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

Journals >Chinese Optics Letters >Volume 16 >Issue 10 >Page 100605 > Article

Chinese Optics Letters
Vol. 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

DOI: 10.3788/COL201816.100605 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

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[J]. Chinese Optics Letters, 2018, 16(10): 100605 Copy Citation Text

EndNote(RIS)

BibTex

Plain Text

show less

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

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 the Article

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.

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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the Article

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

View in the Article

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	$- 9.35 dBm$

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