11 15 0099-04-00ax Payload Symbol Size For 11ax

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.
11-15/0099
Payload Symbol Size for 11ax
Date: 2015-01-12
Authors:
Name Affiliation Address Phone email
1 Ron Porat rporat@broadcom.com
Matthew Fischer mfischer@broadcom.com

Sriram
Broadcom
Venkateswaran
Tu Nguyen
Vinko Erceg
1 Robert Stacey
2111 NE 25th Ave, Hillsboro
+1-503-724-893 robert.stacey@intel.com
OR 97124, USA
Eldad Perahia eldad.perahia@intel.com
Shahrnaz Azizi shahrnaz.azizi@intel.com
Po-Kai Huang Intel

po-kai.huang@intel.com
Qinghua Li quinghua.li@intel.com
Xiaogang Chen xiaogang.c.chen@intel.com
Chitto Ghosh chittabrata.ghosh@intel.com
Rongzhen Yang rongzhen.yang@intel.com
Submission Slide 1 Ron Porat, Broadcom

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Authors (continued)
1 Innovation Park,
Fei Tong +44 1223 434633 f.tong@samsung.com
Cambridge CB4 0DS (U.K.)
Maetan 3-dong; Yongtong-Gu hyunjeong.kang@samsung.co

Hyunjeong Kang +82-31-279-9028 m
Suwon; South Korea
1301, E. Lookout Dr,

Kaushik Josiam (972) 761 7437 k.josiam@samsung.com
Richardson TX 75070
Samsung
Innovation Park,
Mark Rison +44 1223 434600 m.rison@samsung.com
Cambridge CB4 0DS (U.K.)
1301, E. Lookout Dr,
Rakesh Taori (972) 761 7470 rakesh.taori@samsung.com
Richardson TX 75070
Maetan 3-dong; Yongtong-Gu +82-10-8864-

Sanghyun Chang s29.chang@samsung.com
Suwon; South Korea 1751
1 5488 Marvell Lane,

Lei Wang 858-205-7286 Leileiw@marvell.com
Santa Clara, CA, 95054
5488 Marvell Lane,
Hongyuan Zhang hongyuan@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Yakun Sun yakunsun@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Liwen Chu Marvell liwenchu@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Mingguan Xu mxu@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Jinjing Jiang jinjing@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Yan Zhang yzhang@marvell.com
1
January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Authors (continued)
1 5488 Marvell Lane,
Rui Cao ruicao@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Sudhir Srinivasa sudhirs@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Saga Tamhane sagar@marvell.com
Marvell
5488 Marvell Lane,
Mao Yu my@marvel..com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Edward Au edwardau@marvell.com
5488 Marvell Lane,
Hui-Ling Lu hlou@marvell.com
1 1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka,
Yasushi Takatori takatori.yasushi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Kanagawa 239-0847 Japan
Yasuhiko Inoue inoue.yasuhiko@lab.ntt.co.jp
NTT
Yusuke Asai asai.yusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp
Koichi Ishihara ishihara.koichi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Akira Kishida kishida.akira@lab.ntt.co.jp
3-6, Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-

yamadaakira@nttdocomo.co
Akira Yamada shi, Kanagawa, 239-8536, m
Japan
NTT
3240 Hillview Ave, Palo watanabe@docomoinnovatio
Fujio Watanabe DOCOMO ns.com
Alto, CA 94304
Haralabos hpapadopoulos@docomoinno
Papadopoulos vations.com
1

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Authors (continued)
1 Phillip Barber The Lone Star State, TX
pbarber@broadbandmobilete
ch.com
Peter Loc peterloc@iwirelesstech.com
F1-17, Huawei Base, Bantian,

Le Liu +86-18601656691 liule@huawei.com
Shenzhen
5B-N8, No.2222 Xinjinqiao
Jun Luo jun.l@huawei.com
Road, Pudong, Shanghai
Yi Luo +86-18665891036 Roy.luoyi@huawei.com
Shenzhen
Yingpei Lin linyingpei@huawei.com
Jiyong Pang pangjiyong@huawei.com
10180 Telesis Court, Suite
Zhigang Rong Huawei 365, San Diego, CA 92121 zhigang.rong@huawei.com
NA
303 Terry Fox, Suite 400
Rob Sun Rob.Sun@huawei.com
Kanata, Ottawa, Canada
David X. Yang david.yangxun@huawei.com
Shenzhen
10180 Telesis Court, Suite
Yunsong Yang 365, San Diego, CA 92121 yangyunsong@huawei.com
NA
Zhou Lan +86-18565826350 Lanzhou1@huawei.com
SHenzhen
303 Terry Fox, Suite 400
Junghoon Suh Junghoon.Suh@huawei.com
Kanata, Ottawa, Canada
Jiayin Zhang +86-18601656691 zhangjiayin@huawei.com
1

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Authors (continued)
1 Laurent cariou Laurent.cariou@orange.com
Orange
Thomas Derham thomas.derham@orange.com
1 19, Yangjae-daero 11gil,

Wookbong Lee Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-130, wookbong.lee@lge.com
Korea
Kiseon Ryu kiseon.ryu@lge.com
Jinyoung Chun jiny.chun@lge.com
Jinsoo Choi js.choi@lge.com

LG
Jeongki Kim Electronics jeongki.kim@lge.com
Giwon Park giwon.park@lge.com
Dongguk Lim dongguk.lim@lge.com
Suhwook Kim suhwook.kim@lge.com
Eunsung Park esung.park@lge.com
HanGyu Cho hg.cho@lge.com
1 Albert Van Zelst

Straatweg 66-S Breukelen,
allert@qti.qualcomm.com
3621 BR Netherlands
Alfred 5775 Morehouse Dr. San
aasterja@qti.qualcomm.com
Asterjadhi Diego, CA, USA
5775 Morehouse Dr. San
Bin Tian btian@qti.qualcomm.com
Diego, CA, USA
Qualcomm
1700 Technology Drive San
Carlos Aldana caldana@qca.qualcomm.com
Jose, CA 95110, USA
George Cherian gcherian@qti.qualcomm.com
Diego, CA, USA
Gwendolyn 5775 Morehouse Dr. San
gbarriac@qti.qualcomm.com
Barriac Diego, CA, USA
1
January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Authors (continued)

1 Hemanth 5775 Morehouse Dr. San hsampath@qti.qualcomm.co
Sampath Diego, CA, USA m
Straatweg 66-S Breukelen, mwentink@qti.qualcomm.co

Menzo Wentink m
3621 BR Netherlands
Straatweg 66-S Breukelen,
Richard Van Nee rvannee@qti.qualcomm.com
3621 BR Netherlands
Rolf De Vegt rolfv@qca.qualcomm.com
Jose, CA 95110, USA
5775 Morehouse Dr. San svverman@qti.qualcomm.co
Sameer Vermani Qualcomm m
Diego, CA, USA
Simone Merlin smerlin@qti.qualcomm.com
Diego, CA, USA
Tevfik Yucek tyucek@qca.qualcomm.com
Jose, CA 95110, USA
VK Jones vkjones@qca.qualcomm.com
Jose, CA 95110, USA
1700 Technology Drive San youhank@qca.qualcomm.co
Youhan Kim m
Jose, CA 95110, USA
1

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Authors (continued)
1 No. 1 Dusing 1st Road,
James Yee +886-3-567-0766 james.yee@mediatek.com
Hsinchu, Taiwan
Alan Jauh alan.jauh@mediatek.com

Mediatek
Chingwa Hu chinghwa.yu@mediatek.com
Frank Hsu frank.hsu@mediatek.com
1 ` Thomas Pare 2860 Junction Ave, San Jose,

+1-408-526-1899 thomas.pare@mediatek.com
CA 95134, USA
chaochun.wang@mediatek.co
ChaoChun Wang m
James Wang james.wang@mediatek.com

Mediatek
USA
Jianhan Liu Jianhan.Liu@mediatek.com
Tianyu Wu tianyu.wu@mediatek.com
Russell Huang russell.huang@mediatek.com
1 `

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Outline
• The need for larger symbol size for 11ax payloads has been discussed previously
– Eg: [1] investigated the impact of CFO estimation on symbols with larger FFT sizes
(256 and 512 FFT)
• We have investigated several symbol durations for the payload and propose a new symbol
duration
• We also follow up with a proposal for the choices of CP
• The proposals are verified via simulations that show

– Significant Goodput gains over 11ac symbol and CP lengths of 3.2 us and 0.8 us
respectively
– Robust performance in outdoor UL OFDMA

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Payload Symbol & CP Sizes
• We propose to replace the current payload symbol duration (3.2 us) with longer symbol
duration 12.8 us in order to meet the following 11ax requirements
– Robustness in outdoor channels
– Greater tolerance to timing jitter across users in UL MU/OFDMA
– Higher indoor efficiency (by lowering CP overhead)
• We also propose the three following CP sizes

– 0.8 us: 11ac long GI, targeting improved efficiency in indoor settings
– 1.6 us: percent-wise 11ac short GI, targeting high efficiency in outdoor channels and
indoor UL MU-MIMO/OFDMA
– 3.2 us: percent-wise 11ac long GI, targeting robustness in the more demanding case of
outdoor UL MU-MIMO/OFDMA

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Channel models & implications

• Outdoor channels
– UMi-LoS, UMi-NLoS, UMa-NLoS
• NLoS channels have large delay spreads with significant probability
• Intersymbol interference leads to high error floors
ITU RMS Delay Spread CDF

1
UMi NLOS
0.9 UMi LOS
UMa NLOS
0.8
UMa LOS
0.7
0.6
0.8 us CP leads to error floors
0.5
Need longer CPs
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
[uS]

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Spectral efficiency
• Assume a fixed transmission bandwidth and choose an MCS
• R = code rate, bps = bits/sample (in the frequency domain. Eg. 256 QAM, bps = 8)
• Nfft = symbol FFT size, Ndata = #data tones/symbol, Ncp = #CP samples

Spectral Efficiency
Depends only on
Increases as Ncp increases Decreases as Ncp increases Tone utilization MCS
As PER decreases for ISI Unless we increase Nfft

channels
For a given Ncp (dictated by channel length), increase Nfft for smaller overheads and
greater spectral efficiency

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Simulation setup
11ax
L-STF L-LTF L-SIG 11ax-LTF Payload
Preamble
• Packet structure
– Payload
• 1000 bytes
• FFT sizes: 64, 128, 256 FFT
• Data tones as defined for corresponding FFT sizes in 11ac
• CP sizes: 0.8 us, 1.6 us
– 11ax-LTF: 1 symbol, same (FFT size, GI) as payload
– 11ax-Preamble: 3 symbols, 64 FFT (precise structure undecided now, but # guided by 11ac)
– How is the preamble relevant?
• Pilots used for phase tracking, reduce CFO estimation error
• 20MHz bandwidth, SISO, BCC

• Real processing
– Channel estimation, timing, frequency offset estimation, phase tracking, phase noise: all real

?
January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
UMi-LoS: PER for MCS 0-4
PERs with 1.6 us GI (right figure) smaller than PERs with 0.8 us GI (left figure)
Even for a given GI, increasing FFT size reduces PER (ICI corrupted samples is a
smaller fraction of the total number of samples)

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
UMi-LoS: PER for MCS 5-9

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
UMi-NLoS: PER for MCS 0-4

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
UMi-NLoS: PER for MCS 5-9

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Goodput metric used for comparison

• Goodput = max spectral efficiency obtained by picking the best MCS (for each SNR)

Spectral Efficiency
• For a given CP size Ncp, choose largest possible Nfft

• CP overhead decreases
• For a given FFT size Nfft , there is a tradeoff in choosing Ncp

• Small Ncp : small overhead, but PER may be large
• Large Ncp : PER is small, but overhead large
• Choose the sweet spot for Ncp

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Goodput: AWGN
Absolute Goodput Goodput relative to (64 FFT, 0.8 us CP)
• For best results, pick as large an FFT as possible and then pick the smallest CP
• Increasing CP has no PER benefit in AWGN, increasing FFT reduces overhead
• Using (256 FFT, 0.8 us CP) gives 1.32x goodput of (64 FFT, 0.8 us CP)

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Goodput: 11nD
• Using (256 FFT, 0.8 us CP) gives ~1.3x goodput of (64 FFT, 0.8 us CP)
• Since channels have small delay spreads, 0.8 us CP has 6-7% better throughput than 1.6
us CP (256 FFT, around 15-20 dB)

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Goodput: UMi-LoS
• At high SNR
• Best to use large FFT with longer CP (256 FFT, 1.6 us CP)
• (256 FFT, 1.6 us CP) gives nearly 2.2x goodput of (64 FFT, 0.8 us CP)
• At small SNR
• Thermal noise dominates ISI: increasing CP doesn’t give substantial PER gains
• Stick to smaller CPs, but use larger FFTs: (256 FFT, 0.8 us CP) works best

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Goodput: UMi-NLoS
• Large delay spreads leads to high ISI

• Best to use large FFT with longer CP (256 FFT, 1.6 us)
• (256 FFT, 1.6 us CP) gives ~2.5x goodput of (64 FFT, 0.8 us CP) at 25 dB SNR

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Challenge of UL-OFDMA
• Timing jitter across users on the UL effectively increases channel

delay spread. What is the impact on performance?
– Impact of intended user delay on himself
– Impact of delay of interfering users on intended user
• Sources of timing jitter

– Different round trip delay
– Different timing acquisition points due to different channel delay spreads
and noise
– Net timing jitter ~1.3 us (details in Appendix)

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Simulation setup
• UL OFDMA with 4 users
• Each user has one antenna, AP has 4 Rx antenna
• 20MHz, 256 FFT
– Each user is allocated a contiguous block of 56 tones.
– User allocations are fixed, and the second user (middle one) is the desired user (PER/Goodput
are calculated for this user)
• GI values considered: 1.6us, 3.2us
• ITU UMi NLOS channel
• 1000 bytes packets
• Real channel estimation from one LTF

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Results
Interfering users have no jitter

For intended user delay of 1.2 us
Goodput with 3.2 us GI = 1.16x
Goodput with 1.6 us GI

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Discussion
• Summary
– 256 FFT consistently outperforms 11ac symbol duration
– Goodput gains range from 1.3x-2.5x depending on channel
– Use 0.8 us CP with 256 FFT for high efficiency in indoor channels
– Use 1.6 us CP with 256 FFT for greater robustness to long outdoor channels and indoor UL
OFDMA/MU-MIMO
– Use 3.2 us CP with 256 FFT for robust performance in outdoor UL OFDMA/MU-MIMO
• Why not even higher FFT sizes, say 512 FFT over 20 MHz?
– Implementation complexities increase with increasing FFT sizes and bandwidths
– Tones are more narrowly spaced , CFO correction needs to be very precise: challenging task [1]
– Incremental gain over 256 FFT (3-6% depending on CP size) too small for increased complexity
– 256 FFT size in 20 MHz seems to be the sweet spot between performance and implementation
complexities

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Proposal
• We propose that 11ax shall have one longer payload symbol size of duration 12.8
us based on a 256 FFT in 20 MHz
– And correspondingly 512 FFT in 40 MHz, 1024 FFT in 80 MHz/80+80 MHz and 2048
FFT in 160 MHz
• We also propose to use the following CP sizes: 0.8 us, 1.6 us and 3.2 us

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
References
[1] 11-14-0801-00-00ax-envisioning-11ax-phy-structure-part-ii

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Straw Poll #1
• Do you agree to add to the TG Specification Framework:

– 3.y.z. Data symbols in an HE PPDU shall use DFT period of 12.8 us and
subcarrier spacing of 78.125 kHz.
• Yes
• No
• Abstain

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Straw Poll #2
• Do you agree to add to the TG Specification Framework:

– 3.y.z. Data symbols in an HE PPDU shall support guard interval
durations of 0.8 us, 1.6 us and 3.2 us.
• Yes
• No
• Abstain

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Appendix

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
UMa-NLoS: PER for MCS 0-4

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Goodput: UMa-NLoS

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0099
Sources of timing jitter

• Different round trip delays can contribute 0.6 us (~ 200 m)
• Timing acquisition on DL can contribute 0.7 us jitter in UMi-NLoS channels. For

example, at 10 dB in figure below, 14 samples @ 20 MHz = 0.7 us
AP has 4 antennas, STA has 1 antenna

Timing acquired from L-LTF

11 15 0099-04-00ax Payload Symbol Size For 11ax

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 15 0099-04-00ax Payload Symbol Size For 11ax

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.

Payload Symbol Size for 11ax

Matthew Fischer mfischer@broadcom.com

Shahrnaz Azizi shahrnaz.azizi@intel.com

Po-Kai Huang Intel

Xiaogang Chen xiaogang.c.chen@intel.com

Chitto Ghosh chittabrata.ghosh@intel.com

Rongzhen Yang rongzhen.yang@intel.com

Submission Slide 1 Ron Porat, Broadcom

Maetan 3-dong; Yongtong-Gu hyunjeong.kang@samsung.co

1301, E. Lookout Dr,

Maetan 3-dong; Yongtong-Gu +82-10-8864-

1 5488 Marvell Lane,

Koichi Ishihara ishihara.koichi@lab.ntt.co.jp

Akira Kishida kishida.akira@lab.ntt.co.jp

3-6, Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-

Submission Slide 3 Ron Porat, Broadcom

Peter Loc peterloc@iwirelesstech.com

F1-17, Huawei Base, Bantian,

Submission Slide 4 Ron Porat, Broadcom

1 19, Yangjae-daero 11gil,

Jinyoung Chun jiny.chun@lge.com

Jinsoo Choi js.choi@lge.com

Giwon Park giwon.park@lge.com

Dongguk Lim dongguk.lim@lge.com

Suhwook Kim suhwook.kim@lge.com

Eunsung Park esung.park@lge.com

HanGyu Cho hg.cho@lge.com

1 Albert Van Zelst

Name Affiliation Address Phone email

Straatweg 66-S Breukelen, mwentink@qti.qualcomm.co

Submission Slide 6 Ron Porat, Broadcom

Alan Jauh alan.jauh@mediatek.com

Frank Hsu frank.hsu@mediatek.com

1 ` Thomas Pare 2860 Junction Ave, San Jose,

James Wang james.wang@mediatek.com

Russell Huang russell.huang@mediatek.com

Submission Slide 7 Ron Porat, Broadcom

• We also follow up with a proposal for the choices of CP

• The proposals are verified via simulations that show

Submission Slide 8 Ron Porat, Broadcom

Payload Symbol & CP Sizes

• We also propose the three following CP sizes

Submission Slide 9 Ron Porat, Broadcom

Channel models & implications

ITU RMS Delay Spread CDF

Submission Slide 10 Ron Porat, Broadcom

As PER decreases for ISI Unless we increase Nfft

Submission Slide 11 Ron Porat, Broadcom

• 20MHz bandwidth, SISO, BCC

Submission Slide 12 Ron Porat, Broadcom

UMi-LoS: PER for MCS 0-4

Submission Slide 13 Ron Porat, Broadcom

UMi-LoS: PER for MCS 5-9

Submission Slide 14 Ron Porat, Broadcom

UMi-NLoS: PER for MCS 0-4

Submission Slide 15 Ron Porat, Broadcom

UMi-NLoS: PER for MCS 5-9

Submission Slide 16 Ron Porat, Broadcom

Goodput metric used for comparison

• For a given CP size Ncp, choose largest possible Nfft

• For a given FFT size Nfft , there is a tradeoff in choosing Ncp

Submission Slide 17 Ron Porat, Broadcom