1. PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
April 2010
PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models
Date:
Authors:
Alexander Maltsev, Intel
John Doe, Some Company

2. Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
April 2010
Abstract
This contribution presents the simulation results for PHY performance evaluation in terms of Packet Error Rate (PER) characteristics as functions of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) over 60 GHz channel models for the Conference Room and Living Room environments describing in [1].
Alexander Maltsev, Intel
John Doe, Some Company

3. April 2010
Introduction
The goal of this contribution is to illustrate PHY performance (PER vs SNR curves) over developed 60 GHz channel models for the Conference Room (CR) and Living Room (LR) environments [1].
Simulation results were obtained for OFDM modulation and FEC scheme which is a standard Convolutional Code with polynomials {1338,1718}.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

4. PHY Channel Impulse Response Assumptions
April 2010
PHY Channel Impulse Response Assumptions
In accordance with EVM document [2]:
Channel impulse response should be normalized on an instantaneous basis (packet-by-packet). Instantaneous normalization of the CIRs is performed after application of beamforming.
Isotropic and basic steerable antenna model with directional antenna pattern defined as a Gaussian function with 300 mainlobe beamwidth and -20 dB backlobe may be applied on both TX and RX sides [1].
Directional TX and RX antenna patterns are steered toward the Maximum Power Ray (MPR beamforming) [1].
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

5. Simulated Channel Models
April 2010
Simulated Channel Models
AWGN channel model
Simulated scenarios for Conference Room channel model:
STA-STA sub-scenario, omni TX to omni RX, LOS, w/o beamforming, w/o polarization support
STA-STA sub-scenario, directional TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support
STA-STA sub-scenario, omni TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support
Note: Simulation results for STA-AP sub-scenario are not provided. STA-AP sub-scenario has the same PER vs SNR performance for MPR beamforming as an STA-STA sub-scenario due to the same intra cluster channel model parameters.
Simulated scenarios for Living Room channel model:
Omni TX to omni RX, LOS, w/o beamforming, w/o polarization support
Directional TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support
Omni TX to directional RX, NLOS, MPR beamforming, w/o polarization support
Note: Hardware impairments, timing acquisition, preamble detection, channel estimation and other impairments are not considered.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

6. Summary of Main System Parameters of Simulated OFDM System
April 2010
Summary of Main System Parameters of Simulated OFDM System
System Parameter
Value
Sample rate
2.56 GHz
FFT size
512
Number of data subcarriers
336
Guard interval size
1/4 – 128 samples
Symbol duration
250 ns OFDM symbol duration (50 ns GI ns useful symbol time)
Subcarrier spacing
5 MHz
Modulations & Code rates
BPSK ½, QPSK ½, QPSK ¾, 16QAM ½, 16QAM ¾
Interleaver
802.11a-like bit interleaver (28 columns x 12 rows)
FEC
Convolutional coding {1338, 1718}, zero tailing termination
Packet size
1912 bytes
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

7. April 2010
Comparison of PER System Performance for LOS CR and LR Channel Models for Omni-to-Omni Antenna Configuration with AWGN Reference Curves
For PER=10-3 threshold:
CR PER curves for MCSs with code rate ½ have degradation in comparison with AWGN reference performance ~ dB.
CR PER curves for MCSs with code rate ¾ have degradation in comparison with AWGN reference performance ~ dB.
LR PER curves for MCSs with code rate ½ have degradation in comparison with AWGN reference performance ~ dB.
LR PER curves for MCSs with code rate ¾ have degradation in comparison with AWGN reference performance ~ dB.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

8. PER System Performance for Different MCSs for NLOS CR Channel Model
April 2010
PER System Performance for Different MCSs for NLOS CR Channel Model
d-d – directional TX to directional RX
o-d – omni TX to directional RX
For PER=10-3 threshold, CR PER curves for different MCSs for omni-to-directional antenna configuration in comparison with directional-to-directional case have performance loss ~ dB.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

9. PER System Performance for Different MCSs for NLOS LR Channel Model
April 2010
PER System Performance for Different MCSs for NLOS LR Channel Model
d-d – directional TX to directional RX
o-d – omni TX to directional RX
For PER=10-3 threshold, LR PER curves for different MCSs for omni-to-directional antenna configuration in comparison with directional-to-directional case have performance loss ~ dB.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

10. April 2010
Comparison of PER System Performance for NLOS CR and LR Channel Models for Directional-to-Directional Antenna Configuration with AWGN Reference Curves
d-d – directional TX to directional RX
For PER=10-3 threshold, CR and LR PER curves have approximately the same performance (the difference is less than 0.1 dB).
For MCSs with code rate ½ CR (or LR) PER curves have degradation in comparison with AWGN reference curves equal to ~ dB.
For MCSs with code rate ¾ CR (or LR) PER curves have degradation in comparison with AWGN reference curves equal to ~ 3.5 – 4.0 dB.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

11. April 2010
Comparison of PER System Performance for NLOS CR and LR Channel Models for Omni-to-Directional Antenna Configuration
o-d – omni TX to directional RX
For PER=10-3 threshold, LR PER curves for different MCSs in comparison with CR PER curves have performance loss ~0.3 dB.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

12. April 2010
Conclusion
This contribution illustrates PHY performance evaluation in terms of Packet Error Rate (PER) characteristics as functions of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) for OFDM modulation and simple FEC scheme over 60 GHz channel models for the Conference Room and Living Room environments.
Alexander Maltsev, Intel

13. April 2010
References
IEEE doc /0334r7. Channel models for 60 GHz WLAN systems, A. Maltsev et al, Mar
IEEE doc /0296r16. TGad Evaluation Methodology, Eldad Perahia, Jan
Alexander Maltsev, Intel