OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 20, Iss. 23 — Nov. 5, 2012
  • pp: 26062–26074
« Show journal navigation

Self-injected semiconductor distributed feedback lasers for frequency chirp stabilization

Khalil Kechaou, Frédéric Grillot, Jean-Guy Provost, Bruno Thedrez, and Didier Erasme  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 20, Issue 23, pp. 26062-26074 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.20.026062


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1823 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

It is well known that semiconductor distributed feedback lasers (DFB) are key devices for optical communications. However direct modulation applications are limited by the frequency chirp induced by current modulation. We demonstrate that a proper external control laser operation leads to chirp-to-power ratio (CPR) stabilization over a wide range of modulation frequencies as compared to the free-running case. Under experimentally selected optical feedback conditions, the CPR decreases significantly in the adiabatic regime from about 650 MHz/mW in the solitary case down to 65 MHz/mW. Experimental results are also confirmed by numerical investigations based on the transfer matrix method. Simulations point out the possible optimization of the CPR in the adiabatic regime by considering a judicious cavity design in conjunction with a proper external control. These results demonstrate important routes for improving the transmission performance in optical telecommunication systems.

© 2012 OSA

1. Introduction

Today, lower cost and lower consumption optical sources are required for the deployment of access and metropolitan networks and for supporting new services like HDTV (High-Definition television), VOD (Video-On-Demand) as well as Cloud-computing. In response to this demand, directly Modulated Distributed Feedback Lasers (DM-DFB) used as 10 Gb/s transmitters offer compactness, high output power, convenient optical bandwidth and cost efficiency. It is, however, well known that DFB lasers suffer from significant frequency shift (chirp) under current modulation conditions. For high-speed applications, this frequency chirp has been shown to broaden the modulated spectrum, a serious limitation in optical fiber communications [1

1. K. Petermann, Laser Diode Modulation and Noise (Kuwer Academic Publisher, 1991).

]. In this context, a lot of research activities are focusing on how to overcome the dispersion limit for 1.55-μm signal. Several methods and devices have been developed with the aim of extending the transmission reach. These include Electro-absorption Modulated Lasers (EMLs) and more recently Dual modulation [2

2. K. Kechaou, T. Anfray, K. Merghem, C. Aupetit-Berthelemot, G. Aubin, C. Kazmierski, C. Jany, P. Chanclou, and D. Erasme, “Improved NRZ transmission distance at 20 Gbit/s using dual electroabsorption modulated laser,” Electron. Lett. 48(6), 335–336 (2012). [CrossRef]

] and Chirp Managed Laser (CML) [3

3. D. Mahgerefteh, Y. Matsui, X. Zheng, and K. McCallion, “Chirp managed laser and applications,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16(5), 1126–1139 (2010). [CrossRef]

] schemes. These two latter techniques rely on tuning the adiabatic chirp according to the Binder and Kohn’s condition [4

4. J. Binder and U. Kohn, “10 Gbits/s-dispersion optimized transmission at 1,55 μm wavelength on standard single mode fiber,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 6(4), 558–560 (1994). [CrossRef]

].

It has been shown recently that the laser’s adiabatic chirp can be reduced by zeroing the linewidth enhancement factor (αH-factor) through injection-locking under strong optical injection [5

5. N. A. Naderi, F. Grillot, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Simultaneous low linewidth enhancement factor and high bandwidth quantum-dash injection-locked laser,” International Photon. Conf. Arlington, USA (2011).

]. Therefore, a new approach to enhance the transmission distance may consist in monitoring the DFB laser’s adiabatic chirp through external control techniques. The scope of this paper is to theoretically and experimentally demonstrate a stabilization of the frequency chirp over a wide range of modulation frequencies based on a suitably controlled external optical feedback. The investigation is carried out using a conventional quantum well (QW) based DFB laser through an analysis of the chirp to power ratio (CPR).

This paper shows that in the case of a long external cavity, the CPR can remain constant over a wide range of modulation frequencies, which is of first importance for future optical communication systems. Under optimum feedback conditions the CPR does not exceed an average value of ~100 MHz/mW from 10 kHz to 10 GHz, which corresponds to a reduction by a factor of 6.3 when compared to the solitary case. In order to provide insight on the observed chirp stabilization, self-consistent calculations based on the transfer matrix method provide a good qualitative agreement with the experiments. Numerical simulations also reveal that the sensitivity to external optical feedback of an antireflection/high reflection coated (AR/HR) DFB laser depends strongly on the Bragg grating coefficient, which controls the amplitude of Spatial Hole Burning (SHB). In addition, different laser chirp behaviors are observed according to the optical feedback conditions. Furthermore the Bragg grating coefficient as well as the facets reflectivities is shown to influence the adiabatic CPR magnitude.

2. Experimental results

The QW DFB laser under study is a buried ridge stripe (BRS) structure with a HR coating on the rear facet and an AR coating on the front facet, which provide a high external efficiency. The device is 350 µm long with an active layer consisting of six InGaAsP QWs separated by 10 nm wide barriers. The QWs are 8 nm wide and have a 1.1% compressive strain. The grating is defined in a passive quaternary layer localized over the active region and was measured to be about 30 cm−1 (κL ~0.8). A conventional holographic process is used to fabricate a single pitch grating over the full wafer [15

15. F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, F. Mallecot, C. Chaumont, S. Hubert, M. F. Martineau, A. Pinquier, and L. Roux, “Analysis, fabrication and characterization of 1.5μm selection-free tapered stripe DFB lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 14(8), 1040–1042 (2002). [CrossRef]

]. The threshold current value is Ith = 8 mA with an external efficiency η = 0.26 W/A at 25°C. The objective of the experiments is to determine all the characteristics of the frequency modulation (FM) contribution induced by current modulation and under optical feedback conditions.

A polarization controller (PC) matches the feedback beam’s polarization to that of the emitted wave in order to maximize the effects. The magnitude of the feedback is defined as the ratio Γ = P1/P0 of the power returned to the facet and launched into the cavity P1 over P0 the emitted one. The feedback is studied for a long external cavity [7

7. D. M. Kane and K. A. Shore, Unlocking Dynamical Diversity (Wiley, 23–54, 2005).

] given by ωrτ >> 1 where τ and ωr are the external round trip time (in the order of several hundred nanoseconds) and the laser relaxation frequency (a few GHz). Measurements are made for a bias current equal to 2.4 × Ith, which corresponds to an emitting power of P0 ≈3 mW. The coupling loss coefficient between the laser output and the optical fiber was kept constant at ~3 dB during the entire experiment. Since the external cavity is long, all feedback regimes could not be observed. The optical spectrum was monitored using a 10 pm high-resolution optical spectrum analyzer.

Figure 2
Fig. 2 Amplitude (blue) and phase (red) of the CPR as a function of the modulation frequency for the solitary QW DFB laser.
shows the amplitude (blue) and the phase (red) of the CPR as a function of the frequency modulation for the solitary QW DFB laser emitting at 1550 nm. At low frequencies (ω/2π < 10 MHz), thermal effects are predominant. For instance, at 30 kHz, the amplitude and the phase of the CPR are ~1.0 GHz/mW and ~140° respectively. Within the range 10 MHz < ω/2π < 1 GHz, amplitude (AM) and FM modulations are in-phase (adiabatic regime) and the amplitude of the CPR reaches 650 MHz/mW at ω/2π = 500 MHz. In that case, thermal effects are no longer significant compared to the refractive index effects induced by the modulation of the carrier density. When ω/2π>1GHz, relaxation oscillations between the carrier and photon numbers lead to a transient chirp with larger CPR values of about 1.5 GHz/mW at 10 GHz and a phase difference approaching 90°.

Figure 3
Fig. 3 Amplitude (blue) and phase (red) of the CPR as a function of the modulation frequency for various optical feedback Γ (a) Γ = 1.4 × 10−6, (b) Γ = 1.5 × 10−5, (c) Γ = 1.6 × 10−4, and (d) Γ = 5.5 × 10−3.
displays both the amplitude and the phase of the CPR for various feedback levels (a) Γ = 1.4 × 10−6, (b) Γ = 1.5 × 10−5, (c) Γ = 1.6 × 10−4, and (d) Γ = 5.5 × 10−3. The results demonstrate that the use of a controlled optical feedback can modify both the thermal and adiabatic chirps. Firstly, the averaged CPR measured in the thermal regime is significantly decreased from about 565 MHz/mW in the solitary case down to 33 MHz/mW at the highest feedback level. Secondly, the CPR measured in the adiabatic regime at ω/2π = 500 MHz ranges from about 650 MHz/mW in the solitary case down to 65 MHz/mW at the highest feedback level. Under the selected optical feedback condition (Γ = 5.5 × 10−3) the CPR does not exceed ~100 MHz/mW on average from 10 kHz to 10 GHz, which corresponds to a reduction by a factor of 6.3 when compared to the solitary case. Figure 4
Fig. 4 CPR in the adiabatic regime measured at 500 MHz as a function of the optical feedback strength for the QW DFB laser.
illustrates the stabilization of the measured adiabatic CPR at ω/2π = 500 MHz as a function of the optical feedback strength.

gP=εg1+εP
(3)

For typical devices, the corner frequency is in the hundreds of MHz to few GHz range depending on the output power level. Thus, for high modulation frequencies such as ω>>ωc, a condition which is easily reached in our experiments (the maximum modulation frequency is around 20 GHz), 2β/m directly equals to the laser’s linewidth enhancement factor. For low modulation frequencies, the ratio 2β/m becomes inversely proportional to the modulation frequency.

3. Model

The numerical calculations presented below are based on the transfer matrix method (TMM) [28

28. K. Bjork and O. Nilsson, “A new exact and efficient numerical matrix theory of complicated laser structures: properties of asymmetric phase-shifted DFB lasers,” J. Lightwave Technol. 5(1), 140–146 (1987). [CrossRef]

]. The aim is to calculate the QW based DFB laser performance at threshold and to predict its static behavior above threshold with and without feedback. The method is applicable to any laser design. The DFB laser structure is divided into N sections consisting of many grating periods in which all physical parameters, like the injection current, the material gain, the photon density, the carrier density and the refractive index are assumed to be homogeneous. The laser is modeled by assuming the Bragg grating has a rectangular shape. The transfer matrix for one corrugation period is defined by:
MPeriod¯=[n1+n22n1n1n22n1n1n22n1n1+n22n1]×[ek2l00ek2l]×[n1+n22n2n2n12n2n2n12n2n1+n22n2]×[ek1l00ek1l]
(9)
where n1 and n2 are the refractive indices, and k1 and k2 are the complex propagation constants in the two refractive index regions. The real part of the propagation constant is determined by the net gain. The imaginary part depends on refractive index, which affects the frequency shift of the laser. The laser is divided into m sections where the carrier density is kept uniform. The carrier density may however vary from section to section. Section i contains mi corrugation periods. The complete transfer matrix describing the DFB laser with coated facets is written as:
M¯=rHR¯×φHR¯×i=1i=N(MPeriod¯)mi×φAR,eq¯×rAR,eq¯
(10)
where mi is the number of period in the ith section, rHR¯and rAR,eq¯ are the reflectivity matrices at the left and right side, φHR¯ and φAR,eq¯are the partial propagation matrices corresponding to incomplete corrugation periods at the left and right facets. To take into account the external feedback, the reflectivity and partial propagation matrices are defined according to Eqs. (6) and (7) by:

rHR,eq¯=11r˜HR2[1r˜HRr˜HR1]
(11)
rAR,eq¯=11r˜AR,ea2   [1r˜AR,eqr˜AR,eq1]
(12)
φHR¯=[ejφHR00ejφHR]
(13)
φAR,eq¯=[ejφAR,eq00ejφAR,eq]
(14)

The nonlinear field gain can be well approximated by a logarithmic formula including the gain compression effect in the vicinity of the emission frequency:

g(N,P)=g0ln(edqwBradN2J0)1+εP
(15)

In this approximation, g0, e, dqw, Brad, J0, ε, N and P are respectively the empirical gain coefficient, the electron charge, the thickness of one quantum well, the radiative recombination coefficient, the transparency current density, the gain compression coefficient, the carrier density and the photon density, respectively. For the TMM, the oscillation condition at threshold is computed by using:

M¯11(αDFB,λ)=0
(16)

A prediction-corrector method has been used to calculate the lasing mode represented by (αth, λth). The initial guesses (αi, λi) of solutions correspond to Fabry-Perot modes. After calculating the value of M¯11 for (αi, λi), (αi + dα, λi) and, (αi, λi + dλ), we compute the relative variations allowing the correction of the values of α and λ. This procedure is iteratively repeated until a relative variation less than 10−9 is reached.

4. Numerical results

At low output power, the CPR is definitely power dependent because of the HR-facet phase effect [23

23. B. Thedrez, J. M. Rainsant, N. Aberkane, B. Andre, H. Bissessur, J. G. Provost, and B. Fernier, “ Power and facet phase dependence of chirp for index and gain-coupled DFB lasers,” paper TuE41, Semiconductor Laser Conference, 175–176 (1998).

]. Indeed, the optical field’s longitudinal distribution changes from uniform at threshold to non-uniform as the power increases, leading to a longitudinal variation of the carrier density. As a consequence, the refractive index and hence the periodic profile of the Bragg reflector is altered, leading ultimately to a wavelength shift. In the present case (ϕHR <π), the lasing wavelength shifts towards the red. Because of the large grating coefficient, the introduction of the feedback does not affect the typical CPR power dependence but it can, however, affect its magnitude, at a fixed output power. The distribution of the internal optical power is sensitive to the effective reflection coefficient leading to a significant dependence of the CPR on the feedback strength. Hence, for a 1mW output power, the absolute value of the CPR increases from 0 to 2 GHz/mW whenRAR,eqvaries from 0% to 4%. At higher output powers, the CPR converges towards a positive value around 730 MHz/mA independent of the facet phase and of the feedback condition. This value is given by [1

1. K. Petermann, Laser Diode Modulation and Noise (Kuwer Academic Publisher, 1991).

]:
k=ηieαH4πΓcεV
(19)
where ηi is the internal quantum efficiency and V = NQWdQWLw the cavity volume. Equation (19) describes the wavelength shift induced by the gain compression effect. At high output power, the index profile gets stabilized, and the SHB induced wavelength shift gradually disappears. The remaining wavelength shift is then only due to gain compression, which happens not to be feedback dependent.

From Fig. 7(a), one can see that the sign of the adiabatic chirp can change when the effective reflectivity increases (larger feedback). This effect is even more drastic when one reduces the Q-factor of the cavity (lower κL). Figure 8
Fig. 8 Calculated CPR in the adiabatic regime as a function of the output power for various feedback conditions for κL = 0.5 and L = 350 μm. Front facet reflectivity is 0.1% (green), 0.5% (black), 1% (red) and 2% (blue) respectively.
shows the calculated adiabatic CPR for a grating coupling coefficient of κL = 0.5 with L = 350 μm. In this case, the front facet reflectivity is 0.1% (green plot), 0.5% (black plot), 1% (red plot) and 2% (blue plot) respectively. Compared to Fig. 6, decreasing (κL) leads to an increase of the laser’s sensitivity to the optical feedback.

As an example, Fig. 8 displays the CPR for κL = 0.5. When the front facet reflectivity is increased, the adiabatic CPR at 1 mW drastically decreases from about 2 GHz/mW down to 45 MHz/mW. One can also observe two types of CPR power dependence, similar to the measurements of reference [23

23. B. Thedrez, J. M. Rainsant, N. Aberkane, B. Andre, H. Bissessur, J. G. Provost, and B. Fernier, “ Power and facet phase dependence of chirp for index and gain-coupled DFB lasers,” paper TuE41, Semiconductor Laser Conference, 175–176 (1998).

], which include a change of the curvature. Figure 8 points out that if the optical feedback strength gets sufficiently large, the adiabatic CPR can change sign and turn from blue (green curve) to red (blue curve). As a result, controlling optical feedback allows one to minimize or to zero the adiabatic CPR. This situation results from a proper design of the laser cavity design associated to a well-tuned delayed field having the required properties both in amplitude and in phase.

5. Conclusion

The chirp induced by the optical modulation of a QW DFB diode laser is evaluated through the measurement of the CPR. Experimental results have demonstrated that under optimum optical feedback conditions the adiabatic CPR decreases significantly from about 650 MHz/mW in the solitary case down to 65 MHz/mW. This realization is of importance for improving the transmission performance in optical communication systems. Such experimental results are confirmed by numerical investigations based on the transfer matrix method. Simulations have also pointed out the possibility of optimizing the adiabatic CPR by considering a judicious cavity design in addition to a proper external control. Further studies should investigate the effects of the optical feedback on the chirp under large signal analysis as well as in quantum dot nanostructure based semiconductor lasers for which the SHB effects have been demonstrated to be larger [30

30. L. V. Asryan and R. A. Suris, “Longitudinal spatial hole burning in a quantum-dot laser,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 36(10), 1151–1160 (2000). [CrossRef]

].

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the MODULE project from the French national initiative ANR-VERSO program and SYSTEMATIC Paris-Region for financial support. Special thanks also to Dr. Mark Crowley from the University of New-Mexico (USA) for his valuable comments on the paper. Dr. Frédéric Grillot’s work is supported in part by the European Office of Aerospace Research and Development (EOARD) under grant FA8655-12-1-2093.

References and Links

1.

K. Petermann, Laser Diode Modulation and Noise (Kuwer Academic Publisher, 1991).

2.

K. Kechaou, T. Anfray, K. Merghem, C. Aupetit-Berthelemot, G. Aubin, C. Kazmierski, C. Jany, P. Chanclou, and D. Erasme, “Improved NRZ transmission distance at 20 Gbit/s using dual electroabsorption modulated laser,” Electron. Lett. 48(6), 335–336 (2012). [CrossRef]

3.

D. Mahgerefteh, Y. Matsui, X. Zheng, and K. McCallion, “Chirp managed laser and applications,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16(5), 1126–1139 (2010). [CrossRef]

4.

J. Binder and U. Kohn, “10 Gbits/s-dispersion optimized transmission at 1,55 μm wavelength on standard single mode fiber,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 6(4), 558–560 (1994). [CrossRef]

5.

N. A. Naderi, F. Grillot, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Simultaneous low linewidth enhancement factor and high bandwidth quantum-dash injection-locked laser,” International Photon. Conf. Arlington, USA (2011).

6.

F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, J. Py, O. Gauthier-Lafaye, V. Voiriot, and J. L. Lafragette, “2.5-Gb/s transmission characteristics of 1.3-μm DFB lasers with external optical feedback,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 14(1), 101–103 (2002). [CrossRef]

7.

D. M. Kane and K. A. Shore, Unlocking Dynamical Diversity (Wiley, 23–54, 2005).

8.

N. Schunk and K. Petermann, “Numerical analysis of the feedback regimes for a single-mode semiconductor laser with external feedback,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 24(7), 1242–1247 (1988). [CrossRef]

9.

R. W. Tkach and A. R. Chraplyvy, “Regimes of feedback effects in 1.5-μm distributed feedback lasers,” J. Lightwave Technol. 4(11), 1655–1661 (1986).

10.

D. Lenstra, B. H. Verbeek, and A. J. Den Boef, “Coherence collapse in single-mode semiconductor lasers due to optical feedback,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 21(6), 674–679 (1985). [CrossRef]

11.

C. Henry and R. F. Kazarinov, “Instabilities of semiconductor lasers due to optical feedback from distant reflectors,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 22(2), 294–301 (1986). [CrossRef]

12.

J. Mork, B. Tromborg, and J. Mark, “Chaos in semiconductor lasers with optical feedback: theory and experiment,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 28(1), 93–108 (1992). [CrossRef]

13.

J. Mork, B. Tromborg, and P. L. Christiansen, “Bistability and low-frequency fluctuations in semiconductor lasers with optical feedback: a theoretical analysis,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 24(2), 123–133 (1988). [CrossRef]

14.

G. Duan, P. Gallion, and G. Debarge, “Analysis of frequency chirping of semiconductor lasers in the presence of optical feedback,” Opt. Lett. 12(10), 800–802 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15.

F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, F. Mallecot, C. Chaumont, S. Hubert, M. F. Martineau, A. Pinquier, and L. Roux, “Analysis, fabrication and characterization of 1.5μm selection-free tapered stripe DFB lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 14(8), 1040–1042 (2002). [CrossRef]

16.

J. G. Provost and F. Grillot, “Measuring the chirp and the linewidth enhancement factor of optoelectronic devices with a mach-zehnder interferometer,” IEEE Photon. J. 3(3), 476–488 (2011). [CrossRef]

17.

R. Schimpe, J. E. Bowers, and T. L. Koch, “Characterization of frequency response of 1.5-µm InGaAsP DFB laser diode and InGaAs PIN photodiode by heterodyne measurement technique,” Electron. Lett. 22(9), 453–454 (1986). [CrossRef]

18.

L. Olofsson and T. G. Brown, “Frequency dependence of the chirp factor in 1.55 μm distributed feedback semiconductor lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 4(7), 688–691 (1992). [CrossRef]

19.

L. A. Coldren and S. W. Corzine, Diode Lasers and Photonic Integrated Circuits (Wiley, 1995).

20.

G. P. Agrawal, “Effect of gain nonlinearities on the dynamic response of single-mode semiconductor lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 1(12), 419–421 (1989). [CrossRef]

21.

G. P. Agrawal, Semiconductor Lasers (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993)

22.

P. Vankwikelberge, F. Buytaert, A. Franchois, R. Baets, P. Kuindersma, and C. W. Fredriksz, “Analysis of the carrier-induced FM response of DFB lasers: Theoretical and Experimental case studies,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 25(11), 2239–2254 (1989). [CrossRef]

23.

B. Thedrez, J. M. Rainsant, N. Aberkane, B. Andre, H. Bissessur, J. G. Provost, and B. Fernier, “ Power and facet phase dependence of chirp for index and gain-coupled DFB lasers,” paper TuE41, Semiconductor Laser Conference, 175–176 (1998).

24.

F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, and G.-H. Duan, “Feedback sensitivity and coherence collapse threshold of semiconductor DFB lasers with complex structures,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40(3), 231–240 (2004). [CrossRef]

25.

F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, O. Gauthier-Lafaye, M. F. Martineau, V. Voiriot, J. L. Lafragette, J. L. Gentner, and L. Silvestre, “Coherence collapse threshold of 1.3 μm semiconductor DFB lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 15(1), 9–11 (2003). [CrossRef]

26.

B. Tromborg, H. Olesen, X. Pan, and S. Saito, “Transmission line description of optical feedback and injection-locking for Fabry-Perot and DFB lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 23(11), 1875–1889 (1987). [CrossRef]

27.

A. Lestra and P. Brosson, “Design rules for a low-chirp integrated DFB laser with electroabsorption modulator,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 8(8), 998–1000 (1996). [CrossRef]

28.

K. Bjork and O. Nilsson, “A new exact and efficient numerical matrix theory of complicated laser structures: properties of asymmetric phase-shifted DFB lasers,” J. Lightwave Technol. 5(1), 140–146 (1987). [CrossRef]

29.

I. Orfanos, T. Sphicopoulos, A. Tsigopoulos, and C. Caroubalos, “A tractable above-threshold model for the design of DFB and phase-shifted DFB lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 27(4), 946–956 (1991). [CrossRef]

30.

L. V. Asryan and R. A. Suris, “Longitudinal spatial hole burning in a quantum-dot laser,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 36(10), 1151–1160 (2000). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(140.3490) Lasers and laser optics : Lasers, distributed-feedback
(140.5960) Lasers and laser optics : Semiconductor lasers

ToC Category:
Lasers and Laser Optics

History
Original Manuscript: May 9, 2012
Revised Manuscript: July 22, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: September 12, 2012
Published: November 2, 2012

Citation
Khalil Kechaou, Frédéric Grillot, Jean-Guy Provost, Bruno Thedrez, and Didier Erasme, "Self-injected semiconductor distributed feedback lasers for frequency chirp stabilization," Opt. Express 20, 26062-26074 (2012)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-20-23-26062


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. K. Petermann, Laser Diode Modulation and Noise (Kuwer Academic Publisher, 1991).
  2. K. Kechaou, T. Anfray, K. Merghem, C. Aupetit-Berthelemot, G. Aubin, C. Kazmierski, C. Jany, P. Chanclou, and D. Erasme, “Improved NRZ transmission distance at 20 Gbit/s using dual electroabsorption modulated laser,” Electron. Lett.48(6), 335–336 (2012). [CrossRef]
  3. D. Mahgerefteh, Y. Matsui, X. Zheng, and K. McCallion, “Chirp managed laser and applications,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.16(5), 1126–1139 (2010). [CrossRef]
  4. J. Binder and U. Kohn, “10 Gbits/s-dispersion optimized transmission at 1,55 μm wavelength on standard single mode fiber,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.6(4), 558–560 (1994). [CrossRef]
  5. N. A. Naderi, F. Grillot, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Simultaneous low linewidth enhancement factor and high bandwidth quantum-dash injection-locked laser,” International Photon. Conf. Arlington, USA (2011).
  6. F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, J. Py, O. Gauthier-Lafaye, V. Voiriot, and J. L. Lafragette, “2.5-Gb/s transmission characteristics of 1.3-μm DFB lasers with external optical feedback,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.14(1), 101–103 (2002). [CrossRef]
  7. D. M. Kane and K. A. Shore, Unlocking Dynamical Diversity (Wiley, 23–54, 2005).
  8. N. Schunk and K. Petermann, “Numerical analysis of the feedback regimes for a single-mode semiconductor laser with external feedback,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.24(7), 1242–1247 (1988). [CrossRef]
  9. R. W. Tkach and A. R. Chraplyvy, “Regimes of feedback effects in 1.5-μm distributed feedback lasers,” J. Lightwave Technol.4(11), 1655–1661 (1986).
  10. D. Lenstra, B. H. Verbeek, and A. J. Den Boef, “Coherence collapse in single-mode semiconductor lasers due to optical feedback,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.21(6), 674–679 (1985). [CrossRef]
  11. C. Henry and R. F. Kazarinov, “Instabilities of semiconductor lasers due to optical feedback from distant reflectors,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.22(2), 294–301 (1986). [CrossRef]
  12. J. Mork, B. Tromborg, and J. Mark, “Chaos in semiconductor lasers with optical feedback: theory and experiment,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.28(1), 93–108 (1992). [CrossRef]
  13. J. Mork, B. Tromborg, and P. L. Christiansen, “Bistability and low-frequency fluctuations in semiconductor lasers with optical feedback: a theoretical analysis,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.24(2), 123–133 (1988). [CrossRef]
  14. G. Duan, P. Gallion, and G. Debarge, “Analysis of frequency chirping of semiconductor lasers in the presence of optical feedback,” Opt. Lett.12(10), 800–802 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, F. Mallecot, C. Chaumont, S. Hubert, M. F. Martineau, A. Pinquier, and L. Roux, “Analysis, fabrication and characterization of 1.5μm selection-free tapered stripe DFB lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.14(8), 1040–1042 (2002). [CrossRef]
  16. J. G. Provost and F. Grillot, “Measuring the chirp and the linewidth enhancement factor of optoelectronic devices with a mach-zehnder interferometer,” IEEE Photon. J.3(3), 476–488 (2011). [CrossRef]
  17. R. Schimpe, J. E. Bowers, and T. L. Koch, “Characterization of frequency response of 1.5-µm InGaAsP DFB laser diode and InGaAs PIN photodiode by heterodyne measurement technique,” Electron. Lett.22(9), 453–454 (1986). [CrossRef]
  18. L. Olofsson and T. G. Brown, “Frequency dependence of the chirp factor in 1.55 μm distributed feedback semiconductor lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.4(7), 688–691 (1992). [CrossRef]
  19. L. A. Coldren and S. W. Corzine, Diode Lasers and Photonic Integrated Circuits (Wiley, 1995).
  20. G. P. Agrawal, “Effect of gain nonlinearities on the dynamic response of single-mode semiconductor lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.1(12), 419–421 (1989). [CrossRef]
  21. G. P. Agrawal, Semiconductor Lasers (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993)
  22. P. Vankwikelberge, F. Buytaert, A. Franchois, R. Baets, P. Kuindersma, and C. W. Fredriksz, “Analysis of the carrier-induced FM response of DFB lasers: Theoretical and Experimental case studies,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.25(11), 2239–2254 (1989). [CrossRef]
  23. B. Thedrez, J. M. Rainsant, N. Aberkane, B. Andre, H. Bissessur, J. G. Provost, and B. Fernier, “ Power and facet phase dependence of chirp for index and gain-coupled DFB lasers,” paper TuE41, Semiconductor Laser Conference, 175–176 (1998).
  24. F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, and G.-H. Duan, “Feedback sensitivity and coherence collapse threshold of semiconductor DFB lasers with complex structures,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.40(3), 231–240 (2004). [CrossRef]
  25. F. Grillot, B. Thedrez, O. Gauthier-Lafaye, M. F. Martineau, V. Voiriot, J. L. Lafragette, J. L. Gentner, and L. Silvestre, “Coherence collapse threshold of 1.3 μm semiconductor DFB lasers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.15(1), 9–11 (2003). [CrossRef]
  26. B. Tromborg, H. Olesen, X. Pan, and S. Saito, “Transmission line description of optical feedback and injection-locking for Fabry-Perot and DFB lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.23(11), 1875–1889 (1987). [CrossRef]
  27. A. Lestra and P. Brosson, “Design rules for a low-chirp integrated DFB laser with electroabsorption modulator,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.8(8), 998–1000 (1996). [CrossRef]
  28. K. Bjork and O. Nilsson, “A new exact and efficient numerical matrix theory of complicated laser structures: properties of asymmetric phase-shifted DFB lasers,” J. Lightwave Technol.5(1), 140–146 (1987). [CrossRef]
  29. I. Orfanos, T. Sphicopoulos, A. Tsigopoulos, and C. Caroubalos, “A tractable above-threshold model for the design of DFB and phase-shifted DFB lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.27(4), 946–956 (1991). [CrossRef]
  30. L. V. Asryan and R. A. Suris, “Longitudinal spatial hole burning in a quantum-dot laser,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.36(10), 1151–1160 (2000). [CrossRef]

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