OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 20, Iss. 17 — Aug. 13, 2012
  • pp: 19520–19534
« Show journal navigation

OSNR monitoring for QPSK and 16-QAM systems in presence of fiber nonlinearities for digital coherent receivers

Zhenhua Dong, Alan Pak Tao Lau, and Chao Lu  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 20, Issue 17, pp. 19520-19534 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.20.019520


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (2534 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

OSNR monitoring is indispensable for coherent systems to ensure robust, reliable network operation and potentially enable impairment-aware routing for future dynamic optical networks. In a long-haul transmission link with chromatic dispersion (CD) and fiber nonlinearity, it is difficult to distinguish between amplifier noise and fiber nonlinearity induced distortions from received signal distributions even after various transmission impairment compensation techniques, thus resulting in grossly inaccurate OSNR estimates. Based on the received signal distributions after carrier phase estimation (CPE), we propose to characterize the nonlinearity-induced amplitude noise correlation across neighboring symbols and incorporate such information into error vector magnitude (EVM) calculation to realize fiber nonlinearity-insensitive OSNR monitoring. For a transmission link up to 1600 km and signal launched power up to 2 dBm, experimental results for 112 Gb/s polarization-multiplexed quadrature phase-shift keying (PM-QPSK) demonstrate an OSNR monitoring range of 10-24 dB with a maximum estimation error below 1 dB. For 224 Gb/s PM-16-quadrature amplitude modulation (PM-16-QAM) systems, simulation results demonstrate an OSNR monitoring range of 18-28 dB with a maximum estimation error below 1 dB. Tolerance of the proposed OSNR monitoring technique to different pulse shapes, timing phase offsets, polarization dependent loss (PDL), polarization-mode dispersion (PMD) and WDM effects are also investigated through simulations.

© 2012 OSA

1. Introduction

In this paper, we extend our preliminary investigation [14

14. Z. H. Dong, A. P. T. Lau, and C. Lu, “OSNR monitoring for PM-QPSK systems in presence of fiber nonlinearities for digital coherent receivers,” in Proc. Optoelectronic Communication Conference (OECC), 2012, Paper 6B3–3.

] and propose to use the received signals after carrier phase estimation (CPE) in a standard digital coherent receiver and characterize the fiber nonlinearity induced amplitude noise correlation among neighboring symbols as a quantitative measure of nonlinear distortions to the signal. This nonlinear measure is shown to only depend on signal launched power but not OSNR and hence fiber nonlinear distortions can be isolated from ASE noise. In this case, nonlinearity-insensitive OSNR monitoring can be achieved by incorporating/calibrating such amplitude noise correlations into an EVM-based OSNR estimator. Experimental as well as simulation results demonstrate an OSNR monitoring range of 10-24 dB with a maximum estimation error of 1.0 dB for 112 Gb/s PM-QPSK systems and 18-28 dB with a maximum estimation error of 1.0 dB for 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM systems. The maximum signal launched power is 4 dBm for transmission distance up to 800 km and 2 dBm for longer distance up to 1600 km. It should be noted that signal launched power above 2 dBm at such transmission distances are already considerably higher than the optimal signal power level for realistic 28G baud PM-QPSK and PM-16-QAM systems [15

15. J. Renaudier, G. Charlet, O. Bertran-Pardo, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, M. Salsi, and S. Bigo, “Transmission of 100 Gb/s Coherent PDM-QPSK over 16 x 100 km of Standard Fiber with allerbium amplifiers,” Opt. Express 17(7), 5112–5119 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 16

16. A. H. Gnauck, P. J. Winzer, S. Chandrasekhar, X. Liu, B. Zhu, and D. W. Peckham, “Spectrally efficient long-haul WDM transmission using 224-Gb/s polarization-multiplexed 16-QAM,” J. Lightwave Technol. 29(4), 373–377 (2011). [CrossRef]

] and hence the proposed technique is applicable to systems with strong fiber nonlinearity. In addition, the proposed OSNR monitoring technique is shown to be tolerant towards the effects of timing phase offsets, different signal pulse shapes, PDL and first-order PMD. Furthermore, simulations for WDM systems show that while inter-channel nonlinearities such as cross-phase modulation (XPM) can introduce further distortions to the signal, appropriate calibrations to the proposed OSNR estimator can be performed to maintain the OSNR monitoring accuracy.

2. Theoretical foundations

2.1 OSNR estimation based on received signal distributions and error vector magnitude (EVM)

2.2 Calibrating nonlinearity induced-amplitude noise correlations across received symbols into EVM-based OSNR estimates

The interaction of fiber nonlinearity, CD and ASE noise will produce distortions such as IFWM that are shown to be correlated across neighboring symbols even after appropriate linear impairment compensation [21

21. A. P. T. Lau, S. Rabbani, and J. M. Kahn, “On the statistics of intra-channel four-wave mixing in phase-modulated optical communication systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(14), 2128–2135 (2008). [CrossRef]

]. In particular, the phase as well as amplitude noise across neighboring symbols are shown to be correlated. Denoting Δkas the amplitude noise of the kth received symbol, let the autocorrelation function (ACF) of amplitude noise across neighboring symbols be

RΔ(m)=E[ΔkΔk+m].
(5)

Figure 2
Fig. 2 Autocorrelation of fiber-nonlinearity induced amplitude noise |RΔ(m)|for a (a) 112 Gb/s PM-QPSK system and (b) 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM system with various signal launched powers and OSNR values. The transmission distance is 800 km without inline optical CD compensation and the received signals are sampled and processed by standard DSP blocks depicted in Fig. 1(a) and the amplitude noise autocorrelation are calculated accordingly from the received signal distribution after carrier phase estimation. From the figure, RΔ(1) only depends on signal launched power and is insensitive to ASE noise and hence can be used to isolate fiber nonlinearity effects from ASE noise.
compares |RΔ(m)| of a 112 Gb/s PM-QPSK system and a 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM system obtained from simulations for various signal launched powers and OSNR values. The transmission distance is 800 km without inline optical CD compensation and the received signals are sampled and processed by standard signal processing blocks depicted in Fig. 1(a) and the amplitude noise autocorrelation are calculated accordingly from the received signal distribution after carrier phase estimation. From the figure, it is clear from |RΔ(m)| that the amplitude noise is correlated across neighboring symbols. Also, as |RΔ(0)| is basically the amplitude noise variance in each received symbol, it would vary with both signal launched power and OSNR as reflected in the figure. However, |RΔ(1)|,|RΔ(2)|,|RΔ(3)| seem to only depend on signal launched power and is quite insensitive to OSNR. This can be explained as follows: with appropriate optical and electrical filtering in a transmission link, ASE noise nk of the received symbols rk should be uncorrelated across neighboring symbols. However, CD induces pulse overlapping during transmission and the pulses interact with each other through fiber nonlinearity and consequently result in additional nonlinear distortions vk in rk. As vk originates from neighboring symbols, it is intuitive to expect that vk is correlated across neighboring symbols and such correlations are largely attributed to nonlinear interactions between signal pulses rather than signal-ASE noise or ASE noise-ASE noise interactions.

The term|RΔ(1)|×ξ is incorporated in the OSNR estimator in Eq. (2) and thus a nonlinearity-insensitive OSNR estimation can be obtained by

OSNREstimated=E(|s^k|2)E(|nk|2)|RΔ(1)|×ξ.
(6)

It should be noted that the received signals in both polarization multiplexed tributaries are used for the OSNR estimation in Eq. (6). Moreover, phase noise correlation can also be used to calibrate and estimate PNL and serve the same purpose of realizing accurate OSNR monitoring in presence of fiber nonlinearity. We choose to use amplitude noise correlation instead because of its robustness against additional phase noise effects such as laser frequency offsets and laser phase noise and corresponding DSP techniques to mitigate them might not be perfect in practice.

3. Experimental and simulation results for 112 Gb/s PM-QPSK and 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM systems

3.1 Experimental Results for 112 Gb/s PM-QPSK systems

Experiments have been performed to demonstrate the validity of the proposed OSNR monitoring technique for 112 Gb/s PM-QPSK systems. The experimental configuration is shown in Fig. 4
Fig. 4 System configuration for a 112Gbit/s PM-QPSK system without inline dispersion compensation. Att: attenuator, AOM: acousto-optic modulator, BPF: band-pass filter, ECL: external cavity laser, EDFA: erbium-doped fiber amplifier, PBS: polarization beam splitter, PBC: polarizing beam combiner, PC: polarization controller, OSA: optical spectrum analyzer, SSMF: standard single-mode fiber.
. At the transmitter side, an external cavity laser (ECL) laser at 1550.12nm is modulated with an I/Q modulator driven by 28G baud pseudo random bit sequences (PRBS) of length 231-1 to produce Non-Return-to-Zero (NRZ) QPSK signals. Polarization division multiplexing is achieved by splitting the signal through a polarization beam splitter (PBS) into two branches, delaying one branch, and recombining the signal through a polarization beam combiner (PBC). The signal is then amplified and launched into the fiber recirculating loop with a transmitted power ranging from −4 to 4 dBm to realize various levels of fiber nonlinearity. The loop consists of a span of 80 km SSMF, erbium-doped fiber amplifier (EDFA), an attenuator placed before the EDFA to realize various OSNR values from 10 to 24 dB and also a 5nm optical band- pass filter (BPF) for channel power equalization. At the loop output, ten percent of the light is taped into an optical spectrum analyzer (OSA) to obtain the reference (true) OSNR using out-of-band noise measurement [22]. Here and throughout the paper, the OSNR will be referred to the 0.4 nm bandwidth which corresponds to the whole signal bandwidth. The rest of the signal is filtered by a 3th order Gaussian optical BPF having 0.4 nm bandwidth and enters an integrated coherent receiver. The linewidth of transmitter and local oscillator (LO) are 150 kHz and 100 kHz respectively and the frequency offset is set to be 1 GHz. The coherently detected signal are sampled by a 50 G samples/s real-time oscilloscope and then processed offline with the following DSP algorithms: 1) Normalization and resampling to 2 samples/symbol; 2) Chromatic dispersion compensation using a finite impulse response filter [6

6. S. J. Savory, “Digital coherent optical receivers: Algorithms and subsystems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16(5), 1164–1179 (2010). [CrossRef]

]; 3) Adaptive equalization/PMD compensation/polarization de-multiplexing with constant modulus algorithm (CMA) [6

6. S. J. Savory, “Digital coherent optical receivers: Algorithms and subsystems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16(5), 1164–1179 (2010). [CrossRef]

]; 4) Frequency offset compensation and carrier phase estimation [6

6. S. J. Savory, “Digital coherent optical receivers: Algorithms and subsystems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16(5), 1164–1179 (2010). [CrossRef]

]; 5) Symbol decision, amplitude noise correlation calculation through (5) and OSNR estimate through (6). In our experiments, 100000 symbols are used for the OSNR estimation which only requires an acquisition time of a few microseconds.

It is well known that practical systems suffer from impairments such as imperfect matching filters and transceiver imperfections which introduce additional distortions to the received signal. We first conducted a back-to-back experiment to estimate and ‘calibrate out’ such imperfections [10

10. D. J. Ives, B. C. Thomsen, R. Maher, and S. Savory, “Estimating OSNR of equalised QPSK signals,” in Proc. European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2011, Paper Tu.6.A.6.

, 18

18. F. Vacondio, O. Rival, C. Simonneau, E. Grellier, A. Bononi, L. Lorcy, J. C. Antona, and S. Bigo, “On nonlinear distortions of highly dispersive optical coherent systems,” Opt. Express 20(2), 1022–1032 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

3.2 Simulation results for 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM systems

For 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM systems, simulations using VPI [23

23. VPIsystemsTM, “VPltransmissionMakerTM”.

] are performed to demonstrate the validity of the proposed OSNR monitoring technique. In the simulation setup, the 16-QAM signals are generated by a four-level-driven I/Q modulator at the transmitter side. In the receiver DSP, the Cascaded Multi-Modulus Algorithm (CMMA) [24

24. X. Zhou, J. Yu, and P. D. Magill, “Cascaded two-modulus algorithm for blind polarization de-multiplexing of 114-Gb/s PDM-8-QAM optical signals,” in Proc. OFC’09, San Diego, Mar. 2009, Paper OWG3.

] is added after the standard Constant Modulus Algorithm (CMA) to better equalize the 16-QAM signals and the CPE algorithm reported in [25

25. Y. L. Gao, A. P. T. Lau, S. Y. Yan, and C. Lu, “Low-complexity and phase noise tolerant carrier phase estimation for dual-polarization 16-QAM systems,” Opt. Express 19(22), 21717–21729 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] is used. The rest of system setup is similar to that shown in Fig. 4.

More than a hundred OSNR monitoring curves corresponding to various pulse shapes, timing phase offsets, PDL and PMD values are generated by simulations. For each transmission distance, the calibration factor ξ has been optimized over different launched powers, OSNRs, pulse shapes, PDL and PMD effects for optimal OSNR estimation performance. Typical OSNR estimation results before and after calibration are shown in Fig. 8
Fig. 8 Estimated OSNR vs true OSNR for a 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM system obtained from simulations for various signal launched powers and OSNR values (a) after 400km transmission and calibrated with ξ = 11.2. The maximum estimation error is 0.9 dB; (b) after 800 km transmission and calibrated with ξ = 12.3. The maximum estimation error is 1.73 dB; (c) after 1200 km transmission calibrated with ξ = 12.8. The maximum estimation error is 1.81 dB; (d) after 1600 km transmission calibrated with ξ = 13.8. The maximum estimation error is 1.98 dB. Different pulse shapes, timing phases, PDL and DGD with different SOPs are considered in the simulation and estimation results.
. For an OSNR monitoring range from 18 to 28 dB, the maximum monitoring errors are 0.35 dB, 0.94 dB, 0.53 dB and 1.0 dB for 400 km, 800 km, 1200 km and 1600 km transmissions respectively when PDL and PMD effects are absent. The maximum monitoring errors become 0.5 dB, 1.1 dB, 0.82 dB and 1.18 dB respectively when PDL is present. PMD further increases the maximum monitoring errors to 0.9 dB, 1.73 dB, 1.81 dB and 1.98 dB for 400 km, 800 km, 1200 km and 1600 km transmissions respectively. The increased estimation errors are partly due to the OSNR monitoring range shifting to higher values where the ASE noise is relatively small and thus the monitoring performance is more vulnerable to the other distortions such as PMD. However, the estimation errors still remain on a reasonably low level and illustrates that our technique is applicable to different pulse shapes and rather insensitive to PDL and PMD effects. We would like to note that the effect of PMD on our proposed OSNR monitoring technique can potentially be further reduced by first determining the angle between SOP and PSP and the DGD value from the CMA/CMMA taps and calibrate a factor ξ specific to different angles and DGD values.

In addition, we briefly investigated the performance of the proposed OSNR monitoring technique in WDM systems. In the presence of inter-channel nonlinear effects such as cross-phase modulation (XPM) and four-wave mixing (FWM), the signals are further degraded by the additional nonlinear distortions. However, those additional nonlinear distortions can be calibrated into our EVM-based OSNR estimator using a larger ξ. The optimized ξ versus transmission distance for a multi-channel 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM system with 50 GHz channel spacing is show in Fig. 10
Fig. 10 The optimized calibration factor ξ vs. transmission distance for a 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM WDM system for realizing nonlinearity-insensitive OSNR monitoring. The channel spacing is 50 GHz.
. We can see that with inter-channel nonlinear impairments the optimal ξ increases with the number of channels and saturates when the number of channels exceeds 9. This is in agreement with expectations as channels spaced far apart interacts less with each other through XPM due to walk-off effects. For a 21-channel WDM system, the maximum monitoring errors are 0.8 dB, 1.1 dB, 1.5 dB and 2.2 dB for 400 km, 800 km, 1200 km and 1600 km transmissions respectively.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, we proposed a fiber-nonlinearity-insensitive OSNR monitoring technique for digital coherent receivers by incorporating and calibrating fiber nonlinearity-induced amplitude noise correlations among neighboring symbols into conventional OSNR estimation techniques from received signal distributions. For 112Gb/s PM-QPSK systems, accurate OSNR monitoring in the range of 10–24 dB is experimentally demonstrated by the proposed technique in presence of relatively strong fiber nonlinearity. For 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM systems, simulation results demonstrated accurate OSNR monitoring in the range of 18-28 dB and the proposed OSNR monitoring technique is shown to be robust against different signal pulse shapes, timing phase offsets, PDL and first-order PMD effects. Finally, studies on multi-channel 224 Gb/s PM-16-QAM WDM systems demonstrated the validity of the proposed OSNR monitoring technique in the presence of inter-channel nonlinearities. Further investigations on the proposed methodology to potentially isolate ASE noise, SPM and XPM effects will be attempted in the future.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Hong Kong Government General Research Fund under project number PolyU 519910.

References and links

1.

D. C. Kilper, S. Chandrasekhar, L. Buhl, A. Agarwal, and D. Maywar, “Spectral monitoring of OSNR in high speed networks,” in European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2002, paper 7.4.4.

2.

J. H. Lee, D. K. Jung, C. H. Kim, and Y. C. Chung, “OSNR monitoring technique using polarization nulling method,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 13(1), 88–90 (2001). [CrossRef]

3.

S. D. Dods and T. B. Anderson, “Optical performance monitoring technique using delay tap asynchronous waveform sampling,” in Proc. OFC’06, Anaheim, California, Mar. 2006, Paper OThP5.

4.

J. A. Jargon, X. Wu, and A. E. Willner, “Optical performance monitoring using artificial neural networks trained with eye-diagram parameters,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 21(1), 54–56 (2009). [CrossRef]

5.

E. Ip, A. P. T. Lau, D. J. F. Barros, and J. M. Kahn, “Coherent detection in optical fiber systems,” Opt. Express 16(2), 753–791 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

S. J. Savory, “Digital coherent optical receivers: Algorithms and subsystems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16(5), 1164–1179 (2010). [CrossRef]

7.

S. L. Woodward, L. E. Nelson, M. D. Feuer, X. Zhou, P. D. Magill, S. Foo, D. Hanson, H. Sun, M. Moyer, and M. O’Sullivan, “Characterization of real-time PMD and chromatic dispersion monitoring in a high-PMD 46-Gb/s transmission system,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 20(24), 2048–2050 (2008). [CrossRef]

8.

F. N. Hauske, M. Kuschnerov, B. Spinnler, and B. Lankl, “Optical performance monitoring in digital coherent receivers,” J. Lightwave Technol. 27(16), 3623–3631 (2009). [CrossRef]

9.

F. Pittalà, F. N. Hauske, Y. Ye, N. G. Gonzalez, and I. T. Monroy, “Joint PDL and in-band OSNR monitoring supported by data-aided channel estimation,” in Proc. OFC’12, Los Angeles, Mar. 2012, Paper OW4G.

10.

D. J. Ives, B. C. Thomsen, R. Maher, and S. Savory, “Estimating OSNR of equalised QPSK signals,” in Proc. European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2011, Paper Tu.6.A.6.

11.

R. Schmogrow, B. Nebendahl, M. Winter, A. Josten, D. Hillerkuss, S. Koenig, J. Meyer, M. Dreschmann, M. Huebner, C. Koos, J. Becker, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Error vector magnitude as a performance measure for advanced modulation formats,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 24(1), 61–63 (2012). [CrossRef]

12.

M. Mayrock and H. Haunstein, “Optical monitoring for non-linearity identification in CO-OFDM transmission systems,” in Proc. OFC’08, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2008, Paper JThA58.

13.

E. Ip, “Nonlinear compensation using backpropagation for polarization-multiplexed transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol. 28(6), 939–951 (2010). [CrossRef]

14.

Z. H. Dong, A. P. T. Lau, and C. Lu, “OSNR monitoring for PM-QPSK systems in presence of fiber nonlinearities for digital coherent receivers,” in Proc. Optoelectronic Communication Conference (OECC), 2012, Paper 6B3–3.

15.

J. Renaudier, G. Charlet, O. Bertran-Pardo, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, M. Salsi, and S. Bigo, “Transmission of 100 Gb/s Coherent PDM-QPSK over 16 x 100 km of Standard Fiber with allerbium amplifiers,” Opt. Express 17(7), 5112–5119 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16.

A. H. Gnauck, P. J. Winzer, S. Chandrasekhar, X. Liu, B. Zhu, and D. W. Peckham, “Spectrally efficient long-haul WDM transmission using 224-Gb/s polarization-multiplexed 16-QAM,” J. Lightwave Technol. 29(4), 373–377 (2011). [CrossRef]

17.

P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(11), 742–744 (2011). [CrossRef]

18.

F. Vacondio, O. Rival, C. Simonneau, E. Grellier, A. Bononi, L. Lorcy, J. C. Antona, and S. Bigo, “On nonlinear distortions of highly dispersive optical coherent systems,” Opt. Express 20(2), 1022–1032 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19.

A. Bononi, P. Serena, N. Rossi, and D. Sperti, “Which is the dominant nonlinearity in long-haul PDM-QPSK coherent transmissions?” in European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2010, Th.10.E.1.

20.

A. Bononi, N. Rossi, and P. Serena, “Transmission limitations due to fiber nonlinearity,” in Proc. OFC’11, Los Angeles, Mar. 2011, Paper OWO7.

21.

A. P. T. Lau, S. Rabbani, and J. M. Kahn, “On the statistics of intra-channel four-wave mixing in phase-modulated optical communication systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(14), 2128–2135 (2008). [CrossRef]

22. Optical Monitoring for DWDM Systems. ITU-T recommendation G.697, June 2004.

23.

VPIsystemsTM, “VPltransmissionMakerTM”.

24.

X. Zhou, J. Yu, and P. D. Magill, “Cascaded two-modulus algorithm for blind polarization de-multiplexing of 114-Gb/s PDM-8-QAM optical signals,” in Proc. OFC’09, San Diego, Mar. 2009, Paper OWG3.

25.

Y. L. Gao, A. P. T. Lau, S. Y. Yan, and C. Lu, “Low-complexity and phase noise tolerant carrier phase estimation for dual-polarization 16-QAM systems,” Opt. Express 19(22), 21717–21729 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

26.

O. Vassilieva, T. Hoshida, X. Wang, J. Rasmussen, H. Miyata, and T. Naito, “Impact of polarization dependent loss and cross-phase modulation on polarization multiplexed DQPSK signals,” in Proc. OFC’08, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2008, Paper OThU6.

OCIS Codes
(060.1660) Fiber optics and optical communications : Coherent communications
(060.2330) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber optics communications
(060.4370) Fiber optics and optical communications : Nonlinear optics, fibers
(060.4261) Fiber optics and optical communications : Networks, protection and restoration

ToC Category:
Fiber Optics and Optical Communications

History
Original Manuscript: June 19, 2012
Revised Manuscript: August 4, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: August 4, 2012
Published: August 10, 2012

Citation
Zhenhua Dong, Alan Pak Tao Lau, and Chao Lu, "OSNR monitoring for QPSK and 16-QAM systems in presence of fiber nonlinearities for digital coherent receivers," Opt. Express 20, 19520-19534 (2012)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-20-17-19520


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. D. C. Kilper, S. Chandrasekhar, L. Buhl, A. Agarwal, and D. Maywar, “Spectral monitoring of OSNR in high speed networks,” in European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2002, paper 7.4.4.
  2. J. H. Lee, D. K. Jung, C. H. Kim, and Y. C. Chung, “OSNR monitoring technique using polarization nulling method,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.13(1), 88–90 (2001). [CrossRef]
  3. S. D. Dods and T. B. Anderson, “Optical performance monitoring technique using delay tap asynchronous waveform sampling,” in Proc. OFC’06, Anaheim, California, Mar. 2006, Paper OThP5.
  4. J. A. Jargon, X. Wu, and A. E. Willner, “Optical performance monitoring using artificial neural networks trained with eye-diagram parameters,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.21(1), 54–56 (2009). [CrossRef]
  5. E. Ip, A. P. T. Lau, D. J. F. Barros, and J. M. Kahn, “Coherent detection in optical fiber systems,” Opt. Express16(2), 753–791 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. S. J. Savory, “Digital coherent optical receivers: Algorithms and subsystems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.16(5), 1164–1179 (2010). [CrossRef]
  7. S. L. Woodward, L. E. Nelson, M. D. Feuer, X. Zhou, P. D. Magill, S. Foo, D. Hanson, H. Sun, M. Moyer, and M. O’Sullivan, “Characterization of real-time PMD and chromatic dispersion monitoring in a high-PMD 46-Gb/s transmission system,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.20(24), 2048–2050 (2008). [CrossRef]
  8. F. N. Hauske, M. Kuschnerov, B. Spinnler, and B. Lankl, “Optical performance monitoring in digital coherent receivers,” J. Lightwave Technol.27(16), 3623–3631 (2009). [CrossRef]
  9. F. Pittalà, F. N. Hauske, Y. Ye, N. G. Gonzalez, and I. T. Monroy, “Joint PDL and in-band OSNR monitoring supported by data-aided channel estimation,” in Proc. OFC’12, Los Angeles, Mar. 2012, Paper OW4G.
  10. D. J. Ives, B. C. Thomsen, R. Maher, and S. Savory, “Estimating OSNR of equalised QPSK signals,” in Proc. European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2011, Paper Tu.6.A.6.
  11. R. Schmogrow, B. Nebendahl, M. Winter, A. Josten, D. Hillerkuss, S. Koenig, J. Meyer, M. Dreschmann, M. Huebner, C. Koos, J. Becker, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Error vector magnitude as a performance measure for advanced modulation formats,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.24(1), 61–63 (2012). [CrossRef]
  12. M. Mayrock and H. Haunstein, “Optical monitoring for non-linearity identification in CO-OFDM transmission systems,” in Proc. OFC’08, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2008, Paper JThA58.
  13. E. Ip, “Nonlinear compensation using backpropagation for polarization-multiplexed transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol.28(6), 939–951 (2010). [CrossRef]
  14. Z. H. Dong, A. P. T. Lau, and C. Lu, “OSNR monitoring for PM-QPSK systems in presence of fiber nonlinearities for digital coherent receivers,” in Proc. Optoelectronic Communication Conference (OECC), 2012, Paper 6B3–3.
  15. J. Renaudier, G. Charlet, O. Bertran-Pardo, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, M. Salsi, and S. Bigo, “Transmission of 100 Gb/s Coherent PDM-QPSK over 16 x 100 km of Standard Fiber with allerbium amplifiers,” Opt. Express17(7), 5112–5119 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. A. H. Gnauck, P. J. Winzer, S. Chandrasekhar, X. Liu, B. Zhu, and D. W. Peckham, “Spectrally efficient long-haul WDM transmission using 224-Gb/s polarization-multiplexed 16-QAM,” J. Lightwave Technol.29(4), 373–377 (2011). [CrossRef]
  17. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.23(11), 742–744 (2011). [CrossRef]
  18. F. Vacondio, O. Rival, C. Simonneau, E. Grellier, A. Bononi, L. Lorcy, J. C. Antona, and S. Bigo, “On nonlinear distortions of highly dispersive optical coherent systems,” Opt. Express20(2), 1022–1032 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. A. Bononi, P. Serena, N. Rossi, and D. Sperti, “Which is the dominant nonlinearity in long-haul PDM-QPSK coherent transmissions?” in European Conference and Exhibition on Optical Communication (ECOC), 2010, Th.10.E.1.
  20. A. Bononi, N. Rossi, and P. Serena, “Transmission limitations due to fiber nonlinearity,” in Proc. OFC’11, Los Angeles, Mar. 2011, Paper OWO7.
  21. A. P. T. Lau, S. Rabbani, and J. M. Kahn, “On the statistics of intra-channel four-wave mixing in phase-modulated optical communication systems,” J. Lightwave Technol.26(14), 2128–2135 (2008). [CrossRef]
  22. 22. Optical Monitoring for DWDM Systems. ITU-T recommendation G.697, June 2004.
  23. VPIsystemsTM, “VPltransmissionMakerTM”.
  24. X. Zhou, J. Yu, and P. D. Magill, “Cascaded two-modulus algorithm for blind polarization de-multiplexing of 114-Gb/s PDM-8-QAM optical signals,” in Proc. OFC’09, San Diego, Mar. 2009, Paper OWG3.
  25. Y. L. Gao, A. P. T. Lau, S. Y. Yan, and C. Lu, “Low-complexity and phase noise tolerant carrier phase estimation for dual-polarization 16-QAM systems,” Opt. Express19(22), 21717–21729 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. O. Vassilieva, T. Hoshida, X. Wang, J. Rasmussen, H. Miyata, and T. Naito, “Impact of polarization dependent loss and cross-phase modulation on polarization multiplexed DQPSK signals,” in Proc. OFC’08, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2008, Paper OThU6.

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited