PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 April 2010 PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models Date: 2010-04-29 Authors: Alexander Maltsev, Intel John Doe, Some Company

Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 April 2010 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 and Living Room environments describing in [1]. Alexander Maltsev, Intel John Doe, Some Company

April 2010 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) and Living Room (LR) environments [1]. Simulation results were obtained for OFDM modulation and FEC scheme which is a standard Convolutional Code with polynomials {1338,1718}. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

PHY Channel Impulse Response Assumptions April 2010 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]. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

Simulated Channel Models April 2010 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 Note: Hardware impairments, timing acquisition, preamble detection, channel estimation and other impairments are not considered. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

Summary of Main System Parameters of Simulated OFDM System April 2010 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 Alexander Maltsev, Intel

April 2010 Comparison of PER System Performance for LOS CR and LR 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. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

PER System Performance for Different MCSs for NLOS CR Channel Model April 2010 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. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

PER System Performance for Different MCSs for NLOS LR Channel Model April 2010 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. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

April 2010 Comparison of PER System Performance for NLOS CR and LR 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 have approximately the same performance (the difference is less than 0.1 dB). 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. 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. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

April 2010 Comparison of PER System Performance for NLOS CR and LR 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. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

April 2010 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 and Living Room environments. Alexander Maltsev, Intel

April 2010 References IEEE doc. 802.11-09/0334r7. Channel models for 60 GHz WLAN systems, A. Maltsev et al, Mar. 2010. IEEE doc. 802.11-09/0296r16. TGad Evaluation Methodology, Eldad Perahia, Jan. 2010. Alexander Maltsev, Intel