfik, E. SaberiniaWisair: G. Shor, Y. Knobel, D. Yaish, S. Goldenberg, A. Krause, E. Wineberger, R. Zack, B.
Blumer, Z. Rubin, D. Meshulam, A. Freund
March 2004
Slide 3Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
In addition, the following 68 affiliated companies support this proposal:
Adamya Computing Technologies: S.ShettyAdaptive Labs: Siamack HaghighiAdimos: Michael GenossarAppairent Technologies: Robert F. HeileAsahi: Shin Higuchi Blue7 Communications: Shinji InoueBroadcom: J. KaraoguzCentro 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
Denali Software : Kevin Silver ETS Product Service (USA) : Thomas Dickten Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc: A.
Agrawal Furaxa: E. GoldbergGenesys Logic : Miller Lin Hewlett Packard: M. FidlerINEX Multimidia : Paulo Campos Infineon Technologies: Y. RashiInphi : Loi Nguyen Invisible Computer :Jay Prince JAALAA: A. AnandakumarLeviton Voice Data Division – Julius Ametsitsi Maxim: C. O’ConnorM.B. International – Stefano Bargauan MCCI : Joe Decuir MeshDynamics : Francis daCosta Mewtel Technology : Park, Seog-Hong
Supporters
March 2004
Slide 4Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Microsoft: A. HassanMindready Solutions : Frederic Le Bouar NEC Electronics: T. SaitoNetac Technology : Flight Shi Xuejin Nokia: P. A. RantaOlympus : Yoshiro Yoda Open Interface : Greg Burns Prancer: Frank Byers Profilo Telr@ : Gamze Yildiz RadioPulse : Sungho Wang Raritan Computer : Sev Onyshkevych Realtek Semiconductor Corp: T. ChouRFDomus: A. MantovaniRF Micro Devices: Baker ScottSharp : Hiroshi Akagi SiWorks: R. BertschmannString Logix: Naren ErrySVC Wireless: A. YangSynopsys: Xerxes Wania
TDK: P. CarsonTimeDerivative : Kai Siwiak Toppan Chunghwa Electronics : Frank Hsieh Toshiba : Haruhiko Ito TRDA: Mike Tanahashi TUV Rheinland of North America : Rolf W
BienerttZero: Oltak Unsal
Unwired Connect: David D. Edwin UWB Wireless: R. Caiming QuiVerisity Design : Pete Heller Vestel: Haluk Gokmen VIA Networking Technologies: Chuanwei Liu /
Walton Li Virage Logic: Howard PakoshWi-LAN : Shawn Taylor Wireless Experience : Pär Bergsten WiQuest: Matthew B. Shoemake Wisme: N. Y. Lee
Supporters (Contd)
March 2004
Slide 5Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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
March 2004
Slide 6Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Summary of Updated Proposal
March 2004
Slide 7Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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.
March 2004
Slide 8Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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).
4 available TF Codes support for up to 4 piconets per band group.
FDMA approach ensures better SOP performance.
4 TF Codes4 TF Codes
f3168MHz
4752MHz
6336MHz
7920MHz
9504MHz
Band Group #1 Band Group #2 Band Group #3 Band Group #4
4 TF Codes 4 TF Codes
March 2004
Slide 9Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Update to MB-OFDM Band plan
Updated band plan for 3.1 – 10.6 GHz allocation
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.
f3432MHz
3960MHz
4488MHz
5016MHz
5544MHz
6072MHz
6600MHz
7128MHz
7656MHz
8184MHz
8712MHz
9240MHz
9768MHz
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
10296MHz
Band#14
Band Group #1 Band Group #2 Band Group #3 Band Group #4 Band Group #5
March 2004
Slide 10Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Update to MB-OFDM Band plan TF Code map
Mapping of TF Codes and Preambles to Logical Channels in a Band Group:
Band Groups
PreamblePattern
TF CodeLength
Time Frequency Code
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
5 1 4 1 2 1 2 – –
2 4 1 1 2 2 – –
March 2004
Slide 11Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Update to MB-OFDM band planSOP & 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
March 2004
Slide 12Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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.
March 2004
Slide 13Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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:
528 MHz
PLL
/ 8 / 2
SSB
4224 MHz
264 MHz
SSB
Select
DesiredCenter
Frequency
SamplingClock
792 MHz
March 2004
Slide 14Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Multi-band OFDMAdvantages (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 off-the-shelf components).
Early time to market!
Low cost, low power, and CMOS integrated solution leads to:
Early market adoption!
March 2004
Slide 15Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Multi-band OFDMAdvantages (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.
March 2004
Slide 16Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Multi-band OFDM System Parameters
System parameters for mandatory and optional data rates:
* Mandatory information data rate, ** Optional information data rate
March 2004
Slide 17Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Link Budget and Receiver Sensitivity
Assumption: Logical channel 1, AWGN, and 0 dBi gain at TX/RX antennas.
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
March 2004
Slide 18Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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:
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.
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
March 2004
Slide 19Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Simultaneously Operating PiconetsPerformance 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:
Results incorporate SIR estimation at the receiver.
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
March 2004
Slide 20Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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
Coexistence with 802.11a/b and Bluetooth is relatively straightforward because these bands are completely avoided with Band group #1 devices
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
March 2004
Slide 21Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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.
* Component area.
March 2004
Slide 22Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
Power Consumption
Active CMOS power consumption
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 W 18 W
March 2004
Slide 23Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
FCC Certification Update
March 2004
Slide 24Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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
March 2004
Slide 25Submission
doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0122r0
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
