Amplified-spontaneous noise limit of optical

OFDM lightwave systems

Arthur James Lowery
Department of Electrical & Computer Systems Engineering,
Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
arthur.lowery@eng.monash.edu.au; http://www.ecse.monash.edu.au

Abstract: Optical Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (O-OFDM)

systems use electronic digital computation to provide dispersion
compensation that can be rapidly adapted to changes in the optical link or
optical network. Recent demonstrations have shown compensation of
several thousand kilometers. Earlier simulations and analysis showed better
sensitivities than non-return to zero systems; however, they assumed optical
filters with very narrow bandwidths and narrow-linewidth lasers. This paper
explores the effect of the optical filter bandwidths and laser linewidths for
both coherent and direct-detection systems using analysis and simulations.
2008 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (060.4080) Modulation; (060.4510) Optical communications

References and links

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

T. Nielsen and S. Chandrasekhar, OFC 2004 workshop on optical and electronic mitigation of
impairments, J. Lightwave Technol. 23, 131-142 (2005).
Q. Yu and A. Shanbhag, Electronic data processing for error and dispersion compensation, J. Lightwave
Technol. 24, 4514-4525 (2006).
J. McNicol, M. OSullivan, K. Roberts, A. Comeau, D. McGhan, and L. Strawczynski, Electrical domain
compensation of optical dispersion, in Tech. Digest of the Conference on Optical Fiber Communication 5,
(Optical Society of America, 2005), pp. 269 271.
R. I. Killey, P. M. Watts, V. Mikhailov, M. Glick, and P. Bayval, Electronic dispersion compensation by
signal predistortion using digital processing and a dual-drive Mach-Zehnder modulator, IEEE Photon.
Technol. Lett. 17, 714-716 (2005).
A. J. Lowery and J. Armstrong, Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing for dispersion compensation of
long-haul optical systems, Opt. Express 14, 2079-2084 (2006).
B. J. C. Schmidt, A. J. Lowery and J. Armstrong, Experimental demonstrations of 20 Gbit/s directdetection optical OFDM and 12 Gbit/s with a colorless transmitter, in Tech. Digest of the Conference on
Optical Fiber Communication, (Optical Society of America, 2007), Postdeadline Paper PDP18.
T. H. Williams, "System for transmission of digital data using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing,"
U.S. Patent 5 371 548, December 6, 1994.
R. Feced, R. Rickard, and E. Richard, "Reference phase and amplitude estimation for coherent optical
receiver". U.S. Patent Application 20050180760, August 18, 2005.
W. Shieh, X. Yi and Y. Tang, Transmission experiment of multi-gigabit coherent optical OFDM systems
over 1000-km SSF fiber, Electron. Lett. 43, 183-185 (2007).
S. L. Jansen, I. Mortita, N. Takeda, and H. Tanaka, 20-Gb/s OFDM transmission over 4,160 km SSMF
enabled by RF-pilot tone phase noise compensation, in Tech. Digest of the Conference on Optical Fiber
Communication, (Optical Society of America, 2007), Postdeadline Paper PDP15.
W. Shieh, X. Yi, Y. Ma, and Y. Tang, "Theoretical and experimental study on PMD-supported transmission
using polarization diversity in coherent optical OFDM systems," Opt. Express 15, 9936-9947 (2007).
A. J. Lowery, L. B. Y. Du and J. Armstrong, Performance of optical OFDM in ultralong-haul WDM
lightwave systems, J. Lightwave Technol. 25, 131-138 (2007).
B. F. Jrgensen, B. Mikkelsen, and C. J. Mahon, Analysis of optical amplifier noise in coherent optical
communications systems with optical image rejection receivers, J. Lightwave Technol. 10, 660-671 (1992).
M. Mayrock and H. Haunstein, Polarization dependence in optical OFDM transmission, in Proceedings of
the 8th ITG-Fachtagung Photonische Netze, Leipzig, May 2007.
S. Jansen, I. Morito, and H. Tanaka, Carrier-to-signal power in fiber-optic SSB-OFDM transmission
systems, IEICE General Conference, Nagoya, Japan (Institute of Electronics, Information and
Communication Engineers, 20-23 March, 2007) Paper number: B-10-24, 363.
S. Yamashita and T. Okoshi, Suppression of beat noise from optical amplifiers using coherent receivers, J.
Lightwave Technol. 12, 1029-1035 (1994).

#86908 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2008 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2007; revised 19 Oct 2007; accepted 30 Oct 2007; published 9 Jan 2008

21 January 2008 / Vol. 16, No. 2 / OPTICS EXPRESS 860

17. L. G. Kazovsky, Phase- and polarization-diversity coherent optical receiver techniques, J. Lightwave
Technol. 7, 279-292 (1989).
18. J. Armstrong, Analysis of new and existing methods of reducing intercarrier interference due to carrier
frequency offset in OFDM, IEEE Trans. Commun. 47, 365-369 (1999).
19. S. L. Jansen, I. Morita, and H. Tanaka, Experimental demonstration of a 23.6-Gb/s OFDM with a colorless
transmitter, Optoelectronics and Communications Conference (OECC) 2007, 9-13 July 2007, Yokohama,
Japan. Postdeadline Paper PD1-5.

1. Introduction
Electronic Dispersion Compensation (EDC) of long-haul optical fiber communications
systems is gaining in popularity [1]-[4]. Recently, we have proposed [5] and demonstrated [6]
EDC using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), combined with opticalsingle-sideband transmission and direct detection (DD-O-ODFM) with almost limitless
dispersion compensation ability. Others have proposed and demonstrated optical OFDM with
a coherent receiver (CO-OFDM) [7]-[11]. Initial simulations, using an ideal optical filter,
showed that direct-detection optical OFDM has a better sensitivity than non-return to zero
(NRZ) modulation [12]. However, the effect of filter bandwidth on receiver sensitivity has yet
to be reported, and no simple analytical formula has been developed.
This paper provides a simple analysis for the noise limit, then simulation results for the
receiver sensitivity of coherent and direct-detection optical OFDM systems. These show that,
for ideal receivers, coherent OFDM is far more sensitive than direct-detection OFDM.
However, the difference in performance is reduced when non-zero linewidth lasers are used.
The key difference between this and earlier analysis of optically-amplified systems [13] is
that the OFDM system is treated as having a rectangular band of OFDM subcarriers, whereas
the signal in earlier analyses is usually treated as a single frequency. This is important as the
design rules for filter bandwidth depend critically details of the optical signal spectrum.
2. Optical OFDM and ASE spectra
Optical OFDM uses tens to hundreds of closely-spaced subcarriers [12]. These are generated
digitally in the electrical domain using an inverse Fast Fourier Transform, then mapped onto
the optical domain using several different schemes of optical modulator. The result of
modulation is a band of optical subcarriers with or without an optical carrier, corresponding to
coherent or direct-detection optical OFDM. For coherent O-OFDM an optical carrier
regenerated by a local oscillator is added at the receiver. This has to be the same polarization
as the incoming signal from the fiber link; alternatively, a polarization-diverse receiver can be
used in which the signal is split into two orthogonal polarizations which are independently
mixed with two versions of the local oscillator [11]. The direct-detection system assumes that
the optical carrier receives the same polarization rotation as the signal, so mixes with the
subcarriers with good efficiency, though again a polarization diversity receiver can be used
for high polarization mode dispersion fibers [14]. In direct-detection systems, the power of
the optical carrier is optimally equal to the summed power of all OFDM subcarriers, unless
the optical signal to noise ratio (OSNR) is high [15]. In coherent systems, the optical carrier is
injected at the receiver and so can be beneficially far stronger then the subcarriers without
affecting the power along the fiber path.
The ASE spectra of both systems are assumed to be white but band-limited by an optical
filter directly before the receiver. Practically, this could be the WDM demultiplexer, designed
to separate WDM channels at 50-GHz or 100-GHz spacing, although narrower filters will
provide better receiver sensitivity. The ASE noise is assumed to be unpolarized; that is, there
is equal power in the polarization aligned to the signal and its orthogonal component. This is a
reasonable assumption for analysis, although polarization dependent gain in the amplifiers
and polarization-dependent loss along the system may complicate matters. The coherent
receiver is assumed to be a polarization-sensitive heterodyne receiver.

#86908 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2008 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2007; revised 19 Oct 2007; accepted 30 Oct 2007; published 9 Jan 2008

21 January 2008 / Vol. 16, No. 2 / OPTICS EXPRESS 861

3. Electrical signal and noise spectra

The receivers photodiode (or photodiodes in a balanced coherent receiver) can be modeled as
producing a photocurrent proportional to the square of the sum of all optical fields in an
arbitrarily-chosen polarization, plus the square of the sum of all optical fields in the
orthogonal polarization. The optical spectrum at the receiver input is shown in Fig. 1 (left).
The ASE noise extends from BNL below the carrier (fc) to BNH above it. The subcarriers have a
bandwidth BSC and there is a gap, Bgap, between the carrier and the subcarriers. The middle
spectra indicate the components of the optical spectrum that mix on detection to produce the
electrical mixing products on the right.
Contributions to Mixing
(optical spectra)

DC

Results of Mixing
(electrical spectra)

Wanted Electrical Subcarriers

Received Optical Spectrum

BSC

(a)

detection

(b)

Carrier Subcarriers

Subcarriers
Carrier

detection

Unwanted Mixing Products

(Subcarriers)2

BSC
detection

fc Bgap
LSB ASE

USB ASE

BNL

BNH

Carrier ASE
detection

image noise
real noise

(c)

SC noise below it

(d)

ASE Subcarriers

BNL BNH
BSC
BSC

Noise

Noise

BNH-Bgap BNL+Bgap+BSC

BN
Both Polarizations
ASE ASE

Bgap

detection

(e)

Noise

BN

Fig. 1. Direct-detection OFDM received optical spectrum (left), its components (middle) and
the results (right) of photodetection in the electrical domain.

The electrical spectra (a)-(e) are:

a) Carriersubcarriers. This is the desired electrical OFDM signal, bandwidth BSC.
b) Subcarrierssubcarriers. This produces a band of unwanted tones close to DC,
bandwidth BSC. In direct detection systems, these are arranged to fall away from the
wanted tones by placing a spectral guard band with Bgap>BSC between the optical
carrier and the OFDM subcarrier band.
c) CarrierASE (one polarization). The carrier and all ASE noise falling under the
subcarrier band, in the same polarization, mixes into the bandwidth of the electrical
OFDM signal. This is known as real beat noise [16], shown in green. In an ideal
system, this would determine the noise limit of the system. Similarly, noise in the
lower side band could also mix into the electrical subcarriers bandwidth to give image
beat noise, shown in blue-green. If BNL<Bgap none of the image noise contribution will
fall within the electrical subcarrier band. Thus, the gap is useful for rejecting image
noise. A coherent image-rejection receiver can also remove image noise [16], as can a
coherent homodyne receiver.
d) SubcarriersASE noise (in same polarization). This is more complex than for the
carrierASE noise, because the subcarriers occupy a finite bandwidth. Thus, all
combinations of subcarrier frequency and ASE frequency that result in noise falling
within the electrical OFDM signals bandwidth have to be considered. Using
convolution in the frequency domain to calculate the effect of multiplication in the time
domain, all subcarriers mixing with all noise below them produces the brown electrical
spectrum: all mixing between tones and noise above them produces the red electrical
spectrum. There is no situation where the brown tones fall outside the signal
bandwidth; however, if BNH<2.Bgap, then none of the red tones will fall in the
subcarrier band. This requires an infinitely-sharp cut-off optical filter if Bgap = BSC.
#86908 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2008 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2007; revised 19 Oct 2007; accepted 30 Oct 2007; published 9 Jan 2008

21 January 2008 / Vol. 16, No. 2 / OPTICS EXPRESS 862

e)

ASEASE (either polarization). As in NRZ systems, this becomes significant at low

OSNRs with wide optical filter bandwidths. This contribution is maximum close to DC
and falls to zero at a point equal to the bandwidth of the noise.
In coherent systems with a strong local oscillator, noise mechanism (c) dominates, as this is
proportional to the carrier power. Furthermore, mechanisms (d) and (e) can be eliminated
using a balanced coherent receiver [17].
4. Analysis of electrical signal to noise ratio
The situation where the optical filter is sufficiently narrow and the OSNR sufficiently high
that noise mechanism (e) is insignificant is analyzed for balanced coherent and direct
detection systems. The power spectral density of the optical noise at the receiver, PSDASE, is:
P
(P
+ PDDcarrier )
PSDASE = ASE = subcarriers
(1)
Bm
OSNR Bm
where; Psubcarriers is the total signal power at the photodiode integrated over the subcarrier
sideband, PDDcarrier is the power at the photodiode of any transmitted carrier (zero for a
coherent system) and PASE is the ASE power in both polarizations integrated over the OSNR
measurement bandwidth, Bm. In the RF domain the detected electrical signal power of a single
subcarrier, PSC,RF, is related to the optical power in a single subcarrier, PSC, by:
PSC , RF = 2 ( R 2 / RL ) PSC Pcarrier
(2)
where: Pcarrier is the carrier power at the photodiode provided from the transmitter in a DD
system, or from the local oscillator in a coherent system; R is the photodiode responsivity, and
RL is the load resistance. Similarly the noise power in the RF domain, over the bandwidth of
an OFDM subcarrier, f, is:
R 2 f PSDASE
(3)
Pnoise , RF = 2

( kCar Pcarrier + k SC Psubcarriers )

2

RL
Note that only half of the ASE power mixes with the carrier, because the ASE is unpolarised,
so half its power is orthogonal to the carrier. The factor kCar is 1 if image noise is out of band
or is rejected; otherwise it increases with filter bandwidth up to 2 as shown in Fig. 1(c). The
factor kSC is zero for a balanced coherent receiver, as ASEsubcarriers mixing is rejected, but
is between 1 and 2 for the worst subcarriers of DD receivers, depending on the filters
bandwidth, as shown in Fig. 1(d). The electrical signal to noise ratio is (2) divided by (3):

Bm
2 PSC
Pcarrier
SNRelec , power = OSNR
(4)

Psubcarriers + PDDcarrier kCar Pcarrier + k SC Psubcarriers f

For N subcarriers, N.PSC = Psubcarriers and f = BSC/N. Thus for a balanced coherent receiver
with image noise rejection:
SNRelec , power = 2 OSNR ( Bm / BSC )
(5)
-3
For a 9.8 dB electrical SNR (giving BER = 10 for 4-QAM), a 12.5-GHz measurement
bandwidth and a 5-GHz subcarrier band, an OSNR of 2.82 dB is required. For a directdetection system with equal powers in the carrier and sideband, Eq. (4) gives a SNR up to 9dB poorer than a coherent receiver, neglecting the additional degradation of ASEASE.
5. Simulations
To enable all noise mechanisms to be considered, the effect of optical filter bandwidth on
coherent and direct-detection optical OFDM systems was simulated using Monte-Carlo
simulations of ASE. The simulations were performed using VPItransmissionMaker version
7.1. The ASE was represented as Gaussian white noise, filtered with a brickwall optical filter.
This was added to a 10-Gbit/s optical OFDM signal using 4-QAM modulation with 1024-bits
per OFDM symbol (512 subcarriers) each carrying pseudo-random data. The OFDM
waveform was modulated onto an optical carrier using an MZI biased at null so that its output
optical field is proportional to the OFDM voltage. This gives an optical spectrum with no
#86908 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2008 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2007; revised 19 Oct 2007; accepted 30 Oct 2007; published 9 Jan 2008

21 January 2008 / Vol. 16, No. 2 / OPTICS EXPRESS 863

leakage outside the subcarrier band, which has a bandwidth of 5-GHz. An optical carrier was
added after the modulator with the same optical power as summed over all subcarriers. A 5GHz gap between the carrier and the subcarriers was used. The Optical Signal to Noise Ratio
(OSNR) was defined in the usual way as the mean signal power (including carrier), divided by
the ASE noise in both polarizations falling within a 12.5-GHz bandwidth, Bm. The filter was
centered on the subcarrier band for the coherent systems, and on the lower-edge of this band
for the direct detection systems. All lasers had zero linewidth at this stage of the simulations.
The electrical SNR was estimated from the mean distance from a constellation cluster to a
Cartesian coordinate, x, and the standard deviation of the points in the cluster in that
coordinate direction, x, where SNR = (x/x)2. An SNR of 9.8 dB gives a BER of 10-3 for 4QAM. Averaging was performed over 100 OFDM symbols (1024K bits). Figure 2 shows the
simulation results for: (a) polarization-diverse balanced homodyne coherent receivers with 7dB OSNR; (b) direct-detection receivers with OSNRs of 7, 10, 13 dB. The coherent receivers
will work with an ASE filter bandwidth down to 5 GHz, though this would be difficult to
achieve in reality. The direct-detection receiver requires at least 10 GHz filter bandwidth to
allow the carrier to pass, unless a double-peaked filter response is used.
16
Eq. 5

Image noise in some subcarriers

14

Dire c t D ete c tio n 1 3 dB O S NR

SNR, dB

12

Image noise in all subcarriers

Dire c t D ete c tio n 1 0 dB O S NR

10
8

Dire c t D ete c tio n 7 dB O S NR

Descent due to ASEASE

Descent due to
SCASE

Co he re nt 7 dB O S NR

Descent due to CarASE and CarImage

2
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

O p tical F ilter B and wid th, GH z

Fig. 2. Simulations of the electrical SNRs obtained coherent and direct-detection systems
with varying optical filter bandwidths.

As expected, the best performance for 7-dB OSNR is obtained with the coherent receiver.
For a 5-GHz filter its performance is as predicted in Section 4. Filter bandwidths greater than
25 GHz will give an additional penalty for the lowest-frequency subcarriers, due to mixing of
LSB image beat noise into the frequency range of the electrical subcarriers. At 35-GHz,
there is an additional 3-dB penalty for all subcarriers because of this mechanism.
The direct-detection receivers give an SNR 5-dB less than the coherent receivers for a 10GHz filter bandwidth and an OSNR of 7 dB: Eq. (4) predicts 6-dB less but this is for the
worst subcarriers as they are affected by mechanism (d) most. Increasing the filter bandwidth
beyond 10-GHz (as is necessary practically), reduces the SNR due to further ASEsubcarrier
mixing (d). Increasing the filter bandwidth beyond 20-GHz introduces image noise due to
ASEcarrier mixing (c). Beyond 30-GHz, all electrical subcarriers suffer equally from
mechanisms (c) and (d); the SNR then reduces gradually due to ASEASE mixing (e). For a
25-GHz filter, the SNR DD receiver is 9-dB worse than a homodyne/heterodyne coherent
receiver, in agreement with Eq. (4). Because ASEASE mixing has less effect for higher
OSNRs, a 13-dB OSNR DD receiver has similar performance to a heterodyne coherent
receiver with an OSNR of 7 dB at wide filter bandwidths.
5.1 Effect of laser linewidth
The above simulations used zero-linewidth lasers. However, coherent receivers require
narrow-linewidth lasers to get good performance with OFDM, which is very sensitive to
phase noise [18]. Figure 3 shows the simulated degradation in SNR due to laser linewidth,
#86908 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2008 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2007; revised 19 Oct 2007; accepted 30 Oct 2007; published 9 Jan 2008

21 January 2008 / Vol. 16, No. 2 / OPTICS EXPRESS 864

averaged over 50 OFDM symbols. Each OFDM symbol was corrected in phase by subtracting
the mean-phase error of all the subcarriers from every subcarrier. A coherent system with a
3.5-dB OSNR and 512 subcarriers () gives only 9.2 dB SNR for 100-kHz linewidth lasers at
the transmitter and receiver. Wider linewidth lasers can be compensated by increasing the
OSNR (), but this is wasteful because the decrease in SNR is much more rapid.
Alternatively, shorter symbols with 128 subcarriers can be used (, ) so that the phase
deviation across a symbol is reduced, but this increases the overhead of the cyclic prefix.
Another method is to insert a strong RF pilot tone [10] and use this to calculate and correct
the phase error waveform within a symbol. In contrast, a direct-detection receiver () is
insensitive to linewidth, and does not require frequent phase correction after initial training.

SNR, dB

14

7 dB OSNR

512 SC, Dir. Det., 13 dB

OSNR 50 GHz BW

Direct Detection 13 dB

512 SC, Coh., 3.5 dB

OSNR, 25 GHz BW

12
10
8

512 SC, Coh., 7 dB OSNR

25 GHz BW

128 Subcarriers Coh.

3.5 dB OSNR

128 SC, Coh., 3.5 dB

OSNR, 25 GHz BW

512 Subcarriers Coh.

4
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Laser Linewidth, MHz

0.8

128 SC, Coh., 7 dB OSNR,

25 GHz BW

Fig. 3. Effect of non-zero linewidth lasers on direct-detection and coherent systems.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Reported sensitivities for early experimental optical OFDM systems are noticeably poorer
than the theoretical limits given here. For example, the 8 Gbit/s 4-QAM coherent system [9],
back to back, required a 9.2 dB ONSR for BER=10-3, which is 7.4 dB worse than Eq. (5).
Similarly, a 12.5 GBit/s 4-QAM system [19] required 8.4 dB OSNR for BER=10-3, which is a
penalty of 4.6 dB. Direct-detection receivers with a 200-GHz optical bandwidth required 17.2
dB for the same BER [6], which is 5.36-dB worse than Eq. (4) (kCar = kSC = 2, Pcarrier =
PDDcarrier = Psubcarriers) and 4.4-dB worse than predicted using an appropriate simulation.
Although all of these results are poorer than theory, all systems were built using off-the-shelf
components, were at an early stage of development, and were not optimized from an electrical
signal path point of view. Thus there could be multiple reasons for these power penalties,
including the limited bandwidth of the digital to analog converters, and the performance of
the electrical amplifiers, modulators, receivers and analog to digital converters. The fact that
the theory does not include noise mechanism (e) could also be a factor with low OSNRs.
In conclusion, the noise processes of optical OFDM receivers have been studied using a
combination of decomposition of the mixing processes of signals and noise, analysis of the
dominant noise mechanisms and numerical simulations. This paper has given the performance
bounds of coherent and direct-detection receivers for a variety of optical filter bandwidths and
laser linewidths. Coherent receivers give the ultimate performance for poor OSNRs, but only
if narrow-linewidth lasers, short OFDM symbols, or a strong pilot tone [10] are used.
Acknowledgments
I should like to thank VPIphotonics (www.vpiphotonics.com) for the use of their simulator,
VPItransmissionMakerWDM V7.1. This work is supported under the Australian Research Councils
Discovery funding scheme (DP 0772937).

#86908 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2008 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2007; revised 19 Oct 2007; accepted 30 Oct 2007; published 9 Jan 2008

21 January 2008 / Vol. 16, No. 2 / OPTICS EXPRESS 865