doc.: ieee 802.15-04/0412r0 submission sept 2004 c. razzell, philipsslide 1 project: ieee p802.15...

Sept 2004

C. Razzell, PhilipsSlide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

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: [In-band Interference Properties of MB-OFDM]Date Submitted: [9 Sept, 2004]Source: [Charles Razzell] Company [Philips]Address [1109, McKay Drive, San Jose, CA 95131, USA]Voice:[+1 408 474 7243], FAX: [+1 408 474 5343], E-Mail:[[email protected]]

Re: [Extension of previous APD analysis in 802.15-04/326r0 and address points raised in 315r0 ]

Abstract: [Presents in-band interference properties of MB-OFDM as revealed by statistical properties (APDs) and by impact to BER curves for a QPSK transmission system]

Purpose: [To correct potential misapprehensions concerning the interference impact of MB-OFDM.]

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.

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

APD Plots and their Implications for MB-OFDM

Part 1

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Amplitude Probability Distributions

• APD methodology is favored by the NTIA in assessing interference impact of UWB waveforms

• For non-Gaussian interference, APD plots provide helpful insight into potential impact on victim receivers.

• For full impact assessment, knowledge of the victim system’s modulation scheme and FEC performance is needed

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

-102

-101

-100

-10-1

-10-2

-10-3

-10-4

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

ln(P(A>Ordinate))

A (

dB

)

Example APD plot (for Rayleigh Distribution)

Amplitude (A) in dB is plotted as the Ordinate

1-CDF(A) is plotted as the Abscissa

Plotting the natural log of the probabilities on a log scale provides scaling similar to Rayleigh graph paper.P(A>10dB) = exp(-10) = 4.54x10-5 ; P(A>-30dB) = exp(-0.001) =

0.999

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

APD plots for continuous OFDM signals as number of QPSK sub-carriers is varied

As the number of sub-carriers used increases, the approximation to the Rayleigh APD plot improves. This can be expected due to the Central Limit Theorem.-10

1-10

0-10

-1-10

-2-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

ln(P(A>Ord.))

Am

plit

ud

e [d

B]

4 subcarriers8 sub-carriers16-subcarriers32-subcarriersideal AWGN

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

APD plots for continuous OFDM with 128 sub-carriers as receiver bandwidth is varied

Using receiver filters of increasing bandwidths yields a similar result: approximation to Rayleigh APD is good for b/w20MHz

-101

-100

-10-1

-10-2

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

ln(P(A>ordinate))

Am

pli

tud

e (

dB

)

bw=2MHzbw=4MHzbw=5MHzbw=10MHzbw=20MHzbw=50MHz

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Analytic Expression for APD of OFDM waveforms

)2exp()()(

0)2(exp1

)2(exp

0)2(exp

22

22

22

0 2

222

rrCCDFrAPD

r,σr

duσuu

CDF(r)

r,σrσ

rPDF(r)

r

We have seen that for measurement bandwidths of 20MHz, the APD of OFDM closely approximates that of a Rayleigh distribution. This can be expected because the in-phase and quadrature components will both tend towards a Gaussian distribution due to the central limit theorem.

Assuming this approximation to be perfect, we can write a closed form expression for the APD of OFDM

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

obtain we,12power unit tonormalize weIf 2

,)exp(111

)(

:so ,2 , offactor cycleduty a introduce weNow

2

2

drdd

drCDF

dd

)ln(logagainst plotted is when line,staight

sticcharacteri theexplains which 10)ln(

obtain wesides,both of log natural the take weIf

10

10/2

CCDFA

rCCDF

dB

AdB

)exp( )( 2rrAPD

)exp(1

1)( 2 drd

CDFrAPD

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Analytically Derived APD Plot for MB-OFDM

% APD plots

d = 3*165/128; % duty cycle

x=linspace(-20,15);

rsq=10.^(x/10);

apd3=-rsq/d - log(d);

apd=-rsq;

semilogx(apd3,x,apd,x)

xlabel('ln(P(A>ordinate))')

ylabel('Amplitude [dB]')

legend('MB-OFDM','cont. OFDM')

axis([-10 -0.01 -20 15])

grid

-101

-100

-10-1

-10-2

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

ln(P(A>ordinate))

Am

pli

tud

e [

dB

]

MB-OFDMcont. OFDM

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Simulated APD plots for continuous and 3-band OFDM, using 128 sub-carriers

Signal/interferer is normalized to unit power 0dBW.

Probability of noise amplitude exceeding signal amplitude is given by abscissa value at the intersection of a horizontal SIR line with the APD curve.

-101

-100

-10-1

-10-2

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

ln(P(A>ordinate))

Am

pli

tud

e [

dB

]

MB-OFDMcont. OFDM

1.8%

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Simulated APD for MB-OFDM as a function of victim Rx bandwidth

-101

-100

-10-1

-10-2

-10-3

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Am

pli

tud

e [

dB

]

ln(P(A>ordinate))


Victim Rx bandwidth has a significant impact on the APD plots: generally speaking, lower receiver bandwidths “experience” a more benign version of the APD.

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

-101

-100

-10-1

-10-2

-10-3

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Am

pli

tud

e [

dB

]

ln(P(A>ordinate))


Simulated APD for 1MHz PRF Impulse as a function of victim Rx bandwidth

APD plots for this 1MHz PRF impulse show significantly higher peaks for large receiver bandwidths {20,50MHz}.

At lower received bandwidths, APD plots are strikingly similar to those for MB-OFDM

(Flipping between this and the previous slide may help illustrate this point.)

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

100

101

102

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Victim Rx bandwidth

Pe

ak

po

we

r (9

9.5

%-t

ile

) [d

Bm

]

impulseofdm1ofdm3peak-limit

Peak Received Powers As a Function of Receiver Bandwidth

The impulse radio’s peak power consistently scales with 20log(BW).

The continuous OFDM signal (ofdm1) has a peak power that scales with 10log(BW)

The 3-band OFDM signal looks like a “hybrid” signal. For lower Rx bandwidths its peak power tracks with the 1MHz impulse radio, but at 10MHz and above the slope reverts to that of pure OFDM.

MB-OFDM

advantage

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

-101

-100

-10-1

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

ln(P(A>ordinate))

Am

pli

tud

e (

dB

)

cont. OFDMMB-OFDMImpulse PRF=1MHzImpulse PRF=3.3MHzImpulse PRF=10MHz

Simulated APD Curves for OFDM and Impulse Radios in 50MHz bandwidth

10MHz PRF impulse radio has nearly identical APD to 1/3 duty cycle OFDM in region of interest.

3MHz and 1MHz PRF radios have significantly higher SIR ratios corresponding to the 1.8% P(A>ord.) line than the 3-band OFDM system.

All these impulse radios would be permitted under current part 15f legislation.

1.8%

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Single dominant source of interference may not reflect real scenarios…

• All the above APD analysis has assumed that the dominant source of interference is a single instance of the considered waveform

• For this to be true: – A single interferer must be very close to the victim receiver

such that it can overwhelm:• The thermal noise of the receiver

• The additive combination of other uncoordinated UWB and other interferers

• Examples of aggregate (Noise + Interference) APDs follow

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

APD plots of 1/3 duty cycle OFDM combined with thermal receiver noise

-101

-100

-10-1

-10-2

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15APD plots of 1/3 duty cycle OFDM combined with thermal noise

ln(P(A>ord))

A [

dB

]

I/N = +4dBI/N = –3.5dBI/N = –9.5dB

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

APD Conclusions• Using the NTIA APD methodology for the worst-case

scenario of a single dominant interferer shows:– That the required SIRs for low PRF impulse radios are greater

than those needed for the 3-band OFDM waveform for cases where the victim receiver band exceeds the impulse PRF by a factor of 5 (or more).

– The APD plots for lower bandwidth victim receivers show that peaks of the MB-OFDM signal are significantly attenuated by the Rx filter, bringing them closer to the ideal Rayeligh APD.

– That peak interference powers due to MB-OFDM are similar to those caused by a 1MHz PRF impulse radio for <10MHz victim receiver bandwidths, whereas for >10MHz receiver bandwidths, significantly lower peak powers are obtained for MB-OFDM.

• Receiver thermal noise and other external interference sources will have a mitigating effect on the APD of an interfering MB-OFDM signal

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

MB-OFDM Interference Impact to In-band QPSK transmissions

Part 2

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Background

• Document 802.15-04/315r0 showed large( 9dB) increases in required S/I ratios required when MB-OFDM was the sole source of unwanted interference

• These results seemed intuitively unreasonable and therefore merited further investigation

• Uncoded QPSK transmissions of circa 33MHz bandwidth (66Mbps) were used as basis for comparison

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

QPSK Transmission System

BIT GENERATOR MULTIPLEXERSYMBOLMAPPER

16 x UPSAMPLE BY ZERO

INSERTION

RRC Filter with 33MHz

3dB bandwidth

ERROR COUNTER

DE-MULTIPLEXER

HARD DECISIONS

DECIMATIONRRC Filter with 33MHz

3dB bandwidth

+OFDM

INTERFERENCEGENERATOR(OR AWGN)

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Interference Scenario

33 MHz(8 sub-carriers)

QPSK System operates within this bandwidth.

The bandwidth is defined by a RRC filter with =0.5

Each OFDM sub-carrier is

modulated with random QPSK

symbols

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

33MHz QPSK System with AWGN

4 5 6 7 8 9 1010

-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

Eb/No [dB]

QP

SK

BE

R

simulation0.5*erfc(sqrt(Eb/No))

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

33MHz QPSK System with Continuous OFDM

4 5 6 7 8 9 1010

-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

Eb/Io [dB]

QP

SK

BE

R

simulation0.5*erfc(sqrt(Eb/Io))

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Continuous OFDM signal causes fewer errors than WGN for same S/(I+N)

• This claim may seem counter-intuitive at first• Consider that at high SNRs, errors are

caused by the tails of the Gaussian distribution (see “Error Region”, next slide)

• But with only 8 relevant sub-carriers the OFDM waveform is limited to 256 states in each of I and Q dimensions– Tails of the distribution poorly approximate

Gaussian noise.

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

-2 0 2 4 6 80

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45OFDM interferenceGaussian Noise

Monte Carlo Simulated PDFs of received symbols conditioned on txbits=‘1,1,1,…’

ERRORREGION

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 00

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

x 10-3

OFDM interferenceGaussian Noise

Eb/Io=7dB

500,000 transmitted bits

Real(rxsymbol) [V]

Probability Density

P(error) = area under the curve

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Amplitude is Bounded over

all possible QPSK symbol permutations

Output states of 8-point IFFT with all 65536 possible QPSK symbol sets

Filter memory will add more states, but tails of distribution will remain limited in amplitude

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Prediction for ¼ duty cycle noise bursts

• Combined impact of 3-band hopping, zero prefix and guard interval is:165*3/128 = 3.8672– We will approximate the duty cycle ratio d = 4

• During, zero noise power periods zero bit errors should occur– Average BER is reduced by a factor of d

• During active noise bursts, noise power is d times higher than the long term average– Corresponding SNR reduced by a factor of d

00 1erfc/5.0erfc5.0 NEddNEBER bb

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

7 8 9 10 11 12 1310

-10

10-8

10-6

10-4

10-2

100

Eb/No [dB]

QP

SK

BE

R

simulation0.5*erfc(sqrt(Eb/No))0.125*erfc(0.5*sqrt(Eb/No))

Simulation with ¼ duty cycle noise bursts as interferer

Previous Reference for uncoded QPSK

Expected reference for ¼ duty noise

bursts

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Simulation with ¼ duty cycle OFDM as interferer

7 8 9 10 11 12 1310

-10

10-8

10-6

10-4

10-2

100

Eb/Io [dB]

QP

SK

BE

R

simulation0.5*erfc(sqrt(Eb/Io))0.125*erfc(0.5*sqrt(Eb/Io))

Previous Reference for uncoded QPSK

Expected reference for ¼ duty noise

bursts

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

How meaningful is ¼ duty-cycle noise/interference?

• The above plots assume that for ¾ of the time, the system noise temperature is 0 Kelvin.– We want to be more realistic than that

• Let’s assume the QPSK victim has a constant Eb/No of 10dB (the uncoded BER is expected to be erfc(100.5)/2 3.87 x 10-6).

• Vary Eb/(No+Io) by introducing ¼ duty cycle MB-OFDM, starting with Io=0 Watts and increasing

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Simulation with ¼ duty cycle OFDM + Continuous AWGN

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1010

-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

Eb/(No+Io) [dB]

QP

SK

BE

R

AWGN Noise Eb/No fixed at 10dB

simulation0.5*erfc(sqrt(Eb/(No+Ni)))0.125*erfc(0.5*sqrt(Eb/(No+Ni)))

<2 dB

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

QPSK BER Conclusions• A continuous OFDM interferer has a more

benign error inducing property than AWGN when each is applied at the same S/(I+N)

• Under conditions of zero thermal noise, where the interferer has a fixed duty cycle, d, the average BER is closely bounded by

• Realistic conditions call for a non-zero value for background thermal noise– In a reasonable test case, deviation of the BER

curve from the AWGN case was limited to 2dB

01erfc/5.0 NEddBER b

Sept 2004


doc.: IEEE 802.15-04/0412r0

Submission

Overall Conclusions

• Impulse radios showed a more harmful APD plot than 3-band MB-OFDM for all cases where (Rx Bandwidth)/PRF 5.

• Low bandwidth (5MHz) cases have also been simulated, revealing close resemblance of the APDs to impulse radios of the same PRF, and much lower peak-to-mean ratios compared to the wideband case.

• Testing the impact of MB-OFDM on a QPSK transmission system showed that the required SNR increase is always less than 10log(d), but in realistic scenarios, with continuous AWGN also present, the impact was reduced to below 2dB.

doc.: ieee 802.15-04/0412r0 submission sept 2004 c. razzell, philipsslide 1 project: ieee p802.15...

Documents