Coupling of Spatially Partially Coherent Beams Into Planar Waveguides

Coupling of spatially partially coherent
beams into planar waveguides
Henri Partanen,∗ Jani Tervo, and Jari Turunen

Institute of Photonics, University of Eastern Finland,
P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland
∗ henri.partanen@uef.fi
Abstract: The second-order coherence theory of partially spatially

coherent light and the overlap integral method are applied to study the
end-coupling of stationary multimode light beams into planar waveguides.
A method is presented for the determination of the cross-spectral density
function of the guided field. Examples are given on the effects of spatial
coherence, lateral shift, angular tilt, and defocusing of the incident beam on
the coupling efficiency, spatial coherence, and propagation characteristics
of the guided field.
© 2015 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (030.1640) Coherence; (130.2790) Guided waves.
References and links

1. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995).
2. E. Wolf, “New theory of partial coherence in the space–frequency domain. Part I: Spectra and cross-spectra of
steady-state sources,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 343–351 (1982).
3. C. M. Warnky, B. L. Anderson, and C. A. Klein, “Determining spatial modes of lasers with spatial coherence
measurements,” Appl. Opt. 39, 6109–6117 (2000).
4. H. Partanen, J. Turunen, and J. Tervo, “Coherence measurement with digital micromirror device,” Opt. Lett. 39,
1034–1037 (2014).
5. F. Gori, “Collet–Wolf sources and multimode lasers,” Opt. Commun. 34, 301–305 (1980).
6. A. Starikov and E. Wolf, “Coherent-mode representation of Gaussian Schell-model sources and of their radiation
fields,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 923–928 (1982).
7. A. S. Ostrovsky, M. A. Olvera, C. Rickenstorff, G. Martı́nez-Niconoff, and V. Arrizón, “Generation of a sec-
ondary electromagnetic source with desired statistical properties,” Opt. Commun. 283, 4490–4493 (2010).
8. P. Spano, “Connection between spatial coherence and modal structure in optical fibers and semiconductor lasers,”
Opt. Commun. 33, 265–270 (1980).
9. S. Piazzolla and S. De Marchis, “Spatial coherence in optical fibers,” Opt. Commun. 32, 380–382 (1980).
10. M. Imai, K. Itoh, and Y. Ohtsuka, “Measurements of complex degree of spatial coherence at the end face of an
optical fiber,” Opt. Commun. 42, 97–100 (1982).
11. S. Piazzolla and P. Spano, “Spatial coherence in incoherently excited optical fibers,” Opt. Commun. 43, 175–179
(1982).
12. S. Withington and G. Yassin, “Analyzing the power coupled between partially coherent waveguide fields in
different states of coherence,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1376–1382 (2002).
13. K. J. Tsanaktsidis, D. M. Paganin, and D. Pelliccia, “Analytical description of partially coherent propagation and
absorption losses in x-ray planar waveguides,” Opt. Lett. 38, 1808–1810 (2013).
14. M. Osterhoff and T. Salditt, “Coherence filtering of x-ray waveguides: analytical and numerical approach,” New
J. Phys. 13, 103026 (2011).
15. B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamentals of Photonics (Wiley, 1991), Chap. 7.
16. T. Saastamoinen, M. Kuittinen, P. Vahimaa, J. Turunen, and J. Tervo, “Focusing of partially coherent light into
planar waveguides,” Opt. Express 12, 4511–4522 (2004).
17. J. Turunen, “Low coherence laser beams,” Chapter 10 in Laser Beam Propagation: Generation and Propagation
of Customized Light, A. Forbes, ed. (CRC Press, 2014).
18. P. Vahimaa and J. Tervo, “Unified measures for optical fields: degree of polarization and effective degree of
coherence,” J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 6, S41–S44 (2004).
#228272 - $15.00 USD Received 2 Jan 2015; revised 10 Mar 2015; accepted 10 Mar 2015; published 18 Mar 2015
© 2015 OSA 23 Mar 2015 | Vol. 23, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.23.007879 | OPTICS EXPRESS 7879
19. H. Kim, J. Park, and B. Lee, Fourier Modal Method and its Applications in Computational Nanophotonics (CRC
Press, 2012).
20. M. Bertolotti, L. Sereda, and A. Ferrari, “Application of the spectral representation of stochastic process to the
study of nonstationary light radiation: a tutorial,” Pure Appl. Opt. 6, 153–171 (1997).
21. H. Lajunen, P. Vahimaa, and J. Tervo, “Theory of spatially and spectrally partially coherent pulses,” J. Opt. Soc.
Am. A 22, 1536–1544 (2005).
1. Introduction
Multimode waveguides support a finite set of orthogonal field modes, each of which propagates
in the waveguide independently with its own characteristic propagation constant. If strictly
coherent light illuminates the end of the waveguide, the total guided field is also fully coherent
but the relative weights of the modes depend on the spatial shape of the incident beam. Under
spatially partially coherent illumination the modal weights and the spatial coherence properties
of the excited guided field depend both on the spatial shape and the coherence characteristics of
the illuminating field. The purpose of this paper is to determine the spatial coherence properties
of the guided field from the known spatial coherence characteristics of the illuminating field.
We use symmetric step-index planar waveguides as an example, but the same principles are
applicable to any other types of waveguides and fibers.
In the second-order coherence theory of stationary light [1], the cross-spectral density (CSD)
function describes fully the spatial coherence properties of fields in the space-frequency do-
main. The CSD can always be represented as an incoherent superposition of fully coherent field
modes, known as the coherent modes of the field, which can be determined by solving a Fred-
holm integral equation of the second kind [1, 2]. One may measure the CSD of the input field
using, for example, methods describer in Refs. [3,4]. Therefore numerical solution of the coher-
ent modes and their associated weights is (in principle) always possible, but for certain forms
of the CSD the modal representation is known analytically. For example, the coherent modes
of so-called Gaussian Schell-model beams are known to be Hermite–Gaussian functions [5, 6].
This model is employed here for convenience, but we stress that the same principles are gener-
ally applicable. In order to study alignment issues of the incident field, we extend the concept
of Gaussian Schell-model beams and their modal representation in Sect. 2 to include lateral and
angular shifts of the propagation axis of the beam. The coherence width of the input GSM beam
may be manipulated using for example liquid crystal screens [7]. Coherence properties of the
guided field has been studied and measured already in the early eighties [8–11], and the elec-
tromagnetic properties of the field has been considered in for example Ref. [12], while in this
paper we assume linearly polarized light. In addition to optical wavelengths similar waveguides
are of great interest also in terahertz [12] and x-ray regions [13, 14].
Throughout the paper we assume weakly modulated waveguide structures, for which the
overlap integral method [15] has been shown to provide highly accurate results (see, e.g.,
Ref. [16] and Refs. [1–11] cited therein). This method it applied in Sect. 3 to project the inci-
dent coherent-mode representation at the input end of the fiber onto the modal representation
of the guided field. The procedure provides both the CSD of the guided field (and therefore
full knowledge of the spatial coherence of this field) and the coupling efficiency of partially
coherent light into the waveguide. It also allows us to study coupling from each individual in-
put mode to any of the waveguide modes. Examples on the application of this procedure are
provided in Sect. 4, where we consider the effects of the state of coherence of the incident field
and study alignment issues: lateral shift, angular tilt, and defocusing of the incident beam.
2. Representation of the incident field
Let us assume the geometry illustrated in Fig. 1. The end of the planar (y-invariant) waveguide
is located at the plane z = 0 and is illuminated by a Gaussian Schell-model beam from the
half-space z < 0. The incident field is y-invariant and paraxial such that the only significant
element of the cross-spectral density matrix [1] is its yy component. We omit the frequency
dependence of the CSD matrix and the subscript yy for brevity, consider the field at an arbitrary
plane z = constant ≤ 0, assume that the beam waist is located at z = z0 , the beam center at this
plane is at position x = x0 , and the optical axis of the beam makes an angle θ0 with respect to
the z axis. Then, using notations roughly similar to Ref. [17], we write

w0 (x1 − x0 − θ0 Δz)2 + (x2 − x0 − θ0 Δz)2 (x1 − x2 )2
W (x1 , x2 , z) =S0 exp − exp −
w(z) w2 (z) 2σ 2 (z)

ik0
× exp − (x1 − x0 − θ0 Δz)2 − (x2 − x0 − θ0 Δz)2 exp [ik0 θ0 (x2 − x1 )] ,
2R(z)
(1)
where S0 is a constant, k0 = 2π /λ is the wave number, λ is the wavelength, Δz = z − z0 ,
1/2
Δz2 σ0 1
w(z) = w0 1 + 2 , σ (z) = w(z), and zR = k0 w20 β (2)
zR w0 2
are the beam width, the rms coherence width, and the Rayleigh range, respectively. Further,
z2R
R(z) = Δz + (3)
Δz
is the radius of curvature of the wave front, w0 and σ0 represent the characteristic widths of
spectral density and the complex degree of spatial coherence at z = z0 , respectively, and

−1/2
β = 1 + (w0 /σ0 )2 . (4)
is a convenient measure of the ‘global’ degree of spatial coherence of the beam. This repre-
sentation is obtained from the usual expressions for Gaussian Schell-model beams [1, 17] by
shifting and tilting the optical axis.
As one can verify by direct substitution, the CSD in Eq. (1) can also be expressed in the form
of a coherent-mode expansion [1]
∞
W (x1 , x2 , z) = ∑ an φn∗ (x1 , z)φn (x2 , z), (5)
n=0
where
1/4 √
2 1w0 2
φn (x, z) = √ exp [iψ (z)/2] Hn (x − x0 − θ0 Δz)
π w20 β w(z)
2n n! w(z) β

(x − x0 − θ0 Δz)2 ik0
× exp − exp (x − x0 − θ0 Δz) exp [ik0 θ0 (x − x0 − θ0 Δz)]
2
w2 (z)β 2R(z)
(6)
with ψ (z) = k0 Δz − arctan (Δz/zR ) are the normalized Hermite–Gaussian modes, and

√ β 1−β n
an = S0 2π w0 (7)
1+β 1+β
are the weight factors of these modes. The modes in Eq. (6) are again obtained from the standard
(axial) form [5, 6, 17] by shifting and tilting the optical axis.
The overall coherence properties of spatially partially coherent fields are often described
using the effective degrees of spatial coherence, defined as [18]
∞
∑∞
2
−∞ |W (x1 , x2 , z)| dx1 dx2
2
n=0 an
μ̄ =
2

∞ 2 = , (8)
−∞ S(x, z)dx
[∑∞
n=0 an ]
2
where W again refers to the yy element of the CSD matrix, and S(x, z) = W (x, x, z) is the spectral
density. For Gaussian Schell-model beams we therefore have, using Eq. (7), μ̄ 2 = β , which
further emphasizes the role of β as a convenient measure of the degree of spatial coherence.
3. Spatial coherence of the guided field

The guided modes of the dielectric planar waveguide are taken to be of the usual form
ϕm (x, z) = Xm (x) exp (iβm z) (9)
where Xm (x) are real-valued and satisfy the orthonormality condition

∞
Xm (x)Xn (x)dx = δmn , (10)
−∞
and βm are the propagation constants. Any single coherent mode of the input field at z = 0 can
now be represented in terms of the waveguide modes as
√ M−1
an φn (x, 0) = ∑ pnm Xm (x) + radiation mode contribution (11)
m=0
where M is the number of the guided modes supported by the waveguide and
∞
√
pnm = an φn (x, 0)Xm (x)dx (12)
−∞
according to the overlap integral method [15]. Here we ignore the reflections from the waveg-
uide interface, i.e., we assume that the input interface has a perfect antireflection coating. The
nc
w0 θ0
x0 d z
ng
z0
nc
Fig. 1. Geometry and notations. A Gaussian Schell-model beam, propagating at an angle

θ0 with respect to the z axis, is incident to a planar waveguide with diameter d at z = 0. The
waist of the beam is located at (x, z) = (x0 , −z0 ).
CSD of the input field at z = 0 is obtained by inserting from Eq. (11) into Eq. (5). Excluding
the contribution from radiation modes, we have
∞ M−1 M−1
Wg (x1 , x2 , 0) = ∑∑ ∑ p∗nm pnq Xm (x1 )Xq (x2 ). (13)
n=0 m=0 q=0
The CSD of the guided field (subscript g) at any distance z > 0 is then
∞ M−1 M−1
Wg (x1 , x2 , z) = ∑∑ ∑ p∗nm pnq Xm (x1 )Xq (x2 ) exp [−i (βm − βq ) z] (14)
n=0 m=0 q=0
The intensity (spectral density) of this field, Sg (x, z) = Wg (x, x, z), is

2
M−1∞

Sg (x, z) = ∑ ∑ pnm Xm (x) exp (iβm z) (15)

n=0 m=0

and the complex degree of spatial coherence is obtained from the usual definition
W (x1 , x2 , z)
μg (x1 , x2 , z) = . (16)
S(x1 , z)S(x2 , z)
We define the total coupling efficiency as

∞ ∞ M−1
Sg (x, 0)dx
η = −∞
∞ = ∑ ∑ ηnm , (17)
−∞ S(x, 0)dx n=0 m=0
where
|pnm |2
ηnm = (18)
∑∞m=0 an
is the (normalized) coupling coefficient from input mode n to guided more m.

Before proceeding to examples, we examine some general coherence properties of the guided
field, which do not depend on the choice of the incident field or the waveguide. If both the inci-
dent field and the waveguide have several modes, the guided field is spatially partially coherent.
A general expression for the effective degree of spatial coherence is obtained by inserting from
Eqs. (14) and (15) into the definition (8), which gives

M−1 ∞
2
∑M−1 ∗
m=0 ∑q=0 ∑n=0 pnm pnq
μ̄g2 = 2 . (19)
∞ 2
m=0 ∑n=0 |pnm |
∑M−1
Hence μ̄g is a propagation-invariant quantity in any waveguide and under any illumination
conditions.
Considering some special cases, we first assume that the waveguide supports only one mode
m = 0. We then find that μ̄g = 1 irrespective of the spatial coherence of the incident field. In
view of Eq. (14),
∞
Wg (x1 , x2 , z) = ∑ |pn0 |2 X0 (x1 )X0 (x2 ). (20)
n=0
Hence the CSD (and thus also the spectral density) is propagation-invariant. Finally, using
Eqs. (14)–(16), we see that μg (x1 , x2 , z) = 1 and hence the guided field is fully spatially coherent
even though it generally receives contributions from several modes of the incident field. The
fraction of incident power that ends up in the guided field is
∞ 2
∑∞ ∑∞
n=0 an −∞ φn (x, 0)X0 (x)dx
2
n=0 |pn0 |
η= ∞ = ∞ . (21)
∑n=0 an ∑n=0 an
If, on the other hand, the waveguide supports several guided modes but the incident field
is fully spatially coherent (having a single mode with index n). In this case we also find that
μ̄g = 1. It now follows from Eq. (14) that
M−1 M−1
Wg (x1 , x2 , z) = ∑ ∑ p∗nm pnq Xm (x1 )Xq (x2 ) exp [−i (βm − βq ) z] . (22)
m=0 q=0
Hence again the CSD and the spectral density are propagation-invariant. Further, since
∗
m=0 pnm Xm (x1 ) exp (−iβm z) ∑q=0 pnq Xq (x2 ) exp (iβq z)
∑M−1 M−1
μg (x1 , x2 , z) = , (23)
∑M−1 pnm Xm (x1 ) exp(iβm z) ∑M−1 pnq Xq (x2 ) exp(iβq z)
m=0 q=0

we have μg (x1 , x2 , z) = 1. The field is therefore again fully spatially coherent although the
phase of the complex degree of coherence generally depends on x1 and x2 (being however
separable in these coordinates).
As the last special case, we consider a waveguide that supports two guided modes (m = 0 and
m = 1) but the modal representation of the incident field may be arbitrary. In this case Eq. (14)
leads to the result
∞ ∞
Wg (x1 , x2 , z) = X0 (x1 )X0 (x2 ) ∑ |pn0 |2 + X1 (x1 )X1 (x2 ) ∑ |pn1 |2
n=0 n=0
∞ ∞
+ X0 (x1 )X1 (x2 ) exp (−iΔβ z) ∑ p∗n0 pn1 + X1 (x1 )X0 (x2 ) exp (iΔβ z) ∑ pn0 p∗n1 ,
n=0 n=0
(24)
where Δβ = β0 − β1 . We therefore have a self-imaging field with a longitudinal period (Talbot
distance) zT = 2π /Δβ . If the condition
∞
∑ p∗n0 pn1 = 0 (25)
n=0
holds, we again obtain a propagation-invariant field. Finally, the effective degree of spatial
coherence takes the form
2 2
∑∞ |pn0 |2 + ∑∞ |pn1 |2 + 2 (∑∞ ∗ 2
n=0 n=0 n=0 pn0 pn1 )
μ̄g2 (z) = 2 . (26)
∞ 2 2
∑n=0 |pn0 | + |pn1 |
4. Examples
We consider coupling of the incident Gaussian Schell-model field into the TE modes symmetric
of planar waveguides with refractive-index profiles

ng when |x| < d/2
n(x) = . (27)
nc when |x| > d/2
The modes have the form [15]
⎧
⎨Cm cos(αm d/2) exp[−γm (x − d/2)],
⎪ when x > d/2
Xm (x) = Cm cos(αm x), when − d/2 ≤ x ≤ d/2 (28)
⎪
⎩
Cm cos(αm d/2) exp[γm (x + d/2)], when x < −d/2
for m = 0, 2, 4, . . . (symmetric modes) and

⎧
⎨Sm sin(αm d/2) exp[−γm (x − d/2)],
⎪ when x > d/2
Xm (x) = Sm sin(αm x), when − d/2 ≤ x ≤ d/2 (29)
⎪
⎩
−Sm sin(αm d/2) exp[γm (x + d/2)], when x < −d/2
for m = 1, 3, 5, . . . (antisymmetric modes), with

1/2 1/2 γm
αm = k02 n2g − βm2 , γm = βm2 − k02 n2c , tan (αm d/2 − mπ /2) = , (30)
αm
−1/2 −1/2
d sin (αm d) cos2 (αm d/2) d sin (αm d) sin2 (αm d/2)
Cm = + + , Sm = − + .
2 2αm γm 2 2αm γm
(31)
Only these TE modes of the waveguide are excited under the illumination conditions defined in
Sect. 2.
In the examples to follow, we choose the waveguide structures in accordance with the as-
sumption that the guided field can be realistically excited with a partially coherent incident
field. If x0 = θ0 = Δz = 0 in Eq. (1), the far-field divergence angle of the Gaussian Schell-
model beam is given by sin θ1/e ≈ θ1/e = λ /π w0 β . In order to focus the beam into spot
size w0 without significant truncation one needs an optical system with numerical aperture
NA ∼ 2 sin θ1/e . With these considerations in mind, we should choose the waveguide structure
(d, ng , nc ) and the values of w0 and σ0 so as to keep the NA of the required focusing system
within the paraxial domain.
4.1. Single-mode waveguides

Let us first consider a single-mode waveguide with d = 5λ , nc = 1.500, and ng = 1.503 and
examine the coupling of Gaussian Schell-model beams with different degrees of spatial coher-
ence in its fundamental mode, assuming x0 = θ0 = z0 = 0. A spatially coherent Gaussian beam
is coupled into the waveguide with an efficiency η = 0.9965 if w0 = 3.77λ .
We compare two different cases. In Case I (black lines in Fig. 2) the size of the total Gaussian

Schell-model field is kept at this value and β is reduced, which reduces also the scale w0 β
of the coherent modes. Hence, when β < 1, symmetric higher-order coherent modes begin to
contribute to the coupling efficiency (but only the n = 2 has a significant contribution). The
background shading in Fig. 2 indicates different coupling domains. In the white area β > 0.5
the incident beam is essentially paraxial and the transition to the non-paraxial domain takes
place at β ∼ 0.5. For β ∼ 0.2 or smaller, it is no longer possible to couple the incident beam
into the waveguide without truncation and hence these values of β are rather non-physical. We
stress that the limit of the paraxial regime of β depends on the chosen w0 /λ ratio; wider beams
may have smaller values for β .
In Case II (red lines in Fig. 2) we keep the value of w0 β constant when varying β , so
that the width of the fundamental coherent mode matches the scale of the waveguide mode.
Now the total width w0 of the beam increases when β is reduced and again we see that the
second symmetric mode n = 2 begins to contribute to η already in the paraxial domain. Overall,
(a) (b)
1 1
0.8 0.8
m = 0, n = 0
0.6 0.6
ηnm
η m = 0, n = 2
√
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
β β
Fig. 2. Coupling into single-mode waveguides. (a) Total coupling efficiency η and (b) most
√
significant coefficients ηnm if
either the total beam size w0 (black lines) or the size of the
lowest-order coherent mode w0 β (red lines) is matched to the waveguide mode. In (b)
√
we plot ηnm instead of ηnm to show the m = 2 contributions more clearly.
however, the coupling strategy in Case I is somewhat superior. Since w0 /λ ratio changes in
Case II, the background shading in Fig. 2 is meaningful only in Case I.
4.2. Waveguides supporting two modes

Let us next turn the attention to waveguides that support two guided modes m = 0 and m = 1
by choosing d = 10λ , nc = 1.500, and ng = 1.503. With these parameters the wavequide sup-
ports two propagating modes with propagation constants β0 = 9.4407/λ and β1 = 9.4327/λ .
We illustrate the effects of variable degree of spatial coherence, lateral shift, angular tilt, and
defocusing in the coupling efficiency and the coherence properties of the guided field.
Figure 3 illustrates the effects of varying degree of spatial coherence, with x0 = θ0 = Δz = 0
and the width of the incident beam kept constant at w0 = 5.09λ . This value of w0 represents the
best coupling into the fundamental mode m = 0 in the fully coherent case β = 1, and we have
η = 0.9984 in this case. As the coherence is reduced, |W (x1 , x2 , 0)| becomes elongated in the
x1 = x2 direction(its phase is zero in
all cases), and a similar general behavior is observed also
for Wg (x1 , x2 , 0), and the phase arg Wg (x1 , x2 , 0) becomes binary-valued (zero or π radians).
Because of the assumed coupling conditions, even-numbered coherent modes n = 0, 2, 4 . . .
couple only into the symmetric waveguide modes m = 0 and the odd-numbers modes n =
1, 3, 5 . . . couple only to the antisymmetric m = 1 mode. As a result, Eq. (25) holds and the
guided field is propagation-invariant. With decreasing value of σ0 , coupling into the M = 1
mode increases and the profile of the guided field is flattened.
Figure 4 illustrates the effects of varying degree of spatial coherence in the coupling effi-
ciency and the overall degree of spatial coherence in more detail. Here again the background
shading indicated the gradual transitions from the paraxial to the non-paraxial domain, and the
transition from the non-paraxial to the non-physical domain. In view of Fig. 4(a) the coupling
efficiency η decreases with β but remain above 70% throughout the paraxial domain. As shown
in Fig. 4(b), the overall degree of coherence of the guided field is always higher than that of the
incident field, and this coherence filtering effect becomes distinct already within the paraxial
domain. Finally, according to Fig. 4(c), coupling from n = 0 to m = 0 and from n = 1 to m = 1
dominate especially within the paraxial domain.
Let us proceed to examine the effects of various alignment errors in the coupling efficiency
and the properties of the incoupled guided field. The effect of variable lateral shift is illustrated
in Figs. 5 and 6. Here we keep θ0 = Δz = 0 and assume the same two-mode waveguide as above.
As shown in Fig. 5(c,h,m), the field becomes self-imaging as soon as the symmetry is broken
by the shift and cross-coupling between the symmetric and antisymmetric input and coupled
modes begins to occur, thus violating the condition in Eq. (25).
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ 5
x 10 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ 5
x 10 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ 5
x 10 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(p) input, σ0 = ∞
1 coupled, σ0 =∞
input, σ0 = 8λ
coupled, σ0
S [A.U.]
= 8λ
0.5 input, σ0 = 2.2λ
coupled, σ0 = 2.2λ
0
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10
x/λ
Fig. 3. Two-mode waveguide with variable coherence width of the input light. The two
leftmost columns illustrate the absolute value and the phase, respectively, of the CSD of the
incident field at plane z = 0. Corresponding distributions for the guided field at z = 0 are
shown in the two rightmost columns. The middle column shows the evolution of Sg (x, z).
The top three rows respectively show the results for the fully coherent case σ0 = ∞, for a
partially coherent case σ0 = 8λ , and the case σ0 = 2.2λ , which is close to the transition into
non-paraxial domain. Finally, (p) shows the intensity profiles of the incident field and the
guided field at the plane z = 0. The movie (Media 1) shows the evolution of the illustrated
quantities when the coherence is varied.
(a) (b) (c)
1 1 1
m= 0, n= 0
0.8 0.8 0.8 m= 1, n= 1
m= 0, n= 2
0.6 0.6 0.6
ηnm
m= 1, n= 3
μ̄2
η
m= 0, n= 4
√
0.4 0.4 0.4
m= 1, n= 5
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
β β β
Fig. 4. Effect of decreasing degree of spatial coherence in (a) the total coupling efficiency,
(b) the overall degree of coherence of the coupled field, and (c) the modal coupling coeffi-
√
cients ηmn . In (b) the black solid line shows that overall degree of coherence μ̄ 2 = β of
the incident field and the red dashed line illustrates μ̄g2 for the guided field.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(p) input, x 0 = 0
1 coupled, x 0 =0
input, x 0 = 0.5λ
S [A.U.]
coupled, x 0 = 0.5λ
0.5 input, x 0 = 5λ
coupled, x 0 = 5λ
0
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10
x/λ
Fig. 5. Two mode waveguide with partially coherent input field and variable lateral shift
with values x0 = 0, x0 = 0.5λ , and x0 = 5λ . We keep σ0 constant at 4λ , considering the
cases x0 = 0, x0 = 0.5λ , and x0 = 5λ in the top three rows, respectively. The structure of
the figure is otherwise similar to Fig. 3. The movie (Media 2) shows the evolution of the
illustrated quantities when the shift is varied.
Figure 6(a) shows that while η reduces with increasing x0 , it has large values up to shifts that
are sizeable fractions of d. Hence the alignment of the optical axes of the incident field and the
waveguide has a reasonable tolerance. In view of Fig. 6(b), the overall degree of coherence μ̄g2
(red dashed line) actually increases with x0 . According to Fig. 6(c), this is a consequence of the
dominance of coupling into the antisymmetric waveguide mode m = 1 for large values of x0 .
(a) (b) (c)

1 1 1
m= 0, n= 0
0.8 0.8 0.8 m= 1, n= 0
m= 0, n= 1
0.6 0.6 0.6
ηnm
m= 1, n= 1
μ̄2
η
m= 0, n= 2
√
0.4 0.4 0.4
m= 1, n= 2
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
x0 /λ x0 /λ x0 /λ
Fig. 6. Effect of variable lateral shift in (a) the total coupling efficiency, (b) the overall
√
degree of coherence of the coupled field, and (c) the modal coupling coefficients ηmn .
The effect of the angular tilt is shown in Figs. 7 and 8, where x0 = z0 = 0, w0 = 5.09λ ,
σ0 = 4λ , and the waveguide is the same as above. Again, the guided field becomes self-imaging
when the symmetry is broken with θ0 = 0. The effects in the total coupling efficiency and
overall degree of coherence are rather similar to the case of lateral shift. In view of Fig. 8, the
angular alignment tolerance is of the order of 1◦ , and the overall degree of coherence increases
also with θ0 because of increasing dominance of coupling into the m = 1 mode.
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the effects of defocusing if x0 = θ0 = 0, w0 = 5.09λ , and σ0 = 4λ .
We consider the cases z0 = 0, z0 = 50λ , and z0 = 200λ in the three top rows of Fig. 9. When
z0 = 0, the field at z = 0 has a spherical phase with radius of curvature R(z) defined by Eq. (3),
and its width has increased from w0 to w(z) given by Eq. (2). Both effects contribute to the
coupling efficiency and the properties of the guided field, which however remains propagation-
invariant because Eq. (25) is satisfied. The tolerance for defocusing is not tight, and again the
overall degree of spatial coherence increases with |z0 |. However, in the present case this is due
to increased coupling into the m = 0 mode.
4.3. Waveguide supporting three modes and more general case

Typically, in practice, all alignment errors are present at the same time and such situations can
be analyzed using the same procedure as in the examples above. Figures 11 and 12 illustrates
a situation where defocusing and a lateral shift are present simultaneously. Also the refractive
index of the waveguide is raised to ng = 1.506, so that it now supports three modes. Now
x0 = 2/λ , θ0 = 0, w0 = 5.09λ , and σ0 = 4λ . We consider the cases z0 = 0, z0 = 50λ , and
z0 = 200λ . The intensity fluctuation inside the waveguide becomes more complicated, and the
field is not anymore exactly self imaging. Figure 12(c) shows that when the defocus is increased,
more light is coupled into the mode m = 2. This is due to the fact that the beam gets wider along
with the defocus.
5. Conclusions
We have presented a method to determine the spatial coherence properties of guided fields
in waveguides from the known cross-spectral density function of the illuminating field under
end-coupling conditions. This was achieved with the aid of coherent-mode representation of
the incident field, modal representation of the guided field, and the overlap integral method to
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(p) input, θ0 = 0
coupled, θ0 =0
1
input, θ0 = 1◦
coupled, θ0 = 1◦
S [A.U.]
0.5 input, θ0 = 5◦
coupled, θ0 = 5◦
0
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10
x/λ
Fig. 7. Two-mode waveguide with partially coherent input field and variable angular tilt.
The cases θ0 = 0, θ0 = 1◦ , and θ0 = 5◦ are considered in the three top rows, respectively.
The structure of the figure is otherwise similar to Figs. 3 and 5. The movie (Media 3) shows
the evolution of the illustrated quantities when the tilt is varied.
(a) (b) (c)

1 1 1
m= 0, n= 0
0.8 0.8 0.8 m= 1, n= 0
m= 0, n= 1
0.6 0.6 0.6
ηnm
m= 1, n= 1
μ̄2
η
m= 0, n= 2
√
0.4 0.4 0.4

m= 1, n= 2
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
θ 0 [degrees] θ 0 [degrees] θ 0 [degrees]
Fig. 8. Effect of variable angular tilt in (a) the total coupling efficiency, (b) the overall
√
degree of coherence of the coupled field, and (c) the modal coupling coefficients ηmn .
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(p) input, z0 = 0
coupled, z0 =0
1
input, z0 = 50λ
coupled, z0 = 50λ
S [A.U.]
0.5 input, z0 = 200λ

coupled, z0 = 200λ
0
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10
x/λ
Fig. 9. Two-mode waveguide with partially coherent defocused incident field, with values
z0 = 0 (top row), z0 = 50λ (second row), and z0 = 200λ (third row). The structure of
the figure is otherwise similar to Fig. 3. The movie (Media 4) shows the evolution of the
illustrated quantities when the defocus is varied.
(a) (b) (c)

1 1 1
0.8 0.8 0.8

m = 0, n = 0
0.6 0.6 0.6 m = 1, n = 1
ηnm
μ̄2
η
m = 0, n = 2
√
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
z0 /λ z0 /λ z0 /λ
Fig. 10. Effect of defocusing in (a) the total coupling efficiency, (b) the overall degree of
√
coherence of the coupled field, and (c) the modal coupling coefficients ηmn .
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

10 10 10 10 10
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x 2 /λ
x/λ
0 0 0 0 0
−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

−10 0 10 −10 0 10 9 9.01 9.02 9.03 −10 0 10 −10 0 10
x 1 /λ x 1 /λ z/λ x 10
5 x 1 /λ x 1 /λ
(p) input, z0 = 0
coupled, z0 = 0
1 input, z0 = 50λ
coupled, z0 = 50λ
S [A.U.]
input, z0 = 200λ
0.5 coupled, z0 = 200λ
0
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10
x/λ
Fig. 11. Three-mode waveguide with partially coherent input field and variable defocus
with values z0 = 0 (first row), z0 = 50λ (second row), and z0 = 200λ (third row), and a
constant lateral shift x0 = 2λ . The structure of the figure is otherwise similar to Fig. 3.
The movie (Media 5) shows the evolution of the illustrated quantities when the defocus is
varied.
(a) (b) (c) m= 0, n= 0

1 1 1 m= 1, n= 0
m= 2, n= 0
0.8 0.8 0.8 m= 0, n= 1
m= 1, n= 1
0.6 0.6 0.6
ηnm
m= 2, n= 1
μ̄2
η
0.4 0.4 0.4 m= 0, n= 2

m= 1, n= 2
0.2 0.2 0.2 m= 2, n= 2
0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
z0 /λ z0 /λ z0 /λ
Fig. 12. Effect of defocusing with constant lateral shift in (a) the total coupling efficiency,
(b) the overall degree of coherence of the coupled field, and (c) the modal coupling coeffi-
√
cients ηmn .
match the two representations at the input plane of the waveguide. While we used the Gaussian
Schell-model for the incident field, any other type of CSD could be considered as well. To reveal
the main physical characteristics of the guided field, we considered symmetric planar waveg-
uides in a y-invariant geometry. Extensions to more complicated structures, including fibers
and slab waveguides, are in principle straightforward (if the waveguide modes are not known
analytically, they can be determined numerically using, e.g., the Fourier Modal Method [19]).
While the discussion was restricted to stationary fields, extension to pulsed fields with arbi-
trary spectral coherence properties is also possible using the second-order coherence theory of
non-stationary light [17, 20, 21].
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the Academy of Finland (project 268705).

Coupling of Spatially Partially Coherent Beams Into Planar Waveguides

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Coupling of Spatially Partially Coherent Beams Into Planar Waveguides

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Coupling of spatially partially coherent

beams into planar waveguides

Henri Partanen,∗ Jani Tervo, and Jari Turunen

Abstract: The second-order coherence theory of partially spatially

References and links

3. Spatial coherence of the guided field

ϕm (x, z) = Xm (x) exp (iβm z) (9)

where Xm (x) are real-valued and satisfy the orthonormality condition

Fig. 1. Geometry and notations. A Gaussian Schell-model beam, propagating at an angle

The intensity (spectral density) of this field, Sg (x, z) = Wg (x, x, z), is

We define the total coupling efficiency as

is the (normalized) coupling coefficient from input mode n to guided more m.

for m = 0, 2, 4, . . . (symmetric modes) and

for m = 1, 3, 5, . . . (antisymmetric modes), with

4.1. Single-mode waveguides

4.2. Waveguides supporting two modes

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(a) (b) (c)

4.3. Waveguide supporting three modes and more general case

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(a) (b) (c)

0.4 0.4 0.4

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

0.5 input, z0 = 200λ

(a) (b) (c)

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(f ) (g) (h) (i) (j)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)

−10 −10 −10 −10 −10

(a) (b) (c) m= 0, n= 0

0.4 0.4 0.4 m= 0, n= 2

Potrebbero piacerti anche