Transcript IEEE C802.16m-09/0628

Evaluation and Proposed Text on UL Tile Permutation
Document Number:
IEEE C80216m-09_0628
Date Submitted:
2009-03-02
Source:
HanGyu Cho, Seunghyun Kang, Jong Young Han, Sunam Kim,
Email: {hgcho, sh_kang
Jin Sam Kwak
fanaticey, snkim86, samji} @lge.com
LG Electronics
Venue:
“802.16m AWD”: IEEE 802.16m-09/0012. ”Call for Contribution on Project 802.16m Amendment
Working Document (AWD) Content” Target topic: Call for Comments on Amendment Working
Document
Purpose:
To provide proposed text on DL subcarrier permutation to be approved by TGm and adopted in the
Amendment Working Document
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:
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>.
Further information located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat >.
Motivation



In the current IEEE 802.16m Amendment Working
Document (IEEE 802.16m-09/0010), the UL tile
permutation formula in the section 15.3.8.3.3 is TBD
So far, there have been many tile permutation formulas
proposed by each company
This contribution reviews those rules and suggests a UL
tile permutation formula based on simulation results.
Evaluation Criteria for Tile Permutation

Link level simulation


To show the diversity gain for distributed LRU
Hit ratio

To check the interference averaging effect of distributed
LRU
Tile Permutation Formulas Considered

LGE’s proposed formula
Tile ( s, n, t )  ( LDRU , FPi  f (n, s)  g ( PermSeq(), s, n, t )  CellID ) mod( 3 * LDRU , FPi )
where
f (n, s )  (5n  7 s ) mod 3
g ( PermSeq(), s, n, t )  PermSeq( f (n, s)  s  OTP  t )
where
 GCD( LDRU , FPi, DTP ) 
PermSeq(i )  {DTP  i  OTP  i 
} mod LDRU , FPi,
L


DRU , FPi
where
DTP  (Cell ID mod( LDRU , FPi  1))  1
 Cell ID 
OTP  
 1
 ( LDRU , FPi  1) 
i  0,1, , LDRU , FPi  1
Tile Permutation Formulas Considered

Intel (IEEE 802.16m-09/0265)
Tile ( s, n, t )  LDRU , FPi  f (n, s )  g ( PermSeq(), s, n, t , UL _ PermBase )
where
f (n, s)  n
g(PermSeq( ), s, n, t, UL_PermBa se)  {PermSeqLDRU ,FPi ; ( n  s  t ) mod LDRU ,FPi   UL _ PermBase} mod LDRU ,FPi
where PermSeq(L;i) is the i-th entry of the permutation sequence of length
L as defined by the following equation
PermSeqTable15.3.5.1 ( L; i)
for

PermSeq( L; i)  
PermSeqTable15.3.5.1 L / 2  ( L mod 2)  (i mod 2); i / 2  L / 2  (i mod 2) for
L  48
48  L  96
Tile Permutation Formulas Considered

Samsung (IEEE 802.16m-09/0206r3 )
Tile ( s, n, t )  LDRU ,FPi  f (n, s )  g ( PermSeq, s, n, t , IDcell )
where
f (n, s)  (n  13  s) mod 3
or
f (n, s)  n
g(PermSeq, s,n,t, IDcell)  PermSeq( f (n, s )  s ) mod LDRU , FPi 
where PermSeq is the sequence of length LDRU,FPi and is determined by
SEED = {(IDcell+1024*t)*1357351} mod 220. The IDcell is the cell
identification. The specific permutation sequence generation
algorithm with 20-bit SEED (Sn-20, Sn-19, … , Sn-1) and a permutation
size of M is defined as below (refer to IEEE 802.16m-09/0206r3 ).
Tile Permutation Formulas Considered

NSN (IEEE 802.16m-09/0260r2 )
Simulation Environment: LLS (1/2)

BW=10MHz (NPRU=48) – Copied from Intel’s contribution (IEEE
802.16m-09/0251 )
Scenario1 (Mixed Reuse 1&3 – equal size)
# of subbands
(KSB,FP,i)
# of minibands
(KMB,FPi)
# of PRUs in
FPi
FP1
2
4
12
FP2
2
4
FP3
2
FP4
2
Freq.
Partition
Scenario 3 (Reuse 1)
# of subbands
(KSB,FP,i)
# of minibands
(KMB,FPi)
# of PRUs in
FPi
FP1
6
24
48
12
FP2
0
0
0
4
12
FP3
0
0
0
4
12
FP4
0
0
0
# of subbands
(KSB,FP,i)
# of minibands
(KMB,FPi)
# of PRUs in
FPi
Scenario 2 (Mixed Reuse 1&3 – unequal size)
Freq.
Partition
Scenario 4 (Reuse 3)
# of subbands
(KSB,FP,i)
# of minibands
(KMB,FPi)
# of PRUs in
FPi
FP1
4
8
24
FP1
0
0
0
FP2
0
8
8
FP2
2
8
16
FP3
0
8
8
FP3
2
8
16
FP4
0
8
8
FP4
2
8
16
Freq.
Partition
Freq.
Partition
Simulation Environment: LLS (2/2)

Antenna configuration



2x2 SFBC
MMSE MIMO Receiver
Channel


Scenario : MAND_MIXED
Model : Veh A

Perfect channel estimation

QPSK, ½ code rate

Averaged over cell ID 0 ~ 47
Simulation Results: LLS
Scenario 1
4 DRU per FP (# of FP = 4)
1.00E+00
LGE
INTEL
SAM SUNG
1.00E-01
FER

1.00E-02
1.00E-03
-2
0
2
SNR
4
Simulation Results: LLS
Scenario 2
8 DRU per FP (# of FP= 4)
1.00E+00
LGE
INTEL
SAM SUNG
1.00E-01
FER

1.00E-02
1.00E-03
-2
0
2
SNR
4
Simulation Results: LLS
Scenario 3
24 DRU per FP (# of FP= 1)
1.00E+00
LGE
INTEL
SAM SUNG
1.00E-01
FER

1.00E-02
1.00E-03
-2
0
2
SNR
4
Simulation Results: LLS
Scenario 4
8 DRU per FP (# of FP= 3)
1.00E+00
LGE
INTEL
SAM SUNG
1.00E-01
FER

1.00E-02
1.00E-03
-2
0
2
SNR
4
Conclusion on LLS results


We evaluated UL tile permutations with varying
scenarios.
In terms of diversity gain, LGE, Intel, SS have the same
performance in all cases
Simulation Environment: Hit ratio


BW
10MHz
#Cell ID
512
Distributed LRU
3 6by6 tiles
NDRU
varying
For choose(512,2)=130816 cell pairs,
For each cell pair, there are NDRU * NDRU sub-channel pairs,
 Hit Number: the number of same subcarrier-pairs for each su
b-channel pair
 Average Hit Number: hit statistic over 130816 cell pairs
 % of total hits: (Average Hit Number) / (NDRU * NDRU) * 100%
Simulation Results: Hit ratio
# of Hits
#. of DRUs
4
8
12
24
48
0
1
2
3
LGE
43.70 %
40.52
12.88
2.91
Intel
49.95
31.31
12.52
6.21
Samsung
47.16
36.15
11.20
5.48
LGE
66.91
28.95
3.88
0.27
Intel
71.84
21.14
4.70
2.32
Samsung
69.23
25.02
4.76
0.99
LGE
76.92
21.27
1.71
0.10
Intel
80.19
15.42
3.59
0.80
Samsung
77.49
20.21
2.11
0.19
LGE
87.95
11.61
0.41
0.02
Intel
88.66
10.39
0.74
0.21
Samsung
88.19
11.16
0.60
0.05
LGE
93.87
6.02
0.10
0.008
Intel
94.15
5.49
0.30
0.050
Samsung
93.96
5.85
0.18
0.016
Best cases were colored for larger hits
Conclusion on Hit ratio results

In terms of hitting ratio, LGE has the best
performance showing the smallest ‘larger hit ratios (2
or 3 hit cases)’ in most scenarios
Conclusions


In terms of diversity gain, LGE, Intel, SS have the same
performance in all cases
In terms of hitting ratio, LGE has the best
performance showing the smallest ‘larger hit ratio
(the ratio of 2 or 3 hit cases)’ in most scenarios
Proposed Text

Adopt the tile permutation formula proposed by LGE
in the page 4 of this contribution into the equation
(196) of page 42 of Amendment Working Document
IEEE 802.16m-09/0010 or its latest version