See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252984198

Ultra low cross talk in crossed strip waveguides with the assistance of a photonic
crystal cavity

Article in Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering · August 2008
DOI: 10.1117/12.795250

CITATIONS READS
2 49

4 authors:

Rami A. Wahsheh Zhaolin Lu

Princess Sumaya University for Technology Rochester Institute of Technology
23 PUBLICATIONS 164 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 716 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mustafa Abushagur Stefan F. Preble

Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Institute of Technology
127 PUBLICATIONS 667 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 1,081 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nanophotics couplers View project

Photronix Products View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Abushagur on 27 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ultra low cross talk in crossed strip waveguides with the assistance of a
photonic crystal cavity
Rami A. Wahsheh*, Zhaolin Lu, Mustafa A. G. Abushagur, and Stefan F. Preble
Microsystems Engineering, Kate Gleason College of Engineering,
Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, USA 14623

ABSTRACT

In this paper, ultra low cross talk is achieved by using a resonant cavity at the intersection between two strip waveguides
formed in a square lattice photonic crystal structure (PhC). Two PhC structures are studied: one consists of cylindrical
rods and another consists of cubic rods. The Q-Factor of the cavity is changed by increasing the number of rods that form
the cavity and by decreasing the spacing between the waveguide and the cavity. Our two dimensional simulation results
show that the latter method resulted in cross talk reduction of more than 21 dB for both structures. The overall cross talk
was -90.50 dB for the cylindrical rods structure and -105.0 dB for the cubic rods structure. The optimized PhC structures
were fabricated on a silicon-on-insulator platform. The rods were buried in silicon oxide in order to maximize the
photonic band gap and provide index guiding in the vertical direction.
Keywords: Integrated optics devices, waveguides, photonic integrated circuits.

1. INTRODUCTION
When waveguides are crossed guided waves suddenly expand due to the lack of confinement in the lateral direction. This
results in coupling into the intersecting waveguides in addition to radiation and scattering losses. Ultra low cross talk
between intersecting waveguides is required in optical integrated circuits in order to minimize the required area to
produce multiple optical devices on the same chip. Low cross talk is also beneficial for improving bit rate in optical
communications systems. Recent work has shown that cross talk between photonic devices can be reduced to a much
smaller degree than that between their electronic counterparts [1]. However, the low cross talk essentially relies on
designing innovative photonic structures. More recently, a number of structures have been proposed and investigated to
eliminate cross talk [2-6]. One method that attracts great attention is based on cavity coupling that can achieve low cross
talk over a wide spectrum [3-6]. The key idea is to excite modes orthogonal to each other at the intersection area.
Johnson, et al. [3] proposed a resonant cavity that supported two orthogonal modes at the intersection area of two line-
defect waveguides in a two dimensional (2D) square lattice photonic crystal (PhC) structure, which was composed of
periodic cylindrical rods in air. In the work of Johnson, et al. [3], as the quality factor (Q-factor) of the cavity increased
by adding more rods next to the defect rod, cross talk could be reduced. As a result of the Q-factor change, both the
output bandwidth spectrum and cross talk are controlled. Based on a similar structure, Liu, et al. [4] reported cross talk
reduction by using two single mode coupled resonator optical waveguides that had nonoverlapping photonic band gap.
Their results are very attractive and promising. Furthermore, all-optical transistors can potentially be achieved based on
the PhC cross-waveguide geometry [7]. However, in both works of Johnson et al. [3] and Liu et al. [4] the structures had
an infinite thickness and light was guided in air, or void photonic band gap (PBG) waveguides, instead of dielectric
waveguides. As a result, the structures are only ideal 2D models that cannot be experimentally realized.
In order to experimentally demonstrate the structure proposed by Johnson, et al. [3], Roh, et al. [5] used two aluminum
metal plates to insure confinement in the out of plane direction. One plate was placed on the top, and the other was
placed at the bottom of the cylindrical alumina rods in air. Cross talk reduction as large as −30 dB was experimentally
achieved at the resonant frequency. However, this metallic-cladding structure can not be scaled down for telecom
wavelengths. To work for the telecom wavelengths, Teo et al. [6] fabricated a structure that was composed of 13µm high
silicon rods in air, which are too high to provide effective out-of-plane field confinement. For practical applications, a
widely used way is to convert a 2D structure into a planar structure. Unfortunately, in a planar structure light cannot be
confined in void PBG waveguides without out-of-plane confinement on light propagation.

*raw7949@rit.edu

Photonic Fiber and Crystal Devices: Advances in Materials and

Innovations in Device Applications II, edited by Shizhuo Yin, Ruyan Guo,
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056, 70560E, (2008) · 0277-786X/08/$18 · doi: 10.1117/12.795250

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-1

2008 SPIE Digital Library -- Subscriber Archive Copy
Herein, we propose a planar structure for telecom wavelengths by replacing the void PBG waveguides with dielectric
strip waveguides. This structure is practical for applications with index guiding applied in the out-of-plane direction. To
illustrate the effectiveness of our design, we performed a series of simulations. First, the width of the strip waveguide
was fixed at the value that resulted in high throughput and low cross talk. Then, the Q-factor of the cavity was increased
by adding more rods next to the defect rod as presented by Johnson, et al. [3]. Subsequently, a comparison of simulation
results between the structures with and without the strip waveguides was made. Next, the effect of reducing the spacing
between the strip waveguide and cavity on the coupling efficiency and cross talk was analyzed. Then, a comparison of
simulation results between the structures with and without the intersecting waveguide was made. Finally, we analyzed
the effect of replacing the cubic rods with cylindrical ones. Recently we fabricated the optimized structures using silicon-
on-insulator. The fabrication details are described here. The testing results will be reported somewhere else.

2. INTERSECTING STRIP WAVEGUIDES AND MEASUREMENT STRATEGY

(a) (b)

Cross Talk

Throughput
Detector

Input Output

Cross Talk
Detector

z
Cross Talk

(c)
Fig. 1. 2D PhC structures of circular rods in air after the addition of the dielectric strip waveguides for the following cavity
sizes (a) “5 × 5”, (b) “3 × 3”, and (c) “1 × 1”.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-2

Figure 1 shows 2D square lattice PhC structures composed of cylindrical rods of radius 0.2a (a is the lattice constant of
the PhCs) with dielectric constant of 11.56 surrounded by air. The transverse magnetic (TM) band gap of the structures is
between 0.286(a/λ) and 0.421(a/λ). Two intersecting single mode line-defect waveguides are created by replacing a row
and a column of rods with a dielectric strip waveguide. The strip waveguides have a width of 0.3a and a dielectric
constant as that of the bulk crystals. The resonant cavity at the center of the intersection is introduced by creating a defect
rod of radius 0.3a that has a resonant frequency of 0.362(a/λ). The Q-factor of the cavity is increased by increasing the
number of rods next to the defect. The following names are given to the structures that are shown in Fig. 1 to denote the
number of rods that form the cavity: “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” for the structures that have five rods, three rods, and
one rod at the intersection area, respectively [1].
The 2D finite-difference time-domain method is used to analyze all the designed structures presented in this paper. Each
structure is terminated by a perfectly matched layer in order to reduce the back reflection from the waveguide ends. A
broadband TM Gaussian pulse is used as a light source. The pulse center is at a wavelength of 2.76a. Two detectors are
used to measure the forward (throughput) and cross talk coupling powers. One is located at W2 and the other one at W4,
as shown in Fig. 1. The measured power is plotted as a function of frequency. A linear scale is used for the forward
power measurement while a dB scale is used for the cross talk measurement. In this paper, the measured values of the
throughput and cross talk are taken at the resonance frequency. In addition, the (+) and (-) signs are used to denote gain
and loss, respectively.

3. DESIGN STEPS, RESULTS, AND ANALYSIS

Four steps were followed in our work to investigate how the configuration parameters affect the performance of the
structure:
Step 1: the width of the strip waveguide was determined by changing the width of the waveguide from 0.1a to 0.4a in
steps of 0.1a. At each step, the throughput and cross talk were measured. In all the proposed structures, the throughput
decreased as the width of the waveguide decreased from 0.4a to 0.1a. Whereas the cross talk decreased when the width
of the waveguide changed from 0.4a to 0.3a, then it increased as the width decreased. For example, Fig. 2 shows the
throughput and cross talk results for the “3 × 3” structure. The optimum width for the “3 × 3” structure and for the other
structures was at 0.3a, which had the minimum cross talk and a throughput value that was close to the maximum
throughput value that is achieved by the 0.4a case.
0.9 3 x 3 Width 0.4
3x3 Width 0.4
- 20
0.8 3x3 Width 0.3
3x3 Width 0.3

0.7 3x3 Width 0.2 3x3 Width 0.2

- 40
0.6 3x3 Width 0.1 3x3 Width 0.1
C ro s s T a lk
T h ro u g h p u t

0.5
- 60
0.4

0.3 - 80
0.2

0.1 -100

0.0
0.358 0.360 0.362 0.364 0.366 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38
Frequency (c/a) Frequency (c/a)

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. (a) Throughput and (b) cross talk of the “3 × 3” structure after changing the strip waveguide width from 0.4a to 0.1a
in steps of 0.1a.
Step 2: after fixing the strip waveguide width, the cavity size was changed from “5 × 5” to “3 × 3” and from “3 × 3” to
“1 × 1”. At each cavity size, the throughput and cross talk were measured. Figure 3 shows a comparison of the

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-3

throughput and cross talk of the structures with and without the strip waveguides. The measured cross talk value for the
“3 × 3” structure was 20.70 dB less than that without using the strip waveguides. Whereas the “1 × 1” and “5 × 5”
structures showed an increase in the cross talk. The addition of the strip waveguides caused the Q-factor of the cavity to
increase for all the designed structures. The Q-factor for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures changed from 900 to
1800, from 70 to 180, and from 6 to 13, respectively.
0.9 5x5 Without Waveguide
5x5 Without Waveguide 0.8
0.8 3x3 Without Waveguide
3x3 Without Waveguide

0.7 1x1 Without Waveguide 1x1 Without Waveguide

0.7
0.6 5x5 With Waveguide 5x5 With Waveguide

T h ro u g h p u t
T h ro u g h p u t

0.5 3x3 With Waveguide 3x3 With Waveguide

0.4 1x1 With Waveguide 0.6 1x1 With Waveguide

0.3

0.2
0.5
0.1

0.0
0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.362 0.363 0.364 0.365 0.366
Frequency (c/a) Frequency (c/a)

(a) (b)

5x5 Without Waveguide

- 20
3x3 Without Waveguide

- 40 1x1 Without Waveguide

5x5 With Waveguide

- 60
C ro s s T a lk

3x3 With Waveguide

- 80 1x1 With Waveguide

-100

-120

0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38

Frequency (c/a)
(c)
Fig. 3. A comparison of the throughput (as shown in (a) with its magnified view of the peak values) and cross talk (as shown
in (b)) for the structures shown in Fig. 1 with and without the strip waveguides.
Step 3: the spacing between the strip waveguide and the closest rod of the cavity was changed in steps of 0.05a. The
edge to edge spacing between the waveguide and the closest rod is 0.6a for the “5 × 5” and “3 × 3” structures and 0.5a
for the “1 × 1” structure. As shown in Fig. 4, the spacing that resulted in less cross talk were found at 0.4a, 0.5a and
0.15a for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures, respectively. At these positions, we found that the measured
throughput values for each structure (compared to the measured values without applying the space reduction method)
changed by -0.80%, +0.07%, and +4.40%, while the measured cross talk values changed by -22.70 dB, -21.70 dB, and
-21.60 dB for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures, respectively. The measured cross talk values for the “3 × 3”,
and “1 × 1” structures are two times less (in dB) than that reported in the literature. Applying the space reduction method
caused a decrease in the Q-factor of the cavity for all the designed structures. The Q-factor for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and
“1 × 1” structures changed from 1800 to 1340, from 180 to 160, and from 13 to 5, respectively.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-4

 0.84 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
-10
0.82
-20

0.8 -30
T h ro u g h p u t

5x5 -40

C ro s s T a lk
5x5
0.78 3x3
-50 3x3
1x1
1x1
-60
0.76
-70

0.74 -80

-90
0.72
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 -100
Distance from Cavity (xa) Distance from Cavity (xa)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. (a) Throughput and (b) cross talk for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures while reducing the spacing between
the waveguide and cavity in steps of 0.05a.
x10-4 x10-5

5x5 Without Crossed Waveguide 3x3 Without Crossed Waveguide

78896
7800
5x5 With Crossed Waveguide 3x3 With Crossed Waveguide

7799 78892
Throughput

Throughput

7798
78888
7797

7796 78884

7795
362059 362060 362061 362718 362721
x10-6 x10-6
Frequency (c/a) Frequency (c/a)

(a) (b)

1x1 Without Crossed Waveguide

1x1 With Crossed Waveguide

0.822

0.820
Throughput

0.818

0.816

0.396 0.398 0.400 0.402 0.404

Frequency (c/a)

(c)
Fig. 5. A comparison of throughput simulation results with and without the intersecting waveguide for the following cavity
sizes (a) “5 × 5”, (b) “3 × 3”, and (c) “1 × 1”.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-5

Step 4: to illustrate the effect of the intersecting waveguide on the coupling between the input and output waveguides, a
comparison of throughput simulation results of the designed structures with and without the intersecting waveguide, was
made [5]. As shown in Fig. 5, the intersecting waveguide had a negligible influence on the coupling efficiency. The
measured throughput values after the addition of the intersecting waveguide changed by -0.025%, +0.003%, and
-0.150% for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures, respectively. The resonance frequency was the same after the
addition of the intersecting waveguide for all structures except for the “1 × 1” structure in which the resonance frequency
shifted by 0.0016(a/λ).

4. EFFECT OF REPLACING THE CYLINDRICAL RODS WITH CUBIC ONES

In our studies we discovered that cubic rods offer better performance than cylindrical ones. However, this comes at the
expense of reducing the bandgap by 13.33% (TM band gap between 0.268(a/λ) and 0.385(a/λ)). A broadband TM
Gaussian pulse is used as a light source at a wavelength of 3.00a. To achieve better coupling into the cavity, the width of
the strip waveguides was increased to 0.4a. As shown in Fig. 6, the measured throughput values after using the cubic
rods are changed by +5.70%, -3.55%, and -3.50% for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures respectively, while the
measured cross talk values changed by -1.25 dB, -7.50 dB, and -1.20 dB. The Q-factor of the cavity was decreased after
replacing the cylindrical rods by cubic rods. The Q-factor for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures changed from
1800 to 1370, from 180 to 135, and from 13 to 11, respectively. These Q-factors are lower than the cylindrical rod
structures because of the reduced band gap.
0.9 5x5 Cubic Rods 0 5x5 Cubic Rods

0.8 3x3 Cubic Rods 3x3 Cubic Rods

- 20
0.7 1x1 Cubic Rods 1x1 Cubic Rods

0.6 5x5 Cylindrical Rods - 40 5x5 Cylindrical Rods

T h ro u g h p u t

C ro s s T a lk

0.5 3x3 Cylindrical Rods 3x3 Cylindrical Rods

- 60
0.4 1x1 Cylindrical Rods 1x1 Cylindrical Rods

0.3 - 80

0.2
-100
0.1

0.0 -120
0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40
Frequency (c/a) Frequency (c/a)

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. (a) A comparison of the (a) throughput and (b) cross talk for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures of cylindrical
and cubic rods.
The spacing between the strip waveguide and the closest rod of the cavity was changed in steps of 0.05a. The edge to
edge spacing between the waveguide and the closest cubic rod is 0.6a for the “5 × 5” and “3 × 3” structures and 0.5a for
the “1 × 1” structure. The throughput and cross talk were measured for each step. As shown in Fig. 7, the spacing that
resulted in less cross talk were found at 0.35a, 0.55a and 0.2a for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures,
respectively. At these positions, we found that the measured throughput values for each structure (compared to the
measured values without applying the space reduction method) changed by +2.5%, -0.02%, and +3.8%, while the
measured cross talk values changed by -35.80 dB, -27.60 dB, and -19.90 dB for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1”
structures, respectively. The measured cross talk values for all the structures are almost 14 dB less than that of the
cylindrical rods except for the “1 × 1” structure in which the same cross talk is measured. Applying the space reduction
method caused a decrease in the Q-factor of the cavity for all the designed structures. The Q-factor for the “5 × 5”,
“3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures changed from 1370 to 780, from 135 to 120, and from 11 to 3.50, respectively.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-6

 0.9 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

-20
0.85

-40
0.8
T h ro u g h p u t

5x5

C ro s s T a lk
5x5
3x3
-60 3x3
1x1
0.75 1x1

-80

0.7

-100

0.65
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 -120
Distance from Cavity (xa) Distance from Cavity (xa)

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. (a) Throughput and (b) cross talk for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures while reducing the spacing between
the waveguide and cavity in steps of 0.05a.

5. FABRICATION OF THE PHC STRUCTURES

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 8. Fabricated PhC structures of circular rods in air for the following cavity sizes (a) “5 × 5”, (b) “3 × 3”, and (c) “1 × 1”.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-7

 We recently fabricated the structures on silicon-on-insulator using E-beam lithography. SEM images of the structures are
shown in Fig. 8. According to 3D simulations, we found that in order to have a band gap centered at 1550 nm, the lattice
period of the structure should be 460 nm and the height of the silicon rods should be 2.25a (1035 nm). In addition, the
whole structure must be buried in silicon oxide in order to maximize the photonic band gap and provide index guiding in
the vertical direction. The SOI wafer has a buried silicon oxide layer of a width of 4000 nm. The SOI wafer is spin
coated with a negative resist (XR-1541). Then, the e-beam is used to transfer the pattern on the negative resist. Next, the
unexposed areas of the resist are removed by developing the wafer in MIF developer for four minutes. The exposed resist
acted as a mask during the etching process. Chlorine plasma, which consists of Cl2 and BCl2, is used to etch the
unprotected silicon. The mask is not removed after etching silicon because it acts as silicon oxide. Finally, the whole
structure is buried in silicon oxide of a thickness of 3000 nm. We are currently in the process of testing the fabricated
structures presented here. The experimental results will be published elsewhere.

6. CONCLUSIONS
To summarize, the resonant cavity at the intersection area between two intersecting waveguides reduces the cross talk
and decreases the spectrum bandwidth. This applies to any two intersecting waveguides, whether they are line-defect or
dielectric waveguides. The resonant cavity used in our design is shown to be very compact. The maximum size of the
cavity, including the defect rod, is five rods. The quality factor of the cavity increases by replacing the line defect
waveguides with the dielectric strip waveguides. The effect of the strip waveguide on reducing the out-of-plane losses is
not simulated because a two dimensional simulation is used in our work. For further research, a three dimensional
simulation should be applied to investigate the reduction of out-of-plane losses. Based on the two dimensional simulation
results, we found that the “3 × 3” structure with the strip waveguides achieved cross talk reduction of 20.70 dB less than
that without using the strip waveguides. We also found that more cross talk reduction could be achieved by reducing the
spacing between the strip waveguide and the cavity. Finally, the overall cross talk reduction for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and
“1 × 1” structures was -90.60 dB, -76.40 dB, and -43.60 dB, respectively. The measured cross talk values for the two
latter structures are two times less (in dB) than that reported in the literature.
Replacing the cylindrical rods by cubic ones resulted in wider spectrum and less cross talk. We found that more than
-19 dB of cross talk reduction can be achieved by applying the space reduction method. Finally, the overall cross talk
reduction for the “5 × 5”, “3 × 3”, and “1 × 1” structures was -105.0 dB, -90.0 dB, and -43.0 dB, respectively.

REFERENCES
[1]
Hunsperger, R. G., [Integrated Optics: Theory and Technology], Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, (2002).
[2]
Bogaerts, W., Dumon, P., Thourhout, D. V., and Baets, R., “Low-loss, low-cross-talk crossings for silicon-on-
insulator nanophotonic waveguides,” Optics Letters 32, 2801-2803 (2007).
[3]
Johnson, S. G., Manolatou, C., Fan, S., Villeneuve, P. R., Joannopoulos, J. D., and Haus, H. A., “Elimination of
cross talk in waveguide intersections,” Optics Letters 23, 1855-1857 (1998).
[4]
Liu, T., Fallahi, M., Mansuripur, M., Zakharian, A. R., and Moloney, J. V., “Intersection of nonidentical optical
waveguides based on photonic crystals,” Optics Letters 30, 2409-2411 (2005).
[5]
Roh, Y. G., Yoon, S., Jeon, H., Han, S. H., and Park, Q. H., “Experimental verification of cross talk reduction in
photonic crystal waveguide crossings,” Applied Physics Letters 85, 3351-3353 (2004).
[6]
Teo, S. H. G., Liu, A. Q., Zhang, J. B., and Hong, M. H., “Induced free carrier modulation of photonic crystal
optical intersection via localized optical absorption effect,” Applied Physics Letters 89, 091910.1-091910.3 (2006).
[7]
Yanik, M. F., Fan, S., Soljačić, M., and Joannopoulos, J. D., “All-optical transistor action with bistable switching in
a photonic crystal cross-waveguide geometry,” Optics Letters 28, 2506-2508 (2003).

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7056 70560E-8

View publication stats