html5-img
1 / 16

Range vs. Rate Comparison of Remaining IEEE 802.11g Proposals: PBCC and CCK-OFDM

Range vs. Rate Comparison of Remaining IEEE 802.11g Proposals: PBCC and CCK-OFDM. Anuj Batra, Ph . D . Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph . D . Wireless Networking Branch Texas Instruments Dallas, TX 75243. Approach.

chogan
Download Presentation

Range vs. Rate Comparison of Remaining IEEE 802.11g Proposals: PBCC and CCK-OFDM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Range vs. Rate Comparison of Remaining IEEE 802.11g Proposals: PBCC and CCK-OFDM Anuj Batra, Ph. D. Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph. D. Wireless Networking Branch Texas Instruments Dallas, TX 75243 Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  2. Approach • For each modulation scheme, calculate the received (Es/N0) at various distances. • Use the (Es/N0) values to look up the packet error rates (PERs) from the corresponding PER vs. (Es/N0) curves. • The resulting PER values can be used to determine actual system throughput. Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  3. Assumptions • Complex additive white Gaussian noise: • Thermal noise floor = -114 dBm/MHz. • Matched-filter receiver architecture. • 802.15.2 Path Loss Model [802.15/138r0]. • Same transmit power for all modulation schemes. • Same implementation loss and noise figure for all receivers. Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  4. n(t) g*(-t) s(t) r(t) y(t) g(t) Ak t = kT + (Es/N0) for CCK/PBCC • Initially, assume no path loss. Let g(t) be a unit-energy pulse. • After the sampler, the received signal is: • Received signal and noise power: E[|A0|2] = TstPs and s2 = N0.  (Es/N0)CCK/PBCC = TstPs/N0, where Ps is the received power and Tst = 1/(11 MHz). Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  5. y0(t) n(t) Ak,0 Ak,1 s(t) r(t) g1(t) g0(t) g0(t) g1(t) yN-1(t) Ak,N-1 t = kT y1(t) + + gN-1(t) gN-1(t) (Es/N0) for 802.11a/CCK-OFDM • Initially, assume no path loss. Let gn(t) be orthonormal pulses. • After the mth sampler, the received signal is: • Received signal and noise power: E[|A0,m|2] = TmtPs/N and s2 = N0.  (Es/N0)802.11a/CCK-OFDM = (TmtPs/N)/N0, where N is the # of sub-carriers, Ps is received power, and Tmt = 3.2ms. Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  6. Summary of (Es/N0) • For CCK/PBCC, the received (Es/N0) is given by: (Es/N0)CCK/PBCC = TstPs/N0, where Tst = 1/(11 MHz). • For 802.11a/CCK-OFDM, the received (Es/N0) is given by: (Es/N0)802.11a/CCK-OFDM = (TmtPs/N)/N0, where N = 52 (# of used sub-carriers) and Tmt = 3.2ms. • Note that the gap between CCK/PBCC & 802.11a/CCK-OFDM is: Gap = (Es/N0)CCK/PBCC/ (Es/N0)802.11a/CCK-OFDM = 1.6946 dB Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  7. IEEE 802.15.2 Path Loss Model • For distances less than 8m, we assume LOS: Lpathloss = 20log10( 4pr/l) r 8m, • For greater than 8m, we assume a path loss exponent of 3.3: Lpathloss = 58.287 + 33log10(r/8) r > 8m, where r = range in meters and l = wavelength in meters. • Note that at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, l = 0.1224m. Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  8. Other Losses • To obtain a realistic range versus rate comparison, we must include other losses seen by the receiver. • Examples of other losses include: • Noise figure for the front-end of the receiver • Implementation loss • Margin for multipath • We assume that the receiver has an overall loss of: Lotherloss = Lnoisefigure + Limplementation + Lmultipath = 16 dB Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  9. Calculation of Received(Es/N0) • The received (Es/N0) for CCK/PBCCis therefore given by: (Es/N0)RX,CCK/PBCC = (Es/N0)CCK/PBCC – Lpathloss – Lotherloss • Similarly, the received (Es/N0) for 802.11a/CCK-OFDMis given by: (Es/N0)RX, 802.11a/CCK-OFDM = (Es/N0)802.11a/CCK-OFDM – Lpathloss – Lotherloss Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  10. Calculation of Throughput • Assumptions: • IEEE 802.11b short preamble • A data length = 1000B • ACK packets are transmitted • No backoff (only a DIFS is included; similar to 802.11e HCF) • Maximum Sustainable Throughputs (MST) can be found in doc. 01/059 by Halford, Webster and Zyren. • For a given PER, the actual throughput can be found by dividing the MST by the average number of attempts it takes to successfully transmit a packet, i.e., Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  11. PER vs. SNR for CCK/PBCC Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  12. PER vs. SNR for 802.11a/CCK-OFDM Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  13. Range vs. Rate Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  14. Range vs. Rate for PER = 10-2 (1) * Range is normalized with respect to CCK11 Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  15. Range vs. Rate for PER = 10-2 (2) Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

  16. Conclusions • For similar data rates, PBCC can cover a much larger range than either CCK, 802.11a-OFDM, or CCK-OFDM. • The throughput for 802.11a-OFDM is much larger than that of CCK-OFDM for the same range. • The reason that 802.11a-OFDM has a larger throughput than PBCC is because the 802.11a-OFDM preamble is muchshorter than the 802.11b short preamble. Batra and Shoemake, Texas Instruments

More Related