1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [SG3a Update of UWB Channel Modeling Sub-committee] Date Submitted: [11 July, 2002] Source: [Jeff Foerster] Company [Intel Research and Development] Company [Intel Corporation] Address [JF3-212, 2111 N.E. 25 th Ave., Hillsboro, OR, 97124] Voice [503-264-6859], FAX: [503-264-3483] E-Mail:[jeffrey.r.foerster@intel.com] Re: [] Abstract:[] Purpose:[Update study group on channel modeling progress.] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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 P802.15.

2. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 2 UWB Channel Modeling Sub- committee Update Jeff Foerster Intel Research and Development Intel Corporation

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 3 Agenda Summary of Wed. discussions Open discussion on multipath models Next steps planning

4. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 4 General Topics What do we want from the model? –Should support different channel bandwidths (different min. resolution times) –Should be flexible to support different environments (home, office, commercial) –Should the group provide a statistical model or actual realizations? Need a number of realizations for reliability (how many?) TBD

5. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 5 General Topics Expectations for channel model use? –Model should represent different environments? How many realizations (100, 1000, 5)? TBD How many different environments (LOS, NLOS, short range, long range, etc.)? TBD Characteristics of measurements that we want to model –Amplitude distribution, mean RMS delay spread, mean excess delay, mean number of ‘significant’ paths (within X dB of peak), distribution of each, random shadowing of total Rx power, distortion (considered small and not going to be part of model), Doppler (assume to have slow moving environment based on pedestrian traffic), DOA (not considered in this model for now)

6. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 6 Path Loss Expectations for use –Used to justify range and rates achievable by PHY –Use link budget analysis Reviewed comments on path loss proposals

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 7 Path Loss Current recommendation –Use fixed free space path loss in link budget analysis, and let proposers provided link margin –Include additional channel models to provide guidance for evaluators to determine appropriateness of resulting link margin Indoor residential: path loss exponent of 3.5 + 2 dB additional margin to account for random shadowing (covers ~85% of channels in residential environment according to measurements in [xx]) –~17 dB link margin above free space path loss at 10 m –~ 11 dB link margin above free space path loss at 4 m Typical LOS channels should consider ~ 2-5 dB additional margin to account for shadowing effects Path loss is based on total received power including all multipath components Link margin also needs to include implementation losses

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 8 Multipath Model Reviewed proposals and comments on proposals (see minutes) Desire to compare S-V model with channel measurements from IMST, TDC, and AT&T –Need to choose way to make channel characteristics consistent Mean and distribution of RMS delay spread Mean and distribution of excess delay spread Mean and distribution of number of significant paths spread –Normalize peak in multipath measurements to unity

9. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 9 Next Steps Next steps –Develop a complete and self-contained document that can referenced by Selection Criteria document –Compare S-V model to measurements IMST data from 3-11GHz

10. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 10 Next Steps Plan –Conference calls…begin in 2 weeks –Mid August…select model Ask proposers with measurement data to develop desired channel characteristics –Mean RMS delay spread –Mean excess delay –Mean number of paths > 20 dB from peak Normalize path realizations such that peak is unity Determine S-V model parameters that match channel characteristics Determine whether S-V model with given parameters match distributions of RMS delay spread, excess delay, and number of significant paths Accept/reject S-V model –If reject…consider virtual source model If virtual source model does not match, consider fixed arrival time model

11. doc.: IEEE 802.15-02/327 Submission July 2002 Intel Research and Development Slide 11 Next Steps Plan –Jeff to draft path loss model based upon discussion this week –Jeff to contact proposers to develop a schedule to address next steps on multipath model Need to add amplitude distribution investigation to previous plan Jeff to setup conference call schedule to be broadcast to reflector –Proposers are encouraged to continue developing their model and/or evaluating other models –New contributions always welcome (new models, new measurement data, etc.) –Additional models could be recommended (optional?) Desired to have one model for evaluation purposes, but one model may not be enough to represent the different environments and available measurements Additional models could be used by proposers to provide further information about their PHY performance Additional models could also be used by others to better judge different PHY proposals