March 2004 doc IEEE 802 15 040122 r

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Project: IEEE P 802. 15 Working Group for Wireless Personal 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 x 2160 ], FAX: [512 -345 -4201], E-Mail: [joy. kelly@alereon. com] Re: [This submission is in response to the IEEE P 802. 15 Alternate PHY Call for Proposal (doc. 02/372 r 8) that was issued on January 17, 2003. ] Abstract: [This document describes the Multi-band OFDM proposal for IEEE 802. 15 TG 3 a. ] Purpose: [To give proposal updates between January and March 04. ] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 802. 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 P 802. 15. Submission 1

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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 Submission 2

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Supporters 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 Blue 7 Communications: Shinji Inoue Broadcom: J. Karaoguz Centro de Tecnologia de las Comunicaciones S. A. : Alejandro Torrecilla Chief Tek Electronics : Chieftek Clear. Comet Ventures : William Ahern Codified Telenumerics : Paul Harvey Comm. Stack : Brian Ebert Coventive Technologies : IABU Co. Ware : Sylvia Nessan Cypress Semiconductor: Drew Harrington Submission Denali Software : Kevin Silver ETS Product Service (USA) : Thomas Dickten Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc: A. Agrawal Furaxa: E. Goldberg Genesys Logic : Miller Lin Hewlett Packard: M. Fidler INEX Multimidia : Paulo Campos Infineon Technologies: Y. Rashi Inphi : Loi Nguyen Invisible Computer : Jay Prince JAALAA: A. Anandakumar Leviton Voice Data Division – Julius Ametsitsi Maxim: C. O’Connor M. B. International – Stefano Bargauan MCCI : Joe Decuir Mesh. Dynamics : Francis da. Costa Mewtel Technology : Park, Seog-Hong 3

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Supporters (Contd) 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 Radio. Pulse : Sungho Wang Raritan Computer : Sev Onyshkevych Realtek Semiconductor Corp: T. Chou RFDomus: A. Mantovani RF Micro Devices: Baker Scott Sharp : Hiroshi Akagi Si. Works: R. Bertschmann String Logix: Naren Erry SVC Wireless: A. Yang Synopsys: Xerxes Wania Submission TDK: P. Carson Time. Derivative : Kai Siwiak Toppan Chunghwa Electronics : Frank Hsieh Toshiba : Haruhiko Ito TRDA: Mike Tanahashi TUV Rheinland of North America : Rolf W Bienert t. Zero: Oltak Unsal Unwired Connect: David D. Edwin UWB Wireless: R. Caiming Qui Verisity Design : Pete Heller Vestel: Haluk Gokmen VIA Networking Technologies: Chuanwei Liu / Walton Li Virage Logic: Howard Pakosh Wi-LAN : Shawn Taylor Wireless Experience : Pär Bergsten Wi. Quest: Matthew B. Shoemake Wisme: N. Y. Lee 4

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Presentation Outline · Summary of proposal - Includes Proposal Update with release of specification 02/268 r 3 · Enhancements to the band plan · Update on the FCC Regulatory approval Submission 5

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Summary of Updated Proposal Submission 6

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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. Submission 7

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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. Submission 8

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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. - Submission 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. 9

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Update to MB-OFDM Band plan TF Code map · Mapping of TF Codes and Preambles to Logical Channels in a Band Group: Band Groups Preamble Pattern TF Code Length 1, 2, 3, 4 1 6 1 2 3 2 6 1 3 2 3 6 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 6 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 4 1 2 – – 2 4 1 1 2 2 – – 5 Submission Time Frequency Code 10

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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 - not every application uses the same spectrum Submission 11

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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. 11 b and IEEE 802. 15. 3 devices. Submission 12

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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: Submission 13

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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 offthe-shelf components). Early time to market! · Low cost, low power, and CMOS integrated solution leads to: Early market adoption! Submission 14

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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. Submission 15

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Multi-band OFDM System Parameters · System parameters for mandatory and optional data rates: Info. Data Rate 55 Mbps* 80 Mbps** 110 Mbps* 160 Mbps** 200 Mbps* 320 Mbps** 480 Mbps** Modulation/Constellation OFDM/QPSK OFDM/QPSK FFT Size 128 128 Coding Rate (K=7) R = 11/32 R = 1/2 R = 5/8 R = 1/2 R = 3/4 Spreading Rate 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 Data Tones 100 100 Info. Length 242. 4 ns 242. 4 ns Cyclic Prefix 60. 6 ns 60. 6 ns Guard Interval 9. 5 ns 9. 5 ns Symbol Length 312. 5 ns 312. 5 ns Channel Bit Rate 640 Mbps 640 Mbps Multi-path Tolerance 60. 6 ns 60. 6 ns * Mandatory information data rate, ** Optional information data rate Submission 16

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Link Budget and Receiver Sensitivity · Assumption: Logical channel 1, AWGN, and 0 d. Bi gain at TX/RX antennas. Submission Parameter Value Information Data Rate 110 Mb/s 200 Mb/s 480 Mb/s Average TX Power -10. 3 d. Bm Total Path Loss 64. 2 d. B (@ 10 meters) 56. 2 d. B (@ 4 meters) 50. 2 d. B (@ 2 meters) Average RX Power -74. 5 d. Bm -66. 5 d. Bm -60. 5 d. Bm Noise Power Per Bit -93. 6 d. Bm -91. 0 d. Bm -87. 2 d. Bm CMOS RX Noise Figure 6. 6 d. B Total Noise Power -87. 0 d. Bm -84. 4 d. Bm -80. 6 d. Bm Required Eb/N 0 4. 0 d. B 4. 7 d. B 4. 9 d. B Implementation Loss 2. 5 d. B 3. 0 d. B Link Margin 6. 0 d. B 10. 7 d. B 12. 2 d. B RX Sensitivity Level -80. 5 d. Bm -77. 2 d. Bm -72. 7 d. B 17

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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: Range* AWGN CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 CM 4 110 Mbps 20. 5 m 11. 4 m 10. 7 m 11. 5 m 10. 9 m 200 Mbps 14. 1 m 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 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 d. B) same performance as an OFDM system using a cyclic prefix. Submission 18

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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: Channel Environment 2 SOPs 3 SOPs 4 SOPs CM 1 (dint/dref) 0. 4 1. 18 1. 45 CM 2 (dint/dref) 0. 4 1. 24 1. 47 CM 3 (dint/dref) 0. 4 1. 21 1. 46 CM 4 (dint/dref) 0. 4 1. 53 1. 85 · Results incorporate SIR estimation at the receiver. Submission 19

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Signal Robustness/Coexistence · Assumption: Received signal is 6 d. B 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 Interferer Value IEEE 802. 11 b @ 2. 4 GHz dint 0. 2 meter IEEE 802. 11 a @ 5. 3 GHz dint 0. 2 meter Modulated interferer SIR -9. 0 d. B Tone interferer SIR -7. 9 d. B · Coexistence with 802. 11 a/b and Bluetooth is relatively straightforward because these bands are completely avoided with Band group #1 devices Submission 20

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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: 90 nm 130 nm * Component area. Complete Analog* Complete Digital 2. 7 mm 2 1. 9 mm 2 3. 0 mm 2 3. 8 mm 2 * Component area. Submission 21

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 Power Consumption · Active CMOS power consumption Submission Block 90 nm 130 nm TX AFE (110, 200 Mb/s) 76 m. W 91 m. W TX Digital (110, 200 Mb/s) 17 m. W 26 m. W TX Total (110 Mb/s) 93 m. W 117 m. W RX AFE (110, 200 Mb/s) 101 m. W 121 m. W RX Digital (110 Mb/s) 54 m. W 84 m. W RX Digital (200 Mb/s) 68 m. W 106 m. W RX Total (110 Mb/s) 155 m. W 205 m. W RX Total (200 Mb/s) 169 m. W 227 m. W Deep Sleep 15 m. W 18 m. W 22

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 FCC Certification Update Submission 23

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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 Submission 24

March 2004 doc. : IEEE 802. 15 -04/0122 r 0 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 Submission 25