With the advent of OFDM for WLAN communications, as exemplified by IEEE 802.11a, it has become imperative to have efficient and reliable synchronization algorithms for OFDM WLAN receivers. The main challenges with synchronization deal with the delay spread and frequency offset introduced by the wireless channel. In this work, rigorous research is done into OFDM WLAN synchronization algorithms, and a thorough synchronizer implementation is presented. This synchronizer performs packet detection, frequency offset estimation, and time offset estimation. Competing timing offset estimation algorithms are compared under a variety of channel conditions, with varying delay spreads, frequency offsets, and channel SNR. The metrics used to select between competing algorithms are statistical variance, and incremental hardware complexity. The timing offset estimation algorithms chosen are a dropoff detection algorithm for coarse timing offset estimation, and a quantized cross-correlator with a maximum detector for fine timing offset estimation.

With the advent of OFDM for WLAN communications, as exemplified by IEEE 802.11a, it has become imperative to have efficient and reliable synchronization algorithms for OFDM WLAN receivers. The main challenges with synchronization deal with the delay spread and frequency offset introduced by the wireless channel. In this work, rigorous research is done into OFDM WLAN synchronization algorithms, and a thorough synchronizer implementation is presented. This synchronizer performs packet detection, frequency offset estimation, and time offset estimation. Competing timing offset estimation algorithms are compared under a variety of channel conditions, with varying delay spreads, frequency offsets, and channel SNR. The metrics used to select between competing algorithms are statistical variance, and incremental hardware complexity. The timing offset estimation algorithms chosen are a dropoff detection algorithm for coarse timing offset estimation, and a quantized cross-correlator with a maximum detector for fine timing offset estimation.

<p>Inom detta examensarbete implementeras i SIMULINK en modell av ett trådlöst överföringssystem enligt IEEE802.11a standarden. Modellen klarar av att hantera störningskällor som är vanligt förekommande i den miljö applikationen operar på. Denna modell utvärderas sedan för att avgöra dess belastningsförmåga och vid vilka värden den brister.</p><p>Första delen av rapporten beskriver målsättningen och syftet med detta examensarbete, samt metodvalet och rapportens uppläggning som tillämpats.</p><p>Rapportens andra del innehåller en allmän beskrivning av digital radiokommunikation och OFDM-baserade system. Därefter beskrivs teorin av både sändaren och mottagaren enligt IEEE802.11a standarden. Slutligen behandlas ett flertal vanligt förekommande synkroniseringsalgoritmer som har blivit publicerade.</p><p>I rapportens tredje del diskuteras de verktyg som har använts för att bygga modellen. Denna del fortsätter sedan med att kort beskriva valen av de algoritmer som har tillämpats i modellen.</p><p>Fjärde och sista delen av rapporten delas in i två kapitel. I första kapitlet sker de simuleringar som erfordras för att kunna utvärdera modellen. Examensarbetet knyts sedan ihop vid resultatkapitlet, där även förslag på fortsatt arbete diskuteras.</p> / En ny version av examensarbetet har lagts till i listan (nr. 2) på begäran av författaren med anledning av att författaren har bytt namn.

This paper is a study and comparison between the two Wireless LAN (WLAN) standards HiperLAN/2 and IEEE 802.11a. WLANs are used instead or together with ordinary LANs to increase mobility in for example an office. HiperLAN/2 is an European standard developed by ETSI and the IEEEs standard is American. A WLAN-card consists roughly of a Medium Access Control (MAC), Physichal layer (PHY) and an antenna. The antenna is the same for the different standards. Both standards operates at 5.4 GHz with a maximum transmission rate at 54 Mbit/s and they use OFDM to modulate the signal. This means that the physical layer in the two standards is similar. The differences between the standards are in the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer. HiperLAN/2 has a much more complex MAC since it is developed with the starting point in cellular phones. Therefore this MAC is not very similar to ETHERNET that is the protocol used by regular network. On the other hand it is built to be compatible with cellular phones and other applications. The 802.11a MAC is very much the same as in the 802.11b standard that is the most used standard at present. The difference is that 802.11a can send at much higher data rates. This MAC is build with starting point in ETHERNET so it has a similar interface to the computer. This makes it less complex. The different MACs can provide different services. The greatest difference is that 802.11a can use a distributed send mode where any STA can send if the medium is idle. This reminds a lot of ETHERNET but they use different methods to sense if the medium is idle. In HiperLAN/2 are all transmissions scheduled by the AP. 802.11a can operate in a similar way but at the moment this mode is not as fully developed as in HiperLAN/2. There are working groups in IEEE that works toward an improvement of 802.11a so it can use queues with different priorities, this is already implemented in HiperLAN/2. Another important issue in wireless environment is security. Both standards use encryption to protect their messages. The difference is that HiperLAN/2 changes their encryption key for every connection where 802.11a uses the same key the whole time. This gives HiperLAN/2 a better security with todays standard but thereare working groups dealing with implementing key-exchange functions and Kerberos use in 802.11a. Chapter 8 is a description of a program that we developed in C++. The program is used to monitor the different registers and ports a WLAN-card use. It is written for a 802.11b card and should be used together with Windows 2000. The source code can be found in appendix C.

The first part of the thesis consists of a theoretical overview of OFDM, the effects of different imperfections like carrier frequency offset, timing offset and phase noise followed by a short overview of the IEEE802.11a standard for WLAN. The second part consists of an overview of a number of different techniques for synchronization that have been published. A technique based on correlation in the time domain is chosen and implemented as a floaing-point model and later as a fixed-point model using Matlab, Simulink and Xilinx System Generator. The fixed-point model is then synthesized to an FPGA to verify that the design flow works and that a required clock frequency can be achieved.

Inom detta examensarbete implementeras i SIMULINK en modell av ett trådlöst överföringssystem enligt IEEE802.11a standarden. Modellen klarar av att hantera störningskällor som är vanligt förekommande i den miljö applikationen operar på. Denna modell utvärderas sedan för att avgöra dess belastningsförmåga och vid vilka värden den brister. Första delen av rapporten beskriver målsättningen och syftet med detta examensarbete, samt metodvalet och rapportens uppläggning som tillämpats. Rapportens andra del innehåller en allmän beskrivning av digital radiokommunikation och OFDM-baserade system. Därefter beskrivs teorin av både sändaren och mottagaren enligt IEEE802.11a standarden. Slutligen behandlas ett flertal vanligt förekommande synkroniseringsalgoritmer som har blivit publicerade. I rapportens tredje del diskuteras de verktyg som har använts för att bygga modellen. Denna del fortsätter sedan med att kort beskriva valen av de algoritmer som har tillämpats i modellen. Fjärde och sista delen av rapporten delas in i två kapitel. I första kapitlet sker de simuleringar som erfordras för att kunna utvärdera modellen. Examensarbetet knyts sedan ihop vid resultatkapitlet, där även förslag på fortsatt arbete diskuteras. / En ny version av examensarbetet har lagts till i listan (nr. 2) på begäran av författaren med anledning av att författaren har bytt namn.

<p>This paper is a study and comparison between the two Wireless LAN (WLAN) standards HiperLAN/2 and IEEE 802.11a. WLANs are used instead or together with ordinary LANs to increase mobility in for example an office. HiperLAN/2 is an European standard developed by ETSI and the IEEEs standard is American. </p><p>A WLAN-card consists roughly of a Medium Access Control (MAC), Physichal layer (PHY) and an antenna. The antenna is the same for the different standards. </p><p>Both standards operates at 5.4 GHz with a maximum transmission rate at 54 Mbit/s and they use OFDM to modulate the signal. This means that the physical layer in the two standards is similar. </p><p>The differences between the standards are in the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer. HiperLAN/2 has a much more complex MAC since it is developed with the starting point in cellular phones. Therefore this MAC is not very similar to ETHERNET that is the protocol used by regular network. On the other hand it is built to be compatible with cellular phones and other applications. </p><p>The 802.11a MAC is very much the same as in the 802.11b standard that is the most used standard at present. The difference is that 802.11a can send at much higher data rates. This MAC is build with starting point in ETHERNET so it has a similar interface to the computer. This makes it less complex. </p><p>The different MACs can provide different services. The greatest difference is that 802.11a can use a distributed send mode where any STA can send if the medium is idle. This reminds a lot of ETHERNET but they use different methods to sense if the medium is idle. In HiperLAN/2 are all transmissions scheduled by the AP. 802.11a can operate in a similar way but at the moment this mode is not as fully developed as in HiperLAN/2. There are working groups in IEEE that works toward an improvement of 802.11a so it can use queues with different priorities, this is already implemented in HiperLAN/2. </p><p>Another important issue in wireless environment is security. Both standards use encryption to protect their messages. The difference is that HiperLAN/2 changes their encryption key for every connection where 802.11a uses the same key the whole time. This gives HiperLAN/2 a better security with todays standard but thereare working groups dealing with implementing key-exchange functions and Kerberos use in 802.11a. Chapter 8 is a description of a program that we developed in C++. The program is used to monitor the different registers and ports a WLAN-card use. It is written for a 802.11b card and should be used together with Windows 2000. The source code can be found in appendix C.</p>

<p>The first part of the thesis consists of a theoretical overview of OFDM, the effects of different imperfections like carrier frequency offset, timing offset and phase noise followed by a short overview of the IEEE802.11a standard for WLAN. The second part consists of an overview of a number of different techniques for synchronization that have been published. A technique based on correlation in the time domain is chosen and implemented as a floaing-point model and later as a fixed-point model using Matlab, Simulink and Xilinx System Generator. The fixed-point model is then synthesized to an FPGA to verify that the design flow works and that a required clock frequency can be achieved.</p>