May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Revised Frequency Plan and PRF Proposal for TG4a] Date Submitted: [27 April 2005] Source: [Ismail Lakkis & Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc.] Contact: Saeid Safavi. Voice:[ , Abstract: [Minimum required PRF for CMOS DS-UWB radios] Purpose: [Clarification of relationship between minimum PRF and maximum allowed voltage level in UWB IR] 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

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a2 Impulse Radio-BPSK/Ternary V Peak TCTC PRI

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a3 Minimum PRF Requirements BW = 500 MHz TechnologyCMOS 90nm 2.5 Vpp, BPSKCMOS 90nm 2.5 Vpp, Ternary T Chip (nsec)22 BW (MHz)500 V Peak (v)1.25 P Ave (dBm) P Peak (dBm)11.94 PRF V Peak (No Margin) PRF V Peak (8 dB Margin)* BW = 1500 MHz TechnologyCMOS 90nm 2.5 Vpp, BPSKCMOS 90nm 2.5 Vpp, Ternary T Chip (nsec)0.66 BW (MHz)1500 V Peak (v)1.25 P Ave (dBm) P Peak (dBm)11.94 PRF V Peak (No Margin) PRF V Peak (4.5 dB Margin)

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a4 Benefits of Low PRF over High PRF A Low PRF system has a lower implementation cost when compared to a high PRF system Overall required RF/IF gain is lower for a Low PRF system. For example a 12 MHz PRF would reduce the receiver dynamic range by 7 dB when compared to a 60 MHz PRF The ADC would run at 12 MHz instead of 60 MHz in the above example and the entire digital processor would run at a lower clock reducing the power by a factor of 5 in CMOS Acquisition is easier to implement since with Lower PRF the sync matched filter is much smaller: –If a 12 MHz system requires a 64 pulses sync pattern, a 60 MHz system would require a sync of 320 pulses to achieve same SNR. Since Energy per pulse is higher (7 dB in the above example), a non-coherent receiver would perform better.

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a5 PLL Reference Diagram Oscillator Reference Divider ( R ) Divider, N Phase Det. XTAL fXfX f Comp f X (MHZ) R f comp (MHz) (13,26)(1,2)13 (9.6,19.2)(24,48)0.4 (12,24)(6,12)2 LPFVCO output

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a6 Frequency Plan Band No.3 dB BW (MHz) Low Freq. (MHz) Center Freq. (MHz) High Freq. (MHz) GHz Note: This plan has almost double margin to 4.9 GHz as compared to 3.1 GHz 123 Band No MHz 111 MHz

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a7 The PRF To satisfy other proposer’s preferences a wide range of PRFs (total of 3) are supported which are compliant with the Harmonic Chip rate requirements. The basic recommended PRF is MHz. PRFs of MHz and MHz are also supported. These PRFs can be generated from the center frequencies of the supported bands. For example, a PRF of MHz may be obtained by dividing the center frequencies by 8x7, 8x8, and 8x9 for bands 1, 2, and 3 respectively. This is further illustrated in the next slide.

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a8 PRF Flexibility Example of the flexibility of the new PRF scheme compared to Wisair’s proposal for generation of the PRF of above 60 MHz 4x3x54x3x5 4x13 4x17 Center Freq. (MHz) Harmonic Ratio PRF (MHz) Wisair’s ProposalWideband Access’ Proposal Prime Factors: 17, 13, 5, x78x7 8x3x38x3x3 Center Freq. (MHz) Harmonic Ratio PRF (MHz) Prime Factors: 7, 3

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a9 Frequency Plan Details New Band Plan (in MHz) XTAL26 R1 Fref26 DF494 F 2C 3952 F 2L 3705 F 2H 4199 F 1C 3458 F 1L 3211 F 1H 3705 F 3C 4446 F 3L 4199 F 3H 4693 PRF N1N1 64N2N2 56N3N3 72 PRF N1N1 128N2N2 112N3N3 144 PRF N1N1 224N2N2 256N3N3 288

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a10 Margin to 3.1 and 4.9 The 3.1 GHz corner filtering is mandatory (FCC requirement), whereas, the rejection at 4.9 is desirable. For an impulse radio using a pulser (no mixer), the only required filtering in the chain is the RF BPF. Consequently, the BPF is responsible for the -10 dB (at least) rejection at 3.1 GHz. Hence a relatively safe margin at 3.1 GHz is required (as supported in this proposal). In any case, there is a safe margin to 4.9 GHz in our new proposal.

May11th 2005 Doc: IEEE a Ismail Lakkis, Saeid Safavi, Wideband Access Inc. SlideTG4a11 Benefits of the Frequency Plan Support of a wide range of PRFs. These PRFs allow peak power margins of dB. Support of a range of Xtals (12,13,9.6, etc.) Enough margin to 3.1 & 4.9 GHz (to meet the FCC requirements and coexistence with WLAN). The proposed PRFs can be easily generated using mainly power of 2 divisions in the first stages, while maintaining small division factors at last stages (3,7).