The Relation between the Amplitude Probability Distribution of an

Interfering Signal and its Impact on Digital Radio Receivers

Kia Wiklundh

Abstract - New measurement methods are needed to characterize interference sources in

order to connect the radiated interference to performance degradation on digital
communication systems. Traditionally, standard emission requirements have focused on
protecting analog wireless services. However, developments in digital technology require
measurement methods adapted to protect digital radio communication services. The
amplitude probability distribution (APD) of an interference signal has been shown to be
correlated to the bit error probability of a disturbed digital radio receiver. However, a
general description of the APD of an interfering signal and its impact on a digital coherent
radio receiver has not been presented. The aim of this paper is to clarify this relation. A
method of incorporating the APD in conventional error expressions developed for digital
coherent radio receivers in additive white Gaussian noise is presented. Furthermore, the
relation between the maximum error probability for different digital modulation schemes and
the APD is described, which allows definition of emission requirements on the APD.

Index Terms – amplitude probability distribution, APD, error probability, non-Gaussian

interference

I. Introduction
Development in the direction of digital systems means that new methods of measuring
interference sources must be developed. The present emission requirements have been
developed to protect analog radio. These limits are defined as the maximum allowed level of
the measured quasi-peak value of the radiated emission from the interference source.
However, the levels measured by the quasi-peak detector are not correlated to the impact of
an interference source on a digital radio system. The quasi-peak detector was originally
developed to simulate the human perception of electromagnetic interferences on analog radio
receivers. Furthermore, the limits are only defined for the frequency band below 1 GHz. As
several radio services already operate beyond 1 GHz, there is a great need for new
requirements [5, 20].

The Amplitude Probability Distribution (APD) has been discussed as a possible measure of
the radiated interference that would indicate the degradation of a digital radio receiver [32].
The APD was used in the late 1960s and 1970s mainly to characterize interference sources
[4,21,22] and in recent years has been discussed conserning its correlation to the bit error
probability (BEP) of digital radio systems. In particular, the relation between the APD and the
impact of microwave ovens on the performance of a certain digital receiver has previously
been presented in [1-3]. However, the literature lacks of a theoretical description of the
connection between the APD and the performance of digital communication systems. The
correlation has mainly been demonstrated by measurement, but in [1] a theoretical relation
between a microwave oven and a certain receiver is shown. As the same paper assumes no
AWGN, the approach requires several new expressions for the BEP. Depending on the energy
of the contribution from the interference signal, different error expressions are required.
Furthermore, error expressions for different receivers need to be derived to analyze the
performance of a communication system with an arbitrary modulation method. The need for a
theoretical description of the impact of a digital receiver and the APD of an interference
source was also expressed as an issue that remains to be solved in [31].

To evaluate the impact of an interference signal on a digital radio receiver, the interference
signal needs to be characterized in such a way that it can be used in performance estimation.
By tradition, interference signals are often modeled as Gaussian processes. Unfortunately, an
approximation of impulsive noise or pulse-modulated noise as additive white Gaussian noise
often results in an underestimation of the resulting BEP of a victim receiver [33]. Hence,
especially for these two types of interference, it is of great interest to consider the statistical
character of the interference signal. Several papers model interference signals as impulsive or
non-Gaussian noise. In [6], a coherent Binary Shift Keying (BPSK) receiver subjected to an
interference signal with arbitrary amplitude probability density function (pdf) is considered;
whereas the error probability for some receivers subjected to a class A interference (an
interference model for which the bandwidth is narrower than the radio receiver of interest) is
examined in [7-9]. The performance of impulsive interference in single-user systems and
multi-user systems, respectively, has been studied in [10-11]. Furthermore, the problem of a
communication system subjected to a non-Gaussian interference environment is treated in
[12-14]. However, in these papers the digital radio receivers are assumed to be sub-optimized
to Gaussian noise and robust against deviations from Gaussian noise. For the special case with
a receiver optimized for AWGN, these papers provide error expressions of this receiver
degraded by non-Gaussian noise. However, these performance expressions are complicated
and their usage in practical applications considering a Gaussian optimized receiver is not
obvious.

The aim of this paper is to:

• clarify the relation between the APD measure of an interfering signal and its impact
on digital radio receivers.
• present a practical method for performance estimation of digital coherent radio
receivers in non-Gaussian interference by using classical results regarding the impact
of interference on digital radio receivers.
• present how the connection between the maximum BEP and the information provided
by the APD applies to emission requirements.

The paper is partly based on results published by the author in [23-24]. The paper provides a
systematic and practical method of incorporating the APD measure in conventional error
expressions developed for AWGN. The method also makes it possible to consider the impact
of an arbitrary interference source in the general error expressions originally derived for
AWGN. Furthermore, the relation between the maximum error probability of a digital
receiver and the measured APD of an interference source is stated. This relation opens the
possibility to derive emission requirements for interference sources based on the APD. The
relation between the maximum BEP and the APD is supplemented with an illustration of its
use for emission requirements and has not been published before. However, to estimate the
performance degradation of a digital receiver or to derive emission requirements by the use of
APD, the bandwidth of the measurement receiver and the radio receiver must be similar.
When the bandwidths differ, the APD measured cannot be used directly in these applications.
In [25], a method of converting the APD measured by one bandwidth to another is presented.
The method has been developed for a special group of signals, namely pulse-modulated noise,
which in many scenarios is a relevant type of interference. Reasons for choosing these
interference models are given in [25].
The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents a system model and describes the
problem. In Section III, a measured APD of an interference source is connected to the
degradation of a digital radio receiver due to the same interference. This is presented as a
systematic method which incorporates the use of the APD measure in conventional error
expressions developed for AWGN. The method suggested paves the way for estimating the
performance of digital communication systems in complex interference environments. The
applicability of the method is then shown by an example. Section IV shows that the maximum
bit error probability (BEP) for a BPSK receiver is equal to a certain value of the APD. This
property is then generalized for a variety of receivers. The relation obtained can be used to
define maximum emission limits for electrical equipment in terms of APD. By assuring that
the measured APD of a interference source is lower than the proposed requirements, the
impact on the performance of a variety of receivers is guaranteed not to exceed a given
maximum bit error probability. Section V concludes the paper.

II. Problem overview

A. General model of the problem

This paper discusses the relation between the measured APD of an interference signal and the
performance degradation on a digital radio receiver due to the same interference, see Fig. 1.
Electrical equipment, such as micro-wave ovens, from which the radiated interference might
have a non-Gaussian amplitude character, has been shown to severely affect the performance
of radio receivers. The key issue is to analyze the information the measured APD provides
and connect it to parameters which are important when the performance of a receiver is to be
estimated. The reverse problem is also of interest, i.e. to relate a certain level of the
performance measure BEP of the radio receiver to requirements on the APD of an
interference signal.

Measurement system
Electrical
equipment
Filter H(f) APD detector APD

1 2

Filter
∫ dt Performance measure, BEP

Detection and decision

Radio system
Figure 1: Overview of the problem; connect the measured APD of an interference source to
the performance degradation of a digital coherent radio receiver (1) and the reverse problem
(2).

B. Radio system model

The receiver is assumed to be an ideal coherent digital receiver designed as a maximum-

likelihood receiver for AWGN. The conventional performance measure of a digital radio
receiver is the BEP, which is defined as the probability that a transmitted bit is erroneously
detected. An incorrect decision is generated when the contribution from an interfering signal
adds to the desired signal such that the decision variable falls into an incorrect decision region
in the detector. The key issue when determining the impact of an interfering signal is to have
information about its envelope and phase in the decision device in the detector. Since the
interference signal can be regarded as uncorrelated with the desired signal, it is reasonable to
believe that the phase at the decision instant is uniformly distributed in the interval [0,2 π ] .
We also assume that the system is memoryless between decision instants. This implies that
the bit decisions can be considered as independent of each other. Hence, information about
the duration and arrival time of the impulses is of no importance. For the performance
analysis, a first assumption is that the system does not use any error correcting codes.
However, this is not a major restriction. Coded systems usually utilize interleaving, which
reorders the bits such that they become independent. In order to consider coded systems with
block codes and hard decisions, the performance degradation derived for uncoded systems can
be used as input for performance estimation of coded systems.

C. Interference signal

The radio system considered in this work is subjected to an interference environment, which
will negatively influence the performance of the radio receiver of the intended signal. The
interference sources, which constitute the interference environment, are assumed to be co-
located with the receiver. The short distance to the receiver implies that electrical equipment,
even with a moderate level of emission, can constitute a severe problem.

D. Measurement system model

The APD is defined as the part of time the measured envelope of an interfering signal exceeds
a certain level [1]. We assume that the measured signal is ergodic and that the measurement of
the APD is long enough to capture the signal properties. The relation between the APD R (r )
and the probability density function of the envelope, R, is

APD R (r ) = 1 − FR (r ) (1)

and

d d
f R (r ) = FR (r ) = − APD R (r ) , (2)
dr dr

where FR (r ) and f R (r ) denote the cumulative distribution function (cdf) and probability
density function (pdf), respectively.
An APD detector can be implemented by an envelope detector and a counter [16-18]. The
APD can be estimated by a spectrum analyzer, where the signal is first converted to an
intermediate frequency and band limited by a variable resolution bandwidth filter. The signal
can then be compressed by a log amplifier, after which the envelope is extracted by an
envelope detector [16].
To be able to use the information provided by the APD in the following analyses, some
assumptions are necessary. The receiver structures of the APD detector and the analyzed radio
receiver have to be quite similar. This is normally the case for coherent digital radio receivers.
APD gives information about the envelope statistics from the IF filter, which corresponds to
the required information for performance evaluation at the radio receiver. However, the
bandwidths of the measurement and the radio receiver need to be approximately the same. If
the bandwidths of the radio system and the measurement receiver differ significantly, a
method of modifying the APD is suggested in [25] for pulse-modulated interference.
Furthermore, the APD needs to be measured at the frequency band the radio system works on.

III. Impact of an interfering signal on a digital coherent radio receiver

A. How to derive the BEP for a given APD

The traditional way of determining the error probability of a digital radio receiver is to assume
that the interference can be modeled as AWGN. For that kind of noise, error probability
expressions are often quite easily derived for different kinds of receivers. For other types of
noise, there are no simple methods. But, as will be shown here, with information provided by
an APD detector, even noise of a non-Gaussian nature can be incorporated with the
conventional error probability expressions. The method is then demonstrated in an example.
The key issue when determining the impact of an interfering signal on a coherent digital radio
receiver is information about the envelope and phase at the decision moment in the detector.
For example, if we assume “+1” was transmitted, the decision variable of a coherent BPSK
receiver in AWGN can be described as
y = Eb + n , (3)
where E b is the bit energy and n represents the additive Gaussian noise component, which
has zero mean and variance σ 2 = N 0 2 . Thus, the performance is obtained as [27]
⎛ Eb ⎞
Pb = Q⎜⎜ ⎟,
⎟ (4)
⎝ N 0 2 ⎠
where
∞
1 ⎛ x2 ⎞
Q(v ) = ∫ ⎜⎜⎝ − 2 ⎟⎟⎠ dx .
exp (5)
2π v
For a BPSK receiver subjected to an interfering signal, the decision variable Y has the
conditional expected value E [Y r , ϕ ] = E b + r cos ϕ and the variance σ 2 = N 0 2 , where
r cos ϕ is the contribution from the interference. In detail, r and ϕ denote the envelope and
the phase, respectively, of the interference. Thus, the conditional error probability, adjusted
for the interfering signal, becomes
⎛ E b + r cos ϕ ⎞
Pr [bit error r , ϕ ] = Q⎜ ⎟ . (6)
⎜ N 2 ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠
By assuming that the phase in the moment of decision is uniformly distributed over [0,2 π ]
and by using the information from the APD, the error probability is obtained as
2π ∞ ⎛
1 E b + r cos ϕ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ f R (r ) dr dϕ .
2π ∫0 ∫0 ⎜⎝
Pb = Q (7)
N0 2 ⎟
⎠
At this stage, the information from the measured APD can be used to provide the probability
density function of the envelope f R (r ) . This is based on certain assumptions, e.g. that the
bandwidth of the measuring detector is approximately the same as that of the analyzed radio
receiver, see section IID. By modifying E b with E b + r cos ϕ in the conventional error
expression and then averaging over the envelope and phase, the influence of the interference
is considered. This method can be generalized to other coherent digital modulation schemes
with bit-by-bit decisions. The method includes Gaussian noise, originated from thermal noise
in the receiver. If only the interference is to be considered, which means that the thermal
receiver noise is neglected, N 0 can be made arbitrarily small in practice. The method can be
summarized into the following steps:

1. Estimate f R (r ) out of measured APD R (r ) .

2. Adjust the decision variable with respect to the interference, e.g. substitute E b for
E b + r cos ϕ for coherent BPSK.
3. Use the error formula developed for AWGN and average for r and ϕ .

B. Example

The symbol error probability of a Quadriphase-Shift Keying (QPSK) modulated signal can be
derived with the same approach used in section IIIA. In order to evaluate the influence on a
two-dimensional modulation scheme such as coherent QPSK, the contribution from the
interfering signal also has to be described in two dimensions. To demonstrate the method, we
assume an interfering source that emits pulse-modulated Gaussian noise. Measurement
equipment with an APD detector measures the interfering signal. The measured pulses have a
pulse width Tp , which come periodically with a period time of T . This gives a duty factor of
α = Tp T .
The pulses and the noise between the pulses are characterized by Gaussian distributed noise
with the variance σ 1 and σ 2 , respectively. Nevertheless, the final pdf exhibits a non-
2 2

Gaussian distribution with the associated APD as

⎛ r2 ⎞ ⎛ r2 ⎞
APD R (r ) = α exp⎜ −
⎜ ⎟
2 ⎟
+ (1 − α ) exp⎜⎜ − ⎟.
2 ⎟
(8)
⎝ 2σ 1 ⎠ ⎝ 2σ 2 ⎠

This model often suits well as a model for signals radiated from electrical equipment [25].
The APD has been calculated for this interfering signal with the current parameters
σ 12 = 10 , σ 2 2 = 1 and α = 0.1 and is shown in Fig. 2. The APD
 0
10

−1
10

−2
10

−3
10
APD(r)

−4
10

−5
10

−6
10

0 1
10 10
Noise envelope, R

Figure 2: Calculated APD of pulse-modulated Gaussian noise with parameters

defined in the example.

does not indicate the order in which the envelope samples come in time. If the samples are
switched in time, they are still characterized by the same APD. It is worth noticing that as
long as the detector takes bit-by-bit decisions, which are used for signals without memory,
this does not matter. Only the statistics of r and ϕ are of importance for the performance.
This implies that you can create an APD through a polynomial or a simple mathematical
model equal to a measured APD of a microwave oven, for example, and use the simpler
model when the impact is to be determined. With the previously described parameters and
E b = 100 , the bit error probability can be calculated, see Fig. 3. The figure also shows the bit
error probability in the absence of interference source when only thermal receiver noise is
present.
 0
10

−1
10
Bit error probability, BEP

−2
Disturbance consisting
10 pulse modulated noise

−3
10

−4
10
No disturbance

−5
10

−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Signal−to−noise ratio, Eb/N0, [dB]

Figure 3: Estimated bit error probability of a QPSK signal with and without interfering
pulse-modulated Gaussian noise.

As QPSK symbols are mapped by two information bits, the symbol energy Es = 2E b , where
E b denotes the bit energy. Here the contribution from the interfering source to the decision
variable is defined with Es 2 + r cos ϕ instead of E s 2 in the inphase channel and with
Es 2 + r sin ϕ instead of Es 2 in the quadrature channel. By substituting Es 2 with
Es 2 + r cos ϕ in the inphase channel and Es 2 with Es 2 + r sin ϕ in the quadrature
channel, the conditional symbol error probability is obtained as [27]
⎛ Es 2 + r cos ϕ ⎞
Pr (symbol error r , ϕ ) = Q⎜ ⎟
⎜ N0 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ Es 2 + r sin ϕ ⎞ ⎛ Es 2 + r cos ϕ ⎞
+ Q⎜ ⎟ − Q⎜ ⎟. (9)
⎜ N 2 ⎟ ⎜ N 2 ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎝ 0 ⎠
⎛ Es 2 + r sin ϕ ⎞
* Q⎜ ⎟
⎜ N 2 ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠
Finally, the expression is averaged over r and ϕ . By assuming that the phase is uniformly
distributed over [0,2 π ] at the moment of decision, by using the symmetry of the cosine and
sine function and by assuming that the last term is relatively small, the symbol error
probability can be written as
 Pr (symbol error )
1
2π ∞ ⎛ Es 2 + r cos ϕ ⎞ . (10)
⎜ ⎟ f R (r ) dr dϕ
≤
π ∫0 ∫0 ⎜
Q
N0 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Furthermore, by using the assumptions of Gray coded symbols, the bit error probability can
be approximated as [28]
1
Pb = Pr (symbol error ) . (11)
2

IV. Emission requirements on APD not to exceed a certain BEP

The information provided by the APD detector about an interference signal can be used to
estimate the degradation on a radio receiver. However, we also want to reverse the problem in
order to restrict the maximum allowed APD. We will begin with the simplest modulation
method, BPSK, to illustrate the relation between the BEP and APD, and then proceed with a
general approach.
Adopting the assumptions of equal bandwidth mentioned in section IID, the APD of an
interference source can be used as an envelope estimate for the decision variable, from which
the impact on a digital receiver can be estimated. By neglecting AWGN, we will see that it is
possible to find the direct relationship between a certain BEP and the APD that is useful when
deriving emission requirements.
For a coherent BPSK receiver, the decision variable is
y = E b + r cos ϕ , (12)
if we assume that a +1 was transmitted and no AWGN is present. Thus, the conditional error
probability conditioned on a certain phase is
Pr [bit error ϕ ] =
[
Pr E b + r cos ϕ < 0 ϕ : π 2 ≤ ϕ ≤ 3π 2 , ] (13)
∞ ⎛ Eb ⎞
⎜− ⎟
= ∫ f R ( r ) dr = APD R
⎜ cos ϕ ⎟
Eb cos ϕ ⎝ ⎠
For this kind of receiver, we get an interpretation of the APD function. The value of the APD
is directly correlated to the conditional error probability. This is an interesting fact, because
there would normally not be any simple connection between a maximum allowed error rate
and a maximum allowed APD when a Gaussian noise is also present. If we assume the worst
possible phase value, ϕ = π , it is possible to obtain a relation between the maximum bit error
probability and the APD as
[ ] (
Pb,max = Pr E b − r < 0 = APD R E b . (14) )
This phase value assumption means that the interfering signal will work destructively entirely
against the desired signal. It constitutes a worst case of the interference and will result in the
maximum error probability. The expression shows that the bit error probability is always less
than or equal to the APD for E b . It implies that the APD of a measured interference source
for E b must not exceed the maximum acceptable bit error rate. By letting the measured
APD for E b be less than the determined maximum allowed error rate Pb,requirement , the error
rate will to always be lower than or equal to the acceptable one.
Such reasoning makes it possible to define requirements on the APD based on requirements
on a BEP level. The fact that the requirement corresponds to a worst case might lead to
unnecessarily severe requirements on allowed radiated interference, which might result in too
costly products. The usefulness of the bound has therefore been investigated in [24], where it
was stated that the bound, perhaps in a modified version, is useful. In the example analyzed,
the discrepancy between the average BEP and maximum BEP was considered to be
acceptably small.

By assuming statistical independence of the noise quadrature carriers, the relation between the
maximum BEP and the APD can be generalized for other coherent modulation schemes by
studying the signal constellation. For signals that exhibit statistically dependent quadrature
components, it has been shown that the resulting BEP of a Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
(QAM) system is only marginally affected by this property [29]. This means that the proposed
relation might be useful in practice also for situations when the quadrature components are
statistically dependent.

The distance between the closest symbols is defined as the minimum distance and is of
significance for the error probability of a coherent detector. The worst case symbol error
probability is achieved when the contribution from the interfering signal is directed toward the
closest symbol in the signal constellation. Considering the worst case, a symbol error occurs
when the envelope of the interference exceeds d min 2 . This is due to the fact that the border
between decision regions is, in a conventional coherent receiver, located in the middle
between two symbols. Therefore, the symbol error probability conditioned on a worst case
phase value Pr[symbol error] max can be obtained as

⎡ d ⎤ ⎛d ⎞
Pr[symbol error ] max = Pr ⎢r > min ⎥ = APD R ⎜ min ⎟ . (15)
⎣ 2 ⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠

The expression shows that the symbol error probability is always less than or equal to the
APD for a certain value. This implies that the APD of a measured interference source for the
value equal to d min 2 must not exceed the maximum acceptable bit error rate. By letting the
measured APD for the value d min 2 be less than the determined maximum allowed error rate,
the error rate will always be lower than or equal to what is acceptable. Such reasoning makes
it possible to define requirements on the APD based on requirements on a BEP level.
( )
Eq. (15) can be rewritten as Pr[symbol error ] wc = APD R β E b , where β takes different
values depending on the modulation scheme. The minimum distance for an M-ary Phase Shift
Keying (PSK) signal is [27]:

⎛ ⎛ 2π ⎞⎞
d min = 2 log 2 (M ) E b ⎜⎜1 − cos ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟ , (16)
⎝ ⎝M ⎠⎠

where M denotes the number of symbols; for example M = 8 results in β = 0.66 .

Furthermore, considering the number of bits that constitutes a symbol and assuming Gray
encoded symbols, the BEP can be approximated from the symbol error probability as
presented in Table 1, [28]. The bounds are derived for different modulation schemes such as
PSK, Pulse Amplitude Modulated (PAM), QAM and Frequency Shift Keying (FSK).
Table 1: Bounds derived for different modulation schemes

Mod. β Pr[bit error ] ≈ Relation Pb,max vs. APD

2-PSK 1 Pr[symbol error] (
Pb,max ≈ APD E b )
4-PSK 1 1/2* Pr[symbol error] ( )
Pb,max ≈ 1 2 APD E b
8-PSK 0.66 1/3*Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ 1 3 APD(0.66 E b )
16-PSK 0.39 1/4*Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ 1 4 APD(0.39 E b )
4-PAM 0.63 1/2*Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ 1 2 APD(0.63 E b )
8-PAM 0.37 1/3*Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ 1 3 APD(0.37 E b )
16-QAM 0.63 1/4*Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ 1 4 APD(0.63 E b )
64-QAM 0.38 1/6*Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ 1 6 APD(0.38 E b )
2-FSK 0.71 Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ APD(0.71 E ) b

4-FSK 1 1/3*Pr[symbol error] Pb,max ≈ 1 3 APD( E )b

For example, the bound of the BEP for a coherent BPSK receiver subjected to an interference
can be interpreted as follows. If the measured bit energy at the detector is E b ,1 , the maximum
( )
BEP never becomes higher than Pb,1 = APD E b,1 , whereas for a smaller bit energy E b,2 the
( )
BEP is bounded by the larger value Pb,2 = APD E b,2 , see Fig. 4.
APDR(r)

Pb,2
Pb,1

E b,2 Eb,1 Envelope r

Figure 4: Schematic illustration of a BPSK system.

To demonstrate how the derived bounds on the BEP can be used for emission requirement, we
assume that the BEP is restricted never to become higher than 1 ⋅ 10 −3 , which corresponds to a
typical requirement for voice transmission. For example, the subjective effect of bit errors for
voice transmission with pulse code modulation (PCM) is: 1 ⋅ 10 −6 not perceptible; 1 ⋅ 10 −5
single clicks; 1 ⋅ 10 −4 single but little distracting clicks; 1 ⋅ 10 −3 high density of clicks, which
disturb each speech level; 1 ⋅ 10 −2 strong disturbing crackle with low intelligibility [30].
Furthermore, the value of the bit energy at the detector must be determined. Here, we assume
that E b = 10µV . Inserting the determined values of the maximum allowed BEP and the bit
energy in the bounds described in Table 1, the requirements can be implemented as a point in
the APD for every modulation scheme. To ensure that the error rate of a receiver that is
subjected to an interfering signal does not exceed a certain error rate, the measured APD must
lay below the points, as illustrated in Fig 5. The figure shows measured data reported in [1]
concerning radiated interference from two different microwave ovens: A: Inverter-type of 600
W at 2.45 GHz and E: transformer-type of 500 W at 2.45 GHz. In the same figure, the
requirements, corresponding to a maximum BEP of 1 ⋅ 10 −3 and E b = 10µV , are displayed
with circles. If the measured APD lays below all the points, the impact on different radio
systems in Table 1 are guaranteed not to exceed the permitted level of the BEP. We can see
that the microwave oven of transformer-type (E) fulfills the requirement both at 1 m and 3 m.
This means that the radiated interference of this microwave oven will not cause a bit error rate
worse than 1 ⋅ 10 −3 . However, the micro-wave oven of inverter-type (A) does not fulfil the
requirement, and thus we cannot guarantee that the bit error rate is lower than the
requirement, although the average BEP might be lower than the requirement. It is important to
note that the requirement only places restrictions on the APD levels in a specified noise
envelope interval. In the example shown in Fig. 5, the APD is restricted between 3.8 ⋅ 10 −6 V
and 10 ⋅ 10 −6 V. For a higher or lower noise envelope, the interference can assume arbitrary
APD levels.

−1
10

−2
10

−3
10
APD (Prob[e>E])

−4
10

−5
10
Measured data, MWO A, 1 m
Measured data, MWO E, 1 m
Measured data, MWO A, 3 m
Measured data, MWO E, 3 m
−6 Requirement acc. to Table 1
10

−6 −5 −4 −3
10 10 10 10
Noise envelope, E, [V]
Figure 5: Illustration of the bounds implemented in an APD graph with measured
radiated interference from two different microwave ovens at 1 m and 3 m [1]. The
requirements are calculated for a maximum BEP of 1 ⋅ 10 −3 when E b = 10µV .

IV. Conclusions
It has previously been stated that the APD of an interference signal is strongly correlated to
the BEP of digital radio receivers. However, there the literature lacks of a theoretical
description of the relation between the APD of an interfering signal and the impact on a
digital receiver. This paper summarizes [23,24] with the aim of clarifying the theoretical
relation between the APD and the BEP. This paper presents a method of how to use these
results in practical applications. It demonstrates that the APD provides the necessary
information about an interference signal to estimate its degradation of a digital coherent radio
receiver under certain conditions. Estimation of the impact of an arbitrary interference on
digital coherent receivers has been presented in [12-14]. However, analyzing the performance
of a receiver optimized to AWGN that is subjected to non-Gaussian interference constitutes a
special case. These expressions are complicated and their use in practical applications is not
obvious. This paper proposes a systematic method of incorporating the contribution of an
interfering signal, which might be non-Gaussian provided by an APD measurement system, in
conventional error expressions developed for AWGN. The paper also suggests a possible
approach to defining emission requirements on the APD in order to control radiated
electromagnetic emission for the protection of radio communication systems.

References

[1] Y.Yamanaka, T. Shinozuka, “Measurement and estimation of BER degradation of PHS

due to electromagnetic disturbance from microwave ovens,” Trans. IEICE, B-II, no. 11,
Nov. 1996, pp 827-834 (translated into English).
[2] H. Kanemoto, S. Miyamoto, N. Morinaga, “A study on modeling of microwave oven
interference and optimum reception,” Proc. of 1998 IEEE Int. Symp. on EMC, Denver,
Colorado, USA, Aug. 1998.
[3] T. Kowada, Y. Hayashi, K. Yamane, T. Shinozuka, “Interference on wide-band digital
communication by disturbance in 2 GHz band,” Proc. on 1999 Int. Symp. on EMC, May
1999.
[4] A. D. Spaulding, C. J. Roubique, W. Q. Crichlow, “Conversion of the Amplitude-
Probability Distribution Function for Atmospheric Radio Noise From One Bandwidth to
Another,” J. Res. Bur. Stand. (Radio Propagation), sec. D, vol. 66, no. 6, 1962.
[5] Additional information on APD measuring equipment and draft CD for the amendment
to CISPR 16-1 Clause 6.2, CISPR/A/WG1, July 1998.
[6] A. S. Rosenbaum, F. E. Glave, “An Error-Probability Upper Bound for Coherent Phase-
Shift Keying with Peak-Limited Interference,” IEEE Trans. on EMC, vol. COM-22, no.
1, Jan. 1974.
[7] A. D. Spaulding, D. Middleton, “Reception in impulsive interference environment –
Part I: Coherent Detection,” IEEE Trans. on Comm., vol.COM-25, no. 9, September
1977, pp 910-923.
[8] S. Miyamoto, M. Katayama, N. Morinaga, “Performance analysis of QAM systems
under class A impulsive noise interference,” IEEE Trans. on EMC, vol 37, no 2, May
1995, pp 260-267.
[9] R. Prasad, A. Kegel, A. de Vos, ”Performance of Microcellular Mobile Radio in a
Cochannel Interference, Natural, and Man-Made Noise Environment,” IEEE Trans. on
Vehicular Tech., vol. 42, no. 1, Feb. 1993.
[10] B. Aazhang, H. V. Poor, “Performance of DS/SSMA Communications in Impulsive
Channels – Part I: Linear Correlation Receivers,” IEEE Trans. on Comm, vol. COM-35,
no. 11, Nov. 1987.
[11] T. Koizumi, Y. Inoue, M. Ohta, “The effect of non-Gaussian noise on the performance
of binary CPSK system,” IEEE Trans. on Comm., vol. COM-26, Feb. 1978.
[12] T. Öberg, M. Mettiji, “Robust Detection in Digital Communication,” IEEE Trans. on
Comm., vol. 43, No. 5, May 1995.
[13] A. Spaulding, “Locally Optimum and Suboptimum Detector Performance in a Non-
Gaussian Interference Environment,”IEEE Trans. on Comm., vol. COM-33, no. 6, June
1985.
[14] P. K. Enge, D. V. Sarwate, “Spread-Spectrum Multiple-Access Performance of
Orthogonal Codes: Impulsive Noise,” IEEE Trans. on Comm., vol. 36, no. 1, Jan. 1988.
[16] J. R. Hoffman, M. G. Cotton, et. al., “Measurements to Determine Potential Interference
to GPS Receiver from Ultrawideband Transmission Systems,” NTIA Report 01-384,
Febuary, 2001.
[17] M. Uchino, Y. Hayashi, T. Shinozuka, R. Sato, ”Development of low-cost high-
resolution APD measuring equipment,” Proc. on 1997 Int. Symp. on EMC, Beijing,
May, 1997, pp 253-256.
[18] M. Uchino, T. Shinozuka, R. Sato, “Development of APD measuring equipment and its
faculty.” Proc. on 1998 Int. Symp. on EMC, Denver, Aug., 1998.
[20] P. J. Kerry, “EMC standards – Quo Vadis?,” Proc. on the 2003 IEEE Int. Symp. on
EMC, Istanbul, Turkey, May, 2003.
[21] R. A. Shephard, “Measurements of amplitude probability distributions and power of
automobile ignition noise at HF,” IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Tech., vol. VT-23, no. 3,
Aug. 1974.
[22] M. Mettiji, T. Öberg, “Noise amplitude probabilty distribution in the 900 MHz
frequency band,” Proc. on International Conference of Communication Systems
ICCS’90, pp. 819-823, Singapore, November, 1990.
[23] K. Wiklundh, “A method to determine the impact from disturbing electrical equipment
on digital communication systems,” Proceedings on EMC Europe 2002, Sorrento, Italy,
Spet., 2002.
[24] K. Wiklundh, “A new approach to derive emission requirements on APD in order to
protect digital communication systems,” Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Int. Symp. on
EMC, Istanbul, Turkey, May, 2003.
[25] K. Wiklundh, “Bandwidth conversion of the APD for pulse modulated interference,
Technical report R009/2003, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, October,
2003 eller ta licavhandlingen?
[26] A. D. Spaulding, D. Middleton, “Reception in impulsive interference environment –
Part I: Coherent Detection,” IEEE Trans. on Comm., vol.COM-25, no. 9, Sept. 1977,
pp. 910-923.
[27] J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill International Editions,
1995.
[28] S. Haykin, Digital Communications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1988.
[29] S. Miyamoto, M. Katayama, N. Morinaga, ”Performance analysis of QAM systems
under class A impulsive noise interference, ”IEEE Trans. on EMC, vol. 37, no. 2, May
1995, pp 260-267.
[30] A. Knobloch, H. Garbe, “Critical review of converting spectral data into prospective bit
error rates,” Proc. on 2002 Int. Symp. on EMC, Minnesota, August, 2002, pp. 173-178.
[31] Y. Yamanaka, T. Shinozuka, “Statistical Parameter measurement of unwanted emission
from microwave ovens,” Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on EMC, 1995, pp. 57-61.
[32] Additional information on APD measuring equipment and draft CD for the amendment
to CISPR 16-1 Clause 6.2, CISPR/A/WG1, July, 1998.
[33] K. Wiklundh, “Impact of some interfering signals on an MSK receiver under fading
conditions,” Proc. of IEEE MILCOM’00, Los Angeles, USA, October, 2000.