IQ-WDM for IEEE 802.
11bb-based LiFi
Ardimas Andi Purwita and Harald Haas
School of Engineering, Institute for Digital Communications, LiFi R&D Centre, The University of Edinburgh
E-mail: {a.purwita, h.haas}@ed.ac.uk
Abstract— In July 2018, a new IEEE task group focusing
on light communications was formed, namely IEEE 802.11bb
(TGbb). The primary motivation of this task group is to standard-
ize mobile, networked light communications, i.e., light fidelity
(LiFi). At the time of writing, discussions in TGbb still focus
on the physical (PHY) layer, and recently a common mode PHY
has been agreed. The common mode PHY is defined based on
the frequency upconversion of the signal outputs of existing
WiFi chipsets. In addition, a DC bias is used to enable the
intensity-modulation and direct-detection (IM/DD) over a light
emitting diode (LED). In this paper, we compare it with another
method, namely in-phase and quadrature wavelength division
multiplexing (IQ-WDM). IQ-WDM refers to a method where
both I and Q baseband signal from existing WiFi chipsets are
transmitted independently at different wavelengths. A compre-
hensive comparison is done, and our error performance results
indicate that IQ-WDM significantly outperforms the frequency
upconversion method by 6 dB. We also show that IQ-WDM is
robust againsts IQ imbalance.
Index Terms—IEEE 802.11bb, LiFi, PHY, WDM.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The earliest known demonstration of optical wireless com-
munications (OWC) is a photophone that was developed by
Alexander Graham Bell in 1880 [1]. A global attempt to
standardize commercial OWC technologies was not made until
the 1990s. Infrared data association (IrDA) was formed in
1993 to develop interoperable infrared (IR)-based OWC [2].
This was then followed by the formation of IEEE 802.11
in 1997, which can achieve a maximum speed of 2 Mbps
[3]. This legacy standard also covers specifications of data
transmission over IR spectrum. In 1999, due to its limited
ability to provide high data rates and wide coverage, IR
communications were quickly superseded by IEEE 802.11b
(also known as WiFi 1), which could achieve a maximum
speed of 11 Mbps. In 2000, research on OWC shifted to focus
on the visible light spectrum due to the invention of highly-
efficient blue light emitting diodes (LEDs) [4]. This new in-
terest led to standards in visible light communications (VLC),
e.g., the VLC Consortium [5], IEEE 802.15.7 [6], IEEE
802.15.13 [7] and International Telecommunication Union -
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) G.9991
(also known as G.vlc) [8]. Meanwhile, radio frequency (RF)-
based WiFi technologies have undergone several amendments,
e.g., IEEE 802.11a/g/n/ac (also known as WiFi 2 to 5) and,
more recently, IEEE 802.11ax (also known as WiFi 6) [9].
In the latest Cisco Visual Networking Index [10], it is
predicted that the annual
 global mobile  data traffic will reach
almost 103 exabytes 109 gigabytes by 2022. This is known
as the mobile zettabyte era. In that year, WiFi alone will be
‹,(((
Authorized licensed use limited to: Macquarie University. Downloaded on June 22,2020 at 12:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
predicted to handle more than half of the total internet protocol
(IP) traffic. In order to cater for this need, the IEEE 802.11
working group formed a task group which focused on the
high frequency spectrum, e.g., WiGig which is also known
as the 60 GHz WiFi. Moreover, in July 2018, a task group
focusing on light communications (LC), namely the IEEE
802.11 Light Communications Amendment - Task Group “bb”
(TGbb) was formed [11]. The vision of TGbb is to realize a
mobile and networked solution for OWC, i.e., light fidelity
(LiFi) [12]. This is also the main difference between the
IEEE 802.11bb and the existing OWC standards. The scope of
TGbb is to specify a new physical (PHY) layer and propose
a few modifications to the IEEE 802.11 media access control
(MAC) layer. It is worth noting here that it has already been
emphasized at the beginning of the project to support the
co-existence of WiFi and LiFi by means of adding the Fast
Session Transfer protocol in the MAC layer.
Regarding the PHY layer, there is a general consensus
in TGbb to use orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing
(OFDM). At the time of writing, the details of PHY are still
being discussed. There are two proposals in TGbb. The first
one is to use a DC bias and an RF mixer, i.e., frequency
up-and-down conversion with a center frequency [13]. The
second one is to reuse the PHY layer from G.vlc [8], which is
a DC-biased OFDM or asymmetrically clipped optical OFDM
with adaptive bit loading. For ease of reference, the second
proposal will be referred to as the LC-optimized proposal.
The main merit of the first proposal is that it requires less
effort to modify the existing WiFi silicon. Off-the-shelf WiFi
chipsets can be used in conjunction with a DC bias and mixer
to implement LC, for example a demonstration mentioned
in the meeting minutes in [14]. Meanwhile, the second ap-
proach is very intrusive, which means that the modification
should be done from the digital domain onward. That is, an
effort in the digital domain must be made to ensure that the
PHY layer of G.vlc is compatible with the Physical Layer
Convergence Procedure Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) of IEEE
802.11. Moreover, part of the data link layer of G.vlc should
be adapted to the MAC layer of IEEE 802.11. Indeed, this
implementation complexity also comes with an advantage in
terms of error performance due to the adaptive bit loading.
Our early contribution has been made in TGbb to justify two
proposals by measuring the flatness of the wireless optical
channels [15]. That is, the LC-optimized will be inefficient if
the channel is flat. This flatness test led to a task group motion
to use the first proposal as a common mode PHY [14].
The use of frequency up-conversion for LC has a significant
disadvantage, which is the loss of valuable frequency spectrum
near the DC. The frequency band near the DC is desired
because: (i) nowadays, the bandwidth of LEDs is still limited
to a few tens to hundreds of MHz, and (ii) due to the
low pass filter characteristic of the non-line-of-sight wireless
optical channels [16]. The reason for this loss is due to the
spectral leakage of a non-ideal (non-square) spectrum of the
transmitted OFDM waveform, which causes aliasing near the
DC spectrum. However, having a high center frequency will
also affect the error performance of the system caused by
higher attenuation due to the low pass filter characteristic.
Therefore, a question arises: is there another non-intrusive and
simple approach that does not sacrifice the near DC spectrum?
This paper aims to answer this question.
Contributions: This paper studies the potency of separately
transmitting signals over in-phase and quadrature (IQ) compo-
nents using two LEDs and wavelength division multiplexing
(WDM), namely IQ-WDM. By transmitting baseband signals
from IQ components, the higher attenuation due to the higher
frequency band can be avoided. In addition, WDM is applied
in order to mitigate the inter-channel interference. We find that
the error performance gain can be achieved while keeping the
modifications to the WiFi silicon to a minimum.
A related work is discussed in [18], which presents non-
Hermitian symmetry (NHS)-OFDM. Other than the use of
WDM and the implementation of IQ-WDM using signals fol-
lowing IEEE 802.11ax, the contribution of our work compared
to NHS-OFDM empirically shows that the IQ imbalance due
to differences in distances between each pair of LEDs and pho-
todiodes (PDs) is negligible. The IQ imbalance is mentioned in
[18], but it is neglected for simplicity. Another related work is
recently discussed in [19], where Hermitian-based DC-OFDM
is used. Similar to the LC-optimized approach, modifications
to the WiFi silicon are required.
In Section II, our system model will be explained. It is
followed by channel models in Section III. Results and dis-
cussions will be provided in Section IV. Section V concludes
this paper.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Fig. 1 shows the frequency up-and-down conversion ap-
proach which adheres to the baseline methodology docu-
ment available in [17]. Following the latest work on the
frequency up-and-down conversion approach [13], we use
OFDM waveforms that comply with IEEE 802.11ax [20]. In
addition, intensity-modulation and direct-detection modulation
is assumed in this paper. An upsampling with 1 GSa/s and
pulse shaping with the root raised cosine filter is used. Then,
a RF mixer with a center frequency denoted by fc is applied.
TGbb also defines a Tx model used for simulation purposes,
see [21]. Based on this, a bandpass filter with the cutoff
frequencies of 260 kHz and 234 MHz and the passband gain
of -23.17 dB is used to model the transmitter’s front-end. The
channel model denoted by the wireless optical channel impulse
response (WOCIR) will be discussed in the next section.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Macquarie University. Downloaded on June 22,2020 at 12:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Even though it is not common, TGbb decides to add additive
white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and instantaneous shot noise
in the optical domain (after WOCIR), see the group discussion
summary in [22]. Another bandpass filter is also used at the
receiver. Its cutoff frequencies are 48 kHz and 258 MHz, and
the passband gain is 4.6 dB [21]. An automatic gain controller
(AGC) is used to maintain the signal amplitude before the
frequency down-conversion. A direct conversion detection
comprising frequency down-conversions, a matched filter and
downsampling are used. Finally, recovery of the received
signals is carried out based on IEEE 802.11ax specifications.
In this paper, we aim to compare the frequency up-and-
down conversion with the IQ-WDM method. The main design
objective of IQ-WDM remains the same as in the frequency
up-and-down conversion approach. That is, could we leverage
the output signal of off-the-shelf WiFi chipsets so that it can be
transmitted over the optical spectrum? Instead of converting
the IQ baseband signal to passband, the IQ-WDM method
processes both I and Q components separately and treats them
as two independent real signals as shown in Fig. 2. (An
example of off-the-shelf boards that provide baseband I and Q
WiFi signals can be found in [23].) The upsampling and pulse
shaping are still used at each branch. An important assumption
in this paper is that there is no inter-channel-interference (ICI).
This can be achieved if two light sources operate at different
wavelengths, denoted by λ1 and λ2 , and both wavelenghts are
sufficiently distant. In fact, this is feasible due to the operating
wavelength defined as a common mode is 800 nm to 1,000 nm
[14]. Therefore, we can assume that two light sources operate
at near 800 nm and 1,000 nm, respectively. In addition, the ICI-
free assumption can also be used if narrowband light sources
such as laser diodes are used. WOCIRs for each wavelength
will be discussed in the next section.
Regarding the Rx model, we apply different responsivity
(A/W) corresponding to each wavelength λ1 and λ2 . Following
characteristics of typical silicon-based PDs based on [24], we
add different responsivity factors for both Rx models at each
branch. In this paper, the responsivity factor for the I-branch
Rx model with λ1 is 0.67, and the other is 0.52. Hence, this
will cause an IQ imbalance due to the difference in PDs’
attenuation. AGC is used as a first-aid compensation for the
IQ-imbalance. The main advantage of this is that it is not
intrusive, i.e., no additional signal processing technique is
needed in the digital domain. Recall that the methodology
document in [17] also specifies the use of an AGC. This means
that the default configuration detailed in the methodology
document is robust to this type of imbalance. Matched filters
and downsamplers are used at each branch. Finally, both IQ
components are combined into complex signals before the
recovery process.
III. C HANNEL M ODEL : WOCIR
TGbb, in fact, has provided publicly-available reference
channel models with different scenarios, see [25]. How-
ever, the dataset only contains single-input-single-output and
multiple-input-single-output cases. Moreover, the dataset only
 Fig. 1. Frequency up-and-down conversion method [17].
Fig. 2. The proposed IQ-WDM for IEEE 802.11bb.
Fig. 3. Elements of a simple office environment.
contain samples for the visible light spectrum only. Therefore,
we need to generate samples that describe sources occupying
infrared spectrum and a 2 × 2 multiple-input-multiple-output
configuration. This section aims to explain this in detail. In
addition, another type of IQ imbalance will be introduced.
Generally, the IQ imbalance is caused by the fact that the
distances between each pair of LEDs and PDs are different.
Consequently, attenuations and delays for both IQ components
are not the same. Differences in the reflectiveness of materials
at different wavelengths might also cause unequal attenuations.
In this paper, we will focus on a simple office environment
comprising a 4 × 3 × 3 m3 room, a user, a desk and a chair
as depicted in Fig. 3. Arrows show the normal vectors or
directions of corresponding objects. Fig. 3 depicts a scenario
where a user holds a phone next to their ears while facing a
desk and a chair. Moreover, the PD is located on the top part
of the phone. In this paper, we assume that an LED is located
in the center of the ceiling, facing downwards.
Based on [26, Figure 2], we model materials of the desk
and chair’s surfaces as a black glossy paint. Plasters are used
to model the materials of the surfaces of the ceiling and the
walls. Pinewood is used to model the floor. Cotton is used
to model the materials of the body and legs [27]. A model
Authorized licensed use limited to: Macquarie University. Downloaded on June 22,2020 at 12:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE I. Reflectivities of materials used in Fig. 3.
materials reflectivities
paint 0.04
cotton 0.64
skin 0.66
plaster 0.83
pinewood 0.92
of the material for the skin of the user model is taken from
[28]. Based on [26]–[28], reflectivities of these materials at the
wavelength range of 800 nm to 1,000 nm can be considered
flat. Hence, we will not differentiate the reflectivities at λ1 and
λ2 . Values of reflectivities of these materials are summarized
in Table I.
Three different scenarios are used in this paper as illustrated
in Fig. 4. Note that as shown in the inset of Fig. 4(a), there
are two LEDs and PDs in each case to accommodate the IQ-
WDM. The distance between both LEDs is 5 cm. The same
distance is also used for both PDs. The detection areas and
field-of-views of all PDs are 1 cm2 and 85◦ , respectively. The
half-power semiangles of all LEDs are 40◦ .
Case 1 depicts the scenario where the user is near the LEDs,
and the PDs face the LEDs. Case 2 depicts the scenario where
the user sits in the corner of the room and uses a LiFi-enabled
USB dongle. Line of sight (LOS) links in both cases exist, but
the LOS link is not dominant in the second case. Meanwhile,
case 3 is used to represent a scenario where a LOS link does
not exist. In short, case 1 is used to represent a channel where
the LOS link is dominant. The second case is used to represent
a channel that is dominated by the non-LOS channel while the
LOS still exists. The third case is used to represent a channel
without a LOS link.
In this paper, WOCIRs are generated by means of frequency
domain approach [29]. To the best of our knowledge, it is one
of the accurate deterministic methods to generate WOCIRs
due to its ability to consider infinite number of reflections.
Phase responses can show the transmission delay at both I
and Q branches. Based on Fig. 5, which shows the phase
responses of all cases, the delay differences between I and Q
branches are negligible. Meanwhile, magnitude responses for
 (a) Case 1
Fig. 4. Three tested cases. Note that in the case 2, the PDs are located on top of the table, which depict the use case of a LiFi-enabled USB dongle.
all cases are depicted in Fig. 6. Unlike the delay imbalance,
the gain imbalance between I and Q branches are noticeable,
i.e., the difference is in the range of 1 to 2 dB at the lower
frequency range, and it can be almost 20 dB for case 3 at
the high frequency range. Recall that we apply AGC for IQ-
WDM (as well as the frequency upconversion method). In the
next section, it will be shown that this 2 dB difference in the
magnitude response is negligible.
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSIONS : E RROR P ERFORMANCE
Before discussing the error performance, it is important to
note here that the performance of the frequency upconversion
approach highly depends on the upconverted center frequency.
We also notice that there is a trade-off in choosing either a
low or a high center frequency. With a low center frequency,
the frequency upconversion approach is vulnerable to aliasing
effect near the DC frequency due to spectral leakage as
illustrated in Fig. 7. Meanwhile, with a high center frequency,
the frequency upconversion approach suffers from the low pass
filter characteristic of non-LOS channels [16].
Determining a good center frequency also depends on signal
bandwidth. At the time of writing, the common mode PHY is
defined with the signal bandwidth of 20 MHz, so we will use
that value in this paper. For each case and fixed modulation
and coding scheme (MCS) index value, we numerically find
the best center frequency within the 10 MHz to 15 MHz range
of the frequency spectrum. The main reason for choosing this
range is that we expect the center frequency to be as close as
possible to the DC frequency in practice due to the bandwidth
limitation of LEDs. The problem formulation in searching for
the optimal center frequency for each MCS index value is as
follows:
fc∗ = arg min SNR to achieve PER =10−3 .
10MHz ≤ fc ≤15MHz
We find that with the MCS index value of 6 (64-QAM
and coding rate of 3/4) the optimal center frequencies for
the first, the second and the third case are 15 MHz, 13 MHz
and 12 MHz, respectively. The fact that the optimal center
frequencies decrease can be seen from the flatness of the
magnitude response at the range of 0 to 20 MHz. That is,
Authorized licensed use limited to: Macquarie University. Downloaded on June 22,2020 at 12:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(b) Case 2 (c) Case 3
the spectral leakage is worse in the first case than it does in
the third case. It is also important to note here that we do not
use the same values of center frequency in all cases since we
aim to compare the IQ-WDM and the frequency upconversion
approach, whose center frequency is optimally chosen.
Packet error ratio (PER) performances for all cases are
depicted in Fig. 8. Note that for fairness of comparison, the
total signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of both frequency upcon-
version and IQ-WDM is set to be the same. Generally, IQ-
WDM outperform the frequency upconversion approach. The
main reason for this is due to the upconversion causing the
transmitted signal to suffer from higher attenuation due to
the low pass filter characteristic of the channels. This effect
can be seen clearly by the fact that the SNR gain widens
as the channel gets worse, i.e., from 0.5 dB difference to 6
dB difference. Comparisons of IQ-WDM with and without
IQ imbalance are also provided. In this paper, IQ-WDM
without IQ imbalance refers to the scenario where channel
impulse responses (CIRs) of both I and Q branches are the
same. It can be seen that the difference in terms of PER is
negligible. We empirically observe that this resilience is due
to the use of AGC, which maintains signal amplitudes at the
receiver. Finally, we can conclude that IQ-WDM is robust
to IQ imbalance, assuming that the distance of an LED to
another LED (and similarly a PD to another PD) is not far.
This assumption is valid due to the small size of LEDs and
PDs.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we compared the agreed common mode
mandatory PHY layer of IEEE 802.11b, i.e., the frequency
upconversion method, and our proposed IQ-WDM method.
Three different channel realizations were used for the compar-
ison. We generated a channel where the LOS link is dominant;
a channel where a non-LOS link is dominant, but the LOS link
still exists; and a channel without a LOS link. We showed that
IQ-WDM outperformed the frequency upconversion method in
all cases. In addition, the proposed IQ-WDM was also shown
to be resilient to the gain and delay imbalance at both I and
Q branches.
 (a) Case 1
(b) Case 2
(c) Case 3
Fig. 5. Phase responses.
VI. ACKNOWLEGMENTS
The work of A. Purwita was supported by Indonesian
Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP). The work of H. Haas
was supported by the Wolfson Foundation, the Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under Es-
tablished Career Fellowship grant EP/R007101/1.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. G. Bell, W. G. Adams, Tyndall, and W. H. Preece, “Discussion on
"the photophone and the conversion of radiant energy into sound",” J.
Soc. Telegraph Eng., vol. 9, no. 34, pp. 375–383, 1880.
[2] Infrared Data Association (IrDA). [Online]. Available: https://www.
irda.org/
[3] “IEEE Standard for Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) specifications,” IEEE Std 802.11-1997, pp. 1–445,
Nov 1997.
[4] Y. Tanaka, S. Haruyama, and M. Nakagawa, “Wireless optical transmis-
sions with white colored LED for wireless home links,” in 11th IEEE
PIMRC, vol. 2, London, UK, United Kingdom, Sep. 2000, pp. 1325–
1329 vol.2.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Macquarie University. Downloaded on June 22,2020 at 12:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(a) Case 1
(b) Case 2
(c) Case 3
Fig. 6. Magnitude responses.
Fig. 7. Aliasing near the DC frequency due to the spectral leakage.
[5] Visible Light Communications Consortium (VLCC). [Online].
Available: http://www.vlcc.net/
[6] (2019, September) IEEE 802.15 WPAN™ 15.7 maintenance: Short-
range optical wireless communications task group (TG 7m).
[Online]. Available: http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/IEEE%20802_15%
20WPAN%2015_7%20Revision1%20Task%20Group.htm
[7] (2019, September) IEEE 802.15 WPAN™ task group 13 (TG13)
multi-gigabit/s optical wireless communications. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG13.html
[8] “High-speed indoor visible light communication transceiver – system
architecture, physical layer and data link layer specification,” Rec. ITU-

(a) Case 1
(b) Case 2
(c) Case 3
Fig. 8. PER vs. SNR with 64-QAM and coding rate of 3/4.
T G.9991, International Telecommunications Union, 2019.
[9] S. McCann. (2019, Oct) Official IEEE 802.11 Working Group Project
Timelines. [Online]. Available: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/
Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm
[10] “Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast
update, 2017–2022,” White Paper, Cisco, Feb. 2019.
[11] (2017, May) Status of IEEE 802.11 light communication TG. [Online].
Available: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgbb_update.htm
[12] H. Haas, L. Yin, Y. Wang, and C. Chen, “What is LiFi?” J. Lightw.
Technol., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1533–1544, March 2016.
[13] N. Serafimovski, C. Han, T. Weszely, S. Videv, A. Purwita, M. Dehghani,
C. Chen, and H. Haas. (2019, September) Proposal for common-mode
mandatory phy. [Online]. Available: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/
19/11-19-1625-04-00bb-proposed-common-mode-mandatory-phy.pptx
[14] S.-K. Lim, M. Wendt, and N. Serafimofski. (2019,
September) IEEE 802.11 TGbb Task Group on Light
Communications: September, 2019 Hanoi Minutes. [Online].
Available: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-1704-00-00bb-
meeting-minutes-for-september-2019-hanoi.docx
[15] A. Purwita, S. Videv, H. Haas, and N. Serafimofski. (2019,
September) Spectral Flatness Test of the TGbb’s Reference
Channel Models with HE Waveform. [Online]. Available: https:
//mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-1639-01-00bb-spectral-flatness-
Authorized licensed use limited to: Macquarie University. Downloaded on June 22,2020 at 12:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
test-of-the-tgbb-refrence-channel-models-with-he-waveform.pptx
[16] V. Jungnickel, V. Pohl, S. Nonnig, and C. von Helmolt, “A physical
model of the wireless infrared communication channel,” IEEE IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 631–640, April 2002.
[17] K. L. Bober, V. Jungnickel, M. Hinrichs, and N. Serafimofski. (2019,
May) TGbb: Evaluation methodology for PHY and MAC proposals.
[Online]. Available: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0187-
04-00bb-evaluation-methodology-for-phy-and-mac-proposals.docx
[18] C. Chen, W.-D. Zhong, and D. Wu, “Non-Hermitian Symmetry Orthogo-
nal Frequency Division Multiplexing for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output
Visible Light Communications,” J. Opt. Commun. Netw., vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 36–44, Jan 2017.
[19] A. Zeshan and T. Baykas, “Performance analysis of VLC based on
802.11ac frame structure,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 23, no. 9,
pp. 1560–1563, Sep. 2019.
[20] “IEEE draft standard for information technology – telecommunications
and information exchange between systems local and metropolitan area
networks – specific requirements part 11: Wireless LAN medium access
control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications amendment
enhancements for high efficiency WLAN,” IEEE P802.11ax/D3.0, June
2018, pp. 1–682, July 2018.
[21] M. Hinrichs, J. Hilt, P. Hellwig, V. Jungnickel, and K. L.
Bober. (2019, January) IEEE 802.11 TGbb Task Group
on Light Communications: Optical Frontend Model. [Online].
Available: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0087-01-00bb-
optical-frontend-model-for-phy-simulation.docx
[22] K. L. Bober, R. Mennecke, and N. Serafimofski. (2019, March)
IEEE 802.11 TGbb Task Group on Light Communications:
September, 2019 Vancouver Meeting Minutes. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/19/11-19-0523-00-00bb-tgbb-
meeting-minutes-for-march-2019.docx
[23] Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (2016, Sepp) Qualcomm® Snapdragon™
410E(APQ 8016E) processor: Device Specification. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/snapdragon-
410e-apq-8016e-data-sheet.pdf
[24] Edmund Optics. Basic Principles of Silicon Detectors. [Online].
Available: https://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/
testing-and-detection/basic-principles-of-silicon-detectors/
[25] M. Uysal, F. Miramirkhani, T. Baykas, and K. Qaraqe. (2018, November)
CIRs of IEEE 802.11bb reference channel models for indoor envi-
ronments. [Online]. Available: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/18/11-
18-1603-01-00bb-cirs-of-ieee-802-11bb-reference-channel-models.zip
[26] F. Miramirkhani, M. Uysal, and E. Panayirci, “Novel channel models
for visible light communications,” in Broadband Access Communication
Technologies IX, B. B. Dingel and K. Tsukamoto, Eds., vol. 9387,
International Society for Optics and Photonics. SPIE, 2015, pp. 150 –
162.
[27] R. Kokaly et al., “USGS Spectral Library Version 7,” U.S.
Geological Survey Data Series 1035, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://crustal.usgs.gov/speclab/data/GIFplots/GIFplots_splib07a/
ChapterA_ArtificialMaterials/splib07a_Cotton_Fabric_GDS437_White_
ASDFRa_AREF.gif
[28] C. C. Cooksey and D. W. Allen, “Reflectance measurements of human
skin from the ultraviolet to the shortwave infrared (250 nm to 2500
nm),” in Proceedings of SPIE Defense, Security & Sensing, Baltimore,
MD, May 2013.
[29] H. Schulze, “Frequency-domain simulation of the indoor wireless optical
communication channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 6, pp.
2551–2562, June 2016.