Fig. 1. (a) Mock-up of the proposed AO modulator concept; (b) simulated average strain on 1 μm wide 560 nm thick optical WG; (c) total refractive index variation, in principal directions, due to simulated strain in (b).

Fig. 2. (a) Microscope image of the fabricated MZI; (b) measurement setup for the optical response of the MZI device. EDFA, erbium-doped fiber amplifier; FPC, fiber polarization controller; DUT, device under test; DAQ, data acquisition card. (c) Measured optical response of the MZI; (d) cross-sectional SEM image of the optical WG (left) and simulated TM mode shape, including WG sidewalls (right).

Fig. 3. (a) Fabrication process. BOX, buried oxide; PR, photoresist. SEM images of (b) IDTs and modulated MZI arm; (c) PhC WG; (d) etched region used to protect the unmodulated MZI arm from the acoustic waves; (e) zoomed-in IDTs; (f) zoomed-in IDTs and PhC WG; and (g) WGC used for mechanical tethering.

Fig. 4. (a) Measurement setup; (b) measured optical powers versus wavelength for device A; (c) measured S-parameters of device A at optical wavelength of 1561 nm.

Fig. 5. (a) Measured S-parameters of device B at optical wavelength of 1560.6 nm; (b) measured S-parameters of device C at optical wavelength of 1558.5 nm; (c) SEM image of device C.

Table 1. Fabricated Devices’ Dimensions

Table 2. Performance Summary and Comparison to SoA