1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [Pulse Waveforms Proposal]
Date Submitted: [November 16, 2005]
Source: [Huan-Bang Li(1), Kenichi Takizawa(1), Yuko Rikuta(1), Shinsuke Hara(1), Tetsushi Ikegami(1), Ryuji Kohno(1), Toshiaki Sakane(2), Kiyohito Tokuda(3)]
Company [(1) National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), (2)Fujitsu Limited, (3)Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.]
Contact: Huan-Bang Li.
Voice:[ ,
Abstract: [Pulse waveforms proposal for DS-UWB radios]
Purpose: [Solution proposal for technical parameters 15.4a]
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

2. 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) Toshiaki Sakane Fujitsu Limited, Kiyohito Tokuda Oki Electric Industry Co. Ltd.

3. Current Status of Vancouver Meeting
Works have been done
Peak PRF and chip rate (494MHz & 2ns)
Modulation and FEC (2PPM & RS+1/2 convolutional code)
ALOHA as mandatory channel access mechanism
Four preamble lengths (64, 256, 1024, 4096 – symbols)
Four data rates (100k, 3.25M, 13M, 26M – bps)
Above 6GHz band plan.
Works are on the way
Specification on pulse waveforms
Optional channel access mechanism

4. 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, significant mismatch may happan if we don’t give a definition or specification.
Although we have some proposals on pulse waveforms, no decision has been reached so far. Guidelines are needed to select pulse waveforms.
Optional pulse waveforms on table include chirp, chaotic, …

5. Proposed Solutions Mandatory Define a mandatory pulse waveform group
Option
Chirp on UWB
Continuous spectrum (CS) pulse

6. 1. Proposal on mandatory pulse waveforms

7. ‘Mandatory Waveform Group’
The proposal is to restrict the mandatory pulse waveforms by defining a ‘mandatory waveform group’. Pulse waveforms in this group must meet the following 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? With 90%? of energy in it).
Interoperability (Pulses in this group can detect each other without obvious performance loss, e.g., less than 3 dB? with root raised cosine and Gaussian pulses)

8. Simulation results on interoperability between Gaussian and RRC

9. Simulation System Block Diagram
Transmitter
Pulse shaping
(RRC filter)
FEC
K=3 conv
MOD
2PPM＋BPSK
Pulse shaping
(Gaussian filter)
Receiver
Pulse shaping
(RRC filter)
(Gaussian filter)
DEMOD
VITERBI

10. Simulation Results (coherent receiver)
RRC
RRC
Gaussian
Gaussian

11. Simulation Results (noncoherent receiver)b / N [ d B ] a v e r g P R - G 8 1 2 6 4 3
2PPM+BPSK
PRF = 494MHz
K=3
convolutional
code dB
1.6
R: Root-raise cosine waveform
(Roll-off factor =0.3)
G: Gaussian waveform
RRC
RRC
Gaussian
Gaussian

12. What Waveforms Can Be In The Mandatory Group?
To start with some popular pulse waveforms including
Gaussian (including bell-shaped Gaussian)
Root Raised Cosine (RRC) ?
Any other pulse waveforms meet the pulse width and interoperability conditions can be added the mandatory group.
To leave room for new and good pulse waveforms.

13. 2 Two optional Pulse Waveforms proposal

14. Option 1 Chirp on UWB

15. Statements in the Baseline on Chirp
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
( )
( )
( )

16. Overall Block Diagram With Optional CS
Transmitter
BW = 494 MHz
FEC
Spreading
Pulse
shaping GA
modulation
CHIRP D
Local oscillator
Receiver
Pre-Select
Filter
LPF GA
1 to 2-bit ADC
De-spreading
Decision/
FEC decoder
LNA
LPF GA
1 to 2-bit
ADC
DE-
CHIRP I
Local
oscillator
Sync. Q
Additional circuits to DS-UWB as an option

17. Simulation Block Diagram for SOP

18. Simulation results for SOP
DS with
chirp
DS-only

19. Main Advantages for Chirp
Additional dimension to support SOP
Chirp slopes and chirp patterns
Better performance than DS codes
Combination with FDM and/or CDM
Additional link margins
Low peak-to-average ratio.
Robustness against interference and multipath
Excellent correlation characteristics
Potential high precision ranging.

20. Option 2 Continuous spectrum pulse (05-0544-00)

21. CS Pulse Examples Gaussian without CS 1ns/1GHz CS 5ns/1GHz CS

22. Mismatch Detection (CS Receiver)
Inverse
CS-Filter
-10ns delay/GHz
cos
sin
| |
Transmitter
Gaussian (0ns delay)
+10ns delay/GHz
LPF Output
DSCS
CSCS

23. Mismatch Detection (DS Receiver)
Transmitter
Gaussian (0ns delay)
+10ns delay/GHz
-10ns delay/GHz
cos
sin
| |
LPF Output
CSDS

24. Block Diagram For SOP Simulation (Case of Receiver with Optional CS)
Delay: 10ns/GHz
Delay: -10ns/GHz
DS-UWB
Transmitter CS
filter
Receiver
Filter -1
Delay: 10ns/GHz
Delay: -10ns/GHz
DS-UWB
Transmitter
2-SOP CS
filter
Receiver
Filter -1

25. Block Diagram For SOP Simulation (Case of DS-only Receiver)
Delay: 10ns/GHz
DS-UWB
Transmitter CS
filter
2-SOP
Receiver
Delay: -10ns/GHz

26. Enhanced SOP With CS Filtering
S = DS, I = DS
S = DS w/t CS, I = DS w/t CS
DS+CS 1
transmitter
DS+CS 2
transmitter S
DS+CS 3
transmitter I I
DS+CS 1
receiver
4dB
4dB

27. Enhanced SOP With CS Filtering
S = DS, I = DS
S = DS w/t CS, I = DS
DS+CS 1
transmitter
DS 2
transmitter S
DS 1
transmitter I I
DS+CS 1
receiver
3dB
3dB

28. Advantages of CS 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)

29. Realization Examples Frequency (MHz) Insertion loss (dB) +2ns/GHz-5
-10
-15
Insertion
loss
(dB)
+2ns/GHz
+1ns/GHz
-1ns/GHz
-2ns/GHz 5 4 3 2 1
Group
delay
(ns)
　3200　　3380　　3560　 3740　　3920　　4100　 4280　　4460　　 　 4820　 　5000
Frequency (MHz)

30. Conclusion Remarks ‘Mandatory pulse group’ proposal
Specifications for mandatory pulse waveforms.
Optional chirp on UWB proposal
Additional dimensions to support SOP
Optional continuous spectrum pulse proposal
SOP performance enhancement