1. June 30th, 2005
Project: IEEE P 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: ,
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 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
Philip Orlik (MERL)

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

3. 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
a-EbN0Setting (Thanks to: Ismail Lakkis)
Measurement of spectral properties and back-off
a-UWB-Power-Measurements.zip (Thanks to: L. Ouvry, S. Dubouloz, G.M. Maggio )
Philip Orlik (MERL)

4. 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)

5. Proposed Selection Criteria (in decreasing priority order)
June 30th, 2005
Proposed Selection Criteria (in decreasing priority order)
PER (packet error rate) 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)

6. Simulation Guidelines
June 30th, 2005
Simulation Guidelines
PER (packet error rate) 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)