doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Channel model based on IBM measured data] Date Submitted: [March 2006] Source: [Shahriar Emami, ] [Zhiguo Lai, University of Massachusetts, ] [Brian Gaucher, IBM Research, [Abbie Mathew, NewLANS, Abstract:[] Purpose:[To update task group on channel modeling simulation work] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P 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 P

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 2 Motivation n and UWB > few hundred Mbps Future applications require Gbps rate - wireless Ethernet, wireless camcorder downloads and HDMI delivery Significant amount of bandwidth is available at 60 GHz - USA (57-64 GHz), Canada (57-64 GHz) - Japan (59-66 GHz) - Australia ( GHz) - South Korea - Europe IEEE c to develop PHY for 60 GHz application

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 3 Goal of developing such a channel model for comparing PHYs Components of channel mode - Large scale fading (path loss and shadowing) - Small scale fading (amplitude statistics, PDP, delay spread) The channel modeling sub-committee

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 4 The existing 60 GHz channel modeling - Mostly focused on outdoor environment - They limit themselves to one indoor environment A channel model fit for a few indoor environments does not exist

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 5 IBM data base The data base consists of measurements in three different environments namely - office - library/laboratory - residential Over 700 PDPs Limitation: omni directional antennas on both ends

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 6 - path loss - Shadowing Average Path Loss Path Loss Large scale Fading

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 7 where and are the predicted and the measured path losses at the k-th location (totally M locations), respectively, and parameters through are given by MSE is minimized when Parameter Extraction

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 8 Table I: Path loss and large scale model parameters for the three different environments. ParameterOfficeLib/labPrivate house L 0 (dB) (80.55) (0.40) σ (dB) (4.66) Table I: Path loss and large scale model parameters for the three different environments

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 9 Figure 1: Path loss versus Tx-Rx separation

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 10 - Amplitude statistics - Power delay profile - Delay spread PDP - Single exponential decay - Constant followed by exponential decay Selected model - Single cluster S-V model - Rayleigh amplitude - PDP Small Scale Fading

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 11 CIR Statistics

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 12 Parameter Optimization Define two metrics: MSE(PDP) and MSE(RMS-DS) MSE(PDP) The mean squared error (MSE) between the PDP of the measurement set and that of the model Objective: To determine the parameter set that minimizes the two metrics jointly for a given environment.

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 13 Figure 2: Metrics versus path density for the lib/lab environment

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 14 Figure 3: Metrics versus path density for the lib/lab environment

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 15 Figure 4: Metrics versus path density for the lib/lab environment

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 16 Table I: Path loss and large scale model parameters for the three different environments. Table II: Multipath model parameters for the three different environments

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 17 Figure 5: Average of Normalized PDPs (office environment)

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 18 Figure 6: Cumulative distribution of delay spread (office environment)

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 19 Figure 7: Average of Normalized PDPs (lib/lab environment)

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 20 Figure 8: Cumulative distribution of delay spread (lib/lab environment)

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 21 Figure 9: Average of Normalized PDPs (private house)

doc.: IEEE c Submission March 2006 S. EmamiSlide 22 Figure 10: Cumulative distribution of delay spread (private house)