This invention relates to N×N optical crossconnect switches, and more particularly, to an N×N crossconnect switching arrangement of two planar arrays without waveguide crossings.
In high capacity optical networks, an essential device is the N×N crossconnect switch. The function of this device is to provide at each node full connectivity among several incoming fibers, each carrying several wavelength channels. The switch must be nonblocking, and it must be fast and efficient [1-3]. These properties can be realized with minimal depth 2log N and low crosstalk by using a crossbar arrangement of binary trees, consisting of 2N(N−1)1×2 and 2×1 elements [1-3]. This approach, however, is difficult to realize in integrated form on a single wafer, because of its large number of waveguide crossings.
What is needed is an N×N crossconnect switch, which can be implemented without the use of waveguide crossings.
In accordance with the present invention, we describe an N×N crossconnect switch that can be implemented without the use of waveguide crossings. Since it is free of waveguide crossings, and it is essentially equivalent to the classical crossbar arrangement, it may be superior to previous arrangements based on integrated optics. In one embodiment, our N×N crossconnect switch uses two separate imaging arrangements consisting of two planar arrays of 1×2 and 2×1 switching elements combined with a cylindrical reflector. In another embodiment, the N×N crossconnect switch includes an input planar array and output planar array implemented on a single wafer both having a refractive index n separated by a central region having a refractive index n0<n.
More generally, our N×N optical interconnection arrangement comprises
The N×N optical interconnection arrangement may be implemented using input and output arrays formed on a single wafer or by using input and output arrays formed on separate wafers coupled together with a cylindrical reflector. An N×N optical switch is formed by adding a 1×N switch array to each transmitting element and an N×1 switch array connected to each receiving element of the N×N optical interconnection arrangement.
In the drawings,
In the following description, identical element designations in different figures represent identical elements. Additionally in each element designation, the first digit refers to the figure in which that element is first located (e.g., 104 is first located in FIG. 1).
1. Imaging Arrangement of Two Arrays of Binary Trees
The classical N×N crossconnect switch arrangement consists of a 1×N switch array and an N×1 switch array, which requires a total of N2 connections, between the various switches. The N2 connections make the arrangement difficult to realize in integrated form for large N on a single wafer, because of the large number of waveguide crossings required by the various connections. In the present application we propose, as a remedy to this problem, a planar imaging arrangement of two arrays combined with a cylindrical reflector. We first describe an equivalent arrangement without cylindrical reflector. Thus, we initially assume a planar free-space between the two arrays. The following configuration is closely related to the confocal arrangement used in [4]. Here we consider an arrangement of switches, but the following considerations also apply to any crossbar switching arrangement, for instance including wavelength routers instead of ordinary 1×N and N×1 switches. Thus a variety of such switching arrangements can be constructed, for instance by using ordinary 1×N and N×1 switches for both arrays, a 1×N switch for the first array and wavelength routers for the second array, wavelength routers for the first array and N×1 switches for the second array, or using wavelength grating routers for both arrays. The 1×N and N×1 switch arrangements may be implemented as described in pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/687,346, filed on Oct. 13, 2000 and entitled “LARGE N×N OPTICAL SWITCH USING BINARY TREES.” The wavelength routers may be implemented as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,136,671, issued on Aug. 4, 1992 and entitled “OPTICAL SWITCH, MULTIPLEXER, AND DEMULTIPLEXER.”
We first consider a symmetric arrangement of two identical arrays of imaging elements 101 and 102 located on a plane as shown schematically in FIG. 1. Such an arrangement may be desirable for small N, since the arrangement can be realized on a single wafer. We assume refractive index n0 in the central region 103 between the two arrays, and index n>n0 in the regions occupied by the imaging elements. Imaging (from source S to destination Q) by each array element is simply performed by the curved edge separating each array from the central region. The edge is made up of N sections, and each section is combined with a 1×N switch as shown in FIG. 2. Here we assume propagation from left to right but the arrangement is bi-directional. The purpose of the arrangement of
With reference to
Notice
1.1 Imaging by a Refractive Curve.
With reference to
p=p1−p2=n(√{square root over ((x+r sin α)2+(z0(x)+r0 )}{square root over ((x+r sin α)2+(z0(x)+r0 )}
cos α)2−r)−(x sin γ+z0(x) cos γ), (1)
assuming refractive index n before refraction, and unity index after refraction. Notice the first term is contributed by the optical path p1 from S to the refractive edge and, the second term p2 is contributed by the optical path from the refractive edge to a plane orthogonal to the direction specified by γ. Here we specify the above condition for some particular values r0, α0, γ0 of r, α, γ satisfying
n sin α0=sin γ0, (2)
and obtain for z=z0(x) an ellipse with one of its two foci coincident with F. The resulting aberrations p for γ0≠γ can be determined accurately from the expression (1), and they can be minimized by properly choosing r, α for each γ of interest, corresponding to a particular connection with the receiving array. By expanding p in powers of x we eliminate terms of order two by choosing
and determine the optimum δα that minimizes the maximum aberration pmax over the diffracting edge aperture. For an aperture width w we obtain
Notice that aberrations must be minimized over the entire field of view corresponding to the γ—interval occupied by the receiving array. Therefore the optimum γ0 in the above expression is simply the value corresponding to the center of the receiving array. Then, according to the above expression, all array elements are essentially characterized by the same aberrations.
1.2 Optimum Arrangements
We now derive the conditions that must be satisfied in order to match each input waveguide to the corresponding output waveguide. We initially consider for simplicity the particular case γ=0, but the following considerations apply in general. The following description makes reference to FIG. 5 and considers a particular connection formed between two particular waveguides 501 and 502. Note that
The purpose of the input taper 503 in
where R is the distance between the two array elements, and r is the focal length of expression (3). Notice d is the radius of curvature of the phase fronts at F0, F.
The values of γ, R are determined by the distance R0 between the two arrays and the lateral displacement of the two elements.
where W is the total element aperture width, which is typically somewhat greater than the aperture illumination width w considered earlier.
From expression (6) one can determine the maximum field of view width Ω, obtained by specifying less then λ/4 maximum error. For instance, by using silica waveguides with aperture width of 15 μm and r=4000 μm, one obtains Ω=1.75 for λ=1.55 μm.
The above conditions are required to insure a good match over a very wide wavelength range. In most cases, however, a good match is only required in the vicinity of a particular wavelength λ=λ0. Then the design can be simplified and, in particular, the above tapers (503, 504 shown in
which can be shown to minimize w1 for a given R. Typically, R is appreciably larger than the focal length r of the two refractive curves, and
where w0 is the beam radius over the waveguide 602 aperture. Under the above conditions, the first refractive curve 603 is accurately illuminated by the Fourier transform of the input mode and, the other curve 604, by a magnified image of the input mode. Therefore, a perfect match between the two waveguides 601, 605 is not possible. This would strictly require, in view of the arrangement symmetry, the two illuminations to be identical at all wavelengths. Instead, the width of the first illumination is a linear function of the wavelength λ, whereas the second width is wavelength independent, and therefore the two widths can only be matched in the vicinity of a particular wavelength λ0. In spite of this disadvantage, as compared to the previous imaging arrangement, the confocal arrangement is generally preferable, because it minimizes the beam radius w1 on the refractive surface.
2. Imaging Arrangement of Two Arrays and a Cylindrical Reflector
We now assume that the medium in the region 103 of
Once two arrays characterized by straight focal lines are realized, perfect imaging between the two focal lines is obtained by simply using an elliptical cylinder with its focal lines coincident with those of the two arrays. The complete arrangement is illustrated in FIG. 7. The angle 710 between the two arrays 703 and 704 is typically very small, and therefore a circular reflector 706 can be used with negligible aberrations.
The above arrangement is essentially free of aberrations. An estimate of its dimensions can be made as follows. The width W of each element is primarily determined by the width of each 1×N and N×1 switch, and it can be expressed as
w=NS
where the average spacing S can be about 50 microns. The total width for each array is W=N2S cm, and the distance R0/2 of the two arrays from the cylindrical reflector of
for Ω=0.175. For instance, for N=32,
3. Concluding Remarks
To conclude, it is possible to realize large N×N optical crossconnect switches by using a planar arrangement of 1×N and N×1 switches (or routers) combined with 2N imaging elements. The imaging elements are not simple to realize but, in spite of this, the arrangement is attractive because of its expected good performance, since it is equivalent to the classical crossbar arrangement, and it is free of waveguide crossings. For small N, the arrangement can be realized on a single wafer by using two arrays of waveguide lenses (FIG. 1), instead of using a cylindrical reflector arrangement (FIG. 7). However, our derivation of the optimum matching conditions applies to both cases.
Efficient power transfer between two identical waveguides requires in general the aperture distribution of either waveguide to be a replica of the other. To this purpose, one can either use the imaging arrangement of
Finally, an important consideration of 1×N and N×1 switches, which use thermoptic switches, is the total power dissipation. For the classical crossbar 1×N and N×1 switch arrangement, either array requires (N−1)1×2 switching elements but only N log2 N of these need be turned on at any given time. Therefore assuming for instance 0.4 watts per switch, a total of 25.6 watts would be required for a 16×16 switch.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4164934 | Anderson | Aug 1979 | A |
4993796 | Kapany et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
5009477 | Alferness et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5228103 | Chen et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5233453 | Sivarajan et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5253319 | Bhagavatula | Oct 1993 | A |
5346583 | Basavanhally | Sep 1994 | A |
5412506 | Feldblum et al. | May 1995 | A |
5463498 | Gal et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5469277 | Kavehrad et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5546483 | Inoue et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5748811 | Amersfoort et al. | May 1998 | A |
5963682 | Dorschner et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5966476 | Hwang et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5982515 | Stone et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999672 | Hunter et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6097859 | Solgaard et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6141152 | Trouchet | Oct 2000 | A |
6259833 | Doerr et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266464 | Day et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6271970 | Wade | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6445844 | Neukermans et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6504966 | Kato et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6512863 | Lewis | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6571034 | Bhagavatula | May 2003 | B2 |
6580846 | Burroughs et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6597841 | Dingel | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6618517 | Ducellier et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6671433 | Kashihara et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6718084 | Wang | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6754410 | Doerr et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20030190112 A1 | Oct 2003 | US |