doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks Submission Title: [Pulse code proposal] Date Submitted: [June 2005] Source: [Dan Raphaeli, Gidi Kaplan] Company [SandLinks Ltd.] Address [Hanehoshet 6 Tel Aviv Israel] Voice:[], Re: [] Abstract: [] Purpose:[Contribution to TG4a] 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

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 2 A Burst Sequence Proposal for Coherent Pulse Compression Dani Raphaeli & Gidi Kaplan Sandlinks July 18, 05

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 3 Terminology [Terminology - as agreed lately over the reflector] Pulse – a single UWB pulse (on the order of 1-2 nsec) Burst – a sequence of ‘L’ UWB pulses (each pulse possibly modulated, the whole sequence has some ‘code’). Possibly, L may be between 11 to 33. Symbol - for data or ranging – comprises of M bursts. Each pulse has energy of Ep= Es/(L*M) where Es is the symbol energy.

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 4 Burst Code Selection Criteria Signal Spectrum Flatness. Autocorrelation Goodness. Length. Complexity of generation and correlation. Ability to provide SOP separation

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 5 Optimization of Sequence The sequences which give almost ideal autocorrelation, and therefore a flat spectrum are called “barker sequence”. The largest known binary barker sequence is of length 11 [in binary form: ] Larger sequences, even of length much larger, e.g. 32, cannot yield as good autocorrelation as the above.

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 6 Consequences of not good autocorrelation As a first result of ‘moderate’ autocorrelation, the spectrum will have peaks. Since FCC limits measure the peak in the spectrum - the effect is a decrease in the allowed power level (at the transmitter). Barker sequence have only 1dB peaks. Other sequences have larger peaks – up to 5dB (see a ) Note – to assure this good spectrum, care must be taken to modulate the bursts with good sequence and random like data

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 7 Spectrum of Barker-11

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 8 Consequences of not good autocorrelation Another consequence of ‘moderate’ autocorrelation - the autocorrelation sidelobes will be high The effect is a ghost multipath, leading to reduced performance or failures in ranging Barker sequence have only -20dB sidelobes. The above argument is irrelevant if different sequences will be used for ranging and for data (increasing the solution complexity)

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 9 Using sequences with perfect periodic autocorrelation There exist some sequences with good periodic autocorrelation: PN codes, Ipatov sequences The problems is that in order to take advantage of this property, the sequence should be sent repetitively without a gap or without modulation, limiting their usefullness Although such periodic sequence can be used in the preamble, it will make an adverse effect on the spectrum – resulting in peaks in the repetition frequency. This makes a lower limit on the sequence length of few uS

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 10 Supporting multiple Piconets Can one practically achieve physical piconet seperation using a short code? Codes with no crosscorrelation cannot exist if codes are non synchronized Due to Near-far effect one cannot use CDMA type separation in 4a application unless the code is very large (e.g. l000 pulses) or alternatively, there is effective time hopping code with very large discrete resolution. Both approaches lead to complicated receiver Conclusion – SOP should be differentiated logically if more than 3 needed. Not a big issue in 4a, where traffic is low. Nevertheless we suggest SOP separation in some level using time code as shown in the following slide

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 11 Supporting multiple piconets using time code symbol

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 12 Integration with modulation proposal The proposed sequence is fitted into type 2b in document 344/r1 “TG4a Review of Proposed UWB-PHY Modulation Schemes and Selection Criteria “

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 13 Integration with modulation proposal PPM BPSK Systematic Conv. Code PPM BPSK For noncoh. **Coherent receiver use both bits + viterbi decoder Coding approach (see for example)

doc.: IEEE a Submission June 2005 Dani Raphaeli, SandLinks Slide 14 Summery Short burst simplify the demodulation and the acquisition Using barker sequence allows keeping very low backoff and therefore extend range Multiple SOP are possible Both noncoherent and coherent detection using PPM on top of BPSK. Good autocorrelation allows using it also for the preamble, saving receiver complexity.