1. IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Simulation results for the structruer of Interleaver and Pad bits in OFDM Group. Date Submitted: Aug, 2010 Source: Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute(ETRI) Voice: +82 42 860 6831, +82 42 860 6722 Fax: +82 42 860 5218 E-maill: sschoi@etri.re.kr, chshin@etri.re.krsschoi@etri.re.krchshin@etri.re.kr Re: TG4g comment resolution Abstract: Working doc of OFDM Comment Resolutions Purpose: Comment Resolutions for CID #1041, #1409 and #1411 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. Slide 1

2. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Interleaver in draft standard(P802.15.4g/d1) Slide 2 Nrow = 12; OFDM Option 1: Ncbps = 96 * {1,2} OFDM Option 2: Ncbps = 48 * {1,2,4} OFDM Option 3: Ncbps = 24 * {1,2,4} OFDM Option 4: Ncbps = 12 * {1,2,4} OFDM Option 5: Ncbps = 6 * {1,2,4}

3. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Comment resolutions for CID #1041, #1409 and #1411 Slide 3 Comments - CID #1041 : modify the Ncbps clearly - CID #1409 : Definition of Ncbps and Nbpsc are needed - CID #1411 : Definition of Ncbps and Nbpsc are needed Proposed Change - CID #1041 : for example, Ncbps = 96*{1,2} -> Ncbps = 96*Nbpsc - CID #1409 : Definition of Ncbps and Nbpsc are needed - CID #1411 : Provide the definitions Proposed Resolution - CID #1041 : proposed to modify accordingly. See also Document 15-10-0423-01-004g and 15-10-0501-00-004g

4. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Three Proposals for interleaver Slide 4 CASE I: Interleaver modified using draft standard context. - Move the definition of the number of coded bits per symbol(6.12b.2.9) to the interleaver section(6.12b.2.4). CASE II: Interleaver by the draft standard defined clearly. - Define the Ncbps and Nbpsc more clearly by CID #1041, #1409 and #1411 for example, Ncbps = 12 * {1,2,4} -> Ncbps = 12 * Nbpsc CASE III: No Interleaver

5. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Data Rates for OFDM PHY Slide 5

6. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Nrow = 12; The number of bits in the DATA field shall be a multiple of NCBPS, the number of coded bits in an OFDM symbol( 24,48,96 or 192 bits for Option 1; 12,24,48,96 or 192 bits for Option 2; 12, 24, 48 or 96 bits for Option 3; 12,24 or 48 bits for Option 4; 8 or 16 bits for Option 5) CASE I: Interleaver modified using draft standard context Slide 6

7. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g CASE I: Interleaving size by interleaver modified using draft standard context Slide 7 OFDM Option 1 - Interleaving size = 24 in MCS 0 - Interleaving size = 48 in MCS 1 - Interleaving size = 96 in MCS 2 OFDM Option 2 - Interleaving size = 12 in MCS 0 - Interleaving size = 24 in MCS 1 - Interleaving size = 48 in MCS 2 OFDM Option 3 - Interleaving size = 12 in MCS 1 - Interleaving size = 24 in MCS 2 OFDM Option 4 - Interleaving size = 12 in MCS 2

8. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Slide 8 Nrow = 12; OFDM Option 1: Ncbps = 96 *Nbpsc OFDM Option 2: Ncbps = 48 *Nbpsc OFDM Option 3: Ncbps = 24 *Nbpsc OFDM Option 4: Ncbps = 12 *Nbpsc OFDM Option 5: Ncbps = 6 *Nbpsc CASE II: Interleaver by the draft standard defined clearly

9. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g CASE II: Interleaving size by the draft standard defined clearly Slide 9 OFDM Option 1 - Interleaving size = 96 in MCS 0 - Interleaving size = 96 in MCS 1 - Interleaving size = 192 in MCS 2 OFDM Option 2 - Interleaving size = 48 in MCS 0 - Interleaving size = 48 in MCS 1 - Interleaving size = 96 in MCS 2 OFDM Option 3 - Interleaving size = 24 in MCS 1 - Interleaving size = 48 in MCS 2 OFDM Option 4 - Interleaving size = 24 in MCS 2

10. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g The interleaver(CASE I) modified using draft standard context doesn’t be used in MCS0 of Option 2, MCS 1 of Option 3 and MCS 2 of Option 4. Summary of interleaver usage according to interleaving method Slide 10

11. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Simulation conditions Data rate : MCS0 and MCS4 of Option 1 MCS2 and MCS4 of Option 4 Channel Model : ETSI EN 300 392-2 V3.2.1 (2007-09) Consider the long-term fading No Frequency offset No Sampling Clock offset Use only Channel Estimation algorithm Payload size = 100byte Packet number used in simulation = 1000 Simulation Conditions Slide 11

12. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Simulation Results for MCS0 of Option 1 Slide 12

13. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Simulation Results for MCS4 of Option 1 Slide 13

14. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Simulation Results for MCS2 of Option 4 Slide 14 CASE I = CASE III

15. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Simulation Results for MCS4 of Option 4 Slide 15

16. Submission Cheolho Shin & Sangsung Choi, ETRI IEEE 802.15-10-0645-00-004g Conclusion Slide 16 The simulations are performed in the 3 CASEs. CASE I: Interleaver modified using draft standard context. CASE II: Interleaver by the draft standard defined clearly. CASE III: No Interleaver The simulation results of 3 CASEs are almost the same in ETSI EN 300 392-2 V3.2.1 channel model. - The perfomance differences among 3 CASEs are not found. - if we trust the ETSI channel model as fading channel, the interleaver could be removed in the OFDM structure. But If we use interleaver to overcome fading errors in real environment - In that case, CASE II could be preferred because CASE I doesn’t use interleaver in several data rate modes.