Synchronization Requirements

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Qi Wang July 3rd, Mobile Communication Seminar.
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /569r0 Submission Performance of 1x, 2x, and 4x HE-LTF May 2015 Slide 1 Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)
Doc.: IEEE /0358r3 Submission March 2015 Daewon Lee, NEWRACOM Numerology for 11ax Date: Authors: Slide 1.
Submission doc.: IEEE /1446r0 November 2014 Leif Wilhelmsson, EricssonSlide 1 Analysis of frequency and power requirements for UL-OFDMA Date:
Doc.: IEEE /1168r1 Sept 2014 Submission Yonggang Fang et. al. (ZTE) TGax PHY Frame Structure Discussion for Enabling New Contention Mechanism.
Doc.: IEEE /0099 Submission Payload Symbol Size for 11ax January 2015 Ron Porat, BroadcomSlide 1 Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0818r1 July 2014 SubmissionYonggang Fang et. al. (ZTE) Synchronization Requirements Date: Slide 1 Authors: NameAffiliationAddress .
Submission doc.: IEEE /1452r0 November 2014 Leif Wilhelmsson, EricssonSlide 1 Frequency selective scheduling in OFDMA Date: Authors:
Phase Tracking During VHT-LTF
Doc.: IEEE /0099 Submission Payload Symbol Size for 11ax January 2015 Ron Porat, BroadcomSlide 1 Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /1088r0 September 2015 Daewon Lee, NewracomSlide 1 LTF Design for Uplink MU-MIMO Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0363r1 March 2015 SubmissionYonggang Fang et. al. (ZTE) MU Synchronization Requirements for SFD Date: Slide 1 Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0632r1 Submission May 2016 Intel CorporationSlide 1 Performance Analysis of Robust Transmission Modes for MIMO in 11ay Date:
PHY Design Considerations for af
Performance Evaluation for 11ac
Further Rotation Modulation Application
PHY Abstraction for MU-MIMO in TGac
GI Overhead/Performance Impact on Open-Loop SU-MIMO
Discussions on 11ac PHY Efficiency
HEW Evaluation Metrics Suggestions
Comparisons of Simultaneous Downlink Transmissions
Data Rate Selection for Wake-up Receiver
An Overview of ax Greg Kamer – Consulting Systems Engineer.
Considerations on AP Coordination
Purpose of MAC calibration test cases
Simulation Results for Box5
January 2012 Discussions on the better resource utilization for the next generation WLANs Date: January 17th, 2012 Authors: Name Affiliations Address Phone.
OFDMA Performance Analysis
Month Year doc: IEEE /xxxxr0
Considerations on AP Coordination
Discussions on 11ac PHY Efficiency
TGax Functional Requirement Discussion
Multi-User MIMO Channel Measurements
OFDMA Performance Analysis
Updated Simulation Results for Box5
TGax Functional Requirement Discussion
Wake Up Response mode to WUR frame
Heterogenous per-Client Doppler in MU-MIMO Scenarios
Simulation Results for Box5
Consideration on PER Prediction for PHY Abstraction
Joint Processing MU-MIMO
Functional Requirements for EHT Specification Framework
Initial Distributed MU-MIMO Simulations
Preamble for 120MHz Date: Authors: Nov, 2010 Month Year
Discussions on 11ac PHY Efficiency
Discussions on 11ac PHY Efficiency
Data Subcarrier and Interleaving for 120MHz
Hybrid Multiple Access in ax
Simulation Results for Box5
Introductory TGah Proposal
MU Synchronization Requirements for SFD
Simulation of Potential PHY Technology
EHT Feature Discussion
Joint Coding and Modulation Diversity for ac
160 MHz Transmissions Date: Authors: July 2010 Month Year
UL MU Random Access Analysis
Rotation Modulation Application to ac system
Joint Coding and Modulation Diversity for ah
Introductory TGah Proposal
Simulation of Potential PHY Technology
TD Control field with Response indication in WUR frame
Consideration on PER Prediction for PHY Abstraction
OFDMA Performance Analysis
Strawmodel ac Specification Framework
Numerology for 11ax Date: Authors: March 2015 Month Year
PHY Performance Evaluation with 60 GHz WLAN Channel Models
Functional Requirements for EHT Specification Framework
Consideration on System Level Simulation
EHT Multi-AP Feature Discussion
Consideration on Joint Transmission
Presentation transcript:

Synchronization Requirements Month Year doc: IEEE 802.11-13/xxxxr0 Synchronization Requirements Date: 2014-07-14 Authors: Name Affiliation Address Email Yonggang Fang ZTE yfang@ztetx.com Bo Sun sun.bo1@zte.com.cn Ke Yao ke.yao@zte.com.cn Kaiying Lv lv.kaiying@zte.com.cn Kaibo Tian tian.kaibo@zte.com.cn Zhendong Luo CATR luozhendong@catr.cn Meng Yang yangmeng1@catr.cn Jiadong Du dujiadong@catr.cn Yonggang Fang, ZTETX

Abstract The synchronization between AP and multiple STAs is needed for some features, like UL OFDMA, UL MU MIMO and code based contention to improve the spectrum efficiency. This contribution analyzes the frequency and timing synchronization via comparing the results from difference source and the similar requirements from LTE, and suggests some synchronization requirements in IEEE 802.11 AX specification.

Overview OFDM system is sensitive to synchronization error. Therefore some features require synchronization error between multiple STAs and AP within a given threshold. UL MU OFDMA [8] UL MU MIMO [9] Enhancement of CSMA/CA [10] Synchronization requirements contain two aspects: frequency synchronization and timing synchronization. Synchronization error would impact system performance. Each wireless specification needs to give its synchronization requirements so as to achieve the expected system performance in the wireless transmission.

Impact by Frequency Synchronization Error SNR Degradation [1], [2] and [4] give the overall impact on SNR for relative small frequency errors. The degradation could be formulated by SNRloss = 10 (πTfΔ)2Es /(3ln10) N0 (dB) From the analysis, 1% frequency synchronization error will cause 0.5dB SNR degradation at 64 QAM, or 10-4 BER.

Impact by Frequency Synchronization Error Constellation Rotation Frequency synchronization errors will cause constellation rotation, especially in long frame transmission [3] shows the constellation rotation in 10 received symbols at frequency 1% synchronization errors.

Frequency Synchronization Analysis IEEE802.11 High Throughput PHY Specification [4] But it does not define the requirement for the frequency synchronization error between carrier frequency of STA and AP. Parameters Requirements Notes Transmit center frequency and symbol clock frequency tolerance ± 20 ppm for 5GHz band ± 25 ppm for 2.4GHz band = ±100 KHz = 31% error of subcarrier spacing = ±60 KHz = 19% error of subcarrier spacing Subcarrier spacing = 312.5 KHz

Frequency Synchronization Analysis 3GPP Frequency Synchronization [7] Parameters Requirements Notes BS Frequency Tolerance ±0.05 ppm (wide area BS) ±0.10 ppm (local area BS) ±0.25 ppm (home BS) = ±100 Hz = 0.6% = ±200 Hz = 1.3% = ±500 Hz = 3% error of subcarrier spacing (15KHz) UE Frequency Tolerance UE carrier frequency shall be accurate to within ±0.1 ppm observed over a period of one time slot (0.5 ms) compared to the carrier frequency received from the E-UTRA Node B Intra-band contiguous carrier aggregation UE modulated carrier frequencies per band shall be accurate to within ±0.1 ppm observed over a period of one timeslot compared to the carrier frequency of primary component carrier received from the E-UTRA in the corresponding band. UL-MIMO UE modulated carrier frequency at each transmit antenna connector shall be accurate to within ±0.1 PPM observed over a period of one time slot (0.5 ms) compared to the carrier frequency received from the E-UTRA Node B.

Frequency Synchronization Analysis Frequency Synchronization Tolerance [6] presented the simulation result on the impact of PER-SNR by UL frequency difference among STAs. AP has 8 antennas, 6 STAs with single stream uplink MMSE with ideal training but with pilot phase tracking per client 1000B packets, 64-QAM, rate 5/6, channel D-NLOS Frequency errors a) 0, b) 2 kHz, c) 4 kHz, d) 8 kHz

Proposal - 1 Requirement of Frequency Synchronization For 5GHz band, the carrier frequency synchronization error between the carrier frequency of STA and the carrier frequency received from the AP shall be within ±N1 ppm (TBD) Note: this will be equivalent to N% (TBD) error at 312.5 subcarrier spacing. For the 2.4GHz band, the carrier frequency synchronization error between the carrier frequency of STA and the carrier frequency received from the AP shall be within ±N2 ppm (TBD)

Timing Synchronization Analysis IEEE 802.11 Timing Requirements Assume to use parameters defined in current IEEE 802.11 spec In TGn and TGac, the GI (or CP) of symbol is defined as 0.8us. Channel Models A-E used for indoor [5]. Timing synchronization error tolerance may be related to GI (or CP). Channel Model A B C D E # of clusters 1 tap 2 taps 3 taps 4 taps RMS Delay Spread (ns) 15 30 50 100 Max delay (ns) 80 200 390 730 Max Cell Size (CP = 800ns) 120m 108m 90m 61m 10m

Timing Synchronization Analysis IEEE 802.11 Timing Requirements IEEE 802.11 does not define the timing synchronization requirement between STA and AP. The timing synchronization error between the AP and STAs will reduce the delay tolerance in GI/CP for multi-path protection. The more error in the timing synchronization, the less multi-path tolerance. The longer CP, the loose timing synchronization requirement, but it would reduce the efficiency. Timing Synchronization Error Max delay CP

Timing Synchronization Analysis 3GPP LTE Timing Requirements [7] For UL-MIMO For UE(s) with multiple transmit antenna connectors, the Time Alignment Error (TAE) shall not exceed 130 ns.

Timing Synchronization Analysis UL Timing Difference Impact on PER-SNR [6] also simulated the cases for different timing error to impact the PER-SNR curves AP has 8 antennas, 6 STAs with single stream uplink MMSE with ideal training but with pilot phase tracking per client 1000B packets, 64-QAM, rate 5/6, channel D-NLOS Timing differences a) 0, b) 200ns, c) 400ns, d) 600ns

Proposal-2 Timing Synchronization Requirement We suggest to define the time synchronization requirement as The symbol timing synchronization between the transmit symbol boundary of STA and the received symbol boundary from the AP shall be aligned within the M ns (TBD) for the current CP length defined in IEEE 802.11.

Summary Benefits of Control Frequency/Timing Sync Errors Improve the system performance (SINR, PER) Improve the multipath tolerance in OFDM system We suggest to define requirements for synchronization The carrier frequency synchronization error between the carrier frequency of STA and the carrier frequency received from the AP shall be within N% (TBD) of sub-carrier space. The transmit time measured at the STA antenna port shall be aligned with the symbol boundary of received frame from AP within M ns (TBD).

Straw Poll – 1 Do you support to add in FRD the requirement about the residual error of frequency synchronization between the carrier frequency of STA and the carrier frequency received from the AP? Yes: No: Abstain:

Straw Poll – 2 Do you support to add in FRD the requirement about the transmit timing alignment with the symbol boundary of received frame from AP? Yes No: Abstain:

References T Pollet, M. etc. “BER Sensitivity of OFDM Systems to Carrier Frequency Offset and Wiener Phase Noise”, IEEE Transactions on Communiucations, Vol 43, Issue 2, Part 3, February, March, April 1995, pp. 191-193 Ting-Jung Liang, etc. “Synchronization in OFDM-based WLAN with Transmit and Receive Diversities”, Juha Heiskala, etc. OFDM Wireless LANs: A Theoretical and Practival Guide. IEEE 802.11 Specification IEEE 802.11 11-03-0940-04-000n-tgn-channel-models IEEE 802.11 11-09-1036-00-00ac-uplink-mu-mimo-sensitivity-to-power-differences-and-synchronization-errors 3GPP TS 36.101 IEEE 802.11 11-13-1388-00-0hew-ul-mu-transmission IEEE 802.11 11-09-0852-00-00ac-ul-mu-mimo-for-11ac IEEE 802.11 11-14-0616-00-00ax-CSMA-enhancement-suggestion