Technical Editors Working Document

May, 2003 IEEE P802.15-03/219r403/219r1

IEEE P802.15

Wireless Personal Area Networks

Project / IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Title / Technical Editors Working Document
Date Submitted / [The date the document is contributed, in the format “21 May, 1999”]
Source / [Rick Roberts]
[IEEE802.15.3a Technical Editor]
[address] / Voice: [ 301-613-5016 ]
Fax: [ ]
E-mail: [
Re: / [If this is a proposed revision, cite the original document.]
[If this is a response to a Call for Contributions, cite the name and date of the Call for Contributions to which this document responds, as well as the relevant item number in the Call for Contributions.]
[Note: Contributions that are not responsive to this section of the template, and contributions which do not address the topic under which they are submitted, may be refused or consigned to the “General Contributions” area.]
Abstract / [Description of document contents.]
Purpose / [Description of what the author wants P802.15 to do with the information in the document.]
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.

1.0 Clarification of Eb/No reference point and use of TG3a channel models – modification of document 03/031r9.

Add a footnote to clause 5.5.1, paragraph 2, and also reference this footnote in clause 5.3. The footnote is to read as shown below:

------

The reference point for setting Eb and the injection point for No is as shown below:

The channel shall be one of the 100 realizations from each of the 4 channel models. All required normalization is already present in the channel realization. For purposes of converting Eb/No to range (meters) an exponent of 2 shall be used (i.e. r2 propagation loss).

2.0 Suggested clarification in document 03031 (M. Mclaughlin)

Text fragment from 5.5.1 which defines 90% outage PER

The proposer will be asked for 90% PER link success probability where a 90% outage PER is defined as the PER averaged over the channels which result in the 90% best performance at a given Eb/N0 for a particular channel environment, i.e., the PER performance due to the worst 10% channels at a given Eb/N0 should not be included in the average PER calculation.

Change From

5.5.2 Values

The proposer should provide the probability of link success (the ability to acquire and pass data with the specified packet length and PER at minimum payload bit rates for the PHY-SAP for both AWGN and the channel model specified in document [02/490], relative to distance). The proposer should further indicate the range at which the proposed PHY can acquire and meet the bit rate packet length and PER requirements of clause 2.0 of [03/030] for the channel model specified in document [02/490] for a link success probability of 90%. The proposer should indicate PER and acquisition performance as a function of the distance. The acquisition parameters (signaling and duration) should be noted for all scenarios. The proposal must include the 90% outage packet error rate (PER) as a function of Eb/N0 for each of the multipath environments (CM1 through CM4). Eb is computed as the average multi-path signal energy, averaged over the 100 channel realizations for each channel environment.

To

5.5.2 Values

The proposer should provide a 90% link success probability distancewill be asked for the mean 8% PER distance, for each payload bit rate over each of the 4 channel models from [020/490] and in an AWGN environment. The mean 8% PER distance90% link success probability distance is defined as the distance at which the mean PER[1], for all of the best 90% of channels for a given channel environmentin a model, is less than or equal to 8%.

3. From Vern Brethour … text on section 5.3, doc 03/031r9

***************************

Now the change in reported link distance above becomes significant when we move forward and use those distances in the Simultaneously operating piconet effort. My suggested changes are below.

***************************

Single Co-channel separation distance test procedure

1. Establish a test link with a test receiver at a fixed distance from the reference transmitter, such that the receiver power is 6 dB above the receiver sensitivity level. Continue by sending packets to the test receiver for a specified modulation format and the data rates of 110 Mb/s, 200 Mb/s and the optional 480 Mb/s. At a minimum, when doing the test in multipath channels, the proposer should use for the link test the first 20 channel realizations from each of the four TG3a channel model scenarios. Each channel realization should be normalized to unity multipath energy. The latest revision of the channel models should be used.

2. Verify PER at the test receiver.

3. Begin transmitting with a single co-channel interfering alt-PHY transmitter at a large distance from the test receiver. Three pre-specified channel realizations from [02/490] will be used for the interfering links: a very low multipath channel (CM1 delay), a “typical” multipath channel (CM3 delay), and a high multipath channel (CM4 delay). The simultaneous piconet operation shall be assessed for each of the three specified interference channels.

4. Continue PER verification at the test receiver.

5. Incrementally move the co-channel interfering alt-PHY transmitter closer to the test receiver until the PER exceed the allowable rates.

6. Record the distance associated with the last acceptable PER as the single-channel separation distance (dint) for the selected test receiver.

7. Since the proposal may include multiple modulation types or other factors that may affect close proximity operation of uncoordinated piconets, the proposer should repeat the test procedures and include sufficient test combinations to characterize system operation under these conditions.

Multiple-channel Piconet separation distance test procedure

1. Establish a test link with a test receiver at a fixed distance from the reference transmitter, such that the distance from the transmitter to the receiver is half the “mean 8% PER distance” found according to section 5.5.20.707 of the 90% link success probability distance. Establish a test link with a test receiver at a fixed distance from the reference transmitter. Continue by sending packets to the test receiver for a specified modulation format and data rate and range, 110 Mb/s at 10m and 200 Mb/s at 4m. The optional 480 Mb/s has no specified distance. For the N=1 case, the proposer is to use the first 5 channels from each required channel model for the reference and the next 5 channels (6 through 10) from each required channel model for the interferer. The energy of each realization is normalized to unity. For the N=2 and 3 case the interferers are free space and the reference link is to use the previously mentioned first 5 normalized channels. All distance computations are made with a path loss exponent of 2.

2. Verify PER at the test receiver.

3. Begin transmitting continuous packets with a uniformly distributed random interval less than a packet length between packets with N different adjacent channel interfering alt-PHY transmitters at a large distance from the test receiver. At a minimum, the proposer should consider the cases N equal 1, 2, and 3. As indicated in step 1, for the N=1 case the proposer is to use the first 5 channels from each required channel model for the reference and the next 5 channels (6 through 10) from each required channel model for the interferer. The energy of each realization is normalized to unity. For the N=2 and 3 case the interferers are free space and For the N=2 and N=3 the first interfere shall use channels 6 through 10, the second interfere shall use 99, and the third interferer shall use 100. The interferers shall all be selected from the same channel environment as the reference link and shall be normalized to unit power. Tthe reference link is to use the previously mentioned first 5 normalized channels.

4. Continue PER verification at the test receiver.

5. Incrementally move the N different adjacent channel interfering alt-PHY transmitters closer to the test receiver uniformly until the test link PER exceed the allowable rates exceeds 8%. At each incremental distance, the link must transfer at least 100 packets to include a cold acquisition on each packed.

6. Record the distance associated with the last acceptable PER as the multi-channel separation distance (dint) for the selected test receiver.

7. Since the proposal includes multiple data rates (110, 200 and optional 480 Mb/s) and may include multiple modulation types or other factors that may affect close proximity operation of uncoordinated piconets, the proposer should repeat the test procedures and include sufficient test combinations to characterize system operation under these conditions.

4.0 Addition to Clause 5.3.2 from John McCorkle, text in 03/031r9

In Clause 5.3.2 add to paragraph numbered #7 under both “Multi-channel separation distance test procedure” and “Single Co-channel separation distance test procedure” add final sentence as follows:

A required test combination must provide protection in the UNII band for both 802.11a and 5.8 GHz cordless phones and assume that these devices are using 100 mw into an isotropic antenna 1m from the receiving UWB device.

5.0 Input from Gadi Shor to amend previous text

5.5.2 Values

From

The proposer should provide a 90% link success probability distance, for each payload bit rate over each of the 4 channel models from [020/490] and in an AWGN environment. The 90% link success probability distance is defined as the distance at which the PER, for all of the best 90% of channels for a given channel environment, is less than or equal to 8%.

To

The proposer should provide a 90% link success probability distance and the mean 90% link success probability distance, for each payload bit rate over each of the 4 channel models from [020/490] and in an AWGN environment. The 90% link success probability distance is defined as the distance at which the PER, for all of the best 90% of channels for a given channel environment, is less than or equal to 8%. The mean 90% link success probability distance is defined as the distance at which the mean PER of the best 90% channels for a given channel environment, is less than or equal to 8%.

Submission Page XXX Rick Roberts, IEEE802.15.3a Technical Editor

[1] The PER should represent the cumulative rate of packet errors of all types. Types of packet errors include failure to detect and acquire the desired signal within the preamble time frame described in the proposal, failure to correctly demodulate the header, and failure to correctly demodulate the payload.