Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models

Document Sample
PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models Powered By Docstoc
					May 2010                                                                 doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1

 PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz
         WLAN Channel Models
                                         Date: 2010-05-20



 Authors:
 Name                Affiliations        Address                      Phone          email
 Alexander Maltsev   Intel Corporation   Turgeneva str., 30, Nizhny   +78314969461   alexander.maltsev@intel.com
                                         Novgorod, 603024, Russia
 Roman               University of       Gagarin ave., 23, Nizhny     +79047855055   roman.maslennikov@wcc.unn.ru
                                         Novgorod, 603950, Russia
 Maslennikov         Nizhny Novgorod
 Artyom Lomayev      Intel Corporation   Turgeneva str., 30, Nizhny   +78314969461   artyom.lomayev@intel.com
                                         Novgorod, 603024, Russia
 Alexey              Intel Corporation   Turgeneva str., 30, Nizhny   +78314969461   alexey.sevastyanov@intel.com
                                         Novgorod, 603024, Russia
 Sevastyanov
 Alexey Khoryaev     Intel Corporation   Turgeneva str., 30, Nizhny   +78314162461   alexey.khoryaev@intel.com
                                         Novgorod, 603024, Russia




Submission                                             Slide 1                              Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                         doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1


                               Abstract

      This contribution presents the simulation results for PHY performance
      evaluation in terms of Packet Error Rate (PER) characteristics as
      functions of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) over 60 GHz channel
      models for the Conference Room, Living Room, and Enterprise
      Cubicle environments describing in [1].




Submission                           Slide 2                  Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                       doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1


                          Introduction

 • The goal of this contribution is to illustrate PHY performance (PER vs
   SNR curves) over developed 60 GHz channel models for the
   Conference Room (CR), Living Room (LR) and Enterprise Cubicle
   (EC) environments [1].
 • Simulation results were obtained for OFDM modulation and FEC
   scheme which is a standard Convolutional Code with polynomials
   {1338,1718}.




Submission                         Slide 3                  Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                              doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1

             PHY Channel Impulse Response
                    Assumptions
 In accordance with EVM document [2]:

 •    Channel impulse response should be normalized on an instantaneous basis
      (packet-by-packet). Instantaneous normalization of the CIRs is performed after
      application of beamforming.
 •    Isotropic and basic steerable antenna model with directional antenna pattern
      defined as a Gaussian function with 300 mainlobe beamwidth and -20 dB
      backlobe may be applied on both TX and RX sides [1].
 •    Directional TX and RX antenna patterns are steered toward the Maximum
      Power Ray (MPR beamforming) [1].




Submission                               Slide 4                     Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                                                                doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1


                         Simulated Channel Models
 •    AWGN channel model

 •    Simulated scenarios for Conference Room channel model:
       –     STA-STA sub-scenario, omni TX to omni RX, LOS, w/o beamforming, w/o polarization support
       –     STA-STA sub-scenario, directional TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support
       –     STA-STA sub-scenario, omni TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support

       Note: Simulation results for STA-AP sub-scenario are not provided. STA-AP sub-scenario has the same PER vs SNR performance for
            MPR beamforming as an STA-STA sub-scenario due to the same intra cluster channel model parameters.


 •    Simulated scenarios for Living Room channel model:
       –     Omni TX to omni RX, LOS, w/o beamforming, w/o polarization support
       –     Directional TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support
       –     Omni TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support


 •    Simulated scenarios for Enterprise Cubicle channel model:
       –     Omni TX to omni RX, near STA location, LOS, w/o beamforming, w/o polarization support
       –     Directional TX to directional RX, far STA location, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support
       –     Omni TX to directional RX, far STA location, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support

 •    Note: Hardware impairments, timing acquisition, preamble detection, channel estimation and other impairments are
      not considered.




Submission                                                       Slide 5                                           Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                                       doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1

    Summary of Main System Parameters of
         Simulated OFDM System
  System Parameter                                          Value
 Sample rate                                               2.56 GHz
 FFT size                                                     512
 Number of data subcarriers                                   336
 Guard interval size                                    1/4 – 128 samples

 Symbol duration              250 ns OFDM symbol duration (50 ns GI + 200 ns useful symbol time)

 Subcarrier spacing                                          5 MHz

 Modulations & Code rates             BPSK ½, QPSK ½, QPSK ¾, 16QAM ½, 16QAM ¾

 Interleaver                           802.11a-like bit interleaver (28 columns x 12 rows)

 FEC                               Convolutional coding {1338, 1718}, zero tailing termination

 Packet size                                               1912 bytes


Submission                                    Slide 6                             Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                           doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1
   Comparison of PER System Performance for LOS CR,
  LR, and EC Channel Models for Omni-to-Omni Antenna
       Configuration with AWGN Reference Curves
                                   For PER=10-3 threshold:
                                   •   CR PER curves for MCSs with code rate
                                       ½ have degradation in comparison with
                                       AWGN reference performance ~0.4-0.7
                                       dB.
                                   •   CR PER curves for MCSs with code rate
                                       ¾ have degradation in comparison with
                                       AWGN reference performance ~1.4-1.9
                                       dB.

                                   •   LR PER curves for MCSs with code rate
                                       ½ have degradation in comparison with
                                       AWGN reference performance ~1.2-1.6
                                       dB.
                                   •   LR PER curves for MCSs with code rate
                                       ¾ have degradation in comparison with
                                       AWGN reference performance ~3.5-4.0
                                       dB.

                                   •   EC PER curves for STA near location
                                       scenario demonstrate approximately the
                                       same performance as for LR model (the
                                       difference is less than 0.3 dB).
Submission               Slide 7                    Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                                   doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1

       PER System Performance for Different
        MCSs for NLOS CR Channel Model
   •    d-d – directional TX to directional RX
   •    o-d – omni TX to directional RX

                                                           •   For PER=10-3 threshold, CR
                                                               PER curves for different MCSs
                                                               for omni-to-directional antenna
                                                               configuration in comparison
                                                               with directional-to-directional
                                                               case have performance loss
                                                               ~0.3-1.5 dB.




Submission                                       Slide 8                 Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                                   doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1

       PER System Performance for Different
        MCSs for NLOS LR Channel Model
   •    d-d – directional TX to directional RX
   •    o-d – omni TX to directional RX

                                                           •   For PER=10-3 threshold, LR
                                                               PER curves for different MCSs
                                                               for omni-to-directional antenna
                                                               configuration in comparison
                                                               with directional-to-directional
                                                               case have performance loss
                                                               ~0.8-2.0 dB.




Submission                                       Slide 9                 Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                                    doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1

       PER System Performance for Different
        MCSs for NLOS EC Channel Model
   •    d-d – directional TX to directional RX
   •    o-d – omni TX to directional RX
                                                            •   For PER=10-3 threshold, EC
                                                                PER curves (far location
                                                                scenario) for different MCSs
                                                                for         omni-to-directional
                                                                antenna configuration and
                                                                directional-to-directioanal
                                                                configuration             have
                                                                approximately      the    same
                                                                performance (the difference
                                                                is less than 0.2 dB).




Submission                                       Slide 10                  Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                                  doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1
      Comparison of PER System Performance for NLOS CR,
     LR, and EC Channel Models for Directional-to-Directional
       Antenna Configuration with AWGN Reference Curves
 •    d-d – directional TX to directional RX              •   For PER=10-3 threshold CR and LR
                                                              PER curves demonstrate similar
                                                              system performance. In opposite
                                                              case, EC curves have sufficient
                                                              degradation.
                                                          •   For MCSs with code rate ½:
                                                               –   CR (or LR) PER curves have
                                                                   degradation in comparison with
                                                                   AWGN reference curves equal to ~
                                                                   1.5-2.0 dB.
                                                               –   EC PER curves have degradation in
                                                                   comparison with AWGN reference
                                                                   curves equal to ~ 2.9-3.6 dB.
                                                          •   For MCSs with code rate ¾:
                                                               –    CR (or LR) PER curves have
                                                                   degradation in comparison with
                                                                   AWGN reference curves equal to ~
                                                                   3.5 – 4.0 dB.
                                                               –   EC PER curves have degradation in
                                                                   comparison with AWGN reference
                                                                   curves equal to ~ 6.3-7 dB

Submission                                     Slide 11                   Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                           doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1
     Comparison of PER System Performance for NLOS CR,
      LR, and EC Channel Models for Omni-to-Directional
                    Antenna Configuration
 •    o-d – omni TX to directional RX

                                                    For PER=10-3 threshold:
                                                    • LR PER curves for different
                                                        MCSs in comparison with CR
                                                        PER curves have performance
                                                        loss ~ 0.3 dB.

                                                    •   EC PER curves (far location
                                                        scenario) for different MCSs in
                                                        comparison with CR PER
                                                        curves have performance loss ~
                                                        1-1.8 dB.




Submission                              Slide 12                 Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                       doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1


                            Conclusion

 • This contribution illustrates PHY performance evaluation in terms of
   Packet Error Rate (PER) characteristics as functions of Signal-to-Noise
   Ratio (SNR) for OFDM modulation and simple FEC scheme over 60
   GHz channel models for the Conference Room, Living Room and
   Enterprise Cubicle environments.




Submission                         Slide 13                 Alexander Maltsev, Intel
May 2010                                      doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0489r1


                            References

 1.    IEEE doc. 802.11-09/0334r8. Channel models for 60 GHz WLAN
       systems, A. Maltsev et al, Mar. 2010.
 2.    IEEE doc. 802.11-09/0296r16. TGad Evaluation Methodology, Eldad
       Perahia, Jan. 2010.




Submission                        Slide 14                 Alexander Maltsev, Intel

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:16
posted:6/11/2012
language:English
pages:14