802.16m sounding sequences comparison IEEE 802.16 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C80216m-09/1121 Date Submitted: 2009-05-01 Source: Alexei Davydov, Gregory Morozov alexei.davydov@intel.com Intel Corporation Venue: IEEE 802.16m Session#61,Cairo, Egypt Category: AWD comments / Area: Chapter 15.3.9 (UL-CTRL) “Comments on AWD 15.3.9 (UL-CTRL)” Base Contribution: Purpose: Discussion and approval Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.16. Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>. Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat >.

Introduction Two sounding sequence has been proposed for 802.16m Sequence I (C80216m_09/0771): 802.16e sequence Sequence II (C80216m_09/0849): new sequence To identify the best option performance and complexity assessment are required

Scope PAPR analysis Cross correlation analysis FDM option CDM option Cross correlation analysis System level performance analysis Complexity Analysis Conclusion

PAPR Analysis: CDM (1) single subband four subbands Sequence II has slightly better or similar performance than Sequence I for single subband and similar performance for four subbands

Sequence I has similar performance as Sequence II PAPR Analysis: CDM (2) six subbands all possible subbands Sequence I has similar performance as Sequence II

PAPR Analysis: FDM (1) single subband four subbands Sequence II has better performance for single subband allocations Sequence I has better performance for four subband allocations

Sequence I has better performance than Sequence II PAPR Analysis: FDM (2) six subbands all possible subbands Sequence I has better performance than Sequence II

Cross Correlation Analysis The cross correlation performance at 0.15-0.2 is almost the same Sequence I Sequence II There are several sequences (~10-20%) showing high cross correlation values in Sequence II design. For interference limited case performance of some sectors may suffer due to loss of processing gain

Complexity Analysis Complexity Symbol alphabet FFT MS Multiplexing Sequence I: already supported by 16e Sequence II: completely new sequence Symbol alphabet Sequence I: Binary {-1,+1} Sequence II: Complex number FFT Sequence I: the same for all FFT sizes Sequence II: different for different FFT sizes MS Multiplexing Sequence I: the same for FDM and CDM Sequence II: different for FDM and CDM

System Level Performance Analysis Two mechanisms to generate multiple sounding sequences A: Using different short codes (support of macro-BS) B: Using frequency rotation (support of femto-cells, relays, etc.) System level analysis has been performed for mechanism A

System Level Parameters

System Level Performance Analysis: (100% full loading scenario 1) Sequence I: circle markers Sequence II: square markers

System Level Performance Analysis: (100% full loading scenario 2) Sequence I: circle markers Sequence II: square markers

System Level Performance Analysis: (33% partial loading scenario) Sequence I: circle markers Sequence II: square markers

Conclusions PAPR performance: Sequence I and Sequence II have similar performance and may outperform each other depending on the considered scenario (FDM/CDM, sounding allocation) System level performance: Sequence I has better performance in most of the cases. More detailed information on usage of the Sequence II in multi-cell/sector scenario is needed Complexity: Sequence I is more preferable in terms of implementation complexity (the same as 802.16e, binary, common for different cases) Recommendation: adopt sounding Sequence I proposed in C80216m_09/0771