Looking for accurate result from FDE and EME solver for a waveguide coupler


#1

I am a new user of Lumerical products. I was trying to solve a polarization rotator design using FDE and EME solvers. My simulation shows the fundamental and coupled supermodes and corresponding effective indices for those modes. Mode field distributions look similar to what we expect but the coupling length calculation from those supermodes effective indices is not matching with the published results (paper attached). The paper shows the coupling length = 134.50 um but we are getting around 128 um. I simulated the propagation with the EME solver but still got the same less accurate result. I solved the waveguide structure with our in-house FEM mode solver and the results agreeing well with the published results. I tried to increase the mesh size but the results are still not accurate. Could you please help me to rectify the problem in my program? The program and the paper are attached with the post.

Waveguide cross-section:

Paper:
PR at 1.55 um_JLT paper_Barh et al.pdf (755.5 KB)

Programme
https://cityuni-my.sharepoint.com/:u:/g/personal/souvik_ghosh_1_city_ac_uk/EV0X0XF0tK5Fl2IxaTFSBPIBi22G92Bqc-aUYMECsOHEXA?e=kAO5bC

Thank you,


#2

Hi @souvik.ghosh.1

I did some convergence testing and the results seem to converge. You can also do more by changing the mesh size and FDE simulation span. The only thing that is left is the material index. How did you obtain the material index? Were the index values or effective index of the modes reported in the paper?

Thanks


#3

Dear bkhanaliloo

Thanks for your reply. Could you please let me know how you converged and which parameter you converged? I have done some convergence test of the same structure with different mesh sizes but maximum we got the coupling length of 130 um. It never touched the value what we are getting from FEM modal solution and the value mentioned in the paper. The paper I attached they also used the time domain simulation and got the value 134 um.

Regarding the material refractive index: We took the reported data in the attached paper. Could you please guide me to get the accurate result?

Thank you.


#4

Hi @souvik.ghosh.1

My results were close to 129um that you reported. I was hoping to push the simulations further but I was limited by the memory. My values for effective index of the TE mode of slot waveguide were 1.545008 - 1.546165 (which is different than paper).

If you have a fancier machine (more that 32 GB ram) you can use a conformal mesh and set the maximum mesh step in the y and z direction to 1nm (disable all the mesh override regions). You could also try to replicate the results in FEEM solver.

I am not sure how precise you expect the results to be, but realistically fabricating this device will be limited to fabrication errors and you expect to get a few microns difference in the coupling length due to fabrication errors.

Thanks


#5

Thanks bkhanaliloo for your help. I was worried about the computation accuracy with FDTD and I got the satisfactory result for this problem. But now I replaced the top clad air with the SiO2 of refractive index of 1.444 and used the modal solution to find out the phase matching point for coupling. image
The waveguide width (W1) we found to be 345 nm to achieve a good coupling. Then by using EME solver the complete waveguide propagation has been simulated (result screenshots are attached).
image
The simulated result shows no power coupling from the slot waveguide (W2) to the simple rib waveguide (W1). We have considered much higher waveguide length compared to the coupling length calculated from the FDE mode solution.

waveguide_couplers_toplayer-SiO2_temp-25C_xspan-600_gap-300.lms (326.6 KB)

The simulation model is attached here. Could you help me to find out the problem in this model? I will appreciate any help on this matter.

Thank you.


#6

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


#7

#8

Hi @souvik.ghosh.1

Sorry for a late reply, the case was marked as resolved and I missed to reply to your last inquiry.

I am not quite sure if the two modes that you are referring to are the even and odd modes. Here I have attached the mode 2,3 and 4 for your review:


image
image
image

To me, it looks like mode #3 and #4 are the even and odd modes (coupled modes). I need to learn more on how to identify the coupled modes, but the modes in the last simulation file seems different than the ones you shared in the first post.

Please correct me if I am missing anything.


SiO2 clad waveguide coupler using FDE and EME solver
#9

[PR at 1.55 um_JLT paper_Barh et al.pdf]- Referring to Fig.3 in this paper, you will see that TE mode will be converted to TM mode when W1=460nm. This is Phase matching condition, and this paper talks about moving from one polarisation to another(TE to TM, and vice versa). In this paper Air was used as cladding material.

When I use SiO2 as clad and substrate material, I obtained similar graph as shown below:
image

Now if I take phase matching condition width acc to this new graph(i.e width=340nm), and try to see coupling of light from one waveguide to another(using emepropagate), I can’t see light going from one waveguide to another.
Case1: At Rib waveguide width=300nm, mode profiles,neff, and emepropagate output are shown in below fig, and coupling length will be equal to 78um


Case2: At Rib waveguide width=340nm, mode profiles,neff, and emepropagate output are shown in below fig, and coupling length will be equal to 412um


image

As you can see in emepropagate screenshot, light never travels from one waveguide to another,

P.S. If I use Air at top cladding material, I can see similar light moving from one waveguide to another, and theoretical value of coupling length also matches with emepropagate graph
4

If you put the parameters acc. to the mentioned paper in the above attached lms file, things work almost, but as I use SiO2 as clad layer, coupling from one waveguide to another never happens.

Thanks, waiting for your response


#10

Hi @sunny.chugh

I am still puzzled to solve the mystery. The paper that you are mentioning is not attached. Also. I downloaded the file and set the top layer to air but could not reproduce the plot in your previous post. Can you please share the working simulation file with me?

I cannot see the coupling when slot mode is selected in the bottom waveguides. However, when the fundamental TM mode is selected in the top waveguide, I can see the coupling:

image

As you can see, the mode is coupled from top waveguide to bottom waveguides but it is not the slot mode. There should be something that we are missing here.

Please let me know of your thoughts.