1 / 169

Multi-band OFDM Physical Layer Proposal Response to no Voters

This document addresses concerns raised by no voters in the July03 meeting regarding the Multi-band OFDM proposal for IEEE 802.15 TG3a.

kjelinek
Download Presentation

Multi-band OFDM Physical Layer Proposal Response to no Voters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Multi-band OFDM Physical Layer Proposal Response to no Voters] Date Submitted: [14 September 2003] Source: [Presenter: see page 2 for the complete list of participating authors and their companies] 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 gives modifications and more details for Multi-band OFDM proposal for IEEE 802.15 TG3a (doc.03/267/r2).] Purpose: [To address the concerns raised by the no voters in the July03 meeting] 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. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  2. This contribution is authored by : Alereon - Vern Brethour, Martin Gravenstein, Joy Kelly, Tom Matheney, Kevin Shelby General Atomics, Photonics Division - Naiel Askar, Susan Lin Intel Corporation - Chuck Brabenac, Jeff Foerster, Dave Leeper, Srinivasa Somayazulu, Stephen Wood Mitsubishi Electric - Andy Molisch, Yves-Paul Nakache, Jin Zhang Philips - Charles Razzell Samsung Electronics - Seung Young Park, Yongsuk Kim Staccato Communications - Roberto Aiello, Nishant Kumar, Lars Mucke, Torbjorn Larsson, Larry Taylor ST Microelectronics - Ljubica Blazevic, Glyn Roberts Texas Instruments - Jai Balakrishnan, Anuj Batra, Anand Dabak, Srinivas Lingam TDK – Robert Sutton University of Minnesota - Ahmed Tewfik, Ebrahim Saberinia, Jun Tang Wisair - Gadi Shor Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  3. The MB-OFDM proposal is a technical merger between*: Texas Instruments [03/141]: Batra \ and femto Devices [03/101]: Cheah FOCUS Enhancements [03/103]: Boehlke General Atomics [03/105]: Ellis Institute for Infocomm Research [03/107]: Chin Intel [03/109]: Brabenac Mitsubishi Electric [03/111]: Molisch Panasonic [03/121]: Mo Philips [03/125]: Kerry Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology [03/135]: Kwon Samsung Electronics [03/133]: Park SONY [03/137]: Fujita Staccato Communications [03/099]: Aiello STMicroelectronics [03/139]: Roberts Time Domain [03/143]: Kelly University of Minnesota [03/147]: Tewfik Wisair [03/151]: Shor Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  4. MB-OFDM Proposal Authors femto Devices: J. Cheah FOCUS Enhancements: K. Boehlke General Atomics:J. Ellis, 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 STMicroelectronics: 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 Time Domain: J. Kelly, M. Pendergrass 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 Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  5. In addition, the following individuals/companies support the MB-OFDM proposal: Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc: A. Agrawal Hewlett Packard: M. Fidler Infineon: Y. Rashi Jaalaa: A. Anandakumar Microsoft: A. Hassan NEC Electronics: T. Saito SVC Wireless: A. Yang TDK: P. Carson TRDA: M. Tanahashi UWB Wireless: R. Caiming Qui Wisme: N. Y. Lee Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  6. Summary • Multiband OFDM Proposal July – September Activities • Proposal Summary • FCC Regulation Issue • Time to market • IP statements • Simultaneously operation piconets (SOP) performance • Complexity and power consumption and scalability • CCA • MAC enhancements • Symbol Definition • Ranging and Location • Conclusions • Q&A (save your questions, reference foil number) Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  7. How “NO” votes were addressed • The Multi-band OFDM proposers analyzed the issues raised by the no-voters from the July meeting. • The issues were broken down into subgroups for technical and business evaluation • Each subgroup had participants from multiple companies • Held multiple meetings per week to discuss how best to address issues raised by no-voters and possible improvements • A number of options were evaluated and simulated • Summary of results and system improvements will be presented next • We are confident we have adequately addressed all the issues raised by the no-voters Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  8. Summary of Multi-band OFDM SystemPresenter: Anuj Batra (TI) The complete Multi-band OFDM proposal can be found in the latest revision of the Word document 03/268. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  9. 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. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  10. Multi-band OFDM System Parameters • System parameters for mandatory and optional data rates: * Mandatory information data rate, ** Optional information data rate Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  11. Band Plan (1) • Group the 528 MHz bands into 4 distinct groups. • Group A: Intended for 1st generation devices (3.1 – 4.9 GHz). • Group B: Reserved for future use (4.9 – 6.0 GHz). • Group C: Reserved for devices w/ improved SOP performance (6.0 – 8.1 GHz). • Group D: Reserved for future use (8.1 – 10.6 GHz). Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  12. Multi-mode Multi-band OFDM Devices (1) • Having multiple groups of bands enables multiple modes of operations for multi-band OFDM devices. • Different modes for multi-band OFDM devices are: • Future expansion into groups B and D will enable an increase in the number of modes. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  13. Multi-mode Multi-band OFDM Devices (2) • Frequency of operation for a Mode 1 device: • Frequency of operation for a Mode 2 device: Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  14. FCC Compliance of MB-OFDM Presenter: Anand Dabak Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  15. Band-3 Band-2 Band-2 Band-1 Band-1 4752 MHz 4224 MHz 3696 MHz Avg Pwr = 1/3 of “hopping-on” Power 3168 MHz Time Background • During the San Francisco IEEE meeting XSI made a presentation on FCC rules: Slide 3 of 03153r9P802-15_TG3a-XtremeSpectrum-CFP-Presentation.ppt • The issue today is NOT whether or not there is more or less interference • The issue is, what are the rules. • Side interest is WHY did NTIA and FCC specifically write rules for frequency hoppers • Slide 5 from 03153r9P802-15_TG3a-XtremeSpectrum-CFP-Presentation.ppt; • XSI claimed that MB-OFDM needs to reduce its transmit power by 4.7 dB to be FCC compliant, MB-OFDM should transmit at -46 dBm/MHz (instead of -41.3 dBm/MHz) Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  16. Background (2) • MB-OFDM alliance was asked to contact the FCC to clarify the rules. • XSI/Motorola further filed a petition with the FCC for declaratory ruling immediately after the San Francisco meeting. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  17. MB-OFDM Activities after S.F. to Address FCC Issues • MB-OFDM alliance contacted and met with the FCC/OET staff, among them • Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC’s Office of the Engineering and Technology (OET) • Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief of the OET • John Reed, staff member of the OET • Two meetings and one phone call took place, on August 7th, 15th, and 23rd, 2003. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  18. FCC’s response* Summary of Discussions with FCC Staff Concerning IEEE 802.15 Deliberation On Standards for Ultrawideband devices Over the past few weeks several parties have met with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology to discuss how the Commission’s rules for Ultrawideband devices might be applied for certain signal formats that are being considered by IEEE 802.15. OET believes it is premature to make any determination as to the appropriate measurement methods for particular signals because this matter is under active discussion in IEEE. In this regard, we have no immediate plans to respond to the XSI/Motorola request for a declaratory ruling. We urge that IEEE perform technical analyses to ensure that any UWB standard it develops will not cause levels of interference beyond that already anticipated by the rules. This information will be needed to support any necessary FCC rules interpretations or other appropriate action for the chosen standard. The FCC has had a long history of working cooperatively with the IEEE 802 committee in addressing any regulatory issues that may arise relative to standards. We recommend that IEEE proceed with its standards development process and that the committee address any questions to us at a later time when it has formed a specific proposal. *:E-mail sent by Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief, OET, FCC to XSI/Motorola and MB-OFDM proponents on September 11th, 2003 Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  19. FCC’s response: Point 1 • FCC does not wish to become a pawn in the IEEE standards process, nor do they wish to stimulate needlessnew public-comment processes. • FCC has no current plans to respond to the XSI/Motorola petition for declaratory ruling. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  20. FCC’s response* Summary of Discussions with FCC Staff Concerning IEEE 802.15 Deliberation On Standards for Ultrawideband devices Over the past few weeks several parties have met with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology to discuss how the Commission’s rules for Ultrawideband devices might be applied for certain signal formats that are being considered by IEEE 802.15. OET believes it is premature to make any determination as to the appropriate measurement methods for particular signals because this matter is under active discussion in IEEE. In this regard, we have no immediate plans to respond to the XSI/Motorola request for a declaratory ruling. We urge that IEEE perform technical analyses to ensure that any UWB standard it develops will not cause levels of interference beyond that already anticipated by the rules. This information will be needed to support any necessary FCC rules interpretations or other appropriate action for the chosen standard. The FCC has had a long history of working cooperatively with the IEEE 802 committee in addressing any regulatory issues that may arise relative to standards. We recommend that IEEE proceed with its standards development process and that the committee address any questions to us at a later time when it has formed a specific proposal. *:E-mail sent by Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief, OET, FCC to XSI/Motorola and MB-OFDM proponents on September 11th, 2003 Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  21. FCC’s response: Point 2 XSI claimed it is a “rules issue” • FCC recommends that IEEE proceed with its standards development process and provide technical analyses for OET as needed to support any necessary FCC rules interpretations for the chosen standard. • FCC says that a proposed UWB approach would likely be deemed compliant if it could be shown that it would not cause levels of interference beyond that already anticipated by the rules. • Contrary to XSI claims that interference is not the issue, FCC told MB-OFDM group that interference from UWB to other systems is an important issue. XSI claimed it is not an “interference issue” Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  22. FCC’s response* Summary of Discussions with FCC Staff Concerning IEEE 802.15 Deliberation On Standards for Ultrawideband devices Over the past few weeks several parties have met with the staff of the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology to discuss how the Commission’s rules for Ultrawideband devices might be applied for certain signal formats that are being considered by IEEE 802.15. OET believes it is premature to make any determination as to the appropriate measurement methods for particular signals because this matter is under active discussion in IEEE. In this regard, we have no immediate plans to respond to the XSI/Motorola request for a declaratory ruling. We urge that IEEE perform technical analyses to ensure that any UWB standard it develops will not cause levels of interference beyond that already anticipated by the rules. This information will be needed to support any necessary FCC rules interpretations or other appropriate action for the chosen standard. The FCC has had a long history of working cooperatively with the IEEE 802 committee in addressing any regulatory issues that may arise relative to standards. We recommend that IEEE proceed with its standards development process and that the committee address any questions to us at a later time when it has formed a specific proposal. *:E-mail sent by Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief, OET, FCC to XSI/Motorola and MB-OFDM proponents on September 11th, 2003 Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  23. FCC’s response: Point 3 • FCC reminds IEEE that it has a long history of cooperation with IEEE on rules interpretation and approvals for new technologies. • FCC recommends that IEEE proceed with its standards development process and select a UWB proposal. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  24. Summary of Presentation • We analyzed several different interference scenarios from MB-OFDM to other systems. • MB-OFDM does not cause any more interference than already anticipated by current FCC rules. • Hence, contrary to XSI’s claims we believe MB-OFDM is compliant and should not have to reduce its transmit power by 4.7 dB to be FCC compliant. • All link budget calculations done by MB-OFDM group in 03267r1P802-15_TG3a-Multi-band-OFDM-CFP-Presentation.ppt in San Francisco are correct. • Lab measurements for MB-OFDM signals based upon MB-OFDM prototype. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  25. MB-OFDM Interference Study Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  26. UWB Interference Considerations • History of FCC ruling on UWB • Detailed interference studies: Process took 4 years to decide with > 1,000 comments and several detailed technical studies • Must include usage scenarios, realistic propagation losses, antenna patterns, etc. • Interference studies included considerations of both peak and average limits • Final FCC R&O based upon ‘ultra-conservative’ limits ‘far below’ those placed on technologies that place energy into narrower portions of the spectrum.’ [Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps, February 14, 2002] • Large amount of data was examined by the FCC before FCC ruling • We all have a responsibility to ensure interference into other radio services does not cause harm (example GPS, cellular and others) Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  27. FCC/NTIA Interference results for various US government systems Most systems have substantial margin available Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  28. FCC/NTIA Interference results for various US government systems Analysis based upon free-space propagation: even more conservative *:DirecTV/EchoStar/DBS receivers do not operate in 3.7-4.2 GHz; they operate in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  29. UWB interference on Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) Receivers Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  30. Average interference power is same • Objective is to compare MB-OFDM to impulse radios • FCC analyzed impulse radios before issuing R&O • Conservative R&O allows impulse radios • Following slides analyze UWB interference to FSS receivers • FSS frequency of operation: 3.7-4.2GHz • DirecTV/EchoStar/DBS receivers do not operate in 3.7-4.2 GHz; they operate in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band • MB-OFDM transmitter’s power as described in MB-OFDM proposal • DSSS, MB-OFDM and impulse radios provide identical average interference power, • Actual performance of FSS system depends on specific receiver Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  31. UWB Waveforms for FSS Interference Analysis DSSS Average interference power is identical MB-OFDM Impulse radio Victim receiver performance depends upon receiver characteristic: Modulation, coding, interleaving Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  32. Victim receiver: Example FSS system parameters (implementation dependent) FSS interference evaluation parameters *: NTIA special publication 01-43, Assessment of compatibility between ultra-wideband devices and selected federal systems Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  33. Interfering Systems • Interfering system (1): DS-SS UWB system • White Gaussian noise interference • Interfering system (2): MB-OFDM system characteristics • Exactly as described in proposal • Interfering system (3): Impulse UWB radio characteristic • PRF >= 1 MHz Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  34. Simulation results (1) • 35 MSPS, rate 7/8 coding, no interleaving, Iuwb/N = -6 dB [XSI filing to FCC for typical operating scenarios, Sept. 2003] Very little different between UWB radios under realistic scenarios [Note: SINR=C/(N+Is+Iuwb), Is=satellite intra-system interference] Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  35. Interference comparison between various UWB waveforms 0 10 White Gaussian Noise Interference MB-OFDM with 3 bands MB-OFDM with 7 bands Pulsed UWB with 1 MHz PRF -1 10 -2 10 Bit Error Rate -3 10 -4 10 -5 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SINR Simulation results (2) • 35 MSPS, rate 7/8 coding, no interleaving, Iuwb/N = -0.4 dB MB-OFDM interference is consistently lower than impulse radio UWB system Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  36. Satellite MB-OFDM 3-band 5 degrees 3m 2m 57 m 59.2 m UWB device, DS-SS 67.8 m 69.6 m UWB device, MB-OFDM, 3-band Allowed by FCC UWB device, MB- OFDM, 7-band Closest allowed distance for I/N = -0.4 dB UWB device, 1.3 MHz PRF impulse Minimum separation between UWB radiosand FSS receivers: Example 1 • I/N = -0.4 dB, antenna elevation angle = 5 degrees, rate 7/8 coding • MB-OFDM transmitters can be placed closer than impulse radios Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  37. Satellite MB-OFDM 20 degrees 3m 2m 20.7 m UWB device, high PRF 21.6 m 24.6 m UWB device, MB-OFDM, 3-band 25.2 m Allowed by FCC UWB device, MB-OFDM, 7-band UWB device, 1.3 MHz PRF impulse Closest allowed distance for I/N = -0.4 dB Minimum separation between UWB radiosand FSS receivers: Example 2 • I/N = -0.4 dB, antenna elevation angle = 20 degrees, rate 7/8 coding • MB-OFDM transmitters can be placed closer than impulse radios Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  38. Summary of FCC work • FCC asked MB-OFDM proponents to analyze interference scenarios • Our studies for FSS systems, show that MB-OFDM causes similar (almost identical) interference compared to other UWB systems in realistic scenarios. • MB-OFDM does not cause any interference beyond that which is anticipated by current FCC rules. • FCC said that a proposed UWB approach would likely be deemed compliant if it could be shown that it would not cause levels of interference beyond that already anticipated by the rules. • MB-OFDM proponents believe MB-OFDM is FCC compliant and is allowed to transmit the full transmit power of -41.25 dBm/MHz. • MB-OFDM does not have to reduce its transmit power by 4.7 dB as was claimed by XSI. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  39. Summary of Measurement Test ResultsPresenter: Robert Sutton (TDK R&D Corporation) Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  40. FCC Testing • FCC tests were performed on two different MB-OFDM radios (over 80 hours of lab time, more than 300 measurements) • Tests performed at TDK RF Solutions EMC Test Services Lab • FCC Lab Registration No.: 94066 • NVLAP Accreditation No.: 200430-0 • Sample Measurements Performed: • UWB Bandwidth Radiated Emissions, UWB Specific Requirements Emissions in GPS Bands Peak EMI Within a 50 MHz Bandwidth AC Mains Line-Conducted Disturbance Specialized (Conducted Antenna Terminal, Fully Anechoic) Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  41. Test Plan Reference Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  42. Mandatory Test Environments 1m/3m Semi-Anechoic Chamber (RE) RF Shielded Chamber (CE) Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  43. Alternative Test Environments 1m/3m Fully-Anechoic Chamber (RE) Conducted Antenna Terminal Bench (CE) Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  44. Device and Measurement Configuration • The equipment under test physical setup was done as prescribed in ANSI C63.4 • The equipment under test was operating in accordance with its intended usage as per FCC 2-48 First R&O • The equipment under test was configured to transmit at the mandatory data rate of 110 Mbps • The EMI Limits were in accordance with FCC Part 15, Subpart F Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  45. UWB Bandwidth and Peak Radiated Emissions within a 50 MHz BW Radio Sample 1 Test Distance: 1m Detector: PEAK RBW/VBW: 3 MHz/3 MHz Meas. Time: 1 ms Emissions: < Limit UWB BW: > 500 MHz Note: Data normalized to 3m test environment and 50 MHz RBW for limit comparison. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  46. Radiated Emissions UWB Radio Sample 2 Test Distance: 1m Detector: RMS RBW/VBW: 1 MHz/3 MHz Meas. Time: 1 ms Emissions: < Limit Note: Data normalized to 3m test environment for limit comparison. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  47. Emissions in GPS Bands Radio Sample 1 Test Distance: Conducted Detector: RMS RBW/VBW: 1 kHz/3 kHz Meas. Time: 1 ms Emissions: < Limit Note: Limit line is most stringent at 3m distance. No emissions above noise floor in radiated or worst case conducted measurement mode. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  48. AC Conducted Line Emissions Radio Sample 2 Test Distance: Conducted Detector: PEAK RBW/VBW: 9 kHz/30 kHz Meas. Time: Auto Emissions: < Limit Note: Standard AC conducted line measurements for coupled noise. Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  49. Summary • Representative data was presented from two radio samples that were shown to be compliant with the most challenging of the UWB measurement test procedures • Additional EMI measurements (LF digital measurements) in accordance with FCC Part 15, Subpart C Intentional Radiators were performed • Additional EMI measurements (HF harmonic measurements) in accordance with FCC Part 15, Subpart F UWB Operation were performed • A series of tests in a fully anechoic chamber were performed to further prove compliance in an alternative measurement environment • Conducted antenna terminal tests were also performed • The EMC measurements performed under normal operating conditions met the FCC average and peak power limits Multi-band OFDM Proposal

  50. Time to MarketPresenter: Jim Baker (Alereon)The Claims of Rapid TTM with the XSI Proposal You Have Heard Are at Best Misleading Multi-band OFDM Proposal

More Related