Doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 1 Carrier Frequency / Symbol Clock Offset Proposal for TGn FRCC Colin.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /0785r0 Submission July 2009 Eldad Perahia, Intel CorporationSlide 1 Investigation of PA Model Sample Rate for TGac Date:
Advertisements

Interference Cancellation for Downlink MU-MIMO
Doc.: IEEE /1234r0 Submission November 2009 Sameer Vermani, QualcommSlide 1 Interference Cancellation for Downlink MU-MIMO Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1090/r2 Submission September 2013 Submission Zhanji Wu, et. Al. Non-linear pre-coding MIMO scheme for next generation WLAN Date:
Doc.:IEEE / ac Submission Richard van Nee, Qualcomm September 2009 Uplink MU-MIMO Sensitivity to Power Differences and Synchronization.
Doc.: IEEE /0099 Submission Payload Symbol Size for 11ax January 2015 Ron Porat, BroadcomSlide 1 Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0818r1 July 2014 SubmissionYonggang Fang et. al. (ZTE) Synchronization Requirements Date: Slide 1 Authors: NameAffiliationAddress .
Doc.: IEEE /1391r0 Submission Nov Yakun Sun, et. Al.Slide 1 About SINR conversion for PHY Abstraction Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0489r1 Submission May 2010 Alexander Maltsev, IntelSlide 1 PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models Date:
Phase Tracking During VHT-LTF
Doc.: IEEE /0099 Submission Payload Symbol Size for 11ax January 2015 Ron Porat, BroadcomSlide 1 Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0330r2 SubmissionSameer Vermani, QualcommSlide 1 PHY Abstraction Date: Authors: March 2014.
Doc.: IEEE /1056r1 Submission Clarifying Link Level Simulator Assumptions Sept Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)
Doc.: IEEE /0075r0 Submission January 2004 H. Sampath, PhD, Marvell SemiconductorSlide 1 Pros and Cons of Circular Delay Diversity Scheme for.
Doc.: n-proposal-statistical-channel-error-model.ppt Submission Jan 2004 UCLA - STMicroelectronics, Inc.Slide 1 Proposal for Statistical.
Doc.: IEEE /383 Submission November1998November 1998 Jamshid Khun-Jush, ETSI-BRANSlide 1 BRAN#11 PHY Decisions & Issues to Resolved with
Doc.: IEEE /232r0 Submission March 2002 Todor Cooklev, AwareSlide 1 Extended Data Rate a Marcos Tzannes Todor Cooklev Dongjun Lee Colin.
Submission September 2015 doc.: IEEE /1091r0 September 2015 Considerations on Range Extension with SIG-A Repetition Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1062r0 Submission Zhendong Luo, CATR September 2010 RF Feasibility of 120 MHz Channelization for China Date: Authors: Slide.
Doc.: IEEE /1398r0 Submission November 2014 Slide 1 Shiwen He, Haiming Wang Preamble Sequence for IEEE aj (45GHz) Authors/contributors:
Doc.: IEEE /1229r1 Submission November 2009 Alexander Maltsev, IntelSlide 1 Application of 60 GHz Channel Models for Comparison of TGad Proposals.
Doc.: IEEE a Submission November 2004 Welborn, FreescaleSlide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks.
Doc.: IEEE /1449r0 Submission November 2004 John Ketchum et al, QualcommSlide 1 High-Throughput Enhancements for : PHY Supplement John Ketchum,
Doc.: IEEE /0205r0 Submission Jan 2015 Shiwen He, Haiming Wang Slide 1 Time Domain Multiplexed Pilots Design for IEEE802.11aj(45 GHz) SC PHY Authors/contributors:
Doc.: IEEE COEX-02/004r0 Submission 23 January, 2001 James P. K. Gilb, Appairent Technologies Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal.
Doc.: IEEE 11-04/0304r0 Submission March 2004 John S. Sadowsky, Intel PER Prediction for n MAC Simulation John S. Sadowsky (
Doc.: IEEE /0535r0 Submission May 2008 Thomas Kenney, Minyoung Park, Eldad Perahia, Intel Corp. Slide 1 PHY and MAC Throughput Analysis with 80.
Doc.: IEEE /1484r4 Submission January 2012 Hongyuan Zhang, et. Al.Slide 1 11ah Data Transmission Flow Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0174r1 Submission February 2004 John Ketchum, et al, QualcommSlide 1 PHY Abstraction for System Simulation John Ketchum, Bjorn Bjerke,
Doc.: IEEE /224r1 Submission March 2004 Colin Lanzl, AwareSlide 1 Simple Model for Phase Noise Impairment for TGn Comparison Criterion Colin Lanzl.
Doc.: IEEE /457 Submission May 2003 Hart/Ryan/Skellern CiscoSlide 1 Use of EVM to Measure Rx Output Signal Quality Brian Hart, Phil Ryan, David.
Doc.: IEEE /0632r1 Submission May 2016 Intel CorporationSlide 1 Performance Analysis of Robust Transmission Modes for MIMO in 11ay Date:
1.) Acquisition Phase Task:
Comparisons of Simultaneous Downlink Transmissions
Comments on TGn FRCC Doc # r17
Comments on TGn FRCC Doc # r17
Waveform Generation for Waveform Coding
John Ketchum, Bjorn A. Bjerke, and Irina Medvedev Qualcomm, Inc.
<month year> <doc.: IEEE doc> March 2011
WUR Dual SYNC Design Follow-up: SYNC bit Duration
EVM vs PER Plot Not Promising for PSNI
Simulation of NGV Channel Models
Simulation of NGV Channel Models
Joint Processing MU-MIMO
Simulation of NGV Channel Models
Investigation of PA Model Sample Rate for TGac
TGn FRCC Proposed IM7: Antenna Configuration
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
TGn Simulation Methodology Validation Proposal
doc.: n Jeff Gilbert Atheros Communications
doc.: n Jeff Gilbert Atheros Communications
Detailed Responses to “Reasons and Cures” Comments on MCS Set
<month year> doc.: IEEE <04-106> March 2004
Carrier Frequency / Symbol Clock Offset Proposal for TGn FRCC
Simulation of NGV Channel Models
Simulation Effort Required to Satisfy the n Comparison Criteria
PHY Abstraction based on PER Prediction
Single User MCS Proposal
Multiple Antenna OFDM solutions for enhanced PHY
Sean Coffey, Ph.D., Chris Heegard, Ph.D.
PER Prediction for n MAC Simulation
PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models
Month Year doc.: IEEE y18/r0 March 2018
TGn FRCC Proposed New IM6
PHY designs for NGV Date: Authors:
Compressed Midamble in NGV
Motion on Manchester Coding
Month Year doc.: IEEE y18/r0 March 2018
Presentation transcript:

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 1 Carrier Frequency / Symbol Clock Offset Proposal for TGn FRCC Colin Lanzl Aware, Inc. 40 Middlesex Turnpike, Bedford, MA John Ketchum Qualcomm, Inc. 9 Damonmill Square, Suite 2A, Concord, MA

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 2 Carrier Frequency / Symbol Clock Offset Originally specified as an impairment, common to all PHY simulations: random choice of +/-40ppm offset of Rx relative to Tx, different for each simulation run Large simulation burden Consensus in SMSC to shift to a comparison criterion for this effect

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 3 Offset Effects Carrier frequency / symbol clock offsets are estimated in acquisition Offsets may be tracked / compensated during symbol decoding Effect of poor offset compensation is poor packet error rate performance relative to no offset

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 4 Stress parameters Generally, worst system performance for poor offset compensation will occur for largest offset Generally, offset compensation is affected by SNR: lower SNR stresses acquisition estimates However, highest constellations (operating in highest SNR conditions) need best jitter performance

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 5 Basic Concept To reduce simulation load, ask proposers to quantify impact of carrier frequency / symbol clock offset in “standalone” simulation Stress offset estimation: use lowest useable average SNR Use worst-case multipath environment Compare performance to no offset

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 6 Details To reduce simulation load, need a way to measure impact of offset compensation If offset compensation is done well, there should be no difference in system performance between zero offset and any other offset To stress proposals, ask for impact at lowest average SNR in channel E (worst reasonable multipath inside guard interval) that the proposal can sustain (longest range) Use PER at xx% (1%??) as the performance criterion Also, need to ask for impact at highest SNR in channel E to judge impact of compensation on biggest constellations

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 7 Proposed Language for a CC: Offset Compensation Provide the impact on PER of carrier frequency offset and symbol clock offset by comparing to the PER achieved at the lowest average SNR that achieves a 1% PER for 1000 byte frames in channel E with no carrier and symbol clock offset. The symbol clock shall have the same relative frequency offset as the carrier frequency offset. Also, provide that same impact on PER using the highest average SNR possible for the proposed system in channel E. The carrier offset difference at the receiver relative to the transmitter shall range from -40ppm to +40ppm. The results shall be presented in such a manner that it is clear whether there are specific values of offset for which the proposed system has better or worse performance relative to no offset.

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 8 Assumptions Average SNR defined as follows: The average SNR is the ratio of the received power at a single receive antenna, to the input-referred receiver noise power. The received signal power is as measured in -10dB signal bandwidth at a single receive antenna, is summed over all transmit antennas and averaged over time and receive antennas. The PER threshold needs to be decided, 1% is a suggested value to stimulate discussion. The PER must be computed from at least (xx%/100) -1 packet errors (for example, 100 packet errors for 1% PER).

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 9 Keeping us Honest A comparison criterion that measures proposals robustness to the complete range of carrier offsets and symbol clock offsets is useful, but… In the comparison of other aspects of proposals, simulations need some nominal carrier offset to ensure that offset compensation is enabled. Specify some nominal carrier offset in the impairments section: -13.7ppm??

doc.: IEEE /209r2 Submission March 2004 Lanzl, Aware; Ketchum, QualcommSlide 10 Proposed Replacement Language for IM2: Nominal Carrier Frequency Offset Simulations for all comparisons except Offset Compensation shall be run using a fixed carrier frequency offset of –13.7 ppm at the receiver, relative to the transmitter. The symbol clock shall have the same relative frequency offset as the carrier frequency offset. Simulations shall include timing acquisition on a per-packet basis.