OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 20, Iss. 25 — Dec. 3, 2012
  • pp: 27596–27602

Optics InfoBase > Optics Express > Volume 20 > Issue 25 > Page 27596

« Show journal navigation

Nonlinear signal-noise interactions in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems in the presence of PMD

Xiaogang Yi, Jian Wu, Yan Li, Wei Li, Xiaobin Hong, Hongxiang Guo, Yong Zuo, and Jintong Lin  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 20, Issue 25, pp. 27596-27602 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.20.027596


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1377 KB)


Advanced Search

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Considering the polarization mode dispersion(PMD), the transmission penalty induced by nonlinear signal-noise interactions (NSNI) between the amplified spontaneous emission noise (ASE) and the information signal is investigated numerically for 40(100)G dispersion-managed(DM) polarization-multiplexed quadrature phase-shift keying (PM-QPSK) systems. We show that for single-channel PM-QPSK systems, PMD is helpful to reduce the NSNI-induced penalty. For multi-channel PM-QPSK system, however, the NSNI-induced nonlinear penalty is significantly enhanced by PMD, especially at low bit-rate. Our results show that due to the NSNI, the reduction of allowed input power that gives 1-dB Q penalty after 1600-km nonlinear transmission will increase from 1dB without PMD to 3.7dB with PMD for 42.8-Gbit/s coherent return-to-zero (RZ)-PM-QPSK systems.

© 2012 OSA

1. Introduction

With optical coherent detection, the full optical field information of signals can be accessible and processed with the powerful digital signal processing (DSP) technology [1

K. Kikuchi, “Coherent optical communication systems” in Optical Fiber Telecommunications, I. P. Kaminow, T. Li, and A. E. Willner, eds. (Academic Press, 2008), Chap. 3.

]. As a result, coherent-detected polarization-multiplexed quadrature phase-shift keying (PM-QPSK) modulation is considered to be a very promising candidate for the implementation of 40G and 100G optical networks due to its potential to increase the spectral efficiency (SE) and the ability to perform transmission impairment compensation in the electrical domain [2

G. Charlet, J. Renaudier, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, O. B. Pardo, F. Verluise, M. Achouche, A. Boutin, F. Blache, J.-Y. Dupuy, and S. Bigo, “Transmission of 16.4-bit/s capacity over 2550km using PDM QPSK modulation format and coherent receiver,” J. Lightwave Technol. 27(3), 153–157 (2009). [CrossRef]

–4

J. Renaudier, G. Charlet, M. Salsi, O. B. Pardo, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, and S. Bigo, “Linear fiber impairments mitigation of 40-Gbit/s polarization-multiplexed QPSK by digital processing in a coherent receiver,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(1), 36–42 (2008). [CrossRef]

]. Since linear distortions such as chromatic dispersion (CD) and polarization-mode dispersion (PMD) can be compensated digitally, nonlinear transmission impairments induced by fiber Kerr effects become a major concern for coherent-detected PM-QPSK modulated signals.

Many previous studies have shown that PMD helps improve the nonlinear tolerance of wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) PM-QPSK signals transmitted over dispersion managed(DM) link and hence system performance is improved significantly [5

C. Xia, J. F. D. S. Pina, A. Striegler, and D. V. D. Borne, “PMD-induced nonlinear penalty reduction in coherent polarization-multiplexed QPSK transmission,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.5.

, 6

D. Sperti, P. Serena, and A. Bononi, “Optical solution to improve PDM-QPSK resilience against cross-channel nonlinearities: a comparison,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(11), 667–669 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. This is due to the fact that for dispersion managed WDM PM-QPSK systems, the inter-channel cross polarization modulation (XPolM), which is dependent on the data transmitted by PM signals, dominate the system performance. But differential group delay (DGD) introduced by PMD effect depolarizes the signals and thus reduce the dependency of the XPolM on data. So, in the presence of high PMD, significant suppression of XPolM and thus a large improvement of system performance can be observed.

On the other hand, as an important source of nonlinear distortions, nonlinear signal-noise interactions (NSNI) coming from the nonlinear interactions between amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise and information signal has a serious impact on dispersion managed PM-QPSK systems in which XPolM is suppressed and other nonlinearities become dominant(such as symbol-interleaved RZ-PM-QPSK systems) [7

X. Yi, Y. Li, J. Wu, K. Xu, and J. Lin, “Impact of nonlinear signal-noise interactions on symbol-aligned and –interleaved formats in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems,” Opt. Express 20(15), 17183–17191 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. Therefore, for these systems, in which high PMD is present, the NSNI-induced penalty may be serious and this case should be studied carefully.

In this paper, we investigate the impact of PMD on NSNI-induced penalty for 40(100)G return-to-zero(RZ)-PM-QPSK systems over DM link. Both the single-channel and WDM transmission are considered and compared. We show that although NSNI-induced penalty is reduced by PMD for single-channel transmission, PMD does enhance the NSNI-induced penalty for WDM case. The main reason why the NSNI-induced penalty is enlarged by PMD is that inter-channel cross-polarization modulation (XPolM), which is the dominant source of the signal degradation in dispersion managed PM systems and insensitive to NSNI [8

A. Bononi, P. Serena, N. Rossi, and D. Sperti, “Which is the dominant nonlinearity in long-haul PDM-QPSK coherent transmissions?” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.1.

], is suppressed significantly in presence of high PMD and the other nonlinear effects, which make contributions to NSNI, such as inter-channel XPM and/or intra-channel nonlinear effects dominate the system performance. Therefore, compared with the system in which PMD is neglected (or small), NSNI degrades the system performance more seriously in presence of high PMD.

2. System model

The system scenarios we analyzed are shown in Fig. 1 . There are nine channels with 50-GHz channel spacing. Non-return-to-zero (NRZ)-QPSK signals are obtained using standard I-Q transmitter (Tx) based on nested Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM) driven by 21.4-Gbit/s or 56-Gbit/s NRZ signals. RZ-QPSK signals are generated by 50% duty cycle RZ pulse carver which is used after the QPSK modulator. Symbol-aligned RZ-PM-QPSK format, which is used in all the studies of this paper, is obtained with a polarization beam combiner (PBC). Each WDM channel is then spectrally shaped by a 4th order super-Gaussian (SG) optical filter, whose −3dB bandwidth is set to 40GHz.

Fig. 1 System configurations in our simulations. (a)Transmission line; (b) block diagram of the RZ-PM-QPSK transmitter; (c) block diagram of the coherent receiver based on DSP technology.

The investigated transmission link, as shown in Fig. 1(a), consists of 20 spans of standard single-mode fiber (SSMF) with loss coefficient α=0.22dB/km, dispersion D=16.7ps/nm/km, dispersion slope S=0.07ps/nm2/km, and nonlinear coefficient γ=1.3/W/km. The span length is 80 km and the optical dispersion compensating units (DCU) after transmission fiber are used to compensate the cumulated dispersion. The span loss is compensated by an erbium-doped fiber amplifier (EDFA). The DCUs are assumed to be linear and lossless, a condition which is approximately obtained in practical systems by using the dual-stage EDFAs and/or Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG)-based dispersion compensation modules. The dispersion parameters of the transmission fiber, the pre-compensation fiber and the DCUs are all referenced at 1553.33nm. In our simulations, both the DCUs and the pre-compensation fiber are modeled as FBG-based dispersion compensation modules, which have zero dispersion slope.

A typical distributed dispersion map is selected, where the DCU is chosen to under-compensated the transmission fiber dispersion by + 30ps/nm at each span. The cumulated dispersion of pre-compensating fiber is set to D pre=-520ps/nm and the total residual dispersion at the end of the link is always compensated back to zero by electronic dispersion compensation (EDC) stage based on finite impulse response (FIR) filters at receiver. In order to investigate the impact of PMD on system performance, we vary the PMD parameter of transmission fiber in the [0, 0.6ps/km1/2] interval. To capture the stochastic nature of PMD effect, for each PMD coefficient, 15 different realizations of the PMD stochastic process with different seeds are carried out to calculate the average bit-error-rate (BER). For each iteration, the initial state of polarization (SOP) for each WDM channel, bit sequences, timing and phases are randomly initialized. PMD is also ideally fully compensated at the receiver by inverting the Jones matrix of the transmission line.

The coherent receiver (Rx) based on DSP technology, as shown in Fig. 1(c), is similar in [7

X. Yi, Y. Li, J. Wu, K. Xu, and J. Lin, “Impact of nonlinear signal-noise interactions on symbol-aligned and –interleaved formats in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems,” Opt. Express 20(15), 17183–17191 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. Four balanced photo-detectors (BPD) are used to detect the received signal components. The linewidth of both Tx and Rx lasers is equal to 100kHz. No optical filtering is present at the Rx: the tested channel is selected by changing the frequency of the LO and the alignment of LO and the channel center frequency is assumed ideal. The four signals are then filtered by four 5th order low-pass Bessel filters with −3dB bandwidth equal to half of symbol rate (i.e., 5.35GHz or 14GHz). Chromatic dispersion is fully recovered by a EDC stage. Then the signals are processed by a “butterfly” second stage equalizer using four 15-taps FIR filters, whose coefficients are adjusted through a least-mean-square (LMS) algorithm. Each WDM channel encodes four uncorrelated pseudo-random binary sequence (PRBSs) of degree 16. PRBSs are also uncorrelated among the different channels. BER is evaluated using direct error counting over 131072 symbols (522488 bits). We probe the performance of the center channel (the 5-th) set at 1553.33nm.

The system performance, in this paper, is measured in terms of the Q factor obtained by inverting the corresponding BER, while the optical signal-to-noise ratio (OSNR) used in all the studies is always set to have Q factor of about 10.7dB(i.e., BER = 3 × 10-4) in the back-to-back(b2b) operation for the corresponding systems. Fiber propagation, in our simulations, is simulated using a variable step-size split-step Fourier method (SSFM) to solve dual-polarization Schrödinger equations, thus accounting for birefringence and PMD. The maximum nonlinear phase rotation per step is 3 × 10-3 rad, which has been verified to be small enough for the analyzed systems.

3. Results and discussions

To investigate the impact of NSNI on system performance, as shown in [7

X. Yi, Y. Li, J. Wu, K. Xu, and J. Lin, “Impact of nonlinear signal-noise interactions on symbol-aligned and –interleaved formats in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems,” Opt. Express 20(15), 17183–17191 (2012). [CrossRef]

], we consider two situations: one is noisy signal propagation with distributed ASE noise generating at each amplifier (with NSNI). The other is noiseless SSFM propagation and an equivalent ASE noise source added before the receiver (without NSNI).

First, the impact of PMD on transmission performance of a single-channel 42.8-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK after 20 × 80km transmission is investigated and the results are given in Fig. 2 . Figure 2(a) shows the measured Q factor vs. PMD coefficient after nonlinear transmission for the system with and without NSNI. In this paper, the launch power per channel is defined as the input power per the single wavelength and set to 5dBm for the case in Fig. 2(a). From a qualitative analysis of this picture, we can deduce that the system performance in this case is seriously degraded by NSNI. This effect, the so called “Gordon-Mollenauer” (GM) effect, has been studied extensively [9

J. P. Gordon and L. F. Mollenauer, “Phase noise in photonic communications systems using linear amplifiers,” Opt. Lett. 15(23), 1351–1353 (1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

–11

A. Bononi, P. Serena, and N. Rossi, “Nonlinear signal-noise interactions in dispersion-managed links with various modulation formats,” Opt. Fiber Technol. 16(2), 73–85 (2010). [CrossRef]

]. It is interesting to note that when considering NSNI, the Q factor is improved slightly with higher PMD coefficient. This is due to the fact that DGD introduced by PMD effect decorrelates the X and Y polarization components of PM signals and hence these two components walk-off along the transmission line, but since NSNI is proportional to the X + Y spike power the net effect is a small NSNI [12

P. Serena and A. Bononi, “Nonlinear phase noise mitigation by polarization mode dispersion in dispersion managed coherent PDM-QPSK systems,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2009), paper P4.12.

]. Without NSNI, however, the system performance is degraded slightly by PMD. The Q factor in this case is about 10.3dB when PMD is neglected (i.e., PMD coefficient = 0ps/km1/2), whereas it decreases to about 9.5dB when PMD coefficient is equal to 0.6ps/km1/2. The possible explanation is that since we rotate the channel SOP differently for each PMD coefficient (i.e., 15 different iterations are carried out to calculate the average BER for each PMD coefficient and the initial SOP for each WDM channel are randomly initialized for each iteration.), the original QPSK signal per polarization becomes quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM)-like signal per polarization in this case [13

P. Serena, N. Rossi, O. Bertran-Pardo, J. Renaudier, A. Vannucci, and A. Bononi, “Intra- versus inter-channel PMD in linearly compensated coherent PDM-PSK nonlinear transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol. 29(11), 1691–1700 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. When PMD is not included, the interactions between the two polarization components of the QAM-like signal are almost constant and thus the nonlinear effect introduced by SPM is close to a constant phase rotation, which can be removed by the coherent receiver. When PMD is considered, the two QAM components walk past each other during transmission and thus become un-correlated. This un-correlation turns the signals into actual PM-QAM-like signals with wildly varying intensity, thus inducing largely vary nonlinear phase rotation, which cannot be removed by coherent receiver. Therefore, the DGD introduced by PMD is harmful for single-channel transmission in this case. Since the un-correlation between the two polarization components becomes more pronounced when larger DGD is present, the Q factor decreases with the increasing PMD coefficient of transmission fiber. All in all, the NSNI-induced penalty, as shown in Fig. 2(a), is reduced by PMD for single-channel 42.8-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK transmission. When neglecting PMD, the NSNI-induced penalty is 5.8dB, but it decreases to about 4.5dB when PMD coefficient is equal to 0.6ps/km1/2.

Fig. 2 (a) Q factor vs. PMD coefficient for single-channel 42.8-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK systems after 20 × 80km nonlinear transmission. The launch power per channel is 5dBm. (b) Q factor vs. launch power per channel for single-channel 42.8-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK systems after 20 × 80km nonlinear transmission. Solid line: PMD = 0ps/km1/2; Dashed line: PMD = 0.6ps/km1/2.

Figure 2(b) shows the Q factor as a function of launch power per channel for the single-channel nonlinear transmission. When PMD and NSNI are all absent, the allowed launch power that gives 1-dB penalty is about 7dBm, however, it decreases to 0.3dBm when NSNI is present. This indicates that due to the NSNI, the reduction of allowed input power is 6.3dB in absence of PMD. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 2(b), when considering PMD effect, the reduction of allowed launch power due to NSNI is about 4.7dB(decreases from 5dBm to 0.3dBm). Therefore, from the results in Fig. 2, we can conclude that for single-channel RZ-PM-QPSK systems at 42.8-Gbit/s, the PMD helps reduce the NSNI-induced penalty. This conclusion is also similar with that in [12

P. Serena and A. Bononi, “Nonlinear phase noise mitigation by polarization mode dispersion in dispersion managed coherent PDM-QPSK systems,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2009), paper P4.12.

].

However, for multi-channel RZ-PM-QPSK transmission, as shown in Fig. 3 , a different trend is observed. Figure 3(a) shows that due to the PMD, the NSNI-induced penalty increases from 1.7dB to 2.6dB. From Fig. 3(b), we can see that when neglecting PMD, the reduction of allowed launch power (at 1-dB Q penalty) due to the NSNI is about 1dB(decreases from −2dBm to −3dBm). But when considering PMD effect (i.e., PMD coefficient = 0.6ps/km1/2), this reduction of the allowed input power due to NSNI increases to about 3.7dB (decreases from 1.8dBm to −1.9dBm). We attribute this to the fact that for multi-channel RZ-PM-QPSK systems, the dominant nonlinearity is inter-channel cross polarization modulation (XPolM), which is insensitive to NSNI. Therefore, the NSNI-induced penalty in this case is small [7

X. Yi, Y. Li, J. Wu, K. Xu, and J. Lin, “Impact of nonlinear signal-noise interactions on symbol-aligned and –interleaved formats in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems,” Opt. Express 20(15), 17183–17191 (2012). [CrossRef]

, 11

A. Bononi, P. Serena, and N. Rossi, “Nonlinear signal-noise interactions in dispersion-managed links with various modulation formats,” Opt. Fiber Technol. 16(2), 73–85 (2010). [CrossRef]

]. When large DGD is introduced (i.e., high PMD coefficient), the X and Y component of PM signals walk-off rapidly along the transmission line and hence XPolM is suppressed significantly in this case [5

C. Xia, J. F. D. S. Pina, A. Striegler, and D. V. D. Borne, “PMD-induced nonlinear penalty reduction in coherent polarization-multiplexed QPSK transmission,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.5.

, 6

D. Sperti, P. Serena, and A. Bononi, “Optical solution to improve PDM-QPSK resilience against cross-channel nonlinearities: a comparison,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(11), 667–669 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. As a result, the other nonlinearities such as inter-channel cross phase modulation (XPM) and/or intra-channel nonlinearities, which make contributions to NSNI, dominate the system performance. Therefore, in this case, the NSNI-induced penalty is large. Since the level at which the XPolM is suppressed is proportional to the DGD introduced by PMD (i.e., the PMD coefficient for a given transmission line) [5

C. Xia, J. F. D. S. Pina, A. Striegler, and D. V. D. Borne, “PMD-induced nonlinear penalty reduction in coherent polarization-multiplexed QPSK transmission,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.5.

], the NSNI-induced penalty increases with the PMD coefficient of transmission fiber.

Fig. 3 (a) Q factor vs. PMD coefficient for WDM 42.8-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK systems after 20 × 80km nonlinear transmission. The launch power per channel is 2dBm. (b) Q factor vs. launch power per channel for WDM 42.8-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK systems after 20 × 80km nonlinear transmission. Solid line: PMD = 0ps/km1/2; Dashed line: PMD = 0.6ps/km1/2.

The performance of the 112-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK coherent system with and without NSNI are shown in Fig. 4 and 5 . Figure 4 depicts the results for the single-channel transmission and Fig. 5 for the WDM case. We can draw from Fig. 4 and 5 a similar conclusion as for 42.8-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK discussed above. In addition, it should be note that for both single-channel and WDM transmission, the impact of PMD on NSNI-induced penalty for 112-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK systems is reduced compared with that for the 42.8-Gbit/s systems. For example, for single-channel transmission, the reduction of NSNI-induced penalty provided by PMD is only about 0.3dB (decreases from 0.9dB with PMD = 0ps/km1/2 to 0.6dB with PMD = 0.6ps/km1/2, see Fig. 4(a)) for 112-Gbit/s systems, whereas this value is 1.3dB for 42.8-Gbit/s systems. For WDM case, the enhancement of NSNI-induced penalty due to PMD is 0.6dB for 112-Gbit/s systems (see Fig. 5(a)), while it is about 0.9dB for 42.8-Gbit/s systems. Similar phenomena can be observed from Fig. 4(b) and Fig. 5(b). We attribute this to two reasons. One is that with the increase of symbol rate, the influence of PMD on dispersion managed PM systems is smaller. This is due to the fact that XPolM, of which the improvement of the system performance provided by PMD comes from the suppression, become less important at higher symbol rate due to the averaging effect(same walk-off time covers more symbols) [14

C. Xie, “WDM coherent PDM-QPSK systems with and without inline optical dispersion compensation,” Opt. Express 17(6), 4815–4823 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Therefore, even though a large DGD is introduced, only a relative small improvement of system performance can be observed at high symbol rate. The other reason is that when symbol rate is increasing, weaker NSNI take place because some fiber nonlinearities that make contributions to NSNI, such as XPM, become smaller [14

C. Xie, “WDM coherent PDM-QPSK systems with and without inline optical dispersion compensation,” Opt. Express 17(6), 4815–4823 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. At the same time, nonlinear phase noise, which originates from NSNI and has a severe impact on modulation formats using phase coding to transmit data, is much reduced at high symbol rate because the rapid pulse broadening during transmission distributes nonlinear phase noise over many pulses in highly dispersive environment (for example, over SSMF link) which partially averages out the nonlinear contributions [15

H. Kim, “Nonlinear phase noise in phase-coded transmission,” in Proceedings of OFC (2005), paper OThO3.

].

Fig. 4 Impact of PMD on NSNI-induced penalty for single-channel 112-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK systems after 20 × 80km nonlinear transmission. (a) Q factor vs. PMD coefficient. The launch power per channel in this case is 3dBm. (b) Q factor vs. launch power per channel. Solid line: PMD = 0ps/km1/2; Dashed line: PMD = 0.6ps/km1/2.
Fig. 5 Impact of PMD on NSNI-induced penalty for WDM 112-Gbit/s RZ-PM-QPSK systems after 20 × 80km nonlinear transmission. (a) Q factor vs. PMD coefficient. The launch power per channel in this case is 4dBm. (b) Q factor vs. launch power per channel. Solid line: PMD = 0ps/km1/2; Dashed line: PMD = 0.6ps/km1/2.

4. Conclusions

For single-channel RZ-PM-QPSK systems, PMD is helpful to reduce NSNI-induced penalty because the DGD introduced by PMD decorrelates the X and Y polarization component and hence reduce the power of X + Y component, which is proportional to the level of NSNI. For WDM RZ-PM-QPSK transmission, however, PMD enhance the NSNI-induced penalty because the DGD suppresses the XPolM effect, which is insensitive to NSNI and dominates the non-PMD dispersion managed PM system. As a result, the other nonlinearities that make contributions to NSNI such as XPM and intra-channel nonlinearities become dominant, the system performance is degraded seriously by NSNI. This effect is more pronounced at low bit rate.

Acknowledgments

This work was partly supported by 863 program 2012AA011303, NSFC program 61001121, 60932004, 61006041, 973program 2011CB301702 and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

References and links

1.

K. Kikuchi, “Coherent optical communication systems” in Optical Fiber Telecommunications, I. P. Kaminow, T. Li, and A. E. Willner, eds. (Academic Press, 2008), Chap. 3.

2.

G. Charlet, J. Renaudier, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, O. B. Pardo, F. Verluise, M. Achouche, A. Boutin, F. Blache, J.-Y. Dupuy, and S. Bigo, “Transmission of 16.4-bit/s capacity over 2550km using PDM QPSK modulation format and coherent receiver,” J. Lightwave Technol. 27(3), 153–157 (2009). [CrossRef]

3.

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

4.

J. Renaudier, G. Charlet, M. Salsi, O. B. Pardo, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, and S. Bigo, “Linear fiber impairments mitigation of 40-Gbit/s polarization-multiplexed QPSK by digital processing in a coherent receiver,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(1), 36–42 (2008). [CrossRef]

5.

C. Xia, J. F. D. S. Pina, A. Striegler, and D. V. D. Borne, “PMD-induced nonlinear penalty reduction in coherent polarization-multiplexed QPSK transmission,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.5.

6.

D. Sperti, P. Serena, and A. Bononi, “Optical solution to improve PDM-QPSK resilience against cross-channel nonlinearities: a comparison,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(11), 667–669 (2011). [CrossRef]

7.

X. Yi, Y. Li, J. Wu, K. Xu, and J. Lin, “Impact of nonlinear signal-noise interactions on symbol-aligned and –interleaved formats in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems,” Opt. Express 20(15), 17183–17191 (2012). [CrossRef]

8.

A. Bononi, P. Serena, N. Rossi, and D. Sperti, “Which is the dominant nonlinearity in long-haul PDM-QPSK coherent transmissions?” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.1.

9.

J. P. Gordon and L. F. Mollenauer, “Phase noise in photonic communications systems using linear amplifiers,” Opt. Lett. 15(23), 1351–1353 (1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

H. Kim and A. H. Gnauck, “Experimental investigation of the performance limitation of DPSK systems due to nonlinear phase noise,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 15(2), 320–322 (2003).

11.

A. Bononi, P. Serena, and N. Rossi, “Nonlinear signal-noise interactions in dispersion-managed links with various modulation formats,” Opt. Fiber Technol. 16(2), 73–85 (2010). [CrossRef]

12.

P. Serena and A. Bononi, “Nonlinear phase noise mitigation by polarization mode dispersion in dispersion managed coherent PDM-QPSK systems,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2009), paper P4.12.

13.

P. Serena, N. Rossi, O. Bertran-Pardo, J. Renaudier, A. Vannucci, and A. Bononi, “Intra- versus inter-channel PMD in linearly compensated coherent PDM-PSK nonlinear transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol. 29(11), 1691–1700 (2011). [CrossRef]

14.

C. Xie, “WDM coherent PDM-QPSK systems with and without inline optical dispersion compensation,” Opt. Express 17(6), 4815–4823 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15.

H. Kim, “Nonlinear phase noise in phase-coded transmission,” in Proceedings of OFC (2005), paper OThO3.

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

ToC Category:
Fiber Optics and Optical Communications

History
Original Manuscript: October 8, 2012
Revised Manuscript: November 14, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: November 16, 2012
Published: November 28, 2012

Citation
Xiaogang Yi, Jian Wu, Yan Li, Wei Li, Xiaobin Hong, Hongxiang Guo, Yong Zuo, and Jintong Lin, "Nonlinear signal-noise interactions in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems in the presence of PMD," Opt. Express 20, 27596-27602 (2012)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-20-25-27596


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. K. Kikuchi, “Coherent optical communication systems” in Optical Fiber Telecommunications, I. P. Kaminow, T. Li, and A. E. Willner, eds. (Academic Press, 2008), Chap. 3.
  2. G. Charlet, J. Renaudier, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, O. B. Pardo, F. Verluise, M. Achouche, A. Boutin, F. Blache, J.-Y. Dupuy, and S. Bigo, “Transmission of 16.4-bit/s capacity over 2550km using PDM QPSK modulation format and coherent receiver,” J. Lightwave Technol.27(3), 153–157 (2009). [CrossRef]
  3. E. Ip, “Nonlinear compensation using backpropagation for polarization-multiplexed transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol.28(6), 939–951 (2010). [CrossRef]
  4. J. Renaudier, G. Charlet, M. Salsi, O. B. Pardo, H. Mardoyan, P. Tran, and S. Bigo, “Linear fiber impairments mitigation of 40-Gbit/s polarization-multiplexed QPSK by digital processing in a coherent receiver,” J. Lightwave Technol.26(1), 36–42 (2008). [CrossRef]
  5. C. Xia, J. F. D. S. Pina, A. Striegler, and D. V. D. Borne, “PMD-induced nonlinear penalty reduction in coherent polarization-multiplexed QPSK transmission,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.5.
  6. D. Sperti, P. Serena, and A. Bononi, “Optical solution to improve PDM-QPSK resilience against cross-channel nonlinearities: a comparison,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.23(11), 667–669 (2011). [CrossRef]
  7. X. Yi, Y. Li, J. Wu, K. Xu, and J. Lin, “Impact of nonlinear signal-noise interactions on symbol-aligned and –interleaved formats in dispersion managed coherent PM-QPSK systems,” Opt. Express20(15), 17183–17191 (2012). [CrossRef]
  8. A. Bononi, P. Serena, N. Rossi, and D. Sperti, “Which is the dominant nonlinearity in long-haul PDM-QPSK coherent transmissions?” in Proceedings of ECOC (2010), paper Th.10.E.1.
  9. J. P. Gordon and L. F. Mollenauer, “Phase noise in photonic communications systems using linear amplifiers,” Opt. Lett.15(23), 1351–1353 (1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. H. Kim and A. H. Gnauck, “Experimental investigation of the performance limitation of DPSK systems due to nonlinear phase noise,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.15(2), 320–322 (2003).
  11. A. Bononi, P. Serena, and N. Rossi, “Nonlinear signal-noise interactions in dispersion-managed links with various modulation formats,” Opt. Fiber Technol.16(2), 73–85 (2010). [CrossRef]
  12. P. Serena and A. Bononi, “Nonlinear phase noise mitigation by polarization mode dispersion in dispersion managed coherent PDM-QPSK systems,” in Proceedings of ECOC (2009), paper P4.12.
  13. P. Serena, N. Rossi, O. Bertran-Pardo, J. Renaudier, A. Vannucci, and A. Bononi, “Intra- versus inter-channel PMD in linearly compensated coherent PDM-PSK nonlinear transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol.29(11), 1691–1700 (2011). [CrossRef]
  14. C. Xie, “WDM coherent PDM-QPSK systems with and without inline optical dispersion compensation,” Opt. Express17(6), 4815–4823 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. H. Kim, “Nonlinear phase noise in phase-coded transmission,” in Proceedings of OFC (2005), paper OThO3.

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.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4 Fig. 5
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited