1. Jul 12, 2010
07/12/10
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: Extension of the OFDM PHY for utility applications
Date Submitted: Sept 2017
Source: Benjamin A. Rolfe (Blind Creek Associates), Matthew Gillmore (Itron), Tim Godfrey (EPRI), Clint Powell (PWC/SCE)
Contact:
Voice: ,
Re: Wireless Next Generation, Suggested enhancements to
Abstract: Presents requirements derived from utility networking experience which suggest modestly higher data rates for certain applications, and suggests simple enhancement to the existing standard to address these requirements.
Purpose: Stimulate thought and identify potential enhancements.
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
Page 1

2. Introduction Requirements derived from utility use cases
Input from multiple utilities
Input from experienced vendors
Focus on enhancing/extending technologies and topologies which have been successful

3. Repeating Themes Utilities are asking for higher data rates
Require lower latency in mesh networks to support latency sensitive applications
<10ms per hop required in some applications
Applications with higher data volumes e.g. OTA updates.
Higher capacity of nodes in mesh networks
Expanding trade-off space for balancing bandwidth, interference footprint, delivery reliability.
Performance: Higher Rates & Adaptive RF link optimization
Mix of performance needs
Minimize Latency, effective use of spectrum, backward compatibility
Ability to adjust to changing RF conditions

4. Points to increases in data rates
Modest increases – still low Mb/sec
Modest bandwidth usage/channel width
Flexible channelization
Just Right balancing point
OFDM kbps, 1.2 Mbps, 2.4 Mbps
Compliment to lower rate (bandwidth) OFDM and FSK
Builds on what is working now

5. Current OFDM options and MCS
Parameter
OFDM Option 1
OFDM Option 2
OFDM Option 3
OFDM Option 4
Nominal bandwidth (kHz)
1094
552
281
156
Channel spacing (kHz)
1200
800
400
200
DFT size
128 64 32 16
Active tones
104 52 26 14
# Pilot tones 8 4 2
# Data tones 96 48 24 12
MCS0 (kb/s) (BPSK rate 1/2 with 4x frequency repetition)
100 50 —
MCS1 (kb/s) (BPSK rate 1/2 with 2x frequency repetition)
MCS2 (kb/s) (QPSK rate 1/2 and 2x frequency repetition)
MCS3 (kb/s) (QPSK rate 1/2)
MCS4 (kb/s) (QPSK rate 3/4)
600
300
150
MCS5 (kb/s) (16-QAM rate 1/2)
MCS6 (kb/s) (16-QAM rate 3/4)

6. Example of obvious extension
Parameter
OFDM Option 1
OFDM Option 2
OFDM Option 3
OFDM Option 4
Nominal bandwidth (kHz)
1094
552
281
156
Channel spacing (kHz)
1200
800
400
200
DFT size
128 64 32 16
Active tones
104 52 26 14
# Pilot tones 8 4 2
# Data tones 96 48 24 12
MCS0 (kb/s) (BPSK rate 1/2 with 4x frequency repetition)
100 50 —
MCS1 (kb/s) (BPSK rate 1/2 with 2x frequency repetition)
MCS2 (kb/s) (QPSK rate 1/2 and 2x frequency repetition)
MCS3 (kb/s) (QPSK rate 1/2)
MCS4 (kb/s) (QPSK rate 3/4)
600
300
150
MCS5 (kb/s) (16-QAM rate 1/2)
1600
MCS6 (kb/s) (16-QAM rate 3/4)
2400 —

7. Example: Obvious extensions
Multiple OFDM implementations commercially available
Existing implementations support MCS5 and MCS6 for all options already
Using modulation, coding, channelization already defined.

8. What next?
We ask the Working Group to consider minor extension of the OFDM as suggested in our examples.