June 30th, 2005 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: TG4a Review and Selection Criteria Date Submitted: July 17th, 2005 Source: Philip Orlik, Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs. Contact: Philip Orlik Voice: +1-617-621-7570, E-Mail: porlik@merl.com Abstract: Review of TG4a UWB-PHY proposed Pulse Modulation selection criteria Purpose: To provide information for further investigation on and selection of the modulation/waveforms for the UWB-PHY 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. Philip Orlik (MERL)

IEEE 802.15.4a: UWB-PHY Modulation Criteria June 30th, 2005 IEEE 802.15.4a: UWB-PHY Modulation Criteria UWB-PHY Modulation Subgroup Philip Orlik (MERL)

Pulse Modulation Sub-Group June 30th, 2005 Pulse Modulation Sub-Group Weekly meetings, Wednesdays 9:00AM EDT Purpose Define list of criteria for selection of modulation waveform Guidelines for simulations 4a channel model usage Uniform definitions of Eb/N0 15-05-0387-01-004a-EbN0Setting (Thanks to: Ismail Lakkis) Measurement of spectral properties and back-off 15-05-0354-00-004a-UWB-Power-Measurements.zip (Thanks to: L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, G.M. Maggio ) Philip Orlik (MERL)

Topics for Discussion Pulse shaping Modulation formats Waveform design June 30th, 2005 Topics for Discussion Pulse shaping Modulation formats Waveform design Design parameters Adaptive modulation & coding Selection Criteria Receiver Architecture Simulation Results ACTION LIST UWB-PHY GROUP Philip Orlik (MERL)

Proposed Selection Criteria (in decreasing priority order) June 30th, 2005 Proposed Selection Criteria (in decreasing priority order) PER (packet error rate) performance @1Mb/s with 15.4a channel models, rate ½ convolutional code (constraint length up to 5; more needs justification): 1.a) Coherent receiver 1.b) Diff. coherent receiver 1.c) Non-coherent receiver SOP isolation (at least 2 SOP/band; up to 6 SOP) CMOS-compatible peak-to-peak voltage – We defined this as 1Vpp Spectrum: SPAR (spectral peak-to-average ratio) Receiver flexibility: Support for coherent, diff. coherent and non-coherent RX Scalability: Trade-off performance vs. complexity Resilience to NBI (narrow-band interference) Philip Orlik (MERL)

Simulation Guidelines June 30th, 2005 Simulation Guidelines PER (packet error rate) performance @1Mb/s vs. Eb/N0 AWGN Performance Coherent, Diff. Coherent, Non-coherent receive 4a channel models Order of importance: CM1, CM8, then others Show PER performance without receiver enhancements (e.g. a single rake finger for coherent receivers) Show PER performance with proposal's enhancements SOP isolation Desired signal set at 6dB above sensitivity (Eb/N0 where 1% PER was achieved in the channel model.) Vary SINR compute PER. Multiple interferer scenarios should use equal power. Spectrum: SPAR (spectral peak-to-average ratio) State/show what back-off will be required. Philip Orlik (MERL)