Reducing radiation losses of one-dimensional

photonic-crystal reflectors on a silica waveguide

Wei Ding,* Rong-Juan Liu, and Zhi-Yuan Li
Laboratory of Optical Physics, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100190, China
*wding@iphy.ac.cn

Abstract: Interferometric behaviours in radiation generation process of a

one-dimensional photonic-crystal (PhC) reflector are investigated on a silica
waveguide. An analytical model, which can calculate total radiation losses, is
presented after analysing eigen-mode properties and radiation pattern
characteristics. Our model takes into account the interference of component
radiated waves generated at interfaces between different waveguide sections
and is verified by comparing with numerical simulations of periodic and
non-periodic one-dimensional PhC reflectors. Its capability to quickly find
minimum-radiation tapering geometries helps circumvent time-consuming
numerical simulations. Our model negates the conventional knowledge that a
gradually tapered transition from uniform waveguide to PhC waveguide
yields lower radiation loss. In one example, the gradually tapered transition
produces 2.3dB more radiation than the optimum geometry.
2012 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (230.5298) Photonic crystals; (250.5300) Photonic integrated circuits; (130.2790)
Guided waves.

References and links

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

K. J. Vahala, Optical microcavities, Nature 424(6950), 839846 (2003).

H. Mabuchi and A. C. Doherty, Cavity quantum electrodynamics: coherence in context, Science 298(5597),
13721377 (2002).
E. Yablonovitch, Inhibited spontaneous emission in solid-state physics and electronics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58(20),
20592062 (1987).
S. T. Chu, B. E. Little, W. Pan, T. Kaneko, S. Sato, and Y. Kokubun, An eight-channel add-drop filter using
vertically coupled microring resonators over a cross grid, IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 11(6), 691693 (1999).
A. M. Armani, R. P. Kulkarni, S. E. Fraser, R. C. Flagan, and K. J. Vahala, Label-free, single-molecule detection
with optical microcavities, Science 317(5839), 783787 (2007).
M. Eichenfield, R. Camacho, J. Chan, K. J. Vahala, and O. Painter, A picogram- and nanometre-scale
photonic-crystal optomechanical cavity, Nature 459(7246), 550555 (2009).
D. K. Armani, T. J. Kippenberg, S. M. Spillane, and K. J. Vahala, Ultra-high-Q toroid microcavity on a chip,
Nature 421(6926), 925928 (2003).
S. Ogawa, M. Imada, S. Yoshimoto, M. Okano, and S. Noda, Control of light emission by 3D photonic crystals,
Science 305(5681), 227229 (2004).
O. Painter, R. K. Lee, A. Scherer, A. Yariv, J. D. OBrien, P. D. Dapkus, and I. Kim, Two-dimensional photonic
band-Gap defect mode laser, Science 284(5421), 18191821 (1999).
P. R. Villeneuve, J. S. Foresi, J. Ferrera, E. R. Thoen, G. Steinmeyer, S. Fan, J. D. Joannopoulos, L. C. Kimerling,
H. I. Smith, and E. P. Ippen, Photonic-bandgap microcavities in optical waveguides, Nature 390(6656), 143145
(1997).
Y. Akahane, T. Asano, B. S. Song, and S. Noda, High-Q photonic nanocavity in a two-dimensional photonic
crystal, Nature 425(6961), 944947 (2003).
B. S. Song, S. Noda, T. Asano, and Y. Akahane, Ultra-high-Q photonic double-heterostructure nanocavity, Nat.
Mater. 4(3), 207210 (2005).
P. B. Deotare, M. W. McCutcheon, I. W. Frank, M. Khan, and M. Loncar, High quality factor photonic crystal
nanobeam cavities, Appl. Phys. Lett. 94(12), 121106 (2009).
M. Notomi, E. Kuramochi, and H. Taniyama, Ultrahigh-Q nanocavity with 1D photonic gap, Opt. Express
16(15), 1109511102 (2008).
M. W. McCutcheon and M. Loncar, Design of a silicon nitride photonic crystal nanocavity with a Quality factor
of one million for coupling to a diamond nanocrystal, Opt. Express 16(23), 1913619145 (2008).

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28641

16. A. R. Md Zain, N. P. Johnson, M. Sorel, and R. M. De La Rue, Ultra high quality factor one dimensional photonic
crystal/photonic wire micro-cavities in silicon-on-insulator (SOI), Opt. Express 16(16), 1208412089 (2008).
17. Q. Quan, P. B. Deotare, and M. Loncar, Photonic crystal nanobeam cavity strongly coupled to the feeding
waveguide, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96(20), 203102 (2010).
18. Y. Gong and J. Vukovi, Photonic crystal cavities in silicon dioxide, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96(3), 031107 (2010).
19. Q. Quan, I. B. Burgess, S. K. Y. Tang, D. L. Floyd, and M. Loncar, High-Q, low index-contrast polymeric
photonic crystal nanobeam cavities, Opt. Express 19(22), 2219122197 (2011).
20. J. Goh, I. Fushman, D. Englund, and J. Vukov, Genetic optimization of photonic bandgap structures, Opt.
Express 15(13), 8218 (2007).
21. O. Dorn and D. Lesselier, Level set methods for inverse scattering, Inverse Probl. 22(4), R67R131 (2006).
22. S. G. Johnson, S. Fan, A. Mekis, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Multipole-cancellation mechanism for high-Q cavities
in the absence of a complete photonic band gap, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78(22), 33883390 (2001).
23. K. Srinivasan and O. Painter, Momentum space design of high-Q photonic crystal optical cavities, Opt. Express
10(15), 670684 (2002).
24. P. Lalanne and J. P. Hugonin, Bloch-wave engineering for high-Q, small-V microcavities, IEEE J. Quantum
Electron. 39(11), 14301438 (2003).
25. K. O. Hill, Y. Fujii, D. C. Johnson, and B. S. Kawasaki, Photosensitivity in optical fiber waveguides: application
to reflection filter fabrication, Appl. Phys. Lett. 32(10), 647649 (1978).
26. A. W. Snyder and J. E. Love, Optical Waveguide Theory (Chapman and Hall, 1983).
27. J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, J. N. Winn, and R. D. Meade, Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light
(Second Edition) (Princeton University Press, 2008).
28. Z. Y. Li and L. L. Lin, Photonic band structures solved by a plane-wave-based transfer-matrix method, Phys.
Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 67(4), 046607 (2003).
29. Jr. P. G. Suchoski and V. Ramaswamy, Exact numerical technique for the analysis of step discontinuities and
tapers in optical dielectric waveguides, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3(2), 194203 (1986).
30. T. Erdogan, Fiber grating spectra, J. Lightwave Technol. 15(8), 12771294 (1997).
31. A. Yariv, Optical Electronics in Modern Communications (Oxford University Press, 1997).
32. A. Mekis, J. C. Chen, I. Kurland, S. H. Fan, P. R. Villeneuve, and J. D. Joannopoulos, High transmission through
sharp bends in photonic crystal waveguides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(18), 37873790 (1996).
33. P. Lalanne, S. Mias, and J. P. Hugonin, Two physical mechanisms for boosting the quality factor to cavity volume
ratio of photonic crystal microcavities, Opt. Express 12(3), 458467 (2004).

1. Introduction
Optical cavities, which confine light by resonant recirculation [1], are essential for enhanced
light-matter interactions and have a lot of applications in cavity quantum electrodynamics [2],
enhancement/suppression of spontaneous emissions [3], filters [4], biochemical sensing [5],
opto-mechanics [6], to name just a few. Based on non-dissipative dielectric materials, optical
cavities can be implemented either by continuous total internal reflections in a whispering
gallery geometry [7] or by photonic band gap (PBG) effects in a photonic crystal (PhC)
structure [8]. Whereas the former enables ultrahigh cavity quality factor (Q-factor), which
defines the light residence time inside the cavity in unit of the optical period, the latter has the
merit of small cavity mode volume (V). In order to retain the high Q-factor property in the PhC
version of optical cavities, the PhC reflectors, which form the boundaries of the cavities, must
eliminate all the light escape out of the cavities (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Schematic of a PhC cavity which is surrounded by two PhC reflectors. The presence of
the PhC reflectors not only leads to light recirculation inside the cavity but also results in light
radiation out of the waveguide.

Efforts of searching ideal PhC reflectors accompanies with the development of high-Q PhC
cavities, from three-dimension (3D) [8] to two-dimension (2D) [9] and then to one-dimension
(1D) [10]. The first high-Q (~106) PhC cavity was demonstrated in a 2D slab [11,12] with the
out-of-plane light confinement implemented by total internal reflections and the in-plane light

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28642

confinements by PBGs. Similarly, in 1D PhC cavities, also known as nanobeam structures [13],
it is also the total internal reflection that takes charge of the light confinements in two
perpendicular directions. When PhC reflectors evolve from 3D to 2D, the improved fabrication
quality leads to a rise of Q-factors of PhC cavities. When PhC reflectors evolve from 2D to 1D,
device footprints shrink dramatically, PhC forbidden bands become attainable in low-index
waveguides. However, besides these beneficial consequences, with the decrease of the PhC
dimension, additional light leakages of PhC reflectors appear via radiation, which is
unavoidable for total internal reflection light confinements (see Fig. 1). Extra efforts must be
paid to lower this loss in low-dimensional PhC reflectors [1113].
From the viewpoint of applications, further advances of 1D PhC cavities are driven by three
goals: higher Q-factors for enhanced light-matter interactions [14,15], higher on-line
transmissions at resonance for good coupling from feeding waveguides to cavities [16,17], and
lower refractive index of the waveguide material for expanded field profiles of guided modes
[18,19]. For all these goals, the common challenge is how to reduce the radiation loss of the 1D
PhC reflectors, which form the boundaries of the cavity in Fig. 1. This paper focuses on
studying the radiation generation process in a 1D PhC reflector on a low-index (silica)
waveguide. In order to minimize geometrical complexities and highlight physics, we rule out
the cavity structures in this work and concentrate on a slab waveguide with one dimension
infinitely long. The study to more practical devices with cavity geometry and 3D dimension
will be demonstrated elsewhere. The general conclusion is same with this paper.
Although the radiation process has been intensively studied in the context of PhC cavities,
most investigations either are pure mathematical [20,21] or rely on a posteriori information of
global cavity mode profiles [22,23]. The physics-inspired Fabry-Perot picture sometimes leads
to incorrect predictions, for example to the abnormal Q-factor variation in Ref [24]. The
geometry complexity of the PhC cavity may obscure the essence of the radiation process. We
believe it is deserved to go back to the simpler structure of 1D PhC reflector, especially in the
context of low-index waveguides, to clarify the radiation generation process.
Below, in section 2, we first give the design rules of our 1D PhC reflectors, and then give
the calculations of the eigen-modes of the PhC waveguide segments. In section 3, numerical
simulations to the radiation losses of periodic 1D PhC reflectors are followed by discussions of
their oscillatory natures. In section 4, an analytical model reflecting the interferometric
characters of the radiation process is proposed. We corroborate and apply this model in a
variety of 1D PhC reflectors, including periodic and non-periodic ones. The limitation of our
model is also discussed. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.
2. Design rules and eigen-mode calculations
Our task is to construct a 1D PhC reflector in a low-index slab waveguide with compact sizes.
Size compactness distinguishes a micron-scaled PhC reflector from a millimeter-scaled fiber
Bragg grating based on UV-photosensitivity [25]. Device compactness is also a requirement of
practical nanofabrication techniques, which cannot keep high resolutions over a large number
of periods. For our 1D PhC reflectors, the size compactness, however, constitutes a challenge
because of the low refractive index of the waveguide material and the narrow PBG arising
therefrom. Figure 2 plots the photonic band structure of a silica/air quarter wave plate stack and
that of a silicon/air quarter wave plate stack. The PBG of the former is much narrower and
shallower, implying that a PhC reflector based on a silica waveguide requires more number of
periods to overcome light evanescent couplings through it (see Fig. 1). In contrast, a PhC
reflector based on a silicon waveguide can inhibit light evanescent couplings very easily even
setting working wavelengths close to the edges of PBG [17]. The first design rule of our 1D
PhC reflectors is, therefore, to set the working wavelength ( = 1.55m in this work) to the
center of the PBGs for all the PhC segments, which form the PhC reflector, to keep the device
compact. Note that, in 1D situation, low refractive index of the waveguide material still allows
a complete PBG to open.

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28643

Fig. 2. Photonic band structures of (a) a silica/air quarter wave plate stack and (b) a silicon/air
quarter wave plate stack. The real [Re(k)] and the imaginary () parts of the wave vectors are
plotted in different colors (black and red respectively). The gray shadow areas represent the
PBGs. The inserts are the schematics of the wave plate stacks. nSilica = 1.46, nSilicon = 3.46.

The second design rule arises from peoples quests for both high Q-factors and high
transmissions at resonance in cavity applications. In the Fabry-Perot picture [24], when two
PhC reflectors form a cavity, the Q-factor of the cavity is determined by two factors: the light
evanescent coupling through the reflectors and the light radiative scattering at the ends of the
cavity waveguide (i.e. the radiation loss on the side of the PhC reflector facing the cavity, Fig.
1). In the language of Q-factor, the reciprocal of the total Q-factor equals to the sum of the
reciprocals of two Q-factor components ( Q1 QC 1 QR 1 , with QC and QR being
coupling-induced and radiation-induced Q-factors respectively). Here, the Q-factor represents
the ratio of the stored energy inside the cavity to the loss per cycle. Reducing radiation losses of
the 1D PhC reflector helps improve the radiation-induced Q-factor and benefits the total
Q-factors of the cavity. On the other hand, when light is fed from the outer waveguide, effective
light excitation inside the cavity occurs only when the radiation loss on the side of the PhC
reflector facing the outer waveguide (see Fig. 1) is smaller than the evanescent coupling
efficiency from the feeding waveguide to the cavity. Reducing radiation losses of 1D PhC
reflectors gives rise to a high transmission at resonance of the PhC cavity as Ref [16]. points
out. Altogether, in the context of the PhC cavity application, a high Q-factor requires a
low-radiation design of the PhC reflector facing the cavity, and a high transmission at
resonance requires a low-radiation design facing the feeding waveguide. Our second design
rule of the PhC reflector is, therefore, the mirror symmetry of the PhC reflector with both sides
having low radiation properties.
Figure 3(a) plots the schematic of a 1D PhC reflector in a silica slab waveguide (with the
y-direction infinitely long). The working wavelength = 1.55m, the refractive index of silica n
= 1.46, the environment is air, the excitation mode is transverse magnetic (TM, with Ex, Ez, and
Hy nonzero), and the waveguide width 2a = 1.4m < 1.457m is determined by the single even
mode criterion 2a n2 1 [26] for removing multi-mode plagues. The 1D PhC reflector
consists of one row of elliptical holes with the period to be and the transverse (longitudinal)
diameter to be w (t).
Applying plane-wave expansion methods and Bloch boundary conditions [27,28] to one
PhC segment, defined by the dashed lines in Fig. 3(a), Fig. 3(b) plots the wave vector diagram.
All the geometrical parameters are listed in the caption. Note that the elliptical hole locates in
the center of the PhC waveguide segment, and adjacent PhC segments are in connection with
each other via the unaltered waveguide part, not via the air hole. In Fig. 3(b), a PBG (~17% for
the ratio of the gap width to the midgap) appears at the edge of the Brillouin zone under the air
light cone (the gray area). Inside this PBG, the wave vector of the Bloch mode is a complex
number with the real part to be

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

and the imaginary part to be . When we adjust the period

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28644

of the PhC segment, , to 0.664m, the center of the PBG moves to the working wavelength as
the design rule 1 requires. We do this -adjustment work for a number of parameters of (w, t)
and plot all the upper/lower edges of the PBG (the red/blue squares) in Fig. 3(c). It is seen that
the widest PBG occurs when the elliptical hole is the widest and the longitudinal diameter of
the hole, t, roughly equals to one quarter of the wavelength, which coincides with the fact that
quarter wave plate stacks have the widest PBGs. Following our preceding analysis, the wider
the PBG, the greater the imaginary part of the wave vector, , in the center of the PBG, the
faster the evanescent decay of the Bloch mode, and the more compact the 1D PhC reflector. In
Fig. 3(c), it is also seen that, for each value of w, there are two ts having the same band gap
width (one in the green area, the other in the yellow area). A detailed study shows that the one
in the green area has a smaller period , corresponding to a longer distance from the PBG to the
air light cone in the wave vector diagram of Fig. 3(b), which is favorable for reducing radiation
losses. In the following calculations, we restrict the parameter t within 0 to 0.4 m. In this
region, t, , PBG width, and vary monotonically.

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic of a 1D PhC reflector in a silica slab waveguide. The geometrical
parameters, the coordinate, and the polarization direction are defined in the picture. (b) Wave
vector diagram of a periodic PhC segment with w = 1.3m, t = 0.4m, and = 0.664m. The
gray area is the air light cone, and the dashed line represents the working wavelength. (c) The
upper (red squares) and the lower (blue squares) edges of the PBGs as a function of the
parameters w and t. The values of w are 0.1/0.3/0.5/0.7/0.9/1.1/1.3m respectively.

Besides PBG widths, eigen-mode calculations of this section also provide information
about the period of the PhC segment () and the decay rate of the Bloch mode (). All these
information will be used in the following calculations to the radiation loss.
3. Radiation-loss simulations
Radiation loss of a 1D PhC reflector can be accurately obtained by numerical methods. We
carry out finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations by sending a modulated guided
wave towards the tested PhC reflector and monitoring its transmission and reflection. Before
and after the wave arrives at the PhC reflector, it respectively travels through one piece of
uniform waveguide with the length greater than 30 microns to guarantee true single mode in the
interested region.
The blue (green) curve in Fig. 4(c) gives the simulated transmission (reflection) of a 1D
PhC reflector with w = 1.3m, t = 0.2m, = 0.614m, N = 9, whose schematic is depicted in
Fig. 4(a). Based on these results, the radiation loss is derived (Rad = 1 Tran Refl) and plotted
in black. The increase of the radiation loss with the decrease of the wavelength coincides with

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28645

the fact that the upper branch in Fig. 3(b) crosses the air light cone. In Fig. 4(c), we also plot the
radiation loss (in red) of another 9-period PhC reflector [depicted in Fig. 4(b)] with w = 0.7m,
t = 0.4m, = 0.626m. The radiation loss of the second PhC reflector is greater than that of
the first one. Since the eigen-mode calculations in section 2 have proven these two PhC
reflectors have the same PBG width [see the two black circles in Fig. 3(c)], so that the similar
photonic band structure, the discrepancy of their radiation losses should be ascribed to their
different hole shapes. In a light ray picture, the input light rays in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) are
reflected to different directions with the former falling inside and the latter outside the total
internal reflection angle range. A prolate elliptical hole looks more preferred for resisting
radiation losses, especially when the total internal reflection angle is small in a low-index
waveguide. Below, we set all the elliptical hole widths to be 1.3m [the bold lines in Fig. 3(c)]
to ensure the prolate hole shape as much as possible. This unified choice of w makes our PhC
reflectors more like the ladder structure [6,14,18,19], rather than the circular hole structure
[13,1517] where w varies.

Fig. 4. Schematics of two 9-period PhC reflectors having (a) prolate (1.3m 0.2m) and (b)
oblate (0.7m 0.4m) elliptical holes respectively. These two PhC reflectors have the same
PBG width as the black circles in Fig. 3(c) indicate. The red arrows represent the input and the
reflected light rays. (c) Simulated transmission (blue) and reflection (green) curves of the PhC
reflector in (a). The black and the red curves are the derived radiation losses of the two PhC
reflectors. The vertical gray line is the working wavelength.

We apply FDTD simulations to a range of periodic 1D PhC reflectors and plot their
radiation losses at the working wavelength [the values denoted by the black circles in Fig. 4(c)]
into one diagram of Fig. 5(a). As expected, when the thickness of the elliptical hole, t, increases
from 0.05m to 0.4m, light is radiated out of the waveguide more intensely due to the
decrease of the hole ellipticity. However, the striking feature of Fig. 5(a) is that with the
increase of the period number of PhC reflectors, the radiation losses oscillate periodically,
which means adding PhC segments sometimes does not give rise to more radiations and some
route exists for coupling radiated-out lights back to the waveguide. The periodic oscillations
also imply an interferometric character in the radiation generation process. To the best of our
knowledge, this oscillatory feature of the radiation loss at one fixed working wavelength has
not been systematically studied in the context of 1D PhC reflectors. Analyses to it will help
understand the radiation generation process and help design low-radiation PhC structures,
especially on a low-index waveguide. Setting t = 0.1m, Fig. 5(c) further plots the radiation
losses of one PhC reflector at three different working wavelengths, all lying inside the PBG.
The oscillatory features appear again. With the increase of the working wavelength, the
oscillation period shortens.

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28646

Fig. 5. (a) Simulated and (b) calculated total radiation losses of periodic 1D PhC reflectors as a
function of the number of periods. w = 1.3m, t = 0.05/0.1/0.15/0.2/0.25/0.3/0.35/0.4m, and =
1.55m. The y-axes in (a) and (b) are both logarithmic and span 22.2dB. (c) Simulated radiation
losses at three different working wavelengths for the 1D PhC reflector with w = 1.3m and t =
0.1m. The gray vertical lines in all the plots denote the periods of the oscillations.

4. Modeling
For a 1D PhC reflector consisting of one row of elliptical holes, it is hypothesized that the total
radiation is composed of component radiated waves from individual holes. Our analysis starts
from considering the perturbation of an infinitely thin elliptical hole to a uniform waveguide as
depicted in the inset of Fig. 6. The presence of this perturbation gives rise to energy coupling
from guided waves to radiated waves. Omitting the coupling to the backward radiated waves,
which has been verified in a lot of literatures [29], Fig. 6 plots the transverse coupling
coefficient [30] from the guided wave ( e(G ) ) to the forward radiated waves ( e( R ) ) in a silica
slab waveguide,

Kt

w
2
w

( x) ex (G ) ( x) [ex ( R ) ( x)]* dx,

(1)

where the permittivity perturbation 0 (1 1.462 ) is assumed to be constant in the region

w w
, ] , and the eigen-modes of the guided and the radiated waves are normalized by
2 2
their z-directional Poynting flux (see Appendix). Figure 6 shows that most radiations distribute
in one angular range around one tilting direction . This characteristic will be utilized in the
following.
x [

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28647

Fig. 6. Transverse coupling coefficients from the guided wave to the forward-radiated waves in a
slab silica waveguide (2a = 1.4m). The coupling is caused by an infinitely thin elliptical hole
with w = 1.3m. The inset shows the schematic.

In the schematic of Fig. 7(a), for a periodic 1D PhC reflector, each component radiated
wave coming from one elliptical hole has the same titling angle. Their sum should take into
account their relative phases and amplitudes. The phase differences originate from the different
wave vectors between the radiated waves (k0, the wave vector of free space) and the guided
Bloch wave ( ). And the amplitude differences are due to the evanescent decay of the
guided Bloch wave () inside the PhC waveguide. It seems the former gives rise to the
oscillation of the total radiation loss shown in Fig. 5, and the latter explains the damping of
these oscillation evolutions. In order to test the first statement, the oscillation periods are

derived as 2 [ ( k cos )] 2 [1 (2 cos )] and denoted in Figs. 5(a) and 5(c) with the

vertical gray lines. Here, the values obtained in section 2 are used, and the calculation agrees
well with the simulated curves. As the thickness of the elliptical hole, t, increases, the period of
the PhC segment, , increases, leading to the increase of the oscillation period in Fig. 5(a).
Similarly, as the working wavelength blue-shifts, the oscillation period increases as well [see
Fig. 5(c)]. In all the calculations, the tilting angle is assumed to be constant.

Fig. 7. Schematics of radiation generation processes occurring in a periodic 1D PhC reflector.

In above derivation of the oscillation period formula, we assume the guided Bloch wave
decays exponentially inside the PhC waveguide. Although this assumption is questionable, it

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28648

brings a mathematical convenience that the amplitudes of the component radiated waves
constitute a geometric sequence and the total radiation can be added up to two terms. In physics,
this implies that all the radiated waves actually only occur at two end interfaces of the PhC
waveguide, and the evolution formation of the guided Bloch wave inside the PhC waveguide
does not matter indeed [24]. This understanding makes our treatments easier and enables us to
focus attentions to the interfaces of PhC waveguides, as Fig. 7(b) shows.
Actually, inside the PhC waveguide, the guided Bloch wave experiences an energy
exchange process with its counter-directional Bloch wave [31]. The coupling equations of the
forward (Af) and the backward (Ab) guided waves

dAf
Ab

dz
,

dAb * A
f
dz

(2)

Af (0) cos h[ ( z L)] Ab ( L) * sin h( z )

Af ( z )
cos h( L)

Af (0) sin h[ ( z L)] Ab ( L) cos h( z )

Ab ( z )
cos h( L)

(3)

and their solutions

show that the coupling coefficient can be used to solve the amplitudes of the forward and
the backward guided waves in any position. Inside the PBG, is a negative real number with
the absolute value to be the imaginary part of the wave vector of the Bloch mode, , (see section
2). When a forward guided Bloch wave impinges upon the interfaces of z = 0 and z = L, a
backward guided Bloch wave impinges upon the interface of z = 0. All these impingings lead
to radiated waves in their forward tilting directions, as depicted in Fig. 7(c).
From Eq. (2), we further argue that, different with the real part of the wave vector, the
imaginary part of the wave vector of the guided Bloch wave should not be looked upon as an
intrinsic quantity. The decay of the Bloch wave is actually a composite process and can be split
to one energy exchange process, described by Eq. (2), and one phase lagging process, described
by the propagation constant. The rate of the energy exchange is actually determined by the
amplitude of another guided Bloch wave, not of itself. And, the energy exchange process
occurs over one distance of waveguide, not in one specific point. While, as Figs. 7(b) and 7(c)
claim, any radiation is generated at some interface. In our following analyses to the radiation
loss, we only consider the propagation constant of the guided wave, no matter it is propagating
or evanescent.
Till now, our description of a radiated wave is still according to its angular direction, which
is inconvenient. Exploiting the characteristic that most radiation distributes in one narrow
angular range, we convert the finite angular spread (full angle) of a radiated wave to the
finite beam width x of a non-divergent radiated beam [see Fig. 7(d)]. The relationship of
k x '
1
and x can be attained via the formula, k x ' x ' 0
(uncertainty principle),
2

2 3

with the bar symbol standing for the standard deviation and the prime symbol representing the
direction perpendicular to the tilting angle. The inversely proportional relationship of and
x can also be understood in the context of a Gaussian beam having a finite angular spread and
a finite beam waist. This is a critical simplification of our model and enables us to deal with the
interferences of component radiated beams by more intuitive spatial overlaps. Figure 7(d)
illustrates that the oscillations of the total radiation losses exhibited in Fig. 5 are determined by
two factors: the relative phases and amplitudes of beam 1 and 2, and the extent of their spatial
#174969 - $15.00 USD
(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28649

overlapping. Beam 3 in the backward tilting direction contributes to the total radiation
non-interferometrically. Inspecting the details of the oscillation evolutions in Fig. 5 is a test to
the verification of our model.
Before applying the model, an accurate estimate to the radiation angular spread, , is
required. We launch a FDTD simulation to a 1D PhC reflector and plot the radiation pattern in
Fig. 8. All the geometrical parameters are given out in the caption. The estimated value of
8.4 gives rise to the beam width x ' 5.8 m and the beam width in the z-direction
[defined in Fig. 7(d)] x

x '
cos

6 m , with 15 . Comparing with the result in Fig. 6,

which is from general coupled-mode theory, Fig. 8 provides more precise information about the
characteristics of the radiation pattern.

Fig. 8. FDTD simulated radiation pattern of a 1D PhC reflector with w = 1.3m, t = 0.1m, and
N = 4. The inset shows the schematic.

Making use of the quantities obtained in section 2 ( and of PhC segments) and the
parameters 15 , x 6 m , we carry out calculations to the total radiation losses of the
periodic PhC reflectors. First, the amplitudes of the forward and the backward guided Bloch
waves at both ends of one PhC reflector are obtained by using Eq. (3). The amplitudes of the
component radiated beams are proportional to these values. Second, the relative phases of the
component radiated beams are solved by using the parameters and . The phase difference
between beam 1 and beam 2 need add one additional because of the reverse changes of the
propagation constant at two interfaces (one is from a high-index wave to a low-index wave and
the other reverses). Third, the spatial overlap between beam 1 and beam 2 is solved by using ,
x and . Outside the overlap region, the lights in two beams contribute to the total radiation
loss non-interferometrically; inside the overlap, the lights from two beams interfere with each
other. When beam 1 and beam 2 are coherently out of phase, the light radiated out from the
input interface can be coupled back into the waveguide via the route of the spatial overlap.
Finally, beam 3 is added to the total radiation loss non-interferometrically. Figure 5(b) plots the
calculated radiation losses of a variety of periodic 1D PhC reflectors. The results agree well
with the simulation in Fig. 5(a) in terms of the oscillation period, the damping speed of the
oscillation, the initial phase of the oscillation evolution, and the relative intensity of different
curves. Forward tilted radiations are only produced at the input and the output interfaces. As the
distance of these two interfaces increases, the amplitude difference of beam 1 and beam 2
increases, and the spatial overlap between them decreases. Both these two factors determine the
damping speed of the oscillation curves in Fig. 5. Simultaneously, as the PhC reflector becomes
longer, the backward radiation component strengthens, which causes the base of the oscillation
curves raise. All these features are clearly presented in our calculated curves, matching well
#174969 - $15.00 USD
(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28650

with the simulations. This undoubtedly proves that our analytical model correctly embodies the
interferometric nature in the radiation process. In calculations, we use the same and x for all
the PhC reflectors because of their same elliptical hole widths (w = 1.3m). The insensitivity of
these two parameters, and x, with regard to the elliptical hole thickness (t) also implies that
our model may be applicable in more complicated structures, for example non-periodic 1D PhC
reflectors.
Obeying the design rules 1 and 2 in section 2, we construct a non-periodic 1D PhC reflector
depicted in the schematic of Fig. 9. The whole reflector consists of eleven PhC segments with
each having a PBG centered at the working wavelength = 1.55m. The PhC segments in the
middle region compose one uniform PhC waveguide section with t = 0.4m, whose relatively
wide PBG (see Fig. 3) enables the whole PhC reflector to well resist light evanescent couplings.
At two ends of the PhC reflector, one or two PhC segments are tapered in order to reduce the
radiation loss of the whole reflector.
In case 1, we let one PhC segment tapered with the thickness of the elliptical hole varied
within t1 [0,0.4] m . We model this problem by splitting the whole PhC reflector to three
uniform PhC waveguide sections. At the interfaces of these waveguide sections, the directions
and the relative phases of the component radiated beams are derived by using and 15 .
The amplitudes of the forward and the backward guided Bloch waves at these interfaces are
also calculated. Equation (3) is converted to its matrix form

Af ( z ) cos h( z ) sin h( z ) Af (0)

Af (0)
A ( z ) sin h( z ) cos h( z ) A (0) M A (0) ,
b
b
b

(4)

and is used in series through different waveguide sections. The amplitudes of the component
radiated beams are estimated by assuming they are proportional to the amplitudes of the guided

) (

) . Here,
Bloch waves and are proportional to the Fresnel coefficient (
in

out

in

out

in ( out ) is the period of the PhC segment before (after) the interface, and the Fresnel
coefficient reflects the influence of the change of the propagation constant across the interface.
Estimating radiation amplitudes with Fresnel coefficient has been widely used in propagating
wave cases [32]. We extend this approach to evanescent Bloch waves based on our preceding
arguments to the propagating and the evanescent guided Bloch waves. Next, the spatial
overlaps between component radiated beams are solved by using , x and . The total
radiation losses are summed up by counting interferences inside these overlap regions. Note
that, interferences occur in both forward and backward tilting directions. Finally, Fig. 9(a) plots
the calculated radiation losses (solid line) with t1 [0,0.4] m , the minimum is found at
t1 0.165 m . We compare with the simulated result (square symbols), whose minimum is at
t1 0.18 m . The minimums of two curves appear in nearly same places. In contrast to the
calculation, the FDTD simulation takes much longer time to find this optimal t1. Note that the
discrepancy of the calculation and the simulation with regard to their line shapes may attribute
to the simplification in our model, which omits the radiation in directions outside the tilting
angular ranges.
In case 2, two PhC segments at the ends of the 1D PhC reflector are tapered. The whole
reflector is split to five uniform waveguide sections (see the schematic in Fig. 9). Following the
same procedure described above, Fig. 9(b) plots the calculated radiation losses with the
variations of t1 and t2 ( [0,0.4] m ). The minimum radiation loss occurs at ( t1 0.26 m ,
t2 0.04 m ). Similarly, FDTD simulations [Fig. 9(c)] find the minimum radiation loss at
( t1 0.28 m , t2 0.05 m ), very close to the calculated result. Again, much less time is taken
for our analytical model to find this minimum-radiation point. A striking feature in Fig. 9(b) is

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28651

that the minimum radiation appears at t1 t2 . This is against the conventional wisdom that a
gradually tapered transition from a uniform waveguide to a PhC waveguide ( t1 t2 ) yields the
lower radiation according to the impedance matching of the local guided modal profile. If we
0.4 m
0.4 m
define a progressive tapering ( t1
, t2 2
) by linearly varying t from the
3

uniform waveguide section (t = 0) to the PhC waveguide section (t = 0.4m), the monotonic
relationship between t and the PBG width (Fig. 3) ensures the local guided modal profile
changes gradually in the transition region. We label this geometry by a red cross in Fig. 9 and
verify with FDTD simulations that the progressively tapered PhC reflector ( t1 t2 ) produces
2.3dB more radiation loss than the geometry found by our model ( t1 t2 ). This result means
that, by shrinking the second elliptical hole, the relative phases of the radiation components
generated at different interfaces acquire some kind of distribution, which causes most radiation
components to cancel out with each other. On the other hand, with a progressively tapered
transition, although the amplitude of every radiation component reduces, their relative phases
make them interfere constructively. In a PhC reflector on a low-index waveguide, the
interferometric effect dominates the radiation process because of comparable amplitudes of
radiation components. Exploiting this interferometric effect, we can lower the total radiation
loss. Altogether, the success of finding the minimum-radiation non-periodic PhC reflector is
another verification to our analytical model. We merely consider the radiation components in
two narrow angular ranges, around two tilting directions, the underneath interferometric
mechanism determines the relative strength of the total radiation.

Fig. 9. (a) Calculated (solid line) and simulated (square symbols) radiation losses of 11-layer 1D
PhC reflectors with the variation of t1. The other PhC segments have t = 0.4m. The minimums
of the two curves are labeled by the vertical red lines. (b) Calculated and (c) Simulated radiation
losses as a function of (t1 , t2 ) [0, 0.4] m [0, 0.4] m . Same color bars are used in (b) and
(c). The non-periodic PhC reflector, the five uniform PhC waveguide sections, and the
definitions of t1,2 are denoted in the schematic. The white circles in (b) and (c) label the
minimum-radiation points. The red crosses represent the progressly-tapered point.

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28652

Actually, impedance matching of guided modal profile enables a good energy transfer from
one local guided mode to its neighbor. However, from our viewpoint, the impedance matching
picture omits the interplays between component radiated waves after these waves radiate out of
the waveguide. The implicit assumption that component radiated waves
non-interferometrically leave away from the waveguide is valid only when a PhC reflector is
constructed on a high-index waveguide where the quick decay of the guided Bloch wave
diminishes the interference between component radiated waves. For a PhC reflector on a
low-index waveguide, our model stresses the interferometric effects. The slow decay of the
guided Bloch wave leads to comparable amplitudes of the radiation components, and the small
propagation constant of the guided Bloch wave results in slow evolutions of the phase
differences. As a matter of fact, even in a high-index waveguide, the interferometric character
has also been reported in 1D PhC cavity structures, where this character is expressed as the
variation of the Q-factor and has been explained as the radiation recycling effect inside cavities
[33].
Though exhibiting usefulness in a variety of 1D PhC reflectors, our analytical model has
some limitations. First, based on the characteristic that most radiations distribute around one
tilting direction, our model assumes the radiations in other directions can be ignored. This
assumption fails when the elliptical hole of the PhC reflector becomes more oblate. In that case,
the radiation in the vertical direction is strong. Second, our model works well when the angular
spread of the radiation, , is small. This can be understood in the context of a Gaussian beam.
The smaller the angular spread, the greater the Rayleigh range, and the conversion from a
divergent radiated wave having a finite angular spread to a non-divergent radiated beam having
a finite width becomes more reasonable. We have examined a 1D PhC reflector on a
single-mode silicon slab waveguide (n = 3.46, 2a = 0.45m, w = 0.4m, = 1.55m). The deep
sub-wavelength size in the transverse direction (2a, w < ) results in a large radiation angular
spread and invalidates our analytical model. Third, in this paper, we focus on the TM
polarization (Ex, Ez, and Hy nonzero). The transverse electric mode excitation (Ey, Hx, and Hz
nonzero) not only causes more radiations but also makes the radiation pattern more
complicated.
5. Conclusions
In summary, we theoretically investigate the radiation generation process in a simple PhC
structure: a 1D PhC reflector on a silica slab waveguide. Emphases are put on the component
radiated waves, rather than the guided Bloch wave. An analytical model is proposed after the
eigen-mode property (, ) of the PhC segments and the radiation pattern characteristic (, x)
of the waveguide are obtained. Our model points out that all the radiation components are
generated at the interfaces between different waveguide sections, they radiate outward with
some tilting angle and with some beam width in the forward and the backward directions
respectively, and the interferences between these radiation components determine the total
radiation loss. Taking into account the relative phases/amplitudes of the radiation components
and the extent of their spatial overlap, our model analytically calculates the total radiation loss
produced in the whole PhC reflector. By comparing with FDTD simulations, the applicability
of our model is verified in periodic and non-periodic 1D PhC reflectors. In one example, we
demonstrate how to use this interferometric effect to reduce the total radiation loss by 2.3dB,
comparing to the gradually tapered PhC reflector. Besides making design easier, our model
provides a physical insight into the interferometric nature of the radiation generation process,
which can also be extended to more practical and more important PhC devices, like PhC
nanocavities on 3D dielectric waveguides. Our explorations to radiation mechanisms in PhC
waveguide structures call for more efforts to physics and applications of these promising
nanophotonic devices, especially in the low-index waveguide context.

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28653

Appendix
The TM eigen-modes of the guided and the radiated waves in a slab wave-guide can be
expressed as follows [26].
Guided wave (G):

H y ( x)
e i ( z t )
ex ( x)

A cos(k1a)e k2 ( x a ) , x a

hy ( x) A cos(k1 x), a x a ,
A cos(k a)ek2 ( x a ) , x a
1

(10)

dhy ( x)

hy ( x), ez ( x)
.
0 ( x)
0 ( x) dx

Radiated wave (R):

k1 ' 2

B{cos(k1 ' a) cos[k2 '( x a)] k ' sin(k1 ' a ) sin[k2 '( x a )]}, x a
2
1

hy ( x) B cos(k1 ' x),

a x a ,

k '
(11)
B{cos(k1 ' a) cos[k2 '( x a)] 1 2 sin(k1 ' a) sin[k2 '( x a)]}, x a
k2 ' 1

ex ( x)

dhy ( x)
'
i

hy ( x), ez ( x)
.
0 ( x)
0 ( x) dx

where the coordinate in Fig. 3(a) is used, k0 is the wavenumber of free space, the electric
fields (ex, ez) and the magnetic fields (hy) are given in the core (1) and in the cladding (2),
respectively. Different propagation constants of the guided modes () and the radiated mode
() lead to different transverse wave vectors in the core k1(k1) and in the cladding k2(k2) with
and
2 k12 '2 k1 '2 k021
2 k22 '2 k2 '2 k02 2 , respectively. The
normalization coefficients A and B are determined by the z-directional Poynting flux.

A a sin(2k1a) 1 cos(2k1a)
[

] 1,
0 21
41k1
4 2 k2

(12)

'B
k '
2
[cos 2 (k1 ' a) ( 1 2 ) 2 sin 2 (k1 ' a)] .
0 2
k 2 ' 1

(13)

To obtain the transverse intermodal coupling coefficient K t , Eq. (1) is integrated from
w
w
x
to
,
2
2

Kt

' AB* sin[(k1 k1 ')w 2] sin[(k1 k1 ')w 2]

{

}.
k1 k1 '
k1 k1 '
4 0 212

(14)

Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Basic Research Foundation of China under Grant No.
2011CB922002, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61275044 & No.
11204366), and 100 Talents Programme of The Chinese Academy of Sciences (No.
Y1K501DL11).

#174969 - $15.00 USD

(C) 2012 OSA

Received 27 Aug 2012; revised 22 Nov 2012; accepted 26 Nov 2012; published 10 Dec 2012
17 December 2012 / Vol. 20, No. 27 / OPTICS EXPRESS 28654