Analysis of Theoretical RLCG FEXT Channel

Analysis of Theoretical
RLCG Far-End Crosstalk

(FEXT) Channel
Sean Huberman
July 18, 2008

Analysis of Theoretical RLCG FEXT Channel Sean Huberman
Page 1 of 30
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 1
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Motivation ................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Background .............................................................................................................. 3
1.2.1 Theoretical MIMO Channel Modeling ................................................................ 4
1.2.1.1 Direct Transfer Function .................................................................................. 4
1.2.1.2 FEXT Transfer Function .................................................................................. 6
1.2.2 Artificial Neural Networks ................................................................................... 7
1.2.2.1 Radial Basis Neural Networks .......................................................................... 7
1.2.2.2 Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Networks ........................................................ 9
2.0 Plotting Measured Data .......................................................................................... 10
3.0 Analysis.................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 H
ij
and H
ji
FEXT Comparison ............................................................................... 10
3.2 FEXT Power-Sum .................................................................................................. 11
3.3 MLP Neural Network Plots ................................................................................... 15
3.4 Radial Basis Neural Network Models .................................................................... 18
4.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 21
5.0 Future Work ........................................................................................................... 21
5.1 FEXT Transfer Functions ...................................................................................... 21
5.2 Neural Networks .................................................................................................... 23
6.0 Appendix ................................................................................................................ 23
6.1 Sample Matlab M-Files.......................................................................................... 23
6.1.1 FextTF ................................................................................................................ 23
6.1.2 nadataload ........................................................................................................... 25
6.1.3 powersum ........................................................................................................... 26
6.1.4 RBF_NNfit3 ....................................................................................................... 27
6.1.5 NNpowersum ..................................................................................................... 29
7.0 References .............................................................................................................. 30
Page 2 of 30
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Transmission Line Characterized By ABCD Transmission Matrix .................. 4
Figure 2 - radbas(x) Vs. x .................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 - Radial Basis Network Architecture [] ................................................................ 8
Figure 4 - MLP Network Architecture [] ............................................................................ 9
Figure 5 - FEXT Comparison between H
26
and H
62
for 500 ft and 1000 ft [7] ................ 11
Figure 6 - FEXT Comparison between H31 and H13 for 500 ft and 1000 ft [7] ............. 11
Figure 7 - FEXT Transfer Functions (Dash Lines) and Power-sum for H6j, 1000 ft, n = 5
........................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8 - FEXT Transfer Functions (Dash Lines) and Power-sum for H6j, 1000 ft ....... 13
Figure 9 - All FEXT Power-sum Curves H1j,...,H6j for 1000 ft ...................................... 13
Figure 13 - MLP Neural Network for H
13
[7] ................................................................... 16
12
[7] ................................................................... 16
Figure 15 - Radial Basis Neural Network for H
12
............................................................. 17
13
............................................................. 17
Figure 17 - E.g. 1 of FEXT and Neural Network Power-Sum Comparison for 1000 ft ... 19
Figure 18 - E.g. #2 of FEXT and Neural Network Power-Sum Comparison for 1000 ft . 19
Figure 19 - FEXT and Neural Network Power-Sum Comparison for 500 ft .................... 20

List of Tables
Table 1 - 24-AWG Twisted Pair RLCG Modeling Parameters (Category 3)..................... 5
Table 2 - 26-AWG Twisted Pair RLCG Modeling Parameters (Category 3)..................... 6
Table 3 - Summary of Model Parameters Fitted To Experimental Data (300 kHz - 30
MHz) [4] ............................................................................................................................. 6

Page 3 of 30
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Motivation

The future of cable binder communication lies in the ability to achieve higher data rates.
Higher data rates allow for more sophisticated digital subscriber line (DSL) technology.

While using fiber instead of copper wire might yield higher data rates, it is far more
expensive to implement. Thus the ability to achieve similar rates using copper wire is
particularly appealing.

High enough data rates would allow for more many effective hybrid network
architectures, one such example is Fiber to the neighborhood (FTTN). FTTN uses
expensive fiber-optic cables to transmit to a neighborhood and then uses regular twisted-
pair wiring from the neighborhood to each and every subscribers home. This is far
cheaper than Fiber to the home (FTTH), where the expensive fiber-optic cable is used
direction to each subscribers home.
1.2 Background

In order to achieve the desired higher data rates, a proposed solution applies multiple
input multiple output (MIMO) transmission results to the wired DSL system. MIMO
theory has been proven to provide drastically better results in wireless systems and using
the same mathematics applied to wired DSL systems also provides better results.

MIMO technology uses spatial redundancy in order to gain performance benefits. In DSL
technology, this spatial redundancy is a form of crosstalk. Crosstalk is the interference
from one cable to another.

There are two types of crosstalk, near-end crosstalk (NEXT) and far-end crosstalk
(FEXT). If we are transmitting a signal over a cable, the NEXT is the interference on the
surrounding cables on the transmission side (near-end) and the FEXT is the interference
on the surrounding cables on the received side (far-end).

MIMO technology makes use of the FEXT from surrounding wires in order to allow for
higher data rate communication while still maintaining reliability. In order to ensure this
reliability one needs to plan for the worst-case scenario, this is represented by the power-
sum. The FEXT power-sum describes the FEXT crosstalk present when all lines are
active simultaneously.

The purpose of this research is to develop an accurate model for the FEXT power-sum on
a MIMO channel. This model will be used for optimum DSL Spectrum Management
(DSM) on a MIMO channel.

Page 4 of 30
1.2.1 Theoretical MIMO Channel Modeling
1.2.1.1 Direct Transfer Function

Figure 1 - Transmission Line Characterized By ABCD Transmission Matrix

The block diagram in Figure 1 is used to characterize a transmission line using ABCD
parameters. Based on this model, the following equations for the direct transfer function,
H
direct
, can be extracted.

In
Out
direct
V
V
f H ) ( (1)
S L L
L S
direct
Z D CZ B AZ
Z Z
f H
) (
) (
+ + +
+
= (2)

These results can be found in more detail on pages 26.47 of [1].

In order to apply the above results to model twisted pair cables it is necessary to
determine the correct ABCD parameters. These parameter values can vary based on
various wire types and sizes.

The ABCD parameters for a transmission line are shown below.

O
O
Z
d
C
d Z B
d D A
Where
) sinh(
) sinh(
) cosh(
,

=
=
= =
(3)

km. in is d of units the : Note

(
O
+
+
=
km f C j f G
f L j f R
Z
Where
O
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
,
e
e
(4)
Page 5 of 30
( ) ( )
(
+ + =
km
f C j f G f L j f R
1
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( e e (5)

These results can be found in more detail on pages 26.50-26.51 of [1]. The R(f), L(f), C(f)
and G(f) terms above are defined below [2].

(
O
+
+
+
=
km
f a r f a r
f R
s s c c
4
2 4
0
4
2 4
0
1 1
1
) ( (6)
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=

km
H
f
f
f
f
L L
f L
b
m
b
m
o
1
) ( (7)
(
+ =

km
F
f c c f C
e
c
o
) ( (8)
(
=
km
S
f g f G
e
g
0
) ( (9)

The above constants (modeling parameters) used in Equations (6) (9) vary based on the
type of cable used. Summarized below in Table 1 and Table 2 are the modeling
parameters for category 3 twisted-pair 24-American wire gauge (AWG) and 26-AWG
[3].

Table 1 - 24-AWG Twisted Pair RLCG Modeling Parameters (Category 3)
Resistance r
0c
= 174.559 r
0s
= a
c
= 0.05307 a
s
= 0
Units /km /km
4
/(km
4
Hz
2
)
4
/(km
4
Hz
2
)
Inductance L
O
= 617.295 L
= 478.971 b = 1.15298 f
m
= 553.76k
Units H/km H/km Hz
Capacitance c
= 50n c
0
= 0 c
e
= 0
Units F/km F/km
Conductance g
0
= 234.875f g
e
= 1.38
Units S/km

Page 6 of 30
Table 2 - 26-AWG Twisted Pair RLCG Modeling Parameters (Category 3)
Resistance r
0c
= 286.176 r
0s
= a
c
= 0.14769620 a
s
= 0
Units /km /km
4
/(km
4
Hz
2
)
4
/(km
4
Hz
2
)
Inductance L
O
= 675.369 L
= 488.952 b = 0.929 f
m
= 806.34k
Units H/km H/km Hz
Capacitance c
= 49n c
0
= 0 c
e
= 0
Units F/km F/km
Conductance g
0
= 43n g
e
= 0.7
Units S/km
1.2.1.2 FEXT Transfer Function

After using Equation
S L L
L S
direct
Z D CZ B AZ
Z Z
f H
) (
) (
+ + +
+
=
(2) to calculate the direct transfer function, the theoretical FEXT transfer
function can also be calculated as shown below [4].

m
feet direct FEXT
f d k f H H =
2
) ( (10)

The values of m and k are required to be experimentally determined. The value of m is
affected by the cable type (e.g. 24 or 26 AWG). The value of k is affected by both the
cable type and the number of twisted-pair cables in a binder, as well as, the number of
active twisted-pair cables in the particular binder.

[4] determined several parameters fitted to experimental data from 300 kHz 30 MHz.
Table 3 summarizes some of their results.

Table 3 - Summary of Model Parameters Fitted To Experimental Data (300 kHz - 30 MHz) [4]
Cable Type Cable Length
Number of
Twisted Pairs
Per Binder
m k
24 AWG 1000 ft 25 1.85 2.62 x 10
-19
26 AWG 1010 ft 25 1.73 1.61 x 10
-18
22 AWG N/A 50 2.00 8.00 x 10
-20

Note that the 22 AWG case is the Standard FEXT Model which can be found in [5].

One must be cautious while modeling the theoretical curve for the FEXT transfer
function using the m and k values above. While these specific m and k values are
technically only valid for specific cable types, lengths and number of twisted pairs per
binder, for our applications it was necessary to extend these models to fit our needs. This
was done as follows.

Several assumptions were made.
(i) The m and k values are independent of cable length
(ii) The m value is only affected by the cable type
Page 7 of 30
(iii) The k value is only affected by cable type and the number of twisted pairs per
binder
(iv) In order to model a binder with 6 cables, we further assume:
a. The model for a binder with 6 twisted pair cables can be approximated
using the model for a binder with 25 twisted pair cables where 19 of them
are always inactive

Note: Through experimentation it was determined that some of the above assumptions are
not valid. For more detail see Section 3.2.

Based on these assumptions the following scheme was proposed and implemented in
order to plot theoretical FEXT transfer function curves for the 6 twisted pair cables.

m
feet NEW direct FEXT
f d k f H H =
2
) (

Note: d
feet
is the length of the cable in feet and
( )
FEXT
H [dB] Function Transfer Fext
10
log 20 =

Where,
6 . 0
1
|
.
|
\
|
=
N
n
k k
NEW

N is defined to be the total number of twisted pairs per binder (here N 25), and
n is defined to be the number of active disturbing lines in the binder, and
k has the value listed in Table 3, above.

1.2.2 Artificial Neural Networks

Artificial neural networks are mathematical models used in a wide variety of
applications. Neural networks architectures vary but one similarity is that they all consist
of neurons. For the purpose of this report, the neural network is used as a non-linear
adaptive curve fitter in order to model measured FEXT transfer function data.

The neural network uses a subset of sample data points and uses them to generate an
estimated curve. The number of neurons used in the network represents the complexity of
this network. In general, the more neurons used the more accurate the model but with
increasing computational time.

1.2.2.1 Radial Basis Neural Networks

Radial basis neural networks make use of radial basis functions while generating the
mathematical model. A radial basis function is a function which is symmetrical about
some center point. The default transfer function used by Matlab is shown below.
Page 8 of 30

2
) (
x
e x radbas

= (11)

A plot of this transfer function is shown below.

Figure 2 - radbas(x) Vs. x

The radial basis neural network model becomes sums and differences of scaled or
stretched versions of the above transfer. Based on the observations that the measured
FEXT transfer function data exhibits many local minima and maxima, one might suspect
that making use of the curviness of the radial basis transfer functions might provide a
good fit. It is for this reason that this was the first neural network architecture applied to
model the FEXT transfer function. As well, using Matlabs Neural Network Toolbox, one
can easily use built-in Matlab functions to generate radial basis neural networks.

Radial basis neural networks often require more neurons than more standard neural
networks (e.g. feed-forward or back-propagation networks); however, the network trains
in a fraction of the time [6].

The network architecture used is shown below.

Figure 3 - Radial Basis Network Architecture [6]

Where,
) (
) (
2 1
1 , 2
2
1 1 1 , 1
b a LW purelin a
b p IW radbas a
i i i
+ =
=

Page 9 of 30
The Radial Basis Network consists of a hidden radial basis layer of S
1
neurons and an
output layer of S
2
neurons.

The Neural Network takes in several inputs: The input vector, the target vector, a spread
constant and a mean-squared error goal constant. This is called the more efficient design
and uses the newrb command in the Neural Networks Toolbox in Matlab.

The network works by iteratively creating the radial basis network one neuron at a time.
The network adds neutrons with each iteration until either the specified squared error
goal is reached or the maximum number of neurons has been reached.

For each iteration, the input vector that results in lowering the overall network error the
most is used to create a radbas neuron for the next iteration. If the error is still not within
the threshold specified another neuron is added in a similar fashion. With each neuron
added the squared error of the neural network fit decreases, while the complexity of the
network increases.

The downside to this approach is that often radial basis networks have many more
neurons than feed-forward networks; however, designing and training a radial basis
network is much quicker than a sigmoid or linear network [6].

1.2.2.2 Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Networks

Previous efforts by Nguyen Huynh Thai Chau included the use of a Multi-Layer
Perceptron (MLP) network in an attempt to model FEXT transfer functions. A MLP is a
feed-forward network which uses multiple layers of neurons.

A block diagram of the network architecture for a MLP is shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - MLP Network Architecture [7]

Page 10 of 30
2.0 Plotting Measured Data

The data used to generate the Matlab plots in this section was collected by Nguyen
Huynh Thai Chau. All data was collected using 24-AWG category 3 twisted-pair cables.

Theoretical curves were calculated using the formulae found in Section 1.2.1.

Power-Sum curves represent the worst case scenario where all lines are active. It is the
sum of the magnitudes of all possible interfering lines and then converted into dB.

Sample Matlab code used to generate the plots can be found in Section 6.1.

Based on Chaus data, the following were calculated and plotted using the previously
mentioned Matlab code for each of the 1000 ft, 500 ft, 300 ft and 200 ft cases.

- Each individual FEXT transfer function
- FEXT power-sum for each of the six twisted-pair wires
- Radial basis function neural network model for each individual FEXT transfer
function
- Radial basis function neural network model power-sum compared with FEXT
power-sum for each of the six twisted-pair wires

3.0 Analysis
3.1 H
ij
and H
ji
FEXT Comparison

The following section summarizes some conclusions extracted based on [7]. It is to be
noted that while the following graphs, taken from [7], have several mistakes there are still
some valid conclusions that may be made based on the results. The purpose of this
section is to highlight those specific valid conclusions while explicitly mentioning the
errors in order to avoid confusion for the reader.

Page 11 of 30
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
-105
-100
-95
-90
-85
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45

I
n
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

l
o
s
s

[
d
B
]
Frequency [KHz]
H26
H62
THIJ
H26L1000
H62L1000
THij1000

Figure 5 - FEXT Comparison between H
26
and H
62
for 500 ft and 1000 ft [7]

Shown above in Figure 5Figure 8 is a comparison between H
26
and H
62
for two different
cable lengths. Note that the curves labeled H26L1000 and H62L1000 correspond to
FEXT transfer functions of 1000 ft while those labeled H26 and H62 correspond to
FEXT transfer functions of 500 ft. Similarly, THij1000 refers to the theoretical curve
for 1000 ft and THij refers to the theoretical curve for 500 ft; however, it is to be noted
that both theoretical curves displayed here are incorrect and should be ignored. The y-
axis is labeled Insertion loss [dB] but since the functions are negative this should be
labeled FEXT Transfer function [dB] since a negative insertion loss actually implies a
gain which is not the case.

One common assumption is that the transfer function between H
ij
and H
ji
are equal.
Figure 5 supports that assumption as it shows that for both cable lengths 500 ft and 1000
ft the FEXT transfer functions H
26
H
62
. Similar results are shown below in Figure 6 -
FEXT Comparison between H31 and H13 for 500 ft and 1000 ft [7]Figure 6. Similarly to
Figure 5, the curves labeled H31L1000 and H13L1000 correspond to FEXT transfer
functions of 1000 ft while those labeled H31 and H13 correspond to FEXT transfer
functions of 500 ft. As well, the theoretical curves and y-label are still incorrect.

Figure 6 - FEXT Comparison between H31 and H13 for 500 ft and 1000 ft [7]

Figure 6 shows that H
31
H
13
. This further supports the assumption that H
ij
= H
ji
.

3.2 FEXT Power-Sum

As explained in Section 1.2.1.2, the theoretical model used makes several assumptions.
The following FEXT power-sum plots aim to determine whether or not these assumptions
Page 12 of 30
are valid for various cable lengths. Since by assumption, the model uses a 25 twisted pair
cable binder, the worst case scenario is when all cables are active.

Since the measurements were performed using a 6 twisted pair cable binder, theoretical
curves were generated assuming there were only 5 interfering cables (n = 5). This should
have been the worst case scenario; however for some transfer functions, as shown in
Figure 7, the measured datas power-sum curve has a larger FEXT transfer function than
the generated theoretical curve with n = 5. Since the theoretical curve should be the worst
case scenario, this shows n = 5 does not represent the worst-case scenario.

Figure 7 - FEXT Transfer Functions (Dash Lines) and Power-sum for H6j, 1000 ft, n = 5

Hence to represent the worst-case scenario it is necessary to generate the theoretical
curve corresponding to n = 24 since the model used for the theoretical curve assumes a 25
pair binder. It is now expected that the power-sum curves corresponding to the measured
data would have a smaller FEXT transfer function value than the theoretical curve for all
frequencies since the theoretical curve should now exhibit the worst case scenario.

Shown below in Figure 8 is an example of a power-sum plot for H
6j
for 1000 ft. The
dashed curves are each of the individual FEXT transfer functions H
61
, , H
65
. The solid
black curve is the power-sum curve calculated as described in Section 2.0 and the solid
red curve is the theoretical worst case scenario with 24 interfering lines active.

Page 13 of 30

Figure 8 - FEXT Transfer Functions (Dash Lines) and Power-sum for H6j, 1000 ft

All the power-sum curves for each H
ij
were generated as above. In order to test the
accuracy of the theoretical model Matlab plots were generated with theoretical worst case
scenarios as well as all individual power-sums H
1j
, , H
6j
for each of 1000 ft, 500 ft,
300 ft and 200 ft.

Figure 9 - All FEXT Power-sum Curves H1j,...,H6j for 1000 ft

Page 14 of 30


In Figure 9 and Figure 10, we see that the theoretical curve has a larger FEXT transfer
function than each of the measured power-sum curves which supports the use of this
model for cables of 1000 ft and 500 ft.


In Figure 11, the theoretical curve has a larger FEXT transfer function than most of the
measured power-sum curves; however, several power-sum curves exceed that of the
theoretical curve which is supposed to represent the worst-case scenario. Clearly if
measured data exceeds the models theoretical worst-case scenario this is not a valid
model for 300 ft cable length.

Page 15 of 30


In Figure 12, the theoretical curve has a larger FEXT transfer function than some of the
measured power-sum curves; however, it is clear that at least one power-sum curve
exceeds the theoretical models worst-case scenario for almost every frequency. Hence
this is not a valid model for 200 ft cable length.

The above results show that the original assumption that the m and k values (discussed in
Section 1.2.1.2) are independent of cable length is incorrect; however, the m and k values
were originally modeled for 1000 ft cable lengths and we see that extending the model to
500 ft cable lengths is still valid. Thus one can conclude that even though the model
parameters have been shown to vary with cable length, it may still be valid for cable
lengths that do not vary too much from 1000 ft when assuming n = 24 instead of n = 5.
Thus currently the model does not seem to work well for n N 1.

3.3 MLP Neural Network Plots

As discussed in Section 1.2.2.2, [7] attempted to model the FEXT transfer functions
using a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) neural network. While some of the plots produced
show a very accurate model of the FEXT transfer function, others showed very poor
models. This is summarized in the plots below.

Page 16 of 30
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
x 10
4
-90
-85
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45
Frequency [KHz]
I
n
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

l
o
s
s

[
d
B
]
Measurement
Theoretical
NN Estimation

13
[7]

It is easy to see that in Figure 13Figure 7 the neural network model is very closely related
to the measured data. It is to be noted, however, that the theoretical curve is incorrect. As
well, the y-axis should be more correctly labeled FEXT Transfer Function [dB] since
the term insertion loss when referring to negative values corresponds to a gain which is
incorrect.

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
x 10
4
-100
-95
-90
-85
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
Frequency [KHz]
I
n
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

l
o
s
s

[
d
B
]
Measurement
Theoretical curve
NN Estimation

12
[7]

Clearly the neural network curve shown in Figure 14Figure 7 very poorly represents the
measured data. Note again that both the y-axis label and the theoretical curve are
incorrect.

The best way to test the accuracy of a model is to compare power-sums as discussed in
Section 3.4. [7] does not address this issue. Thus in order to compare the radial basis
Page 17 of 30
neural network model with those generated by [7]s MLP neural network model one must
compare individual transfer functions.

12

Clearly when comparing Figure 14 and Figure 15 it is obvious that the radial basis neural
network provides a much more accurate and representative fit for H
12
. As well, it is
worthy to note that the MLP neural network used in Figure 14 by [7] uses 100 data points
to generate its model while the radial basis neural network shown in Figure 15 only uses
51 points to generate a much more accurate model.

For completeness, the model generated by the radial basis neural network for the transfer
function of H
13
is shown below in Figure 16.

13

Page 18 of 30

It is to be noted that while the MLP neural network model for H
13
, shown in Figure 13,
may be arguably better than that of the radial basis neural network for H
13
, shown in
Figure 16, both models provide very good fits.

3.4 Radial Basis Neural Network Models

In order to test the validity of a radial basis neural network model there are several key
factors. The main goal of the neural network is to ensure adequate accuracy of the model
while attempting to minimize its complexity.

To test the accuracy, one attempts to minimize the squared error difference between the
measured results and the neural network model. More specifically, since the overall
power-sum represents the worst-case scenario where all lines are active simultaneously,
one should compare the power-sum of the measured data with the power-sum of the
neural network models for that measured data.

In order to minimize the complexity, for a radial basis neural network model, one would
attempt to reach a desired accuracy while using a minimal number of training data points.

The number of training data points used in order to form each neural network model for
various cable lengths was determined through trial and error. The number of training data
points selected was chosen such that visually the neural network model was determined
to be the best for each H
ij
at a given cable length.

For 1000 ft, 60 data points were chosen uniformly distributed over the span of 300 kHz
30 MHz. For 500 ft, 51 data points were chosen uniformly distributed over the span of
300 kHz 30 MHz. For both 200 ft and 300 ft, 45 data points were chosen uniformly
over the span of 300 kHz 30 MHz.

Most of the neural network models fit the measured data very well, although some
models were misrepresentative of the measured data. Summarized below are plots of
some of the most misrepresentative models for each cable length.

Page 19 of 30

Figure 17 - E.g. 1 of FEXT and Neural Network Power-Sum Comparison for 1000 ft

Figure 18 - E.g. #2 of FEXT and Neural Network Power-Sum Comparison for 1000 ft

As shown above in Figure 17 and Figure 18 for H
4j
and H
5j
at 1000 ft, the neural network
power-sum does not follow the measured data power-sum very closely. For both figures,
the general trend of the neural network model and the measured data is similar but there
are some highly significant variations between the two. Note that here we use n = 5 to
generate the theoretical curve since it is not representing the worst-case scenario but in
fact should be representing the power-sum data itself.

In Figure 17, a spike is present around 10 MHz in the neural network model that is not
present in the measured datas power-sum. Similarly, in Figure 18 a spike is at low
frequency in the neural network model that is not present in the measured datas power-
Page 20 of 30
sums. As well, for both figures there are several spikes in the measured datas power-
sums which are not present in the neural network model.

Figure 19 - FEXT and Neural Network Power-Sum Comparison for 500 ft

For 500 ft, most neural network models were representative of the measured datas
power-sum. In Figure 19 it is evident that the neural network model has a spike present
around 10 MHz which is not present in the measured datas power-sum but aside from
the spike at that frequency the model is representative of the measured data.


For 500 ft, most neural network models were representative of the measured datas
power-sum. In Figure 20 it is visible that the neural network model has an inconsistency
around 10 MHz which is not present in the measured datas power-sum but for all other
Page 21 of 30
frequencies the model is representative of the measured data.


For 200 ft, the neural network models are very representative of the measured datas
power-sum in all cases. Shown in Figure 21 is visually the worst model. While there is
some very slight discrepancy between 10 MHz and 15 MHz the model is still highly
representative of the measured data.
4.0 Conclusion

The theoretical curve model proposed in Section 1.2.1.2 is only valid for cable lengths of
500 ft and 1000 ft.

Radial basis neural networks provided many good models but there is still much room for
improvement. Other neural networks will need to be investigated including the possible
concatenation of various types of neural networks for improved results.

5.0 Future Work
5.1 FEXT Transfer Functions

The next step is to begin taking measurements at the Varennes Bell Canada lab. All the
cables that will be measured are 26 AWG cables.

Since all the previous measurements were made using 24 AWG cables there may be
some discrepancy between the results. As well, there will be 200 twisted-pairs of wire per
cable binder while the previous measurements had either 6 or 25. There will be three
cable lengths being measured, approximately 35 m (115 ft), 450 m (1476 ft), 1410 m
Page 22 of 30
(4626 ft). These cable lengths vary quite a bit from the 1000 ft, 500 ft, 300 ft and 200 ft
previously measured.

Based on that collected data, the following will need to be calculated and plotted using
similar Matlab code to that found in Section 6.1 for each of the 35 m (115 ft), 450 m
(1476 ft), 1410 m (4626 ft) cases.

- Each individual FEXT transfer function
- FEXT power-sum for each of the six twisted-pair wires
- Radial basis function neural network model for each individual FEXT transfer
function
- Radial basis function neural network model power-sum compared with FEXT
power-sum for each of the six twisted-pair wires
- Experimentation with other neural network models

Page 23 of 30
5.2 Neural Networks

Analysis in Section 3.1 argues that the use of radial basis neural networks to model FEXT
transfer functions may be more accurate than using multi-layer perceptrons but there may
still be other neural network techniques which are even better. Thus more experimenting
with and testing other neural network models and comparing their results to that of radial
basis neural networks will be conducted.

Single-Ended Loop Test (SELT) and Dual-Ended Loop Test (DELT) technologies are
embedded in many DSL modems for gathering channel information. A better
understanding of these loop techniques might allow for a more practical method to
develop neural network models.

6.0 Appendix
6.1 Sample Matlab M-Files
6.1.1 FextTF

function [H_fext_data H_dir_data] = FextTF(freq,d_ft,varargin)

%FextTF generates theoretical FEXT (optional Direct) Transfer
% Function curves data for 24 AWG or 26 AWG cables. One
% May also specify The number of intefering cables.
%
% INPUTS: 1) frequency span (e.g. freq = 300e3:100e3:30e6)
% 2) distance or length of the cable (in feet)
% 3) (OPTIONAL) number of active lines,n, (default = 1)
% 4) (OPTIONAL) Type= 24 or 26 (for 24 or 26 AWG)
% (default = 24)
%
% OUTPUTS: 1) fext transfer function in dB
% 2) (OPTIONAL) direct transfer function in dB
%
% USE:
% 1) Hfext = FextTF(300e3:100e3:30e6, 0.3, 5,24,24);
% 2) [Hfext Hdir] = FextTF(300e3:100e3:30e6, 0.3, 5,24);
% 3) [Hfext Hdir] = FextTF(300e3:100e3:30e6, 0.3, 5);
% 4) [Hfext Hdir] = FextTF(300e3:100e3:30e6, 0.3);
% 5) Hfext = FextTF(300e3:100e3:30e6, 0.3);
%
N = 25; %assumed total # twisted pair per binder
Type = 24; %default 24 awg
d_km = d_ft/3280.8399; % km

if (size(varargin) == 0)
n = 1; %default one pair
end

if(size(varargin) >= 1)
n = cell2mat(varargin(1)); %get # active lines
end

if(size(varargin) >= 2)
Type = varargin(2); %get type
end
Page 24 of 30

if(size(varargin) > 2)
error('Too Many Inputs')
end

if(n >= N)
error('Cannot Have More Active Lines Than Twisted Pairs Per Binder')
end

% Constants Definitons

if (Type == 24)
% % 24 AWG Cable
roc = 174.559; %ohm/km
ros = 1e20; % ~infinity ohm/km
ac = 0.05307;
as = 0;
Lo = 617.295e-6; %H/km
L_inf = 478.971e-6; %H/km
b = 1.15298;
fm = 553.76e3; %Hz
c_inf = 50e-9; %F/km
c0 = 0; %F/km
ce = 0;
g0 = 234.875e-15; %Mho/km = S/km
ge = 1.38;

m = 1.85; %power of f for Fext TF
Kold = 2.62e-19; %constant for Fext TF

elseif (Type == 26)
% 26 AWG Cable of length
roc = 286.176; %ohm/km
ros = 1e20; % ~infinity ohm/km
ac = 0.14769620;
as = 0;
Lo = 675.369e-6; %H/km
L_inf = 488.952e-6; %H/km
b = 0.929;
fm = 806.339e3; %Hz
c_inf = 49e-9; %F/km
c0 = 0; %F/km
ce = 0;
g0 = 43e-9; %Mho/km = S/km
ge = 0.7;

m = 1.73; %power of f for Fext TF
Kold = 1.61e-18; %constant for Fext TF

else
error('Type of Cable Not Specified')
end

% Variable Definitons

ZL = 100; %ohm
ZS = 100; %ohm

i = 1;

H_dir_data = [];
H_fext_data = [];

Knew = Kold*(n/(N-1))^0.6; %n is # active lines, N is # twisted pair per binder

for f = freq

w = 2*pi*f;
R = 1/(((roc^4+ac*f^2)^(-1/4))+((ros^4+as*f^2)^(-1/4))); %ohm/km
L = (Lo+L_inf*(f/fm)^(b))/(1+(f/fm)^(b)); %H/km
Page 25 of 30
C = c_inf + c0*f^(-ce); %F/km
G = g0*f^(ge); %S/km

Zo = sqrt((R + 1i*w*L)/(G+1i*w*C));
Gamma = sqrt((R + 1i*w*L)*(G+1i*w*C));
gd = Gamma*(d_km);

A = cosh(gd);
B = Zo*sinh(gd);
C = (sinh(gd))/Zo;
D = cosh(gd);

Hdir = ((ZS+ZL)/(A*ZL + B + (C*ZL+D)*ZS));
Hfext = sqrt((abs(Hdir)^2)*(Knew)*(d_ft)*f^m); %3280.8399 ft/km

HdirDB = 20*log10(abs(Hdir));
HfextDB = 20*log10(abs(Hfext));

H_dir_data = [H_dir_data HdirDB];
H_fext_data = [H_fext_data HfextDB];

i=i+1; %counter variable

end

end

6.1.2 nadataload

function [minfreq,maxfreq,stepfreq,data] = nadataload(filename)

%nadataload load's data generated by specifc network analyzer
% the data file is assumed to have 9 lines of headers With
% line 7 contains data relating to frequency measurements
% i.e. min freq, max freq, step size
%
% INPUT: file name
% OUTPUTS: min freq, max freq, stepsize, data (magnitude in dB)
%
% USE: [minfreq,maxfreq,stepfreq,data]=nadataload('WL1000Hij1\DATA00.D1')

% check number of arguments and their type
if (nargin < 1)
error('Function Requires Arguments');
elseif (~isstr(filename))
error('Input Must Be A Filename (String)');
end

% Open the file returns -1 if failed
file = fopen(filename);
if (file == -1)
error('Error Loading File');
end

for i = 1:9 %advance through header
line = fgetl(file);

if(i == 7)
freqinfo = line; %store line involving frequency info
end
end

j = 1;
k = 5;

Page 26 of 30
while(j < 4) %extract minfreq, maxfreq, stepfreq (stepsize)
if(j == 1)
minfreqstr(k-4) = freqinfo(k);
elseif(j == 2)
maxfreqstr(k-4-length(minfreqstr)) = freqinfo(k);
elseif(j == 3)
numptsstr(k-4-length(minfreqstr)-length(maxfreqstr)) = freqinfo(k);
end
if( freqinfo(k) == ' ')
j = j+1;
end
k=k+1;
if(k > length(freqinfo))
j = 5;
end
end

minfreq = str2num(minfreqstr); %convert to numbers
maxfreq = str2num(maxfreqstr);
numpts = str2num(numptsstr);

stepfreq = (maxfreq-minfreq)/(numpts-1); %calculate frequency step size

data =[];

for m = 10:(numpts+9) %read in data line by line
linestr = fgetl(file);%read in as string
linenum = str2num(linestr);%convert to number

mag = sqrt(linenum(1)^2+linenum(2)^2); %calc magnitude (col1 = real, col2 = imaginary

magdb = 20*log10(mag);

data = [data magdb]; %add line to data
end

fclose(file);

end

6.1.3 powersum

function [freq powsum data1 data2 data3 data4 data5] = powersum(f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,dist)

%powersum generates data for plotting all fext transfer functions
% as well as powersum
%
% INPUTS: (1-4) Filenames for each of the 5 data files for the fext
% transfer functions
% (5) Distance or length of the cable (in km)
% OUTPUTS: frequency span, powersum and data for each fext and
% theoretical curve
%
% USE:
% [freq powsum data1 data2 data3 data4 data5 Hfext1] = powersum(f1,f1,f1,f1,f1,d);

[fmin1,fmax1,fstep1,data1] = nadataload(f1); %load in files
[fmin2,fmax2,fstep2,data2] = nadataload(f2);

freq = fmin1:fstep1:fmax1;
freq2 = fmin2:fstep2:fmax2; %calculate frequencies
freq3 = fmin3:fstep3:fmax3;
Page 27 of 30

if((fmin1~=fmin2 || fmin1~=fmin3 || fmin1~=fmin4 || fmin1~=fmin5)...
||(fstep1~=fstep2 || fstep1~=fstep3 || fstep1~=fstep4 || fstep1~=fstep5)...
||(fmax1~=fmax2 ||fmax1~=fmax3 || fmax1~=fmax4 || fmax1~=fmax5))
error('Frequencies Are Not The Same') %check for error if freqs not same
end

magdata1 = 10.^(data1./10); %convert data from dB to (pow) magnitude
magdata2 = 10.^(data2./10);

magsum = magdata1 + magdata2 + magdata3 + magdata4 + magdata5;
powsum = 10*log10(magsum);

end
6.1.4 RBF_NNfit3

function [NNrange NNfit] = RBF_NNfit3(file,numpts1,numpts2,numpts3,varargin)

%RBF_NNfit3 produces a Neural Network model which splits up the frequency
% range into three equally sized sections, where the 1st section
% has numpts1 points, the 2nd section has numpts2 points and the 3rd
% section has numpts3 points to approximate the neural network.
%
% INPUTS: (1) filename containing data points
% (2) # pts in 1st section
% (3) # pts in 2nd section
% (4) # pts in 3rd section
% (5) (OPTIONAL) want to plot? ('y' = yes, else = no)
% (default = no)
% (6) (OPTIONAL) if above = 'y', then label for transfer function
% (default = '')
% (7) (OPTIONAL) if above = 'y', then label for distance (e.g. 1000 ft)
% (default = '')
% (8) (OPTIONAL) if above = 'y', then figure # to open
% (default = 1)
%
% OUTPUTS: (1) range of the Neural Network model
% (2) data of the Neural Network model
%
% USE: (1) if plot desired:
% [NNrange NNfit] = RBF_NNfit3('WL1000Hij1\DATA06.D1',20,20,20,y,H12,1000 ft,1)
% (2) if plot is NOT desired:
% [NNrange NNfit] = RBF_NNfit3('WL1000Hij1\DATA06.D1',20,20,20)
%

sizecell = size(varargin);

if(sizecell(2) > 4)
error('Too Many Optional Inputs')
end

if(sizecell(2) >= 1)
wantplotTEMP = mat2str(cell2mat(varargin(1)));
wantplot = wantplotTEMP(2);
else
wantplot = 'n';
end

hlabelTEMP = mat2str(cell2mat(varargin(2)));
sizetemp = size(hlabelTEMP);
hlabel = hlabelTEMP(2:sizetemp(2)-1);
else
hlabel = '';
end
Page 28 of 30

dlabelTEMP = mat2str(cell2mat(varargin(3)));
sizetemp = size(dlabelTEMP);
dlabel = dlabelTEMP(2:sizetemp(2)-1);
else
dlabel = '';
end

if(sizecell(2) == 4)
fignumTEMP = cell2mat(varargin(4));
fignum = fignumTEMP(1);
else
fignum = 1;
end

[fmin,fmax,fstep,data] = nadataload(file);

freqs = fmin:fstep:fmax;

loc_section1 = round(length(data)/3); %usually 134
loc_section2 = 2*loc_section1; %usually 268
loc_section3 = length(data); %usually 401

span1 = round(((loc_section1 - 1)+1)/numpts1);
span2 = round(((loc_section2 - loc_section1)+1)/numpts2);
span3 = round(((loc_section3 - loc_section2)+1)/numpts3);

frange1 = freqs(1:span1:(span1*numpts1-span1)); %ensures frange1 has same
frange1 = [frange1 freqs(loc_section1)]; % end point that 2 has as
frange2 = freqs(loc_section1:span2:(loc_section1+(span2*numpts2-span2)));
frange2 = [frange2 freqs(loc_section2)]; % start points, same for
frange3 = freqs(loc_section2:span3:(loc_section2+(span3*numpts3-span3)));
frange3 = [frange3 freqs(loc_section3)]; % 2 and 3 etc.

data1 = data(1:span1:(span1*numpts1-span1)); %ensures data1 has same
data1 = [data1 data(loc_section1)]; % end point that 2 has as
data2 = data(loc_section1:span2:(loc_section1+(span2*numpts2-span2)));
data2 = [data2 data(loc_section2)]; % start points, same for
data3 = data(loc_section2:span3:(loc_section2+(span3*numpts3-span3)));
data3 = [data3 data(loc_section3)]; % 2 and 3 etc.

tot_f_range = [frange1 frange2 frange3];
tot_data = [data1 data2 data3];

eg = 1.5; % sum-squared error goal
sc = 1e6; % spread constant

net = newrb(tot_f_range,tot_data,eg,sc); %create RBF neural network

NNrange = fmin:fstep:fmax;
NNfit = sim(net,NNrange); %train network

if(wantplot == 'y')
figure(fignum)
plot(tot_f_range,tot_data,'g+'); %plot approximation points
hold on;
plot(NNrange,NNfit,'r'); %plot neural network fcn approx
plot(freqs,data,'black-.'); %plot actual data
title({'Radial Basis Function Neural Network Model' ; ['For FEXT ' hlabel ', '
dlabel]})
xlabel('Frequency (Hz)')
ylabel('FEXT Transfer Function [dB]')
legend('Data Points Used To Approx NN','Neural Network Model', ...
[hlabel ' Measured Data'],'location','Southeast')
grid on
hold off
end

end
Page 29 of 30

6.1.5 NNpowersum

function powsum = NNpowersum(NN1,NN2,NN3,NN4,NN5)

%NNpowersum generates powsum data for a given NN model
%
% INPUTS: 5 Neural Network Fits
% OUTPUTS: neural network powersum
%
% USE:
% nnpowsum = NNpowersum(nn1,nn2,nn3,nn4,nn5);

magNN1 = 10.^(NN1./10); %convert data from dB to (pow) magnitude
magNN2 = 10.^(NN2./10);
magNN3 = 10.^(NN3./10);
magNN4 = 10.^(NN4./10);
magNN5 = 10.^(NN5./10);

magsum = magNN1 + magNN2 + magNN3 + magNN4 + magNN5;
powsum = 10*log10(magsum);
end

Page 30 of 30
7.0 References

[1] D. Christiansen, Editor in Chief. Electronics Engineers' Handbook. Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1997.
ISBN 0-07-021077-2.
[2] R. Lao. (2002, Nov.). The Twisted-Pair Telephone Transmission line. High Frequency Electronics. Vol.
1, NO. 3.
[3] P. Golden, H. Dedieu, K. Jacobsen. Fundamentals of DSL Technology. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach
Publications, 2006. ISBN 978-0-8493-1913-6.
[4] C. Valenti. (2002, Jun.). NEXT and FEXT Models for Twisted-Pair North American Loop Plant. IEEE,
Vol. 20, NO. 5.
[5] Spectrum management for loop transmission systems. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions (ATIS), T1.417-2001 (issue 1).
[Online]. Available: http://www.atis.org.
[6] H. Demuth, M. Beale, M. Hagan. Neural Network Toolbox 6 Users Guide. The MathWorks Inc.,
Natrick, MA, 2008.
[7] N. Chau. (2007, Nov.). Technical Report on Modeling DSL Channel Using Learning Machine Theory.

Analysis of Theoretical RLCG FEXT Channel

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Analysis of Theoretical RLCG FEXT Channel

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Analysis of Theoretical

RLCG Far-End Crosstalk

Você também pode gostar