Basic Bit Error Rate Analysis

For Serial Data Links

Prepared by:

Kevin Buchs, Pat Zabinski, and Jon Coker

Special Purpose Processor Development Group
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN 55905
Phone: (507) 284-4056

June 3, 2004

Mayo-R-04-07-R0
 Abstract
The basic elements of bit error rate analysis related to serial data communication links are
discussed, including signal margin, noise, signal to noise ratio, and probability. Using an
understanding of these elements and how they relate to bit error rate, an approach to analyzing
and predicting bit error rate is presented.
Table of Contents

Table of Contents................................................................................................................. i
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ii
1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Definitions................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Differential Signals: .................................................................................... 2
1.3 Basic Digital Communication Link ............................................................ 3
2 Probability Discussion ............................................................................................ 4
2.1 Probability Distributions............................................................................. 5
2.2 Gaussian Noise............................................................................................ 8
2.3 Probability of Error ................................................................................... 10
2.4 Sensitivity of BER to SNR ....................................................................... 20
3 Eye Diagram Analysis .......................................................................................... 22
3.1 Signal Margin Effects ............................................................................... 22
3.2 Timing-Related Effects............................................................................. 24
3.3 Timing-Based BER Analysis.................................................................... 26
4 Measuring BER..................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Basic Setup................................................................................................ 27
4.2 Measurement Extrapolation ...................................................................... 30
4.2.1 Decreased Signal Strength ............................................................ 30
4.2.2 Increased Noise Level................................................................... 35
5 System Application of BER.................................................................................. 40
5.1 Using BER During Link Development..................................................... 41
6 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 43
7 References............................................................................................................. 44
Appendix A: Summation of Noise Contributions............................................................. 45

i
List of Figures

Figure 1. Differential signals when referenced to ground and referenced to one another. (19846)
................................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Basic digital communication link. (19847) .................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Examples of Gaussian probability distributions. (19848) .............................................. 6
Figure 4. Cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution. (19849)................ 7
Figure 5. Digital waveform with Gaussian noise. (19850)........................................................... 9
Figure 6. Gaussian distribution of noise on digital waveform. (19851) ...................................... 10
Figure 7. Signal distribution centered over threshold level. (19852) ......................................... 12
Figure 8. Signal distribution centered one sigma above threshold level. (19853)....................... 13
Figure 9. Signal distribution centered two sigmas above threshold level. (19854)..................... 14
Figure 10. Effect of narrowing sigma. (19855) ........................................................................... 15
Figure 11. Probability of error versus signal to noise ratio. (19856)........................................... 18
Figure 12. Log of probability of error versus signal to noise ratio. (19857) ............................... 19
Figure 13. Sensitivity of BER to SNR. (19858) ......................................................................... 21
Figure 14. Ideal eye diagram. (19859)......................................................................................... 22
Figure 15. Eye diagram with multiple levels due to impedance mismatch and crosstalk. (19860)
............................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 16. Effect of hysteresis and minimum thresholds on signal margin. (19861).................. 24
Figure 17. Ideal eye diagram with large window for timing uncertainty. (19862)..................... 25
Figure 18. Eye diagram with a constrained timing window. (19863) ......................................... 26
Figure 19. Basic bit error rate test configuration. (19864) .......................................................... 28
Figure 20. BER Extrapolation Through Decreased Signal Strength. (19865)............................ 31
Figure 21. Example of Measured BER Versus Signal Attenuation. (19866) ............................. 33
Figure 22. Overlay of Measured and Extrapolated BER vs. Signal Attenuation. (19867).......... 34
Figure 23. BER Extrapolation Through Increased Signal Strength. (19868) ............................. 35
Figure 24. Example of Measured BER Versus Signal Attenuation. (19869) ............................. 38
Figure 25. Overlay of Measured and Extrapolated BER vs. Signal Attenuation. (19870).......... 40

ii
1 Introduction

With the increasing use of high speed serial links in commercial systems, the use of the
term bit error rate (BER) is becoming more common place in the serializer-deserializer (SerDes)
community. Even though the basic concept of BER is generally easy to grasp, there appears to
be much confusion regarding the utility of BER as a system parameter and the elements affecting
BER. This report summarizes the basic concepts of bit error rate (BER), the primary effects that
determine BER, and an approach to predict BER in a final system implementation.
There are numerous parameters that affect BER, and a thorough treatment of each of
these parameters is outside the scope of this report. Accordingly, we constrain our analysis by
making a few basic assumptions:

The binary (two-level) signal is non-return-to-zero

The signal is balanced around the threshold voltage of the receiver
There is equal probability of logic-one or logic-zero being sent by the transmitter
The receiver samples the data synchronously with the clock
There is no pre-emphasis or equalization in the channel
There are no applied error correction codes
The clock and data are without any phase noise (unless otherwise noted)
The receiver uses simple threshold detection of logic level

For all but the simplest systems, additional analysis is needed from that which is
presented here. The underlying principles presented here, however, provide the groundwork
needed to expand into the more complex, second-order analyses.

1.1 Definitions
Prior to digging into the details of serial-link analysis, we define a few common terms we
will use throughout this report.
Noise is defined as a disturbance on a nominal signal which may cause undesired
operation. Noise is often modeled using Gaussian distributions. The magnitude of the noise is

1
represented by the standard deviation (sigma) of the noise distribution, which is equivalent to the
root mean square (RMS) value of the voltage. The noise can enter a link at any point along the
path: at the transmitter, the interconnect, and the receiver.
Signal strength is the nominal difference between a logic-high and a logic-low voltage
level.
Signal margin is defined as a signal's effective voltage potential above a specific
threshold level that can be used to determine the signals logic state. Most commonly, the
threshold voltage is mid-level between the high and low voltage levels, in which case the signal
margin is half that of the signal strength.
As we will see later in this report, the signal margin of most interest in BER analysis is
that as seen by the receiver, which is where the signal is a combination of the originally
transmitted signal, interconnect attenuation, crosstalk, impedance mismatch, and receiver
imperfections. In brief, the received signal margin is equal to the transmitted signal margin
minus the interconnect attenuation, impedance mismatch loss, crosstalk-induced signal
distortion, and receiver threshold offset.
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) within this report is assumed to be the signal margin divided
by the noise level (i.e., sigma). Most commonly, SNR is given in units of volts/volts.
Bit error rate (BER) is the ratio between the number of bits received in error to the total
number of bits received. In essence, BER is the probability of receiving a single bit in error.

1.2 Differential Signals:

The body of this paper is written from the point of view of a single-ended signal. The
paper is applicable, however, to differential signals when the voltage-difference between the true
and complement signals is considered as equivalent to signal strength of a single-ended signal.
To understand the proper interpretation, one must first remember that all voltages are
potentials relative to another node. For single ended signals, the relative node is typically
ground, or 0 V. For differential signals, the relative node of the true signal is the complement
signal. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the signal strength of a differential pair is typically twice
that of the signal strength of the true or complement signal alone.

2
 DIFFERENTIAL SIGNALS WHEN REFERENCED TO GROUND
AND REFERENCED TO ONE ANOTHER

1.25 True
Volts

VT-C = +1 V VT-C = -1 V VPP = 1 V

0.25 Complement

1.00 True
VT-C = +1 V
VPP = 2 V
Volts

Complement
VT-C = -1 V
-1.00

FEB_24 / 2004 / PJZ / 19846

Figure 1. Differential signals when referenced to ground and referenced to one another. (19846)

Accordingly, if the relative difference between the two signals is taken into account, the
analysis of this report is consistent for single ended and differential signals.

1.3 Basic Digital Communication Link

In Figure 2 we see the diagram of a basic digital communications link. The essence of
such a link is to transfer digital data from one point to another through some form of
interconnect. Breaking down the link into discrete components, the driver translates the digital
data from the source into signals (e.g., voltage levels, optical power levels, or frequencies of
electromagnetic waves) that are appropriate for the given interconnect (e.g., cables, optical fiber,
or free space). Because of imperfections in the translation and the interconnect, the signals at
this point are most often considered analog in nature, particularly at very high data rates where
the transient signal waveforms make it difficult to decipher an appropriate logic level. The

3
receiver uses a built-in decision circuit to determine the logic state on the interconnect and
outputs the result to the final destination.

BASIC DIGITAL COMMUNICATION LINK

Source Driver Interconnect Receiver Destination

Digital Domain
Analog Domain
FEB_24 / 2004 / PJZ / 19847

Figure 2. Basic digital communication link. (19847)

In an ideal world, the digital data transmitted by the driver would be accurately
interpreted by the receiver, and the BER would be zero. However, the driver, interconnect, and
receiver are not ideal, and each imperfection has the opportunity to introduce impairments in the
data transfer. As well see in the remaining sections, simple analysis of the errors comes down
to two basic components: the effective signal margin at the receiver and the amount of noise on
that signal.

2 Probability Discussion

Bit error rate (BER) is the same as the probability of any one data bit being received in
error. Accordingly, in order to understand BER, we first must understand a bit of probability
theory.

4
2.1 Probability Distributions

We can relate the probability, P, of an event occurring with independent variable value x
between a and b to a probability density function, f(x), through the use of the following equation:

b
P(a x b) = f ( x)dx
a

Two important properties of probability density functions are:

f ( x)dx = 1

f ( x) 0

We can define a cumulative distribution function, F, by:

a
P( x < a) = P ( x a) = F (a) = f ( x)dx

In essence, F(a) is the probability that x will be less than a in a given trial.
At this point, if given a probability density function, f, that satisfies the two properties,
we can now determine the probability of an event occurring between two limits (a and b) or
occurring below a limit (a).
We now examine one special probability density function often used to mathematically
describe random phenomena which is known as the Gaussian distribution (also called the normal
distribution). Analytically, the Gaussian distribution can be described as:

( x )2

f ( x, , ) =
1
2
2

e
2

5
 Where x = variable for which the distribution will be evaluated, = mean of the
distribution (mean), and = standard deviation of the distribution (sigma).
Gaussian distributions, as shown graphically in Figure 3, have a bell-shaped curve
centered and are symmetric around the mean. In addition, the peak value of f is approximately
0.399/sigma.

EXAMPLES OF GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTIONS ALONG X

1.0

0.8
Sigma = 0.5
Normal Probability

Sigma = 1.0
Sigma = 2.0
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
X

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19848

Figure 3. Examples of Gaussian probability distributions. (19848)

The cumulative distribution function is a way of expressing the cumulative probably from
negative infinity to the point of interest. For Gaussian distributions, the cumulative distribution
function is

( x )2
x x

f (x, , )dx =
1 2 2
F ( x) =
2
e


dx

For the special case where the mean is 0 and sigma is 1, the Gaussian distribution is
called the standard normal distribution. Alternatively, any non-standard Gaussian distribution
can be transformed to a standard Gaussian distribution through the use of variable substitution:

6
 x
1
e
y2 / 2
( x) = dy where: y = (x-)/
2

Again, (x) is the probability of an event occurring anywhere less than x. Note that y can
be considered to be the normalized distance from the mean, where the distance is normalized to
sigma. If we think in these terms, then the absolute values of x, mean, and sigma become
unimportant; only the ratio of the distance from the mean relative to sigma needs to be
considered. This idea will be used in a variable substitution later.
Figure 4 graphs (x) to provide an intuitive feel for (x). Notice that the magnitude is 0.5
at x=0, which says theres a 50-50 chance of an event occurring below the mid-point of Gaussian
distribution.

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION OF A STANDARD NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

1.00
Cumulative Probability

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
X-m
s
DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19849

Figure 4. Cumulative distribution function of a standard normal distribution. (19849)

7
2.2 Gaussian Noise

Gaussian distributions are a key element in the analysis (and prediction) of BER, and we
will use them to describe noise. In engineering circles, noise is often classified as having a
Gaussian distribution, which is equivalent to saying the noise has a Gaussian distribution over
voltage. In Figure 5, the pure original digital waveform varies between 0.5V and 1.5V with
added noise having a sigma of 0.1 VRMS. The graph represents a signal sweep of the signal over
time. With the random nature of noise, a second sweep of the same signal (at a different point in
time) would result in yet a different display. If several sweeps were overlaid with one another,
the general waveform shape would begin to fill in and widen. As additional sweeps were added,
the width of the waveform would widen further. At the extreme, if an infinite number of
samples were placed on top of one another, the graph would be completely filled. Because of the
dependency of the captured waveform width relative to the number of sampled signals, an
instantaneous measurement of noise voltage is inaccurate if it is interpreted as a representation of
the signal without noise.

8
 EXAMPLE DIGITAL WAVEFORM WITH ADDED NOISE
( Noise = 0.1 VRMS )

2.00

1.75

1.50
Voltage, mV

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time, ns

JAN_14 / 2004 / PJZ / 19850

Figure 5. Digital waveform with Gaussian noise. (19850)

Because of the impossibility of characterizing the instantaneous noise, the root mean
square (RMS) level of the noise is most often used as a statistical measure of the noise on a
signal. From a probability analysis perspective, the noise RMS voltage level is the same as
sigma.
In Figure 6 we see the Gaussian probability density function that was used to create the
noise on the digital signal resulting in Figure 5. This distribution could also be understood as the
shape of the histogram one would observe over a fixed point in time in the digital period.

9
 GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION OF NOISE ON DIGITAL WAVEFORM
( Sigma = 0.1 )

5
Occurances of Voltage, Qty
4

0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Voltage, V

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19851

Figure 6. Gaussian distribution of noise on digital waveform. (19851)

The distribution has a non-zero, positive value for all values of voltage. This statement
means the voltage can reach any particular value; however, the probability of reaching values
several sigmas away from the mean is very low. Accordingly, if the waveform in Figure 5 was
captured over an infinite amount of time, the graph would be completely filled in, in that there
would be occurrences of the signal at all voltage levels.

2.3 Probability of Error

With these theoretical basics, we can start applying the concepts of Gaussian
distributions, noise, and signal margin to bit error rate.
In a general sense, output driver circuits accept digital ones and zeros as input and apply
the desired corresponding voltage to the given interconnect. At the output of the driver, the
resulting signal will appear as two discrete digital levels. As the signal propagates down through
interconnect, the signal becomes distorted in shape. The resulting signal seen at the input to the
receiver circuit may be quite different than that which appeared at the output of the driver circuit.

10
The receiver is tasked with resolving this resulting analog waveform with which it is presented
into digital ones and zeros.
In most SerDes systems, the receiver may be modeled as a simple threshold detector.
When the signal threshold is crossed, a digital transition is produced in the receiver and a
different digital value is detected. As defined earlier, signal margin is the signal's effective
voltage potential above a specific threshold level which can be used to determine the signals
logic state. This can also be thought of as voltage margin.1
To start to understand how noise, signal margin, and probabilities relate, we start with a
trivial case with no margin; i.e., the mean signal level is centered over the threshold voltage, as
shown in Figure 7. Here, the probability of the receiver identifying the input signal as a logic
zero is represented by the area under the curve from minus-infinity to 0 and is colored red. The
probability of the receiver identifying the input signal as a logic one is the area under the curve
from zero to infinity, which is colored blue. The result is that there is a 50% probability that a
1 will be detected and 50% a 0, or half the bits will be interpreted correctly, and half will be
interpreted incorrectly.

1
Some texts refer to this quantity as noise margin, in the sense that it is the margin against noise.

11
 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL SIGNAL WITH
NOISE WITH SIGNAL LEVEL CENTERED AROUND THRESHOLD VOLTAGE
( Noise = 1 VRMS )
Threshold
0.4

Probability Distribution of Signal, Probability

0.3 Probability of "0" Probability of "1"

0.2

0.1

0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Signal Margin, Voltage

JAN_14 / 2004 / PJZ / 19852

Figure 7. Signal distribution centered over threshold level. (19852)

If the nominal signal level (i.e., the mean or center of the distribution) shifts above the
threshold, the probability that the receiver detects a logic one will increase. The inverse is that
the probability of the receiver incorrectly identifying the intended logic level will decrease. In
general, greater separation between the mean (center) of the distribution and the receivers
threshold will result in greater probability that the correct choice will be made.
In Figure 8 and Figure 9 the effect of this shift in signal level (i.e., an increase in signal
margin) is shown where again the red colored area represents the incorrect logic choice and the
blue the correct choice. One can see that the greater the margin, the smaller the red area of the
graph, which in turn reflects lower probability of an incorrect choice. Specifically, Figure 8
places the mean of the distribution one sigma above threshold and Figure 9 places the mean two
sigmas above threshold.

12
 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL SIGNAL WITH NOISE
WITH SIGNAL CENTERED ONE VOLT ABOVE THRESHOLD
( Noise = 1 VRMS )
0.4

Probability Distribution of Signal, Probability

0.3

Threshold

0.2

0.1

0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Signal Margin, Voltage

JAN_14 / 2004 / PJZ / 19853

Figure 8. Signal distribution centered one sigma above threshold level. (19853)

13
 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL SIGNAL WITH
NOISE WITH SIGNAL CENTERED 2 VOLTS ABOVE THRESHOLD
( Noise = 1 VRMS )
0.4

Probability Distribution of Signal, Probabilty

0.3

0.2

0.1 Threshold

0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Signal Margin, Voltage

JAN_14 / 2004 / PJZ / 19854

Figure 9. Signal distribution centered two sigmas above threshold level. (19854)

Likewise, a reduction in probability of error can be seen when the width of the noise
distribution is narrowed, as seen in Figure 10 where sigma values are varied from 1.0 to 0.50
while the threshold level remains fixed at two volts below the distribution mean.

14
 EFFECT OF REDUCING NOISE LEVEL
WHILE MAINTAINING CONSTANT MEAN SIGNAL LEVEL
( Mean Signal Level = 2 V )

Noise = 1.00 V RMS Noise = 0.75 V RMS Noise = 0.50 V RMS

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

Probability

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 Threshold 0.2 0.2

Threshold Threshold

0.0 0.0 0.0

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Signal Margin, Voltage Signal Margin, Voltage Signal Margin, Voltage

JAN_14 / 2004 / PJZ / 19855

Figure 10. Effect of narrowing sigma. (19855)

These behaviors can be quantified based on the mathematics for the Gaussian probability
density function. The signal margin is identified with the mean of the distribution. The RMS
noise level is identified as sigma. For simplicity, we set the logic threshold at 0 and move the
mean of the signal off from zero. As shown above, the probability of an occurrence between
negative infinity and 0 can be given as

( x )2
0 2

1
P( , ) =
2 e

2
dx

Given that the mean, , is greater than 0 and based on the symmetry of the standard
distribution, we can rewrite the above integral as

15
 ( x )2

1 2 2
P ( , ) = 0 .5
2 0
e
dx

x
Substituting: y = we get

y2


1
P ( , ) = 0 .5
2 e
0
2
dy

Using the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio is / (i.e., mean/sigma), we symbolically
replace that value with SNR.

y2
SNR

1
P( SNR ) = 0.5
2
0
e 2
dy

This function is directly implemented in some software applications under different

names. For example, Microsoft Excel represents this function as the NORMDIST function.
The second term of this expression can be simplified by use of a shorthand error function,
erf.

z
2
e
t 2
erf ( z ) = dt
0

This erf function is available in commercial mathematics software applications such as

Mathcad and Mathematica. Using this and a change of integration variables gives the following
for the prior equation:

P ( SNR ) = 0.5 0.5 * erf ( SNR / 2 )

16
 P(SNR) is also known as the Q function.

The complementary error function (erfc) is defined as

erfc( x) = 1 erf ( x)

so the resulting expression can be written

P ( SNR) = 0.5 * erfc( SNR / 2 )

In essence, P(SNR) is the probability of an error given a specific signal to noise ratio,
where P(SNR) is boiled down to a signal margin, a noise level, and the Gaussian probability
density function.
To gain a feel for the form of this function, we plot the linear-linear graph (Figure 11)
and the log-linear graph (Figure 12).

17
 PROBABILITY OF RECEIVING A BIT ERROR IN A SERIAL
COMMUNICATION LINK vs. THE EFFECTIVE SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO

0.5

0.4
Error Probability

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Signal-to-Noise Ratio, SNR

FEB_11 / 2004 / PJZ / 19856

Figure 11. Probability of error versus signal to noise ratio. (19856)

18
 PROBABILITY OF RECEIVING A BIT ERROR IN A SERIAL
COMMUNICATION LINK vs. THE EFFECTIVE SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO

-3

-6
Error Probability, Log

-9

-12

-15

-18

-21

-24
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Signal-to-Noise Ratio, SNR

FEB_11 / 2004 / PJZ / 19857

Figure 12. Log of probability of error versus signal to noise ratio. (19857)

So, what does all this probability analysis have to do with bit error rate (BER)? Quite
simply, the probability of receiving a bit in error is exactly equivalent to the bit error rate of a
communications link when an infinite number of bits are sent and received. Accordingly, using
the Gaussian probability density function analysis for a given sigma (i.e., RMS voltage of noise)
centered around a mean value (i.e., signal margin), the probability of error (i.e., BER) can be
determined. This correlation between probability and BER analysis is the foundation for much
of communication link BER analysis.
To provide another form of the same information, Table 1 lists the bit error rate versus a
range of signal to noise ratios.

19
 Table 1. Log of bit error rate versus signal to noise ratio.

SNR BER SNR BER SNR BER SNR BER SNR BER
0.1 -0.34 2.1 -1.75 4.1 -4.68 6.1 -9.28 8.1 -15.56
0.2 -0.38 2.2 -1.86 4.2 -4.87 6.2 -9.55 8.2 -15.92
0.3 -0.42 2.3 -1.97 4.3 -5.07 6.3 -9.83 8.3 -16.28
0.4 -0.46 2.4 -2.09 4.4 -5.27 6.4 -10.11 8.4 -16.65
0.5 -0.51 2.5 -2.21 4.5 -5.47 6.5 -10.40 8.5 -17.02
0.6 -0.56 2.6 -2.33 4.6 -5.68 6.6 -10.69 8.6 -17.40
0.7 -0.62 2.7 -2.46 4.7 -5.89 6.7 -10.98 8.7 -17.78
0.8 -0.67 2.8 -2.59 4.8 -6.10 6.8 -11.28 8.8 -18.16
0.9 -0.74 2.9 -2.73 4.9 -6.32 6.9 -11.59 8.9 -18.55
1.0 -0.80 3.0 -2.87 5.0 -6.54 7.0 -11.89 9.0 -18.95
1.1 -0.87 3.1 -3.01 5.1 -6.77 7.1 -12.20 9.1 -19.35
1.2 -0.94 3.2 -3.16 5.2 -7.00 7.2 -12.52 9.2 -19.75
1.3 -1.01 3.3 -3.32 5.3 -7.24 7.3 -12.84 9.3 -20.15
1.4 -1.09 3.4 -3.47 5.4 -7.48 7.4 -13.17 9.4 -20.56
1.5 -1.18 3.5 -3.63 5.5 -7.72 7.5 -13.50 9.5 -20.98
1.6 -1.26 3.6 -3.80 5.6 -7.97 7.6 -13.83 9.6 -21.40
1.7 -1.35 3.7 -3.97 5.7 -8.22 7.7 -14.17 9.7 -21.82
1.8 -1.44 3.8 -4.14 5.8 -8.48 7.8 -14.51 9.8 -22.25
1.9 -1.54 3.9 -4.32 5.9 -8.74 7.9 -14.86 9.9 -22.68
2.0 -1.64 4.0 -4.50 6.0 -9.01 8.0 -15.21 10.0 -23.12

2.4 Sensitivity of BER to SNR

As can be readily seen in Figure 11, Figure 12, and Table 1, the log of the BER does not
change linearly with respect to SNR. In some values of SNR, BER changes minimally with
adjustments in SNR, while in other regions of SNR, BER changes drastically with even small
adjustments in SNR. To demonstrate this further, we plot the relative change in BER with

20
respect to small changes in SNR from a nominal SNR of 7.0 in Figure 13. Here, a relatively
small change in SNR of -1.4% (i.e., from 7.0 to 6.9) increases the BER by 100% (i.e., from 1e-
12 to 2e-12).
SENSITIVITY OF BIT ERROR RATE TO SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO
( Nominal SNR of 7.0 )

1000.0

100.0
Change in BER, %

10.0

1.0

0.1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0
Change in SNR, %

FEB_10 / 2004 / PJZ / 19858

Figure 13. Sensitivity of BER to SNR. (19858)

Going a bit further, a -4% change in SNR from 7.0 to 6.7 will result in an order of
magnitude degradation in BER. If we consider a data link that is nominally operating with a
BER of 10-12, this data indicates that only a 4% reduction in signal amplitude will degrade the
BER by a full order of magnitude. As we proceed into higher SNRs, the BER sensitivity
increases even further.
In contrast, if we start with a relatively low SNR, the BER sensitivity is much reduced.
For example, if we have a nominal SNR of 3.0 with corresponding BER of 10-2.87 (i.e., 1.35 x
10-3), a -4% reduction in SNR to 2.88 will only degrade BER to 10-2.70 (i.e., 1.99 x 10-3), or a
50% change in BER.
Similarly, if you are developing a communications link with a target BER of 10-12 and
you believe your loss and noise analysis to be within 10% tolerance of accuracy, you then need

21
to develop the link with a BER of 10-14 in order to ensure the links performance falls within
target.

3 Eye Diagram Analysis

Given an understanding of the relationship between signal to noise ratio and error
probability (i.e., BER), we can now make the connection between eye diagrams and BER. In
particular, we can now consider the impact various eye diagram anomalies have on BER.

3.1 Signal Margin Effects

To start with, we consider the ideal eye diagram of Figure 14 where there is no noise, no
jitter, and ideal signal waveforms. Assuming ideal sampling circuits, the BER will be zero (i.e.,
no errors). Adding some noise to the signal, the BER can be directly obtained from the analysis
presented above.

IDEAL EYE DIAGRAM

Signal Margin

Threshold

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19859

Figure 14. Ideal eye diagram. (19859)

Similar to that of Figure 15, eye diagrams can degrade from impedance mismatch,
intersymbol interference, or crosstalk. As a result, the eye diagram will reveal multiple levels for
1 and for 0. Here, the analysis of BER can become a bit more difficult.

22
 EFFECT ON EYE DIAGRAM OF CROSSTALK AND IMPEDANCE MISMATCH

Signal Margin

Threshold

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19860

Figure 15. Eye diagram with multiple levels due to impedance mismatch and crosstalk. (19860)

In essence, each signal level contributes to the overall effective BER. In order to
accurately analyze the BER, the contribution from each signal level must be accounted for by
weighting the BER of a particular signal level with the probability of the signal being at that
level. For signals which exhibit many potential levels, a complete treatment of the combined
BER can be quite cumbersome. However, as demonstrated earlier, the BER is very sensitive to
SNR. Accordingly, small increases in signal levels will result in small improvements in SNR
which will in turn provide significant improvements in BER. While these improved BERs are
interesting, their significantly lower values added to the much higher values of the lower signal
margin BERs have little impact. As a result, the inner-most signal level (i.e., the level with the
lowest signal margin) most often dominates the overall BER, which allows reasonably accurate
analysis to be performed based simply on the smallest signal margins.
In some receivers, hysteresis is deliberately added to the input circuitry to avoid multiple-
triggering on non-monotonic signal transitions. In other receivers, the imbalance or
imperfections of the input circuit devices require a minimum signal margin to ensure a proper
detection of the logic level. As shown in Figure 16, the result of these receiver anomalies
directly reduces the signal margin.

23
 EFFECT OF RECEIVER HYSTERESIS
OR MINIMUM INPUT SIGNAL ON SIGNAL MARGIN

Signal Margin

Minimum Signal or Hysteresis

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19861

Figure 16. Effect of hysteresis and minimum thresholds on signal margin. (19861)

Another common feature in many receivers is the deliberate or unintentional offset the
threshold from the center of the signal swing. For example, in older protocols like TTL, the
threshold was shifted closer to ground than the supply. In addition, tolerances in device
fabrication can lead to unwanted offsets as well. The end result is that the threshold shifts from
center, which reduces the signal margin. In differential protocols, a similar even-mode offset can
occur. Most differential receivers are tolerant of small even-mode offsets with little or no impact
on BER. However, for DC-coupled receivers, there is always a limit to the offset, beyond which
degradation of the BER will be observed. Such offsets have similar effect on signal margin
degradation as shown in Figure 16, which again can have dramatic effect on the BER.

3.2 Timing-Related Effects

In addition to voltage-related effects, timing uncertainty or jitter can often lead to
degradation of link BER. In brief, the primary point of concern related to timing is the relative
relationship in time between the data and clock. Under ideal conditions, the receiver samples the
incoming data stream at the point in the eye diagram where the signal margin is the greatest. By
doing so, the BER will be optimized. However, due to various effects, the relative timing

24
between the clock and data shifts. If the rising edge of the clock shifts to the point where the
data is sampled during a logic transition, the resulting BER can be dramatically degraded.
The types of timing uncertainty are classified into two primary classes: deterministic jitter
and random jitter. Deterministic jitter is due to pattern-dependencies of the driver, impedance
mismatches, crosstalk, intersymbol interference, etc., and can generally be seen on eye diagrams
as distinct lines during logic transition points. Random jitter typically is modeled as a Gaussian
distribution relative to time and manifests itself in eye diagrams as a smearing of the logic
transitions.
To understand the potential impact of jitter on BER, we start by considering the ideal eye
diagram of Figure 17. Under such conditions, the sampling of the data can occur anywhere
within the window identified by the plateau without any degradation in BER. However, outside
the plateau (i.e., during the logic transitions), the BER will be dramatically impacted.

IDEAL EYE DIAGRAM SHOWING LARGE WINDOW FOR

SAMPLING WITHOUT DEGREDATION IN BIT ERROR RATE

Plateau

Signal Margin

Threshold

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19862

Figure 17. Ideal eye diagram with large window for timing uncertainty. (19862)

Looking at a more realistic case shown in Figure 18, the sensitivity to timing margin
becomes clearer from the lack of a flat plateau. Sliding along the time axis, the effective signal
margin varies significantly.

25
 BASIC EYE DIAGRAM AFTER FREQUENCY DEPENDENT LOSSES REVEALING
VARIATION IN SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO

Signal Margin

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19863

Figure 18. Eye diagram with a constrained timing window. (19863)

With timing jitter (be it deterministic or random), the analysis needs to be extended to
include the effects of timing location within the eye. One method of performing such analysis is
to develop an estimate for the effective BER relative to the location in the eye diagram. In
effect, a bathtub curve is generated which represents the BER versus time location within the
eye. An estimate is then made of the timing uncertainty (e.g., quite often estimated to be a
Gaussian distribution along the time axis). The bathtub curve is then weighted by the timing
uncertainty curve, and the overall effective BER can be estimated.

3.3 Timing-Based BER Analysis

The analysis presented so far has been based on the signal to noise ratio in voltage. Such
analysis is generally easy to comprehend and reasonably accurate. An alternative approach to
BER analysis effectively rotates the eye diagram by 90 degrees.
In essence, the alternative approach considers timing as the primary metric of concern.
Here, the crossing of the logic transitions is analyzed for timing margin (e.g., analogous to
signal margin) and random jitter (e.g., analogous to voltage noise), and the effective timing to
jitter ratio (analogous to signal to noise ratio) is related to BER. In very basic cases, the same
probability density functions described above are directly applicable. Yet, in many cases, simple

26
Gaussian distributions are not appropriate, and alternative forms of distributions must be
considered. However, the same basic concepts apply.
Such analysis has merit and is as valid as the approach we described above depending
upon the dominant failure mechanisms. However, a detailed treatment of such an approach is
outside the scope of this report. Instead, we simply present this rough concept of this approach
for consideration of further study to the reader.

4 Measuring BER

Measuring the BER of a link has been greatly automated with advances in test
equipment, but there are a few subtleties in proper setup that we will try to highlight.

4.1 Basic Setup

The basic setup for measuring bit error rate includes the pseudo-random bit stream
(PRBS) generator and an error detection comparator. The generator and comparator may or may
not be part of the same instrument, but the majority of commercial bit error rate testers (BERTs;
e.g., Agilent N4906A SmartBERT or 81250 ParBERT) combine them. For the greatest
flexibility, the generator should feature variable signal strength and variable data rate. The
comparator should feature self-centered sampling and variable clock delay adjustment and
should count total received bits and errors. Figure 19 shows how this basic setup may be used to
characterize a full digital communications link which includes the transmitter, receiver, and
interconnect.

27
 BASIC BIT ERROR RATE TEST CONFIGURATION

Device Under Test

Transmitter Interconnect Receiver

Pseudo-Random Error Detection

Bit Stream Generator (Comparator)

Variable Signal Strength

Variable Data Rate

BIT ERROR RATE TESTER

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19864

Figure 19. Basic bit error rate test configuration. (19864)

Using such a setup, modern BERTs automate the process and require minimal adjustment
by the user. Typically, the generator requires three primary settings: 1) data rate; 2) signal
levels; and 3) bit pattern. Although the first two settings can generally match that of what will
finally be used in the system, the bit pattern features of most BERTs limit the length of the
pattern applied to the device under test (DUT). Accordingly, it is important to select a bit pattern
that reasonably replicates the bit patterns expected to be observed in the final system.
For ease of use, nearly all BERTs provide built-in pseudo-random bit sequences (PRBSs)
based on polynomial linear-feedback shift registers, and they adequately represent the final
system patterns sufficiently to do the job. When the PRBS patterns are not adequate, the user
can generally manually enter a bit pattern. However, the entered pattern is limited in length,

28
which again limits how well the pattern can replicate that of the final system, which in turn
requires multiple patterns to be entered and used.
The end result is that the pattern selection should be carefully considered. Using the
built-in PRBS patterns offer ease of use and fairly reasonable complexity to adequately represent
most system environments. In contrast, custom patterns can generally better represent the
patterns expected in the final system, but they require additional effort to generate and use (and if
improperly generated could lead to inappropriate BER results).
The detector or acquisition portion of the BERT has similar settings as the generator, and
they should generally match that of the generator. However, the more flexible BERTs offer a
few additional features to aid in BER analysis, including the ability to adjust the clock-to-data
phase alignment. All modern BERTs have built-in phase alignment circuits to properly align the
clock to sample the incoming data near the center of the data eye, and this offers tremendous
help in getting the system set up. Once the data and clock are in alignment, some BERTs offer
the option of manually adjusting the clock and data relative phase in order to sample the
incoming data outside the middle of the eye. By doing so, the links sensitivity to phase noise
and phase drift can be characterized.
One other important consideration to take into account when measuring BER is the
number of data points to measure. Because the nature of the bit errors is random in time, the
errors will not be evenly distributed in time. Instead, they will be dispersed randomly in time
with scenarios possible where several errors occur relatively close to one another and with
relatively long periods elapsed without any errors. Accordingly, if a communication links BER
is based on the number of good/correct bits received up to the point of the first error bit, the
resulting BER will have little meaning. Yet, in order for the BER to ideally match that of the
signal to noise (SNR) analysis described above, a literally infinite number of samples must be
taken. Obviously, there must be some practical number of bits that can be sampled that can
reasonably match that of the SNR analysis.
Internally, we have set of guidelines to use a minimum of 100 captured error bits where
practical, and we based this guideline on experiences we have personally received and
discussions with engineers in industry. In such discussions, we have heard arguments for both
higher (on the order of 1000) to lower (down to 5) numbers of bit errors, and each argument has
its respective merit. However, a detailed treatment of the statistical significance of such a

29
guideline is outside the scope of this study. Accordingly, for the remainder of this report, we
will use the guideline of 100 captured error bits in our analysis.

4.2 Measurement Extrapolation

It is often the case when measuring low bit error rates (BERs) or measuring low data
rates that direct measurement of BER on a communication link consumes considerable time. For
example, a link with a nominal data rate of 2.5 Gbps and expected BER of 10-12 will take, on
average, 40,000 seconds to capture 100 errors, which is over eleven hours to make one
measurement. If the SNR was improved by only 4% (i.e., 7.3 versus 7.0), the resulting 10-13
BER would take over 110 hours to appropriately measure. With slower data rates or improved
BERs, the amount of time to directly measure BER is impractical. As an alternative approach to
directly measuring the BER, it is common to extrapolate the BER from a few data points that
require less time to measure.
The basic measurement extrapolation principle is to deliberately degrade BER by
decreasing signal to noise ratio (SNR) to the point where the BER is practical to measure. Then,
the sampled BER points are overlaid on a BER-versus-SNR curve similar to that of the graph in
Figure 12 or Table 1, and the final link BER is extrapolated from the curve. The key to this
technique is to have sufficient control over SNR in order to understand from which part of the
curve the data was taken.
There are two primary approaches used to degrade the signal to noise ratio (SNR):
1) decreasing the signal strength; and 2) increasing the noise. As we will see in the next two
sections, each approach has its respective benefits. Which approach is used should be carefully
considered.

4.2.1 Decreased Signal Strength

The basic concept behind this form of BER measurement extrapolation is to deliberately
attenuate the signal in the interconnect path using known and accurate attenuation settings to the
point where the BER becomes practical to measure. As shown in Figure 20, the basic test
configuration adds a variable attenuator directly in the signals path.

30
 BIT ERROR RATE (BER) TEST CONFIGURATION WITH
VARIABLE ATTENUATION FOR EXTRAPOLATING BER
THROUGH DECREASED SIGNAL STRENGTH

Transmitter Variable Interconnect Receiver

Attenuator

Pseudo-Random Error Detection

Bit Stream Generator (Comparator)

Variable Signal Strength

Variable Data Rate

BIT ERROR RATE TESTER

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19865

Figure 20. BER Extrapolation Through Decreased Signal Strength. (19865)

This approach to extrapolating BER is best suited for use in links where the vast majority
of noise is injected into or inherent within the receiver, because the effective noise level at the
receiver will remain constant over the entire range of attenuator settings. In contrast, if the
majority of link noise is injected at the transmitter, the attenuator will affect the noise level, and
the resulting extrapolation becomes more difficult (but not impossible). For simplicity, we will
focus the discussion in this section on links where the noise is introduced after the attenuator, the
noise level is constant over all attenuator settings, and the receivers threshold hysteresis/offsets
are small compared to the smallest signal margin in the test.

31
 To provide an idea of the utility of such an approach, consider an example of a system
with the following characteristics:

data rate = 2.5 Gbps

signal protocol = differential
transmitter output +0.3 V to 0.3 V per trace, +0.6 to -0.6V differential
receiver = near-ideal (other than some appreciable noise)
interconnect = coaxial cable with 6 dB loss

When the link is tested using a bit error rate tester (BERT), it is several hours before the
first bit error occurs, and an approach is sought to reduce testing time.
To reduce test time, a variable attenuator is added to the signal path as indicated in Figure
20, and the attenuator is manually adjusted to the point where bit errors are experienced several
times per second. At this point, the BERT counter is reset and allowed to run until at least 100
bit errors are captured. The attenuator setting and resulting BER are then noted.
With this first data point captured, the following steps are taken to capture additional data
points:

decrement attenuator setting by 1 dB

reset BERT
let BERT run until 100 bit errors are captured
annotate attenuator setting and resulting BER
repeat four-five times

An example set of the captured data is shown both graphically and in table form in Figure
21.

32
 EXAMPLES OF MEASURED BER FOR VARIOUS
SIGNAL ATTENUATION SETTINGS IN EXAMPLE COMMUNICATION LINK

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0
Log, BER

-3.5

Attenuation BER log(BER)

-4.0 10 dB 7.0e-3 -2.15
9 dB 4.4e-3 -2.36
8 dB 1.0e-3 -3.00
7 dB 4.4e-4 -3.36
-4.5 6 dB 8.0e-5 -4.10
5 dB 1.3e-5 -4.89

-5.0
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0
Attenuation Setting, dB

JAN_12 / 2004 / PJZ / 19866

Figure 21. Example of Measured BER Versus Signal Attenuation. (19866)

Using these sampled data points and cross referencing Table 1, we chose the SNR that
provides the closest match with one of the measured BERs. For the 5 dB attenuation setting, the
log of the measured BER is -4.89, which is close to the -4.87 value for the 4.2 SNR.
With a interconnect attenuation of 6 dB (per our example) and attenuator setting of 5 dB,
the entire link loss is 11 dB. As stated in the example, the transmitters output signal margin is
600 mV, which would result in a 600 mV 11 dB attenuation = 600 mV * 0.282 = 169 mV
signal margin at the receiver. With an effective SNR of 4.2, the noise level must then be
approximately 169 mV 4.2 = 40 mV (i.e., sigma).
With an estimate of the noise level and knowledge of the signal margin for each of the
attenuator settings, we can now extrapolate the BER for an attenuator setting of 0 dB, which is
equivalent to the link performance without the attenuator.
Analytically, the nominal signal margin at the receiver will be 600 mV minus the
inherent 6 dB interconnect attenuation, or 300 mV. Using the same 40 mV noise level estimated

33
from above for sigma (which we assume remains constant for the link), the resulting SNR will be
300 40 = 7.5, which Table 1 shows an expected BER of 10-13.5 = 3.2E-14.
To validate the extrapolation, we plot in Figure 22 the measured data points next to the
points calculated using the noise level of 40 mV, the expected signal margin after attenuation,
and Table 1.

COMPARISON OF THE CALCULATED AND MEASURED DATA POINTS

IN THE EXAMPLE COMMUNICATION LINK

-2

-4

-6
Log, BER

-8

Calculated
-10
Measured

-12

-14 Estimated Link Performance

Log (BER) = -13.5

-16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attenuator Setting, dB

FEB_10 / 2004 / PJZ / 19867

Figure 22. Overlay of Measured and Extrapolated BER vs. Signal Attenuation. (19867)

By visually comparing the measured data points against the estimated values, we gain
confidence in the estimated performance of the link. Also, we note that the extrapolated BER
performance of 10-13.5 would take approximately 14 days to capture 100 bit errors.

34
4.2.2 Increased Noise Level
An alternate method of degrading the SNR is to add a known quantity of noise to the
signal while keeping the signal strength constant. As shown in Figure 23, noise can be directly
added to the signal using a noise generator.

BIT ERROR RATE (BER) TEST CONFIGURATION WITH

VARIABLE NOISE GENERATOR FOR EXTRAPOLATING BER

Noise Generator

Transmitter Interconnect + Receiver

Pseudo-Random Error Detection

Bit Stream Generator (Comparator)

Variable Signal Strength

Variable Data Rate

BIT ERROR RATE TESTER

DEC_18 / 2003 / PJZ / 19868

Figure 23. BER Extrapolation Through Increased Signal Strength. (19868)

It is important to note that due to the random nature of the noise, the noise levels of the
baseline link and the noise generator are not simply added together when determining the overall
link noise level. For an explanation of how to determine the effective noise level of two noise
sources, see Appendix A: Summation of Noise Contributions.

35
 The approach to adding noise in BER extrapolation is very similar to that described
above with attenuated signals. In this approach, the noise level (i.e., RMS voltage or sigma) is
varied instead of signal margin. In essence, intentional noise is added to the signal, decreasing
the SNR to the point where the BER becomes practical to measure. After a few data points are
taken using different levels of noise, the final link BER is extrapolated from the measured data
points.
The best application of this approach is one where the noise contributions are distributed
throughout the link and the sources of noise are unknown. Another application to which this
approach is well suited is one where the transmitters performance might be affected by the
addition of an attenuator. Because of the flexibility of this approach of adding noise, it is better
suited for many applications. However, appropriate noise generators and combiners are
relatively expensive and the additional calculations are slightly more difficult.
When using this approach, the selection of the noise generator is important. There are
numerous commercial noise generators available (e.g., Noise/Com UFX7112), only a portion of
which work well for this sort of application. When choosing a noise generator, the following
features should be considered:

the frequency spectrum of the noise should match well to the frequency content of the
data signal; it is difficult to get a noise source that exactly matches, so choose a
source that covers 90-99% of the spectrum
the noise level (i.e., power spectral density) across the spectrum should be relatively
flat; typically within 1 dB
the noise distribution should be Gaussian in nature
the noise level should be adjustable over a wide range; >40 dB range is generally
adequate
although external combiners are available and work fine, many noise generators have
built-in combiners that simplify the test setup and ensure good repeatability
some noise generators have the ability to attenuate the data signal; while not a
necessary feature, it adds flexibility and eliminates the need for a separate attenuator

36
 Again, well provide an example of the extrapolation approach based on the same
example communication link discussed in the previous section:

data rate = 2.5 Gbps

signal protocol = differential
transmitter output +0.3 V to 0.3 V per trace, +0.6 to -0.6V differential
receiver = near-ideal (other than some appreciable noise)
interconnect = coaxial cable with 6 dB loss

The extrapolation approach starts with the test configuration shown in Figure 23, and the
noise generator amplitude is increased to the point where the BERT detects several bit errors
every second. The BERT counter is then reset and allowed to run until 100 bit errors are
captured. Then, the added noise level and resulting BER are noted.

With the first data point captured, the following steps are taken to capture the remaining
points:

decrement noise level by 10 mV

reset BERT
let BERT run until 100 bit errors are captured
annotate noise level and resulting BER
repeat four-five times

37
 Figure 24 shows a data set of example captured data points.

EXAMPLE OF MEASURED BER FOR VARIOUS

ADDED NOISE LEVELS IN EXAMPLE COMMUNICATION LINK

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0

-3.5
Log, BER

-4.0

-4.5

-5.0

-5.5

-6.0
0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100
Added Noise, V

FEB_10 / 2004 / PJZ / 19869

Figure 24. Example of Measured BER Versus Signal Attenuation. (19869)

Looking at the data where 50 mV of noise was added to the signal, the resulting BER was
10-5.9, which is very close to the 10-5.89 found for an SNR of 4.7 in Table 1.
We have not added any intentional attenuation to the signal path, so the 6 dB attenuation
inherent in the interconnect path results in an effective signal margin at the receiver of 300 mV.
Based on an SNR of 4.7, the total effective noise level (sigma) at the receiver is 300 mV 4.7 =
64 mV.
We deliberately added 50 mV of noise. Using the equations outlined in Appendix A:
Summation of Noise Contributions, the inherent link noise level can be determined from:

T = A + I
2 2

38
where T is the total effective noise level, A is the added noise level, and I is the inherent noise
level of the link. By plugging in 64 mV for T and 50 mV for A, we determine that the inherent
noise level in the link is 40 mV.
With this knowledge of the links inherent noise level and knowledge of the signal
margin, we can now extrapolate the final link BER by first determining the inherent SNR of 300
40 = 7.5. Using Table 1, an expected BER of 10-13.5 = 3.2E-14 is found, which is the same
value we obtained from previous extrapolation example.
Again, as a visual form of verification, we plot the measured data points next to the
calculated and extrapolated points in Figure 25. Note how the calculated data curve bends
slightly near the lower levels of added noise; this is an indication that the overall noise level is
reaching that of the inherent link noise level. As the added noise level increases to well above
the inherent noise level, the added noise level dominates the SNR (and resulting BER), and the
inherent noise level is of little consequence. Because of this effect, some data should be taken
under conditions where the inherent noise is a factor in the performance.

39
 COMPARISON OF THE CALCULATED AND MEASURED DATA POINTS
IN THE EXAMPLE COMMUNICATION LINK

-2

-4

-6
Log, BER

-8
Calculated
Estimated Link Measured
-10 Performance Log
(BER) = -13.5

-12

-14
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Added Noise, V

FEB_10 / 2004 / PJZ / 19870

Figure 25. Overlay of Measured and Extrapolated BER vs. Signal Attenuation. (19870)

5 System Application of BER

The bit error rate (BER) is a figure of merit for a complete digital interconnect link which
includes active and passive components. It is a reasonable quantifier of the quality of a digital
communication link and often determines the performance of a complete system. However,
BER only has relevance to complete links and not the individual components that make a link.
This principle can also be understood in terms of the prior discussion of the relationship
of BER to the signal to noise ratio. Recall that the BER is dependent upon the signal to noise
ratio (SNR), and that the SNR is computed taking into account the receiver threshold and signal
margin above threshold. If we attempt to define the BER of a portion of a system that doesnt
include a unique driver and receiver or interconnect, we do not have enough information to
properly determine the effective signal to noise ratio, and any resulting BER would be baseless
except as an upper bound.

40
 We may be able to take a piece of communication link and determine its effect upon a
given signal. For example, a section of cable may cause a signal to be attenuated. One could
assume a given input SNR and then compute what the resultant SNR would be at the output of
the cable. However, this measurement would not be useful in predicting BER because the actual
input SNR would not be known nor would the performance of the receiver.
In contrast, a relative comparison among a selection of interconnect components, such as
cables, could be useful. Given that one has measured the BER of a full communication link with
one of the choices of interconnects, it would then be possible to predict the BER of the link with
the other interconnect options by computing the effect of the cable attenuation on SNR.
For example, assume the attenuation of a 5 m and 10 m section of a given cable type are
measured and found to be 5 dB and 10 dB, respectively. Installing the 5 m cable into a given
digital communication link one measures a BER of 10-12. Referencing the graph in Figure 12 we
can see this BER corresponds to SNR of roughly 7. As indicated, an additional 5 dB of
attenuation will be experienced when the 10m cable is used. This will drop the SNR to 4.2 and
the resulting BER is 10-5, also seen by referencing Figure 12. As a first approximation, this very
simple extrapolation is relatively accurate.

5.1 Using BER During Link Development

When developing a communication link, there are two primary ways of using BER
analysis: 1) predicting final BER from the characteristics of the various link components and
2) determining requirements for individual component constraints based on a final BER
requirement.
In the last example in Section 4.2, each component is characterized for both signal
performance and noise. Although this approach sounds quite trivial, there are several
difficulties. For starters, the signal performance of any one component is often dependent upon
the other components. As an example, transmitter performance is dependent upon the effective
impedance seen at its output, thus it is important to characterize the transmitter with an output
impedance similar to what it will see in the final system. Similarly, the signal loss through the
interconnect is dependent upon impedance mismatch and potential resonances along the path, so
the loss of the individual components cannot simply be added to determine the complete link
loss. The end result is that for all but the most simple communication links, it is important to

41
determine the overall signal loss by including the effects of interdependencies upon all the
components. Although it is sometimes possible to determine these interdependencies and their
effects on signal loss through analytics, it is generally much more efficient to utilize simulation
tools such as SPICE where all the components are simulated together.
In addition to the difficulty associated with estimating the signal margin at the receiver,
the amount of effective noise expected at the receiver is also challenging to estimate. In
particular, the amount of noise will be very dependent upon the noise added by the other active
components in the system and the effectiveness of the power supply decoupling. Unless the
active components are characterized in an environment very similar to the final system
application, the amount of noise will be very difficult to determine.
As mentioned at the end of Section 2.3 and in Section 2.4, the signal margin and noise
level (i.e., sigma) estimates must be fairly accurate (within a few percentage points) if the
predicted BER is to be within even a few orders of magnitude of the final value. Given the
typical wide tolerance of characterization, predictions of final BER should be used with
appropriate caution and plenty of margin (i.e., several orders of magnitude) to account for the
tolerances in signal margin and noise level.
The other use of BER analysis is to determine performance requirements on the various
link components based on a final system BER requirement. Here again, the same uncertainties
and tolerances exist with this application of BER analysis as the previous application.
In order to make either of these applications practical and reasonably accurate, the scope
of the analysis should be limited. For example, if the final system BER specification is known
and final transmitter and receiver chips are available, the noise level of the active components
can be characterized using a combination of the extrapolated BER measurement techniques
described above. Then, a rough estimate of the additional noise expected in the system can be
added to the active component noise, and the final signal attenuation specification can be
determined. At this point, the entire interconnect loss requirement can be determined and used to
evaluate various interconnect solutions. Alternatively, if the interconnect is fixed, a specification
for the transmitter and receiver can be generated.
Also, if a complete link already exists and the BER is known, simple analysis can be
performed to determine the effects alternative interconnect might have on the BER by
characterizing the relative signal performance between the existing and alternative solutions.

42
 The key point to keep in mind is that BER analysis requires detailed, accurate analysis of
the various component performances which is difficult to obtain without an existing system
environment in which to test them. Small extrapolations from existing links; however, is readily
achievable with reasonable accuracy.

6 Conclusions

We have discussed the concept of BER and how it relates to SNR. By doing so, we hope
the reader has gained an appreciation for and understanding of the basic principles of BER
characterization. We explained how BER is dependent upon the SNR and that the SNR is
computed by taking into account the receiver threshold and absolute signal level. If one attempts
to define the BER of a portion of a system that doesnt include each and every component of the
link, one cannot accurately predict a signal to noise ratio (SNR), and the BER becomes
undefined. However, BER analysis can be used to aid the communication link designer in
determining the potential impact of different components or determining requirements for the
components.
It is important to note that we have only covered the basics of BER analysis in this report.
In potential future writings, we hope to expand upon more advanced concepts like phase noise
and resulting bathtub probability curves, multi-level signaling, and inter-symbol interference.

43
7 References

1. Agilent, Application Note 1397-1, Lowering Cost and Improving Interoperability by

Predicting Residual BER: Theory, Measurements, and Applications.
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5988-6082EN.pdf

2. Breed, Gary, Bit Error Rate: Fundamental Concepts and Measurement Issues, High
Frequency Design, January 2003.
http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Archives/Jan03/HFE0103_Tutorial.pdf

3. Miller, Irwin and John E. Freund, Probability and Statistics for Engineers, 2nd Edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977.

4. Papoulis, A., Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, 2nd Edition.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.

5. Ross, Sheldon, A First Course in Probability, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing,
1976.

6. Shultz, Aaron, Random Jitter - What Is Really Going On? CommsDesign (An EE
Times Community), Oct 22, 2001.
http://www.commsdesign.com/printableArticle?doc_id=OEG20011022S0087

7. Strassberg, Dan, Eyeing Jitter: Shaking Out Why Signals Shake, EDN, May 1, 2003.
http://www.e-insite.net/ednmag/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA293235

8. Wavecrest Corp, Understanding Jitter: Getting Started, Eden Prairie, MN,

http://www.wavecrest.com/technical/VISI_6_Getting_Started_Guides/6understanding.pdf

44
Appendix A: Summation of Noise Contributions

Earlier sections of this paper developed the concept of the relationship of BER to
standard (Gaussian) noise distributions. To understand how intentionally-added noise influences
the BER, we need to step back and consider the inherent noise in a digital communication link
without added noise.
In any link there will be several sources of noise. We may have simple thermal noise in
both the transmitter and receiver. Other effects may contribute noise at the transmitter and also
at the receiver. In general there could be a large number of noise sources. Most of these will
follow a Gaussian distribution. So, in considering the result of two or more sources of Gaussian
noise in a link, we need to understand how to add these noise contributions to obtain the resulting
noise that will be observed.
Consider the case of only two noise sources. Let us start with an initial signal generated
with a given Gaussian noise distribution P1 ( 1 , 1 , x) . This signal passes through a portion of
the link that further disturbs the signal by adding noise given by this Gaussian distribution
P2 ( 2 , 2 , x) . What will the resulting signal look like? There is a given probability of the
original signal being a certain value, and this probability is further redistributed as a result of the
additional disturbance. The mathematical process involved in analyzing the combined effects is
convolution. The resulting distribution P3 ( 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , x) is given by this equation

P3 ( 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , x) = P ( ,

1 1 1 , x y )P2 ( 2 , 2 , y )dy

The mathematics here works out quite nicely if P1 and P2 are uncorrelated Gaussian
distributions. The result of this convolution integral is another Gaussian distribution and can be
written as

P3 ( 3 , 3 , x) where 3 = 1 + 2 and 3 = 12 + 22

45
 Now we consider the case where the random noise distributions the same mean value
(i.e., no additional DC-offset), and this means that there is no change in the mean or center of the
Gaussian distribution of the initial signal as it passes through the disturbance. The sigma values,
however, will result in a spreading of the distribution. The final sigma is the quadratic sum of
each contributing distribution.
Note that the sigma value mentioned here is equivalent to the RMS voltage of each
respective noise source. When the noise is measured in power (i.e., Watts), the power levels are
directly added to one another.
Subsequent disturbances can continue to be added to the initial signal until all
disturbances have been taken into account. Each one continues to spread the distribution so the
qualitative effect is a smearing of the distribution by the time it reaches the final destination.
We have previously arrived at the conclusion that the BER is related to the SNR. The
SNR is dependent upon the sigma of the noise distribution which is the denominator of SNR.
The effect of each additional noise contribution depends upon the noise distribution in the signal
up to the point of that additional contribution. For example, if the distribution to be added has a
sigma value that is 1/10th of the sigma of the initial signal distribution, the sigma of the resulting
distribution will be 1.005 of the original. The SNR will change as the inverse of this sigma,
becoming approximately 0.995 of the original. The resulting BER depends on what the original
SNR was. For example, the original SNR may have been 7.0 giving a BER of 1.28E-12. The
new SNR would be 6.965 and the new BER would be 1.64E-12.
While the above relation between noise distributions holds for intrinsic noise in the
communication link, it is also true for intentionally added noise. This is the case described in
Section 4.2 where a noise generator is used to create a situation in which a small BER can be
reasonably extrapolated from measurements. If the BER is too small to be measured in a
reasonable amount of time, adding noise to the system will cause the appropriate decrease in the
SNR and result in a larger BER. Knowing the sigma value of the noise that is added and
measuring the BER of the link with the added noise, one can compute the BER that would result
without the added noise.

46
 For example, assume that noise with a sigma of 0.01V is added to a signal. The BER is
measured at 10-10. We can compute (or look-up in Table 1) the SNR for this BER to be 6.361:1.
The SNR without the added noise is given by this expression:

SNR N
SNRO =
1 N SNR N

This gives a SNR0 of 6.793, which corresponds to a BER of 5.49x10-12, where SNR0 is
the original SNR before noise is added, N is the RMS voltage of the added noise, and SNRN is
the SNR after the noise is added.

47