The Modeling of 4 Pair Data Grade Channels with the Aim to Use

the Differential Mode Transmission Parameters which are Given

in the Standardized Specification Requirements
JrgHein (Jo) Walling and Alistair Duffy
Independent Consultant
Beaconsfield, Qubec, Canada
+1-514-695-8220 jo.walling@sympatico.ca

De Montfort University
Leicester, U.K.
+44-116-257-7056 apd@dmu.ac.uk
propagation constant to be determined. For connectors, however, this
is not feasible, as the delay has been specified, unfortunately, with
such a large margin, that the calculated phase reaches values which
are too high compared to the electrical length of the connector. This
issue should be revised seriously by IEC TC48.

Abstract
This is the first of two related papers that focus on the current status
of a comprehensive channel model, as developed by ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC25 WG3 and the subgroup MTG (Modeling Task Group).
Consequently, the papers deal with data grade channels which
contain four twisted pairs (hence 4 Shannon channels) as used for
Ethernet applications according to IEEE 802.3. Such channels may
be configured with different cables and cable types, interfaced with
(mostly) RJ45 mated connectors. Though these connectors are
considered as very short transmission lines [1], they behave in the
cascade as a lumped element transmission-line, i.e. the reflections
upon impedance mismatches at the entrance and exit of the mated
connector are hardly differentiable in the frequency domain.
Therefore, these papers concentrate on the effects of the cables and,
predominantly, the problems encountered upon the concatenation of
cables.

The phase for the reflection coefficient, based on the return loss,
which is based on the round trip, is twice that of the propagation
constant. This relies on the general assumption that the cable is
essentially homogeneous over its length: something that cannot be
achieved even in the best cable designs. Future work needs to
consider impedance or return loss roughness as a function of the
length of the cable, which will then need to be related to the distance
domain instead of the frequency domain.
For crosstalk, i.e. for NEXT and FEXT the phase problem is even
more acute. However in general, there exists a correlation between
the return loss and the crosstalk, as shown in [3]. In another
important paper [4] Friesen compares NEXT between two pairs in
the frequency and distance domain on a long cable and then bisects
the cable and remeasures the NEXT. He finds good agreement, as
we found also in [2], with minor discrepancies attributable to the
necessary deformation of the cable geometry at the ends for
measurement and connectorization.

This paper describes different approaches to describe the

concatenation of components based upon their specification
requirements, using specified or derived parameters. We use K
parameters (chain matrix parameters) for the latter purpose, while
for the concatenation of the components themselves we use the
scattering transfer parameters (Tparameters). This paper concludes
that improvements to length correction are critical to the
development of suitably accurate models.

2. Background
We use the following specification limits according to the IEC
61156 series of documents, here for Cat. 6A cables. This paper only
considers the concatenation of cables. We use a frequency range up
to 1000 MHz in our calculations, which is in excess of Cat. 6A cable
specifications.

Keywords: Concatenation; K or ABCD parameters; T

parameters; channel modeling; cascading of cables; length correction
of crosstalk starting based on a known reference length.

1. Introduction
The concatenation of cable component measurements is very
accurate using the complex measured Sparameters and transforming
them into Tparameters [2]. It is also feasible to use Kparameters
neglecting of the errors introduced by the junctions, which
inherently create an impedance irregularity, not being picked up in
this case. One difficulty resides in the mutual conversion of S; T
and K parameters for multiport networks. These problems are
nevertheless solvable.

For a 100 m cable, we have the following requirements:

However, for concatenations, where the component specification

values are taken directly, there appears a major problem. All our
specification values are based upon absolute values in terms of
power ratios, whereas the usually used Sparameters are based on
voltage ratios. As a result we have no information about the phase
constant of each parameter, and this represents the most formidable
obstacle for channel modeling.

RL =

= 1.82 f + 0.0091 f +

1 f 1000 (500 )

NEXT = 74.3 15 log( f )

ACR F = 67.8 20 log( f )

20 + 5 log( f ) (1) f 10

The propagation delay for channels, cables and connectors is

specified. This allows at least for the cables the phase of the

International Wire & Cable Symposium

0.23

532

25
25 7 log( f )
17.3

(1)

10 f 20
20 f 251.8
f 251.8

The frequency of 1 MHz is written here in brackets, as it is only for

reference purposes indicated. It cannot be measured correctly using
the conventional baluns.

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

There are no indications about the phase for any of these values.
Therefore we use the propagation delay to determine the phase. The
propagation delay is specified for all cable categories to the same
requirements, i.e. 570 nsec/100m A rationalization allows the
determination the velocity of propagation and there from the phase:

v=

1011 f
534 f + 36

3.1.Step by Step Computations

[m / sec]

Hence, the tolerances of the characteristic impedance of the cable

components must be taken into account. However, this has a direct
impact on the reflection coefficient and hence on the return loss. It
is therefore essential that this is explored in detail.

3.1. The Cross talk

(2)

2 108 f
v

3.1.1. The propagation constant

[radian / m]

Using the equations Eq (1) and Eq (2), we can easily derive the
propagation constant:

These are all the specification requirements for cables.

The attenuation is proportional to the length, whereas the phase
constant is strictly speaking not length proportional, because of
dispersion effects at lower frequencies which are not exactly
reflected in Eq (2). However, here we assume that the propagation
constant is length proportional. This assumption can be improved
upon in a modified Fourier transform, to get into the length domain.

l = ( + j ) l

[ Neper; radian ]

0.23

1.82 f + 0.0091 f +
2 108 f
f
l
=
+ j

2000 log10 (e)

v

For the length correction of the cross-talk parameters, there are

several options to consider. Thus we will consider the length
correction according to the IEC recommendation for measurements,
implying that the cross-talk coupling is strictly uncorrelated with
length. Though this assumption may be considered valid were many
cables are considered, it is not necessarily given for two pairs in a
cable. This results from the fact that the cross-talk coupling
coefficients do vary over length. We will highlight the problems
resulting out of this. In the companion paper [5] we take look at a
length correction of cross-talk by taking consecutive square roots of
the T-parameters, which amounts to bisecting the cable.

(3)

Using this equation we get for the corresponding (transmission) S

parameter:

S l = 10

l
20

[ cos ( l ) + j sin ( l ) ]

(4)

3.1.2. NEXT
Initially, length correction according to the IEC length correction
formula is applied:

The return loss is specified, but there is an alternate acceptance

criterion: If the open/short impedance measurement yields data that
falls into a template calculated from the return loss, then the return
loss does not need to be measured. The cables are specified in their
asymptotic characteristic impedance to a tolerance of 5 ,
however the measured impedance roughness may exceed these
tolerances substantially, as indicated in Fig. 1.

NEXT l = NEXT100 10 log10

1 10

l
5

100
1 10 5

[dB @ l]

(5)

This is the length correction for the absolute value of NEXT, not taking
the phase into account. Here the NEXT has to be uncorrelated with
length. The relevant S-parameter can then be obtained from Eq (5):

SNEXTl = 10

NEXTl
20

cos ( 2 l ) + j sin (2 l )

(6)

Eq (6) represents a minimal condition. In fact, according to [4],

twice the phase for the propagation constant is a lenient condition.

3.1.3. ACRF
ACR-F is generally a derived value (though it could be also
measured directly using a vector network analyzer without an
incorporated S-parameter test set). There are two approaches to
obtain a length correction following the IEC length correction:
l
ACR Fl = ACR F100 10 log10
100
FEXTl = ACR Fl l
(7)
or :
FEXTl = FEXT100 10 log10

Again, to be able to use the complex voltage ratios of Eq (7), we

have to consider the phase of FEXT as well. For the
corresponding Sparameter, we get:

Figure 1: Characteristic impedance limits and roughness

template according to IEC 61156

International Wire & Cable Symposium

l
l

+ 100
1
100
100

533

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

SFEXTl = 10

FEXTl
20

cos ( l ) + j sin ( l )

(8)

Here is assumed, as in section 3.1.1 above, that the pairs have the
same propagation phase. A detailed analysis of the potential impact
of the inhomogeneous distribution of coupling coefficients is still
outstanding.

3.1.4. The asymptotic characteristic impedance

As mentioned above we have to take into account the different
characteristic impedances of the cables within the tolerance limits of
the asymptotic characteristic impedance. In order to get the
complex characteristic impedance as a function of frequency we use
a heuristic equation which has been proven extensively to describe
very well the mean characteristic impedance values:

1 j

Zo = Z asymtote 1 + 0.055
f

[ ]

(9)
Figure 2: Homogeneous cable return loss for an
asymptotic impedance of 100

3.1.5. Return loss and the derived reflection

coefficient
Here we consider several options:
1.) the return loss as specified, but introducing additionally a
suitable phase constant
2.) the return loss based on the assumption that the cables are
homogeneous over length. Then the calculation can be done
using Kparameters
3.) the return loss based on the impedance mismatch, taking a
randomly distributed impedance roughness into account. This
approach requires a Fourier transform, using at the same time
Eq (2) above to get the time as a function of frequency. There is
no space in the frame of this paper to elaborate more on this
issue. We give only a simple impedance roughness model for
demonstration purposes in the frequency domain alone.
Consequently we have:
1.) SRL = 10

RL
20

[ cos ( 2 ) + j sin ( 2 ) ]

cos h ( l

K l = sin h l

Zo

( )

2.) RL = 20 log10

SK l =

Zo2

Figure 3: Homogeneous cable return loss for an

asymptotic impedance of 95

(10)

( )
( )

Zo sin h l
K11 K12

=
cos h l
K 21 K11

Zo ZL2

2
2
Zo + 2 ZL Zo cot h( l ) + ZL

(11)

Zo2 ZL2

+ 2 ZL Zo cot h( l ) + ZL2

We treat, in the following, the above outline approaches:

a.) First we use Eq (10) to get the complex reflection coefficients
from the return loss of the cable. Though this does not allow an
assessment of a length correction of the reflection coefficient.
b.) The use of Eq (11) allows the length of the cables to be taken into
account. We indicate how to do this using the last equation of Eq (1).
Figure 4: Homogeneous cable return loss for an
asymptotic impedance of 105

Towards this we use compute first the return loss based on the
second equation of Eq (11).

International Wire & Cable Symposium

534

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

This normalization factor is shown in Fig. 6 for different lengths of

cables. The cable lengths are increasing with the power of 2 as used
in the companion paper [5]. The lower envelope for short cables is
highlighted in the Fig. 5 for a cable length of 10 m. For short cables
this length correction takes into account that at low frequencies the
return loss is improving.

In the Fig. 2 to Fig. 4 the homogeneous cable return loss is shown

for lengths of 1, 10 and 100 m and for a characteristic cable
impedance of 100, 95 and 105 , respectively.
We then determine the mean RL and the envelopes of it:

Zo ZL

RL mean = 20 log10
Zo + ZL

Zo ZL
RL Envelope = 20 log10
1 e 2 l
Zo + ZL

Concerning the impedance roughness in the frequency domain, we

can consider in a very simplified approach the characteristic
impedance of the cable in the frequency domain according to Eq (9),
and overlay to it suitable a random roughness. The magnitude of this
rough impedance has to comply to the template indicated in Fig. 1.

(12)

The sign in the last bracket indicates the lower and upper envelope,
respectively. The envelopes are indicated in the Fig. 2 to Fig. 4.

This is schematically shown in the Fig. 7 to Fig. 9. Thus the Fig. 7

shows the random roughness, already normalized to the asymmetric
template of Fig. 1. In the Fig. 8 this roughness is added to the smooth
complex characteristic impedance.
For simplification this
normalization is only carried out for the real part of the characteristic
impedance, though in a properly modified Fourier transform
approach a complex normalization has to be used. Finally Fig. 9
indicates the computed return losses for different asymptotic
impedances.

It is obvious, that the return loss for short cables is substantially

better at low frequencies. As we use the lower envelope to cover at
the majority of any return loss roughness, we have to use, at low
frequencies, the true homogeneous return loss up to the tangential
point with the lower envelope. This is schematically shown in the
Fig. 5 for a cable length of 10 m. This cables has an asymptotic
characteristic impedance of 105 .
The lower envelope is used for the frequencies essentially beyond
the first minimum of the homogeneous cable return loss.

Figure 6: Worst case length correction factor for RLFig. 9

clearly shows the decrease of the return loss at higher frequencies,
which is due to very short spaced impedance irregularities resulting
out of the twisting and stranding process. This phenomenon in itself
makes an in-depth study of the longitudinal impedance roughness
mandatory. This problem cannot be addressed within the scope of
this paper. The longitudinally distributed roughness has also an
impact on the crosstalk [3].

Figure 5: Lower return loss limit of a quasi

homogeneous 105 cable of 10 m length
Evidently we have to use the worst case condition, i.e. for an
asymptotic impedance of 105 , see Fig. 4, and can then calculate
the return loss of any length relative to the specification value, using
a normalization factor according to the following formula 2:

Nl m

RLLow Env. Limit l m

Lower Env. 100 m

=
RLLower Env. l m
RL
Lower Env. 100 m

4. The cascading of cable components

For the consideration of cascading cable components, making use of
the above outlined calculation of parameters, we have to introduce
an additional condition: In fact, we have to assume, that by
cascading cable elements (incidentally also by breaking down a
cascade) we do not introduce an additional impedance variation,
which would yield additional (and hence unaccounted) reflections 3.

for l 50 m

(13)
for l > 50 m

3
2

This formula shows a split for a length of 50 m. This is the

result of the shape of the first lobe at low frequencies.

International Wire & Cable Symposium

535

This of course is a wishful assumption.

In practical
measurements it could be realized, however, using preconnectorized cable components, measured individually prior
to cascading. Though this poses additional challenges!

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

Figure 10: General port assignment for a 2n port

The corresponding Sparameters are symbolically indicated in Fig.
11. It is necessary to consider these two symbolic matrices 4. The
reason for this is that the cables are assumed to be impedancesymmetric fourports embedded between equal generator and load
impedances. Hence we use the first symbolic equation with the
symbolic matrix trace of 4RL. However, we have to realize that the
cables used in the concatenation of channels are varying in their
impedances. This yields then a symbolic trace of 2RL1+2RL2.
This results of the fact that taking variable component impedances
into account each component has upstream and downstream
terminating impedances (generator and load impedances) which are
varying.

Figure 7: Random impedance roughness over frequency

The impedance variation results then in asymmetric fourports

embedded between different generator and load impedances. The
only way to take this ultimately into account is to compute the
impedances of the up and downstream fractional cascades and
calculate there from for each component the reflection coefficients
in each direction.
But, before detailing this problem, the
concatenation of different lengths of cables and their resulting
crosstalk performances has to be resolved in a satisfactory way.

4.2. The concatenation of cables

Using the equations Eq (4), Eq (6), Eq (8) and Eq (10), we can
complete the complex Sparameter matrices for different cable
lengths l, convert them into Tparameters and multiply the
obtained matrices in the same sequence as they are concatenated.
The resulting Tparameter matrix has then to be reconverted into
Sparameters and then the corresponding parameters will have
to be determined in terms of the power ratios be it as magnitude
values or as real and imaginary parts in case of the propagation
constant.

Figure 8: Impedance Roughness of a cable and limits

For simplicity, and to link with the companion paper [5], we

consider here the concatenation of two 50 m long cables, and then
four 25 m long cables.

4.2.1. The simple case of the 100 m RL

The first calculations made use the length correction for the
propagation constant and crosstalk as indicated in Eq (3) and Eq
(7). The propagation constant is length proportional, i.e. half and
one quarter of the 100 m value for the first and second
concatenation example, respectively.

Figure 9: Return loss of cables having an impedance

roughness. The asymptotic impedances used are at the
extremes of the permissible tolerance limits

4.1. The cascading of two coupled pairs

The port assignments used are as indicated in Fig. 10 for a general
2n port. Here we limit ourselves to 4 ports only.

International Wire & Cable Symposium

536

It should be noted that the parameters we are interested in are

based on power ratios, whereas the Sparameters are normally
based on voltage ratios. There are also Sparameters known
in the literature based on power ratios. However they cannot
be made accessible to any measurement.

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

Figure 11: Symbolic Sparameter matrices including

simplifications

Figure 13: Attenuation of two 50 m concatenated cables

versus the limit for 100 m cables

Figure 14: Return loss limit for 100 m cable and return
loss obtained by concatenating two 50 m cables with the
same return loss as the 100 m cable

Figure 12: Length corrected cross talk data for 50 m

cable, including the limit lines

74.461

However, the complex reflection coefficient in these first two

examples is based on the specified 100 m return loss limit line for
all cables, i.e. it is assumed that the 25 and 50 m cables have the
same return loss as the 100 m cable. His of course is a very crude
assumption.

NEXT, FEXT & ACR - F [ dB ]

NEXTL13

The Fig. 12 indicates the length corrected crosstalk values for

cables of 50 m length. The Fig. 13 gives the attenuation of the
concatenated 50 m cables versus the 100 m limit lines.
The Fig. 14 indicates the obtained return loss for the two
concatenated cables of 50 m each together in comparison to the
return loss of each of these cables before concatenation. The Fig. 15
finally indicates the obtained crosstalk performances of the 100 m
concatenated cable versus the specification limits.

FEXTCa

60

FEXTL14

ACRFL14
ACRF

40

20

5.382
0

1
fmin

10

100
fk

3
1 . 10

fmax

Frequency [ MHz ]

NEXT of Concatenation [dB]

NEXT Limit of 100 m Cable [dB]
FEXT of Concatenation [dB]
FEXT Limit of 100 m Cable [dB]
ACR - F of Concatenation [dB]
ACR - F Limit of 100 m Cable [dB]

For the concatenation of the 25 m cables the length corrected cross

talk values are not shown. The figures Fig. 16 to Fig. 18 indicate
the same results as the Fig. 13 to Fig. 15, but for four concatenated
cables of 25 m each.

Figure 15: Crosstalk parameters of two concatenated

50 m cables versus limits for 100 m cable

4.2.2. The length corrected RL

Eq (11) to calculate the length correction factors according to Eq

(13). We use then the length corrected cable return loss computed
using the last equation of Eq (1), and multiply it with the length
correction factor. For the Sparameter we get then:

Here we use for the calculation the complex reflection coefficient

according to Eq (10). We calculate the return loss according to

International Wire & Cable Symposium

NEXTCa

NEXT, FEXT, ACR - F & Limits

80

537

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

SRL l = 10

N RL100
l
20

(cos(2 l ) + j sin(2 l ))

(14)

Using the equations Eq(4), Eq (6) and Eq (8) for a length of 25

and 50 m correspondingly we get the full Sparameter matrix for
the 25 m and 50 m cables and can concatenate them after
transforming them into Tparameters 5 to get again a cable length
of 100 m.

Figure 16: Attenuation of four 25 m concatenated cables

versus the limit for 100 m cables
27.017

30

Return Loss [ dB ]

25

RLL1
RLcab

20

k
k

15

Figure 19: Return loss of 4 and 2 concatenated cables

of 25 and 50 m length, respectively

10

9.215

10

1.0

fk
Frequency [ MHz ]

100

3
1 . 10

fmax

Return of concatenated Cables [ dB ]

Return Loss Limit of 100 m Cable [ dB ]

Figure 17: Return loss limit for 100 m cable and return
loss obtained by concatenating four 25 m cables with the
same return loss as the 100 m cable

Figure 20: NEXT of 4 and 2 concatenated cables of 25

and 50 m length, respectively
The obtained results are shown in the figures Fig. 19 to Fig. 22,
respectively for the return loss, NEXT, FEXT and ACRF.
The graph indicating the obtained attenuation is not shown, as the
differences are too small to be recognized.

Figure 18: Crosstalk parameters of four

concatenated 25 m cables versus the specification
limit of a 100 m cable

International Wire & Cable Symposium

538

The mutual conversion of S and Tparameters is not addressed

here, as it is considered to be trivial

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

the only reasonable way is to use a length correction based on a

length domain transformation, taking instead of the time the
velocity of propagation into account, which is by itself also a
function of the frequency.
What we did not consider in the above reported results is the
concatenation of cable segments having differing characteristic
impedances, as occurring in real installations. However, the
consideration of variable cable component impedances does not
change the results of the problem concerning the concatenated
transmission parameters. We, therefore, did not report in detail
on this issue.

6. Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated the benefits of considering length
correction in the concatenation of cables, In terms of future
work recommended from this research, our preliminary results
indicate clearly that we have to revise the length correction at
least for the crosstalk parameters. As these are loosely related
to the reflection coefficient or return loss, we have to consider
both types of parameters jointly. As mentioned above, we have
to come up with a length correction for these parameters based
on a length domain correction.

Figure 21: FEXT of 4 and 2 concatenated cables of 25

and 50 m length, respectively

7. References
[1] J.-H. Walling and D. C. Hess, A contribution to the
determination of the electrical length of mated data grade
connectivity based on channel measurements and simulations,
Proc. IWCS 55(2006), p. 147 - 152.
[2] J. Castro and J. H. Walling, Application of generalized
scattering matrices for the modeling of twistedpair cables,
Proc. IWCS 57(2008), same volume.
[3] H. W. Friesen, Roughness noise resulting from given SRL
levels, Handout for IEC 46CWG7 Session, AT&T Bell
Labs, Norcross, GA, May 1920, 1994.
[4] H.W. Friesen, Experimental verification of near-end crosstalk
equation for balanced telephone cable pairs, IEEE National
Telecommunication Conference 1973, Atlanta, GA, CVol. I, p.
8C-18C-11.

Figure 22: ACRF of 4 and 2 concatenated cables of

25 and 50 m length, respectively

5. Discussion of results

[5] J.- H. Walling and A. Duffy, Multi port cascaded parameters

in comparison to two port measurements, Proc. IWCS
57(2008), same volume

The use of the return loss limit for 100 m cables, applied to 50
and 25 m long cables, concatenated such as to obtain again 100
m long cables yields results which demonstrate a high level of
error. Therefore, this approach has been omitted.

7. Authors

The results obtained, using length corrected return losses and

derived reflection coefficient yield concatenated transmission
parameter results which are much more consistent. Thus the
attenuation yields results which are basically identical to the
original values for a 100 m long cable, although there are minor
deviations at high frequencies. The NEXT performance of the
concatenated 100 m cable lengths, see Fig. 20, is however
slightly worse than the 100 m cable. The same is true also for
the FEXT (Fig. 21) as well as for ACRF Fig. 22.

Jrg-Hein (Jo) Walling received his diploma in Mechanical

Engineering in 1966 at the Technical University of Berlin. In
1974 he obtained a Doctor's degree
(Dr.-Ing.) at the same University. In
1974 he joined Northern Electric (later
on Northern Telecom and Nortel) in
the Research and Development
department.
Since 1976 he has been senior
engineer at the Lachine Cable Plant.
He continued to work at the
Nordx/CDT facilities, responsible for
the design of Outside Plant and Data
Grade Wires and Cables. Since 1999 he is an independent
consultant for cables, standards and machinery.

In all cases the length correction for the cable segments to be

concatenated has been made based on the Eq (5) and Eq (7). In
this context it should be reiterated that the length correction
formul are derived under the strict assumption of length
uncorrelated crosstalk. It is clear that for a correct modeling
approach, we have to reconsider this length correction, and
replace it eventually with a more suitable one. In this context

International Wire & Cable Symposium

539

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS

Engineering
Division
at
De
Montfort University Leicester, UK
and has particular research interests
in CEM Validation, communications
cabling
and
technology
management. He has published over
100 papers in journals and
international symposia.
Dr Duffy is a Fellow of the
Institution of Engineering and
Technology (IET) and a member of
the Chartered Management Institute
(CMI). He is active in the IEEE
standards activity on the validation of CEM. He is a member of
the International Compumag society and the Applied
Computational Electromagnetics Society.

Jo is Canadian head of delegation to ISO/IEC JTC 1 25C and IEC

46C, and participates actively as an expert in the development of
standards in the working groups ISO/IEC JTCI 25C WG3 and
IEC 46C WG7. He was also actively involved in the standards
writing activities of ICEA and served as a 1st VP of the
communications cable section. He is chairman of the UL-CSA
Harmonization Committee, the CSA Subcommittee C22.2 No.
214 (Communication Cables).
Alistair Duffy was born in Ripon, UK, in 1966. He obtained a
First Class BEng(Hons) degree from University College, Cardiff,
in 1988 in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and the MEng
degree the following year. He joined Nottingham University in
1990 receiving a PhD in 1993 for his work on experimental
validation of numerical modeling. He also holds an MBA.
He is currently Reader in Electromagnetics and Head of
the

International Wire & Cable Symposium

540

Proceedings of the 57th IWCS