1 / 11

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Comparison of 8-star QAM and other 8-point constellations] Date Submitted: [ 25 August, 2008] Source: [Michael McLaughlin] Company [DecaWave] Contact: Michael McLaughlin

zizi
Download Presentation

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

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: [Comparison of 8-star QAM and other 8-point constellations] Date Submitted: [ 25 August, 2008] Source: [Michael McLaughlin] Company [DecaWave] Contact: Michael McLaughlin Voice:[+353 1 511 1121], FAX: [N/A], E-Mail:[michael.mclaughlin@decawave.com] Re: [n/a] Abstract:[Why 8-star QAM is the best 8 point constellation for the SC-PHY] Purpose: [To resolve LB43 letter ballot comments] 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. Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  2. Introduction • An 8 point constellation allows >4Mbps in low complexity, single carrier mode • There are many possible choices • Star 8QAM (Current draft) • 8PSK (CID 156) • NS 8QAM (CID 589) • One comment even suggests substituting 16QAM • (CID 448) • This contribution compares these possibilities Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  3. ProakisDigital Communications – 4th edition* * pp 279 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  4. 8-PSK Constellation 45o d=2 Constellation power = 6.83 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  5. 8-QAM Constellation d=2 90o 60o Constellation power = 4.73 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  6. AWGN performance -1 10 Star 8 QAM 8-PSK 16-QAM -2 10 berr -3 10 -4 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EbNo AWGN Comparison Expect Star 8-QAM ~1.5dB better than 8-PSK Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  7. AWGN with ADC, PA and PN impairments 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 Ber/Per Star 8 QAM BER 8-PSK BER -3 10 Star 8 QAM PER 8-PSK PER -4 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 EbNo Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: Impaired AWGN > 4dB difference Impaired AWGN 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  8. AWGN with ADC, PA and PN performance 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 Ber/Per Star 8 QAM BER Star 8 QAM PER 16 QAM BER -3 16 QAM PER 10 -4 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 EbNo Star 8QAM vs. 16QAM: Impaired AWGN Error floor Impaired AWGN 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  9. Star 8 QAM BER 8-PSK BER Star 8 QAM PER 8-PSK PER Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: LOS CM1.3 CM1.3 with ADC, PA and PN impairments 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 Ber/Per -3 10 -4 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 > 4dB difference EbNo CM3.1 with PA, PN, ADC 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  10. CM2.3 with ADC, PA and PN impairments 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 Ber/Per -3 10 8-PSK BER 8-PSK PER -4 10 Star 8 QAM BER Star 8 QAM PER -5 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 EbNo Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: NLOS CM2.3 CM2.3 with PA, PN, ADC 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

  11. Summary • Star 8 QAM best theoretical 8 point constellation • 16QAM unusable with Power Amp, Phase Noise • Performs significantly better than 8PSK in • AWGN • Impaired AWGN • LOS with PA,PN • NLOS with PA,PN • Can achieve >4Mbps at EbNo of 17dB with PA+PN • Distance ~10 meters • Reject all 3 comments (CID 156, 589, 448) • Best impaired or unimpaired performance Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave

More Related