Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Spectral Control Issues for TGg

Published byHà Tiến Modified over 5 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Spectral Control Issues for TGg"— Presentation transcript:

1 Spectral Control Issues for TGg
May 2002 Spectral Control Issues for TGg Steve Halford Michael Seals Mark Webster Jim Zyren Steve Halford, Intersil

2 Motivation for Spectral Control
May 2002 Motivation for Spectral Control Adjacent Channel Interference Number of comments in LB33 on ACI OFDM to OFDM, OFDM to CCK, CCK to OFDM Issue also raised in January 802 meeting See IEEE /043 & 044 FCC Forbidden Band Compliance A few comments in LB33 question FB compliance DOC 02/220r0 showed +20 dBm possible for OFDM This document presents some follow up to support 02/220 Steve Halford, Intersil

3 Adjacent Channel Interference
May 2002 Adjacent Channel Interference Interference depends on Tx spectrum & power Receiver reduces with filtering & processing 802.11a spacing is 20 MHz Mask allows for more ACI than b Need to ‘skip’ adjacent channels for adjacent AP’s ACI/ACR issue is not as critical Physical separation will reduce interference 802.11b spacing is 25 MHz Fewer channels so cannot avoid adjacent freq ACI/ACR is important issue to resolve Affects g & legacy b systems Steve Halford, Intersil

4 Approaches for ACI Spectral Mask… or, Adjacent Channel Rejection Test…
May 2002 Approaches for ACI Spectral Mask… TGg draft uses b for Barker/CCK & PBCC modes TGg draft uses a mask for OFDM Different spacing & number of channels provides motivation to consider a different mask? or, Adjacent Channel Rejection Test… Specifies the level of adjacent channel interference tolerated by receiver 802.11a also specifies an alternate channel rejection Spectral Mask Advantages Approach is implementation independent Protects legacy systems from interference Steve Halford, Intersil

5 Spectral Control via Masks
May 2002 Spectral Control via Masks TGg Draft Spec allows for two different mask Both masks are relative to peak of the main lobe Picture of Masks Steve Halford, Intersil

6 May 2002 Simulation Model Used Steve Halford, Intersil

7 Power Amplifier Model P_sat= 24.2 dBm P_1dB = 21.5 dBm May 2002
Steve Halford, Intersil

8 802.11a Mask Limit for OFDM Measured EVM = -12.55 dB (measured for
May 2002 802.11a Mask Limit for OFDM Measured EVM = dB (measured for BPSK modulation) Back-off from 1-dB Compression Point= 1.59 dB Back-off from Saturation Point= 4.29 dB Steve Halford, Intersil

9 May 2002 ACI Results for a Mask Receive Filter Spectral Response Transmit Spectrum PSD of Received Adjacent Channel Signal Main Channel Receives dBm from Adjacent Channel Adjacent Channel Rejection = 32.6 dB Steve Halford, Intersil

10 802.11b Mask Limit for QPSK Back-off from 1-dB Compression
May 2002 802.11b Mask Limit for QPSK Back-off from 1-dB Compression Point= 1.15 dB Back-off from Saturation Point= 3.85 dB Steve Halford, Intersil

11 May 2002 ACI Results for QPSK Receive Filter Spectral Response Transmit Spectrum PSD of Received Adjacent Channel Signal Main Channel Receives dBm from Adjacent Channel Adjacent Channel Rejection = dB Steve Halford, Intersil

12 Comparison of ACI Results
May 2002 Comparison of ACI Results Waveform Power out (dBm) ACI (dBm) ACR (dB) Limit OFDM 19.91 -12.66 32.57 .11a Mask QPSK 20.35 -19.39 39.74 .11b Mask Output power for OFDM near that of QPSK About 0.45 dB added back-off More forgiving mask of OFDM increases ACI About 6.5 dB more than current b Are changes needed to protect b? Steve Halford, Intersil

13 Solutions to reduce ACI
May 2002 Solutions to reduce ACI Could increase ACR spec for .11g Helps future g systems Doesn’t help current b radios Adopt a different spectral mask Select mask to control amount of ACI Protects legacy b networks Will reduce the total output power Steve Halford, Intersil

14 Meeting mask corners requires large back-off
May 2002 Why not use .11b mask? Suggested by several voters Shape was selected to fit single carrier Corners of mask too restrictive for OFDM Requires a back-off of 6.64 from 1 dB compression Resulting ACI is dBm (15 dB less than QPSK) Meeting mask corners requires large back-off Steve Halford, Intersil

15 From Comment #123-127 under Clause 19 Tab IEEE DOC 802.11-02/209r6
May 2002 Karaoguz Mask Mask proposed in LB 33 comments Proposed by J. Karaoguz, C. Hansen, & others From Comment # under Clause 19 Tab IEEE DOC /209r6 “First, the transmit spectral mask of the OFDM signal should be modified such that the transmitted spectrum shall have a 0 dBr bandwidth not exceeding 18 MHz, -30 dBr at 11 MHz frequency offset, -38 dBr at 20 MHz frequency offset, and -47 dBr at 30 MHz frequency offset and above.” Steve Halford, Intersil

16 Results for Karaoguz Mask
May 2002 Results for Karaoguz Mask Back-off from 1-dB Compression Point= 5.8 dB Back-off relative to .11a mask = 4.2 dB ACI reduced to -28.2 dBm-- 8.8 dB below QPSK ACI Steve Halford, Intersil

17 Potential 802.11g OFDM Mask 0 dB for -9 to 9 MHz
May 2002 Potential g OFDM Mask 0 dB for -9 to 9 MHz 20 dB down by 11 MHz offset 50 dB down by 29.5 MHz offset Steve Halford, Intersil

18 Results for proposed mask
May 2002 Results for proposed mask Back-off from 1-dB Compression Point= 3.0 dB Back-off relative to .11a mask = 1.4 dB ACI reduced to -19.4 dBm -- Equal to QPSK ACI Steve Halford, Intersil

19 Proposed Mask: J. Karaoguz
May 2002 ACI with Various Mask Waveform Power out (dBm) ACI (dBm) ACR (dB) Limit OFDM 18.50 -19.41 37.91 Proposed .11g Mask 15.68 -28.2 42.98 Proposed Mask: J. Karaoguz 19.91 -12.66 32.57 .11a Mask 14.22 -34.74 48.94 .11b mask QPSK 20.35 -19.39 39.74 .11b Mask Proposed masks lower ACI to same or better level than b Proposed masks fit OFDM better than .11b Output power is reduced by 1.4 dB in our mask Still have better theoretical range than a Steve Halford, Intersil

20 May 2002 EVM Limits Steve Halford, Intersil

21 Error Vector Magnitude
May 2002 Error Vector Magnitude Specification on the transmit quality Mean Square Receiver of the constellation at receiver Requirement depends on data rate For many data rates, EVM limits transmit power more than mask Data Rate Relative Error (dB) 6 -5 9 -8 12 -10 18 -13 24 -16 36 -19 48 -22 54 -25 Steve Halford, Intersil

22 EVM Limits This limit applies to center channel & edge channels
May 2002 EVM Limits Waveform Power out (dBm) EVM (dB) Added Back-off Over .11a mask OFDM Mbps 15.73 -25.34 4.18 OFDM Mbps 16.98 -22.23 2.93 OFDM Mbps 17.99 -19.14 1.92 OFDM Mbps 19.15 -16.05 0.76 This limit applies to center channel & edge channels Steve Halford, Intersil

23 Back-off from 1 dB compression
May 2002 Summary of Results Waveform Power out (dBm) ACI (dBm) Back-off from 1 dB compression (dB) Limit QPSK 20.35 -19.39 1.12 .11b channel OFDM Mbps 15.73 -25.34 5.77 EVM OFDM Mbps 16.98 -22.77 4.52 OFDM Mbps 17.99 -19.65 3.51 OFDM Mbps 18.50 -19.41 3.00 Proposed Mask OFDM Mbps OFDM Mbps OFDM -- 9 Mbps OFDM -- 6 Mbps Steve Halford, Intersil

24 May 2002 Forbidden Band & OFDM Steve Halford, Intersil

25 Forbidden Band Limits FCC Limits power into forbidden bands
May 2002 Forbidden Band Limits FCC Limits power into forbidden bands Average Power must be less than dBM/MHz 47 CFR & Two ‘edge’ channels are 22 MHz & 21.5 MHz away from forbidden bands Channel 1 (2412 MHz) MHz away Channel 11 (2462 MHz) MHz away Steve Halford, Intersil

26 802.11b FB Compliance .11b mask provides a ‘guide’ to meeting
May 2002 802.11b FB Compliance .11b mask provides a ‘guide’ to meeting Mask Compliance = FB Compliance some cases 3-dB of Margin often used for FCC testing -- Allows for process variations Back-off from 1-dB compression point = 2.67 dB Back-off from full saturation = 5.37 dB Steve Halford, Intersil

27 OFDM & FB Compliance Back-off from 1-dB compression point = 5.57 dB
May 2002 OFDM & FB Compliance Back-off from 1-dB compression point = 5.57 dB 3-dB of Margin often used for FCC testing -- Allows for process variations Back-off from full saturation = 8.23 dB Additional back-off of 2.86 dB over QPSK Additional back-off of 3.94 dB over a mask Steve Halford, Intersil

28 Conclusions 802.11a mask not optimal @ 2.4 GHz
May 2002 Conclusions 802.11a mask not 2.4 GHz 802.11b mask is too restrictive for OFDM Our proposed mask reduces ACI to same level as b Requires 1.4 dB back-off over a mask EVM requirements already restrictive for some rates OFDM will satisfy Forbidden Band Back-off of 2.86 dB relative to QPSK Steve Halford, Intersil

Download ppt "Spectral Control Issues for TGg"

Similar presentations

Doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/220r0 Submission March 2002 A. Batra et al., Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 Proposal for a 4 Channel Option to Increase Capacity in the.

Doc.: IEEE /220r0 Submission March 2002 A. Batra et al., Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 Proposal for a 4 Channel Option to Increase Capacity in the.
Simulation and Evaluation of Various Block Assignments Evaluation of multiple carriers deployed in a channel block 802.20 evaluation criteria section.

Simulation and Evaluation of Various Block Assignments Evaluation of multiple carriers deployed in a channel block evaluation criteria section.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/249 Submission May 2001 Zyren, Webster, Halford Intersil FCC Further Notice ET Docket 99-231 Zyren, Webster, Halford Intersil.

Doc.: IEEE /249 Submission May 2001 Zyren, Webster, Halford Intersil FCC Further Notice ET Docket Zyren, Webster, Halford Intersil.
January 6, 2002doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/044r0 SubmissionRishi Mohindra, MAXIMSlide 1 Proposal for IEEE802.11g Receiver Adjacent Channel Rejection Requirement.

January 6, 2002doc.: IEEE /044r0 SubmissionRishi Mohindra, MAXIMSlide 1 Proposal for IEEE802.11g Receiver Adjacent Channel Rejection Requirement.
Suggested PA Model for HRb

Suggested PA Model for HRb
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-12/0229r0 Submission February 2012 Assaf Kasher, IntelSlide 1 Transmit Mask Correction Date: 2012-02-23 Authors:

Doc.: IEEE /0229r0 Submission February 2012 Assaf Kasher, IntelSlide 1 Transmit Mask Correction Date: Authors:
November 2013 doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1449r2 Tevfik Yucek, Qualcomm Inc.Slide 1Submission Authors: Date: 2013-11-13 Proposal for UNII-4 band coexistence.

November 2013 doc.: IEEE /1449r2 Tevfik Yucek, Qualcomm Inc.Slide 1Submission Authors: Date: Proposal for UNII-4 band coexistence.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-08-0982-02-000p Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis (USDOT) Response to Comments on Optional Enhanced ACR and AACR Values Date:

Doc.: IEEE p Submission September 2008 Carl Kain, Noblis (USDOT) Response to Comments on Optional Enhanced ACR and AACR Values Date:
Submission May 2012 Soo-Young Chang (CSUS) Slide 1 doc.: IEEE802.15-12-0249-00-004m May 2012 Soo-Young Chang (CSUS) Slide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working.

Submission May 2012 Soo-Young Chang (CSUS) Slide 1 doc.: IEEE m May 2012 Soo-Young Chang (CSUS) Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working.
Polar Loop Transmitter T. Sowlati, D. Rozenblit, R. Pullela, M. Damgaard, E. McCarthy, D. Koh, D. Ripley, F. Balteanu, I. Gheorghe.

Polar Loop Transmitter T. Sowlati, D. Rozenblit, R. Pullela, M. Damgaard, E. McCarthy, D. Koh, D. Ripley, F. Balteanu, I. Gheorghe.
2.4-GHZ RF TRANSCEIVER FOR IEEE 802.11B WIRELESS LAN UF# 1593 6620 UF# 1593 6620.

2.4-GHZ RF TRANSCEIVER FOR IEEE B WIRELESS LAN UF# UF#
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-00/396 Submission November 2000 S. Halford, P. Chiuchiolo, G. Dooley, and M. WebsterSlide 1 Implementation and Complexity Issues for.

Doc.: IEEE /396 Submission November 2000 S. Halford, P. Chiuchiolo, G. Dooley, and M. WebsterSlide 1 Implementation and Complexity Issues for.
Preliminary Coexistence Tests The same 802.11 wireless signal was used as the victim: – Power Level = 0 dBm – BW = 20 MHz – Center Frequency = 2.412 GHz.

Preliminary Coexistence Tests The same wireless signal was used as the victim: – Power Level = 0 dBm – BW = 20 MHz – Center Frequency = GHz.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-00/283 Submission Sept/00 M. Webster and K. HalfordSlide 1 Spectral Mask Considerations for 802.11 HRb Mark Webster and Karen Halford.

Doc.: IEEE /283 Submission Sept/00 M. Webster and K. HalfordSlide 1 Spectral Mask Considerations for HRb Mark Webster and Karen Halford.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-98/383 Submission November1998November 1998 Jamshid Khun-Jush, ETSI-BRANSlide 1 BRAN#11 PHY Decisions & Issues to Resolved with 802.11.

Doc.: IEEE /383 Submission November1998November 1998 Jamshid Khun-Jush, ETSI-BRANSlide 1 BRAN#11 PHY Decisions & Issues to Resolved with
July 2002doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/420r0 Submission Rishi Mohindra, MAXIMSlide 1 2-Channel Option for 11g (proposal) Rishi Mohindra MAXIM Integrated Products.

July 2002doc.: IEEE /420r0 Submission Rishi Mohindra, MAXIMSlide 1 2-Channel Option for 11g (proposal) Rishi Mohindra MAXIM Integrated Products.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/089 Submission January 2002 Steve Halford, IntersilSlide 1 Maximum Received Power for 802.11g Steve Halford Mark Webster.

Doc.: IEEE /089 Submission January 2002 Steve Halford, IntersilSlide 1 Maximum Received Power for g Steve Halford Mark Webster.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/1062r0 Submission Zhendong Luo, CATR September 2010 RF Feasibility of 120 MHz Channelization for China Date: 2010-09-12 Authors: Slide.

Doc.: IEEE /1062r0 Submission Zhendong Luo, CATR September 2010 RF Feasibility of 120 MHz Channelization for China Date: Authors: Slide.
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-00/393 Submission November 2000 Paul Chiuchiolo and Mark Webster, IntersilSlide 1 Power Amp Effects for HRb OFDM Paul Chiuchiolo and.

Doc.: IEEE /393 Submission November 2000 Paul Chiuchiolo and Mark Webster, IntersilSlide 1 Power Amp Effects for HRb OFDM Paul Chiuchiolo and.
Simulation Data for Letter Ballot Comments on Quasi-guard Subcarriers and Reverse Link Waveform Lai King (Anna) Tee January 15, 2007.

Simulation Data for Letter Ballot Comments on Quasi-guard Subcarriers and Reverse Link Waveform Lai King (Anna) Tee January 15, 2007.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google