1. 802.16m sounding sequences comparison
IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9)
Document Number:
IEEE C80216m-09/1121
Date Submitted:
Source:
Alexei Davydov, Gregory Morozov
Intel Corporation
Venue:
IEEE m Session#61,Cairo, Egypt
Category: AWD comments / Area: Chapter (UL-CTRL)
“Comments on AWD (UL-CTRL)”
Base Contribution:
Purpose:
Discussion and approval
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 IEEE 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 contribution 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 < >.

2. Introduction Two sounding sequence has been proposed for 802.16m
Sequence I (C80216m_09/0771): e sequence
Sequence II (C80216m_09/0849): new sequence
To identify the best option performance and complexity assessment are required

3. Scope PAPR analysis Cross correlation analysis
FDM option
CDM option
Cross correlation analysis
System level performance analysis
Complexity Analysis
Conclusion

4. PAPR Analysis: CDM (1) single subband four subbands
Sequence II has slightly better or similar performance than Sequence I for single subband and similar performance for four subbands

5. Sequence I has similar performance as Sequence II
PAPR Analysis: CDM (2)
six subbands
all possible subbands
Sequence I has similar performance as Sequence II

6. PAPR Analysis: FDM (1) single subband four subbands
Sequence II has better performance for single subband allocations
Sequence I has better performance for four subband allocations

7. Sequence I has better performance than Sequence II
PAPR Analysis: FDM (2)
six subbands
all possible subbands
Sequence I has better performance than Sequence II

8. Cross Correlation Analysis
The cross correlation performance at is almost the same
Sequence I
Sequence II
There are several sequences (~10-20%) showing high cross correlation values in Sequence II design. For interference limited case performance of some sectors may suffer due to loss of processing gain

9. Complexity Analysis Complexity Symbol alphabet FFT MS Multiplexing
Sequence I: already supported by 16e
Sequence II: completely new sequence
Symbol alphabet
Sequence I: Binary {-1,+1}
Sequence II: Complex number
FFT
Sequence I: the same for all FFT sizes
Sequence II: different for different FFT sizes
MS Multiplexing
Sequence I: the same for FDM and CDM
Sequence II: different for FDM and CDM

10. System Level Performance Analysis
Two mechanisms to generate multiple sounding sequences
A: Using different short codes (support of macro-BS)
B: Using frequency rotation (support of femto-cells, relays, etc.)
System level analysis has been performed for mechanism A

11. System Level Parameters

12. System Level Performance Analysis: (100% full loading scenario 1)
Sequence I: circle markers Sequence II: square markers

13. System Level Performance Analysis: (100% full loading scenario 2)
Sequence I: circle markers Sequence II: square markers

14. System Level Performance Analysis: (33% partial loading scenario)
Sequence I: circle markers Sequence II: square markers

15. Conclusions
PAPR performance: Sequence I and Sequence II have similar performance and may outperform each other depending on the considered scenario (FDM/CDM, sounding allocation)
System level performance: Sequence I has better performance in most of the cases. More detailed information on usage of the Sequence II in multi-cell/sector scenario is needed
Complexity: Sequence I is more preferable in terms of implementation complexity (the same as e, binary, common for different cases)
Recommendation: adopt sounding Sequence I proposed in C80216m_09/0771