Impact of Common-to-Differential Mode Conversion
on Crosstalk in Balanced Twisted Pairs
Giordano Spadacini and Sergio A. Pignari
Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
giordano.spadacini@polimi.it; sergio.pignari@polimi.it
Abstract— In this paper, crosstalk in wire-interconnections
involving twisted wire pairs (TWPs) with non-perfectly balanced
terminations is investigated. In the first part, properties of
balancing devices are described by resorting to modal
impedances, modal gains, and common-mode rejection ratio
(CMRR). In the second part, a prediction model based on a
statistical description of twist-pitch non-uniformity is exploited
for crosstalk simulations, and validated via experimental
measurements. The combined effect of: a) common-to-
differential mode conversion at the TWP terminations; b)
random non-uniformity of the twist-length along the TWP, is
discussed.
Keywords-balance; common-to-differential mode conversion;
twisted-wire pairs; crosstalk; statistical EMC models.
I. INTRODUCTION
Among different interconnection technologies, the use of
balanced twisted-wire pairs (TWPs) is a cost-effective and
largely employed cabling technique in modern electronic and
communication systems. As a matter of fact, balanced
drivers/receivers make the equipment more immune to noise
and –if used in conjunction with shielded/unshielded TWP
cables– offer intrinsic robustness to crosstalk interference [1].
In past years, several studies focused on the derivation of
crosstalk prediction models for these wiring structures. In
particular, in [2-3], a transmission line (TL) model was firstly
proposed by describing the TWP as a cascade of uniform TL
sections with abrupt wires’ interchanges. In [4-5], the impact of
non-uniformity in twist lengths on crosstalk was investigated.
Crosstalk reduction is highly influenced by balancing of the
TWP terminations. This was evidenced in [1] by analyzing the
contribution of capacitive coupling at low frequencies. In
general, immunity to crosstalk interference can be seriously
compromised by poor interface circuits, that make the choice
of higher-quality cables fruitless [6]. As a matter of fact, the
role played by the TWP loads in the crosstalk phenomenon is
tightly related to the concept of common-to-differential (CM-
to-DM) mode conversion, in which balancing appears as a
specific aspect.
In this paper, the combined effect of twisting the line
conductors and CM-to-DM conversion on crosstalk is
investigated by resorting to a modal representation of the
This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of University (MIUR)
under a Program for the Development of Research of National Interest (PRIN
grant #2004093025).
1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE
terminations, and a statistical description of twist-pitch non-
uniformity in length. Predictions based on the proposed model
show that, when mode conversion is low, non-uniformity of
twist-length is the dominant effect in determining random
crosstalk levels. Conversely, when CM-to-DM conversion
takes place at the TWP loads, crosstalk is severely affected and
does not depend on line twisting. Experimental measurements
and numerical simulations of a real TWP structure are used to
substantiate the proposed analysis.
II. MODAL ANALYSIS OF TWP TERMINATIONS
Balanced terminations for TWPs are often realized by
adding suitable interfaces between the wire pairs and the
drivers/receivers. Typical examples are modern Ethernet
magnetic modules, usually composed of broadband isolation
transformers and CM chokes in various configurations, which
provide high degree of balance and CM rejection. This section
describes the basic properties of such terminations from the
viewpoint of modal circuit analysis. Without loss of generality,
concepts will be illustrated by resorting to an elemental
balancing device (balun) composed of a center-tapped
transformer, as shown in Fig. 1(a) [1], [7]. In this figure, V1 ,
V2 and I 1 , I 2 are voltages and currents at the input balanced
ports connected to a TWP, and Vo is the output voltage across
the termination element, modeled by resistance Ro .
Let’s introduce DM and CM voltages and currents at the
TWP termination, via the following transformations [1]:
Vd = (V1 − V2 ) / 2 Vc = (V1 + V2 ) / 2
DM:  ; CM:  . (1)
 I d = ( I1 − I 2 ) / 2 I c = ( I1 + I 2 ) / 2
Hence, a general termination element can be represented in
terms of modal impedances by the following constraints:
Vd = Z d I d + Z dc I c
 , (2)
Vc = Z cd I d + Z c I c
which lead to the modal circuit model in Fig. 1(b). In this
representation, Z d and Z c are the DM and CM impedances,
145
 2k:1+1 I1 TWP |Z |
100 |CMRR| 150
dc

V1
Vo Ro
V2 50 100

|CMRR|, dB

|Zdc|, Ω
I2
(a)
0 50
Id

Zd
Vd
Z dc I c +
_ -50
6 7 8
0
10 10 10
Ic frequency, Hz
Figure 2. Magnitude of CMRR and of modal mutual impedance Z dc , as
Zc derived from the experimental characterization of a broadband center-tapped
Vc transformer.
Z cd I d +
_

(b)
Figure 1. (a) Balanced termination of a TWP realized via a center-tapped
transformer; (b) Modal circuit of a termination.
respectively, whereas Z dc and Z cd are the mutual modal
impedances accounting for the contribution to the DM voltage
due to a CM current, and the contribution to the CM voltage
due to a DM current, respectively. For reciprocal networks –as
those composed of transformers– the mutual impedances are
equal, i.e., Z dc = Z cd .
As in common practice, a termination is said to be balanced
when the impedance between each input pin and ground is the
same [1], [7]. One can easily show that in terms of the modal
representation in (2), this definition of balancing implies
Z dc = Z cd = 0 , that is, no mode conversion occurs. As a
consequence, in an ideally balanced termination DM is not
influenced by CM and vice versa. As an example, for an ideal
center-tapped transformer with turn-ratio 2k:1+1, the modal
impedances in (2) result to be:
Z d = Ro /(2k 2 ) , Z c = 0 , Z dc = Z cd = 0 .
Hence, the ideal center-tapped transformer provides a
perfectly-balanced input, which is also characterized by the
following properties (not related to balancing): (a) The output
resistance Ro is seen as a DM resistance Ro /(2k 2 ) ; (b) The
CM is short-circuited.
In general, every balancing device implements a transition
between the input balanced interface and the output port.
Referring to the example in Fig. 1(a), the single-ended output
Vo can be related to the input DM and CM voltages via modal
gains Gd and Gc as:
 Vc 
Vo = GdVd + GcVc = Gd Vd + . (4)
 CMRR 
In (4), CMRR = Gd Gc is the so-called common-mode
rejection ratio [7]. For an ideal center-tapped transformer with
turn-ratio 2k:1+1 one obtains:
Gd = 2k , CMRR → ∞ . (5)
It follows that such an ideal component provides full CM
rejection, because the output signal depends only on the input
DM signal. It is worth to be noted that an infinite CMRR in (4)
is not a strict consequence of the aforementioned definition of
balancing. As an example, we may have perfect balance, i.e.,
Z dc = Z cd = 0 , but not perfect CM rejection, i.e., a finite
CMRR .
In general, real-world components deviate from the ideal
behavior in proximity of the edges of the nominal frequency
range. As a consequence, CM-to-DM conversion may occur,
and this lowers the interface performances. The first mode
conversion occurs at the input ports due to unbalance, and is
(3) associated with Z dc = Z cd ≠ 0 . Additionally, if CMRR<∞ in (4),
a second contribution to CM-to-DM conversion occurs. It
follows that CM interference due to crosstalk at the input pins
of balancing devices contributes to DM interference and affects
the output signal.
As a specific example, the magnitude of Z dc and CMRR of
a broadband center-tapped transformer (Mini-Circuits T1-6T-
KK81), for Ro = 50 Ω are reported in Fig. 2. In order to
measure these quantities, the transformer was mounted on an
ad hoc PCB and characterized at the terminal ports with a
Vector Network Analyzer. Note that the performance is
excellent from 300 kHz to 60 MHz, with CMRR > 35 dB and
Z dc ≈ 0 Ω .

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE 146

 β G
G TWP
R1
d NE
2∆h
h R2
ground plane
Figure 3. Cross-section of the 4-conductor TL under analysis
III. PREDICTION MODEL FOR CROSSTALK IN TWPS
This Section describes a numerical prediction model, based
on the segmentation of the non-uniform TL into the chain-
connection of uniform sections. This model − known in the
literature as ‘click model’ [8] − is extended here in order to
include effects of non-uniformity of the length of the twist-
pitch.
A. Structure under analysis
The structure under analysis consists of a 4-conductor TL
composed of a generator circuit G and a TWP receptor (R1,
R2), running parallel and placed over a metallic ground plane.
The TL cross-section is sketched in Fig. 3. The TWP is
assumed to be wound into a bifilar cylindrical helix described
by the rotation angle β , and composed of N full-twists, or
2 N half-twists (HT). The total TL length is L , and the mean
HT length is ξ m = L / 2 N . The TL terminations are shown in
Fig. 4, where the shaded blocks represent the balanced near-
end (NE) and far end (FE) loads, as those realized via center-
tapped transformers. The generator circuit G is fed at NE
(voltage VS , resistance RS ) and loaded at FE by resistance RL .
As in [4-5], twist-pitch non-uniformity is modeled by
assuming that the HTs’ lengths randomly deviate from the
ideal mean length ξ m . To this aim, the HTs are subdivided into
two classes: (i) The HTs of the first kind with length
ξ k(1) = ξ m + ∆ξ k(1) , corresponding to β ∈ [2(k − 1)π , (2k − 1)π ] ;
(ii) the HTs of the second kind with length ξ k( 2 ) = ξ m + ∆ξ k( 2 ) ,
corresponding to β ∈ [( 2k − 1)π ,2 kπ ] , k = 1, 2,...N . It is a
simple matter to show that the pitch deviations ∆ξ k(1) and
∆ξ k( 2 ) are not independent quantities, since the following
relationship holds [4]:
N N
∑ ∆ξ
k =1
(1 )
k =− ∑ ∆ξ
k =1
( 2)
k (6)
B. Non-uniform TL model
According to the modeling scheme illustrated in the
previous subsection, the TWP is described as a chain of N
twists, each of them composed of an HT of the first kind and an
1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE
RS TWP
V1NE V1FE RL
FE
VS
V2NE V2FE
Figure 4. Connections at the TL terminations. The shaded blocks represent
balanced loads at NE and FE, as those realized via center-tapped transformers.
HT of the second kind. It follows that the chain parameter
matrix Φ of the entire wiring structure takes the form:
N
Φ= ∏Φ
i =1
(2) (1)
Φ HT
HT , N −i +1 , N −i +1 (7)
where Φ (HTp ),k , p = 1,2 , k = 1, 2,...N , is the chain-parameter
matrix of the 4-conductor TL (wire G and TWP above ground,
as in Fig. 3) for the k-th HT of the p-th kind of length ξ k( p ) . In
order to include the non-uniform TL structure into the model,
these chain-parameter matrices are approximated by chain-
connections of uniform-TL sections [8].
Namely, the k-th HT of the p-th kind of length ξ k( p ) is
subdivided into n elemental sections with constant rotation
angle β . For each of those uniform-TL sections, the p.u.l.
parameters are evaluated and the chain-parameter matrix is
computed. Then, matrix Φ (HTp ),k is obtained by multiplying the
n chain-parameter matrices of the uniform elemental sections
[8].
If the chain-parameter matrix Φ of the entire wiring
structure [computed via (7)] is combined with the impedance-
matrix representation of the balanced terminal loads, the
crosstalk voltages V1 NE , V2NE , V1 FE , V2NE (see Fig. 4) are readily
derived. Then, CM and DM crosstalk voltages VdNE , VcNE ,
VdFE , VcFE are obtained via (1), and the output crosstalk
voltages VoNE , VoFE via (4).
C. Probabilistic description of twist-pitch non-uniformity
It has to be recognized that the HT lengths ξ k(1) and ξ k( 2 ) ,
k = 1, 2,...N , are unknown and uncontrolled parameters. They
are generated during the TWP manufacturing process and are
subject to possible modifications during installation (e.g., in
proximity of the TL ends). Direct measurement of the HT
lengths is clearly an unpractical process, and even if done, the
collected data would refer only to the specific TWP sample
under analysis. In order to overcome such an unpractical
approach, the proposed model exploits a probabilistic
description of the HT length.
147
 -20

-40

-60
NEXT, dB

-80

-100

-120

-140
5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10
frequency, Hz
Figure 5. Experimental measurements of NEXT (30 TWP samples) Figure 6. Prediction of NEXT (10 repeated runs)
3

Namely, the twist-pitch deviations ∆ξ k(1) of the HTs of the -20

prediction interval
first kind can be considered as N independent and equally- µNEXT
distributed random variables (RVs). It is assumed that these -40 µNEXT-σNEXT
RVs behave as a RV ∆ξ ∈ [−∆ξ max ,+ ∆ξ max ] , where ∆ξ max ≤ ξ m ,
µNEXT+σ NEXT
with uniform probability density function δ ∆ξ (∆ξ ) [9], i.e., sample mean (measurements)
-60
NEXT, dB

1 /(2∆ξ max ) ∆ξ < ∆ξ max

δ ∆ξ (∆ξ ) = 
0 otherwise
Hence, random samples ∆ξ k(1) , k = 1, 2,...N , are generated
according to (8). The deviations of the HTs of the second kind
are randomly generated in a similar fashion, consistently with
condition (6). The statistical analysis is based on repeated
generation of HT sets, as specified above, and subsequent
crosstalk computation via the proposed TL model.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
Experimental measurements were carried out by exploiting
an ad-hoc setup aimed at reproducing the structure sketched in
Fig. 3-4. This test-bench is composed of AWG 24 wires
(obtained from Cat. 5 UTP cables). The geometrical parameters
are: h = d ≈ 2 cm , ∆h ≈ 0.5 mm , L ≈ 1.9 m . The TWP is
connected to balanced NE and FE terminations realized via
center-tapped transformers with ratio 2:1+1 and Ro = 50 Ω .
These devices are mounted on PCB enclosed in metallic boxes,
and connect to the TWP via RJ45 Stewart connectors. Both the
NE and FE transformers were previously characterized in order
to derive the modal impedances, gains, and CMRR defined in
Section II (see Fig. 2 for specific results concerning the NE
transformer). The generator wire G was loaded by
RS = RL = 50 Ω . A Network Analyzer Agilent E5070B was
connected to the NE (port no. 1 connected to the generator
wire, port no. 2 connected to the balancing transformer as Ro ),
and the NE crosstalk ratio (NEXT):
NEXT =| VoNE / Vs |=| s21 | / 2
. (8) -80
-100
-120
5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10
frequency, Hz
Figure 7. Statistical estimates of NEXT
was measured. Fifteen samples of TWPs were tested, and each
of them was used for the two experiments. In fact, each TWP
can be inserted in two different ways in the setup, by
interchanging the TWP ends. This leads to two different
geometrical structures, since non-uniformities in twist length
are oppositely and differently distributed along the line. Hence,
thirty curves of the NEXT versus frequency were measured
and reported in Fig. 5. Note the low-frequency range, where
the TL is electrically-short and crosstalk increases with a 20
dB/decade slope, and the high frequency range, where
resonances of the electrically-long TL appear.
Moreover, for frequencies up to 60 MHz a wide spread
between curves is observed, and only some of them show
resonances. It was also observed that frequency behavior of
crosstalk can be modified by intentionally perturbing the twists
[10]. In this frequency range, crosstalk shows a high sensitivity
to twist-pitch non-uniformity and behaves as a RV [4-5], [10].
Conversely, the spread between crosstalk curves reduces as
frequency increases, since all the curves tend to collapse into a
unique one, which results to be insensitive even to strong
perturbation of twists. In the following section, these
phenomena will be discussed and explained as an effect of
(9) CM-to-DM conversion at the line terminations.

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE 148

Figure 8. CM and DM crosstalk ratios at the input pins of the NE center-
tapped transformer (10 repeated-runs).
3
Fig. 6 reports 103 crosstalk predictions obtained via the
proposed repeated-run statistical model. These predictions
were obtained by setting the simulation parameters to:
N = 130 (estimated value), ∆ξ max = ξ m = 7.3 mm (worst-case
condition for twist-pitch deviations). From these simulations
one obtains the statistical estimates of crosstalk reported in Fig.
7, i.e., expected value µ NEXT (dashed line); expected value
minus a standard deviation µ NEXT − σ NEXT (dash-dotted line);
expected value plus a standard deviation µ NEXT + σ NEXT (dotted
line). In Fig. 7, the solid line is the sample mean of the 30
experimental curves reported in Fig. 5.
The agreement between experimental data and predicted
estimates represents a validation of the proposed model. In
particular, note that the statistical model correctly predicts the
spread between crosstalk values in the low-frequency region.
Repeated-run analysis shows that the symmetric interval
µ NEXT ± σ NEXT reported in Fig. 7 is characterized by a
confidence coefficient variable from 70% to 85% (depending
on frequency) [9].
V. IMPACT OF CM-TO-DM CONVERSION
The proposed crosstalk model is exploited here to
investigate the impact of CM-to-DM conversion, and to relate
this phenomenon with non-uniformity effects which determine
the random behavior of crosstalk.
Firstly, let’s reconsider the experimental setup and
numerical prediction described in the previous section. Instead
of focusing on crosstalk at the output port of the center tapped
transformer, (i.e., NEXT = VoNE / Vs reported in Fig. 5-7) it is
worth investigating the behavior of the CM and the DM
crosstalk ratios at the input pins of the balancing device, i.e.,
| VcNE / Vs | , and | VdNE / Vs | , respectively. These quantities
combine to determine to output crosstalk level according to (4).
Predictions of CM and DM crosstalk (corresponding to the 103
repeated-runs of the output crosstalk previously reported in Fig.
6) are reported in Fig. 8. Note that CM crosstalk is much
greater than DM crosstalk at the lower frequencies.
1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE
Figure 9.10.CM
Prediction
and DM crosstalk
of NEXTratios(10 (10
repeated-runs)
repeated-runs)
in as
case
in Fig.
of perfecty-
8, but in
3 3
balanced
case of perfectly
loads and
balanced
high CMterminations
rejection over
(no the
modeentire
conversion).
frequency range.
Additionally, it is observed that all the 103 curves of the CM
crosstalk coincide (in the entire frequency range), whereas the
103 curves of the DM crosstalk tend to overlap only at the
higher frequencies. Conversely, a high sensitivity of DM
crosstalk is observed at lower frequencies.
In order to investigate how CM-to-DM conversion at load
terminations affects crosstalk levels, in the following example
CM and DM crosstalk are computed in case of perfectly-
balanced terminations, i.e., by virtually making transformers
ideal balancing-devices. In line with this objective, repeated-
runs reported in Fig. 9 refer to the same structure of previous
examples in which we have imposed Z dcNE = Z dcFE = 0 [see (2)],
whereas the other load parameters ( Z c , Z d , Gd ) are set to the
values determined from the experimental characterization of
the center-tapped transformers. Note that: (a) CM crosstalk
remains unaltered with respect to Fig. 8, i.e., as in the case of
non-ideally balanced loads; (b) DM crosstalk is generally lower
than in Fig. 8; (c) DM crosstalk shows high sensitivity to non-
uniformity in the entire frequency range. By comparing Fig. 8
and Fig. 9 and taking into account the behavior of Z dcNE in Fig.
2, one concludes that CM crosstalk does not depend on twist-
pitch non-uniformity and on termination balance. On the other
hand, DM crosstalk experiments high sensitivity to twist-pitch
non-uniformity. Such sensitivity reduces as frequency increases
due to CM-to-DM conversion due to load unbalance.
Additionally, DM crosstalk is increased by load unbalance.
According to Section II, a second contribution to CM-to-
DM conversion occurs as a consequence of poor CM rejection
from the input to the output port of the balancing devices. As
evidenced by (4), if the CMRR is small, a greater amount of the
input CM crosstalk | VcNE / Vs | is converted into output DM
crosstalk | VoNE / Vs | . Consequently, poor CM rejection makes
output crosstalk large and insensitive to twist-pitch non-
uniformity. This can be clearly seen by analyzing Fig. 6 by the
light of the frequency-behavior of CMRR in Fig. 2.
As a final example, let’s predict the NE output crosstalk in
case of both perfectly-balanced loads and optimal CMRR.
Namely, repeated-runs of NEXT in Fig. 10 refer to the same
149
 -20
µNEXT σNEXT (Zdc=0; CMRR=50 dB)

-40 µNEXT (real balancing devices)

-60

NEXT, dB
-80

-100

-120
5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10
frequency, Hz
Figure 10. Prediction of NEXT (10 repeated-runs) in case of perfecty- Figure 11. Statistical estimates of NEXT in case of perfectly-balanced loads
3

balanced loads and high CM rejection over the entire frequency range. and high CMRR (shaded interval); Expected value of NEXT for the real
balancing devices (solid line).

structure considered in previous examples, but where the
following load parameters are set to constant values over the
entire frequency range: Z dcNE = Z dcFE = 0 (i.e., perfect balance),
and CMRR NE = 50 dB (i.e., high CM rejection). NEXT in Fig.
10 has to be compared versus NEXT in Fig. 6 resulting from
the real non-ideal balancing-devices, whose balance and CMRR
depend on frequency (see Fig. 2). Note that NEXT in Fig. 10
shows high sensitivity to twist-pitch non-uniformity in the
entire frequency range. Statistical estimates obtained from the
103 simulations in Fig. 10 are reported in Fig. 11, i.e., expected
value µ NEXT (dashed line); expected value minus a standard
deviation µ NEXT − σ NEXT (dash-dotted line); expected value plus
a standard deviation µ NEXT + σ NEXT (dotted line). Finally, the
solid line refers to the expected value µ NEXT already reported in
Fig. 7 for the real non-ideal terminations. From Fig. 11 one can
see that the degradation of the performance of the balancing
devices, as the frequency increases (beyond 100 MHz),
severely affects crosstalk levels (more than 40 dBs).
VI. CONCLUSION
In this work, crosstalk in balanced TWPs was investigated
by resorting to modal analysis of terminations. Statistical
properties discussed by exploiting a non-uniform TL circuit
model have been confirmed by experimental measurements
and numerical simulations. The proposed model includes
random twist-pitch non-uniformity effects and provides
crosstalk prediction in terms of statistical estimates.
The combined impact of (a) CM-to-DM conversion due to
unbalance and low CM rejection at the line terminations; (b)
random twist-pitches, is discussed. It is shown that when
output interfaces are characterized by high balance and CMRR,
crosstalk is effectively reduced by twisting the line conductors
and demonstrates high sensitivity to twist non-uniformity.
REFERENCES
[1] C. R. Paul, Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility, New York:
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.
[2] C. R. Paul and J. A. McKnight, “Prediction of crosstalk involving
twisted pairs of wires, Part I: A transmission line model for twisted wire
pairs,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. EMC-21, pp. 92-105,
1979.
[3] C. R. Paul and J. A. McKnight, “Prediction of crosstalk involving
twisted pairs of wires, Part II: A simplified, low-frequency prediction
model,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. EMC-21, pp. 105-114,
1979.
[4] D. Bellan, G. Spadacini and S. A. Pignari, “Prediction of twist non-
uniformity and twist-residual effects on crosstalk in twisted-wire pairs,”
in Proc. EMC Zurich 2003 Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat., Zurich,
Switzerland, Feb. 18-20 2003, pp. 181-186.
[5] G. Spadacini, D. Bellan and S. A. Pignari, “Impact of twist non-
uniformity on crosstalk in twisted-wire pairs,” in Proc. 2003 IEEE
Symp. on Electromagn. Compat., Boston, MA, USA, Aug. 18-22, 2003,
pp. 483-488.
[6] A. Axelrod, “On crosstalk mechanism in cables composed of several
unshielded twisted pairs,” in Proc. 2003 IEEE Int. Symp. on
Electromagn. Compat., Istanbul, Turkey, May 11-16, 2003, pp. 1016-
1019.
[7] K. L. Kaiser, Electromagnetic Compatibility Handbook, Boca Raton:
CRC Press, 2005.
[8] M. B. Jolly and C. R. Paul, Crosstalk in twisted-wire circuits, Tech. Rep.
Rome Air Development Center, Griffiss AFB, NY, RADC-TR-82-286,
Vol. IV C (November 1982).
[9] A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes,
Third Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
[10] C. R. Paul and M. B. Jolly, “Sensitivity of crosstalk in twisted-pair
circuits to line twist,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. EMC-24,
pp. 335-364, 1982.

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE 150