1. Comparison of 16e and Potential Ranging Structures for Non-synchronized AMSs Document Number: S80216m-09/0916 Date Submitted: 2009-05-03 Source: Xinrong Wang, Yang-Seok Choi, Jong-Kae Fwu, Hujun Yin, Xiangying Yang, Apostolos Papathanassiou, Yuval Lomnitz E-mail: {xinrong.wang, yang-seok.choi, jong-kae.fwu, hujun.yin, xiangying.yang, apostolos.papathanassiou, yuval.lomnitz} @intel.com Intel Corporation Venue: IEEE Session #61, Cairo, Egypt Base Contribution: C802.16m-09/0916 or its latest revision Re: AWD-Comments / Chapter 15.3.9 (UL-CTRL) Purpose: For TGm members’ discussion and approval Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.16. Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and.http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Further information is located at and.http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.htmlhttp://standards.ieee.org/board/pat

2. 2 16e and Different Potential Ranging Structures

3. 3 Coverage Comparison Format Resource (subband x symbol) Subcarrier Spacing RCP+RP Guard Time Coverage (CP=1/8) 16e 2x3 (equivalent) ∆fTg+2Tb2Tg+Tb12.0 km Option 11x6∆f4Tg+4Tb2Tg+2Tb 30.9 km (assuming time domain estimation) Option 21x6∆f/23.5Tg+5Tb2.5Tg+Tb18.0 km

4. 4 Simulation Parameters and Assumptions ParametersAssumptions systemCell size5 km Carrier frequency2.5 GHz FFT size1024, CP=1/8 Subcarrier spacing∆f (10.9375 kHz) or ∆f/2 Residual frequency offset0 Hz, or 2% of subcarrier spacing ChannelTX antenna1 RX antenna2 Channel modelseITU-PB3 RangingRanging user2 users Data user0 Ranging resource144 for 16e, 1-subband for others Number of ranging codes per ranging channel 64 Zadoff-Chu codesroot codes (ZC-283 or ZC-139) Ranging code selectionRandom (2 users choosing different codes) Code detectionOnly searching for peaks (not using threshold) Ranging round trip delayRandom Note: Residual frequency offset does not affect the ranging performance

5. 5 16e vs Option 1 – eITU-PB3, 5km, time domain detection and estimation 16e, 144 subcarriers x 3 symbols Option 1, 1 subband x 6 symbols time domain detection and estimation (using the whole sequences) Sequence length of Option 1 is Zadoff- Chu 283. The first 71, the second 71, the third 71, and the last 70 modulates RP1, RP2, RP3, and RP4, respectively Option 1 uses the same amount of resource as 16e Option 1 has better detection performance especially when SIR is low Option 1 increases computation complexity in RX

6. 6 16e vs Option 2 – eITU-PB3, 5km, frequency domain detection and estimation 16e, 144 subcarriers x 3 symbols Option 2, 1 subband x 6 symbols Frequency domain detection and estimation (using one OFDMA symbol) (using two long OFDMA symbols, 2*2Tb)

7. 7 16e vs Option 2 - eITU-PB3, 5km, time domain detection and estimation 16e, 144 subcarriers x 3 symbols Option 2, 1 subband x 6 symbols time domain detection and estimation (using the whole sequences) Option 2 uses the same amount of resource as 16e, and it has better detection performance than 16e The drawback of Option 2 is that it uses 1/2 of the data subcarrier spacing Option 2 increase implementation complexity in RX

8. 8 16e vs All Options - eITU-PB3, 5km, time domain detection and estimation 16e (2x3, ∆f) Option 1 (1x6, ∆f) Option 2 (1x6, ∆f/2)

9. 9 Receiver sensitivity comparison between 16e and different proposals in C802.16m- 09/0916r1 and C802.16m-09/1091 Ranging channel structure 16e LGE Format 0 LGE Format 0 Intel Option 1 Intel Option 2 Occupied bandwidth 144 subcarriers 2 subbbands1 subband Receiver sensitivity in dBm (Frequency domain detection) -114.03-117.93-115.64n/a-119.14 Receiver sensitivity in dBm (Time domain detection) -117.73n/a -121.04-121.74 Note: LGE Format 0 values are from C802.16m-09/1091 Thermal Noise : -174 dBm/Hz, NF:5 dB, -2dB margin for ranging

10. 10 Conclusion Option 1 keeps the same numerology as 16e and it has better performance than 16e. Option 1 is a good candidate, but it increases computation complexity in RX if detection and estimation is done in time domain Option 2 has better performance than 16e and it is also a good candidate. However, Option 2 has smaller subcarrier spacing than 16e. It introduces implementation complexity issue in RX Proposed AWD Text –Adopt the proposed text in C802.16m-09/0916 or its latest revision

11. 11 Back Up

12. 12 16e vs Option 1 - eITU-PB3, 5km cell size, time domain detection and estimation 16e, 144 subcarriers x 3 symbols Option 1, 1 subband x 6 symbols time domain detection and estimation (using the whole sequences)

13. 13 16e vs Option 2 - eITU-PB3, 5km cell size, time domain detection and estimation 16e, 144 subcarriers x 3 symbols Option 2, 1 subband x 6 symbols time domain detection and estimation (using the whole sequences)