802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA · 2007-03-06 · 802.20 Session # 23, March...
Transcript of 802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA · 2007-03-06 · 802.20 Session # 23, March...
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
1IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3> and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards
Development <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html>.
Patent Policy
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 802.20.
Release
This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.20 Working Group. 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.
Notice
For consideration by 802.20 as it evaluates proposals for FDD MBWA.Purpose
This contribution contains the presentation of the UMBFDD PerformanceReport 1 results.
Abstract
MBWA Call for Proposals (802.20 - 07/02) Re:
1-847-632-4201, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Al Jette, Shirish Nagaraj, Val Oprescu
Source(s)
5 March 2007Date Submitted
UMBFDD Performance Report 1 PresentationTitle
IEEE 802.20 Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access <http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/>
Project
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
2IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
UMBFDD Performance Report I
Presentation
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
3IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Out-of-Band Emissions• Spectral shape of 5MHz transmitted, modulated carriers shown• Both meet FCC emissions spec
Forward Link• 512 sub-carriers spaced 9600Hz
center-to-center, including 16 guard subcarriers on each side
• Remaining 480 sub-carriers are QPSK-modulated
• Feedforward power amplifier based on the Rapp model, 8dB backoff
Reverse Link• Full band hopping, two tiles of
subcarriers• Amp based on Rapp model, 6.5dB
backoff
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
4IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Peak Data Rates
Bandwidth 1.25 MHz 5 MHz Parameter
Downlink Uplink Downlink Uplink Peak User Data Rate Requirement 4.5 Mbps 2.25 Mbps 18 Mbps 9 Mbps
UMBFDD Peak User Data Rate Achieved 17Mbps 4Mbps 87Mbps 21Mbps
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
5IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
• Performed in accordance with the procedures given in Evaluation Criteria document.
• Smoother thirty-drop curve is a consequence of having many more random lognormal draws.
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Location File - 1 dropLocation File - 30 drops
Pro
babi
lity
that
C/I ≤
Abs
ciss
a
Location Calibration
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
6IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Simulation Parameters (1)
Units Downlink UplinkCarrier Frequency Ghz 1.9 1.9Bandwidth of Operation MHz 5 5
Site Layout 19 cells/57 sector hex grid with wraparound
19 cells/57 sector hex grid with wraparound
Site separation km 1, 2.5 1, 2.5Minimum separation between AT and BTS m 35 35Subcarrier Spacing kHz 9.6 9.6Sampling Rate Mcps 4.9152 4.9152FFT size 512 512
Guardband subcarriers 32 32
Cyclic Prefix μs 6.51 6.51 (pedB) 13.02 (vehB)
OFDM symbol length μs 113.93 113.93 (pedB) 120.44 (vehB)
# of OFDM symbols per frame 8 8# of subcarriers per symbol per subchannel 16 16# of HARQ Interlaces 8 8Max Number of HARQ attempts 6 6Source Model Full Buffer Full BufferPilot Overhead % 14.84 14.06Control overhead % 10 10
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
7IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Simulation Parameters (2)
Units Downlink Uplink
ITU Channel Model Usage100% pedB/3 kph
100% vehB/120 kph (no mix)
100% pedB/3 kph 100% vehB/120 kph
(no mix)
Propagation model Hata, 31.5 intercept, 35 dB slope
Hata, 31.5 intercept, 35 dB slope
Lognormal Shadowing standard deviation dB 10 10Site-to-site correlation coefficient 0.5 0.5Noise Floor dBm/Hz -174 -174Receiver noise figure dB 10 5Max Tx Power dBm 50 27Penetration Loss dB 10 10Body Loss dB 3 3
Antenna pattern - BTS - Horizontal 3dB bandwidth: 70 deg, 20 dB max atten
3dB bandwidth: 70 deg, 20 dB max atten
Antenna pattern - BTS - Vertical not modeled not modeledAntenna height - BTS m 32 32Antenna height - AT m 1.5 1.5Antenna gain - BTS (including cable loss) dBi 14 14Antenna gain - AT dBi 0 0Maximum C/I per antenna dB 30 30# of Tx Antennas 4 1# of Rx Antennas 4 2, 8Scheduler Proportional Fair Proportional Fair
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
8IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
NULL15
4466669.514
4446668.013
4446667.012
4444666.011
4444665.010
4444664.59
4444664.08
4444463.57
4444463.06
3334462.55
3333342.04
3333341.53
2222220.942
2222220.671
2222220.330
6+54321
Modulation Order For Each TransmissionSpectral Efficiency on First
Transmission
Packet Format Index
Downlink Packet Formats
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
9IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink Packet Formats
• 64 QAM not modeled• Modulation step-down not modeled
– packet formats were modified to accommodate
Modulation Order For Each Transmission Packet Format Index
Spectral Efficiency on
First Transmission
1 2 3 4 5 6+
0 0.36 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 0.71 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 1.07 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1.4 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 1.8 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 2.13 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 2.5 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 3.0 4 4 4 4 4 4
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
10IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
ECM Validation Curves
• Link-to-system mapping used is Equivalent SNR Method based on Convex Metric (ECM)• Effectively same as one proposed to the 802.20 working group: Effective SNR• Validated with AWGN, Ped B and Veh B, for SIMO transmissions• Result: mapping method is accurate - all channel models show near-identical results for
FER vs. Effective SNR
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
11IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Geometry Curves
• Shown are long-term results of FER vs. geometry for: – two models of the system with – three levels of modulation and coding
• Ideal channel estimation is used
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
12IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Downlink System Simulation
Results
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
13IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Downlink Fairness
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Normalized Mobile Throughput
Prob(NMT<=Abscissa
Fairness Criterion4x4 pedB 1000m4x4 pedB 2500m4x4 vehB 1000m4x4 vehB 2500m
Pro
babi
lity(
NM
T ≤
Abs
ciss
a)
16 Users/Sector
0 1 2 3 4 5 60
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Normalized Mobile Throughput
Prob(NMT<=Abscissa
Fairness Criterion4x4 pedB 1000m4x4 pedB 2500m4x4 vehB 1000m4x4 vehB 2500m
Pro
babi
lity(
NM
T ≤
Abs
ciss
a)
8 Users/Sector
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
14IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 250
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2x 107
SINR dB
Throughput bps
Throughput vs. SINR
• Throughput derived from FER vs. SINR• Each packet format produces particular throughput for
given number of required transmissions. • All of these packet format throughputs are presented in
hull curves below
Thro
ughp
ut (b
ps)
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
15IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
BTS Antenna System• Is a uniform linear 4-element array, producing four fixed beams.• Switched beams have been shown to be a good choice for achieving high capacity• Each element has Gaussian antenna pattern• Half-power beamwidth is 70 degrees, • Front-to-back ratio is 20dB.
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
16IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Downlink Aggregate Throughput
• Four fixed beams were used in each sector.
# of Antennas Channel Model # of Users/Sector
Site-to-Site Separation
(km)
Sector Throughput
(kbps)
4x4 3kph/PedB 8 1 16241
4x4 120kph/VehB 8 1 13111
4x4 3kph/PedB 16 1 19969
4x4 120kph/VehB 16 1 15431
4x4 3kph/PedB 8 2.5 15542 4x4 120kph/VehB 8 2.5 12687
4x4 3kph/PedB 16 2.5 18731
4x4 120kph/VehB 16 2.5 13454
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
17IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Downlink Spectral Efficiency
• Assumes a 5 MHz bandwidth assignment and a 1km site separation
• Minimum requirements (per PAR):
– 3 kph, PedB 2.0 (b/s/Hz/sector)– 120 kph, VehB 1.5
• Achieved:
– 3 kph, PedB 3.99– 120 kph, VehB 3.09
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
18IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Downlink Mobile Throughput
• CDF of Mobile Throughput shown
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Mobile Throughput (kbps)
Prob(MT<=Abscissa
4x4 pedB 1000m4x4 pedB 2500m4x4 vehB 1000m4x4 vehB 2500m
Pro
b(M
T≤
Abs
ciss
a)
16 Users/Sector8 Users/Sector
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Mobile Throughput (kbps)
Prob(MT<=Abscissa
4x4 pedB 1000m4x4 pedB 2500m4x4 vehB 1000m4x4 vehB 2500m
Pro
b(M
T≤
Abs
ciss
a)
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
19IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
394kbps 325kbps
647kbps 560kbps
Site-to-Site Distance (km)
# of Users/Sector
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
531kbps 439kbps
850kbps 704kbps
Site-to-Site Distance (km)
# of Users/Sector
Number of Users vs BTS separation at Minimum Service Level#
Use
rs p
er s
ecto
r
# U
sers
per
sec
tor
120kph/Vehicular B3kph/Pedestrian B
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
20IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.51.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
1.6
1.65
1.7x 104
394kbps (16 users)
325kbps (16 users
647kbps (8 users)
560kbps (8 users)
Site-to-Site Distance (km)
Aggregate Throughput/Sect
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.51.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1x 104
531kbps (16 users)
439kbps (16 users)
850kbps (8 users)
704kbps (8 users)
Site-to-Site Distance (km)
Aggregate Throughput/Sect
Aggregated Throughput vs. Base Station Separation at Minimum Service Level
Agg
rega
te T
hrou
ghpu
t /se
c
Agg
rega
te T
hrou
ghpu
t /se
c
120kph/Vehicular B3kph/Pedestrian B
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
21IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.52.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
394kbps (16 users)
325kbps (16 users
647kbps (8 users)
560kbps (8 users)
Site-to-Site Distance (km)
Spectral Efficiency (b/
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.53
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
531kbps (16 users)
439kbps (16 users)
850kbps (8 users)
704kbps (8 users)
Site-to-Site Distance (km)
Spectral Efficiency (b/
Spectral Efficiency vs. Base Station Separation at Minimum Service Level
Spe
ctra
l Effi
cien
cy
Spe
ctra
l Effi
cien
cy
120kph/Vehicular B3kph/Pedestrian B
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
22IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink System Simulation
Results
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
23IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink Fairness
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Normalized Mobile Throughput
1km 2rx1km 8rx2.5km 2rx2.5km 8rxCriterion
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
24IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink Spectral Efficiency
• Assumes a 5 MHz bandwidth assignment and a 1km site separation
• Minimum requirements (per PAR):
– 3 kph, PedB 1.0 (b/s/Hz/sector)– 120 kph, VehB 0.75
• Achieved:
– 3 kph, PedB 1.23– 120 kph, VehB 1.02
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
25IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
39842.516120kph/VehB848062.5163kph/PedB8
26462.516120kph/VehB230632.5163kph/PedB240042.58120kph/VehB847812.583kph/PedB8
27472.58120kph/VehB231632.583kph/PedB25103116120kph/VehB861731163kph/PedB83121116120kph/VehB236411163kph/PedB2
511818120kph/VehB86095183kph/PedB8318918120kph/VehB23701183kph/PedB2
Sector Throughput (kbps)
Site-to-Site Separation (km)# of Users/SectorChannel Model# of Antennas
Average Uplink Throughput per Sector
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
26IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink Mobile Throughput – PedB, 8 users/sector
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Mobile Throughput (kbps)
1km 2rx1km 8rx2.5km 2rx2.5km 8rx
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
27IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink Mobile Throughput – PedB, 16 users/sector
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Mobile Throughput (kbps)
1km 2rx1km 8rx2.5km 2rx2.5km 8rx
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 50 100 150 200
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
28IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Minimum Service Level Throughput – PedB• 80% mobile throughput (red) vs. user load and site to site distance.
Minimum Service Level Throughput (kbps) 2 Rx Antennas
93 52
57 38
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Site to Site Distance (km)
# of
Use
rs/S
ecto
r
Minimum Service Level Throughput (kbps) 8 Rx Antennas
183 157
110 92
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Site to Site Distance (km)#
of U
sers
/Sec
tor
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
29IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink Minimum Service Level Throughput vs. Aggregate Sector Throughput vs. Site Separation – PedB• 80% mobile throughput (red) vs. average sector throughput and site to site distance.
Minimum Service Level Throughput (kbps) 2 Rx Antennas
93 (8 users)
52 (8 users)
57 (16 users)
38 (16 users)
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Site to Site Distance (km)
Aggr
egat
e Th
roug
hput
/Sec
tor (
kbps
)
Minimum Service Level Throughput (kbps)8 Rx Antennas
183 (8 users)
157 (8 users)
110 (16 users)
92 (16 users)
4700
4900
5100
5300
5500
5700
5900
6100
6300
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Site to Site Distance (km)Ag
greg
ate
Thro
ughp
ut/S
ecto
r (kb
ps)
802.20 Session # 23, March 2007, Orlando, Florida, USA
30IEEE C.802.20-07/13Submission
Uplink Minimum Service Level Throughput vs. Spectral Efficiency vs. Site Separation – PedB• 80% mobile throughput (red) vs. spectral efficiency and site to site distance.
Minimum Service Level Throughput (kbps) 2 Rx Antennas
93 (8 users)
52 (8 users)
57 (16 users)
38 (16 users)
0.60
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.70
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Site to Site Distance (km)
Spec
tral E
ffici
ency
Minimum Service Level Throughput (kbps)8 Rx Antennas
183 (8 users)
157 (8 users)
110 (16 users)
92 (16 users)
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Site to Site Distance (km)Sp
ectra
l Effi
cien
cy