Message Boosting Level of BR Channel Slides in support of the Proposed Text for Message Boosting Level of BR Channel in IEEE m IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE S80216m-10/0811 Date Submitted: Source: Jeongho Park, Min-Ho Jang, Hwasun Yoo, Heewon KangVoice: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Venue: Re: Proposed text changes to P802.16m/D6 Base Contribution: IEEE C80216m-10/0811 Purpose: Supporting slides for IEEE C80216m-10/0811 Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 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 I EEE 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 contri bution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and. Further information is located at and.

Goal of Proposal  Problem Definition D6 defines power control for BW REQ CH Both MSG & Preamble parts of BW REQ refer to the same “target SINR” BS broadcasts In the case with same target SINR, performance of MSG & Preamble are unbalanced (based on simulation results, page 3)  Goal To find proper tone power boosting level for MSG part over Preamble To obtain “Balanced performance” satisfying requirements 1/#NN

Target Requirements 2/#NN  Preamble MP < 1%  Message MP ~1%  Preamble FA < 0.1%  Message FA < 0.1%  Message PER < 0.1%

3/#NN Message Boosting Level, Ped-B 3km/h, 2Rx 3dB or 4dB looks good But, 3dB case has 0.5dB link gain

Conclusion 4/#NN  From the simulation results, we can conclude that  Power boosting 3dB of MSG part over Preamble is recommended in terms of balanced performance btw Preamble and MSG Boosting 3dB has 0.5dB link gain over 4dB case Since MSG part is not mandatory, 2% MP would be okay

Annex : Simulation Environments 5/#NN ParameterSetting BW-REQCHP802.16m / Draft 4 Channel Bandwidth10 MHz FFT Size1024 Antenna Configuration1 Tx / 2 Rx Channel ModelPed-B 3km/h Payload Information13 bits (information) + 5bits (CRC) Structure6x6 BR Tile Structure Number of User1 Channel CodingTBCC (Message) ModulationQPSK (Message) TBCC Encoding Output72 Message Boosting LevelVariable

Annex : Preamble, 1MS, Ped-B 3km/h, 2Rx 6/#NN

Annex : Message, 1MS, Ped-B 3km/h, 2Rx 7/#NN

8/#NN Annex : Message Boosting Level, Ped-B 3km/h, 2Rx

March~Jun, Discussion Summary  Agreement MSG boosting would not be effective if loading is over 1  Disagreement For 2Rx Ant., Optimal loading would be 1.5 Because this point cannot satisfy BWREQ requirement Optimal loading point should be 0.4 (or <1.0)  So, this contribution insists that MSG boosting be still effective at optimal loading point 9/#NN

10/#NN Traffic Arrival

Some Arguments  1 MS Case Trade off between latency and Tx Power in Region A Step3 coverage shrink in Region B  When Rx Ant is 2, It would not be effective Optimal Loading Point is 1.5 BWREQ/frame for RxAnt=2 In this case, Boosting MSG is not effective Agree that proposal would be ineffective in case of >1 (See Annex II) 11/#NN

Response to Arguments (I)  Loading Point should be 0.4, not 1.5 for 2Rx Ant. MU-MIMO RX cannot decode the message with 19% probability Pr(x>2)=19% (See Annex I) Expected requirement is Pr(x>#RxAnt) < 1% BS shall set BW REQ opportunity which can satisfy this criteria Considering error prob., Loading should be 0.4 BWREQ/frame for 2 Rx ant. A higher load will result in HIGHER Preamble Collision Prob. P C Expected requirement is P C < 1% 3 step BR only 1.5 BWREQ/frame : P C = 4.4% while 0.7 BWREQ/frame : P C = 1.0% See Annex III 3 step & 5 step BR (uniformly) 0.75 BWREQ/frame : P C = 4.4% while 0.35 BWREQ/frame : P C = 1.0% 12/#NN

Response to Arguments (II)  Real Optimal Loading Point should be 0.4 (~1) Point 0.4 can satisfy BWREQ Requirement Pr(x>#RxAnt) < 1% Preamble Collision prob. P C < 1% Since loading is under 1, MSG boosting would be effective  In Region B, MS still can try Step 3 with insufficient power This would decrease delay from 10ms to <10ms for sure 13/#NN

14/#NN Annex I : Pr (X > RxAnt) - dot lines % 0.4 1%

15/#NN Annex II: 2 USERs, Ped-B 3km/h, 2Rx

16/#NN Annex III: Collision Prob. (#RxAnt=2)