Doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 1 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave...
11
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589- 01-003c Submiss ion 25-Aug-2008 Slide 1 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Comparison of 8-star QAM and other 8-point constellations] Date Submitted: [ 25 August, 2008] Source: [Michael McLaughlin] Company [DecaWave] Contact: Michael McLaughlin Voice:[+353 1 511 1121], FAX: [N/A], E-Mail: [[email protected]] Re: [n/a] Abstract:[Why 8-star QAM is the best 8 point constellation for the SC-PHY] Purpose: [To resolve LB43 letter ballot comments] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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
-
Upload
briana-andrews -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
description
doc.: IEEE c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 3 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave Proakis Digital Communications – 4th edition* * pp 279
Transcript of Doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c Submission 25-Aug-2008 Slide 1 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave...
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 1 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [Comparison of 8-star QAM and other 8-point constellations]Date Submitted: [ 25 August, 2008]Source: [Michael McLaughlin] Company [DecaWave]Contact: Michael McLaughlinVoice:[+353 1 511 1121], FAX: [N/A], E-Mail:[[email protected]]Re: [n/a]Abstract:[Why 8-star QAM is the best 8 point constellation for the SC-PHY]Purpose: [To resolve LB43 letter ballot comments]Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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 P802.15.
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 2 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
Introduction An 8 point constellation allows >4Gbps in low
complexity, single carrier mode
There are many possible choices Star 8QAM (Current draft) 8PSK (CID 156) NS 8QAM (CID 589)
One comment even suggests substituting 16QAM (CID 448)
This contribution compares these possibilities
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 3 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
ProakisDigital Communications – 4th edition*
* pp 279
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 4 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
8-PSK Constellation45o
Constellation power = 6.83
d=2
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 5 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
8-QAM Constellation
60o
d=2
Constellation power = 4.73
90o
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 6 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
Expect Star 8-QAM ~1.5dB better than 8-PSK
AWGN Comparison
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1010
-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
EbNo
berr
AWGN performance
Star 8 QAM8-PSK
16-QAM
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 7 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: Impaired AWGN
Impaired AWGN 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz
> 4dB difference0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
EbNo
Ber
/Per
AWGN with ADC, PA and PN impairments
Star 8 QAM BER
8-PSK BERStar 8 QAM PER
8-PSK PER
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 8 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
EbNo
Ber
/Per
AWGN with ADC, PA and PN performance
Star 8 QAM BERStar 8 QAM PER16 QAM BER16 QAM PER
Star 8QAM vs. 16QAM: Impaired AWGN
Impaired AWGN 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz
Error floor
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 9 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
EbNo
Ber
/PerCM1.3 with ADC, PA and PN impairments
Star 8 QAM BER8-PSK BERStar 8 QAM PER8-PSK PER
CM3.1 with PA, PN, ADC 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz
Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: LOS CM1.3
> 4dB difference
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 10 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
Star 8QAM vs 8PSK: NLOS CM2.3
CM2.3 with PA, PN, ADC 3 bit ADC, PA @ 5dB OBO, PN = -87dBc/Hz
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
EbNo
Ber
/Per
CM2.3 with ADC, PA and PN impairments
8-PSK BER8-PSK PERStar 8 QAM BERStar 8 QAM PER
doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0589-01-003c
Submission
25-Aug-2008
Slide 11 Michael Mc Laughlin, DecaWave
Summary Star 8 QAM best theoretical 8 point constellation
16QAM unusable with Power Amp, Phase Noise
Performs significantly better than 8PSK in AWGN Impaired AWGN LOS with PA,PN NLOS with PA,PN
Can achieve >4Gbps at EbNo of 17dB with PA+PN Distance ~10 meters
Reject all 3 comments (CID 156, 589, 448) Best impaired or unimpaired performance
