1 / 26

Multi-Band Performance Tradeoffs

This document presents Staccato, Samsung, and Taiyo Yuden's contributions to the IEEE P802.15.3a PHY standard, focusing on multi-band performance tradeoffs for UWB.

valeriac
Download Presentation

Multi-Band Performance Tradeoffs

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. May 2003 • doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/209r2 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANS) Submission Title: [Multi-Band Performance Tradeoffs] Date Submitted: [May 2003] Revised: [May 2003] Source: [Roberto Aiello, Torbjorn Larsson, Dan Meacham], Company [Staccato Communications], [YongSuk Kim], Company [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SAIT)], [Hironori Okado] Company [Taiyo Yuden Co.,Ltd.] Re: [802.15.3a Call for proposal] Abstract: [This presentation represents Staccato, Samsung, Taiyo Yuden technical contributions to the P802.15.3a PHY standard, based on UWB] Purpose: [Technical contribution] 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 or organization. The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor reserves 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.

  2. Multi-Band Performance Tradeoffs Roberto Aiello (Roberto@StaccatoCommunications.com) Torbjorn Larsson (Torbjorn@StaccatoCommunications.com) Dan Meacham (Dan@StaccatoCommunications.com) Staccato Communications (formerly Discrete Time Communications) YongSuk Kim (yongsuk@samsung.com) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SAIT) Hironori Okado (h-okado@jty.yuden.co.jp) Taiyo Yuden Co.,Ltd. SC, Roberto Aiello

  3. Objectives • Present practical considerations and tradeoffs to assist the group during the down-selection process • Think ahead at how to optimize 15.3a specification for video application requirements • Present some concepts relevant at this time, before down-selection SC, Roberto Aiello

  4. Summary • Multi-Band: advantages and tradeoffs (Staccato Communications) • MAC Enhancement: Application-aware Channel Time Allocation (Samsung). See also 03212 contribution. • Antenna for UWB systems (Taiyo Yuden) • Concepts to consider for a future specification SC, Roberto Aiello

  5. Staccato Communication’s contribution SC, Roberto Aiello

  6. Multi-Band advantages and tradeoffs • Analyze two Multi-Band proposals, presented at this meeting: Pulsed Multi-Band (03151r2) and OFDM Multi-Band (03141r2) • The Multi-Band concept is based on the principle of partitioning the UWB spectrum into smaller bands • The individual bands in the current proposals occupy between 500MHz and 700MHz and comply with existing regulatory requirements • These proposals mainly differ in their modulation schemes • Performance comparison • Power consumption and complexity comparison • Some ideas for future improvements SC, Roberto Aiello

  7. Performance comparison in CM1 Staccato and TI simulation results consistent 1 5 bit DAC @ 1056MHz 5 bit ADC @ 528MHz Transmit power: -10.3dBm Noise figure: 7dB Clipping @ PAR = 9.2dB BW = 3.1-4.8GHz 2 x bit DAC @ x-MHz 4 bit ADC @ 528MHz Transmit power: xdBm Noise figure: 6.6dB Clipping @ PAR = 9dB BW = 3.1-4.8GHz • 4 bit ADC@ x-MHz • Transmit power: xdBm • Noise figure: 7dB • 2-Rake/4-Rake, Reed-Solomon • BW = 3.1-7.1GHz Assuming NF = 4.2dB as in 03/153r5, all ranges increase by ~50% SC, Roberto Aiello

  8. Performance comparison in CM3 Staccato and TI simulation results consistent 1 5 bit DAC @ 1056MHz 5 bit ADC @ 528MHz Transmit power: -10.3dBm Noise figure: 7dB Clipping @ PAR = 9.2dB BW = 3.1-4.8GHz 2 x bit DAC @ xMHz 4 bit ADC @ 528MHz Transmit power: xdBm Noise figure: 6.6dB Clipping @ PAR = 9dB BW = 3.1-4.8GHz • x bit ADC@ x-MHz • Transmit power: xdBm • Noise figure: 7dB • 2-Rake/4-Rake, Reed-Solomon • BW = 3.1-7.1GHz Assuming NF = 4.2dB as in 03/153r5, all ranges increase by ~50% SC, Roberto Aiello

  9. Hardware components • Common elements • Viterbi, FEC, RF front end • OFDM Multi-Band unique components • FFT block • Pulsed Multi-Band unique components • Multi-Band generator • Rake (see 03/210) • Reed-Solomon decoder SC, Roberto Aiello

  10. FFT vs 2-Rake • Power/complexity of FFT and RAKE dominated by complex multiplies. • For FFT w/ N-bins: • (N/2)*Log2(N) – (3/2)N +2 complex multiplications per FFT • For 128 carriers this gives 258 Multiplications per OFDM symbol • (258 Ops/symbol) * (3.2Msymbols/Sec) = 825.6M Ops / Second • Equalization requires one complex multiply per symbol • 3.2Msymbols/Sec * (112 info-bearing symbols) = 358.4M Ops/Sec. • Total requirement is 825.6M+358.4M=1184M Ops/Sec. • For an M-finger Rake at PRF • M *PRF* (264 Mchips/Sec) complex multiplications / Second • M fingers implies M receive chains • Extra RX turned off at low PRF • >110Mbps requires 2nd rakefor 2nd RX path SC, Roberto Aiello

  11. Power consumption/complexity comparison • Viterbi’s power scales down with bit rate • Rake power scales down with PRF • FFT power is independent of bit rate • Pulsed MB may require a 2nd analog RX path (ADC, mixer, etc) (*) Staccato synthesis in 0.13um UMC (+) 03151r2 SC, Roberto Aiello

  12. Comparison summary SC, Roberto Aiello

  13. Summary results • No significant power/complexity difference at 110Mbps • OFDM Multi-Band advantageous at higher data rates • Better range • Pulsed Multi-Band superior at lower data rates • Lower power for lower performance, smaller distance • Staccato’s next steps • Simultaneously Operating Piconets • Implementation’s optimization SC, Roberto Aiello

  14. MAC Enhancement: Application-aware Channel Time AllocationSamsung SC, Roberto Aiello

  15. Current 802.15.3 MAC • MPEG-2 is an important application of high rate WPAN • MAC provides isochronous stream for MPEG-2 • However, the current channel time allocation method does not support MPEG-2 VBR streams well • Fixed size  not well match VBR traffic • Time allocation according to peak rate is wasteful • Periodic to the superframe size  not well match the periodicity of an isochronous stream SC, Roberto Aiello

  16. Proposed Solution – Application-aware Channel Time Allocation • Define a new CTA Type in the current channel time request • Type: “11” for VBR CTA • Frame rate • Determines period (inter-frame time) of CTAs • The PNC might change the superframe size according to this frame rate • N: the size of GOP • M: the space between predictive frames • TU: the same as in the original specification • Itime: time corresponding to the maximum size of I frames (in TU) • Ptime: time corresponding to the maximum size of P frames • Btime: time corresponding to the maximum size of B frames 1 octet 1 octet 1 1 1 3 5 1 00: dynamic (existing) 10: pseudo-static (existing) 11: variable rate (new) 01: reserved Btime Ptime Itime TU M N Frame rate 2 bits Type SC, Roberto Aiello

  17. Application-aware Channel Time Allocation • Determination of parameters • Frame rate = 30 (fps) • Itime=time for (Imax+(ACK time)) • Ptime=time for Pmax • Btime=time for Bmax Standard N=12 M=3 Application-aware SC, Roberto Aiello

  18. Simulation Experiments • ns-2 simulation • Modified MPEG4 agent to support various GOPs • GOP = 9 (IBBPBBPBB) • GOP = 12 (IBBPBBPBBPBB) Parameters Topology SC, Roberto Aiello

  19. Simulation Results • Lower JFR (6% difference) • Higher throughput • Lower delay variance JFR Throughput Delay variance SC, Roberto Aiello

  20. Taiyo Yuden SC, Roberto Aiello

  21. 0dBi -a (dB) 1 +a (dB) Isotropic radiation 1 1 Idea for UWB Antenna Radiation Pattern Mobile device antenna requirement – no orientation Assumption: Ideal Radiation Pattern is OMNI Directional (Isotropic Radiation) How to increase gain? Total radiation energy for total polarization radiation +a(dB)  Specific Direction Becomes Big Theoretical limit at zero-loss condition -a(dB)  Other Direction Becomes Weak Ideal Characteristic of Omni Direction is SPHERICAL SC, Roberto Aiello

  22. Definition for UWB Antenna Gain Calculation Actual Measurement: Plane – 3 (XZ, YZ, XY) Polarization – 2 (Vertical, Horizontal) How to Calculate GAIN? {(YZ(V) + YZ(H)) + (XZ(V) + XZ(H)) + (XY(V) + XY(H))}/3 Ideal Omini Antenna Gain: 0dBi {(YZ(V) + YZ(H))/2 + (XZ(V) + XZ(H))/2 + (XY(V) + XY(H))/2 } /3 In the real world both V & H don’t always come to the antenna -3dBi SC, Roberto Aiello

  23. Actual UWB Antenna Measurement • Develop UWB Ceramic Antenna • Total Average Gain is: • ( (YZ(V) + YZ(H))/2 + (XZ(V) + XZ(H))/2 + (XY(V) + XY(H))/2 ) /3 • Total Average Gain is close to -3dBi • Antenna Gain is changed with Frequency • Group Delay Performance is correlated with Antenna Gain SC, Roberto Aiello

  24. Taiyo Yuden Backup SC, Roberto Aiello

  25. Gain variation and Group delay(1) Variation=+/-4dB SC, Roberto Aiello

  26. Gain variation and Group delay(1) Variation=+/-11dB SC, Roberto Aiello

More Related