1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
July, 2005
Project: IEEE Study Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [Channel Model Usage in TG4a]
Date Submitted: [July 2005]
Source: [Ismail Lakkis, Shahriar Emami and Michael McLaughlin]:
Company [Wideband Access Inc, Freescale Semiconductor, and Decawave]
Address [Wideband Access, Inc Barnes Canyon Rd, #A209 San Diego, CA]
Address [Freescale Semiconductor, Inc Broken Sound Pkwy., N.W. Suite 1
Boca Raton, FL  ]
Address [Decawave]
Re: [ a]
Abstract: [Channel Model Usage in TG4a]
Purpose: [To assist the simulation of different multipath environments]
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
I. Lakkis, S. Emami, & M. McLaughlin
<author>, <company>

2. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
July, 2005
TG4a Channel
RF channel is 6GHz
Complex BB (baseband) channel:
DC corresponds to 6GHz
How do we model the baseband equivalent of the channel at 4 GHz (mandatory band)?
Generate a realization of the channel as given in the channel model
Up-convert the channel by 2 GHz
Filter it with a baseband low-pass filter of approximate bandwidth of 500 MHz
Decimate the channel down to the appropriate sampling frequency
I. Lakkis, S. Emami, & M. McLaughlin
<author>, <company>

3. Baseband Channel Modeling
July, 2005
Baseband Channel Modeling
-4 GHz
0 GHz
-2 GHz
4 GHz
4 GHz
8 GHz
f RF
fBB
LPF N
I. Lakkis, S. Emami, & M. McLaughlin

4. Simulations Assumption One wrong way
July, 2005
Simulations Assumption One wrong way
-4 GHz
0 GHz
-2 GHz
4 GHz
4 GHz
8 GHz
f RF
fBB
BPF N
FSL proposed transmission scheme was simulated.
Receiver did not deploy rake receiver.
Eb/No was set to 15 dB.
BER for all CM1 and CM8 samples were computed.
I. Lakkis, S. Emami, & M. McLaughlin

5. CDF of Receiver BER in CM1
July, 2005
CDF of Receiver BER in CM1
I. Lakkis, S. Emami, & M. McLaughlin

6. CDF of Receiver BER in CM8
July, 2005
CDF of Receiver BER in CM8
I. Lakkis, S. Emami, & M. McLaughlin

7. July, 2005
Summary
Based on these limited simulations, performance appears to be worse if upconversion is eliminated
The BER performance appears worse by a fudge factor.
The fudge factor for BER (even in CM8) seems to be less than two.
If fudge factor is less than two, the discrepancy between BER plots should be limited to a dB.
I. Lakkis, S. Emami, & M. McLaughlin