Abstract

Because in an air-core photonic-bandgap fiber the fundamental mode travels mostly in air, as opposed to silica in a conventional fiber, the phase of this mode is expected to have a much lower dependence on temperature than in a conventional fiber. We confirm with interferometric measurements in air-core fibers from two manufacturers that their thermal phase sensitivity is indeed ~3 to ~6 times smaller than in an SMF28 fiber, in agreement with an advanced theoretical model. With straightforward fiber design changes (thinner jacket and thicker outer cladding), this sensitivity could be further reduced down to ~11 times that of a standard fiber. This feature is anticipated to have important benefits in fiber optic systems and sensors, especially in the fiber optic gyroscope where it translates into a lower Shupe effect and thus a greater long-term stability.

©2005 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

The optical phase of a signal traveling in an optical fiber is a relatively strong function of temperature. As the temperature changes, the fiber length, radius, and refractive indices all change, which results in a change in the signal phase. This effect is generally sizable and detrimental in phase-sensitive fiber systems such as fiber sensors utilizing conventional fibers. For example, in a fiber sensor based on a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with 1-m long arms, a temperature change in one of the arms as small as 0.01°C is sufficient to induce a differential phase change between the two arms as large as ~1 rad. This is about a million times larger than the typical minimum detectable phase of an interferometric sensor (~1 μrad). Taking care of this large phase drift is often a significant challenge. A particularly important sensor where thermal effects have been troublesome is the fiber optic gyroscope (FOG). Although the FOG utilizes an inherently reciprocal Sagnac interferometer, even a small asymmetric change in the temperature distribution of the Sagnac coil fiber will result in a differential phase change between the two counter-propagating signals, a deleterious effect known as the Shupe effect.[1,2] Because the Sagnac is a common-path interferometer, the two signals see almost the same thermally induced change and this differential phase change is much smaller than in a Mach-Zehnder or Michelson interferometer, but it is not small enough for high-accuracy applications, which require extreme phase stability. In this and other fiber sensors and systems, thermal effects have been successfully fought with clever engineering solutions. These solutions, however, generally increase the complexity and cost of the final product, and they can also negatively impact its reliability and lifetime.

These undesirable thermal effects are anticipated to be greatly reduced by replacing the conventional fiber with an air-core photonic-bandgap fiber (PBF). The reason is that in a PBF, most of the mode energy is confined in air, unlike in a conventional fiber where the mode travels entirely through silica. Since the thermal coefficient of the refractive index dn/dT is much smaller for air than for silica, in an air-core fiber the temperature sensitivity of the mode effective index is expected to be reduced considerably. The length of a PBF of course still varies with temperature, which means that the phase sensitivity will not be reduced simply in proportion to the percentage of mode energy in silica. However, it should still be reduced significantly, an improvement beneficial to numerous applications, especially in the FOG where it implies a reduced Shupe effect.

The objectives of this paper are first to model quantitatively the dependence of the fundamental-mode phase on temperature in an air-core fiber, second to validate these predictions by comparing them to values measured in actual air-core fibers, and third to design improved fibers with even lower temperature sensitivity. The metric in this work is the relative change in phase S, which we refer to as the phase thermal constant:

S=1ϕdT,

where ϕ is the phase accumulated by the fundamental mode through the fiber and T is the fiber temperature. With an interferometric technique, we tested two air-core PBFs from different manufacturers and found that their thermal constant is in the range of 1.5 to 3.2 parts per million (ppm) per degree Celsius, or 2.5–5.2 times lower than the measured value of a conventional SMF28 fiber (S = 7.9 ppm/°C). Each of these values falls within 20% of the corresponding predicted number, which lends credence to our theoretical model and to our measurement calibration. This study shows that the reason for this reduction is due to a drastic reduction in the dependence of the mode effective index on temperature. The residual value of the thermal constant arises from length expansion of the fiber, which is only marginally reduced in an air-core fiber. We show through modeling that with straightforward fiber jacket improvements, this contribution can be further reduced by a factor of ~2. This study establishes even without this further improvement, the phase thermal constant of current air-core fiber is as much as ~5 times smaller than in a conventional fiber, which should bring forth a significant improvement in the FOG and other phase-sensitive systems.

2. Model of thermal effects in air-core fibers

In this section, we develop a theoretical model to quantify the phase thermal constant S of an air-guided photonic-bandgap fiber and, for comparison purposes, of a conventional index-guided fiber as well. The phase ϕ accumulated by the fundamental mode as it propagates through a fiber of length L is:

ϕ=2πneffLλ

where L is the fiber length, neff the mode effective index, and λ the wavelength of the signal in vacuum. Inserting Eq. (2) in Eq. (1) yields the expression for the phase sensitivity per unit length and per degree of temperature change of the fiber:

S=1ϕdT=1LdLdT+1neffdneffdT=SL+Sn

S is the sum of two terms: the relative variation in fiber length per degree of temperature change (hereafter called SL), and the relative variation in the mode effective index per degree of temperature change (hereafter called Sn).

If the temperature change from equilibrium is ΔT(t,l) at time t and in an element of fiber length dl located a distance l from one end of the fiber, the total phase change in a length L of the fiber is:

Δϕ=2πneffλS0LΔT(tlv,l)dl

where v = c/neff and c is the velocity of light in vacuum. Equation (4) shows that S is a relevant parameter to characterize the phase sensitivity to temperature in, for instance, a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, since the total phase change is proportional to S.

Similar expressions apply to other interferometers. For example, for a Sagnac interferometer the corresponding phase change is given by:

Δϕ=2πneffλS0L[ΔT(tlv,l)ΔT(tLv+lv,l)]dl

As expected, it is proportional to S, and S is again the relevant metric. The temperature sensitivity of a Sagnac interferometer (Eq. (5)) can be reduced by minimizing the integral through proper fiber winding,[3,4] as is well known, and/or by designing the fiber structure to minimize S. This work is concerned only with this second technique.

Because the thermal expansion coefficient of the fiber jacket (usually a polymer) is typically two orders of magnitude larger than that of silica, expansion of the jacket stretches the fiber, and the fiber length change caused by jacket expansion is the dominant contribution to SL. The index term Sn is the sum of three effects. The first one is the transverse thermal expansion of the fiber, which modifies the core radius and the photonic-crystal dimensions, and thus the mode effective index. The second effect is the strains that develop in the fiber as a result of thermal expansion; these strains alter the effective index through the elasto-optic effect. The third effect is the change in material indices induced by the fiber temperature change (thermo-optic effect).

2.1 Exact model

To determine Sn and SL, we need to model the thermo-mechanical properties of the fiber. To do so, we assume that the fiber temperature is changed uniformly from T0 to T0+dT, and we aim to calculate the fiber length and the effective index of the fundamental mode at both temperatures, from which, with Eq. (3), we can calculate Sn, SL, and S. We assume that the fiber has cylindrical symmetry and that all its properties are invariant along its length, so we can compute S in a cylindrical coordinate system. As shown in Fig. 1, the fiber is modeled as a structure with multiple circular layers: a core (doped silica in a conventional fiber, air in a PBF) of radius a 0, an inner cladding (silica in a conventional fiber, a silica–air honeycomb in a PBF), an outer cladding (generally pure silica) of radius aM, and a jacket (often an acrylate). We assume that each layer remains in contact and in mechanical equilibrium with the neighboring layers, i.e., the radial stress and the radial deformation are continuous across fiber layer boundaries.

 figure: Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Cross-section of a cylindrical fiber with an air core, a honeycomb cladding, an outer glass cladding, and a jacket.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Each layer is characterized by a certain elastic modulus E, Poisson’s ratio ν, and thermal expansion coefficient α. The photonic-crystal cladding is an exception in that it is not a homogeneous material but it behaves mechanically like a honeycomb. The implications are that (1) in a transverse direction the honeycomb can be squeezed much more easily than a solid, which means that it has a high transverse Poisson’s ratio, and (2) in the longitudinal direction, it behaves like membranes of silica with a total area (1-η)Ah, where Ah is the total cross section of the honeycomb. The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of a honeycomb are thus function of the air filling ratio η. For an hexagonal pattern of air holes in silica, they are given by: [5]

{ET=32(1η)3E0EL=(1η)E0vT=1vL=v0

where ET and EL are the transverse and longitudinal Young’s modulus of the silica-air honeycomb, respectively, E0 is the Young’s modulus of silica, νT and νL are the transverse and longitudinal Poisson’s ratios of the honeycomb material, respectively, and ν0 is the Poisson’s ratio of silica. The values used for these parameters in our simulations were calculated from Eq. (6) and are listed in Table 1. Comparison to a simpler model in which the inner cladding is approximated by solid silica indicates that the effect of the honeycomb is to increase SL by about 10–30%. The reason is that in a honeycomb offers a lower resistance to the pull exerted by the higher thermal expansion jacket than solid silica, thus the fiber length expansion is increased (larger SL). The effect of the honeycomb is thus small but not negligible. Table 1 also lists the values of the parameters used in our simulations for the other fiber layers.

Tables Icon

Table 1. Thermal and mechanical properties of the fiber materials

The local deformation vector u(r) at the point r = [r, θ, z] is:

u(r)=[ur(r)0uz(z)]

Only the diagonal components of the strain tensor ε are non-zero:

ε=[εrr=urrεθθ=urrεzz=uzz]

We use Hooke’s law to relate the stress tensor σ and strain tensor ε along with the effect of a temperature change ΔT:

ε=s:σ+αΔT

where s is the fourth-order compliance tensor, α is the thermal expansion tensor, which also only has diagonal terms, and : denotes the tensor product.

It can be shown that the deformation field uz does not vary with r and that for a long fiber, it varies linearly with z, i.e., it is of the form:

uz(z)=Cz

where C is a constant and the z origin is chosen in the middle of the fiber. Because uz(z) is continuous at each interface between layers, C has the same value for all layers. Since the temperature is assumed uniform across the fiber, Eqs. (9–10) imply that εzz and σzz are independent of r and only functions of z. Furthermore, ur satisfies the admissibility condition:

2urr2+1rurrurr2=0,

whose solution is:

ur(r)=Ar+Br

where A and B are constants specific to each layer. We solve for the coefficients A, B, and C by imposing the following boundary conditions and making use of Hooke’s law:

  • continuity of ur(r) across all inner layer boundaries;
  • continuity of σrr(r) across all inner layer boundaries;
  • σrr(r) = 0 at r = a 0, where a 0 is the fiber core radius;
  • σrr(r) = 0 at r = aM, where aM is the outer radius of the fiber;
  • mechanical equilibrium on the fiber end faces, which imposes :
a0aM02πσzz(r,θ,z=±L2)dr=0

We use a matrix method to determine A, B, and C, and thus ur(r) and uz(z). Equation 8 then yields the strains, including εzz = SLΔT.

To illustrate the kinds of predictions we can make with this model, we plotted in Fig. 2 the radial deformation as a function of distance from the fiber center calculated for the Crystal Fibre PBF (parameters listed in Table 2). We observe that over the honeycomb structure (5 μm ≤ r ≤ 33.5 μm) and the silica outer cladding (33.5 μm < r ≤ 92.5 μm) the radial deformation remains small compared to the deformation of the acrylate jacket (92.5 μm < r ≤ 135 μm), which is consistent with the differences in the thermal expansion coefficient and stiffness of the materials. The low-thermal expansion and stiff silica experiences a much weaker deformation than the high-thermal expansion and soft acrylate. We also note that since the radial strain is the derivative of the radial deformation, the inner cladding honeycomb is under compressive strain, and it relaxes the strain over the structure by absorbing some of the deformation (the radial deformation decreases by a factor of 4 over the honeycomb structure) thanks to its very small transverse Young modulus.

 figure: Fig. 2:

Fig. 2: Computed radial deformation as a function of distance from fiber center for the Crystal Fibre PBF. The inset is a magnification of the radial deformation over the inner cladding honeycomb.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Tables Icon

Table 2. Physical parameters of the test fibers

Now that the strain distributions are known, computation of Sn is straightforward. In a first step, from the radial strain distribution we compute the change in the dimension of each layer across the fiber cross-section. In a second step, from the total strain distribution we compute the change in refractive indices of each layer due to the elasto-optic effect. Finally, in a third step we calculate the change in material indices induced by the temperature change (thermo-optic effect), which is independent of the strains and the easiest to evaluate. These three contributions (change in index profile, core radius, and materials’ indices) are then combined to obtain the refractive index profile of the fiber at T = T 0 + ΔT. This new profile is then imported in the SPBF code [6], a finite difference PBF mode solver, to compute the effective index of the fundamental mode at this temperature. The code is also used to compute the mode effective index of the unperturbed fiber, i.e., at temperature T 0. Finally, these two values of the effective index are used in Eq. 3 to compute Sn. This calculation assumes that all parameters change linearly with temperature, which is reasonable for small temperature excursions.

Figure 3 shows the dependence of SL, Sn, and S on the core radius R predicted by this model for a fiber with a cladding air-hole radius ρ = 0.495Λ, an outer cladding radius of 92.5 μm, and an acrylate jacket of thickness 42.5 μm (parameters of the Crystal Fibre PBF). The signal wavelength was λ = 0.5Λ, close to the middle of the fiber bandgap, with Λ = 3 μm. The values of S, SL, and Sn calculated for an SMF28 fiber (see parameters in Table 2) at λ = 1.5 μm are also indicated for comparison. As expected, SL is almost independent of core radius and is the dominant term. The situation is reversed from a conventional SMF28 fiber, for which Sn is significantly larger than SL (see Fig. 3). Note also that SL is sensibly the same for the air-core and the SMF28 fibers. The physical reason is that SL quantifies linear expansion of the fiber, which is similar in both fibers. SL is actually a little lower for the air-core fiber because of the increased relative area of silica in the outer cladding compared to the acrylate in the jacket for this particular fiber. Therefore the PBF has a lower overall thermal expansion than the SMF28 fiber. For the air-core fiber, the index term Sn generally decreases slowly with increasing core radius (see Fig. 3), except for prominent local peaks in the ranges of 1.1Λ–1.25Λ and 1.45Λ–1.65Λ, where Sn and S increase by as much as a factor of two. These ranges coincide precisely with the regions when surface modes occur (highlighted in gray in Fig. 3).[7] The reason is that for the core radii that support surface modes, a significantly larger fraction of the fundamental mode energy is contained in the dielectric portions of the fiber, and the phase is more sensitive to temperature. This result points out yet another reason why surface modes should be avoided. Outside of these surface-mode regions, the total phase thermal constant S = SL + Sn varies weakly with core radius (see Fig. 3). The lowest S value in the single-mode range (R < ~1.1Λ) occurs for R ≈ 1.05Λ and is equal to ~1.68 ppm/°C, which is 4.9 times smaller than for an SMF28 fiber.

 figure: Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Computed dependence of S, Sn, and SL on the normalized core radius for an air-core fiber (solid curves) and for an SMF28 fiber (reference levels) at 1.5 μm.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

2.2 Approximate weighted-average model

Since in an air-core fiber most of the contribution to S comes from the length term SL, the more complex index term Sn can be neglected and it is worth developing a simple model to evaluate SL (and thus S). We can approximate SL to a good accuracy, while gaining some physical insight for the effects of the various parameters, by ignoring the radial terms and writing down the condition that the total force exerted on the fiber in the z direction is zero. Using the notation in Fig. 1, this total force is:

σzz,hAh+σzz,clAcl+σzz,JAJ=0,

where the subscripts h, cl, and J stand for honeycomb, outer cladding, and jacket, respectively (the corresponding term for the air core is zero and is thus absent from Eq. 14). Substituting Eq. (9) in Eq. (14) while neglecting the transverse terms, which are small because the fiber radius is small compared to the fiber length, we obtain the following approximate expression for SL:

SL=ΔLLΔT=εzzΔTAhEhαh+AclEclαcl+AJEJαJAhEh+AclEcl+AJEJ

As can be seen from Table 1, the jacket expansion term AJEJαJ and the outer cladding expansion term AclEclαcl are comparable in size and much larger than the honeycomb term AhEhαh , which can be neglected. In the denominator, the main term is the restoring force AclEcl due to the outer cladding, which is much larger than the force from the jacket or the honeycomb. Hence, Eq. (13) can be well approximated by:

SLAclEclαcl+AJEJαJAclEcl=αcl+AJAclEJEclαJ

This simple expression shows that the best strategies to lower SL are to make the area of the outer cladding Acl as large as possible relative to the jacket area AJ, and to use a jacket material with a low thermal expansion. This approximate model turns out to be quite accurate, as will be illustrated in Section 6.

3. Experimental setup

The parameter S was measured for two PBF fibers, namely the AIR-10-1550 fiber manufactured by Crystal Fibre[8] and the HC-1550-02 fiber from Blaze Photonics (now Crystal Fibre).[9] SEM photographs of the fibers’ cross-sections are shown in Fig. 4. Measurements were carried out using the conventional Michelson fiber interferometer illustrated in Fig. 5(a). The signal source was a 1546-nm DFB laser with a linewidth of a few MHz. The air-core fiber was either spliced (Blaze Photonics fiber) or butt-coupled (Crystal Fiber fiber) to one of the ports of a 3-dB coupler (SMF28 fiber) to form the “sensing” arm of the interferometer. The far end of the PBF was similarly coupled to a fiber-pigtailed Faraday rotator mirror (FRM) to reflect the signal back through the fiber and thus eliminating polarization fluctuations in the return signal due to variations in the fiber birefringence. Most of the PBF was attached to an aluminum block placed on a heating plate, and the fiber/block assembly was covered with a styrofoam thermal shield (see Fig. 5(a)) to maintain the fiber temperature as uniform as possible and to reduce temperature fluctuations due to air currents in the room. The temperature just above the surface of the block was measured with a thermocouple.

 figure: Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. SEM photographs of the two PBFs tested in this work.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

The second (reference) arm of the interferometer consisted of a shorter length of SMF28 fiber splice to a second FRM. Together with the non-PBF portion of the sensing arm, this entire arm was placed in a second thermal shield (see Fig. 5(a)), mostly to reduce the amount of heating by the nearby heater of both the reference fiber and the non-PBF portion of the sensing arm. With this arrangement, when the heater was turned on the PBF was the only portion of the interferometer that was significantly heated.

 figure: Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Experimental Michelson interferometer used to measure (a) the thermal constant of individual fibers; and (b) the error in the fringe count due to residual heating of the non-PBF portions of the interferometer.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

To measure S, the temperature of the PBF was raised to around 70°C, then the heater was turned off and as the PBF temperature slowly dropped, both the output power of the interferometer and the fiber temperature were measured over time and recorded in a computer. During the measurement time window (typically tens of minutes), the phase in the PBF arm decreased and passed many times (50–200) through 2π, so that the power at the interferometer output exhibited many fringes, as illustrated in the typical experimental curves of Fig. 6. The phase thermal constant S was calculated from the measured number of fringes occurring in a given time interval using:

S=Δϕ4πneffLΔLλNumberoffringes2neffLΔTλ

where L is the length of fiber under test and ΔT is the temperature change occurring during the measurement interval (see Fig. 6).

This approximation is justified because the temperature drop was slow enough that the PBF temperature was uniform at all times, yet fast enough that random phase variations in the rest of the interferometer were negligible compared to the phase variations in the PBF. To verify this last point, we measured the inherent temperature stability of the interferometer by disconnecting the PBF and reconnecting the fiber ends of the sensing arm with a short length of SMF28 fiber, as illustrated in Fig. 5(b). In a first stability test, we recorded the interferometer output while the entire interferometer temperature was at equilibrium with room. Over a period of ~30 minutes, the enclosure temperature was found to vary by ±1°C and the output power by about one fringe only. This test showed that the interferometer was more than stable enough to measure phase shifts of tens of fringes. In a second test, the PBF enclosure was heated to around 70°C, then the heater was turned off and the interferometer output was recorded as the heater slowly cooled down. This time we observed a larger number of fringes, which indicated that a little heat from the heater reached through the interferometer shield and induced a differential temperature change in the two arms. The output power varied by ~12 fringes while the enclosure temperature dropped ~18°C. Consequently, when measuring S with the setup of Fig. 5(a), residual heating of the non-PBF portion of the interferometer introduces an error of ~12 fringes. For this error to be small compared to the fringe count due to the change in the PBF temperature, this fringe count must be much larger than the error, e.g., 100 or more. This goal was met by using a long enough PBF. For the value of S ≈ 2 ppm/°C predicted for a PBF (see Fig. 3), Eq. 15 predicts that the length required to obtain 100 fringes of phase shift for a ΔT of 18°C is L ≈ 1 m. The length of PBF we used in our measurements was therefore of this order (about 2 meters, see Table 2).

 figure: Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Measured (a) output power Pout(t) and (b) temperature T(t) for the Blaze Photonics fiber.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

4. Experimental results

As a point of comparison, we first measured the thermal constant of a conventional solid-core fiber by replacing the PBF in the experimental setup of Fig. 5(a) by a 210-cm length of SMF28 fiber. The measured value is S = 7.9 ppm/°C, in excellent agreement with the value of 8.2 ppm/°C predicted by our model using the parameter values of Tables 1 and 2. This value is the sum of SL = 2.3 ppm/°C and Sn = 5.9 ppm/°C, i.e., the index contribution is 2.6 times larger than the length expansion contribution. These values are summarized in Table 3. The close agreement between measured and calculated values gives credence to both our model and our interferometer calibration.

Tables Icon

Table 3. Measured and predicted values of S, SL, and Sn for four different fibers

We then measured S for the two air-core PBFs. A typical experimental result is shown in Fig. 6. The value of S inferred for each fiber from such measurement and Eq. 15 is listed in Table 3, along with the calculated values of S, Sn, and SL. The S values measured for the two PBFs are fairly similar, in the range of 1.5 to 2.2 ppm/°C. As predicted, the air-core fiber guidance mechanism results in a sizable decrease in the sensitivity of the phase delay on temperature. This reduction is as much as a mean factor of 5.26 (measured) or 5.79 (predicted) for the Crystal Fibre PBF. The corresponding figures for the Blaze Photonics fiber are 3.6 (measured) and 3.14 (predicted). Again, the theoretical and measured values agree well. The Crystal Fibre fiber exhibits a lower thermal expansion contribution than the Blaze Photonics fiber because it has a larger area of silica cladding relative to the jacket area (see Eq. 14). These reductions in S result mostly from a decrease in Sn by a factor of ~100, as well as a 15%–45% reduction in SL; as predicted by theory, in a PBF S is determined overwhelmingly by SL, which depends only on the change in fiber length. The conclusion is that current air-core fibers are substantially less temperature sensitivity that conventional fibers, by a factor large enough (3.6–5.3) that it will translate into a significant stability improvement in fiber sensors and other phase-sensitive fiber systems.

5. Air-core fiber designs with further reduced thermal sensitivity

In this section we show that even smaller values of S can be obtained with improved PBF designs. Since in a PBF SL is the main contribution to S, to further reduce S we must first try to reduce SL. This term arises from the thermal change in the fiber length, which is driven by both the thermal expansion coefficient and the stiffness of (1) the honeycomb cladding (silica and air), (2) the outer cladding (silica), and (3) the jacket (typically a polymer). Because polymers have a much higher thermal expansion coefficient than silica, as the temperature is increased the jacket expands more than the fiber, and thus it pulls on the fiber and increases its length more than if the fiber was unjacketed. The jacket is therefore generally the dominant contribution to SL. Consequently, a thinner jacket will result in a smaller SL, the lowest value being achieved for an unjacketed fiber. Furthermore, everything else being the same a softer jacket (lower Young modulus) will stretch the fiber less effectively and thus yield a lower SL. Finally, increasing the outer cladding thickness increases the overall stiffness of the fiber structure, thus reducing the expansion of the honeycomb and reducing SL.

These predictions were confirmed by simulating the Blaze Photonics fiber for various acrylate jacket thicknesses and air filling ratios (see Fig. 7). As expected, as the jacket thickness is reduced SL decreases. In the limit of zero jacket thickness (bare fiber), SL reaches its lowest limit, set by the thermal expansion of the silica cladding. We also observe that for higher air filling ratios, SL is larger. The reason is that the honeycomb then contains less silica, the fiber has a lower overall stiffness, and the jacket expansion is less restrained by the glass structure, resulting in a larger SL value.

 figure: Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. SL vs. acrylate jacket thickness for a PBF with the same crystal period and core radius as the Blaze Photonics PBF (see Table 2) but different air filling ratios.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

The effect of the jacket material stiffness can be seen in Fig. 8, where we graphed the calculated values of SL (for the same PBF, with an air filling ratio of 90%) for a few standard jacket materials (metals, polymers, and amorphous carbon covered with polyimide[10]). To simulate actual fiber jackets, the jacket thickness was taken to be 5 or 50 μm for polyimide (as specified), 20 μm for metals, and 200 nm for amorphous carbon (covered with either 2.5 or 5 μm of polyimide). The reference jacket was 50 μm of acrylate. All metal jackets yield a larger SL than the reference acrylate jacket (2.57 ppm/°C). The explanation is that while metals have a lower thermal expansion than acrylate (by about one order of magnitude), their Young modulus is much larger than that of both acrylate (by 2–3 orders of magnitude) and silica (by a factor of up to 3). The silica structure is therefore pulled more effectively by the expanding metal coating than by the acrylate jacket, and SL is larger. Several jacket materials, however, perform better than acrylate. A thin (200 nm) amorphous carbon coating with a 2.5-μm polyimide jacket over it gives the lowest and best value, SL = 0.67 ppm/°C (74% reduction), followed by a 5-μm polyimide jacket (SL = 0.77 ppm/°C, 70% reduction). This is close to the theoretical limit for a silica fiber, which is set by the thermal expansion coefficient of silica and is equal to SL = 0.55 ppm/°C. The polyimide jacket performs best only because it is much thinner than an acrylate jacket. For equal thickness, acrylate actually performs better than polyimide. But because polyimide is a better water-vapor barrier than acrylate, a polyimide jacket only a few microns thick is sufficient to effectively protect the fiber against moisture, which is not true for acrylate. The conclusion is that acrylate unfortunately happens not to be the best choice of jacket material for thermal performance. By coating the PBF with the above carbon–polyimide jacket instead, an SL of only 0.67 ppm/°C, i.e., an S as low as 0.72 ppm/°C, should be attainable, which is ~11 times lower than for a conventional fiber.

 figure: Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Calculated SL for the same fiber structure as the Blaze Photonics PBF but different jacket material and thickness. The reference value (in green) was calculated for the actual manufactured PBF, which has a 50-μm acrylate jacket.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

The effect of the silica outer cladding was also studied by simulating the same PBF for increasing cladding thicknesses, assuming a fixed 50-μm acrylate jacket and a 90% air-filling ratio. The result is plotted as the solid curve in Fig. 9. As expected, as the outer cladding thickness is increased SL drops, because a thicker silica cladding better resists the length increase of the acrylate jacket. This effect is fairly substantial. For example, by doubling the outer cladding thickness from the 50-μm value of the Blaze Photonics fiber to 100 μm, SL is reduced by 55%. In the opposite limit of no outer cladding (zero thickness), SL jumps up to more than 20 ppm/°C. The high thermal expansion jacket is then pulling only on the silica honeycomb structure, which has a lower Young modulus due to the air holes and thus offers less resistance to stretching. Using a thick outer cladding is therefore an excellent way of reducing the thermal sensitivity of an air-core fiber. The downside is that the fiber is then stiffer and can therefore not be wound as tightly, which is a disadvantage in some applications.

The dashed curve in Fig. 9 was generated using our approximate model (see Section 3.2). This curve is in very good agreement with the exact result. Since again SL accounts for more than 90% of the thermal constant S, this very simple model is a reliable tool to predict the thermal constant of any fiber structure.

In summary, it is possible to reduce the thermal constant below the low value already demonstrated in existing air-core fibers by using (1) a jacket as thin as possible; (2) a soft jacket material; (3) a large outer cladding; and/or (4) a small air filling ratio (inasmuch as possible). Obvious jacket materials that satisfy (1) and (2) are polyimide and amorphous carbon covered by a thin layer of polyimide. With a 5-μm polyimide jacket, which is the best of these options, the Blaze Photonics fiber is predicted to have a thermal constant of S ≈ 0.82 ppm/°C, which is ~3.2 times smaller than in the current fiber.

 figure: Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Calculated dependence of SL on the silica outer cladding thickness.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

We also computed the theoretical thermal phase sensitivity to temperature for a Bragg fiber with an core radius of 2 μm, surrounded by 40 air-silica Bragg reflectors with thicknesses of 0.48 μm (silica) and 0.72 μm (air), with an acrylate jacket thickness of 62.5 μm. This fiber exhibits a fundamental mode confined in its air core with a radius of 1.5 μm. We found SL = 1.15 ppm/°C, Sn = 0.30 ppm/°C, and S = 1.45 ppm/°C (see Table 3). As expected again, because the fundamental mode in a Bragg fiber travels mostly in air this value of S is much lower than for a conventional fiber. S is comparable to the value for a PBF, and the main contribution is again the lengthening of the fiber.

6. Conclusions

The temperature sensitivity of the phase of the fundamental mode is a critical factor in the performance of interferometric fiber sensors such as the fiber optic gyroscope. This sensitivity is quantified by the parameter S, which is the relative change in phase per degree C change. This parameter is the sum of two contributions, a term due to fiber lengthening and a term due to thermal variation of the mode effective index. In an air-guiding PBF, because the fundamental mode is confined mostly in air, as opposed to silica in a conventional index-guiding fiber, we expect a lower value of the mode effective variation and therefore a reduced S, which should benefit many fiber applications.

To confirm and quantify this prediction, we first developed a thermo-mechanical model of the dependence of the fundamental-mode phase on temperature in air-core and conventional fibers, then we measured S using a Michelson interferometer in two commercial air-core fibers (from Crystal Fibre and Blaze Photonics) and a conventional fiber (Corning’s SMF28 fiber). For the SMF28 fiber, we measured S to be 8.2 ppm/°C, with the mode effective index variation being the dominant term. The corresponding values for the Crystal Fibre and Blaze Photonics fibers are 1.5 and 2.2 ppm/°C, respectively, which is substantially lower (factor of 3.6–5.3) than for the index-guiding fiber. These values are in good agreement (within 20%) with the values predicted by the model. The latter shows that the lower S of PBFs results from a drastic reduction (~100-fold) in their effective index variation, as expected at the outset. The residual thermal constant of an air-core fiber therefore arises almost entirely from the thermally induced lengthening of the fiber.

Finally, we show that with proper design of the fiber structure (thinner polymeric jacket and thicker outer cladding), S can be further reduced down to about 0.72 ppm/°C, or a factor of ~11 smaller than a conventional solid-core fiber. This greatly reduced temperature sensitivity is anticipated to have important practical benefits for many fiber sensors, especially the fiber optic gyroscope.

References and links

1. D.M. Shupe, “Thermally induced nonreciprocity in the fiber-optic interferometer,” Appl. Opt. 19, no.5, p.654–655, (1980). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

2. D.M. Shupe, “Fibre resonator gyroscope: sensitivity and thermal nonreciprocity,” Appl. Opt. 20, no.2, p.286–289, (1981). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

3. R.B. Dyott, “Reduction of the Shupe effect in fibre optic gyros; the random-wound coil,” Electron. Lett. 32, no.23, p. 2177–2178, (1996). [CrossRef]  

4. Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).

5. R.M. Christensen, “Mechanics of cellular and other low-density materials,” Int. Journ. Sol. Struct. 37, no.1 2, p. 93–104, (2000). [CrossRef]  

6. V. Dangui, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “A fast and accurate numerical tool to model the mode properties of photonic-bandgap fibers,” Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest , (2005). [CrossRef]  

7. H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004). [CrossRef]  

8. Crystal Fibre website, http://www.crystal-fibre.com.

9. Blaze Photonics website, http://www.blazephotonics.com.

10. OFS website, http://www.ofsoptics.com.

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. D.M. Shupe, “Thermally induced nonreciprocity in the fiber-optic interferometer,” Appl. Opt. 19, no.5, p.654–655, (1980).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. D.M. Shupe, “Fibre resonator gyroscope: sensitivity and thermal nonreciprocity,” Appl. Opt. 20, no.2, p.286–289, (1981).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. R.B. Dyott, “Reduction of the Shupe effect in fibre optic gyros; the random-wound coil,” Electron. Lett. 32, no.23, p. 2177–2178, (1996).
    [Crossref]
  4. Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).
  5. R.M. Christensen, “Mechanics of cellular and other low-density materials,” Int. Journ. Sol. Struct. 37, no.1 2, p. 93–104, (2000).
    [Crossref]
  6. V. Dangui, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “A fast and accurate numerical tool to model the mode properties of photonic-bandgap fibers,” Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest, (2005).
    [Crossref]
  7. H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
    [Crossref]
  8. Crystal Fibre website, http://www.crystal-fibre.com.
  9. Blaze Photonics website, http://www.blazephotonics.com.
  10. OFS website, http://www.ofsoptics.com.

2005 (1)

V. Dangui, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “A fast and accurate numerical tool to model the mode properties of photonic-bandgap fibers,” Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest, (2005).
[Crossref]

2004 (1)

H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
[Crossref]

2002 (1)

Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).

2000 (1)

R.M. Christensen, “Mechanics of cellular and other low-density materials,” Int. Journ. Sol. Struct. 37, no.1 2, p. 93–104, (2000).
[Crossref]

1996 (1)

R.B. Dyott, “Reduction of the Shupe effect in fibre optic gyros; the random-wound coil,” Electron. Lett. 32, no.23, p. 2177–2178, (1996).
[Crossref]

1981 (1)

1980 (1)

Christensen, R.M.

R.M. Christensen, “Mechanics of cellular and other low-density materials,” Int. Journ. Sol. Struct. 37, no.1 2, p. 93–104, (2000).
[Crossref]

Dangui, V.

V. Dangui, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “A fast and accurate numerical tool to model the mode properties of photonic-bandgap fibers,” Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest, (2005).
[Crossref]

Digonnet, M.J.F.

V. Dangui, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “A fast and accurate numerical tool to model the mode properties of photonic-bandgap fibers,” Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest, (2005).
[Crossref]

H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
[Crossref]

Dyott, R.B.

R.B. Dyott, “Reduction of the Shupe effect in fibre optic gyros; the random-wound coil,” Electron. Lett. 32, no.23, p. 2177–2178, (1996).
[Crossref]

Fan, S.H.

H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
[Crossref]

Kim, H.K.

H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
[Crossref]

Kino, G.S.

V. Dangui, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “A fast and accurate numerical tool to model the mode properties of photonic-bandgap fibers,” Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest, (2005).
[Crossref]

H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
[Crossref]

Liu, H.

Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).

Liu, J.

Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).

Shin, J.

H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
[Crossref]

Shupe, D.M.

Zhang, C.

Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).

Zhao, Y.

Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).

Appl. Opt. (2)

Electron. Lett. (1)

R.B. Dyott, “Reduction of the Shupe effect in fibre optic gyros; the random-wound coil,” Electron. Lett. 32, no.23, p. 2177–2178, (1996).
[Crossref]

IEEE J. Quantum Electron. (1)

H.K. Kim, J. Shin, S.H. Fan, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “Designing air-core photonic-bandgap fibers free of surface modes,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40, 551–556, (2004).
[Crossref]

Int. Journ. Sol. Struct. (1)

R.M. Christensen, “Mechanics of cellular and other low-density materials,” Int. Journ. Sol. Struct. 37, no.1 2, p. 93–104, (2000).
[Crossref]

Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest (1)

V. Dangui, M.J.F. Digonnet, and G.S. Kino, “A fast and accurate numerical tool to model the mode properties of photonic-bandgap fibers,” Optical Fiber Conference Technical Digest, (2005).
[Crossref]

Semiconductor Electronics (1)

Y. Zhao, J. Liu, C. Zhang, and H. Liu, “Fiber optic gyroscope sensing coils and their winding method,” Semiconductor Electronics 23, no. 5, p. 312–314, (2002).

Other (3)

Crystal Fibre website, http://www.crystal-fibre.com.

Blaze Photonics website, http://www.blazephotonics.com.

OFS website, http://www.ofsoptics.com.

Cited By

OSA participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (9)

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Cross-section of a cylindrical fiber with an air core, a honeycomb cladding, an outer glass cladding, and a jacket.
Fig. 2:
Fig. 2: Computed radial deformation as a function of distance from fiber center for the Crystal Fibre PBF. The inset is a magnification of the radial deformation over the inner cladding honeycomb.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Computed dependence of S, Sn , and SL on the normalized core radius for an air-core fiber (solid curves) and for an SMF28 fiber (reference levels) at 1.5 μm.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. SEM photographs of the two PBFs tested in this work.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Experimental Michelson interferometer used to measure (a) the thermal constant of individual fibers; and (b) the error in the fringe count due to residual heating of the non-PBF portions of the interferometer.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Measured (a) output power Pout (t) and (b) temperature T(t) for the Blaze Photonics fiber.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. SL vs. acrylate jacket thickness for a PBF with the same crystal period and core radius as the Blaze Photonics PBF (see Table 2) but different air filling ratios.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. Calculated SL for the same fiber structure as the Blaze Photonics PBF but different jacket material and thickness. The reference value (in green) was calculated for the actual manufactured PBF, which has a 50-μm acrylate jacket.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. Calculated dependence of SL on the silica outer cladding thickness.

Tables (3)

Tables Icon

Table 1. Thermal and mechanical properties of the fiber materials

Tables Icon

Table 2. Physical parameters of the test fibers

Tables Icon

Table 3. Measured and predicted values of S, SL , and Sn for four different fibers

Equations (17)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

S = 1 ϕ dT ,
ϕ = 2 π n eff L λ
S = 1 ϕ dT = 1 L dL dT + 1 n eff d n eff dT = S L + S n
Δ ϕ = 2 π n eff λ S 0 L Δ T ( t l v , l ) dl
Δ ϕ = 2 π n eff λ S 0 L [ Δ T ( t l v , l ) Δ T ( t L v + l v , l ) ] dl
{ E T = 3 2 ( 1 η ) 3 E 0 E L = ( 1 η ) E 0 v T = 1 v L = v 0
u ( r ) = [ u r ( r ) 0 u z ( z ) ]
ε = [ ε rr = u r r ε θθ = u r r ε zz = u z z ]
ε = s : σ + α Δ T
u z ( z ) = Cz
2 u r r 2 + 1 r u r r u r r 2 = 0 ,
u r ( r ) = Ar + B r
a 0 a M 0 2 π σ zz ( r , θ , z = ± L 2 ) dr = 0
σ zz , h A h + σ zz , cl A cl + σ zz , J A J = 0 ,
S L = Δ L L Δ T = ε zz Δ T A h E h α h + A cl E cl α cl + A J E J α J A h E h + A cl E cl + A J E J
S L A cl E cl α cl + A J E J α J A cl E cl = α cl + A J A cl E J E cl α J
S = Δ ϕ 4 π n eff L Δ L λ Number of fringes 2 n eff L Δ T λ

Metrics