Transcript IEEE C802.16m-09/0350

DL Miniband and Subcarrier Permutation Evaluation
IEEE 802.16 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9)
Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0350
Date Submitted: 2009-01-08
Source:
Yu-Tao Hsieh, Chia-Lung Tsai, Pang-An Ting
E-mail: [email protected]
ITRI
Venue: IEEE Session #59, San Diego.
Base Contributions:
None
Re: IEEE C802.16m-08/053 “Call for Comments and Contributions on Project 802.16m Amendment Working Document ” ,
Section 15.3.5 Downlink Physical Structure
Purpose: 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:
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>.
Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat >.
Motivation
• Different proposal for subband partitioning, miniband
permutation and subcarrier permutation from different
companies in IEEE C802.16m-08/1508r1
• Performance evaluation and comparison are needed
• In contributions provided by Intel, LGE and Samsung, ITRI’s
proposal was not considered. This contribution provide more
simulation results for comparison
• Focus on miniband and subcarrier permutation
Equation update of ITRI’s proposal
• Miniband permutation in ITRI’s proposal of
1508r1
PPRU MB [ j ]  PRU MB [i],
j  0,1,, LMB  1
 q( j ) 
i  (q ( j ) mod D)  FPCT  
, j  0,1,..., K MB  1
 D 
 r( j) 
q( j )  j  
,
 D  1 
r ( j )  max( j  ( K MB mod ( FPCT ))  D, 0),
 K

D   MB  1
 FPCT 
Evaluation Scenarios
BW = 10 MHz, NPRU = 48 (N1 = 4, N2 = 1)
Scenario 3 (Reuse 1)
Scenario 4 (Reuse 3)
# of subbands
(KSB,FP,i)
# of
minibands
(KMB,FPi)
# of PRUs in
FPi
FP1
6
24
48
FP2
0
0
FP3
0
FP4
0
Freq.
Partition
# of subbands
(KSB,FP,i)
# of
minibands
(KMB,FPi)
# of PRUs in
FPi
FP1
0
0
0
0
FP2
2
8
16
0
0
FP3
2
8
16
0
0
FP4
2
8
16
Freq.
Partition
Comparison of Subcarrier Permutation Proposals
• Compare subcarrier permutation proposed by Intel, LGE,
Samsung, and ITRI
• Each proposal use miniband, and subcarrier permutation of its
own
• ITRI uses Intel’s subband permutaion, while other proposals
use subband permutation of their own.
Diversity gain: 10% SNR Values
Scenario 3 (Reuse 1)
Proposals
10% SNR dB
Distributed
Scenario 4 (Reuse 3)
Proposals
10% SNR dB
Distributed
Intel
12.1715
Intel
11.8724
Samsung
12.1740
Samsung
11.7254
LGE
11.4519
LGE
11.6638
Random
12.0221
Random
11.7934
Diversity gain in Scenario 3: Cell ID=0
Scenario 3, Distributed resources, 2x2MIMO
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
SB
SB
SB
SB
0.1
0
8
9
10
11
12
13
SNR (dB)
Part=Samsung, MB&Inner=Samsung
Part=LG, MB&Inner=LG
Part=Intel1, MB&Inner=Intel
Part=Intel, MB&Inner=ITRI
14
15
16
17
18
Diversity gain in Scenario 4: Cell ID=0
Scenario 4, Distributed resources, 2x2MIMO
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
SB
SB
SB
SB
0.2
0.1
0
8
9
10
11
12
13
SNR (dB)
Part=Samsung, MB&Inner=Samsung
Part=LG, MB&Inner=LG
Part=Intel1, MB&Inner=Intel
Part=Intel1, MB&Inner=ITRI
14
15
16
17
18
Conclusions of subcarrier permutation
• Subcarrier permutation methods proposed by ITRI, Intel, and
Samsung have better performance in scenario 4.
• The proposal proposed by ITRI does not need look-up table
for permutation, different from those proposed by Intel and
Samsung.
• Intel’s random sequence table does not support NPRU>48
Recommendation
• Adopt the formulas proposed by ITRI in IEEE
C802.16m-08/1508r1 and updates in pp. 3