November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [High Frequency Band Plan and Pulse Waveforms Proposal] Date Submitted: [November 14, 2005] Source: [Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno] Company [National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)] Contact: Huan-Bang Li. Voice:[ , Abstract: [High frequency band plan and pulse waveforms proposal for DS-UWB radios] Purpose: [Solution proposal for technical parameters to be included in 15.4a draft] 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

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide2 High Frequency Band Plan and Pulse Waveforms Proposal Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide3 Current Status of UWB-PHY Works had been done. –The low frequency band plan ( GHz). –Mandatory nominal data rate (1 Mbps). –Code sequences for preamble. –Modulation scheme. Works are on the way. –Two peak PRF candidates for selection (494MHz vs. 247MHz). –Two FEC candidates for selection. –The high frequency band plan (above 6GHz). –Draft text. What else –Specification of pulse shape.

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide4 1. High frequency band plan proposal

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide5 Why High Frequency Band Plan Only the low frequency band plan is included in the accepted band plan ( ). The high frequency band plan has not been specified. Attractive characteristics compared to the low band –More available frequency bandwidths. –Few existing systems. The draft spectrum masks proposed by Japan and EU have been adopted as ITU recommendation, which draws strict restrictions on the low band. –DAA is required in Japan for 3.4 – 4.8 GHz. –DAA is required in EU for 3.1 – 4.95 GHz

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide6 Spectrum Masks Comparison

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide7 Effects of Low Spectrum Mask

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide8 Points For The High Band Plan To be able to better use the “free spectrums” of both Japan and EU. Integer product relationship between center frequencies and PRF. Harmonization with the accepted low band plan (Use of the same PRF). Use of as small as possible prime factors. To take the advantage of the available bandwidth of the high frequency band.

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide9 The Proposed Band Plan

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide10 Prime factors: 3, 5, 11, 13 PRF Generation

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide11 PLL Reference Diagram Oscillator Reference Divider ( R ) Divider, M Phase Det. XTAL FXFX F Comp LPFVCO F 123,c F X (MHZ)RF comp (MHz) (13,26)(64,128) (9.6,19.2)(96,192)0.1 (12,24)(24,48)0.5 ÷4 PRF ÷ 2, 3, 5, 11, 13

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide12 Fitness With Japan and EU Common sub-band

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide13 Advantages Harmonization with the low frequency band plan. –Three usual frequency bands with one large optional frequency band. –Integer product relationship between center frequencies and PRF –The same PRF as the low-band plan. Fitness with the spectrum –Good use of the ‘free spectrum’ for both Japan and EU. –Larger bandwidth occupancy than the low frequency band plan for each usual band as well as large optional frequency band

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide14 Another candidate?

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide15 Band Plan (A)

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide16 Prime factors: 3, 5, 7, 13, 17 PRF Generation (A)

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide17 PLL Reference Diagram (A) Oscillator Reference Divider ( R ) Divider, M Phase Det. XTAL FXFX F Comp LPFVCO F 123,c F X (MHZ)RF comp (MHz) (13,26)(64,128) (9.6,19.2)(96,192)0.1 (12,24)(24,48)0.5 ÷4 PRF ÷ 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide18 View From Japan and EU (A)

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide19 Facts of Band Plan (A) Advantages –Three common sub bands for Japan and EU. –Efficient use of channels (more available sub bands). Disadvantages –Different PRF from the low band plan. –Same bandwidth with the low frequency band plan

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide20 2. Pulse waveforms proposal

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide21 What’s the Problem? In the agreement of baseline, we only decided to use ‘deterministic pulse’. However, when a pair of transceiver with different pulse waveforms talk each other, they may mismatch each other if we don’t give a definition or specification. Although we have some proposals on pulse waveforms, no decision has been reached so far. Optional pulse waveforms on table include chirp, chaotic, and …

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide22 Proposed Solution To restrict the mandatory pulse waveforms by defining a ‘mandatory waveform group’. Pulses in this group must meet some conditions –Pulse width (Because of the peak PRF used, this parameter may greatly affect the non-coherent receiver’s performance. E.g., less than 2 ns?). –Similarity and interoperability (Pulses in this group can detect each other without obvious performance loss, e.g., less than 3 dB?) Based on the above observation, we propose the following pulse shapes for the ‘mandatory group’. –Gaussian (including bell-shaped Gaussian) –Root Raised Cosine (RRC) –Other pulses meet the above conditions.

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide Interoperability between Gaussian and RRC

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide24 Simulation System Block Diagram FEC K=3 conv FEC K=3 conv MOD 2PPM ＋ BPSK MOD 2PPM ＋ BPSK Pulse shaping (RRC or Gaussian filter) Pulse shaping (RRC or Gaussian filter) VITERBI DEMOD Filtering (RRC or Gaussian filter) Filtering (RRC or Gaussian filter) Transmitter Receiver fc Pulse shaping (Gaussian filter) Pulse shaping (Gaussian filter) fc Filtering (Gaussian filter) Filtering (Gaussian filter) fc

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide25 Simulation Results

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide Optional chirp

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide27 Statements in the Baseline Potential for optional chirp mode (at best where allowed). –It is confirmed by the Japanese regulatory body (MIC) that chirp signaling UWB is compliant in Japan. Add chirp specifically for UWB as SOP mechanism –This has been shown in our previous documents ( ).

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide28 Simulation Block Diagram for SOP

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide29 Simulation results for SOP

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide Optional continuous spectrum pulse ( )

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide31 CS Pulse Examples Gaussian without CS 1ns/1GHz CS 5ns/1GHz CS 10ns/1GHz CS

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide32 Mismatch Detection (CS Receiver) Inverse CS-Filter -10ns delay/GHz cos sin | Transmitter Gaussian (0ns delay) +10ns delay/GHz -10ns delay/GHz LPF Output DS  CS CS  CS

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide33 Mismatch Detection (DS Receiver) Transmitter Gaussian (0ns delay) +10ns delay/GHz -10ns delay/GHz cos sin | LPF Output CS  DS

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide34 Block Diagram For SOP Simulation (Case of Receiver with Optional CS) 1-SOP Delay: 10ns/GHz Delay: -10ns/GHz DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter CS filter CS filter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Receiver DS-UWB Receiver CS Filter -1 CS Filter -1 Delay: 10ns/GHz Delay: -10ns/GHz DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter 2-SOP CS filter CS filter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Receiver DS-UWB Receiver CS Filter -1 CS Filter -1

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide35 Block Diagram For SOP Simulation (Case of DS-only Receiver) 1-SOP Delay: 10ns/GHz DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter CS filter CS filter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter Delay: 10ns/GHz DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter 2-SOP CS filter CS filter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Receiver DS-UWB Receiver DS-UWB Receiver DS-UWB Receiver CS filter CS filter DS-UWB Transmitter DS-UWB Transmitter Delay: -10ns/GHz

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide36 Enhanced SOP With CS Filtering CS  DS has the similar performance as DS  CS because of the symmetry.

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide37 Advantages of Chirp Filtering (Compared to DS-only Devices) To support SOP, CS filtering provides additional anti- interference ability. In comparison with DS-only piconets, Piconets with different CS filtering can reduce the interference against each other (additionally larger SIR). (CS  CS) Piconet with CS filtering can reduce the interference from DS-only piconets (additionally larger SIR). (DS  CS) DS-only piconet receivers smaller interference from piconets with CS filtering (additionally larger SIR). (CS  DS)

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide38 Conclusion Remarks The high frequency band plan proposal. –Harmonization with the low frequency band plan. (the same PRF, three sub-band + one large band) –Better use of the draft spectrums of Japan and EU. (one common sub-band, large bandwidth for each sub- band) Pulse waveform proposal –Mandatory group of pulse waveforms. –Optional chirp signaling. –Optional continuous spectrum (CS) filtering.