Bandwidth Request Channel
IEEE 802.16 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9)
Document Number:
C80216m-09/0015
Date Submitted:
2009-01-05
Source:
Sungho Park (Park_SH@lge.com)
Jinyoung Chun (jychun03@lge.com)
Bin-Chul Ihm (bcihm@lge.com)
LG Electronics
*<http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html>
Re:
“802.16m SDD text”: IEEE 802.16m-08/052, “Call for Comments on Project 802.16m System Description Document (SDD)”
Target topic: 11.9 UL Control Structure
Base Contribution:
None
Purpose:
Discussion and adoption for 802.16m SDD
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 >.
1/25
Contents
• Bandwidth Request Procedure
– Basic 3-step quick procedure
– 5-step procedure as fallback mode of 3-step procedure
• Bandwidth Request Channel Structure
– Green Field
– Legacy Support
• Simulation Results
– Parameters
– Link performances
• Proposed Text
• Appendix
–
–
–
–
Simulation Method
Performance Metric for Indicator
Performance Metric for Message
BR Rate
2/25
Bandwidth Request Procedure
DL
UL
DL
UL
DL
UL
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
- Grant type 1
- Rx info: Rx location, code,
partial MS_ID, etc.
- Resource allocation info. for
data transmission
3
DL
UL
Preamble only detection
& message error
UL grant after BW-REQ preamble
2
3
UL data transmission with
Full MS_ID or additional
BW-REQ
UL
DL
UL
Transmits BW-REQ with preamble and message
Preamble detection
& message detection
UL grant after BW-REQ
message
DL
- Grant type 2
- Rx info: Rx location, code
- Resource allocation info. for MAC BW-REQ message
(ex. Non-contention BR, BR header)
Fail
Try BW-REQ
after back-off
time
MAC BW-REQ message
- Full MS_ID, Flow_ID, Buffer size, etc
UL grant after MAC BW-REQ message
4
<3-step procedure>
5
- Grant type 3
- Full MS_ID, Buffer size, etc
- Resource allocation info. for data transmission
UL data transmission w/ or w/o additional BWREQ
<5-step procedure>
3/25
Bandwidth Request Channel Structure
• Green Field
– Bandwidth Request Channel
Time
Frequency
• A BW-REQ channel consists of 3 distributed BWREQ tiles.
• A BW-REQ tile is defined as 6 contiguous
subcarriers by 6 OFDM symbols.
S1
– Preamble
• It can include indicator to notice the ABS of a UL
grant request.
• Allocation
– CDM based multiplexing with orthogonal
sequence of length 12
– Dimension : 2x6 (basic option)
BW-REQ message
: 6 Symbols
: spread by identical sequence
(length 12) adopted in the
BW-REQ Indicator
S2
S3
• Contents
BW-REQ Indicator
: Length 12,
: same sequence for three tiles
– Partial MS-ID masked with sequence (3 bits)
S4
– Data
• It can include information about the status of
queued traffic at the AMS such as buffer size and
quality of service, including QoS identifiers
• Allocation
S5
– CDM based multiplexing
– Same sequence with Indicator
• Contents (total 6 bits)
– Residual (partial) MS-ID (2~4 bits)
– QoS identifier (2~3 bits)
– Buffer Size (0 ~ 2 bits)
S6
4/25
Bandwidth Request Channel Structure
• Legacy support mode
• A BW-REQ channel consists of 6 distributed BWREQ tiles.
• A BW-REQ tile is defined as 4 contiguous
subcarriers by 6 OFDM symbols
Frequency
– Bandwidth Request Channel
Time
BW-REQ Indicator
S1
BW-REQ message
– Preamble
• It can include indicator to notice the ABS of a UL
grant request
• Allocation
– CDM based multiplexing with orthogonal
sequence of length 12
– Dimension : 2x6 (basic option)
• Contents
: Length 12,
: same sequence for three tiles
S2
: 6 Symbols
: spread by identical sequence
(length 12) adopted in the
BW-REQ Indicator
S3
– Partial MS-ID masked with sequence (3 bits)
– Data
• It can include information about the status of
queued traffic at the AMS such as buffer size and
quality of service, including QoS identifiers
• Allocation
– CDM based multiplexing
– Same sequence with Indicator
• Contents (total 6 bits)
– Residual (partial) MS-ID (2~4 bits)
– QoS identifier (2~3 bits)
– Buffer Size (0 ~ 2 bits)
S4
S5
S6
5/25
Simulation Parameters
Common
Simulation
Environments &
Assumption for
BRCH
LGE
BW-REQ Indicator
BW-REQ message
Items
Values
Antenna Configuration
1Tx / 2Rx
Channel Model
PB3, VA60, VA120
# of BRCH
1
BRCH structure
Three 6x6 tiles
# of MSs
1 or 2
False-Alarm Definition
1. Some signals are detected when no signal is transmitted
2. Wrong signals are detected when some signals are transmitted
Items
Values
Sequence Type
DFT
Sequence Length
12 * 3 (same sequence for three tiles)
Target False Alarm
0.1%
Sequence Allocation
No-overlapping Sequence Selection / Random Sequence Selection
Sequence Detection
Non-coherent
Information Size
6 bits
Channel Coding
Block Code (6, 12)
Modulation
QPSK
Allocation Method
CDM (identical sequence with indicator)
Channel Estimation
2-D MMSE
Receiver Type
ML
Msg Decoding Method
Decode Msg for detected preamble
6/25
Simulation Parameters
INTEL
BW-REQ Indicator
BW-REQ message
Items
Values
Sequence Type
DFT
Sequence Length
19 * 3 (same sequence for three tiles)
Target False Alarm
0.1%
Sequence Allocation
No-overlapping Sequence Selection / Random Sequence Selection
Sequence Detection
Non-coherent
Information Size
12 bits
Channel Coding
Block Code (12, 30) + repetition
Modulation
BPSK
Allocation Method
CSM
Channel Estimation
2-D MMSE
Receiver Type
ML
Msg Decoding Method
Decode Msg for detected preamble
7/25
Link Curve (False-alarm Definition 1)
• Ped A (3km/h)
Indicator Mis detection, Ped A (3km/h)
– Threshold
– Indicator Detection
• Target MD Probability : 1%
• The performance of LGE’s scheme
outperforms about 1.5dB, because it can
utilize even the data region adopted same
sequence.
1.00E-01
MD Probability .
• Based on False-alarm Definition 1
• Target FA : 0.1%
1.00E+00
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
-8
-6
-4
– Message Detection
0
2
4
6
4
6
BW-REQ Mes s age BLER, Ped A (3km/h)
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
BLER
• For the case of one user, LGE’s scheme
achieve at about -2.8dB, while Intel’s scheme
achieve 1% BLER at about -1.2dB. (≈ 1.6dB
gain)
• For two user case, LGE’s scheme achieve at
about -2.8dB, while Intel’s scheme achieve
1% BLER at about -0.8dB. (≈ 2dB gain)
• LGE’s scheme has about 1.6 dB gain for the
single user case, and about 2dB gain for two
user case.
• In this simulation, LGE’s scheme achieve the
relative gain due to short information size
while Intel’s scheme doesn’t include falsealarm effect and high muxing order.
-2
SNR (dB)
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
8/25
Link Curve (False-alarm Definition 1)
• Veh A (60km/h)
Indicator Mis detection, Veh A (60km/h)
– Threshold
– Indicator Detection
• Target MD Probability : 1%
• The performance of LGE’s scheme
outperforms about 1.7dB.
1.00E-01
MD Probability .
• Based on False-alarm Definition 1
• Target FA : 0.1%
1.00E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
– Message Detection
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
4
6
BW-REQ Mes s age BLER, Veh A (60km/h)
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
BLER
• For the case of one user, LGE’s scheme
achieve at about -1.2dB, while Intel’s
scheme achieve 1% BLER at about 0.6dB.
(≈ 1.8dB gain)
• For two user case, LGE’s scheme achieve at
about -1.2dB, while Intel’s scheme achieve
1% BLER at about 1.0dB. (≈ 2.2dB gain)
• LGE’s scheme has about 1.8 dB gain for the
single user case, and about 2.2dB gain for
two user case.
• In this simulation, LGE’s scheme achieve the
relative gain due to short information size
while Intel’s scheme doesn’t include falsealarm effect and high muxing order.
1.00E-02
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
9/25
Link Curve (False-alarm Definition 1)
• Veh A (120km/h)
Indicator Mis detection, Veh A (120km/h)
– Threshold
– Indicator Detection
• Target MD Probability : 1%
• The performance of LGE’s scheme
outperforms about 1.7dB.
.
MD Probability
• Based on False-alarm Definition 1
• Target FA : 0.1%
1.00E+00
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
– Message Detection
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
4
6
BW-REQ Mes s age BLER, Veh A (120km/h)
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
BLER
• For the case of one user, LGE’s scheme
achieve at about -1.1dB, while Intel’s scheme
achieve 1% BLER at about 0.8dB. (≈ 1.9dB
gain)
• For two user case, LGE’s scheme achieve at
about -1.0dB, while Intel’s scheme achieve
1% BLER at about 1.0dB. (≈ 2.0dB gain)
• LGE’s scheme has about 1.9 dB gain for the
single user case, and about 2.0dB gain for
two user case.
• In this simulation, LGE’s scheme achieve the
relative gain due to short information size
while Intel’s scheme doesn’t include falsealarm effect and high muxing order.
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
10/25
Link Curve (False-alarm Definition 2)
• Ped A (3km/h)
Indicator Mis detection, Ped A (3km/h)
– Threshold
– Indicator Detection
• Target MD Probability : 1%
• The performance of LGE’s scheme
outperforms about 1.5dB.
.
MD Probability
• Based on False-alarm Definition 2
• Target FA : 0.1%
1.00E+00
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
– Message Detection
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
4
6
BW-REQ Mes s age BLER, Ped A (3km/h)
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
BLER
• For the case of one user, LGE’s scheme
achieve at about -3.1dB, while Intel’s scheme
achieve 1% BLER at about -1.4dB. (≈ 1.7dB
gain)
• For two user case, LGE’s scheme achieve at
about -3.0dB, while Intel’s scheme achieve
1% BLER at about -1.0dB. (≈ 2.0dB gain)
• LGE’s scheme has about 1.7 dB gain for the
single user case, and about 2.0dB gain for
two user case.
• In this simulation, LGE’s scheme achieve the
relative gain due to short information size
while Intel’s scheme doesn’t include falsealarm effect and high muxing order.
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
11/25
Link Curve (False-alarm Definition 2)
• Veh A (60km/h)
Indicator Mis detection, Veh A (60km/h)
– Threshold
– Indicator Detection
• Target MD Probability : 1%
• The performance of LGE’s scheme
outperforms about 1.9dB.
.
MD Probability
• Based on False-alarm Definition 2
• Target FA : 0.1%
1.00E+00
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
– Message Detection
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
4
6
BW-REQ Mes s age BLER, Veh A (60km/h)
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
BLER
• For the case of one user, LGE’s scheme
achieve at about -1.3dB, while Intel’s
scheme achieve 1% BLER at about 0.7dB.
(≈ 2.0dB gain)
• For two user case, LGE’s scheme achieve
at about -1.3dB, while Intel’s scheme
achieve 1% BLER at about 1.2dB. (≈ 2.5dB
gain)
• LGE’s scheme has about 2.0 dB gain for the
single user case, and about 2.5dB gain for
two user case.
• In this simulation, LGE’s scheme achieve
the relative gain due to short information
size while Intel’s scheme doesn’t include
false-alarm effect and high muxing order.
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
12/25
Link Curve (False-alarm Definition 2)
• Veh A (120km/h)
Indicator Mis detection, Veh A (120km/h)
– Threshold
– Indicator Detection
• Target MD Probability : 1%
• The performance of LGE’s scheme
outperforms about 1.9dB.
.
MD Probability
• Based on False-alarm Definition 2
• Target FA : 0.1%
1.00E+00
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
-10
– Message Detection
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
BW-REQ Mes s age BLER, Veh A (120km/h)
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
BLER
• For the case of one user, LGE’s scheme
achieve at about 0.2dB, while Intel’s scheme
achieve 1% BLER at about 3.0dB. (≈ 2.8dB
gain)
• For two user case, LGE’s scheme achieve at
about 0.5dB, while Intel’s scheme achieve
1% BLER at about 3.5dB. (≈ 3.0dB gain)
• LGE’s scheme has about 2.8 dB gain for the
single user case, and about 3.0dB gain for
two user case.
• In this simulation, LGE’s scheme achieve the
relative gain due to short information size
while Intel’s scheme doesn’t include falsealarm effect and high muxing order.
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
13/25
Link Curve Analysis
• There are two kinds of link performance according to falsealarm definitions.
– LG’s scheme outperforms Intel’s.
14/25
Proposed texts
11.9.2.5 Bandwidth Request Channel
Contention based or non-contention based random access is used to transmit bandwidth request information on this control
channel. Prioritized bandwidth requests are supported on the bandwidth request channel. The mechanism for such prioritization is
TBD.
The random access based bandwidth request procedure is described in Figure 51. A 5-step regular procedure (step 1 to 5) or an
optionaland 3-step quick access procedure (step 1,4 and 5) may beare supported concurrently. The 5-step regular procedure is
used as a fallback mode for the 3-step bandwidth request quick access procedure and Step 2 and 3 are used only in 5-step regular
procedure. In step 1, AMS sends a bandwidth request indicator for quick access that may indicates information such as partial
AMS addressing and/or request size (FFS) and/or uplink transmit power report (FFS), and/or QoS identifiers (FFS), and the ABS
may allocate uplink grant based on certain policy. In step 3, the AMS sends BW-REQ message containing different information
contents depending on request unit basis (e.g., QoS unit or MS unit). The 5-step regular procedure is used independently or as a
fallback mode for the 3-step bandwidth request quick access procedure. In step 5, the AMS sends full AMS addressing with user
data only for 3-step quick access procedure and The AMS may piggyback additional BW REQ information along with user data
during uplink transmission (step 5). In step 2 and step 4, ABS may send message to acknowledge the reception status.
15/25
Proposed texts (Cont’d)
11.9.2.5.2
PHY structure
The bandwidth request (BW REQ) channel contains resources for the AMS to send in BW REQ access sequence at the step-1 of
the bandwidth request procedure shown in Figure yyy. Figure aa and figure bb show BW-REQ PHY structures for green field
and legacy support mode. A BW REQ channel consists of 3 distributed BW-REQ tiles and each A BW REQ tile is defined as 6
contiguous subcarriers by 6 OFDM symbols. Each BW REQ channel consists of 3 distributed BW-REQ tiles. in green field.
And in legacy support mode, a BW REQ channel consists of 6 distributed BW-REQ tiles and each tile is defined as 4
contiguous subcarriers by 6 OFDM symbols.
Frequency
Time
S1
Frequency
Time
S2
S1
BW-REQ message
BW-REQ Indicator
: Length 12,
: same sequence for three tiles
S2
S3
BW-REQ Indicator
: Length 12,
: same sequence for three tiles
S4
BW-REQ message
: 6 Symbols
: spread by identical sequence
(length 12) adopted in the
BW-REQ Indicator
S5
S6
Figure aa. BW REQ PHY structure for green field
S3
: 6 Symbols
: spread by identical sequence
(length 12) adopted in the
BW-REQ Indicator
S4
S5
S6
Figure bb. BW REQ PHY structure for legacy support mode
16/25
Appendix
• Simulation Criteria
• Performance Metric for Indicator
• Performance Metric for Message
• Threshold & False-alarm Probability
• BR Rate
17/25
Simulation Criteria
• Link-level Simulation
 Mandatory
[Link Reliability – Initial Comparison]
– # of Users : 1 or 2
– Sequence Allocation
• Random Selection
• System-level Simulation
 Optional
– Throughput (w. cell coverage)
– Cell Configuration : 57 sectors (2 tiers)
– Traffic Model : VoIP
• BR & Real VoIP Traffic
– Channel Estimation : 2-D MMSE
– Message Detection : MLD
– # of Users : 500 per sector
[Latency]
– Cell Configuration : Single Cell
– Traffic Model : VoIP
– # of Users : 500 per cell (sector)
– Sequence Allocation
• BR according to VoIP model
• Mean Talk Spurt = 2.5 sec
– Sequence Allocation
• Random Selection
– Full Bandwidth Request Operation
• Retry, Frame Delay, Fallback Mode
• No Process Delay
• Channel Estimation : 2-D MMSE
• Message Detection : MLD
• BR according to VoIP model
• Mean Talk Spurt = 2.5 sec
• Random Selection
– Full Bandwidth Request Operation
• Retry, Frame Delay, Fallback Mode
• No Process Delay
• Channel Estimation : 2-D MMSE
• Message Detection : MLD
– Power Control (?)
– Scheduling (?)
– Message False-alarm
18/25
Performance Metric for Indicator
• Definition of False Alarm
– Receiver detects unwanted BR whether there are some BR signals or no BR signal.
– False Alarm  wrong sequence detection  resource waste
– False Alarm depends on cross correlation properties of multiplexing sequences as well as
channel selectivity & mobility
– Target False Alarm=0.1% (ref. Ranging)
• Threshold
– Fixed threshold
• Fixed one threshold per SNR level regardless Channel Selectivity and mobility (AWGN)
• Fixed one threshold for all SNR but different for channel selectivity and/or mobility
– Adaptive threshold
• SNR
• Channel Selectivity
• User Mobility
• Misdetection Probability
– Receiver can’t detect BR
– Target Misdetection Probability=1% (ref. Ranging)
19/25
Performance Metric for Message
• Message Error
– False Alarm regarding performance metric
• Link-level
– Ideal message false alarm detection
• System-level only
– Threshold : power level, channel quality (e.g. RSSI, CSI)
– Metric Value > Threshold
» message error  False Alarm
– Metric Value < Threshold
» message error  turn into Regular Access
– BLER
• All cases of message error including Indicator error
– Indicator detection fail
» misdetection
– Indicator detection fail but message error
» indicator collision, message error
20/25
Threshold & False-alarm Probability
• Ped A (3km/h)
Thres hold, Ped A (3km/h)
Indicator Fals e-alarm, Ped A (3km/h)
1.400
1.00E-02
Intel, FA Def1
LGE, FA Def1
.
1.200
FA Probability
Threshold
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
0.200
0.000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
1.00E-05
-10
6
Thres hold, Ped A (3km/h)
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
2
4
6
Indicator Fals e-alarm, Ped A (3km/h)
1.600
1.00E-02
Intel, FA Def2
LGE, FA Def2
1.400
FA Probability
.
1.200
Threshold
-8
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
0.200
0.000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
1.00E-05
-10
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
21/25
Threshold & False-alarm Probability
• Veh A (60km/h)
Thres hold, Veh A (60km/h)
Indicator Fals e-alarm, Veh A (60km/h)
1.400
1.00E-02
Intel, FA Def1
LGE, FA Def1
.
1.200
FA Probability
Threshold
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
0.200
1.00E-05
-10
0.000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
Thres hold, Veh A (60km/h)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
4
6
Indicator Fals e-alarm, Veh A (60km/h)
1.400
1.00E-02
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
Intel, FA Def2
LGE, FA Def2
.
1.200
FA Probability
1.000
Threshold
2
0.800
0.600
0.400
1.00E-03
0.200
0.000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
1.00E-04
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
22/25
Threshold & False-alarm Probability
• Veh A (120km/h)
Indicator Fals e-alarm, Veh A (120km/h)
Thres hold, Veh A (120km/h)
1.00E-02
1.400
Intel, FA Def1
LGE, FA Def1
.
1.200
FA Probability
Threshold
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
1.00E-03
Intel, 1MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def1)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def1)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def1)
0.200
1.00E-04
-10
0.000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
Thres hold, Veh A (120km/h)
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
4
6
Indicator Fals e-alarm, Veh A (120km/h)
1.400
1.00E-02
Intel, 1MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 1MS (FA Def2)
Intel, 2MS (FA Def2)
LGE, 2MS (FA Def2)
Intel, FA Def2
LGE, FA Def2
.
1.200
FA Probability
1.000
Threshold
2
0.800
0.600
0.400
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
0.200
0.000
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
1.00E-05
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
SNR (dB)
0
2
4
6
23/25
BR Rate
• Initial BR Rate
– Traffic Model : VoIP
– # of VoIP user : 500 / 10 MHz (refer SRD 8.3 (Max Indoor))
– Mean Talk Spurts
• 50% Voice Activity  1.25 sec.
• Bi-directional : 2.5 sec. (refer EMD)
 Exponential Distribution with mean = 2.5 sec.
– Mean # of BW-REQ/Frame/Sector
• BR Rate = K VoIP users/sector * N BR/frame = KN BR/Frame/sector
0.4BW-REQ per 200 frames  BW-REQ/500frame
500users/sector * BW-REQ/500frame = 1 BW-REQ/Frame/Sector
– Mean Call Time : 180 sec.
– # of opportunity / Frame = 1
• Timer
– Packet Access Delay Boundary : 50 ms
• Back-off
– Random Back-off [0, 40ms]
24/25
BR Rate (Cont’d)
• VoIP Packet Transmission
Call Duration
20ms
Active
Inactive
Mean
1.25 sec
Mean
1.25 sec
50% Voice Activity
Bandwidth Request
VoIP Packet
- Call Duration
: Lognormal Distribution based on K-L Divergence Method¶
  ln x  ln m 2 
1
q  x 
exp 

2


2

2 x


where m  49.113,   1.0041
¶ J. Guo, F. Liu, and Z. Zhu, “Estimate the call duration distribution parameters in GSM system based on K-L divergence method,” in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCom 2007), 2007, pp. 2988–2991.
25/25