Performance comparison among three different Stokes vector direct-detection receivers

Xiaojie Shen; Jiahao Huo; Xian Zhou; Kangping Zhong; Jinhui Yuan; Jiajing Tu; Keping Long; Changyuan Yu; Alan Pak Tao Lau; Chao Lu

doi:10.3788/COL201816.100605

Chinese Optics Letters, Volume. 16, Issue 10, 100605(2018)

Performance comparison among three different Stokes vector direct-detection receivers

Xiaojie Shen¹, Jiahao Huo^1,2, Xian Zhou^1,2、*, Kangping Zhong³, Jinhui Yuan², Jiajing Tu¹, Keping Long¹, Changyuan Yu², Alan Pak Tao Lau⁴, and Chao Lu²

Author Affiliations

¹Institute of Artificial Intelligence, University of Science and Technology Beijing (USTB), Beijing 100083, China

²Department of Electronic and Information Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, China

³MACOM Technology Solutions, Shenzhen 518000, China

⁴Department of Electrical Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, China

show less

Figures & Tables(9)

Fig. 1. Structures of SV-DD transmitters: (a) polarization division multiplexing based on intensity modulation and (b) polarization division multiplexing with signal-carrier.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 2. Structures of SV-DD receivers. (a) Receiver A: with two BPDs, two PDs, and a 90° optical hybrid. (b) Receiver B: with four PDs, and a 90° optical hybrid. (c) Receiver C: with four PDs and a 3×3 coupler.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 3. Normalized noise power as a function of the coupler splitting ratio of the PDM-IM: (a) for receiver A, (b) for receiver B, and (c) for receiver C.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 4. Normalized noise power as a function of the coupler splitting ratio of the PDM-SC: (a) for receiver A, (b) for receiver B, and (c) for receiver C.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 5. Simulation results for the PDM-IM system: (a) BER vs. coupler splitting ratio for different SOPs for receiver A, (b) BER vs. coupler splitting ratio for different SOPs for receiver B, (c) BER vs. coupler splitting ratio for different SOPs for receiver C, and (d) BER vs. received optical power for different SVRs in BTB transmissions.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 6. Simulation results for the PDM-SC system: (a) BER vs. coupler splitting ratio for different SOPs for receiver A, (b) BER vs. coupler splitting ratio for different SOPs for receiver B, (c) BER vs. coupler splitting ratio for different SOPs for receiver C, and (d) BER vs. ROP for different SVRs in BTB transmissions.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 7. Simulation results with 2.5 dB EL for the 90° hybrid and 0.15 dB EL for the 3×3 coupler: BER vs. coupler splitting ratio for different SOPs (a) for receiver A for the PDM-IM system, (b) for receiver A for the PDM-SC system, (c) for receiver C for the PDM-IM system, and (d) for receiver C for the PDM-SC system.

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1. General Simulation Parameters of 112 Gbit/s PDM-DD Systems

View table

View in Article

Table 1. General Simulation Parameters of 112 Gbit/s PDM-DD Systems

Parameter	Values	Parameter	Values
Baud	28 Gbaud	DAC/ADC rate	56 GSam/s
Laser linewidth	5 MHz	PD responsibility	0.65 A/W
Laser RIN	$- 160 dB / Hz$	PD thermal noise	$20 pA / {Hz}^{0.5}$
TX/RX bandwidth	20 GHz	PD dark current	10 nA

Table 2. Comparison of 112 Gbit/s PDM-PAM4 and PDM-SC Signals with Different SV-DD Receivers. IM: Intensity Modulation; I/Q: I/Q Modulator; BPD: Balanced Photodetector

View table

View in Article

Table 2. Comparison of 112 Gbit/s PDM-PAM4 and PDM-SC Signals with Different SV-DD Receivers. IM: Intensity Modulation; I/Q: I/Q Modulator; BPD: Balanced Photodetector

System Scheme	Transmitter	Receiver	EL	Optimum splitting ratio	SOP independent splitting ratio	ROP sensitivity (@BER 3.8 × 10⁻³)
PDM-PAM4-DD (hybrid)	$2 \times IM$	$2 PD + 2 BPD$	No	0.6	0.667	$- 6.8 dBm$
PDM-PAM4-DD (hybrid)	$2 \times IM$	4PD	No	0.7	–	$- 5.7 dBm$
PDM-PAM4-DD (3 × 3 coupler)	$2 \times IM$	4PD	No	0.5	0.5	$- 8.4 dBm$
PDM-SC-16QAM-DD (hybrid)	$1 \times I / Q$	$2 PD + 2 BPD$	No	0.7	0.667	$- 8.7 dBm$
PDM-SC-16QAM-DD (hybrid)	$1 \times I / Q$	4PD	No	0.7	–	$- 6.6 dBm$
PDM-16QAM-DD ( $3 \times 3$ coupler)	$1 \times I / Q$	4PD	No	0.5	0.5	$- 9.6 dBm$
PDM-PAM4-DD (hybrid)	$2 \times IM$	$2 PD + 2 BPD$	Yes (2.5 dB)	0.7	0.8	$- 5 dBm$
PDM-SC-16QAM-DD (hybrid)	$1 \times I / Q$	$2 PD + 2 BPD$	Yes (2.5 dB)	0.8	0.8	$- 6.9 dBm$
PDM-PAM4-DD ( $3 \times 3$ coupler)	$2 \times IM$	4PD	Yes (0.15 dB)	0.5	0.5	$- 8.15 dBm$
PDM-16QAM-DD ( $3 \times 3$ coupler)	$1 \times I / Q$	4PD	Yes (0.15 dB)	0.5	0.5	$- 9.35 dBm$

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Xiaojie Shen, Jiahao Huo, Xian Zhou, Kangping Zhong, Jinhui Yuan, Jiajing Tu, Keping Long, Changyuan Yu, Alan Pak Tao Lau, Chao Lu, "Performance comparison among three different Stokes vector direct-detection receivers," Chin. Opt. Lett. 16, 100605 (2018)

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Fiber Optics and Optical Communications

Received: Jun. 14, 2018

Accepted: Aug. 31, 2018

Posted: Sep. 13, 2018

Published Online: Oct. 12, 2018

The Author Email: Xian Zhou (zhouxian219@gmail.com)

DOI:10.3788/COL201816.100605

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology