Authors of the mb-ofdm proposal from 17 affiliated companies/organizations Femto Devices: J. Cheah


Download 461 b.
Sana11.06.2018
Hajmi461 b.



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



In addition, the following 68 affiliated companies support this proposal:

  • Adamya Computing Technologies: S.Shetty

  • Adaptive Labs: Siamack Haghighi

  • Adimos: Michael Genossar

  • Appairent Technologies: Robert F. Heile

  • 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

  • Coventive Technologies : IABU

  • CoWare : Sylvia Nessan

  • Cypress Semiconductor: Drew Harrington



  • Microsoft: A. Hassan

  • Mindready Solutions : Frederic Le Bouar

  • NEC Electronics: T. Saito

  • Netac Technology : Flight Shi Xuejin

  • Nokia: P. A. Ranta

  • Olympus : Yoshiro Yoda

  • Open Interface : Greg Burns

  • Prancer: Frank Byers

  • Profilo Telr@ : Gamze Yildiz

  • RadioPulse : Sungho Wang

  • Raritan Computer : Sev Onyshkevych

  • Realtek Semiconductor Corp: T. Chou

  • RFDomus: A. Mantovani

  • RF Micro Devices: Baker Scott

  • Sharp : Hiroshi Akagi

  • SiWorks: R. Bertschmann

  • String Logix: Naren Erry

  • SVC Wireless: A. Yang

  • Synopsys: Xerxes Wania



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



Summary of Updated Proposal



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.



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.


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.


Update to MB-OFDM Band plan TF Code map

  • Mapping of TF Codes and Preambles to Logical Channels in a Band Group:



Update to MB-OFDM band plan SOP & 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



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.


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:


Multi-band OFDMAdvantages (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!



Multi-band OFDMAdvantages (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.


Multi-band OFDM System Parameters

  • System parameters for mandatory and optional data rates:



Link Budget and Receiver Sensitivity

  • Assumption: Logical channel 1, AWGN, and 0 dBi gain at TX/RX antennas.



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:

  • 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.

  • 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.



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:

  • Results incorporate SIR estimation at the receiver.



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



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:



Power Consumption

  • Active CMOS power consumption



FCC Certification Update



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


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 everything they can to speed up this process


Summary

  • Updated band plan

    • Based on application requirements, wanted to provide better SOP performance than what is specified in Selection Criteria
      • FDMA with TF codes
      • 18 total piconet channels
    • Uses all available spectrum from 3.1 – 10.6 GHz
    • Eliminates 7 band (mode 2) from previous versions
  • FCC committed to addressing issue quickly

    • MBOA actively engaged with FCC to provide all requested information and resources
  • Minor changes yielding significant performance gain based on a mature and stable proposal




Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:


Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2017
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling