Submission Title: [FEC and modulations options and proposal for TG4a ] Sept 2005 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [FEC and modulations options and proposal for TG4a ] Date Submitted: [30-Sep-2005] Source: [Laurent Ouvry, Samuel Dubouloz] Company [CEA-Leti] Address [17 rue des Martyrs 38054 Grenoble] Voice:[+33-4-38-38-93-88 ], FAX: [+ 33-4-38-38-51-59 ], E−Mail: [laurent.ouvry@cea.fr; samuel.dubouloz@cea.fr] Re: [802.15.4a.] Abstract: [Gives the current FEC and modulation proposals for TG4a] Purpose: [To promote discussion in 802.15.4a.] 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. L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
Outline Reference documents Baseline What we propose Simulations Sept 2005 Outline Reference documents Baseline What we propose Simulations L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
Reference documents to build this one Sept 2005 Reference documents to build this one IEEE.802.15-05-0XXX-0Y-004a XXXrY (…) 424r1 (simulation framework) 389r2 (band plan) 456r1 and 456r2 (preamble) 466r0 (amendment to the preamble) 428r0 (PRF and peak power) 528r0 (modulation and scrambler structure) 600r0 (FEC options and their numbering !) L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
Sept 2005 Modulation(from 582r0) L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
Scrambler example (from 582r0) Sept 2005 Scrambler example (from 582r0) L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
Modulation : bursts and peak PRF <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> Sept 2005 Modulation : bursts and peak PRF symbol duration ~ 1.0us = 512 chips = 64 TB (FEC 5 option) 1 chip ~ 2 ns S = +--+-++- burst duration = TB = 8 chips ~ 16 ns S = Proposed peak PRF of 494 MHz, with S code of length 8 (TBC) S code duration = 8 / peak PRF ~ 16 ns Chip duration is 1/peak PRF L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti <author>, <company>
Modulation : base is FEC 5 see slide 12 or 600r0 <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> Sept 2005 COH. NON COH. 00 0 - 01 10 1 - 11 Modulation : base is FEC 5 see slide 12 or 600r0 PPM bit (seen by coherent and non coherent receiver) BPSK bit (seen by coherent receiver only) S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 -S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 -S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 symbol duration ~ 1.0us = 64 TB (FEC 5 option) PPI = 32 bursts = 512ns burst L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti <author>, <company>
doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> Sept 2005 COH. NON COH. 00 0 - 01 10 1 - 11 Scrambling (TBC) possible positions obtained through scrambling Guard time for channel delay spread (260ns) S S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 -S -S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 S S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 -S -S 1 31 32 33 63 15 16 47 48 Remark : S value is also changed at each symbol L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti <author>, <company>
doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> Sept 2005 Proposal 6 : 4-PPM + BPSK Guard time for channel delay spread (130ns) C NC 000 00 - 001 010 01 - 011 110 11 - 111 100 10 - 101 S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 -S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 -S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 -S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 -S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti <author>, <company>
doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> Sept 2005 Proposal 6 : 4-PPM + BPSK C NC 000 00 - 001 010 01 - 011 110 11 - 111 100 10 - 101 PPM bits (seen by both receivers) S -S 31 32 63 7 16 39 40 8 15 24 23 47 48 56 57 BPSK bit (seen by coherent receiver only) L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti <author>, <company>
doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> <month year> doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#> Sept 2005 FEC 6 Details Viterbi 1/2 Common Rb at PHY SAP + Coder + Modulation Mapping Non Coherent Receiver (only 4-PPM) Convolutional 1/3 Non Coherent Receiver (4-PPM + Polarity) Viterbi 1/3 L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti <author>, <company>
Convolutional Encoder Sept 2005 FEC Options (from 600r0) SOC code K= 3,4 or 5 R = 1/4 Coherent Receiver: True Rate = ¼ Non Coherent Receiver: Equivalent to Rate = ½ (Rate ¼ with erasures) FEC 1 Convolutional Encoder K= 3,4 or 5 R= 1/4 Coherent Receiver: True Rate = ¼ Non Coherent Receiver: Equivalent to Rate = ½ (Rate ¼ with erasures) FEC 2 Systematic Convolutional Encoder K= 3,4 or 5 R = 1/2 Convolutional Encoder K=3, R= 1/2 FEC 3 Coherent Receiver: Concatenated code, Rate = ¼ Non Coherent Receiver: Convolutional code, Rate = ½ Systematic Convolutional Encoder K= 3,4 or 5 R = 1/2 BCH or RS GF(28): RS(40,32) GF(26): RS(53,43) Coherent Receiver: Concatenated code Rate = 0.4 Non Coherent Receiver: RS code, Rate = 0.8 FEC 4 Systematic Convolutional Encoder K= 3,4 or 5 R= 1/2 FEC 5 Coherent Receiver: Convolutional code Rate = ½ Non Coherent Receiver: Uncoded Convolutional Encoder K= 3,4 or 5 R= 1/3 Coherent Receiver: Convolutional code Rate = 1/3 Non Coherent Receiver: Convolutional code Rate = 1/2 FEC 6 L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
So what we propose in FEC 6 is: Sept 2005 So what we propose in FEC 6 is: Coherent Non-Coherent Tx (Common for Coherent and Non Coherent) Symbol Time ~1µs Rb @ PHY-SAP ~1 Mbps FEC 6 Convolutional 1/3 Modulation 4-PPM + Polarity (3 bits per symbol) Channel Raw Rate 3 Mbps Rx Demodulation 4PPM + Polarity (3 bits/symbol) 4PPM only (2 bits/symbol) Decoder Viterbi 1/3 Viterbi 1/2 ~1Mbps Perfect compatibility between Tx and coherent and non-coherent Rx L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
Summary of rates (modifed from 600r0) Sept 2005 Summary of rates (modifed from 600r0) Options we intend to simulate and compare L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti
Simulations under work Sept 2005 Simulations under work Options 3, 5 and 6 : For coherent and non coherent With soft and hard decisions With K=3 and 5 Then with : Scrambling and peak PRFs of 494 & 247 MHz Checking of spectrum compliance with FCC (thanks to 15-05-0354-01-004a-UWB-Power-Measurements.zip) L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, CEA-Leti