UWB Coexistence and Cognitive Radio

wA2-2

UWB Coexistence and Cognitive Radio

Jim Lansford, Ph.D.

Chief Technology Officer, Alereon, Inc.

7600 North Capital of Texas Highway, Suite C200 Austin, TX USA 78731

jim.lansfordt3alereon.com +1 512 345 4200 x2166

Abstract

The recent history of Ultrawidehand

communications technology has seen great debate over whether these UWB cause unacceptable interference to existing users of the same and nearby hands. Building on the IEEE 802.15.2 Recommended Practice and the framework developed by IEEE 802.19, researchers are developing techniques to separate UWB signals for others using time, frequency, power, space, and coding, the five techniques available to minimize interference and maximize capacity. This paper explores general methods for using these parameters either to eliminate interference, or to achieve graceful, deterministic degradation. It concludes with next steps for bringing these techniques into the standards process.

1.0 BACKGROUND

According to the FCC ruling that permitted operation of Ultrawidehand communication systems[l], an ultrawidehand signal is defined as a signal that fits the following criteria:

Given:

f H = upper lOdB cutoff frequency

fL

IO

Center frequency Fractional bandwidth

fc=

+ fL)/2 Fp=2(f~ -

+

Fp

In its earliest form, ultrawidehand was generated by broadband spark discharges that could be detected by a cat-whisker (galena) detector. A detailed history of UWB can he found in a comprehensive paper by Barrett [Z].

While ultrawideband as a technology has generated a great deal of interest, it has also generated a great deal of controversy. Since UWB signals are spread over a broad swath of spectrum at power levels near the noise floor, there has been concern among many other users ofthe radio spectrum that UWB will artificially boost the noise floor and degrade performance of the incumbent users. After a great deal of public debate, argument and comment, the FCC approved the first Report and Order on February 14,2002. In this R&O, the FCC not only defined UWB signals as noted previously, but also defined a spectrum mask that specifies the amount of power that can he radiated by UWB systems across the band. This spectrum mask is shown in Figure 1.

calm the fears of other users of the spectrum over UWB; in reality, this is a draconian approach because it requires UWB to avoid emissions in a given hand, even if it is not in use by any other device within the limited range of the UWB signal. Since the UWB signal is generally at or near the thermal noise floor[3], it is essentially imperceptible by devices more than 10 meters away unless they have a high gain antenna.' This potential for interference has been studied extensively, such as in the paper by Foerster [4]

The concept of a spectral mask was an attempt to

While this debate rages on, there are a variety of techniques being explored by companies in the UWB community that will measurably improve the coexistence of these signals. For example, the IEEE created the

I Systems in the 3.1-4.7 GHz hand, where initial UWB systems are likely to he deployed, are generally either radar or satellite systems. Since UWB communication

PX02.15.2 Task Group in 1999 to address the potential interference between 802.1 Ib systems (also known as Wi- Fi) and Bluetooth systems, which share the same 2.4GHz ISM band. In the Recommended Practice that was approved in July of2003, the group describes techniques that these two systems can employ to avoid interfering with each other so that performance is degraded in a graceful, deterministic way[5]. These techniques will he described in more detail later in this paper.

Policy Task Force[6], that is looking for new and innovative ways to manage spectrum, given the kind of debate that new technologies such as UWB have

generated. Among the concepts generated by the SPTF are the concepts of:

1) Interference “temperature”[l], where the contribution of a low-level communication system such as UWB is assumed to be just another noise source that is included in a link budget. As shown in Figure 2, the noise level in a given environment can he thought of as the sum of thermal (kTB), natural sources ofnoise, unintentional man-made and intentional man-made noise. All of these terms taken together comprise the “true” noise floor.

Since most existing wireless systems are already designed with a link margin in mind, devices such as UWB will be imperceptible when the desired signal is just a dB or two above the existing noise floor. As Figure 2 shows, this will cause a slight reduction in range ofthe narrowband system, but the overall capacity ofthe RF environment has increased since many low power systems can he overlaid within the coverage footprint of the higher powered system, and

2)

radio is that performance can he improved and interference reduced if wireless systems were aware of other RF signals in their environment [9]. The improvements “ u e d from this technology could be dramatic; while communication engineers have historically though of channel capacity and Shannon’s Law simply in ten% of bandwith, a cognitive radio takes an expanded view of the channel by managing time, frequency, space, power, and coding. Unfortunately, the benefits from device-centric spectrum management (as opposed tn policy-based spectrum management) are only fully realized when all devices in a frequency band are cognitive, so that they can negotiate.

The FCC has created a group called the Spectrum

Cognitive radio [8]. The idea behind cognitive

2.0

Collaborative - a mechanism exists for direct communication between the wireless systems, and

Non-collaborative coexistence - no direct mechanism exists for coordination, so one or both systems must infer the environment and take unilateral action.

Figure 3 shows this concept in terms of a traffic model; in non-collaborative coexistence, the traffic flows through both systems, and interference (collisions) can only be avoided through medium sensing techniques such as CSMA (“look before crossing”) or adaptive frequency hopping (we’re having lots of accidents at this intersection, so let’s try a different route that hopefully will have less traffic). In either of these cases, the channel (highway) is not being used to its maximum efficiency.

can be completely avoided if the wireless systems are capable of sharing detailed information in real-time about their desired occupancy of time, frequency, space, and power (neglecting code for the moment). The figure shows a traffic light (TDMA), which clearly only orthogonalizes the time dimension of this space. In a more complete implementation of a cognitive radio, the systems would optimize their performance (throughput, latency, error rate or whatever is desired) under the constraints of shared knowledge of these parameters, where complete orthogonalizaton of the parameter space would allow fully independent operation.2

In the case of collaborative coexistence, collisions

More formally, we can state the problem in the following way:

A cognitive radio optimizes:

Cost of connection

e Data rate Error rate

Quality of service (QoS) By controlling:

Protocol (if multiple available) Power levels

Antenna beamforming Frequency of transmission

There are comer cases where the orthogonalization breaks down, such as when the protocols dictate that both systems must

Coding (if available) Timing

While the set of protocols is generally fixed to a small number, the other parameters can generally he chosen independently from a range ofvalues. There is likely some fruitful research into methods for including protocol as part of the optimization; for example, wireless LAN systems can oflen choose to modify packet size and data rate. Optimal choices of these parameters in a cognitive radio environment are an active research area.

3.0 SPECIFIC EXAMPLE

As an example, consider the system shown in Figure 4. In this figure, we assume there is collaborative coexistence between each ofthe wireless subsystems in cases where simultaneous operation occurs. Thus, the UWB system will he operated in coordinated time slots, at coordinated frequencies, at known power levels and it will use smart antennas and coding, if available, to optimize performance. Likewise, the other cognitive subsystems in this dream system are similarly coordinated. As aresult, the overall performance of all systems is maximized, and mutual interference is minimized. Since UWB faces severe interference from the narrowband systems nearby, it

will actually benefit more from this collaborative coexistence process than will the non-UWB systems

4.0 STANDARDS PROCESS In addition to the regulatoj process that is driving development of cognitive radio, the IEEE has created a Coexistence Technical Advisory Group, called 802.19. The charter ofthis TAG is to work with the wireless working groups within IEEE 802 to develop better coexistence techniques for the WPAN, WLAN, and WWAN systems under development by this standards body. The TAG expects to assist in development of Recommended Practices that will complement the cognitive radio initiative.

5.0 CONCLUSION

UWB is an exciting new communications technology that approaches spectrum management in a different way than prior wireless systems. Through the use of collaborative coexistence and, eventually, cognitive radio techniques, these systems as well as those in close proximity to them can give users a better, more reliable radio connection.

. . ..

-

-

... . :.. . ,. . .. . ..., 1 . .

I . , I

1 0 0 10'

Frequency I" OHZ

Figure I: UWB emission spectral mask

Minimum S C N I C ~ Range with Interference cllp

SeNiCe Rmgs at Original Noise Floor

Powar at Receiver

n

Rsnaa with

SeNICe Range at Original Noms Floor

Powar at Re c e ^I v e r

Distance from licensed transmitting antenna

Figure 2: Interference “temperature” concept (from FCC 03-289A1)

G

Blue Blue

Non-collaborative Collaborative

Figure 3: Non-collaborative vs. collaborative coexistence

Figure 4: A multi-standard, cognitive radio in

a

6.0 REFERENCES

[I] Ultrawideband Repon and Order is available at

http:/ihraunfoss.fcc.aoviedocs publiciattachmatc hFCC-02-4RA 1 .pdf

[2] T.W. Barren, ‘“I-listorv of UltraWideBand WWB) Radar & Communications: Pioneers and Innovators,” Progress In Electromagnetics Symposim 2000 (PIERS2000), Cambridge, MA, July 2000.

[3] Matthew Welbom, “UWB Coexistence Issues.” IEEE document 802.15-02146719

-

141 Jeffrey R. Foerster, “Interference Modeline of Pulse-based UWB Waveforms on Narrowband -,” October 2002.

[5] ~p://www.ieee802.ore/l S/uub/TGZ.html.

The Recommended Practice must currently be purchased from IEEE via links on that web site.

[6] http://ww\v.fcc.sovlsptf/

[7] See FCC document FCC 03-289a1, available from www.fcc.eov

[8] http:llfip.fcc.sov/oeVcoynitiveradio/

[9] Jim Lansford, “Universal Radio: Making New Spectrum (sort of),’’ 2002 Fourth Annual International Symposium On Advanced Radio Technoloeies. Boulder. CO. March 4-6.2002.