Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Jong-Hyung Lee
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Electrical Engineering
(ABSTRACT)
Acknowledgements
It has been more than 5 years since I came to Virginia Tech, but I still remember
the excitement I felt when I saw the Drillfield for the first time. Dr. Jacobs, my advisor,
helped me keep that feeling alive through many long nights of research. I wish I could
adequately express my deep appreciation for his consistent guidance and encouragement
throughout my doctoral program.
I also wish to express my most sincere appreciation to the other members of my
committee, Drs. Besieris, Shaw, Woerner, and Brandt-Pearce. Their insight, expertise,
and wealth of knowledge were invaluable to me. Without their help, I could not have
completed this dissertation.
Finally, my deepest appreciation goes to my mother, brother, and sister. Their
understanding, encouragement and love have made this work both possible and
meaningful.
iii
Table of Contents
Title page
Abstract
ii
Acknowledgements
iii
Table of Contents
iv
viii
List of Acronyms
xiii
List of Symbols
xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction
15
20
23
2-1. Introduction
23
24
28
33
34
Method
2-6. Summary
37
iv
43
3-1. Introduction
43
45
46
49
53
53
61
4-1. Introduction
62
64
66
66
Signal
4-2-1. Theoretical Background
68
71
75
76
87
4-3-1. Pump-Probe Analysis with Sinusoidally Modulated
Pump Signal
89
95
4-4. Summary
98
106
5-1. Introduction
106
109
110
110
112
123
5-4. Summary
129
130
132
137
143
143
144
6-5. Summary
146
149
149
153
vi
155
References
159
Vita
167
vii
13
14
Chapter 2
Table 2-1 Comparison of Output RMS pulse width (st) with To = 70ps
26
29
38
39
Figure 2-4 NSD by perturbation method with N=1 (solid with * = 1st order
and b2 > 0, dash dot with * = 1st order and b2 < 0, solid with o = 2nd order and
b2 > 0, dash dot with o = 2nd order and b2 < 0)
40
Figure 2-5 Comparison of pulse shapes by the first order perturbation method
and split-step method (a) z/LD =0.2, b2 > 0, (b) z/LD =0.2, b2 < 0, (c) z/LD =0.5,
b2 > 0, (d) z/LD =0.5, b2 < 0
41
42
viii
Chapter 3
Table 3-1 Summary of the optimum input pulse widths and the minimum
output pulse widths in the normal dispersion region by the various methods.
( =
58
z
1)
LN
Figure 3-1 Comparison of RMS pulse width models with the simulated one.
Input pulse is a Gaussian shape and normal dispersion region is assumed.
(x = z/LD)
51
52
60
Figure 3-5 T(z) as a function of so2 in the normal dispersion region with a
65
Gaussian input.
Chapter 4
70
of
transmission distance.
80
Figure 4-3 Fourier series Coefficients evolution with nonlinearity (N=2). (a) at
three different distances, (b) |C1|,|C2|, and |C3| as a function of distance.
81
ix
82
83
85
-3
86
88
100
101
102
103
104
Figure 4-15 CPM penalty (a) conventional fiber system, and (b) DSF system
105
Chapter 5
109
113
126
108
Figure 5-2 Normalized spectral densities of noise source (a) without notch
filter, (b) with notch filter
115
116
117
118
119
Figure 5-7 b2 = +0.1 ps2/km; (a) Pa(z), (b) Pa(z)/ Pa(0), (c) Pb(z),
and (d) Pa(z)/ Pb(z)
120
Figure 5-8 b2 = -0.1 ps2/km; (a) Pa(z), (b) Pa(z)/ Pa(0), (c) Pb(z),
120
121
121
122
xi
123
127
128
Chapter 6
Figure 6-1 Spectrum-Sliced WDM system
131
132
135
136
140
141
142
Figure 6-8 Q-factor of NBER with non-ideal EDFA (a) EDFA noise effects on
the sensitivity of NBER (Pv= 40mW), (b) NBER sensitivity with gain
modeling (Ps =15dBm)
147
148
xii
List of Acronyms
ASE
BER
BPF
Band-Pass Filter
CPM
Cross-Phase Modulation
DSF
Dispersion-Shifted Fiber
DWDM
Dense-WDM
EOP
Eye-Opening Penalty
FWM
Four-Wave Mixing
GVD
ICI
Inter-Channel Interference
ISI
Inter-Symbol Interference
LD
Laser Diode
LED
NBER
NLSE
NPR
NRZ
Non-Return to Zero
NSD
PRBS
RF-FDM
RMS
RZ
Return to Zero
SBS
SNR
SPM
Self-Phase Modulation
SRP
SRS
SS-WDM
Spectrum-Sliced WDM
WDM
xiii
List of Symbols
A(z,t)
Aeff
Bo
Bt
Channel bandwidth
CT
C(t)
Auto-covariance
Dispersion parameter, D = d 1 = 22c 2
LD
To2
Dispersion distance, LD =
2
LN
Nonlinear distance, L N =
Lw
Walk-off distance, Lw =
M(%)
Nonlinearity parameter, N 2 =
Po
Pavg
Pa
Output power of the BPF without the notch filter at the input
Pb
Output power of the BPF with the notch filter at the input
Q-factor, Q =
d vg
1
Po
To
v (1 ) v (2 )
1
g
1
g
To
D
LD
LN
1
za
za
Po e z dz
1 0
where m1,0 and s1,0 are the mean and
1 + 0
Bit rate
Tb
Bit period
xiv
Tc
To
Tr
U(z,t)
Walk-off parameter, d = D( )d D 2 1 = D
1
to
vg
Group velocity
za
Amplifier spacing
zc
Df
Dl
Fiber loss
b2
b3
Wavelength
lo
Center wavelength
lZD
smin
so
so,opt
xv
st
sw
t
To
tc
Correlation time, c =
~c
Tc
C ( ) d
T
c
Angular frequency
wp
xvi
Chapter 1
Introduction
We are now faced with the arrival of a multi-media society built around the
sharing of voice, text, and video data. It is predicted that over 20 million computers will
be interconnected by the year 2000. One of the key foundations of this information
society is high capacity optical fiber communications, which has been one of the fastest
growing industries since the 1980s.
In recent years, the advent of erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) is one of
the most notable breakthroughs in fiber optic communication technology. Before the
emergence of EDFAs, the standard method of compensating fiber loss was to space
electronic regenerators periodically along the transmission link. A regenerator consists of
a photo-detector, electronic processing and amplification block, and a transmitter.
Functionally, it performs optical-to-electrical conversion, electronic processing and
electrical-to-optical conversion, and retransmission of the regenerated signal. The
advantage of regenerative systems is that transmission impairments such as noise,
dispersion, and nonlinearities do not accumulate, which makes it easy to design
transmission links. However, electronic blocks in regenerators prevent exploitation of the
huge bandwidth of the fiber. Furthermore, since the electronics are normally designed for
a specific bit rate and modulation format, it is necessary to replace all the regenerative
repeaters along the link when the system capacity must be increased. On the other hand,
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
optical amplifiers like EDFAs simply amplify the optical signal by several orders of
magnitude without being limited by electronic speed. In addition, optical amplification is
bit-rate and modulation format independent, which implies that optically amplified links
can be upgraded by replacing terminal equipments alone.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
However, there was still a strong demand to increase repeater spacing further, which
could be achieved by operating at 1.55m where optical fibers have an intrinsic
minimum loss around 0.2dB/km. Larger dispersion in the 1.55m window delayed
moving to a new generation until dispersion shifted fiber became available. Dispersion
shifted fibers reduce the large amount of dispersion in the1.55m window by modifying
the index profile of the fibers while keeping the benefit of low loss at the 1.55m
window. However, growing communication traffic and demand for larger bandwidth per
user revealed a significant drawback of electronic regenerator systems, namely
inflexibility to upgrade. Because all the regenerators are designed to operate at a specific
data rate and modulation format, all of them needed to be replaced to convert to a higher
data rate. The difficulty of upgradability has finally been removed by optical amplifiers,
which led to a completely new generation of optical communication. An important
advance was that an erbium-doped single mode fiber amplifier (EDFA) at 1.55m was
found to be ideally suited as an amplifying medium for modern fiber optic
communication systems. Invention of the EDFA had a profound impact especially on the
design of long-haul undersea systems. Trans-oceanic systems installed recently like TAT
(Transatlantic Telephone)-12/13 [2] and TPC (Transpacific Crossings)-5 [3] were
designed with EDFAs, and the transmission distance reaches over 8000km without
electronic repeaters between terminals. The broad gain spectrum (3~4THz) of an EDFA
also makes it practical to implement wavelength-division-multiplexing (WDM) systems.
It is highly likely that WDM systems will bring another big leap of transmission
capacity of optical communication systems. Some research groups have already
demonstrated that it is possible to transmit almost a Tbits/s of total bit rate over thousands
of kilometers. Some of the important experimental results of dense WDM systems are
summarized in Table 1-2 [4-9]. In 1999, for example, N. Bergano et al. successfully
demonstrated transmission of 640 Gb/s over 7200km using a re-circulating loop [8] while
G. Vareille et al. demonstrated the transmission capacity of 340Gb/s over 6380km on a
straight-line test bed [9]. These results indeed show that remarkable achievements have
been made in recent years, and let us forecast that optical communication systems in the
next generation will have a transmission capacity of a few hundreds of Gb/s.
Chapter 1: Introduction
While high capacity dense WDM systems keep heading to closer channel spacing
and broader bandwidth of optical amplifiers to fully exploit the fiber bandwidth, on the
other hand, upgrading embedded systems remains as another challenge. As of the end of
1997, about 171 million km of fiber have been deployed world wide, of which 69 million
km is deployed in North America [10]. Unfortunately, most of the embedded fibers are
conventional single-mode fibers which have a large dispersion at the 1.55m window.
Upgrading these systems will require various dispersion combating techniques which are
highly tuned at a specific system to optimize system performance.
Year
Bit Rate
Repeater Spacing
Major Technologies
1980
45Mb/s
10km
-. = 0.8 m
-. Multi-mode fiber
-. GaAs LED
1987
1.7Gb/s
50km
1990
2.5Gb/s
60~70km
1996
5Gb/s
Optical Amplifier
Spacing
33~82km
-. = 1.3 m
-. Single-mode fiber
-. InGaAsP Laser Diode
-. = 1.55 m
-. Dispersion shifted
fiber
-. = 1.55 m
-. Optical Amplifier
-. WDM
Chapter 1: Introduction
Year
Channel
Number
3
Transmission
Distance
10,000 [km]
Amplifier
Spacing
50 [km]
Signal
Format
Soliton
Ref.
1996
Bit
Rate/ch.
20 Gb/s
1996
5 Gb/s
20
9,000 [km]
45 [km]
NRZ
[5]
1997
5 Gb/s
32
9,300 [km]
45 [km]
[6]
1998
10 Gb/s
64
500 [km]
100 [km]
NRZ &
Soliton
NRZ
1999
10 Gb/s
64
7,200 [km]
50 [km]
1999
10 Gb/s
34
6380 [km]
50 [km]
Chirped
RZ
RZ
[4]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Chapter 1: Introduction
Optical waves and acoustic waves in a fiber can interact to cause stimulated
Brillouin scattering. In stimulated Brillouin scattering, a strong optical wave traveling in
one direction (forward) provides narrow band gain for light propagating in the opposite
direction (backward). Some of the forward-propagating signal is redirected to backward,
resulting in power loss at the receiver. If the SBS threshold is defined as the input power
at which the scattered power increases as large as the input power in the undepleted pump
approximation, the SBS threshold power is proportional to[14,26],
PBth ~
1
gB
1 +
(1.1)
where gB is the Brillouin gain coefficient, Dns is the linewidth of the source, and DnB is
the Brillouin linewidth.
Eq. (1.1) indicates that the threshold power will be increased as the linewidth of
the source increases. For optical fibers at 1550nm, the Brillouin linewidth is about
20MHz, so optical signals modulated at higher bit rates will experience lesser effects of
SBS. From a system point of view, the relatively narrow gain spectrum of SBS prevents
interactions among channels in a WDM system, which makes SBS independent of
channel number. Only each individual channel signal needs to be below the threshold
power. Another characteristics of SBS which make it less troublesome compared to other
nonlinear effects is that the threshold of SBS does not decrease in a long amplified
system because practical optical amplifiers have one or more optical isolators. The
optical isolators prevent accumulations of the backscattered light from SBS.
Therefore, although SBS could be a detrimental nonlinear effect in an optical
communication system, system limitations are usually set by other nonlinear effects [15].
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
n = no + n 2 I (t )
(1.2)
NL =
2
n2 I (t ) z
(1.3)
where l is the wavelength of the optical wave, and z is the propagation distance.
Since the nonlinear phase shift is dependent on its own pulse shape, it is called self-phase
modulation (SPM). When the optical signal is time varying, such as an intensity
modulated signal, the time-varying nonlinear phase shift results in a broadened spectrum
of the optical signal. If the spectrum broadening is significant, it may cause cross talk
between neighboring channels in a dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM)
system.
Chapter 1: Introduction
achieved partially in the anomalous dispersion region1where the linear chirp induced by
chromatic dispersion and the nonlinear one due to SPM have opposite signs. When a
transmission system is designed to achieve the optimum compensation of the linear chirp
and the nonlinear chirp, it is often called a nonlinear assisted transmission system [12].
Another nonlinear phase shift originating from the Kerr effect is cross-phase
modulation (CPM). While SPM is the effect of a pulse on it own phase, CPM is a
nonlinear phase effect due to optical pulses in other channels. Therefore, CPM occurs
only in multi-channel systems. In a multi-channel system, the nonlinear phase shift of the
signal at the center wavelength li is described by [12],
NL =
2
n2 z I i (t ) + 2 I j (t )
i
i j
(1.4)
The first term is responsible for SPM, and the second term is for CPM. Eq. (1.4) might
lead to a speculation that the effect of CPM could be at least twice as significant as that of
SPM. However, CPM is effective only when pulses in the other channels are
synchronized with the signal of interest. When pulses in each channel travel at different
group velocities due to dispersion, the pulses slide past each other while propagating.
Figure 1-1 illustrates how two isolated pulses in different channels collide with each
other. When the faster traveling pulse has completely walked through the slower
traveling pulse, the CPM effect becomes negligible. The relative transmission distance
for two pulses in different channels to collide with each other is called the walk-off
distance, Lw [11].
Lw =
To
v (1 ) v (2 )
1
g
1
g
To
D
(1.5)
The anomalous dispersion region has a negative sign of b2, the second order propagation constant. b2 is
10
Chapter 1: Introduction
where To is the pulse width, vg is the group velocity, and l1, l2 are the center wavelength
of the two channels. D is the dispersion coefficient, and Dl = |l1-l2|.
When dispersion is significant, the walk-off distance is relatively short, and the
interaction between the pulses will not be significant, which leads to a reduced effect of
CPM. However, the spectrum broadened due to CPM will induce more significant
distortion of temporal shape of the pulse when large dispersion is present, which makes
the effect of dispersion on CPM complicated.
M=
1 3
( N ch N ch2 )
2
(1.6)
where Nch is the number of channels, and M is the number of newly generated sidebands.
For example, eight channels can produce 224 side bands. Since these mixing products
can fall directly on signal channels, proper FWM suppression is required to avoid
significant interference between signal channels and FWM frequency components.
also called as the group-velocity dispersion parameter and will be defined in Section 1-3.
11
Chapter 1: Introduction
When all channels have the same input power, the FWM efficiency, h, can be
expressed as the ratio of the FWM power to the output power per channel, and is
proportional to [21],
n2
2
Aeff D( )
(1.7)
Three different effects from the nonlinear refractive index, namely, SPM, CPM,
and FWM have been discussed. However, in a real system, especially in a DWDM
system where channels are packed very closely to each other, the broadened spectrum
due to the three nonlinear effects is usually indistinguishable. The system performance
degradations by fiber nonlinearities are, in general, assessable by solving the nonlinear
Schrdinger equation (NLSE). The NLSE and a numerical algorithm to solve the NLSE
the split-step Fourier method - will be introduced in the following section.
12
Chapter 1: Introduction
Interfering Pulse
Signal Pulse
z = zo
z = zo + Lw
13
Chapter 1: Introduction
z = 0 km
f1
f2
f1
f2
z = zo km
2f1-f2
2f2-f1
Original Frequencies
New Frequencies
14
Chapter 1: Introduction
2E
1 2E
2 P (E )
=
o
c 2 2t
2t
(1.8)
where E is the electric vector, mo is the vacuum permeability, c is the speed of light, and P
is the polarization density field.
At very weak optical powers, the induced polarization has a linear relationship with E
such that
(1)
PL (r , t ) = o (t t ) E(r , t ) dt
(1.9)
where o is the vacuum permittivity, and (1) is the first order susceptibility.
To account for fiber nonlinearities, the polarization can be written in two parts.
P(r, t ) = PL (r, t ) + PNL (r, t )
(1.10)
PNL (r , t ) = o
( 3)
(1.11)
The third order susceptibility, c(3), is a fourth rank tensor, and could have 81 different
terms. However, in isotropic media like a single mode fiber operating far from any
15
Chapter 1: Introduction
resonance, the number of independent terms in the third order susceptibility is reduced to
one [25]. Eq.(1.9) to (1.11) can be used in Eq.(1.8) to derive the propagation equation in
nonlinear dispersive fibers. However, a few simplifying assumptions are generally made
to solve Eq.(1.8). First, PNL is treated as a small perturbation of PL , and the field
polarization is maintained along the fiber. Another assumption is that the index difference
between core and cladding is very small (so called weakly guiding approximation), and
the center frequency of the wave is assumed to be much greater than the spectral width of
the wave (so called quasi-monochromatic assumption). The quasi-monochromatic
assumption is analogous to low-pass equivalent modeling of bandpass electrical systems,
and is equivalent to the slowly varying envelope approximation in the time domain.
Finally, the propagation constant, b(w), is approximated by a few first terms of a Taylor
series expansion about the carrier frequency, wo, that is,
( ) = o + ( o )1 +
1
( o )2 2 + 1 ( o )3 3 + L
2
6
(1.12)
where
d n
n = n
d =
The second order propagation constant, b2 [ps2/km], accounts for the dispersion effects in
fiber-optic communication systems. Depending on the sign of b2, the dispersion region
can be classified into two regions, normal (b2 > 0) and anomalous (b2 < 0). Qualitatively,
in the normal-dispersion region, the higher frequency components of an optical signal
travel slower than the lower frequency components. In the anomalous dispersion region,
the opposite occurs.
[ps/(nmkm)], which is called the dispersion parameter2. D is defined as D = d 1 , and
d vg
16
Chapter 1: Introduction
2 =
2
D
2c
(1.13)
A( z , t ) = A( z , t )
z
2
(linear attenuation)
2 2
+ j
A( z , t )
2 2t
3 3
+
A( z , t )
6 3t
j A( z , t ) A( z , t )
2
+ jTR
2
A( z , t ) A( z , t )
t
2
A( z , t ) A( z , t )
o t
(1.14)
where A(z,t) = the slowly varying envelope of the electric field
z = propagation distance
t = t -z/vg ( t = physical time, vg = the group velocity at the center wavelength)
Chapter 1: Introduction
considerably simplified (as indicated below) because the Raman effect term and the selfsteepening effect term are negligible compared to the Kerr effect term [11].
A
2A
i
2
= 2 2 A + i A A
z
2
2
t
(1.15)
In Eq.(1.15), the third order dispersion term is also ignored, because this is negligible
compared to the second order dispersion term unless operation is near the zero-dispersion
wavelength. Considering that the bit period of a 10Gb/s non-return-to-zero (NRZ) system
is 100ps ( > 1ps), Eq.(1-15) can serve as a propagation equation in contemporary optical
communication systems with a fairly good accuracy.
Chapter 1: Introduction
A( z , t )
= L + N A( z , t )
z
(1.16)
2
j
2
where the linear operator, L = 2 2 , and the nonlinear operator, N = j A( z , t ) .
2 2 t
When the electric field envelope, A(z,t), has propagated from z to z+Dz, the analytical
solution of Eq.(1.16) will have a form of
( (
))
A( z + z , t ) = exp z L + N A( z , t )
(1.17)
In the split-step Fourier method, it is assumed that the two operators commute with each
other. That is,
( ) ( )
A( z + z , t ) exp zL exp zN A( z , t )
(1.18)
Eq.(1.18) suggests that A(z+Dz,t) can be estimated by applying the two operators
independently. If Dz is sufficiently small, Eq.(1.18) can give a fairly good result. Dz is
2
usually chosen such that the maximum phase shift ( max = A p z , Ap=peak value of
A(z,t)) due to the nonlinear operator is below a certain value. It has been reported that
when max is below 0.05 rad, the split-step Fourier method gives a good result for
simulation of most contemporary optical communication systems [12]. The simulation
time of Eq.(1.18) will greatly depend on the size of Dz. To reduce simulation time, a
more refined algorithm, the so called symmetrized split-step Fourier method, was
devised3 [11,82], and that method is used throughout this dissertation.
Mathematically, the symmetrized split-step Fourier method can be expressed as follows.
3
The symmetrized split-step Fourier method was apparently first applied in fiber propagation in [11], but
was initially used in [82] for study of the interaction of intense electromagnetic beams with the atmosphere.
19
Chapter 1: Introduction
z + z
z
z
A( z + z , t ) exp
L exp N ( z ) dz exp
L A( z , t )
2
2
(1.19)
While Eq.(1.18) assumes that nonlinearities are lumped at every Dz, Eq.(1.19) assumes
the nonlinearities are distributed through Dz, which is more realistic. When Dz is
sufficiently small, the evaluation of the nonlinear operator is approximated as
z + z
z
N ( z )dz
N ( z ) + N ( z + z )
2
(1.20)
Chapter 1: Introduction
and understood despite a rich collection of literature dealing with fiber nonlinearities (For
example, [11-13, 26]). Therefore, it is crucial to understand fiber nonlinearities and their
effects on fiber-optic communication systems.
In optical communication systems, the input signal to the fiber is usually a
composite optical signal modulated with information bit streams. When all the input
signal frequencies interact due to fiber nonlinearities, the output bit stream may behave in
a complicated way giving adverse effects on system performance. The output waveform
can be obtained by solving the nonlinear Schrdinger equation (NLSE). In general, it is
not possible to solve the equation analytically. Conventional ways of analyzing fiber
nonlinearities either rely on pure numerical methods such as the split-step Fourier method
or rely on analytical solutions with over simplifications such as the assumption of
nonlinearity alone.
The key objective of this dissertation is to develop analytical models to
characterize fiber nonlinearities. First, the perturbation approach will be used to solve
the NLSE. Secondly, an alternate characterization technique, the root-mean-square
(RMS) width, will be studied. The response of fiber to sinusoidally modulated input will
also be studied to see its utility in measuring system performance in the presence of the
fiber nonlinearity both in a single channel system and in a multi-channel system. Finally,
the combined effect of fiber nonlinearity and the stochastic nature of the input signal on
the system performance will be studied.
Chapter 1: Introduction
followed by the derivations of the analytical modeling of the RMS widths both in the
time and spectral domains. With the developed RMS models, the optimum pulse width to
minimize the output pulse width is found and compared with the simulation results. The
optimum pulse width to minimize the product of the output RMS pulse width and the
output RMS spectrum width is also studied. In Chapter 4, first the theoretical
background will be discussed on how the sinusoidal response can be used to assess the
worst case system performance of an optical fiber communication system. In a single
channel system, eye opening penalties are compared with the magnitude reduction of
fundamental Fourier series coefficient of the output field in both dispersion regions,
normal and anomalous. Numerical results indicate that the sinusoidal analysis can be a
useful metric in assessing worst-case performance in the presence of fiber nonlinearities.
In a multi channel system, an analytical expression is derived to estimate intensity
interferences due to cross-phase modulation when the interfering channel is sinusoidally
modulated. The valid range of the expression is compared with three-channel system
simulations by the split-step Fourier method.
studied to assess transmission effects of the stochastic nature of input signal in the
presence of fiber nonlinearities. Furthermore, in Chapter 6, a study is made of how fiber
nonlinearities can be utilized to improve the performance of a spectrum-sliced WDM
system in which each channel signal is noise-like. Numerical simulations show that
bandwidth expansion obtained by fiber nonlinearities can reduce the correlation time of
the signal process when combined with a passive optical filter. The reduced correlation
time will contribute to reduced excess noise of the photo-detected signal. Optimum
bandwidth of the optical filter after bandwidth expansion has also been determined
through simulation of correlation time and Q factor. The chapter closes by discussion of
limitations of the bandwidth expansion technique. Finally, a summary of the primary
contributions of the dissertation is given in Chapter 7. Future research direction is also
suggested.
22
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2
Analysis of Fiber Nonlinearities by
Perturbation Method
2-1. Introduction
Recently, K. V. Peddanarappagari and M. Brandt-Pearce solved the nonlinear
Schrdinger equation by the Volterra series transfer function approach [27,28]. Because
this approach gives a closed-form solution, it can be a useful design tool for a nonlinear
equalizer at the output of the fiber. However, its complicated analytical form not only
makes it hard to get physical insight, but also in many cases makes it less attractive in
computational time compared to the split-step Fourier method. Additionally, its range of
validity, that is, the valid range of the various physical parameters involved to assure
accuracy within an allowable tolerance, has not been fully studied.
In this chapter, firstly the normalized NLSE is derived. The normalized NLSE
will make it more convenient to treat various physical parameters in a unified way. Next,
the perturbation approach is applied to solve the normalized NLSE, and it is shown
mathematically that the approach is equivalent to the Volterra series transfer function
23
method. Finally, numerical results by the perturbation method will be compared with the
result of the split-step Fourier method to determine its valid range of parameters.
To2
LD =
2
(2.1)
1
Po
(2.2)
LN =
where b2 is the second order propagation constant, g is the nonlinear coefficient, and Po is
the peak power of the slowly varying envelope, A(z,t). The parameter To is an arbitrary
temporal characteristic value of the initial pulse. To is often defined as either full width
half maximum (the pulse 3dB width) or the rise time of the pulse, Tr [12]. In NRZ
system, typically, Tr is about 25% of the bit duration, Tb.
24
When the slowly varying envelope, A(z,t), is normalized by its peak value such that
A( z , t ) = Po U ( z , t ) , Eq.(1.15) can be expressed in terms of LD and LN as below.
U sgn( 2 ) 2U exp(z ) 2
=
U U
z
2 LD 2
LN
(2.3)
Pavg
1
=
za
za
P e
o
dz =
Po
(1 e za )
z a
(2.4)
and
U sgn( 2 ) 2U
1
2
i
=
U U
2
z
2 LD
LN
(2.5)
1
Pavg
(2.6)
LN =
Eq.(2.5) is equivalent to Eq.(2.3) without a loss term, but with a constant optical power,
Pavg, and its validity will be justified subsequently. Figure 2-1 illustrates an optically
25
amplified system and its equivalent lossless system. To check the validity of Eq.(2.5),
Eq.(2.3) and Eq.(2.5) are compared by the split-step Fourier method with a Gaussian
input pulse of 70ps initial half-width at 1/e-intensity point. To exaggerate power
fluctuation, fiber loss is assumed to be 0.25 [dB/km], which is somewhat larger than the
typical value of 0.2 [dB/km], and, in addition, amplifier spacing is assumed to be 80km,
which is also somewhat larger than typical value of ~ 50km. Amplifier gain (G) is set to
compensate fiber loss exactly such that G = exp(+aza). In this case, the average power
can be obtained either by Eq.(2.4) or by the relationship
Pavg = Po
G 1
. Simulation
GlnG
parameters are summarized below and the results are in Table 2-1.
[mm]
[1/mW]
[1/(kmmW)]
[ps2/km]
[mW]
; initial input peak power
[dB/km]
; power loss
[dB]
; optical amplifier gain
[km]
; amplifier spacing
Simulation Results
Table 2-1 Comparison of Output RMS pulse width (st) with To = 70ps
Output Pulse Width
(st) by Eq.(2.3)
(st) by Eq.(2.5)
z =2,400km
121.04ps
121.36ps
z =9,600km
438.56ps
442.93ps
26
To compare the two equations, the output root-mean-square (RMS) pulse widths are
calculated at two transmission distances, z =2,400km and z =9,600km. Simulation results
(Table 2-1) show that the output pulse widths obtained by the two equations are very
close to each other even with 20dB power fluctuation and with 120 amplifiers or a total
propagation distance of 9,600km. Therefore, a lossless system modeling with average
power is a good approximation, and from now on, it is assumed that signal power is its
averaged value along the transmission link and L N will be denoted as L N unless it is
necessary to distinguish these.
If we normalize distance by the dispersion distance, LD, such that x = z/LD,
Eq.(2.5) can be further simplified as below.
U
1
2U
2
= i sgn( 2 ) 2 + iN 2 U U
(2.7)
2
LD Pavg To
where N =
=
.
LN
2
2
The resulting Eq. (2.7) is called the normalized NLSE. It has some advantages over
Eq.(1.15) since it involves only a single dimensionless parameter N, which makes the
equation easier to deal with and might give better physical insight. Additionally, the
normalized units allow us to use the perturbation approach [29]. Since the perturbation
approach is based on the approximation by mathematical modeling, it is necessary to
determine the order of magnitude of the physical parameters involved. However it is hard
to use Eq.(1.15) because the various physical parameters involved make it difficult to
determine their relative strength. For example, if the length of a certain parameter is 1m,
that is a very small number compared to the propagation distance of a fiber optic
communication system while its a very large number compared to the wavelength of the
light source.
The range of N values can be estimated using the typical values of fiber
parameters. The typical values of dispersion coefficient, b2, and the nonlinear coefficient,
g, of conventional single mode fiber at the 1.55mm window are
20 [ps2/km] and
27
2 [km-1W-1], respectively. When we assume the average power of optical signal, Pavg, is
in the range of 0.1mw to 10mW, the nonlinear distance, LN, ranges from 50 km to
5,000km. Similarly, bit rates of 2.5Gb/s to 10Gb/s result in 31.25 km to 500 km for the
dispersion distance, LD. In the calculation of LD, the parameter To is assumed as the pulse
rise time which is set to 25% of bit period which is a typical value in NRZ systems. The
2
2
= 0.0625 , and N max
= 10 .
calculated LD and LN give N min
In the case of dispersion-shifted fiber (DSF), which has typical values of |b2| = 3
2
2
[ps2/km] and g = 2.7 [km-1W-1], the range of N2 is from N min
= 0.0135 to N max
= 135 .
Again the bit rate is assumed in the range of 2.5Gb/s to 10Gb/s, and the average power
from 0.1mW to 10mW.
In the next section, perturbation solution of the normalized NLSE will be derived,
and the result will be compared with the Volterra series transfer function.
U
2U
1
= i sgn( 2 ) 2
(2.8)
By taking the Fourier transform, the equation can be expressed as an ordinary differential
equation.
u
1
= sgn( 2 ) 2 u
(2.9)
where u = [U ( , )] . []
is the Fourier transform operator.
28
Po
P [mW]
za
2za
3za
z [km]
Pave
P [mW]
za
2za
3za
z [km]
Figure 2-1 (a) Power fluctuation in an optically amplified system (Eq.(2.3)) (b) its
equivalent model (Eq.(2.5))
29
(2.10)
(2.11)
where N ( z , ) = U (0, )
(2.12)
z
.
LN
Even though we can find the analytical solutions of the NLSE in these two extreme cases,
typical optical communication systems usually do not fall into either of the extreme
cases. In that case, numerical approaches are usually required to solve the NLSE. While a
numerical approach like the split-step Fourier method is known to be accurate, it is time
consuming and doesnt provide any physical insight.
In this section, we will attempt to find the perturbation solution of the normalized
NLSE. While the perturbation approach may not give a solution as accurate as numerical
approaches, the approach can provide better physical insight to understand how
dispersion and nonlinearity interact.
(2.13)
30
(U ( 0) ( , ) + V (1) ( , ) + 2V ( 2) ( , ) + L)
= sgn( 2 )
1 2
(U ( 0) ( , ) + V (1) ( , ) + 2V ( 2) ( , ) + L)
2
2
2
U ( 0) ( , ) + V (1) ( , ) + 2V ( 2) ( , ) + L U ( 0) ( , ) + V (1) ( , ) + 2V ( 2) ( , ) + L
(2.14)
By equating the terms proportional to n separately for each value of n,
U ( 0 )
1 2U ( 0)
= sgn( 2 )
2 2
(2.15)
2
V (1)
1 2V (1)
= sgn( 2 )
U (0) U (0)
2
2
V ( 2)
1 2V ( 2)
i
= sgn( 2 )
2 U ( 0) V (1) + U ( 0) (V (1) ) * U ( 0 )
2
(2.16)
(2.17)
M
and so forth. Here, * denotes the complex conjugate.
u ( , ) u ( 0 ) ( , ) + u (1) ( , ) + u ( 2 ) ( , ) + L
(2.18)
where u(0)(x,w ) is the solution of the dispersion alone case which is given by Eq.(2.10).
Higher order terms in the frequency domain are defined to include N parameter for
31
2
u (1) ( , ) j
= sgn( 2 ) 2 u (1) ( , ) + jN 2 U ( 0) ( , ) U ( 0 ) ( , )
(2.19)
2
*
u ( 2 ) ( , ) j
= sgn( 2 ) 2 u ( 2 ) ( , ) + jN 2 2 U ( 0 ) ( , ) U (1) ( , ) + U ( 0 ) ( , ) U (1) ( , ) U ( 0 ) ( , )
(2.20)
M
where U (1) ( , ) = V (1) ( , ) , and {} denotes Fourier transform with respect to .
We may expect that including higher order terms will improve the accuracy of the
perturbed solution of Eq.(2.18). However, calculations of higher order terms will increase
the numerical load tremendously, which makes the perturbation approach less attractive.
Therefore it will be interesting to find the valid range of N and propagation distance for
which the perturbation solution, up to the first or the second order terms, is valid within a
given tolerance. The valid range of parameter values will be discussed in Section 2.5.
32
H 1 ( , ) = exp sgn( 2 ) 2
2
(2.21)
H 3 (1 , 2 , 3 , )
j
2
2
2
exp sgn( 2 )( 1 2 + 3 ) exp sgn( 2 )( 1 2 + 3 ) 2
2
= jN 2
j
j
2
2
2
sgn( 2 )( 1 2 + 3 ) sgn( 2 )(1 2 + 3 ) 2
2
2
(2.22)
1
(2 ) 2
(1 , 2 , 1 + 2 , )u (1 )u * ( 2 )u ( 1 + 2 )d1 d 2
(2.23)
where u()=u(,0).
In Eq.(2.23), uV(1) ( , ) is equivalent to the unperturbed solution, u ( 0) ( , ) , because
both are the linear solution of the NLSE. In addition, we can show that the third-order
Volterra kernel output, uV(3) ( , ) , is equivalent to the first-order perturbed solution,
u (1) ( , ) in Eq.(2.18).
By differentiating uV(3) ( , ) with respect to ,
uV(3) ( , )
1
=
(2 ) 2
H 3 (1 , 2 , 1 + 2 , )
u (1 )u * ( 2 )u ( 1 + 2 )d1 d 2
(2.24)
where
33
H3 (1, 2 , 1 + 2 , )
1
= j sgn(2 )(1 2 + 3 )2 H3 (1, 2 , 3 , ) + jN 2 H1(1, ) H1* (2 , )H1 (3 , )
Then
uV(3) (, )
1
=
(2 ) 2
+
1
(2 ) 2
j 2 sgn(
jN
j
jN 2
= 2 sgn( 2 )uV(3) (, ) +
2
(2 ) 2
H ( , )H
1
*
1
= 2 sgn( 2 )uV(3) (, ) + jN 2
u (1) (1 , ) uV(1) ( 2 , ) uV(1) ( 1 + 2 , )d1d 2
2 V
2
(2 )
2
j
= sgn( 2 ) 2 uV(3) (, ) + jN 2 U (0) ( , ) U (0) ( , )
2
(2.25)
The resulting equation has the same form of Eq.(2.19) which comes from the perturbation
approach. Therefore we can conclude that both of these approaches are equivalent at least
up to the third-order of the Volterra approach.
the fundamental soliton which propagates without change of pulse shape for arbitrarily
long distance in an ideal case. When the input pulse is U (0, ) = sech ( ) , the analytical
solution to Eq.(2.7) in the anomalous dispersion region with N=1 gives [11]
U ( , ) = sech ( ) exp( j 2 )
(2.26)
where x = z/LD.
Eq.(2.26) is ideally suited to see the accuracy of the split-step Fourier method because the
solution is the result of interplay between dispersion and nonlinearity, and it has a simple
form. Figure 2-2 compares Eq.(2.26) with the simulation result by the split-step Fourier
method at x = z/LD = 15. From the figure, we can observe that the difference between the
two curves is negligible. (Note the magnitude scale is logarithmic.) Since typical values
of LD are in the range of a few hundreds km to thousands km, the simulation distance
x=15 could be over transoceanic distances. In the simulation, the step size Dx = 0.01 is
used, which will result in 0.01 rad of the maximum phase shift by the nonlinear operator.
To compare two curves generated by two different methods, say, A method and
B method, the normalized square deviation (NSD) is defined as [27],
NSD ( ) =
( , ) U B ( , ) d
2
U (0, )
(2.27)
2
where UA(x,t) = output field envelop by method A, and UB(x,t) = output field envelop
by method B.
Figure 2-3 shows the calculated NSDs as a function of propagation distance resulting
from the split-step method compared to the analytical solution, Eq.(2.26). We observe
that the NSD is greatly affected by the simulation step size Dx as expected. However,
NSDs remain almost constant at very small values up to the transmission distance x = 15.
For example, when Dx = 0.01, the NSD remains below 10-11 up to x = 15. These results
indicate that the split-step Fourier method is very reliable, and can serve as a reference to
35
measure the valid range of perturbation method if Dx is small enough. For the remainder
of this chapter, Dx = 0.01 will be used for the split-step method
zc
z
= c 0.3 in both the normal and anomalous
LD L N
dispersion regions. When the second order is included, the product is approximately 0.7.
Since N2 = LD/LN, and LN = 1/gPavg, we can estimate the critical distance zc. With
36
= 2km 1mW 1 , the critical distance by the first order perturbation is estimated as
zc
150
[km mW ] . If we take the numerical example in Section 2-2, Pavg = 0.43mW
Pavg
(Po=2mW and G = 20dB), this results in zc 350km. This means that we can get less
than 10-3 of NSD using the first order perturbation solution up to z = 350km. When we
include the second order term, the critical distance extends to nearly 800km. However,
Figure 2-4 indicates that the critical distances can be substantially shorter if a smaller
value of NSD is required to have more accurate results.
2-6. Summary
Applying the perturbation method to the nonlinear Schrdinger equation results in
a coupled set of first order differential equations in the frequency domain. We have also
shown that the perturbation approach is equivalent to the Volterra series method at least
up to the third-order of the Volterra approach.
The normalized square deviations (NSD) are evaluated for a broad range of
parameters using the split-step method as a reference. When we use the first-order
perturbation solution, the critical distance at which NSD reaches its maximum allowable
value (10-3, in this work) is inversely proportional to the average pulse power, Pavg. The
proportionality constant is evaluated to be around 150 [kmmW]. The second-order
solution will increase the critical distance more than a factor of two, but the increased
computation load makes it less attractive. Finally, there are little differences in the
critical distances between the normal and anomalous dispersion regions. This is because
the critical values are relatively small; therefore, pulse shapes depending on the
dispersion region are not changed greatly.
37
10
Input = sech()
Output at z/LD = 15
-2
10
-4
10
-6
Magnitude
10
-8
10
-10
10
-12
10
-14
10
-16
10
-18
10
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
= t/T o
Figure 2-2 Comparison of fundamental soliton output by the split-step Fourier method
with theoretical prediction
38
Fundamental
Soliton Propagation by Split-Step Fourier Method
-4
10
=0.05
=0.01
=0.002
-6
10
-8
NSD
10
-10
10
-12
10
-14
10
10
15
z/LD
Figure 2-3 NSD evolutions of soliton transmission by the split-step Fourier method
39
10
-1
10
-2
(d)
10
(c)
-3
NSD
10
(a)
-4
(b)
10
-5
10
-6
10
-7
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
z/LD
Figure 2-4 NSD by perturbation method with N=1 (solid with * = 1st order and b2 > 0,
dash dot with * = 1st order and b2 < 0, solid with o = 2nd order and b2 > 0, dash dot with
o = 2nd order and b2 < 0)
40
1
ssf
1st
Magnitude
Magnitude
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
ssf
1st
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-5
0
-10
10
-5
10
1
ssf
1st
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
ssf
1st
Magnitude
Magnitude
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-5
10
0
-10
-5
10
Figure 2-5 Comparison of pulse shapes by the first order perturbation method and splitstep method (a) z/LD =0.2, b2 > 0, (b) z/LD =0.2, b2 < 0, (c) z/LD =0.5, b2 > 0, (d) z/LD
=0.5, b2 < 0
41
10
2 > 0
0
zc/LD
10
1st
2nd
-2
10
-4
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
2 < 0
0
zc /LD
10
-2
10
1st
2nd
-4
10
-1
10
10
10
10
N2 = LD/LN
Figure 2-6 Normalized critical distances at NSD = 10-3 (a) b2 > 0 (*: 1st order, o: 2nd
order) (b) b2 < 0 (*: 1st order, o: 2nd order)
42
Chapter 3
Modeling and Optimization of RMS Pulse
and Spectrum Widths
3-1. Introduction
Root-mean-square (RMS) pulse width is of interest since it provides a useful
metric for assessing performance limitations in fiber-optic communication systems. The
RMS pulse width is directly related to the maximum data rate through the commonly
used design criterion
t Rb <
1
4
(3.1)
where st is the RMS pulse width at the output of the fiber, and Rb is the bit rate.
Also RMS spectral width (sw) determines basic design parameters of a wavelength
division multiplexed (WDM) system such as channel spacing and bandwidth of optical
filters. In a WDM system, the total transmission capacity (CT) is defined by CT = NchRb,
where Nch = the number of channels and Rb = bit rate per channel. To maximize CT, it is
required to have the largest possible Nch, which can be achieved by having the smallest
43
RMS spectrum width at a given distance. Additionally, it is also required to have the
largest bit rate, but bit rate and RMS pulse width at the output of fiber should satisfy
some condition like Eq.(3.1), which says that the output RMS pulse width should be
decreased to increase bit rate, Rb. Then, the question, how can we maximize the total
transmission capacity, CT, is equivalent to the question, how can we minimize the
product, swst at a given distance? Therefore, the product, st(z)sw(z), should be inversely
proportional to the capacity of WDM systems.
In a fiber transmission system where dispersion is dominant (negligible fiber
nonlinearities), it is known that there exists an optimum input RMS pulse width, so, to
minimize the output width, st(z), when a transform-limited pulse is transmitted. The
optimum input RMS pulse width, so,opt, and the resulting minimum output pulse width,
smin, is given as a function of transmission distance, z, by [30]
o ,opt =
min =
2 z 2
(3.2)
2 z
(3.3)
In the case of dispersion alone, the magnitude of the pulse spectrum is invariant, and
consequently sw(z) remains constant at its initial value, swo. Therefore, the product
st(z)sw(z) will have the same functional form as st(z). In this case, the optimum input
pulse width given by Eq.(3.2) will also minimize the product, st(z)sw(z).
However, there appears to be no published results on maximizing CT in terms of
RMS widths as well as on minimizing st(z) when fiber nonlinearities are no longer
negligible. The main objective of this chapter is to study the possible existence and the
functional form of the optimum input pulse width to minimize the RMS quantities, st(z),
sw(z), and the product of the two, sw(z)st(z) in the presence of fiber nonlinearities. Even
though the RMS quantities are strictly applicable only for the case of transmission of an
isolated pulse, it is of interest to see how their functional forms compare to Eqs.(3.2)
and.(3.3) in the presence of nonlinearities. The derived results can provide basic design
parameters for optimum performance of WDM systems.
44
In this chapter, more accurate modeling than prior treatments [31,32] will be
attempted first. The functional forms of the optimum input pulse width based on the
developed RMS models follow, and the results will be compared with numerical results
obtained by the split-step Fourier method.
= t2 t
2 1/ 2
(3.4)
where
tn =
U ( z , t ) dt
U ( z, t )
(3.5)
2
dt
45
2
U ( , ) d
t =
2
U ( , ) d
1/ 2
(3.6)
2
u ( , ) d
2
u ( , ) d
1/ 2
(3.7)
t ( z)
z
= 1 + 2 sgn( 2 ) N 2
LD
t (0)
2
2
4
4 z z
+ 1 +
N
3 3
LD LD
(3.8)
46
t2
normalized input pulse, U(0,t), has a Gaussian shape such that U (0, t ) = exp 2 , the
2t o
pulse shape at the middle of fiber can be expressed by Eq.(2-10) and Eq.(2-12).
2
z
z
z
z
U , t = U D , t exp i
U D ,t
2
2
2
L N
to
z
where U D , t =
2 t o2 i 2 z
)
2
12
t2
exp 2
2 t o i 2 z
2
(3.9)
Parsevals
t n w(t ) = ( j 2 )
theorem
n
and
the
property
of
Fourier
transform,
d nW ( f )
. The resulting RMS expression in normalized units is
df n
given by
47
t ( z)
sgn( 2 ) N 2
= 1 + 1 +
2 1 + 1 4 ( z LD ) 2
t ( 0)
LD
N4
+
3 3 1 + 1 4 ( z LD ) 2
LD
(3.10)
Since the method to derive Eq.(3.8) and Eq.(3.10) is analogous to the numerical
algorithm of the split-step Fourier method with the step size, z and z/2, respectively, we
may call them the one-step method and the two-step method, respectively.
Recently, a more elegant mathematical way, namely the variational method, has
been reported to model the RMS pulse width more accurately [33,34]. The method
assumes a given functional form for the pulse and allows the width, chirp, and height to
vary with propagation distance. When the input pulse is a Gaussian shape, the output
pulse profile is also assumed to have the Gaussian form,
t2
( z , t ) = a ( z ) exp 2
+ jb( z )
2t o ( z )
(3.11)
where a(z) is the pulse center height, to(z) is the pulse width (the half-width at 1/eintensity point) and b(z) is the chirp parameter. This Gaussian ansatz is substituted in the
NLSE to get the relation of the output RMS pulse width to the input RMS pulse width.
For a Gaussian pulse, to2(z)=2s2(z), and the square of the broadening factor is found to be
[33]
sgn( 2 ) N 2 z
t ( z)
= 1 + 1 +
(
0
)
2
t
LD
1 4
2 2 z
+ N + sgn( 2 )
N
24
24
L
D
2
(3.12)
Figure 3-1 compares Eq.(3.8), Eq.(3.10) and Eq.(3-12) with the simulated results by the
split-step Fourier method when b2 > 0 (normal dispersion). While the one-step method
(Eq.(3.8)) overestimates the RMS pulse width significantly as the propagation distance is
increased even with a modest nonlinearity (N=2), the two-step method (Eq.(3.10)) and
48
the variational method (Eq.(3.12)) follows the simulated result quite closely. As
expected, the more sophisticated the method is, the closer is the fit.
( z)
4
4 z
N
= 1 +
(0) 3 3 LD
1/ 2
(3.13)
This equation predicts that the RMS spectrum width keeps increasing as a function of
distance. However, we expect this expression may be grossly inaccurate as the distance
becomes comparable to or greater than the dispersion distance, LD. This is because the
dispersion effect tends to make the spectrum magnitude become invariant.
Recently, it was reported that the spectrum width could be modeled more
accurately by the variational method, which gives the following result [35]
( )
1
= 1 + 2 N 2 1
(0)
t o ( ) t o ( = 0)
1/ 2
(3.14)
where x = z/LD. In the variational method, the pulse shape is assumed to remain a
Gaussian as given in Eq.(3.11). Therefore, the pulse broadening factor in terms of the
half-width at 1/e-intensity, t o ( ) t o (0) , is the same as the pulse broadening factor in
49
terms of the RMS pulse width, t ( ) t (0) . It is interesting to note that the variational
method (Eq.(3.14)) predicts the output RMS spectral width asymptotes to
(1 +
2N 2
12
approximately
the
(1 +
2N 2
12
proportional
to
nonlinear
parameter
since
to
is the average signal power, and b2 is the second order propagation constant.
Figure 3-2 compares the normalized RMS spectrum width predicted by Eq.(3.14)
with the simulation results by the split-step Fourier method. In calculation of Eq.(3.14),
the simulated pulse width is used for t o ( ) t o (0) . In Figure 3-2, we observe both curves
agree very well each other for all values of N, but the deviation increases as N increases.
For comparison purposes, if Pavg = 1mW, g =210-3[km-1mW-1], to=100ps, and b2 = 5
[ps2/km], these parameter values result in N = 2, and the variational method predicts the
asymptote to be 2.58sw(0) which is very close to the simulated result (~2.53sw(0)) as
observed in Figure 3-2.
50
Simulation
One-step
Two-step
Variational
st(x)st(0)
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
z/LD
Figure 3-1 Comparison of RMS pulse width models with the simulated one. Input pulse
is a Gaussian shape and normal dispersion region is assumed. x = z/LD.
51
sw(x)sw(0)
4.5
4
N=3
3.5
3
N=2
2.5
2
N=1
1.5
1
10
x=z/LD
Figure 3-2 Comparison of RMS spectrum width model by the variational method (-.)
with the simulated one (solid) in the normal dispersion region.
52
s ( ) =
t ( )
(3.15)
2 LN 2
where z=zLN.
Notice that s o = s (0) =
o
2 LN 2
LD
is the same as the nonlinear parameter, N, as
LN
defined in Eq.(2-7). Now the broadening factor, st(z)so, is the same as the ratio, s(z)so,
and the optimization of st(z) with respect to so is the same as the optimization of s(z)
with respect to so. With fixed physical parameters, the optimum input pulse will indicate
the optimum nonlinearity constant, so,opt (=Nopt) in the system.
In the following, the functional forms of the optimum so will be derived based on
the one-step method (Eq.(3.8)) and the two-step method (Eq.(3.10)).
One-Step Method
Eq.(3.8)
can
be
expressed
in
terms
of
z=zLN
using
the
relationship,
z
z LN
=
= 2 = 2,
LD L N L D N
so
53
t ( z)
s2
1 2
4 4
= 2 = 1 + sgn( 2 ) 2 + 2 2 +
so
s o s o 3 3 s o4
t ( 0)
(3.16)
By differentiating s2 with respect to so2, then setting equal to zero, we get the optimum so
value such that
s o4,opt = 2 +
4
3 3
(3.17)
s o4,opt = 2 +
2 LN
=
2
4
3 3
4 2 , so ,opt
(3.18)
2 z
. With this optimum value and using the
2
min
2 z
(3.19)
In this extreme case, the optimum input pulse width and the minimum output pulse width
are the same as the case of dispersion alone.
In the other extreme case of z1,
1
4
o ,opt
4
3 3
,
4
s o,opt
4 4
= 0.94
3 3
(3.20)
o ,opt 0.94
z
LN
2 LN
2
= 0.662 z
LN
2
(3.21)
54
2
LN
(3.22)
Two-Step Method
Eq.(3.10) can be rewritten in terms of z.
t ( z)
s2
= 2 = 1 +
so
t ( 0)
sgn( 2 )
12
2 1+
4 s o4
2
2
2
+ 1+
2 4
s o2
1 2 so
3 3 1 +
4
4 so
(3.23)
Again, by differentiating s2 with respect to so2 and setting to zero, we get the quartic
equation below. Here x=so2.
x4 2 x2 +
sgn( 2 ) 4
4 2
x
12
1 +
2
4 x
3/ 2
4
x2
6
+
2
3 3 12
3 3
1 +
2
4 x
1
12
1 +
2
4 x
=0
(3.24)
In the extreme case of z1, the above equation is simplified greatly such that
x 4 2 x 2 . From the simplified relation,
s o,opt ,
o,opt s o ,opt
2 LN
=
2
2 z
2
(3.25)
which gives
55
s min 2 ,
min
2 z
(3.26)
x4
4 2 sgn( 2 ) 4
6
x +
x+
=0
3 3
4 2
3 3
(3.27)
12 12
In Eq.(3.27), it is assumed
=
1, the validity of which will be checked later.
4 x 2 4 so
In principle, the resulting quartic equation can be solved analytically with the help of
standard mathematical software. However, the solutions have a very long and
complicated form, which makes them hardly useful. To attempt further simplification of
Eq.(3.27), we compare the magnitude of each term in Eq.(3.27) with the help of
simulated data at z=25 (so,opt 8).
1st term ~ 1.68107
2nd term ~ 3.08108
3rd term ~ 4.48106
4th term ~ 4.7107
Its a rough approximation, but to get an analytical solution, the third term is ignored.
Then the solution is
x 2 = s o4,opt =
1 4
8
4
2 27
27
27
(3.28)
12
1, the positive sign (+) is appropriate in
4 x2
Eq.(3.28). Then
56
s o ,opt
From Eq.(3.29),
2 LN
2
= 0.468 z
LN
2
(3.29)
1 2
1 27
=
1 when z 1, which validates the assumption made
4
4 s o,opt 4 2
in Eq.(3.27).
With Eq.(3.29) and (3.23),
2
=
s min
sgn( 2 ) 2
sgn( 2 )
2
2
2+
+ 271 / 4 2 1 / 4 +
1/ 4
27
2
2
27
Although Eq.(3.29) predicts that the optimum pulse width is independent of the sign of
b2, the RMS pulse width is more meaningful for estimating distortion effects in fiber
transmission in the case of normal dispersion. In this case, sgn(b2) = +1. Then
2
LN
(3.30)
In the limit of z1, both methods (one-step and two-step methods) lead to the
case of dispersion alone. This is not a surprising result since the condition of z1
indicates the propagation distance is much smaller than the nonlinear distance, LN, which
means the nonlinearity has little effect on the transmission of the pulse.
In the other limit, z1, which is the more interesting case, the analytical results
are summarized in Table 3-1. For comparison purposes, the analytical result by the
variational method and the simulation result by the slit-step Fourier method are also
included. (Figure 3-3 compares the two methods, the variational and the split-step Fourier
methods, which indeed demonstrates the existence of the optimum input pulse width to
minimize the output pulse width.) Normal dispersion is assumed in all the cases. It is
interesting to observe that all the analytical methods predict that so,opt and smin are
linearly proportional to the propagation distance, z unlike the case of dispersion alone
where so,opt and smin are proportional to the square root of the propagation distance, z
57
(Eq.(3.2) and Eq.(3.3)). As the analytical methodology gets more sophisticated, the
proportionality constants get smaller and closer to the simulated values. This is because,
in simpler models, the interaction of nonlinearity and dispersion is underestimated such
that a larger nonlinearity (larger so= N) gives a narrower output pulse width (nonlinearity
alone makes the output pulse width invariant.).
Since we obtained analytical expressions in two extreme cases, z1 and z1, it
is of interest to find the critical distance, zc, which divides the two regions. Figure 3-4
compares the simulated so,opt with the dispersion dominant case, so,opt = . When z is
relatively small, the dependence of so,opt on z is pretty well predicted by the square root of
z. As a rule of thumb, when z < 3, so,opt . Otherwise, so,opt can be more accurately
predicted by the curve fitting result. Therefore the critical distance, zc3.
Table 3-1 Summary of the optimum input pulse widths and the minimum output pulse
z
widths in the normal dispersion region by the various methods. ( =
1)
LN
One-Step
Method
so,opt (=Nopt)
27
smin
o,opt
min
s
= min
o ,opt s o,opt
= 0.94
1/ 8
1.786z
0.662 z
1.9
2
LN
Two-Step
Method
1
= 0.66
27 1 / 8
1.254z
0.468 z
1.9
2
LN
Variational
Method [33,34]
Split-step Fourier
Simulation
and Curve Fitting
0.2897 + 0.9056
1
= 0.452
1/ 4
24
1.056z
0.32 z
0.9751 + 0.6427
2
LN
2.34
3.35
58
25
20
= 20
15
= 10
10
= 0.2
0
10
12
Figure 3-3 Normalized output widths as a function of normalized input width (so) at three
distances =z/LN= 0.2, 10, and 20. Solid curves by split-step Fourier method and dotted
curves by variational method
59
9
8
7
Simulated data(*)
& Curve fitted
6
5
So,opt
= z LN
3
2
1
0
10
15
z=z/LN
20
25
60
1
1
1
2 ( ) =
+
1
2
4 o
2 2 LN
t2 ( )
o2
(3.31)
2 o2
, is used as defined in Eq.(3.15). From
2 LN
Eq.(3.12), the square of the pulse broadening factor can be rewritten in terms of z as
below.
t2 ( ) s 2 ( )
1
1
1
=
= 1 + C1 2 + C 2 4 + C 3 6
2
2
o
so
so
so
so
where C1 =
1
2
2 , C2 = 2 +
(3.32)
1 4
2 4
, and C 3 =
.
24
24
t2 ( )
Eq.(3.32) shows that
is a monotonically decreasing function of so. Therefore, we
o2
observe that the RMS spectrum width expressed in Eq.(3.31) is a monotonically
t2 ( )
term in Eq.(3.31) is
o2
monotonically decreasing with so. That is, the variational method predicts that there is no
optimum input pulse width to minimize the output spectrum width when the input pulse
is a transform-limited Gaussian. As input pulse width is increased, N =
2 o2
2 LN
61
( )
, also increases as
(0)
2 o
decreases as input pulse width increases. Apparently, the increased spectral width
resulting from the nonlinearity is less than the reduction in the initial spectral width due
to the increase initial pulse width.
3-3-3. Optimum Input Pulse Width to Minimize the Product of st(z) and
sw(z)
Now consider the product of output pulse width and output spectrum width.
Using Eq.(3.31) and (3.32),
1 s 2 ( )
1
2
=
1 + 2 s o 1 s ( )
4 s o2
s o
2
t
(3.33)
If we define T ( ) = 4 t2 ( ) 2 ( ) ,
2
s 2 ( )
s ( )
2 s ( )
T ( ) =
2
s
o
s2
s
s o2
o
o
(3.34)
T ( ) = 4 t2 ( ) 2 ( ) = y + 2 x y y
(3.35)
To have an optimum input pulse width, the derivative of T(z) with respect to x should
have zero value(s).
62
T
1 y
= 1 + 2x
+ 2 y y
x
2 y x
(3.36)
where
3C
C
C 2C
C C
y
= 21 32 43 ( < 0) and y = 1 + 1 + 22 + 33
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(> 1)
C 2C
y
3C
C
1 y
1 C C
= 1
+ 2 x 21 32 43 + + 21 + 32 + 43
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
2 y x
1 y C 2 2C 3
1 y
= 1
+ 2 x
3 4
x
x
x
x
2
y
2C
1 y
C
+ 2 1 y 2 22 + 33
= 1
x
2 y x
x
y
< 0, the first and the second terms are always negative.
x
Furthermore, because x, C2 and C3 are all positive quantities, the third term is also
negative, which means that the derivative of T(z) with respect to x is always negative
regardless of the initial pulse width. This result leads to the conclusion that the variational
method predicts there is no optimum input pulse width which minimizes the product of
st(z) and sw(z) when the input pulse is a transform-limited Gaussian. This is mainly
because sw(z) is a monotonically decreasing function of the initial pulse width, so (or the
normalized initial pulse width, so).
In Figure 3-5, T(z), as calculated by the split-step Fourier method at a few fixed
distances, is plotted as a function of input pulse width. It is seen from Figure 3-5 that T(z)
monotonically decreases as the input pulse width (so) increases.
63
3-4. Summary
Output RMS pulse width is modeled by lumping the fiber nonlinearity at the
middle of the propagation distance. The methodology is fairly simple and the resulting
two-step model predicts the output RMS pulse width much closer to the simulated one
compared to the previous one-step model, in which the fiber nonlinearity is lumped at the
input of the fiber. The two-step model is also used to derive the optimum input pulse
width to minimize the output pulse width at a given distance. While the two-step model is
not as good as the variational model (it gives a larger deviation from the simulation
results), it is interesting to see that all of the analytical models including the one-step
model predict the same functional form of so,opt, which is linearly proportional to the
propagation distance, z. If the maximum bit rate is taken to be 1/(4st) (see Eq.(3.1)), all
the analytical models predict the maximum bit rate-transmission distance product has a
functional form of (Table 3-1)
Rb z ~
LN
1
=
2
Pavg 2
(3.37)
if z1(zLN).
Eq.(3.37) predicts that the maximum bit rate-transmission distance product is inversely
proportional to the square roots of both the average power of the signal and the fiber
dispersion coefficient.
When z1 (z LN), so,opt degenerates to the case of dispersion alone, where so,opt is
proportional to the square root of z. In this case, Rb z ~
(Figure 3-4) shows that the boundary between the two extreme cases is near z=3 (The
transmission distance is 3 times the nonlinear distance LN).
Unlike the output pulse width, there is no optimum input pulse width to minimize
the output spectrum width because the RMS spectrum width, sw(z) is a monotonically
decreasing function of the input pulse width. When we desire to optimize the product of
st(z) and sw(z) in the case of dispersion alone, the initial pulse width which minimizes
the output pulse width will also be the optimum value to minimize st(z)sw(z) because
64
sw(z) is invariant. However, with fiber nonlinearity, it is shown mathematically that there
is not an optimum input pulse width regardless of the propagation distance. The reason is
that the output spectrum is a monotonically decreasing function of input pulse width so
and the optimum pulse width is not a strong function of so as observed in Figure 3-3.
1000
900
800
700
z=20
600
T(z)
500
400
z=10
300
200
100
0
z=5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
x=so2
Figure 3-5 T(z) as a function of so2 in the normal dispersion region with a Gaussian input.
65
Chapter 4
Performance Measurements Using
Sinusoidally Modulated Signal
4-1. Introduction
In a digital communication link, bit error rate (BER) is the most important
parameter to measure the performance of the communication link between a transmitter
and a receiver. In an optical fiber communication system, BER may often be measured
only experimentally. This is because the high quality performance of a conventional
optical fiber communication link (BER =10-9) requires an extremely large number of bits
to evaluate BER, which makes numerical simulation of BER generally impractical. BER
is often evaluated indirectly using Q-factor1, which is commonly used to measure system
performance. Another simpler way of estimating performance is to observe eye-opening.
The eye-opening is quantified by measuring the minimum value between the sampled
values of marks (ones) and spaces (zeros) in the received bit sequence, r(t). The eye-
Q-factor is essentially the signal-to-noise ratio at the decision circuit. It will be defined more precisely in
Chapter 6.
66
opening is a useful system performance metric when signal distortion is a more limiting
factor than noise. Mathematically, it is defined as below [12].
Eye - opening =
min(rj (t j , b = 1) ) max(rj (t j , b = 0) )
Po
(4.1)
where tj represents the sampling instant of the jth-bit interval and Po is the peak power of
r(t). The first term in the numerator represents the minimum value at the sampling instant
when a mark is transmitted, and the second term is the maximum value when a space is
transmitted. In this chapter, the sampling instant of the received signal is assumed to be at
the center of each bit period. To assess system performance degradation due to signal
transmission through the fiber, eye-opening penalty (EOP) is often used. EOP is the
measure of the relative eye opening after transmission compared to eye opening in the
back-to-back case (no transmission effect). That is,
eye - opening with fiber (after transmission)
(4.2)
The RMS pulse width models developed in Chapter 3 may give a good estimation of
EOP because the pulse spreading at a given pulse energy often indicates the decrease of
the peak value of the pulse. However, since the RMS pulse width models are based on
the transmission of a single pulse, they may not be a good indicator of EOP when
intersymbol interference(ISI) due to dispersion and/or nonlinearities is not negligible.
In this chapter, the input optical signal is assumed to have a raised-cosine form
which models an alternating bit sequence of ones and zeros. The sinusoidally modulated
signal enables us to analyze the optical transmission impairments due to fiber
nonlinearities, including the effects of intersymbol interference. Indeed, when ISI is
predominantly caused by the neighboring pulses, it may be argued that the alternating
pattern is the worst-case pattern. In the following section, the self-phase modulation
effect will be studied using a sinusoidally modulated signal (section 4-2). Next, a
67
sinusoidally modulated signal will also be used to study system performance degradation
due to cross-phase modulation in a multi-channel system (section 4-3). The sinusoidal
analyses in both sections will be compared to more realistic cases by simulations in
which a pseudo-random bit sequence (PRBS) is used for the input bit sequence.
1
where st is the RMS pulse width at the
4
Pout(w) = Hp(w)Pin(w)
(4.3)
The above relationship can be used in determining the bandwidth of the fiber. If we
consider an optical input signal intensity-modulated by a constant amplitude sinusoidal
wave, the amplitude of the output optical signal decreases as the modulation frequency
increases, resulting in a low-pass system response (Figure 4-1) because the dispersion
68
becomes more significant as the modulation frequency (or bit rate) increases [37].
Therefore the effect of finite bandwidth on system performance is to limit the bit rate that
can be transmitted over a given distance, and it is often quantified by the dispersion
power penalty, which is the required input power increase to compensate for the decrease
of output peak power (that is, decrease of signal to noise ratio) caused by dispersion.
Similarly, the amplitude of the output optical signal will decrease at a given modulation
frequency as the transmission distance increases because of fiber dispersion.
One way of estimating the dispersion power penalty at a given bit rate is to
consider the alternating sequence, i.e., ,1,0,1,0,1,0,, because that sequence has the
highest possible freqency component w/2p = Rb/2. If we assume that Hp(w) has a
(4.4)
For example, if we allow the power penalty to be 1dB, the pulse spreading satisfies the
relationship
st 0.216/Rb
(4.5)
which results in a slightly more stringent condition than Eq.(3.1). The alternating
sequence has also been considered in [83] to study how coding may be used to counter
the effect of dispersion.
In practice, the situation is much more complicated when nonlinearities are
present, but measuring the sinusoidal response at
indication of the system performance degradation. We wish to test this supposition, and
to determine the extent to which sinusoidal response may be used to measure
performance. The measurement of sinusoidal response may give a better system
performance estimate than the measurement of the rms width of an isolated pulse. Also,
it should be a much simpler test scheme compared to a BER measurement which requires
a very long pseudo-random bit sequence.
69
Transmitter
Receiver
Fiber
Hp(w)
Fiber
Response
Frequency
Figure 4-1 Frequency response of fiber. As dispersion increases, the bandwidth of Hp(w)
decreases [37].
70
because
sinusoidal response of dispersion alone case will be studied first, and the result will then
be extended to include the effect of fiber nonlinearity.
2U
U
1
= i sgn( 2 ) 2
(4.6)
If the input pulse sequence is periodic, we can express it in a Fourier series as below.
U (0, ) =
n =
(0)e
jn p
(4.7)
71
Tb2
nonlinear constant, N, are also defined in terms of bit period Tb. That is, LD =
and
2
N2 =
2
LD Pavg Tb
=
. These conventions will be used throughout this chapter.
LN
2
Since the linear response of a periodic signal will also result in a periodic signal, the
output signal can also be expressed in a Fourier series.
U ( , ) =
C ( )e
n =
jn p
(4.8)
Now the Fourier series coefficients, which are functions of transmission distance, can be
derived by substituting Eq.(4.8) into Eq.(4.6), and the solution can be easily found.
Cn ( ) jn p j
jn
2
e
= sgn( 2 ) p n 2Cn ( )e p
2
n =
n =-
dCn ( ) j
= sgn( 2 ) p2 n 2Cn ( )
d
2
(4.9)
U ( , ) =
n=
2 2
p
jn p
(4.10)
For example, if we model the alternating bit sequence as a raised-cosine wave with its
period Tp = 2Tb (Tb = bit period), the normalized input signal can be written as below.
U (0, ) =
1 1
1 1
+ cos p = + f ( p )
2 2
2 4
(4.11)
72
where f ( p ) = e
j p
+e
j p
and
p 1
= .
2 2
The Fourier series coefficients of the input signal are C0(0) = 1/2, C1(0) = C-1(0) = 1/4,
and Cn(0) = 0 (for all n 0,1). The output signal by assuming 2 > 0 is then
1 1 2 2p
1 1 2 2p
U ( , ) = + e
f ( p ) = + e
cos p
2 4
2 2
(4.12)
Therefore when the input field signal is given by Eq.(4.11), the input and output optical
power signals are,
3 1
1
+ cos 2 p + cos p
8 8
2
(4.13)
p2
3 1
1
+ cos 2 p + cos
cos p
8 8
2
2
(4.14)
P(0, ) = U (0, ) =
2
P( , ) = U ( , ) =
2
From the output power signal, P(x,t), we can see that the fundamental frequency
component (wp), C1, is periodic as a function of distance while the DC and the second
harmonic components remain constant. Because of its periodicity with respect to distance
parameter, x, the magnitude of C1 will have its first null at xo = zoLD = pwp2 = 1p =
0.3183, where the fundamental frequency component will die out completely. Since we
may not get any further information from the magnitude of C1 after the first null, the
magnitude of C1 should be measured before the first null occurs at xo = 0.3183 in the case
of dispersion alone. In physical units, xo corresponds to 0.3183LD = 0.3183Tb2/|b2|.
For example, in 10Gb/s systems, the first null distance (zo) will occur around 160km for a
typical dispersion coefficient of conventional single mode fiber, |b2| = 20 [ps2/km]. At the
same bit rate, the first null distance (zo) is around 1060km for a typical dispersion
coefficient of dispersion-shifted fiber, |b2| = 3 [ps2/km].
Figure 4-2(a) shows the magnitude of the Fourier series coefficients of the optical
power signal with dispersion alone at a few fixed distances, while Figure 4-2(b) shows
73
their evolution as a function of distance. Both figures are generated numerically by the
split-step Fourier method with the input optical field given by Eq.(4.11), and the results
agree well with the analytical expression of Eq.(4.14).
Figure 4-3(a) and (b) show the evolution of the Fourier series coefficients in the
normal dispersion region (2 > 0) when fiber nonlinearity is non-negligible, specifically
N = 2. Unlike the dispersion alone case, it is observed that new frequency components,
mainly at w=3wp, are generated, which indeed shows that the fiber acts as a nonlinear
system. Figures 4-2(b) and 4-3(b) show that the magnitude of the fundamental frequency
component behaves like a low-pass filter as a function of propagation distance before the
first null. Since the difference between the two figures is whether or not fiber nonlinearity
is present, the curves may reveal how the nonlinearity affects the system performance.
Figure 4-4 ((a) normal dispersion, (b) anomalous dispersion) shows that the
evolution of the magnitude of the fundamental frequency component, |C1|, at a few
different N values. While |C1| decreases as N increases in the normal dispersion region at
a given normalized distance, z/LD, before the first null, the opposite occurs in the
anomalous region. This is because the anomalous dispersion region supports solitons.
The input pulse will evolve into a fundamental soliton if (1/2) < N < (3/2), and a secondorder soliton if (3/2) < N < (5/2), and so forth. Second and higher order solitons break up
into spiked pulses and reassemble periodically while they propagate. Therefore, in the
anomalous region, the sinusoidal test to see the worst case ISI effect may not be
appropriate because other effects like modulation instability2 or optical amplifier noise
can be more limiting factors on system performance [11,12]. However, when the N value
is sufficiently small (N < 1/2) such that the input pulse does not evolve into a
fundamental soliton, the sinusoidal method may still be useful to assess the worst case
system performance even in the anomalous dispersion region. In the following section,
the sinusoidal analysis will be compared with EOP to determine the extent to which these
are correlated.
Modulation instability is known to be observable in the anomalous region only. It is often interpreted in
terms of a four-wave-mixing process phase-matched by SPM.
74
sequence,
2 to
to
2
(4.15)
where |C1(x)| is the magnitude of the fundamental Fourier series coefficient of the
received signal at x. For example, 1dB penalty of SRP corresponds to |C1(x)| = 0.1986
since |C1(0)| = 0.25 in Eq.(4.11).
Figure 4-7 compares the critical transmission distances, c = zc LD , when EOP
and SRP reach 1dB respectively as a function of N2. In the normal dispersion region, the
two curves agree very well over a wide range of N values. This result strongly indicates
that the sinusoidal analysis can be used either experimentally or computationally as an
alternate way of EOP measurement. Figure 4-7 shows that the transmission distance for a
75
1dB penalty remains almost constant when the N value is less than 1. This suggests that
the fiber can be considered as a linear device as long as N < 1. However, when N > 1, the
1dB penalty distance decreases as N increases. Physically, this can be interpreted as the
maximum transmission distance for an allowable 1dB penalty decreases as the signal
power increases when other fiber parameter values are fixed.
If we use g =
(4.16)
In Eq.(4.16), the fiber is assumed to be in the normal dispersion region where the
sinusoidal analysis has a broader range of agreement with EOP than in the anomalous
76
region. When the input sinusoid is given as the raised-cosine form (Eq.(4.11)), U ( 0) ( , )
is the same as Eq.(4.12), which will make the nonlinear term in Eq.(4.16) periodic.
Therefore the first-order perturbed output U (1) ( , ) will also be periodic, and we can
express the first-order output in terms of a Fourier series.
U (1) ( , ) =
n =
(1)
n
( )e
jn p
(4.17)
(4.18)
where
U
(0)
( , ) U
(0)
j
2p 1
2p 7 2j 2p
3 1 2 p2
f ( p )
( , ) =
cos
+ e
+ cos
+ e
8
16 8
2
2
64
j 2
j
1
p2
1 2p
f (2 p ) + 1 e 2 p f (3 p )
+ + e 2 cos
32 16
2
64
The Fourier series coefficients, Cn(1), can be evaluated by equating terms of the same
2
n = 0,
C 0(1) ( ) =
1 2
N2
N2
2
j
N
cos
sin 2p
+
+
p
2
2
4
16 p
16 p
n = 1,
N2
C ( ) =
32 2p
(1)
1
2
2
2
2
cos 2 cos p 11 N 2 sin p + jN 2 1 sin p + 11 cos p
2 64
2
2 64
2
2 p
8 2p
77
n = 2,
C 2(1) ( ) =
N2
2 cos(2 p2 ) cos( 2p ) 1 + j 2 sin(2 2p ) sin( 2p
32 p2
)]
n = 3,
N2
9
9
C ( ) =
cos( p2 ) cos( p2 ) 1 + j sin( p2 ) sin( p2
2
2
2
256 p
(1)
3
Now the output field is approximated as the sum of the linear solution and the first-order
perturbation solution such that
U ( , ) U (0) ( , ) + U (1) ( , )
[
= (C
] [
) (
= Co + C1 f ( p ) + C2 f (2 p ) + C3 f (3 p )
(4.19)
where
1
N2
C o = C o( 0 ) + C o(1) =
1 cos 2p
2
2
16
p
C1 = C1( 0 ) + C1(1)
) j 14 N + 16N
2
p
sin p2
2
p2
1
N 2 p
N2
3 2 11 2
cos
cos p
N sin
+
=
2
4 32 2 2 32 2
2
64
p
p
2
1
p2
1 p 11
+
sin
cos
+ jN 2 +
2
4 8 p2 2 64
C 2 = C 2(1)
C 3 = C 3(1)
Finally, the output optical power signal is obtained as
2
P ( , ) = U ( , ) U ( 0 ) ( , ) + U (1) ( , ) = C o + C1 f ( p ) + C 2 f (2 p ) + C 3 f (3 p )
2
(4.20)
78
Eq.(4.20) has various frequency components. However, we are interested only in the p
component (the fundamental Fourier series component), which is expressed as
{ (
)}
(4.21)
( , ) U B ( , ) d
2
U (0, )
where
2
UA(x,t) = output field envelop by method A, and UB(x,t) = output field envelop by
method B.
The NSD curve compares the distance of 1dB SRP (sinusoidal response penalty,
defined in Eq.(4-15)) resulting from simulations as a function of N2. The normal
dispersion region is assumed in both cases. Figure 4-8 (a) indicates that Eq.(4.21) can
give a large error when N2 is greater than 3. In Figure 4-8 (b), the |C1(x)| by simulation is
compared with Eq.(4.21) when N2 = 3. Even with a modest value of N parameter, the
two curves show a significant discrepancy. For example, the normalized distance
corresponding to 1 dB SRP is around 0.07 from Eq.(4.21), but the simulation result gives
approximately 0.11. This result suggests that the perturbation method (Eq.(4.21)) should
not be used to get numerical results (except for very small N), although the expression
can give some physical insight. Even though Eq.(4.21) can be accurate when the N value
is small (dispersion dominant case), Eq.(4.12) (dispersion alone case) may serve better in
that case because of its simplicity.
79
Magnitude
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4
2
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
-2
-4
Harmonics
0.05
0
z/LD
(a)
Evolution of Fourier Coefficients (Dispersion alone)
0.4
|C1|
|C2|
0.35
(a)
Magnitude
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
z/L D
(b)
Figure 4-2 Fourier series coefficients evolution with dispersion (normal) alone. (a) at
three different distances (b) |C1| and |C2| as a function of transmission distance.
80
Magnitude
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4
2
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
-2
0.05
-4
Harmonics
z/LD
(a)
Evolution of Fourier Coefficients (N=2)
0.4
|C1|
|C2|
|C3|
0.35
Magnitude
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
z/LD
(b)
Figure 4-3 Fourier series Coefficients evolution with nonlinearity (N=2). (a) at three
different distances (b) |C1|,|C2|, and |C3| as a function of distance.
81
0.3
Magnitude
0.25
0.2
Dispersion alone
0.15
N=4
0.1
N=1
N=2
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
z/LD
N=4
Magnitude
0.3
0.25
0.2
N=3
0.15
N=2
N=1
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
z/LD
Figure 4-4 Evolution of the fundamental Fourier series coefficient magnitude (|C1|) as a
function of transmission distance. (a) Normal dispersion region (b2 > 0) (b) Anomalous
dispersion region (b2 < 0)
82
2.5
EOP(dB)
1.5
(d)
0.5
N=0
N=3
N=6
(c)
(b)
(a)
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
z/LD
83
a) Back-to-Back
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.5
c) N=3 (z/LD=0.0556)
0.5
1.5
d) N=6 (z/LD=0.0556)
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.5
= T/Tb
1.5
0.5
1.5
= T/Tb
Figure 4-6 Eye patterns in the normal dispersion region; (a) Back-to-back, (b) Dispersion
alone at z/LD = 0.0556, (c) N =3 at z/LD = 0.0556, and (d) N=6 at z/LD = 0.0556
84
10
Sinusoidal Analysis
PRBS
zc /LD
(a) 2 > 0
-1
10
-2
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
N2=LD/LNL
0
10
Sinusoidal Analysis
PRBS
zc /LD
(b) 2 < 0
-1
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
N2=LD/LNL
Figure 4-7 1dB power penalty distances as a function of N2; (a) in the normal dispersion
region (b2 > 0), (b) in the anomalous dispersion region (b2 < 0)
85
(a)
10
-1
zc /LD
10
Sinusoidal Analysis
-2
10
NSD=10-3
-3
10
N2 3
-4
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
N2=LD/LNL
(b)
0.4
0.35
N2 = 3
Simulation
Eq.(4-21)
0.3
|C 1|
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.2
0.25
z/LD
Figure 4-8 (a) Comparison of the critical distance at NSD = 10-3 using up to the first
order perturbation solution and the simulated 1dB penalty distance of sinusoidal response
in the normal dispersion region. (b) Comparison of the fundamental Fourier series
coefficient, |C1| when N2 = 3
86
87
l1
LD
Fiber
l1
1:1
l2
LD
External
Modulator
Optical
Filter
PRBS
Generator
LD = Laser Diode
Electrical
Filter
88
A1 i
2 A1
2
+ 21
+ A1 = i 1 A1 + 2 A2
2
z 2
2
t
)A
(4.22a)
A2
A
2 A2
i
2
2
+ d 2 + 22
+ A2 = i 2 A2 + 2 A1 A2
2
z
t
2
2
t
(4.22b)
where b2j (j =1 or 2) is the j-th channel dispersion parameter (second derivative of the
phase constant with respect to frequency), a is the fiber loss, and gj is the nonlinearity
coefficient. The walk-off parameter d = v g12 v g11 where vgj is the group velocity of
channel j, and the time scale is normalized by vg1 such that t = t
z
( t is physical
v g1
89
time). The walk-off parameter can also be expressed in terms of the dispersion coefficient
2
channel j. Aj(j=1,2) is the field envelope of channel j. In the pump-probe set-up, the input
probe signal placed at the wavelength l1 is modeled as a constant field with a weak
power level, P1. The pump signal at l2 has a much larger power than the probe signal,
and is assumed to be sinusoidally modulated such that
1 1
A2 (0, t ) = P2 + cos p t
2 2
(4.23)
where P2 ( P1) is the peak power of the pump signal and wp = p/Tb (Tb=bit period). In
the context of the first walk-off approximation, the fiber dispersion term in Eq.(4.22a)
can be neglected for 0 < z < Lw, and then the probe signal will experience phase
distortion alone as expressed below [52,53].
z
A1 ( z , t ) = P1 exp exp( j1 ) exp( j 1 ( z , t ) ) ,
2
z < Lw
(4.24)
1 e z
1 e z
2
A1 (0, t ) = 1 P1
, arises from self-phase
modulation, and the nonlinear phase shift due to cross-phase modulation, j1(z,t), is
expressed as [52,53]
2 1 t
2
(t )d
1 (z, t ) =
A2 (0, ) exp
D t Dz
D
(4.25)
The sinusoidally modulated pump signal, Eq.(4.23), allows the integral to be evaluated
analytically. The result is
90
1 (z , t ) 1 (t ) =
3 D 1
2 1
1
P2
+
cos p t + p sin p t
2
2
D 8
2 p + ( D ) D
1
1
t
t
+
cos
2
sin
2
p
p
p
8 4 2p + ( D )2 D
(4.26)
In the derivation of Eq.(4.26), e-az 1 is assumed. The first term (constant phase shift
with respect to the time variable) will not induce intensity fluctuation at all. However, the
second and the third term can cause intensity fluctuation in the remaining section of fiber
in the presence of dispersion. Eq.(4.26) can be further simplified if we ignore the third
term compared to the second term. The magnitude of the third term is at most 1/4 of the
second terms magnitude, and could be around 1/16 of the second terms when wp
a/|DDl|. This condition is satisfied when dispersion and/or the channel spacing is large.
For example, wp of 5 Gb/s NRZ systems is p/Tb = p/200ps = 0.016[1/ps]. With a =
0.2dB/km, Dl = 1.5nm, and D = 17 [ps/(nmkm)], a/|DDl| results in 0.0018 [1/ps] which
is around 1/10 of wp. This will make the magnitude of the third term around 1/16 of the
second terms. If Dl = 0.3nm with other parameters fixed, a/|DDl| results in a larger
number, 0.009 [1/ps], but the magnitude of the third term (1/13 of the second terms) is
still small compared to the second terms. Therefore the analytical expression of the
probe signal within the first walk-off distance is approximately given by
z
A1 ( z , t ) P1 exp exp( j1c ) exp( j 1t (t ) )
2
(4.27)
where f1c is the constant phase shift term and j1t(t) is the second term of Eq.(4.26); that
is,
D p
t
+
t
1t (t ) = 1 P2 2
cos
sin
p
p
2
2
+ (D )2
(
)
+
D
p
p
1 P2
=
sin ( p t + )
2
2
+ (D p )
(4.28)
= w sin ( p t + )
91
where = tan 1
1 P2
and w =
2
D p
+ (D p )2
In the first walk-off approximation, when z > Lw, it is assumed that the dispersion effect
is dominant over the nonlinear effects. For z > Lw, the wave propagation is then modeled
by ignoring the nonlinear terms in Eq.(4.22a). Then, the propagation equation after z >
Lw is given by
A1 i
2 A1
+ 21
+ A1 = 0 ,
z 2
2
t 2
z > Lw
(4.29)
Eq.(4.27) with z = Lw is the initial probe signal to Eq.(4.29). In NRZ systems, Lw is often
defined by the pulse rise time, Tr, such that Lw =
Tr
because only the time-varying
D
part of the pump signal will cause the intensity fluctuation of the probe signal. Therefore,
the first walk-off distance can be interpreted as the fiber transmission distance required
for the rising part of the pump signal to move completely away from its original position
relative to the probe signal. The rise time (10% to 90% of its peak intensity) of the
sinusoidally modulated pump signal is 0.474Tb, and this will be used for calculating the
first walk-off distance, Lw. For example, if Tb=100ps (10Gb/s NRZ system), a =
0.2dB/km, D = 17 [ps/(nmkm)], and Dl = 1nm, then the walk-off distance Lw = 2.8km.
In DSF systems (D = -2 [ps/(nmkm)]), the same parameter values give Lw = 23.7km.
Since Eq.(4.27) is periodic and the probe signal propagation can be considered
linear after Lw, the probe signal will also remain as a periodic signal after Lw. Therefore
the probe signal after z = Lw can be expressed as a Fourier series.
A1 ( z , t ) = C n ( z )e
jn p t
(n = integer)
(4.30)
The Fourier series coefficient C n (z) can be obtained in a similar way as in Section 4-2-1,
and the result is
92
Cn ( z) = e
1
( z Lw )
2
exp 21 n 2 o2 ( z Lw )C n (Lw ) ,
2
z > Lw
(4.31)
where C n (Lw ) is the Fourier series coefficient at z = Lw. From the definition of Fourier
series,
T
1 2
z
jn t
C n (Lw ) = P1 exp exp( j1c ) e j1t ( t ) e p dt
T T
2
2
(4.32)
1
z
j sin ( p t + ) jn p t
= P1 exp exp( j1c ) e w
e
dt
T T
2
2
1 2 j w sin ( p t + ) jn p t
1
e
e
dt = e jn
T T
2
2
j ( w sin n )
(4.33)
If y is very small compared to p, C n (Lw ) can be expressed in terms of the Bessel function
of the first kind of the nth order because
1
2
j ( w sin n )
intensity fluctuation of the probe signal may be approximated by the Bessel function
expansion as below.
A1 ( z , t ) P1e
2
j
jn t
n J n ( w )exp 2 21n2 p2 (z Lw )e p
(4.34)
At a given bit rate, a larger dispersion and/or a larger channel spacing can make Eq.(4.34)
a better approximation because = tan 1
93
Figure 4-10 compares Eq.(4.34) with the simulated results using the split-step
Fourier method in two different systems, one for conventional single-mode fiber (D = 17
[ps/(nmkm)]) and the other for dispersion shifted fiber (D = -2[ps/(nmkm)]. The channel
spacing (Df) is assumed to be 100GHz (Dl = 0.8nm in 1.55mm window), and Rb=10Gb/s,
a=0.2dB/km, g=210-3[1/(kmmW)], P1 = 0.2mW, and P2 = 20mW are used. Fiber loss is
assumed exactly compensated by a preamplifier at the receiver. While the derived
expression agrees very closely with the simulated probe channels intensity for the
conventional fiber system, it does not agree very well for the dispersion-shifted fiber
(DSF) system. This is mainly because the Bessel function approximation of Eq.(4.33)
causes a larger error in the DSF system than in the conventional fiber system. With the
given parameter values, the conventional fiber system will result in y = 0.101 ( p)
while the DSF system gives y = 0.548.
In the pump-probe scheme, the minimum value of the interfered intensity of the
probe signal may be of more interest than the exact shape of the interfered intensity
because the minimum value may directly indicate the amount of eye-closing of the
received signal in WDM systems. Figure 4-11 compares the normalized intensity
interferences, M(%), from the derived analytical expression with the simulated ones as a
function of the channel spacing Df. M(%) is defined as
M (%) =
mean(Probe(t )) min(Probe(t ))
100
mean(Probe(t ))
(4.35)
where Probe(t) = intensity of the probe signal, and the physical parameter values are the
same as used in Figure 4-10. The derived analytical expression, Eq.(4.34), predicts M(%)
of the conventional fiber system very closely over a wide range of channel spacings. On
the other hand, as expected in the DSF system, there are significant discrepancies
between the analytical results and the simulated results as seen in Figure 4-10. However,
even in this case the analytical results show the same qualitative tendency as the
simulated ones. In both systems, M(%) is inversely proportional to the channel spacing,
Df, except when Df < 75GHz in the DSF system. These results agree well with reported
experimental results [51,53,55].
94
When Df < 75GHz in the DSF system, M(%) has a tendency to decrease with
decreasing Df. Physically, this can be explained by the decrease of conversion efficiency
of phase distortions to intensity fluctuations. When the first walk-off distance is
increased, the phase distortions due to nonlinear interactions between pump and probe
channels become significant, but the remaining length of dispersion fiber which is
responsible for conversion of the phase distortions to intensity fluctuations decreases at a
given transmission distance, z (Eq.(4.34)). Furthermore, the argument of the Bessel
function in Eq.(4.34), bw, becomes independent of the channel spacing in the limit of Leff
Lw
w =
=
e
0
dz 1/a) because
P2
2 + (D p )2
Leff
LN
1 + (1.5 Leff Lw )
(4.36)
Leff
LN
Lw
1
. These
LN
explain the qualitative agreements between the simulated and analytical results in Figure
4-11 (b).
When the channel spacing becomes smaller, the other nonlinear effect, FWM, can
be significant in real WDM systems where each channel signal with equal power level is
modulated by a random bit sequence. Therefore, the intensity interference of the probe
signal may not measure the degradation of system performance because the pump-probe
scheme is specifically designed to see the CPM effect alone. The correlation between the
intensity interference and the system performance degradation will be studied in the next
section.
in the DSF system even though quantitative discrepancies are not negligible. However,
another important question still remains to be answered. What is the correlation between
the intensity fluctuations of the weak probe signal (originally a continuous wave) and the
performance degradation in a real WDM system? To examine the correlation of these
quantities, 3-channel WDM systems are considered. Each channel is modulated at
Rb=10Gb/s with a 32bit-long random sequence. The peak power of each channel is
assumed to be 20mW and the pulse shape is assumed Gaussian. Fiber loss and the
nonlinearity constant are a=0.2dB/km, g=210-3[1/(kmmW)], respectively. The system
performance degradation is measured using the eye-opening penalty (EOP) defined in
Eq.(4.2). To see the effect of FWM on EOP, two cases are simulated, one for equallyspaced channels and the other for unequally-spaced channels. The use of unequal
spacing is a technique that has received considerable recent investigation to reduce FWM
effects on WDM systems [20,26,59,60]. In this work, the unequally spaced system has a
10% offset, that is, the left channel is spaced 10% closer to the center channel while the
right channel is spaced 10% further away from the center channel compared to the
equally spaced system. For example, the left, and the right channel spacing are 90GHz
and 110GHZ, respectively in the unequally spaced system, corresponding to a 100GHz
equally spaced system.
Figure 4-12 shows the calculated EOP of the conventional fiber system (D = 17
[ps/(nmkm)]) as a function of Df after z = 100km. The differences between the EOPs of
the equally spaced case and the unequally spaced case are negligible, which suggests that
CPM is the dominant multi-channel nonlinearity (negligible FWM) in the conventional
fiber system. Therefore, the pump-probe measurements can be very useful to estimate
system performance degradation in the conventional fiber system. (Direct correlation
between EOP penalties and the probe signal fluctuation will be compared at the end of
this section.) In Figure 4-12, the EOP of the single-channel case is also plotted as a
reference. The large dispersion coefficient results in around 2.1dB of EOP in the singlechannel case.
Figure 4-13 shows the calculated EOP of the DSF system (D = -2 [ps/(nmkm)]).
Unlike the conventional fiber system, the unequal spacing results in a significant
improvement of EOP especially when Df is small. For example, the unequal spacing
96
improves the EOP by more than 1.5dB compared to the equally spaced case when Df =
50GHz. These results indicate that FWM is also a significant effect in degrading
performance in the DSF system because the difference between the equal and the unequal
spaced channels is a result of whether the FWM effect is suppressed or not. Therefore,
the pump-probe measurements may not serve to directly indicate the performance
degradation in a real WDM system when DSF and equal channel spacings are used.
Figure 4-14 shows the eye-patterns of the center channel of the DSF system when Df =
75GHz. Figure 4-14(b) shows the eye-pattern of the single channel case. The EOP of
Figure 4-14(b) (~0.5dB) can be considered as a power penalty due to the combined effect
of dispersion and SPM. The EOP of Figure 4-14(c) (unequally spaced) can be considered
as the added penalty due to CPM in addition to the penalty of dispersion and SPM, while
the EOP of Figure 4-14 (d) (equally spaced) is the result of the further addition of FWM
penalty.
Finally, Figure 4-15 compares the CPM penalties resulting from the sinusoidal
pump-probe measurements and the EOP simulations in the 3-channel WDM systems. In
the 3-channel systems, the CPM penalty is defined as the difference of the EOP of the
unequally spaced case and the EOP of the single channel case. For example, the CPM
penalty of the DSF system is the difference of curve (c) and curve (b) in Figure 4-13. In
the pump-probe measurements, the CPM penalty is defined as below.
~
min (ip (t ) )
CPM Penalty[dB] = - 10 log
~
mean(ip (t ) )
(4.37)
~
where ip (t ) is the photo-detected probe-signal after the electrical filter at the receiver. A
third-order Butterworth filter with bandwidth = 0.8Rb is used for the electrical filter. In
the conventional fiber system (Figure 4-15(a)), the CPM penalty of the 3-channel WDM
system agrees well with the CPM penalty from the sinusoidal pump-probe measurements
over a wide range of Df. Therefore, the derived analytical expression can be very useful
to estimate the performance degradation in a conventional fiber WDM system.
Unlike the conventional fiber system, Figure 4-15(b) shows that the CPM
penalties of the pump-probe measurements, whether from simulations or from the derived
analytical expression, do not agree well with the 3-channel systems penalty especially
97
when Df < 100GHz. This is mainly because FWM is also a significant contribution to the
performance degradation in the DSF system. However, when Df > 100GHz, the derived
analytical result gives a good estimation of CPM penalty even in the DSF system.
4-4. Summary
In this chapter, the transmission impairments due to fiber nonlinearities have been
analyzed using a sinusoidally modulated signal which models an alternating bit sequence
of ones and zeros in on-off keying. In the analysis of SPM in single channel transmission,
the sinusoidal response of nonlinear fiber shows a strong correlation with EOP in the
normal dispersion region over a wide range of values of the normalized nonlinearity
parameter N (0.1 < N2 <100). This result strongly indicates that the measurement of the
sinusoidal response can be an alternate way of measuring EOP without having a long
sequence of randomly modulated input bits. However, in the anomalous dispersion region
where soliton formation is possible, the sinusoidal response has a much more limited
range of application to estimate system performance.
The sinusoidal response has also been derived analytically based on the
perturbation analysis developed in chapter 2. Since the perturbation analysis has a limited
range of validity, the derived analytical expression also has a limited range of
applicability. Comparison with numerical results reveals that the derived expression may
result in a significant error when N2 > 3.
The sinusoidal analysis has also been applied in a multi-channel system to
estimate CPM-induced performance degradation. The intensity fluctuation of the probe
signal has been derived in the context of the first-walk-off approximation. The derived
expression shows good agreement with numerical results in conventional single-mode
fiber systems. The derived expression also shows qualitative agreement with numerical
results in DSF systems even though it results in larger errors than in the conventional
fiber case especially when the channel spacing is small. When Df > 100GHz, however,
98
the derived expression also gives a good estimate of the CPM induced power penalty
even in the DSF system.
In addition, the correlation of the probe signals intensity fluctuation and the EOP
in a real WDM system has been examined. Numerical studies show that FWM induced
power penalty becomes comparable to the CPM induced power penalty in the DSF
system when the channel spacing is less than 100GHz. Therefore, the derived analytical
solution could find most application in a WDM system where the performance
degradation is mostly from CPM rather than FWM.
99
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-9
x 10
Simulation
Theory
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
time [sec]
1
-9
x 10
Figure 4-10 The probe signals intensity fluctuations after z = 100km. Df =100GHz,
Rb=10Gb/s, a=0.2dB/km, g=210-3[1/(kmmW)], P1 = 0.2mW, and P2 = 20mW (a) D =
+17 [ps/(nmkm)] (b) D = -2 [ps/(nmkm)]
100
(a)Conventional Fiber
35
Simulation
Theory
30
25
20
15
10
5
50
100
150
200
10
5
50
100
150
200
Figure 4-11 The normalized intensity interferences, M(%), after z = 100km. Rb=10Gb/s,
a=0.2dB/km, g=210-3[1/(kmmW)], P1 = 0.2mW, and P2 = 20mW (a) D = +17
[ps/(nmkm)] (b) D = -2 [ps/(nmkm)]
101
E.O.P. [dB]
3.5
2.5
1.5
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
102
Equally Spaced
Unequally Spaced
Single Channel
E.O.P. [dB]
3.5
3
(d)
2.5
2
(c)
1.5
1
(b)
0.5
0
-0.5
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
103
(a) Back-to-Back
20
20
15
15
10
10
50
100
150
200
15
15
10
10
50
100
150
100
150
200
20
50
200
[ps]
50
100
150
200
[ps]
Figure 4-14 Eye-patterns of DSF system after z =100km (a) Back-to-back case, (b)
Single channel case, (c) Center channel of Df =75GHz case (unequally spaced), and (d)
Center channel of Df =75GHz case (equally spaced)
104
2
PRBS
Sinusoidal(sim.)
Sinusoidal(theory)
1.5
0.5
0
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2
PRBS
Sinusoidal(sim.)
Sinusoidal(theory)
1.5
0.5
0
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Figure 4-15 CPM penalty (a) conventional fiber system, and (b) DSF system
105
Chapter 5
Noise Loading Analysis to Characterize
Fiber Nonlinearities
5-1. Introduction
One of the major concerns in multi-channel communication systems is the system
impairment due to cross-talk between channels. Cross-talk is often induced by system
nonlinearities because nonlinearities can generate new spectral components which may
fall into the neighboring channels. Therefore, it has been of interest to develop analysis
and characterization methods to evaluate system impairments due to cross-talk. Among
the various techniques developed are the two-tone test, three-tone test, and noise loading
analysis using a Gaussian noise source [62]. When there are a significant number of
channels, noise loading is preferred because Gaussian noise having a broad spectrum is a
good approximation of multi-channel signal loading in a broadband system, whereas
sinusoidal loading is not representative of multi-channel loading. In the noise loading
analysis, a sharp notch filter is used to remove a part of the noise spectrum before input to
the system. At the output of the system, a bandpass filter (BPF) tuned to the notch filter
will indicate the spectral shape due to nonlinearities within the filter bandwidth.
Therefore, the output of the BPF is the quantity of interest in the noise loading analysis.
106
107
spectrum that falls into the bandwidth of the BPF consists of only the intermodulation
noise due to fiber nonlinearities.
In the noise loading analysis, noise power ratio (NPR) is often used as a figure of
merit rather than absolute power. NPR is defined by
P
NPR = 10 log10
P
(5.1)
where Pa = average output power of the BPF without the notch filter at the input to the
fiber, and Pb = average output power of the BPF with the notch filter at the input to the
fiber. NPR should be a good estimate of signal to noise ratio degradation due to fiber
nonlinearities within the bandwidth of interest as long as Pa Pb. This is because Pb is
the noise power due to fiber nonlinearities, and Pa is approximately the sum of Pb and the
signal power within the bandwidth of the notch filter. That is, the signal to noise ratio
within
the
bandwidth
may
be
approximated
SNR 10 log((P P ) P )
as
= 10 log(P P 1) NPR .
In this chapter, the noise loading analysis has been simulated using the split-step
Fourier method to see the possible applications of the noise loading analysis in fiber optic
communication systems. In addition, the Volterra series representation of the fiber is used
to calculate Pb analytically, and the analytic results are compared with the split-step
Fourier numerical results.
Power
Meter
Notch Filter(Bo)
BPF(Bo)
Symbols
Values
Note
Sampling frequency
Fs
1.28 [THz]
Data size
ND
213=8192
Step distance
Dz
0.2 [km]
Simulation Step
Noise source
f2 f1
180 [GHz]
Dl 1.5nm
Bo
30 [GHz]
Dl 0.24nm
Pavg
10 [mW]
bandwidth
to the fiber
notch filter
Fiber length
200 [km]
Fiber loss
210-3 [mW-1km-1]
0.1 [ps2/km]
b2
3 [ps2/km]
10 [ps2/km]
b3
Lossless case
Major simulation
variables
(Typical DSF b2:
-3 to +3 [ps2/km])
0.063 [ps3/km]
parameter
109
case the magnitude of signal spectrum becomes invariant. Pb starts to level off around
50km. The earlier saturation occurrence of Pb than Pa may be interpreted as a balance
between energy increase within the notched bandwidth due to the intermodulation
components from outside of the bandwidth and energy loss due to the intermodulation to
outside of the bandwidth.
When the magnitude of b2 becomes significant (|b2| = 10 ps2/km) (Figure 5-9 and
5-10), Pa behaves oppositely depending on the dispersion region. In the normal
dispersion region (Figure 5-9), Pa tends to grow as distance increases (Pa(z)/Pa(0) > 1),
but in the anomalous region (Figure 5-10), it decreases as distance increases
(Pa(z)/Pa(0) < 1). This is related to the spectral shape as we observed in Figure 5-4 (b)
(convex in the normal dispersion) and Figure 5-4 (d) (concave in the anomalous
dispersion). Pb in the normal dispersion region is larger than Pb in the anomalous
dispersion region. Therefore, NPR which is given by the ratio of Pa and Pb remains at
almost the same level in both dispersion regions. The different behaviors of Pa and Pb
depending on the dispersion region may imply different performance for the b2 = +10
ps2/km and b2 = -10 ps2/km cases even though NPRs are almost the same. It is interesting
to note, however, that Pa and Pb behave in a similar way regardless of the dispersion
region when |b2| = 0.1 ps2/km as observed in Figure 5-7 and 5-8.
In a real system, a fiber span is often designed using a proper dispersion map [2224] to combat nonlinearity and dispersion effects simultaneously. The noise loading
analysis of different dispersion maps will be discussed in the following section.
fibers) after the conventional fibers should have normal dispersion in the 1.55mm window
with a relatively large dispersion parameter because the conventional fibers have a typical
value of about b2 = -20 ps2/km. However, various dispersion maps could be considered to
optimize performance when a new system is designed with dispersion shifted fibers
(DSF, typically b2 = -3 to +3 ps2/km in the 1.55mm window). In this section, one span of
fiber links with three different dispersion maps is considered, and the performance of
each dispersion map is compared using the noise loading analysis. Table 5-2 shows the
fiber parameters of each map. Total fiber length is 150km and the total average
dispersion is designed to be zero, that is, 2 =
L1 21 + L2 22
= 0, where Li (i=1,2) is the
L1 + L2
fiber length, and 2i is the dispersion coefficient of i-th segment fiber, respectively. Map 1
and Map 2 are designed with DSFs having the same magnitude of the dispersion
coefficients but with opposite signs. In Map 3, a conventional fiber is used as a second
segment fiber to compensate the DSF of the first section. In each map, input is Gaussian
noise with 0.5mW average power and 200GHz bandwidth. The bandwidth of the notch
filter is 20GHz, and all the filters have the ideal (rectangular) spectral response.
1
2
2 [ps /km]
First Section
g1[mW-1km-1]
L1 [km]
Second Section
g2[mW-1km-1]
2
2
2 [ps /km]
L2 [km]
Map 1
+0.64
210-3
75
-0.64
210-3
75
Map 2
-0.64
210-3
75
+0.64
210-3
75
+0.64
-3
-23.32
-3
Map 3
210
146
310
113
Figure 5-11 shows the noise loading analysis with the three different dispersion
maps. From Figure 5-11 (c), we can observe that Map 2 (DSF(anomalous) +
DSF(normal)) gives the poorest performance among the three maps. Since Map 1
(DSF(normal) + DSF(anomalous)) gives about a 2.5dB advantage of NPR over Map 2,
we may conclude that it is advantageous to place normal dispersion fiber first. This is
because the spectral broadening in the normal dispersion region is less significant than in
the anomalous region. The performance of Map 3 (DSF(normal) + CF(anomalous)) is
similar to that of Map 1. This is because the first section of the fiber link is the normal
dispersion with the same magnitude in both of Map 1 and Map 3. Most of spectrum
broadening will occur in the first section of the link because the broadened spectrum in
the first section makes the dispersion effect comparable to or dominant over the nonlinear
effects in the second section. In the second fiber, propagation is essentially linear and
performance depends on only the total dispersion of this fiber ( 22 L2 ). Therefore,
conventional fibers (CF) may be used instead of anomalous dispersion-shifted fibers
(DSF) when the period of the dispersion map is large enough such that most spectrum
broadening occurs in the first section of the fiber link.
114
-20
dB
-40
-60
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
150
200
-20
dB
-40
-60
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
[GHz]
50
100
Figure 5-2 Normalized spectral densities of noise source (a) without notch filter (b) with
notch filter
115
-10
-10
-20
-20
dB -30
dB -30
-40
-40
-50
-50
-60
-500
500
-60
-500
-10
-10
-20
-20
dB -30
dB -30
-40
-40
-50
-50
0
[GHz]
500
500
-60
-500
-60
-500
0
[GHz]
500
Figure 5-3 Normalized spectral densities with notch filter (a) b2 = 0.1 [ps2/km], z=50km
(b) b2 = 0.1 [ps2/km], z=200km (c) b2 = -0.1 [ps2/km], z=50km (d) b2 = -0.1 [ps2/km],
z=200km
116
-20
-20
dB
dB
-40
-60
-200
-40
-100
100
-60
-200
200
100
200
-20
-20
dB
-100
dB
-40
-60
-200
-40
-100
0
[GHz]
100
200
-60
-200
-100
0
[GHz]
100
200
Figure 5-4 Normalized spectral densities with notch filter (a) b2 = 10 [ps2/km], z=50km
(b) b2 = 10 [ps2/km], z=200km (c) b2 = -10 [ps2/km], z=50km (d) b2 = -10 [ps2/km],
z=200km
117
-10
1.2
[mW/Hz]
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4
2
x 10
10
200
-2
-4
Frequency [Hz]
50
100
150
Distance [km]
x 10
[mW/Hz]
0
4
2
10
x 10
200
150
-2
Frequency [Hz]
100
-4
50
0
Distance [km]
Figure 5-5 Spectral growth within the notch filter bandwidth when b2 = 3 [ps2/km]
(a) with the notch filter (b) without the notch filter
118
2=10ps 2/km
2=-10ps 2/km
2=3ps 2/km
2=-3ps 2/km
2=0.1ps 2/km
2=-0.1ps 2/km
25
NPR [dB]
20
15
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Distance [km]
119
(a)
(b)
1.6
a 0.8
1.2
0.7
a 0.6
1
0.8
0.9
P (z)/ P (0)
P (z) [mW]
1.4
50
100
150
0.5
200
50
25
0.8
20
0.4
150
200
10
a 5
0.2
0
200
b 15
0.6
150
(d)
P (z)/ P (z)
P (z) [mW]
(c)
100
50
100
z [km ]
150
200
50
100
z [km ]
Figure 5-7 b2 = +0.1 ps2/km (a) Pa(z), (b) Pa(z)/ Pa(0), (c) Pb(z), and (d) Pa(z)/ Pb(z)
(a)
(b)
1
1.4
P (z)/ P (0)
P (z) [mW]
1.6
a 0.8
1.2
1
a 0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0
50
100
150
200
50
(c)
200
150
200
20
0.8
P (z)/ P (z)
P (z) [mW]
150
(d)
100
0.6
0.4
15
10
a 5
0.2
0
0
0
50
100
z [km ]
150
200
50
100
z [k m]
Figure 5-8 b2 = -0.1 ps2/km (a) Pa(z), (b) Pa(z)/ Pa(0), (c) Pb(z), and (d) Pa(z)/ Pb(z)
120
(b)
1.25
1.8
1.2
P (z)/ P (0)
P (z) [mW]
(a)
1.9
a1.15
1.7
1.6
a 1.5
1.4
1.1
a1.05
50
100
150
200
50
(c)
P (z) [mW]
150
200
150
200
(d)
0.08
120
P (z)/ P (z)
0.06
100
b 80
0.04
b 0.02
0
100
60
a 40
50
100
z [km ]
150
20
200
50
100
z [k m]
Figure 5-9 b2 = +10 ps2/km (a) Pa(z), (b) Pa(z)/ Pa(0), (c) Pb(z), and (d) Pa(z)/ Pb(z)
(a)
(b)
P (z)/ P (0)
P (z) [mW]
1.6
1.5
a0.95
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.9
50
100
150
0.85
0.8
200
50
(c)
200
150
200
100
P (z)/ P (z)
P (z) [mW]
150
(d)
0.05
0.04
0.03
b 0.02
0.01
0
100
50
100
z [km ]
150
200
80
60
40
20
50
100
z [km]
Figure 5-10 b2 = -10 ps2/km (a) Pa(z), (b) Pa(z)/ Pa(0), (c) Pb(z), and (d) Pa(z)/ Pb(z)
121
(a)
8
P (z) [mW]
P (z)/ P (0)
a 0.995
0.99
x 10
Map1
Map2
Map3
Map1
Map2
Map3
0.985
(b)
-4
1.005
0.98
0
0
50
100
150
50
z [km]
100
150
z [km]
(c)
40
Map1
Map2
Map3
NPR [dB]
35
30
25
20
15
50
100
150
z [km]
Figure 5-11 Noise loading analysis with different dispersion maps (a) Pa(z)/ Pa(0),
(b) Pb(z), and (c) NPR [dB]
122
y1(t)
H 1 ( , z )
x(t)
H 3 (1 , 2 , 3 , z )
y3(t)
H 3 (1 , 2 , 3 , z ) = je
j
z + 2 (1 2 + 3 ) 2 z
2 2
e z + j 2 (1 2 )(3 2 ) z 1
+ j 2 (1 2 )( 3 2 )
(5.2)
In Eq.(5.2), the b3 term is omitted for simplicity. The effect of the b3 term is usually
negligible except when the signal wavelength is close to the zero dispersion wavelength,
lZD.
From Figure 5-12, the output auto-correlation function, R yy ( ) , is obtained as
below. x(t) and y(t) denote the input process to the fiber and the output process of the
fiber, respectively.
} {(
R yy ( ) = E y * (t ) y (t + ) = E y1* (t ) + y 3* (t ) ( y1 (t + ) + y 3 (t + ) )
= R y1 y1 ( ) + R y1 y 3 ( ) + R y 3 y1 ( ) + R y 3 y 3 ( )
(5.3)
= R y1 y1 ( ) + R y1 y 3 ( ) + R y*1 y 3 ( ) + R y 3 y 3 ( )
where * denotes the complex conjugate and E{} is the ensemble average operator. The
output spectral density function, Syy(f), which is the Fourier transform of R yy ( ) , is then
S yy ( f ) = S y1 y1 ( f ) + S y 3 y 3 ( f ) + S y1 y 3 ( f ) + S y1 y 3 ( f )
where S y1 y1 ( f ) = {R y1 y1 ( )},
S y 3 y 3 ( f ) = {R y 3 y 3 ( )},
S y1 y 3 ( f ) = {R y1 y 3 ( )},
(5.4)
and
S y1 y 3 ( f ) = R *y1 y 3 ( ) . {}
is the Fourier transform operator.
The spectral density functions for the third-order nonlinearity are derived in the
literature [70], and the results are
S y1 y1 ( f , z ) = H 1 ( f , z ) S xx ( f )
(5.5)
S y1 y 3 ( f , z ) = 3H1* ( f , z ) S xx ( f ) H 3 (u ,u , f , z ) S xx (u )du
(5.6)
S y 3 y 3 ( f , z ) = 9S xx ( f ) H 3 (u ,u , f , z ) S xx (u )du
+ 6 H 3 (u , v u , f v, z ) S xx (u ) S xx (v u ) S xx ( f u )dudv
2
(5.7)
124
In the evaluation of Pb (= average output power of the BPF at the fiber output with the
notch filter at the input to the fiber), the input spectral density Sxx(f) has a sharply
notched-out spectral shape from Bo/2 to +Bo/2. Therefore, from Eq.(5.5) to (5.7), we
observe that the second term of Eq.(5.7) is the only term that can contribute to Pb.
If
we
denote
the
second
term
of
Eq.(5.7)
( f , z ) ,
as
Bo
P =
Bo
Bo
yy
( f , z )df
with notch filter
( f , z )df
Bo
(5.8)
When the fiber loss term is ignored, the third order Volterra series transfer function may
2
be expressed as H3 (u, v u, f v, z) = 2
2 2
2
(2u v)( f 2v + u)
Therefore,
S yy ( f , z ) with notch filter
3
= ( f , z ) = 2
2 2
(5.9)
We can observe that ( f , z ) is an even function of b2, which means the Volterra series
approach does not predict the dependence of Pb on the dispersion region.
Figure 5-13 shows the numerical evaluation result of Eq.(5.9) at z = 50km with
|b2| = 3ps2/km and |b2| = 10ps2/km. Fiber loss and b3 terms are ignored, and the
nonlinearity coefficient, g = 210-3 mW-1km-1, is used. Signal power is assumed to be
10mW, and the spectral shape input to the fiber is flat ranging from 90GHz to +90GHz
125
with 30GHz notched-out. The same parameter values will be used in the split-step
Fourier method for comparison, and the results are shown in Figure 5-14. From the
evaluated spectral densities, we can obtain Pb by integrating them over Bo (notchbandwidth). The numerical results at z = 50km are compared in Table 5-3. From Table 53, it is observed that Volterra series approach using up to the third order transfer function
of the fiber considerably overestimates the noise power output, Pb, compared to the splitstep method. For example, when |b2| = 3ps2/km, the Volterra series approach gives Pb =
0.6878 mW regardless of the dispersion region while the split-step method gives Pb =
0.1369 mW (normal) and Pb = 0.1975 mW (anomalous). Furthermore, numerical
evaluation of ( f , z ) (Eq.(5.9)) often requires more computational resources than the
split-step method due to its double convolution. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to
apply the Volterra approach to obtain quantitative results in noise loading analysis.
|b2| = 3ps2/km
0.6878 mW
0.1369 mW (normal)
0.1975 mW (anomalous)
|b2| = 10ps2/km
0.2330 mW
0.0317 mW (normal)
0.0350 mW (anomalous)
126
-11
x 10
Syy[mW/Hz]
2.5
|b2| = 3ps2/km
1.5
|b2| = 10ps2/km
0.5
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
Frequency [GHz]
127
-11
x 10
-11
Syy[mW/Hz]
Syy[mW/Hz]
x 10
0
-4
-2
0
-4
-2
10
Syy[mW/Hz]
1.5
-11
1.5
Syy[mW/Hz]
-11
x 10
0.5
0
-4
4
10
x 10
x 10
x 10
0.5
-2
Frequency [Hz]
4
10
x 10
0
-4
-2
Frequency [Hz]
4
10
x 10
128
5-4. Summary
In this chapter, the noise loading technique is applied to fiber optic transmission
systems to characterize fiber nonlinearities. In the noise loading analysis, NPR (noise
power ratio) is the critical parameter defined as the ratio of Pa (average output power of
the BPF without the notch filter at the input to the fiber) and Pb (average output power of
the BPF with the notch filter at the input to the fiber). Simulation results using the splitstep method show that NPR is a strong function of the magnitude of the dispersion
parameter, b2. NPR is larger when the magnitude of b2 is larger, which suggests that
larger dispersion is always beneficial to reduce nonlinear cross-talk.
In addition,
129
Chapter 6
Nonlinear Bandwidth Expansion Receiver
in Spectrum-Sliced WDM Systems
6-1. Introduction
In the previous chapter, the transmission of stochastic signals in nonlinear fibers
using noise loading analysis was discussed. In this chapter, we will investigate how fiber
nonlinearities can be utilized to improve the performance of spectrum-sliced WDM (SSWDM) systems (Figure 6-1). In a spectrum-sliced system an incoherent (stochastic)
broadband source is used to generate the carrier signals of each channel by slicing the
source spectrum with passive optical filters. Spectrum-sliced systems are known to be
applicable for local area networks because although performance is limited it is
potentially much lower in cost compared to conventional WDM systems. Recently,
however, it has been demonstrated that spectrum slicing can be used for much larger
scale networks with over Gb/s rate and hundreds of kilometers of transmission distance
[71]. One of the key factors in the design of Gb/s spectrum-sliced WDM systems is the
trade-off in optical bandwidth between signal-to-excess optical noise ratio and dispersion
penalty. A small optical bandwidth of the spectrum-sliced signal will cause a significant
intensity noise (called excess noise), but a larger optical bandwidth will induce significant
130
l1
Signal 1
l1
Photo-Detector
i1(t)
Noisy Source
Fiber
l2
MUX
ln
in(t)
ln
Optical Filter
Electrical Filter
Signal n
li
EDFA
Nonlinear Fiber
Optical Filter
G
w(t)
i p (t )
Optical Filters
132
(6.1)
where v(t) = the input random process to the fiber, g = nonlinearity coefficient, and z =
the fiber length.
For example, if the average power of v(t), Pv, is 40mW, g = 210-3 mW-1km-1, |b2| = 3
ps2/km, the dispersion distance (LD = To2|b2|) is 3,333km for a 100ps initial pulse width
133
while the nonlinear distance (LN = (gPv)-1) is 12.5km. Therefore, Eq.(6.1) is justified if
the fiber length, z, is comparable to or smaller than LN when LD LN [11].
The bandwidth of w(t) could be significantly larger than v(t), but the photodetected signal of w(t) will be exactly the same as that of v(t) because the photo-detector
is insensitive to signal phase. However, optical filtering before photo-detection could
modify the statistical properties of w(t) to reduce the excess noise in the photo-detected
signal as observed in Figure 6-3. The photo-detected signal, i p (t ) , with the nonlinear
bandwidth
expansion
receiver
(Figure
6-2)
may
be
expressed
as
300
250
A.U.
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
-10
[sec]
50
A.U.
40
30
20
10
0
0
[sec]
10
-10
Figure 6-3 Comparison of Eye-Diagrams (a) without bandwidth expansion (b) with
bandwidth expansion
135
Bo2=30GHz
Bo2=100GHz
Bo2=250GHz
0.8
C ( )
C (0)
0.6
Without BW
Expansion
0.4
0.2
0
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
Time [ps]
Figure 6-4 Normalized auto-covariance (correlation coefficient) curves of the photodetected signal when m=5
136
1
C()d
C(0) 0
(6.2)
Tc
1
~ c =
C(0)
C ( ) d
Tc
(6.3)
where Tc is a reference time interval defined as the range of the auto-covariance without
bandwidth expansion to drop to 1/e of its peak value.
Figure 6-5 shows the calculated ~c as a function of optical filter bandwidth, Bo, for
various input powers to the nonlinear fiber. (The greater the input power the greater the
bandwidth expansion.) Figure 6-5 (a) is the case of m = 5 and Figure 6-5 (b) is for m =
2.5 which corresponds to transmitted bandwidths of 12.5 GHz (Dl = 0.1nm) and 6.25
GHz (Dl=0.05 nm), respectively when the bit rate is 2.5Gbits/s. The solid line is the ~
c
for the reference case without the nonlinear bandwidth expansion. It is interesting to
observe that there is an optimum bandwidth of the optical filter to minimize ~ , which
c
137
suggests the existence of an optimum bandwidth to minimize bit error rate (BER) at a
given m.
BER can be estimated by the Q-factor which is defined as [30]
Q=
1 0
1 + 0
(6.4)
where m1, m0 are the mean values, and s1, s0 are the standard deviations of the mark
and space states at the receiver, respectively. If it is assumed that the mark and space
states are Gaussian distributed then it is easily shown [30] that the Q-factor and BER are
related by
BER =
where erfc ( x) =
1
Q
erfc
2
2
(6.5)
e y dy .
2
It has been reported that BER estimation using Eq.(6.5) may be significantly inaccurate
because the assumption of Gaussian statistics may not be valid in describing the photodetected signal in direct-detection receivers [76-79]. Nevertheless, the Q-factor can give a
good estimate of relative system performance with a reasonable amount of computational
load. Figure 6-6 shows the block diagram to simulate the Q-factor with the nonlinear
bandwidth expansion receiver. A total 1240 bits are used to calculate the Q-factor.
Figure 6-7 shows the simulated Q-factor as a function of the bandwidth of the
optical filter in NBER when input power to the nonlinear fiber is fixed at 30mW. It is
significant that large Q-factors can be achieved with relatively small values of m. It has
been shown that in the absence of bandwidth expansion the Q-factor, assuming a
polarized source, asymptotically approaches
138
m =2.5 and for m = 5 occur near 70GHz and 150GHz, respectively. They correspond to
the optimum bandwidth to minimize ~c when Pv = 30mW in Figure 6-5. Thus, the
modified correlation time, which is much easier to compute than the Q-factor, appears to
be a very useful means for determining optimum filter bandwidth.
Physically, the existence of the optimum filter bandwidth can be explained by
considering two extreme cases. When the filter bandwidth is too small, the signal will
suffer too much energy loss and there is inadequate bandwidth expansion to achieve
performance improvement. At the other extreme where the filter bandwidth is very large,
then the bandwidth expansion consists solely of phase modulation which does not change
the signal intensity.
139
(a)m=5
-12
8.5
x 10
8
Without Expansion
P v =30mW
Correlation time
7.5
P v =50mW
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
50
100
150
200
250
Bo [GHz]
(b)m=2.5
-11
x 10
Without Expansion
P v =30mW
P v =50mW
Correlation time
P v =70mW
1.5
0.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
Bo [GHz]
Optical Filter1
Broad-Band
Complex Gaussian
Random Process
PRBS
Optical Filter2
Ideal EDFA
w(t)
v(t)
20km
Pv
Ideal Photo-Detector
ip(t)
2
()
Electrical Filter
~
i p (t )
1 0
Q=
1 + 0
Calculation of
m1, s1 & m0, s0
1
Tb
Tb
( )dT
0
141
10
9.5
m=5
9
8.5
0
Q= 1
1 + 0
8
7.5
7
m=2.5
6.5
6
5.5
5
50
100
150
200
250
300
Bo [GHz]
Figure 6-7 Q-factor as a function of bandwidth of the optical filter in NBER (Pv=30mW)
142
Ssp(f) = (G-1)nsphf
(6.6)
143
Now instead of fixing the amplifier output power, the gain model of the EDFA is
included. The large signal gain of an EDFA can be modeled as below [30].
G 1 Pout
G = G0 exp
G Ps
(6.7)
where G0 is the unsaturated small signal gain, Ps is the saturation power, and Pout is the
EDFA output power.
Figure 6-8 (b) shows that when the input power is low the sensitivity of the NBER is
severely limited by including EDFA gain model for both Go=30dB and 35dB. m = 5 and
Ps = 15dBm is used for both cases. To achieve Q = 6, Pin should be around 15dBm for
Go=30dB and around 20dBm for Go=35dB. These simulation results indicate that the
finite gain of the EDFA in the NBER is the more limiting factor on sensitivity than is
ASE noise. This result is not surprising because NBER requires a large EDFA output
power so that it can create enough nonlinearities in the following fiber.
19.6GHz of equivalent noise bandwidth1, Beq. Equivalent noise bandwidth is the width
of a fictitious rectangular spectrum such that the power in that rectangular band is equal
to the power associated with the actual spectrum [81]. Therefore, a rectangular filter
having a 19.6GHz bandwidth will make the output power of the spectrum-sliced signal
equal to that of the first order Butterworth filter having a 3dB bandwidth of 12.5 GHz.
Figure 6-9 shows the modified correlation time and Q-factor with the rectangular slicing
filter. From the calculated ~ (Figure 6-9 (a)), we expect that the optimum filter
c
bandwidth following the nonlinear bandwidth expansion will occur around 30GHz with
Pv=30mW, and around 50GHz with Pv=50 and 70mW. These optimum bandwidths occur
approximately at one third of the first-order Butterworth filter case (Figure 6-5 (a)). For
example, the optimum bandwidth occurred around 150GHz with Pv=50mW when the
12.5GHz 3dB bandwidth of the first order Butterworth filter is used. This result suggests
that the bandwidth expansion when the input spectrum is very sharp is much less
effective than when input spectrum has long tails.
with the optimum bandwidth of 50GHz of the optical filter in NBER. The optical
amplifier is modeled to include ASE noise and the gain saturation effect with Go=30dB as
described in Eq.(6-6) and Eq.(6-7). There are performance improvements when the
received signal power is large. However, it is observed that the improvement achieved is
much less (smaller values of Q) compared to the case where a first order Butterworth
filter is used for the spectrum slicing (Figure 6-8 (b)). The Q factor with the rectangular
filter is less than 5 while it was more than 8 for the case of a first order Butterworth filter
when the received signal power is 10dBm. This is because the optimum bandwidth is
smaller as indicated by the minimum point of the modified correlation time (Figure 6-9
(a)). Therefore, we may conclude that the nonlinear bandwidth expansion technique
requires a broad spectral shape of the transmitted signal to achieve a significant
performance improvement.
Beq =
1
2 H ( 0)
H( f )
df .
145
6-5. Summary
Simulation studies show that in spectrum-sliced WDM systems nonlinear
bandwidth expansion at the receiver may be used to reduce excess noise while keeping
the transmitted optical bandwidth small. This is important because small transmitted
bandwidths are crucial to minimize dispersion effects, and to maximize transmission
capacity for a given total bandwidth. The performance improvement can be explained by
observing the auto-covariance curves of the photo-detected signal. The optical filter after
the nonlinear fiber in the NBER makes the covariance curve narrower than that of the
input signal, but can cause a rise in the tails if the filter bandwidth is too large.
Simulations of auto-covariance and Q-factor indicate that to maximize system
performance there is an optimum bandwidth of the optical filter following the nonlinear
bandwidth expansion.
To have optimum performance improvement, the input spectrum slice should
have fairly long tails to make the bandwidth expansion more efficient. Even when the
spectrum has a broad shape, the sensitivity of NBER is severely limited by the finite gain
of the optical amplifier. To increase the receiver sensitivity, it is desirable to have large
fiber nonlinearities, and an optical amplifier with larger gain.
146
(a)
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Bo2 =50GHz
Bo2 =200GHz
Bo2 =500GHz
3
2
1
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
Pin [dBm]
(b)
11
10
9
Go =35dB
7
6
5
Go =30dB
4
3
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
Pin [dBm]
Figure 6-8 Q-factor of NBER with non-ideal EDFA (a) EDFA noise effects on the
sensitivity of NBER (Pv= 40mW), (b) NBER sensitivity with gain modeling (Ps =15dBm)
147
(a)
-11
1.9
x 10
1.8
Correlation Time
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Without Expansion
Pv =30mW
Pv =50mW
Pv =70mW
1.3
1.2
1.1
50
100
150
200
250
Bo [GHz]
(b)
4.6
4.4
4.2
B =50GHz
o2
B =100GHz
o2
=30GHz
o2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
Pin [dBm]
Chapter 7
Conclusions and Future Work
In this final chapter, we summarize the conclusions that can be drawn from the
research performed for this dissertation, and then provide suggestions for future research.
dissertation, several analytical models have been presented to give better physical insight
of the effect of fiber nonlinearities on fiber optic communication systems. The major
results obtained from each approach are summarized as follows:
= 2km 1 mW 1 , the critical distance for the first order perturbation approach is
estimated to be z c
150
[km mW ] . The critical distance, zc, is defined as the
Pavg
LN
1
=
2
Pavg 2
that there is no optimum input pulse width to minimize the output spectrum
width or to minimize product of st(z) and sw(z).
3. The response of a fiber to a sinusoidally modulated input has been studied to see
its utility in measuring system performance in the presence of fiber
150
Chapter7: Conclusions and future work
(0.1 < N2
<100). This result implies that the measurement of the sinusoidal response can
be an alternate way of measuring eye-opening penalty (EOP) without having a
long sequence of randomly modulated input bits. But in the anomalous
dispersion region, the sinusoidal response has a much more limited range of
application to estimate system performance. The sinusoidal response has also
been derived analytically based on the perturbation analysis. Since the
perturbation analysis has a limited range of validity, the derived analytical
expression also has a limited range of applicability. Comparison with numerical
results reveals that the derived expression may result in a significant error when
N2 > 3.
5. It is shown that the effect of fiber nonlinearities can also be characterized with a
stochastic signal using the noise loading technique. Numerical results show that
NPR is a strong function of the magnitude of the dispersion parameter, b2. NPR
is larger when the magnitude of b2 is larger, which suggests that larger
dispersion is always beneficial to reduce nonlinear cross-talk.
In addition,
151
It is worth recalling that each developed analytical model has its own valid range of
parameters or valid systems. For example, RMS models developed in Chapter 3 may not
be applicable where ISI (inter-symbol interference) and/or ICI (inter-channel
152
Chapter7: Conclusions and future work
interference) are not negligible since the models are developed assuming a single pulse
transmission in a single channel system. In a single channel system where ISI is
significant, the sinusoidal response developed in Chapter 4 may be more suitable because
it includes the ISI effect. In a multi-channel system where CPM is the dominant nonlinear
effect to cause ICI, the derived intensity fluctuation of the probe signal in Chapter 4 can
be used to estimate the performance degradation due to CPM. When FWM is also
significant, the noise loading analysis could be used.
that that the chirp may broaden or compress the output pulse width depending on the
dispersion region. Therefore, in the presence of the fiber nonlinearities, it is of interest to
see how the results in Chapter 3 change with the chirp parameter. Since the chirp can be
controlled by an optical device (e.g. fiber Bragg grating), the chirp parameter could give
more design freedom to optimize system performance.
As a continuation of Chapter 5, the NPRs resulting from the noise loading
analysis may be compared with a more general system performance metric, the Q-factor
to see the correlation between them. Another interesting problem is to find alternate way
of bandwidth expansion in NBER discussed in Chapter 6. The bandwidth expansion
technique requires a fairly long fiber (a few tens of km) for each channel at the receiver.
The fiber might need to be customized to have its zero-dispersion wavelength to be at the
center wavelength of the selected channel to induce enough bandwidth expansion when
there are a large number of channels. The fiber also acts as a power loss device as does
the following optical filter, and a single optical amplifier may not be sufficient to amplify
multiple channels at the receiver. Therefore, even though the technique using nonlinear
fiber has potential applications in improving system performance of spectrum-sliced
WDM systems, it is desirable to find altenate ways to expand signal bandwidth.
154
Chapter7: Conclusions and future work
tau = (-taum:dtau:(taum-dtau))*tunit;
fs = 1/(dtau*tunit);
tl = length(tau)/2;
w = 2*pi*fs*(-tl:(tl-1))/length(tau); % w=angular freq.
wst = w(2)-w(1);
%=============================================
% Define Physical Parameters
%=============================================
c = 3e5; %[km/sec]
speed of light
ram0 = 1.55e-9; %[km] center wavelength
k0 = 2*pi/ram0;
n2 = 6e-13 ; %[1/mW]
gamm = k0*n2 ; %[1/(km*mW)]
alphaDB = 0.2 ; % [dB/km]
Power Loss
alpha = alphaDB/(10*log10(exp(1))); %[1/km] Power Loss in linear scale
% Dispersion parameters (beta3 term ignored)
Dp = -2;
% [ps/nm.km]
beta2 = -(ram0)^2*Dp/(2*pi*c); % [sec^2/km]
%=============================================
% Define Input Signal
%=============================================
% A single Gaussian pulse is assumed.
Po = 2;
C = 0;
% Chirping Parameter
m = 1;
% Super Gaussian parameter (m=1 ==> Gaussian)
t0 = 50e-12; %[sec] initial pulse width
155
Appendix A: MATLAB Programs
at =
time
a0 =
af =
%=============================================
% Define Simulation Distance and Step Size
%=============================================
zfinal = 100;
%[km] propagation distance
pha_max = 0.01; %[rad] maximum allowable phase shift due to the
nonlinear operator
% pha_max = h*gamma*Po (h = simulation step length)
h = fix(pha_max/(gamm*Po)); % [km] simulation step length
M = zfinal/h;
% Partition Number
% Define Dispersion Exp. operator
% Dh = exp((h/2)*D^), D^=-(1/2)*i*sgnb2*P, P=>(-i*w)^2
Dh = exp((h/2)*(-alpha/2+(i/2)*beta2*w.^2));
%================================================%
%
Propagation Through Fiber
%
%================================================%
% Call the subroutine, sym_ssf.m for the symmetrized split-step Fourier
method
[bt,bf] = sym_ssf(M,h,gamm,Dh,af);
% Preamplifier at the receiver
% Optical amplifier is assumed ideal (flat frequency response and no
noise)
GdB = 20;
% [dB] optical amplifier power gain
gainA = sqrt(10^(GdB/10)); % field gain in linear scale
rt = gainA*bt;
% plot the received power signal
figure(1)
plot(tau,abs(rt).^2,r)
156
Appendix A: MATLAB Programs
2. sym_ssf.m
u2e = ht.*exp(h*i*gamma*pq);
%Time signal
%=============================================================
% Propagation in the second Dispersion Region, z+(h/2) to z+h
%=============================================================
u2ef = fft(u2e);
u3ef = u2ef.*Dh;
u3e = ifft(u3ef);
u3ei = u3e.*conj(u3e);
%========================================================
% Iteration for the nonlinear phase shift(two iterations)
%========================================================
u2 = ht.*exp((h/2)*i*gamma*(pq+u3ei));
u2f = fft(u2) ;
u3f = u2f.* Dh;
u4 = ifft(u3f);
157
Appendix A: MATLAB Programs
u4i = u4.*conj(u4);
u5 = ht.*exp((h/2)*i*gamma*(pq+u4i));
u5f = fft(u5);
uf0 = u5f.*Dh;
u6 = ifft(uf0); u6i = u6.*conj(u6);
%=============================================================
% Maximum allowable tolerance after the two iterations
etol = 1e-5;
if
end
%=============================================================
end
to = u6; fo = uf0;
158
Appendix A: MATLAB Programs
References:
1. K. C. Kao and G. A. Hockham, Dielectric fiber surface waveguides for optical
frequencies, Proceedings of the IEE, vol. 133, pp.1151-1158, Jul. 1966
2. P. Trischitta, M. Colas, M. Green, G. Wuzniak, and J. Arena, The TAT-12/13
cable network, IEEE Communication Magazine, vol.34, no.2, pp.24-28, Feb.
1996
3. W. C. Barnett, H. Takahira, G. C. Baroni, and Y.Ogi, The TPC-5 cable
Network, IEEE Communication Magazine, vol.34, no.2, pp.36-40, Feb. 1996
4. M. Nagazawa, S. Suzuki, H. Kubota, E. Yamada, 60 Gbit/s (20Gbit/s 3
unequally spaced channels) soliton transmission over 10,00km using in-line
synchronous modulation and optical filtering, Electronics Letters, vol.32,
pp.1986-1688, 1996
5. N. S. Bergano and C. R. Davidson, Wavelength division multiplexing in longhaul transmission systems, IEEE Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol.14, no.6,
pp.1299-1308, June1996
6. N. S. Bergano, et al., Long-haul WDM transmission using optimum channel
modulation: A 160 Gb/s (32 5 Gb/s) 9,300km demonstration, Proceedings of
Optical Fiber Communications Conferences, paper PD-21, Feb., 1997
7. A. K. Srivastava, et al., L-Band 64 10 Gb/s DWDM Transmission over 500km
DSF with 50GHz Channel Spacing, ECOC98, pp.73-75, Sep. 1998
8. N. S. Bergano, et al., 640 Gb/s Transmission of Sixty-four 10Gb/s WDM
Channels Over 7200km With 0.33 (bits/s)/Hz Spectral Efficiency, Proceedings
of Optical Fiber Communications Conferences, paper PD2, Feb., 1999
9. G.Vareille, et al., 340Gb/s (34 10Gb/s, 50GHz spacing DWDM) straight line
transmission over 6380km with full system implementation assessment,
Proceedings of Optical Fiber Communications Conferences, paper PD18, Feb.,
1999
10. P. C. Becker, N. A. Olsson, and J. R. Simpson, Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifiers:
Fundamentals and Technology, Academic Press, 1999
159
References
11. G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear Fiber Optics, Second Ed., Academic Press, San Diego,
1995
12. E. Iannone, et al., Nonlinear Optical Communication Networks, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1998
13. A. R. Chraplyvy, Limitations on lightwave communications imposed by optical
fiber nonlinearities, Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol.8, no.10, pp.15481557, Oct. 1990
14. Y. Aoki, K. Tajima, and I. Mito, Input power limits of single-mode optical fibers
due to stimulated Brillouin scattering in optical communication systems, Journal
of Lightwave Technology, vol.6, no. 5, pp.710-719, 1988
15. A. R. Chraplyvy, Impact of Nonlinearities on Lightwave Systems, Optics and
Photonics News, vol.5, pp.16-21, May 1994.
16. A. R. Chraplyvy and R. W. Tkach, What is the actual capacity of single-mode
fibers in amplified lightwave systems? IEEE Photonics Technology Letters,
vol.5, no.6, pp.666-668, June, 1993
17. R. H. Stolen and A. Ashkin, Optical Kerr effect in glass waveguide, Applied
Physics Letters, vol.22, pp.294-296, 1973
18. A. Hasegawa and F. D. Tappert, Transmission of stationary non-linear optical
pulses in dispersive dielectric fibers I. Anomalous dispersion, Applied Physics
Letters, vol. 23, pp.142-144, 1973
19. K. O. Hill, et al., cw three-wave mixing in single-mode optical fibers, Journal
of Applied Physics, vol.49, no. 10, pp.5098-5106, October 1978
20. R. W. Tkach, et al., Four-Photon Mixing and High-Speed WDM Systems,
Journal of Lightwave Technology, vil.13, no.5, pp.841-849, May 1995
21. D. W. Peckham, A. F. Judy, and R. B. Kummer, Reduced Dispersion Slope,
Nonzero-Dispersion Fiber, Proceedings of European Conference on Optical
Fiber Communication (ECOC 98), vol.2, pp.139-140, Sept. 1998
22. C. Kurtzke, Suppression of fiber nonlinearities by appropriate dispersion
management, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, vol.5, pp1250-1253, 1993
160
References
161
References
34. M. Brandt-Pearce, Ira Jacobs, Jong H. Lee and J. K. Shaw, Optimal input
Gaussian pulse width for transmission in dispersive nonlinear fibers, Journal of
Optical Society of America, B, vol. 16, no.8, pp.1189-1196, August 1999
35. I. Jacobs, Jong H. Lee and J. K. Shaw, Spectral asymptotics of nonlinear pulse
propagation in fibers, ICAPT, July 1998
36. S. D. Personick, Baseband Linearity and Equalization in Fiber Optic Digital
Communication System, Bell System Technical Journal, vol.52, pp.1175-1194,
1973
37. P. S. Henry, R. A. Linke, and A. H. Gnauck, Introduction to Lightwave
Systems, in Optical Fiber Telecommunications II, S.E. Miller and I.P. Kaminow,
Eds. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1988
38. Y. Hayashi, et al., Verification of four-wave mixing suppression in WDM
transmission experiments on the FSA commercial system with dispersionmanaged optical fiber cable, Optical Fiber Communications Conferences
Technical Digest, paper TuI7, pp.49-50, Feb., 1996
39. H. Takahashi and K. Inoue, Cancellation of four-wave mixing by use of phase
shift in a dispersive fiber inserted into a zero-dispersion transmission line, Optics
Letters, vol.20, no.8, pp.860-862, April 1995
40. A. H. Gnauck et al., 160 Gbit/s (820 Gbit/s WDM) 300km transmission with
50km amplifier spacing and span-by-span dispersion reversal, Electronics
Letters, vol.30, no.15, pp.1241-1243, July 1994
41. N. Kikuchi and S. Sasaki, Fiber non-linearity in dispersion-compensated
conventional fiber transmission, ECOC95, pp.573-576, 1995
42. P. B. Hansen, et al., 10Gb/s, 411km repeaterless transmission experiment
employing dispersion compensation and remote post- and pre-amplifiers,
ECOC95, pp.565-568, 1995
43. H. Miyata, et al, Dispersion compensation design for 10-Gb/s, 16-wave WDM
transmission system over standard single-mode fiber, ECOC95, pp.63-66, 1995
44. L. Eskildsen, et al., 490-km transmission in a single-fiber 2.4888 Gb/s
repeaterless system with remote pre-amplifier and dispersion compensation,
ECOC96, pp.2.177-2.180, 1996
162
References
dispersion
in
optical-fiber
transmissions
with
dispersion
References
164
References
165
References
77. Pierre A. Humblet and Murat Azizoglu, "On the Bit Error Rate of Lightwave
Systems with Optical Amplifiers," Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol.9,
no.11, pp. 1576-1582, November 1991
78. D. Marcuse, "Derivation of Analytical Expressions for the Bit-Error Probability in
Lightwave Systems with Optical Amplifiers," Journal of Lightwave Technology,
vol.8, no.12, pp. 1816-1823, December 1990
79. D. Marcuse, "Calculation of Bit-Error Probability for a Lightwave System with
Optical Amplifiers and Post-Detection Gaussian Noise," Journal of Lightwave
Technology, vol.9, no.4, pp. 505-513, April 1991
80. Vivek Arya and Ira Jacobs, Optical preamplifier receiver for spectrum-sliced
WDM," Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol.15, no.4, pp.576-583, April 1997
81. Leon W. Couch II, Digital and Analog Communication Systems, Fourth Edition,
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993
82. M. Lax, J. H. Batteh, and G. P. Agrawal, Channeling of intense electromagnetic
beams, Journal of Applied Physics, vol.52, no.1, pp.109-125, 1981
83. N. L. Swenson and J. M. Cioffi, Sliding-block line codes to increase dispersionlimited distance of optical fiber channels, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol.13, no.3, pp.485-498, 1995
166
References
Vita
Jong-Hyung Lee was born in Korea on August 2, 1964. He received his Bachelor
of Science in Electronic Engineering from Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea in 1987. He
received his Master of Science in Electronic Engineering from the same school in 1990.
From January 1990 to June 1994, he worked with Daewoo Telecommunications
in Seoul, Korea. He was involved in the development of commercial integrated circuits.
His main responsibility was to design analog integrated circuits with bipolar processes.
He joined the graduate program at Virginia Tech in August 1994. His research
efforts have been focused on analysis and characterization of fiber nonlinearities. His
research interests include the modeling, simulation, and design of high data rate fiber
optic communication systems. Working under Dr. Jacobs, he received his Ph.D. in
February 2000 from Virginia Tech.
167