Joint coding of CQI and RI for PFBCH|
IEEE 802.16 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9)
Document Number:
IEEE S80216m-09/1339
Date Submitted:
2009-07-06
Source:
Huaning Niu, Hongmei Sun, Guangjie Li, Yuan Zhu, Qinghua Li, Ayelet Doron, Jong-Kae (JK) Fwu, Hujun Yin, Yang-seok Choi
Intel Corporation
Venue:
IEEE 802.16m Session#62, San Francisco, USA
Category: AWD comments / Area: Chapter 15.3.9 (UL-CTRL)
“Comments on AWD 15.3.9 (UL-CTRL)”
Base Contribution:
IEEE C80216m-09/1339
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 >.
Joint CQI and RI Encoding
• Advantage of joint CQI+RI encoding
– Saving bits in FBCH (less than 64 options
compared to 4+3 bits in separate CQI + RI)
– Avoids getting a lot of close spectral efficiency
from different STC rates
– Simple link adaptation algorithm that is easy to
test
– STC rates 1 and 2 get all the available MCS
levels, so there is no degradation for them
Rank-1 MCS Table
MCS index
Modulation
Code rate
‘0000’
QPSK
31/256
‘0001’
QPSK
48/256
‘0010’
QPSK
71/256
‘0011’
QPSK
101/256
‘0100’
QPSK
135/256
‘0101’
QPSK
171/256
‘0110’
16QAM
102/256
‘0111’
16QAM
128/256
‘1000’
16QAM
155/256
‘1001’
16QAM
184/256
‘1010’
64QAM
135/256
‘1011’
64QAM
157/256
‘1100’
64QAM
181/256
‘1101’
64QAM
205/256
‘1110’
64QAM
225/256
‘1111’
64QAM
237/256
Simulation Setting
•
•
•
•
•
•
SFBC and Rank-2,3,4 SM
MMSE detector
Ped-B 3 channel
Perfect channel estimation
Tx correlation 0.2, Rx-correlation 0.4
To reduce the dependency of number of
Tx/Rx antennas, DRU/CRU selection and
antenna correlation, PER versus average
capacity for vertical encoding is used [1]
Average Capacity for MMSE
receiver
• For MMSE receiver
W  (1  H * R 1 H ) 1 H * R 1
– MMSE weight calculated by
– Per stream post detection SINR is equal to
SINRk 
1
1
( I  H * R 1 H ) kk1
• The min capacity which will dominate the vertical
encoding performance is
C  N ss  min log 2 (1  SINRk )
k
• Taking over the frequency selective fading channel, we
have
1 Nsc
Cave 
N SC
C
l 1
l
SFBC PER versus Average Capacity
10
-1
PER (BLER)
10
SFBC with MMSE receiver
0
10
10
QAM4-0.12
QAM4-0.19
QAM4-0.28
QAM4-0.39
QAM4-0.53
QAM4-0.67
QAM16-0.40
QAM16-0.50
QAM16-0.61
QAM16-0.72
QAM64-0.53
QAM64-0.61
QAM64-0.71
QAM64-0.80
QAM64-0.88
QAM64-0.93
-2
-3
0
1
2
3
4
Average capacity per frame (bps)
5
6
7
8
SM2 PER versus Average Capacity
10
-1
PER (BLER)
10
SM2 with MMSE receiver
0
10
10
-2
-3
0
5
10
Average capacity per frame (bps)
QAM4-0.12
QAM4-0.19
QAM4-0.28
QAM4-0.39
QAM4-0.53
QAM4-0.67
QAM16-0.40
QAM16-0.50
QAM16-0.61
QAM16-0.72
QAM64-0.53
QAM64-0.61
QAM64-0.71
QAM64-0.80
QAM64-0.88
QAM64-0.93
15
SM3 PER versus Average Capacity
10
-1
PER (BLER)
10
SM3 with MMSE receiver
0
10
10
QAM4-0.12
QAM4-0.19
QAM4-0.28
QAM4-0.39
QAM4-0.53
QAM4-0.67
QAM16-0.40
QAM16-0.50
QAM16-0.61
QAM16-0.72
QAM64-0.53
QAM64-0.61
QAM64-0.71
QAM64-0.80
QAM64-0.88
QAM64-0.93
-2
-3
0
5
10
Average capacity per frame (bps)
15
SM4 PER versus Average Capacity
10
-1
PER (BLER)
10
SM4 with MMSE receiver
0
10
10
QAM4-0.12
QAM4-0.19
QAM4-0.28
QAM4-0.39
QAM4-0.53
QAM4-0.67
QAM16-0.40
QAM16-0.50
QAM16-0.61
QAM16-0.72
QAM64-0.53
QAM64-0.61
QAM64-0.71
QAM64-0.80
QAM64-0.88
QAM64-0.93
-2
-3
0
2
4
6
8
10
Average capacity per frame (bps)
12
14
16
18
Average Capacity at 10% PER
SE (SFBC)
0.2422
0.3750
0.5547
0.7891
1.0547
1.3359
1.5938
2
Capacity
0.71
0.98
1.31
1.47
1.83
2.28
2.62
3.08
SE (SFBC)
2.4219
2.8750
3.1641
3.6797
4.2422
4.8047
5.2734
5.5547
Capacity
3.52
4.1
4.49
5.05
5.56
6.15
6.77
7.26
SE (SM2)
0.4844
0.75
1.1094
1.5781
2.1094
2.6719
3.1875
4
Capacity
0.9
1.2
1.8
2.15
2.9
4
4.35
5.36
SE (SM2)
4.8438
5.75
6.3281
7.3594
8.4844
9.6094
10.545
11.11
Capacity
6.48
7.88
8.3
9.39
10.68
11.9
13.6
14.4
SE (SM3)
0.7266
1.125
1.664
2.367
3.164
4.01
4.78
6
Capacity
1.52
2.1
3
3.45
4.44
5.63
6.47
7.59
SE (SM3)
7.26
8.62
9.49
11.04
12.73
14.41
15.82
16.66
Capacity
8.9
10
11.07
11.83
12.38
13.18
13.9
13.7
SE (SM4)
0.9688
1.5
2.2188
3.1564
4.2188
5.3436
6.3752
8
Capacity
2.1
2.87
4
4.57
5.83
7.14
8.41
9.8
SE (SM4)
9.6876
11.5
12.6564
14.7188
16.9688
19.2188
21.0936
22.2188
Capacity
11.19
12.47
13.72
14.3
15.23
15.8
16
16.7
Reference
[1]. “A pragmatic PHY abstraction technique
for link adaptation and MIMO switching”,
JSAC, Vol 26, No. 6, Aug 2008