246 a reprint from Journal of the Optical Society of America A Anisotropic dielectric waveguides M. La and M. M. Fojer Edward 1. Ginzton Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 Rocaivod September 5, 1991; accepted June 1, 1982; revised manuscript received gust 7, 1092 ‘The guided modes of anisotropic waveguides are known tobe leaky when degenerate radiation modes ofthe or- thogonal polarization exst..These loses ean be quite large when the principal axes of the dielectric tensor are not aligned with the waveguide axis. We calculate the leakage rate in waveguides that have arbitrarily oriented dleletric tensors, using & perturbation expansion that is valid for weak guidance and weak anisotropy. ‘Area tively simple expression for the loss is obtained and is applied to model cases drawn from planar and fiber waveguides with step-and graded index profiles. ‘The cealing ofthe lose with profile height and enieotropy i= been published, including an exact solution of the symmet- ric! and the asymmetric planar waveguides, a WKB ‘method,** a coupled-mode method,’ and a multilayer nu- ‘merical approximation.* Snyder and Rubl' presented a useful weakly guiding perturbation method for a step-profile anisotropic fiber in which one of the principal axes of the dielectric tensor aligned with the waveguide axis. Later Ruhl and Snyder* demonstrated a Green function method for the same prob- Jem. The leaky modes in fibers in which the principal axes in both the core and the cladding were aligned with the waveguide axis but were misaligned with each other the transverse plane are discussed in Ref. 10. In the present study we extend the method of Ref. 1 to waveguides with arbitrarily oriented dielectric tensors. We begin by recasting Maxwell's equations as scalar-wave equations for the Cartesian components of the modal fields, with coupling terms based on waveguide geometry ‘and material anisotropy. A perturbative solution that is, 0740-8252/99/020246-16905.00 ‘valid in the limit of small anisotropy and weak guidance is presented, and an expression for the leakage los is given. ‘A simple general form for the coupling term is derived and is applied to the ealeulation of the leakage rate for various planar and eircular waveguides. 2, DERIVATION OF THE MODAL FIELDS AND THE LOSS In this section we recast Maxwell's equations for a wave- guide of arbitrary anisotropy as a set of coupled scalar equations for the Cartesian components of the modal fields. We then obtain the modal fields to first order and propagation constants to second order in the coupling. ‘The loss is proportional to the imaginary component of ‘the propagation constant. In the following derivation we follow the perturbation method and the notation of Ref. 1 wherever possible. A. Modal-Field Equations ‘A general waveguide is drawn schematically in Fig. 1, where the waveguide axis is along 2. From Maxwell’ equations and the constitutive relations for the fields we write the equations obeyed by the exact vector modal elec trie fields Eas VE + Me E= 00-5), a) Ve B=, @ where k = ae is the free-space propagation constant and the magnetic permeability 4. has been assumed to take the vacuum value yy. For an ideal waveguide oriented along the 2 axis, the dielectric tensor ¢ is a function only of the transverse coordinates, ie, « = e(z, 9) ‘The most general possible dielectric tensor e' for a loss Jess nongyrotropic medium is symmetric and has six inde- pendent elements e'), where [,,J = 1,2, and refer to the crystallographic axes. For simplicity we derive the results for the ease in which the medium is uniaxial and the opti- cal axis 8 lies in the y-2 plane at an angle a to z (we as- sume a uniform a through the waveguide, contrary to what is done in Ref. 9). Referred to these axes, the dielectric (© 1993 Optical Society of America1M, Luand M.M. Fejer &e, ° Fig. 1. Waveguide structure is lossless and 2 invariant. ‘The characteristic transverse dimeacion is p; the dielectrie tensor is tin the corg region and e, in the cladding. For uniaxial media, optical axis 3 ew at an angle a to in the 2 plane. tensor € takes the form whore the e, are given in term of the ejy as (eis e{)sin @ €08 @ w Assume a modal field of the form E = 8(x,9) expli(Be ~ awt)]; Eq, (1) becomes (2 + Bea = BE and Eq, (2) becomes a yp Be cae a Feb) + l6o8 + 628) + iBlend + 6B) = 0 © where Vi = a8/ax! + a*/ay2 ‘We can obtain an expression for @, from Eq. (6). To separate to first order the contribution of é, of the off diagonal elements ¢,, from that of the waveguide struc- ture, we make the substitution o Vol. 10, No, 2/Pebrusry 1999/5. Opt Soc. Am.A 247 ‘With Eqs. (6) and (7) we obtain i(e8- pen ae * en ae where we have assumed that pBé. >> G2, which should hold for all eases of practical interest, and have defined ® Eliminating 2 from Eqs. (Ga) and (6b) using Eqs. (7) and (8) leads to the coupled equations for the transverse ‘components of the modal electric fields Wi + Mes — BB = Parte ~ (52 + BE, = BB, = Pads + Prd 2 (5,8 2 tme,), ate |-£6e5: ve) aay (nb) eae Ben de Bendy) If 6 = 0, Eqs, (11) reduce to those given in Ref. 1 for ‘waveguides with diagonal dielectric tensors. If the terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (11) vanish, Eqs. (10) become uncoupled scalar-wave equations for the Cartesian components of the modal fields. The solutions Of these equations are the well-known linearly polarized (LP) modes that are good approximations for the modes of weakly guiding isotropic waveguides. The second term on ‘the right-hand side (RHS) of each part of Eqs. (11) appears even in isotropic waveguides. In Eqs. (11a) and (11d) these terms represent polarization corrections that are due to the waveguide structure," while in Eqs. (11b) and (te) they eause polarization coupling in two-dimensional waveguides. ‘The first term on the RHS of each part of Eqs. (11) vanishes in isotropic waveguides and represents polarization coupling that is due to the difference between 4. oF &—the dielectric constant that the small 2 compo- nent of the modal field would be expected to see—and ,, the dielectric constant that is actually present in an aniso- tropic structure. The third term on the RHS of each part of Eqs. (11b)-(11d) and the fourth term of Eq. (11d) are present only when a principal axis of the dielectric tensor ), ae) (na) i).248 J. Opt. Soc. Am.A/Vol. 10, No. 2/February 1993 is not aligned with the waveguide axis, and they represent coupling induced by the material anisotropy between the small structural z-polarized component of the predomi- nantly x-polarized mode and the z-polarized component of the predominantly y-polarized mode. ‘The modal field equations (10) for anisotropic weakly guiding structures can be solved with a pertubation ex- pansion. ‘The uncoupled LP modes are taken as the basis ‘modes, with coupling that is due to the perturbation terms oon the RHS's of Es. (10). Coupling between modes of the same polarization exists when the P,2, terms do not vanish, while the P,2, terms give rise to coupling of orthogonal polarizations. We are interested primarily in caleulating the loss that oceurs when a guided mode is eoupled to de- generate radiation modes. Generally speaking, guided and radiation modes of the same polarization are not de- sgenerate, but if the material is anisotropic, degeneracy be- tween modes of orthogonal polarizations can exist. In Subsection 2.B we carry out the perturbation expan- sion to second order, the lowest order in which an imagi- nary component of the propagation constant can appear. If the coupling is between guided modes, a hybrid guided ‘mode results, as is discussed in Ref. 12. ‘Ifthe coupling is between a guided mode and degenerate modes, the guided mode becomes leaky. Equations (10) can be used to de- scribe both of these phenomena, but in this paper we apply them only to the calculation of leaky modes. Further discussion of the solutions of Eqs. (10) is facili- tated if we assume a specific form for the spatial variation of the elements of the principal dielectric tensor, GA 9) = gall = 2ofle a, F138, 2a) Where ei is the maximum value of the e}, component, 2b,eiza. 2 the difference between the dielectric tensor component in the core and the cladding, and A, is known as the profile height. Funetions fix, y) describe the spa tial variation of the dielectric tensor components, normal- ized to vary between 0 and 1. By assuming this form, we hhave restricted the analysis to systems in which the orien tation of the principal axes does not depend on the trans verse coordinates. The dielectric tensor components éar and ¢, are related to, through the expressions in Eas. (8) and honce ean be written in the same form as Eq. (12). In this way the profile heights for the transverse polariza- tions, Ax and Ay are introduced. I is convenient to char- M. Luand M. M. Pejer acterize the anisotropy by the quantities 6,, defined by 1 nl.) CP ree cies V, = phkn,.o(2A,)'", where i = x,y and n, = €,'* is the eae ‘Table 1 that pB « 4’ for fixed V and pa/ax is of order ec geoeers eeearaed eee Seco ears The zeroth-order solutions, ¢), and e(,, obtained from tice hts Thaet ch outta eanann es oer solutions to the coupled-field equations (10) in such a way that they are either purely x polarized ory polarized to low- eu = Celt + eth + eft + HH (eft + eft + IS (3a) Bin Baas + Bon + Bus + (036) ‘We can evaluate the series given in Eqs. (13) by substitut- ing thom into Eqs. (10) and equating like powers of the perturbation, which gives the approximate equations for a predominantly i-polarized mode: (WF + Rew ~ Bipdelnt = 0, (14a) (WE + Rey — Biphely = Puelt, (4b) (WA + Rea — Biwdelh = 2BuwBunel + Piel, — C4e) (8? + Hes ~ Biel — @BooBoe + Biel + 2BiooBunein + Puelih + Pyelty (14d) Table 1. Waveguide Parameters Polarization » Dielectric Constant Profile Profile Height Normalized Frequency? Principal Dielectrie Constant Principal Profile Height Anisotropy la) = (od Aen ay Ve = ping o(28.)!* ya = 2 pls the dimension ofthe care region laa) =)" 3, = A cos! a + Bo sin? Vo = ph a(23,)* ex'(,9) = eral — 25ef2,9)) T= 1,8 Bis (1 chaltial/2 1-18 cu) /2,M, Lu and MM. Fejer Vol. 10, No, 2/February 1999/0. Opt, Soc. Am.A 249, ‘Table 2, Modal Parameters’ Polarization Parameters (Guided) = (Radiation) Propagation constant Bor Bus Core paremeter U, = plea ~ Bu U, = please ~ Bat! Cladding parameter W, = hBo — Hea)" Q.= oleae ~ Bin’) [Normalization constant wei GUE! Qa) = NeBQ. = Q yo weiue sae Modes constructed by this method are orthogonal to each other to first order in A and 8, For higher-order perturbations 8, is complex, Eqs, (14) are not Hermitian ‘operator equations, and the set of eigenmodes e,) is not ‘mutually orthogonal but has a biorthogonal relationship with the modes of the transpose equations of Eqs, (14). B. Solution of the Approximate Field Equations We are interested primarily in ealeulating the leakage loss resulting from the anisotropy, and so we must obtain the imaginary part of the propagation constant. If we as- sume an ‘polarized zeroth-order mode, the first-order correction to the propagation constant iy is the expecta- tion value of the coupling for the zeroth-order mode and an be obtained from Eqs. (14a) and (Ie) with the use of standard perturbation theory. It ean be shown that i: is real. We then must obtain the second-order correction ‘to find the loss. Multiplying Eq. (14d) by e(} and using the orthogonality of e) and ef! to el), we arrive at" Cpe tenet al? € where we use the symbol (g) to denote an integral of g(x, y) over the ay plane. As is discussed in Section 1 and in Appendix A, only coupling to degenerate radiation modes of the orthogonal polarization leads to loss, so that. only the third term in Bq. (15) contributes to the imaginary part of By, An integral expression fore, first given in Ref. 1, ie discussed in the context of the present analysis in Appendix A. [tis shown there that using the integral ‘expression for ef), given by Eq, (A1.4), in Eq, (15) leads to ce eR) SP yelyF . BAe 2NQie sr) Bow < Pm 0 Bune > Ba” where Buy = kr, ¢(f(@) is the polarized LP radiation mode satisfying B,,., ~ Bi», and N, and Q,, defined in Table 2, are the normalization constant and the cladding parameter of the radiation mode, respectively. The limits to the validity of this expansion are discussed in Subsec- tion 2C after a simplified form of the coupling coefficient is derived. Bik = a6) C. Simplification of the Coupling Terms (e', Pye'} ‘The expressions for the coupling terms that are necessary for the evaluation of Bq. (16), given by Eqs. (11), are obvi ously complicated. In this section we develop relations that will both simplify the calculation and yield physical insight into the leaky modes. The simplified coupling co- efficients illustrate more clearly the dependence of the = WPS ly int + 4, when) = leakage rate on the material anisotropy 6, the profile height A, and the angle a between the optical and the waveguide axes, without evaluation of the coupling inte- gral or detailed information about LP modes. The trans- formed coupling coefficient, which involves the modal fields only in the region of the spatially varying refractive index rather than in all space and does not require the spatial derivatives of the modal fields, often yields more accurate results than does direct application of Eq. (6) when approximations to the modal fields are used. We assume that the dielectric tensors of the waveguide ‘media are of the form given in Eqs. (3) and (4); that the orientation of the principal axes is the same throughout the structure; and, in addition, that é,«) < ea, Le, that the media are negative uniaxial. Since the x-polarized modes are the slow modes, only the y-polarized modes exhibit leakage. Thus in evaluating Eq. (16) we take im y andj =x. Any of the expressions derived under these assumptions ean be applied to positive uniaxial ‘media by interchanging the coordinates x and Under these assumptions, leaky modes do not exist when @= 0. Anisotropy in the x-y plane emerges when a # 0, and leakage begins when a exceeds a threshold value a, as we discuss in Section 3. In planar waveguides the cou- pling that leads to the leakage is attributable exclusively to the third terms on the RHS's of Eqs. :11b) and (Iie). In two-dimensional guides all three terms on the RHS's of qe. (11b) and (Ile) are nonvanishing. but the third terms generally dominate, as is discussed in Section 4. There- fore we focus our attention on these dominant terms and present some results for the other terms in later sections. Retaining only the most important terms in Eq, (Ile), we have Ef} Preln an As we know, ¢!%, and e! satisfy the homogeneous forms of Eqs. (10). For convenience we list them again as follows: (+ Be, = Bate? (080) (i + Bea Bate, = 0 ash) For the radiation mode that is degenerate with the guided mode, ie, Biyo = Biss. it can be readily derived from Eq, (18b) that bop. apy (5? + Bens = Bact 7s ‘Multiplying Eq. (19) by e ,. and Eq. (18a) by e',, sub- tracting, and integrating over the x-y plane, we obtain250 J. Opt. Soe. Am. A/Vol. 10, No. 2/February 1998 (eo oe, 8) ~ (tenet). en aren ‘Making use of Eq, (20) and a relation eetana (21) (en ~ 6p) = (y= e)sin® a= derived from Eqs. (4), we find that (eBseni8i) = ea a(#tetett.): 2 Combining Eqs. (12a), (16), (17), and (22), we obtain the relatively simple form for the imaginary part of the propa- gation constant: a, cot a Pe ory Poe < Ba 0 Bioo > Bo 3) ‘where eis the radiation mode that is degenerate with eff, and Ba is given by Eq. (AT), with j= x. Equa- tion (28) is derived under the assumption that the me- dium is uniaxial. With Eq. (28) it can be shown that the perturba tion expansion in Eqs. (13) is valid, in the sense that [e*ByoBionl 2 and [Boye] << [Binl> where on is the first-order correetion to i») and the first-order corree tions to the modal fields are much smaller than the LP basis modes, as long as the waveguide is weakly guiding and the media are weakly anisotropic, ie, as long as Aids <1 and 831 <1. Many of the waveguides used in integrated optics are strongly asymmetric, violating the ‘weak-guidance condition at one interface. It is shown in Section 6 that the perturbative approach is still adequate for such waveguides 3. SYMMETRIC STEP-PROFILE PLANAR WAVEGUIDE Despite the existence of exact solutions for the step-profile planar waveguide,’ it is useful to apply the present ap- proximation technique to this case, both as a test of the rethod and to develop simple closed-form expressions for the dependence of the loss on various waveguide parame- ters. ‘The results that are obtained for the step-profile planar guide are prototypical of those that are obtained {or more complicated structures in Sections 4 and 5. ‘We assume a waveguide of the form shown in Fig. 2, with a step profile affax = tx + p) ~ (x ~ p), whore p is the half-thickness of the guiding layer. Since af/ax is odd, the imaginary part of the propagation constant given by Ba. (23) is nonzero only when the product of the y-polarized zeroth-order mode e',, and the degenerate ‘polarized radiation mode ej is odd. Ife, is even, the expressions for the LP modes, e, and e/,, given in gs. (A2.1) and (A2.2), can he used in Eq, (28) to find Bia = (ABiyod.* cot? a) sin’ U, «(4 ) ata 24) i+ yw) lant wera’ & M, Lu and MM. Fejer where Q., UU; and W, are modal parameters that are defined in Table 2, and V, is the normalized frequency for the y polarization that is defined in Table 1. Note that this expression contains three factors, the first of which is independent of the modal parameters, the second of which depends only on the parameters of the guided mode, and the third of which depends only on the parameters of the radiation mode. It will be seen that similar forms hold for the more complex waveguides that are discussed in Section 4, For odd e,, the imaginary part of the propa gation constant can be obtained from Bq (24) by inte changing sin U, and cos Us ‘Several basic features of the loss ean be seen in Fig. 8, where the power-loss coefficient, 28, in deibels per cen timeter, is plotted against a for a waveguide with the same paramotors as those given in Fig. 6 of Ref. 2..'The Joss vanishes for a that is smaller than a threshold angle ‘Ties steeply to a maximum, and then rols off slowly with a series of similarly spaced minima. Quantitative description and qualitative understanding of these phe- nomena are facilitated by rewriting the expression for the loss as a product of a smooth envelope function g (shown hy the dashed curve in Fig. 8) and a positive definite ozil- latory function h, which is of order unity except in special eases to be discussed later in this section. Thus Bia = ah, where g and h are given by sg MU @, yy 1 ee 8 = Bowl g a a, Bise > Bis, degenerate radiation modes exist, and the polarized mode is leaky. Within the range of angles P ™ Fig 2._ Example of a symmetric stepprofile planer waveguide ‘and definitions of the refractive indices.M. Lu and M. M. Fejor 100 108s (48m) 001 90001 gto 20 80 40 50 60 70 60 00 (ceo) Loss coefficients forthe lowest-order mode ofa Land 4,~A,. The Tast two factors in Bq. (298) show a linear increase with the anisotropy and the profile height when V is fixed Comparing the expression for g, with that for g obtained from Eq, (25), and using the expressions for U; and Q, given in Table 2, we find that as the anisotropy increases, the peak of the envelope increases, but the envelope de- creases at large a, ie, the loss becomes peaked in the small a region ‘The oscillatory function h (Eq. (26)] is related to the properties of the radiation mode that is degenerate with the guided mode. As a increases, the denominator in the expression for h is generally of order unity, so that the nearly periodic minima in the leakage are due primarily to the sin! U, factor inthe numerator. These minima can be understood either in a ray pieture, where the loss van- ishes when the radiation transmitted on successive re- fleetions interferes destructively? or in a modal picture, where the loss vanishes according to the transformed overlap integral (Eq. (28)] when the magnitude of the sxpolarized radiation mode at the eore-cladding interface vanishes. The condition for the occurrence of @ mini mum is U;= nim, where m is an integer. While these ‘minima are equally spaced in U., they are not in general equally spaced in a, beeause of the nonlinear dependence of U, on a (see Table 2). If A, <= y,q, we can use the approximate expression for U, in Table 2 to obtain the en gular separations between the minima as {m{L ~ e%(m — 1 = (m = 1D ~ e’m*}, 0a) where ¢ is independent of «rand is given by af A, \ wy (@) ey) Noting that V,/A," ~ ppv, we see that the spacing is in dependent of A, if the thickness of the waveguide is fixed. ‘Exact solutions for the modal fields and a transcenden- tal equation for 6 that is solved numerically are presented in Ref. 2. It can be shown that, to first order in A and 8, the exact solution for B' deduced from Eq. (26) of Ref. 2 and the perturbative result obtained here are iden- tical [except when the degenerate radiation mode is just above the cutoff of an odd guided mode, ie, when V; = (1/2 + mj]. The approximate values for the loss that are presented in Fig. 3 are indistinguishable on the scale of the graph from the results obtained from the exact analysis of Ref. 2 Figure 4 shows the losses of two waveguides with the same V, and 63, but with different 4 (for simplicity, we252 J. Opt, Soe. Am, A/Val. 10, No, 2/Februgry 1985 1000 5 vans 100 10 LOSS (sem) 001 001 Povo! G10 20 80 40 SO 6d 70 6 90 (cea) Fig. 4 Loss of the owestorder leaky modes for two symmetric ‘profile planar waveguides with the same normalized fre (quencies V = 14." The refractive indies in the film for both ‘waveguides are chosen a8 Rin. ~ 2281 and ray — 2174. The profile height, assumed to be the sume for ordinary and extraor- ‘inary polarizations but different for the two waveguides, are ‘00008 for the sold curve und 0.002 for the dashed curve. “The wavelength is A= 06328 yam, choose 4 = As; therefore A, ~ A, ~ A and ¥, = ¥. = V), and A << 6, For waveguides with fixed Vand 83, Ea, (27) indicates that the threshold angle cis proportional to the square root of A, Eq, (29a) shows that the peak of the envelope increases linearly with A, and it can be deduced from Eq, (26) that the envelope function g is proportional to A®, a result that is consistent with the results shown in Big 4 While estimates of ™ based on the envelope function are generally valid for a > av, in the vicinity of the first loss peak the oscillatory function h can have a significant effect on the magnitude of the loss in certain cases. If a zero of h occurs near an, the peak of the loss is reduced and the location of the peak shifts slightly. If @.— 0 and V; > (m + 1/2)m, it can be seen from Eq, (26) that +, ‘The ealeulated loss then diverges, and the pertur- bation method clearly is no longer valid. ‘This result is consistent with the exact results of Ref. 2, which show that in this limit pis of order unity, so that the loss is extremely large and the perturbation method ean be ex- pected to break down. In the context ofthe present analy- sis these conditions correspond to the degeneracy of the guided mode with a radiation mode that is just at cutoff, Figure 5 illustrates the losses of two waveguides with the same p and és; but different A (again, . = A, = 4, and V, = V; = V) and therefore different V. From Fig. § wwe can see that the losses for 4 = 0.002 are generally larger than those for A = 0.0008 except in the vicinity of the first loss peak, and the minima of the two losses occur at the same angle. ‘The magnitude of the loss for a # am is dominated by the 4* scaling of g that can be seen from Eq, (25), and the positions of the minime follow from Eq. (30). The threshold angle aia, given by Eq. (27), varies only with W, for waveguides with fixed p, 90 that the smaller a, for the waveguide with smaller & is ex- pected. For @— au, the magnitude of the loss can be calculated by using the limiting form of h = tan? V obtained from Eq. (26) with Q, << 1. In this limit, gh ~ WV? tan® V for fixed p, 90 that the smaller peak loss for the waveguide with larger A can be seen from M. Lu and MM. Fejor 1V? tan® V = 7.04 for A = 0,002 and 9V* tan? V = 0.012 for A = 0.0005. For large V the limiting form yV* + 0.785/V is convenient. 4, OTHER EXAMPLES OF WEAKLY GUIDING WAVEGUIDES A. Asymmetric Step-Profile Planar Waveguides ‘Most waveguides that are used in practical applications are strongly asymmetric. In this section we consider the behavior of asymmetric waveguides but keep the assump- tion of weak guidance at both interfaces, In Section 5 we consider the extension to the case of one weakly guiding and one strongly guiding interface. ‘The form of the step-profile asymmetric planar wave- guide considered in thie section is illustrated in Fig. 6, ‘where itis assumed thet man (a(S)? Is generally true when reas © Boyp © Rrigaas When Bio = hia, the magni- tude of one of the Fy [which could be either For Fe depending on the sign of sin(2U,)], is smaller than 1/2, the loss from the coupling to the mode with the smaller Fa dominates, and (428s.)(Qn fa)" > 1+ Fy! for this sinaller Fy. Therefore the oscillatory function repre- sented by the third factor in Eqs. (81a) and (82) has no zeros. ‘The divergence in the calculated loss noted forthe symmetric waveguide when the guided mode is degenerate with a near-cutoff radiation mode is also observed in the asymmetric waveguide, and it occurs when Viz = c08""va (tn)? + (Y/2 + me, which is again the eutoft condition for the mth guided mode. B. Step-Profile Circular Fiber ‘Analytical solutions for the modes of anisotropic fibers ex- ist only when the optical and the fiber axes are parallel.” Vol. 10, No, 2/February 19881. Opt. Soc. Am.A 253 However, with weak-guidance and weak-anisotropy as- sumptions, approximate solutions are possible. Here we ‘consider step-index fibers, as they yield simple results and are prototypical of other index profiles. Such step-profile anisotropic fibers can be obtained experimentally, for example, by growth of organic-crystal cores in glass capil aries" or by diffusion of claddings in lithium niobate fibers.” A typical step-profile circular waveguide is sketched in Fig. 8. ‘Snyder and Ruhl’ have studied the case of a step-profile fiber whose axis lies along one of the principal axes of the dielectric tensor.’ In such a waveguide ¢,, = 0, and only the structural coupling terms contribute to the loss. In this section we consider the los in fibers when # 0 and compare it with the loss in the cases in which «,, — 0. Even when ¢,, # 0, the approximate Eqs. (14) have closed-form solutions. Coupling terms that are due both to ¢,_and to structural coupling contribute to the total loss. As consequence of the orthogonality of the radiation modes involved in these two cases, the two contributions ‘add without interference. ‘The contribution to 8 from the «. # 0 coupling term, which couples the lowest-order eos(Us ~ dal)? . + Wa QT + RD (32) ‘}polarized guided mode e, with the x-polarized radia- tion mode having cos & symmetry, is aWIU,) Yaw) Bibs = Bojod.! cot* of Jtesracen (3) Equation (33) is obtained from Eq. (23) by the use of the ‘expressions for LP modes e{, and e!given in Bqs. (B24) land (B25) and the associated normalization integral and constant, @f*) and N,, given in Eqs. (B28) and (B29). ‘The definition of the oefficient p is given by Eq, (B26). Note that, as in Eq, (24) forthe planar waveguide, the ex- pression for the los contain a factor that is independent of modal parameters, one that is dependent only on the {fied mode, and one that is dependent only onthe radi fon mode. 1000 100 aU 5 a Q os g oot 001 0.0001 0 10 2 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 a (cea) Fig. 1. Lose coefficient of the lowest-order leaky mode for the asymmetric waveguide in Fig. 6, where p 4078 um, A= 06828 um, nig ~ 2.281, mie ~ 217 002, and Sar dye = 00008.254 JLOpt. Soc. Am. A/Vol. 10, No, 2/Rebruary 1903 ° radius r () Fig. 8 @) Birefringent fiber with radius p,(b)step-index pro- files for the fiber When 6, = 0, couples only tothe x polarized radia- tion mode with sin(2¢) symmetry, and the result for 6'", first given by Ruhl and Snyder,’ is Sm eg. oa tn.) BUH Bivie = (Biyod.! | | an “Be UO) 7 x {Inu[ Se Sense + Se ED gay) (ou) ware in or case meee OE — cot? @, (34b) bony cot feats atta, (a4 ‘The total loss for ¢,. # 0 is then the sum of the two contri- butions, Eqs. (39) and (34a). As can be seen from Eqs. (33) and (34a), the major dif- ference between the 6: % 0 and é, = 0 cases arises from the first factor in each equation. " The loss for &,. # 0 is larger by 4~* unless approaches 2/2, as is borne out by Fig. 8 which compares the loss coefficient that is due to nonvanishing off-diagonal elements of the dielectric ten- sor with that resulting from structural coupling. The pa- rameters of the waveguide are chosen to be the same as for cone of the symmetric planar waveguides in Fig. 5 (A. = A, ~ 0002), with the radius equal to the half-thickness of the symmetric planar waveguide. M, Du and M, M. Fejer Comparing Fig. 9 with the loss coefficient for the sym: metric planar waveguide with 4, = A, = 0.002 as shown in Fig. 5, we find that the loss in the fiber resembles closely the loss in the planar waveguide. However, a, is smaller, which can be expected from the smaller b in the fiber for fixed V, and from the expression for aa given by Eq. (27), ‘and the locations of the maxima and the zeros are shifted, It can also be shown that, for fixed waveguide parameters 4, V(A. = A, = A,V, = V, = V), the envelope of the loss in the fiber is smaller than that in the symmetrie waveguide when V < Ll, is larger when V > 1.1, and is approxi- mated by 117g when V >> 1, where g is the envelope function for the loss in a symmetric planar waveguide as given by Eq, (25) ‘As was the case for the planar waveguide, the loss coef- ficient for the anisotropic fiber becomes extremely large when Q,-> 0 and the first antisymmetric mode is near cutoff. This behavior is a result of the factor |p,—? in Egg. (33) and (B4a), where p., defined in Bq, (B26), is pro- portional to 1//,(V) and hence diverges when V, —> 2.405, which is the eutoff eondition for the first antisymmetric mode. This divergence in |p leads to a divergence in the loss coefficient unless «, = 0. Thus far we have compared several types of waveguide, but all have had step profiles. In order to determine the ‘effect of grading the refractive-index profile, we consider an analytically tractable ease, the symmetric linear-index profile illustrated in Fig. 10.” This profile is defined by He 1 where i = 2,y, and p is the half-tickness of the wave- guide. The LP modes for this profile ae prosented in Ap- pendix B. In order to have a closed-form expression for the loss, we assume here that 41 = 4, and hence A, = 4,, For this profile, the overlap integral in Eq. (23), h/exel,el.), reduces to fiel,e8,dz. Rather than carry out this complicated integration, we transform the coupling coefficient to a simpler form that involves inte- kklp a file 0 a (a09) Fig. 9 Loss coefficient of the lowest-order leaky mode for the fiber shown in Fig. 8. The solid curve represents the loss that is due to nonvanishing off-diagonal dielectric tensor element ¢., hile the dashed curve shows the structural loss that exists even when ¢,=0. The waveguide parameters are chosen as p= 2039 jm, A= 06328 um, mio = 2281, myo = 2174, by = y= 0002.(M.Luand MM. Pejer ° P x Fig 10. Symmetric linear index profile, where the halfthickness ofthe guiding layer isp. gration only over the cladding region. Since e'", and e(%,, are degenerate, it can be derived from Eqs. (18) that Mea — 6 sefee(y) (36) ‘As we have assumed that 4; = As, (é ~ ¢,) is indepen- dont of and ean be taken out of the integral in Bq. (36), it follows that Ge iivetth) = 0 (a7) ‘Therefore the integral in the guiding layer is equal in ‘magnitude and opposite in sign tothe integral inthe sub- strato, which is easier to evaluate because of the simpler form of the els in the later region. With this approach, and using the LP modes given in Eqs. (B30) and (B31), the expression for 8 given in Eq, (28) becomes in 2 cot? a) 2° foe bata of 2] 7 lack | {e “) + Wes(P WF - UF ls) + 7.40), where sii = x,y are combinations of the Airy functions defined hy Bq, (B33), (e,*) is given in Bqs, (B37), and s," is the derivative ofthe functions, imilarly to those in Eq. (24) for the symmetric slab waveguide, the first three factors of Eq. (38a) behave like the envelope function g given by Eq, (25), and the last fac- tor is comparable with the oscillatory function h given by Eq, (26). "To compare the two envelope functions, we use the relation between U. and U,! given in Table 1 and find that the ratio of the envelope funetion for linear profiles to the envelope function for step profiles is a Bi. _ Vas tue” UP - Oe 4 Tne si <(! *y where we neglect the difference in the amplitudes ofthe tound-mode Helds at RI. te, we take s0)/268, 2 U;/VAVG +/W,). The difference comes from the overlap integral in Eq, (23), which is equal to the value of Ter oe alin intertace the case sta sap rule bat is'a weighted average of this product when the profile is graded. From Ba, (38), we conclude tht waveguides with Tinear profiles are less leaky than waveguides with step profiles when V*5u/S >> 1, such as for Ti:LiNbOs wave Val. 10, No. 2/February 19994, Opt Soc. Am.A 255 guides; but, if V%2q1/ is of order unity, as is the case in 4 proton-exchanged waveguide, the sizes of the losses in ‘waveguides with linear profiles and step profiles are com- parable. The above statements are verified by Figs. 11 and 12, which show the plots of loss versus for linear and step-profile waveguides with the same 4 and V, where V(@y,/A)"* ie 14 in Fig. 11 and 0.95 in Fig. 12. Although the above conclusions are drawn for the cage of linear pro- files, we expect a similar trend forall graded profiles. ‘The linear graded profile again shows high loss when Q, 0 and s,(1) = 0; the latter can be shown to be the cutoff condition forthe first antisymmetric mode 5. EXTENSIONS OF THE METHOD A. Positive Uniaxial Waveguides In the previous analysis in Subsection 4.D, we have assumed that the media are negative uniaxial. For a 1000 100 10 0 10 20 00 40 60 60 70 00 0 @ (409) Fig. 11, Looe coefficient ofthe lowest-order leaky mode for the linesr-prfile waveguide shown in Fig. 10 (solid curve), The dashed curve shows the loss coeffciont for a step-index waveguide with the same parameters, which are p= 2.039 um, A ~ 06328 jm, my = 2.281, Maw ~ 2174, 1 ~ As ~ 0.0008, In this ease Vin ¥A,-! = 14, and hence the step-profile waveguide is much more leaky than the linear-profile waveguide, as shown in Eq, (38b), 100 linear 10 0 0 10 2 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 © (deg) Fig. 12. Losses fora lineer-profile (old curve) anda step-prfile (dashed curve) waveguide. ‘The parameters for the two wave fuides are tho same-a5 those of the two waveguides in Fig. Il fexcept that p= 1 yum and nq = 2279, ‘VSyi8,-* — O85 in this ease, and thus the size of loss forthe linear-profle is compa: rable with oF larger then that for the step profile.256 J. Opt. Soe. Am. A/Vol. 10, No. 2/February 1993 negative uniaxial waveguide as shown in Fig. 1, only the y’polarized modes are leaky, and the loss appears when a exceeds a threshold angle ay,. Analogously, for positive ‘uniaxial waveguides, only the 2-polarized modes are leaky, and the corresponding threshold angle for leakage is the same as the one in negative media given by Eq. (27). All the expressions for the leakage rate that are derived with negative uniaxial guides can also be used for positive uni- axial guides, provided that the coordinates x and y are interchanged. Thus, the loss in positive uniaxial wave- guides behaves in the same way as in negative uniaxial waveguides with comparable anisotropy and index profiles. B. Strongly Asymmetric Waveguides The results in Sections 3 and 4 were derived under the assumptions of weak guidance and weak anisotropy. In ‘many eases of practical interest one or both of these as- sumptions are violated to some degree. It is interesting to investigate the possibility of extending the analysis to those eases. In this aeetion we discuss the case of a strongly asymmetric planar waveguide for which the weak-guidance assumption is violated at one interface, and then we touch on the question of strong birefringence, ‘A.common type of waveguide is constructed by diffusing ‘a dopant into a thin layer at the surface of a substrate, with air, or perhaps a low-index-of-refraction buffer, serv- ing as the superstrate. Such a waveguide is shown sche- matically in Fig. 13. The thickness of the waveguide isp, and the profile heights at the interface between the guid: ing layer and the substrate, As and As, result from dif- fusion and are thus small; the sizes of dy, and Ay, the profile heights at x= 0 (the air-film interfuco), are of order unity. ‘The material anisotropy, as in the previous ceases, is assumed to be weak everywhere, In this case the only deviation from our previous model is the relaxation of the weak guidance assumption at one interface, While << 1 is used in the previous analysis as a suffi- cient condition for the validity of the perturbation expan- sion (except for special points where the guided mode is degenerate with near-cutoff radiation modes), a necessary condition for valid approximation is only that the coupling terms on the RHS's of Eqs. (10) be small. For the planar waveguide shown in Fig. 13, the coupling terms given by qe. (11) reduce to ara a dese In «), (39a) Pa Poa (298) Pubs (39¢) Py, =0 (29a Examining Eqs. (39), we find that all coupling terms are small except the second term on the RHS of Eq. (39a), the ‘expression for P,,é,. ‘Therefore this term should be added to the RHS of Eq. (14a) for the zeroth-order x-polarized mode. The zeroth-order modes of a step profile obtained in this way are the ordinary TM modes of an isotropic ‘waveguide, given in Eqs. (B17) and (B20), M. Lu and MM. Fejer After moving the second P.,8, term to the zeroth-order equations, we can repeat the derivation leading from ‘Eqs. (18) to Eq, (23) and find the second-order eorreetion to yy to be 'exs.co fe 0) 4 im =... 78an cot? \ eer ax OM . a Bin aps Weta (400) where Nig is defined by ele(Qus'ie ital Qea)) = Nab(Qua ~ Qaa') (40b) Note that, with this definition, (x) is no longer of order unity, having @ maximum value 41/Mss. In deriving Eq, (40a) we have not assumed any particular form for the index profile, and hence it can be applied to graded as well as to step profiles. Comparing Eq. (40a) with Bq. (23), the loss for A << 1, we find that the only difference is that the overlap integral is modified by tu. /éee in Eq, (40a). ‘We need to check the criteria for the validity of the per- turbation eigenvalues, i.e., [B:,n)|Byel << Biyo. Tt ean be shown that the first-order correction to Bi. Bu iB pro- portional to (e/"! Pye(y,) and therefore vanishes in this case because Pelt = 0. ‘The real and imaginary parte of Bie are of the same order, and thus we check only the imaginary part. From Bq. (40a) we see that, in order to prove that |B| < Buyp, we need to demonstrate that the product A,(/,/8x)e/%,e'%, in the overlap integral is much smaller than unity. "On the small A side the product is small, while on the other side, where A is of order unity, if itean be shown that the transverse fields are small in re- gions where the index of refraction is changing, then the product is small. We now specialize to the case of step- profile waveguides. For planar waveguides with step- index profiles, the index of refraction varies only at the interfaces between the guiding layer and the substrates or superstrates. In addition, because the guide is strongly asymmetric, U, << Vj, U, << Vx, and hence Wis and Was can be approximated by Vj, and Vis. In these limits it ean be shown from Eqs. (B6) and (B20) that, at fixed V, and Vy, the magnitude of the transverse fields, e/ at x = 0 (where ‘is of order unity), is proportional to (A.4/Ma)"* (notice that e'%! has been set to be of order unity at the small d ow eatyncoset codes Paekisyeds Fig, 18. Index profile for a strongly asymmetric planar wave- guide, where the superstrate is air. Aye, Aya © 1, BUC By: and Ay fre of the order unity.1M, Lu and MM, Fejer interface), so that 4.(@f,/@x)e,e\ is approximately pro- portional to (A,a4,,)" and is small there. So far we have proved that the perturbation analysis can be applied in the case of strongly asymmetric step- index waveguides, with one extra term retained in the zeroth-order equations forthe xpolarized LP modes. To calculate the loss we use Eqs. (B6) and (B20) for e'%, and e', and use the normalization constants given by Eqs, (B17) and (B27) in Bq. (40a), which becomes ee [uric | = bo cot of tsa} (= ntsin uy? : * QI =U. e08* i] where 1 (sie was ww ‘As was the ease for the weakly guiding waveguide to first order in A and 6a, the results of the perturbation analy- sis agree with the exact results from Appendix C. Now we compare Bq. (41a) with its counterpart for sym- metric planar waveguides, Eq. (24). Equation (41a) looks similar to the loss for a symmetric waveguide with profile heights equal to Avs and A, and halfthickness equal top, except for the last oscillatory factor and the factor 7* in the envelope. 1 is of order unity at «= 0 and increases ‘monotonically with a. When 8:1 >> Ava, Ayn ~ (Baba) sin a/A.s > 1, so that the loss coefficient of the strongly asymmetric waveguide can be considerably larger than that of a weakly asymmetric waveruide The envelope becomes flat in strongly asymmetric guides because n increases with a and hence lifts the envelope. is independent of &,; and &,y in the limit Snisdon 2 Arar, since, from the definition of U, given in Table 2 and the definitions of Vj and A, in Table 1, it can be shown that U; does not depend on Au: and Ay in that limit and Vj2/Vs is always independent of A.s and 4, The other factors in the envelope of the loss given by Eq, (41a) are also independent of A., and A; thus the en- velope of the loss does not depend on the large profile heights. 7° is also the ratio of the envelope of the loss given in Eq, (41a) to g, the envelope function for symmetric ‘waveguides given by Eq. (25). It has been mentioned be- fore that this ratio is proportional to sy sin’ a/M2, which is of order unity when the anisotropy is comparabie with the small profile heights, but it is much larger than unity when 8 2 Az, unless a is small ‘There are two terms in the numerator ofthe last oseilla tory factor in Eq, (41a); the first one is a constant and arises from the integral over the region near x 0, where is of order unity, and the second one is an oscillatory function of a with @ magnitude n~* and comes from the integral over the region near the small A interface, At small a the two terms are comparable in magnitude, As a increases, the first term becomes increasingly impor- tant and the oscillation becomes weaker, until if 631 >> ‘Sa, the oscillation disappears. Figure 14 shows the loss coefficient of a strongly asymmetric waveguide, with air as the superstrate, We see that the oscillations decrease ‘asa inereases, and the envelope is quite flat as a function Vol. 10, No. 2/Rebruary 199910. Opt. Soc. Am.A 257 of a, compared with the loss for symmetric waveguides given in Fig. 4 ‘We can reach the following conclusions: For a strongly asymmetric waveguide, the loss is insensitive to the large profile height. When the anisotropy 4 is of the same order as the small profile height A, the size of the loss for a strongly asymmetric waveguide is comparable with that ofa symmetric waveguide with a profile height equal to. When 8 > A, the leakage rate for the strongly asymmet rie waveguide is larger than that ofthe symmetric waveg uide by a factor of 8 sin? a/A. In the latter case burying the waveguide with a buffer layer between the air and the ‘uiding layer will reduce the los substantially For a general waveguide with one large index step, we ‘would expect the behavior ofthe coupling to be similar to that ofa step-index waveguide. The results of perturba- tion calculations should be accurate for asymmetric planar waveguides if A is small at least on one side, if Bq. (28) for the coupling coefficient is replaced with the modified form, Ea. (40) ‘Waveguides with highly birefringent cores could also ccur in practice. In the ease of strong anisotropy but weak guidance, the perturbation method is still useful ‘The modal fields and the propagation constant can be evaluated by methods similar to those that lead to Ea, (40), incorporating modified forms of the Pg, terms. ‘These results will be discussed in a future publication. 5. SUMMARY Guided modo of anietropie waveguides are often ay Sense af easing to degenerate orthgoaly plaza are acta elke arene ce amen {Bene omer thet wana pecnted i Re. tele Stopes with sehitrary ofentd diectric tenors Wh spp sss ae Signed with ta aug tris thew arsng fom the offi components the Gilet enor ie mch lane than the srataral es preset in twodinennon! sniaropie weeguen that irc rina ats aligned wa Gn berets ant Mio hevtlontedasuhiea career eo eh shows that the coupling occurs in regions where the re- fear dens petal spin-on f thee ae em aes a eae eae 1000 100 oot ‘001 0001 Loss (68cm) ° 0 10 20 90 40 60 60 70 60 00 (deg) Fig, 14. Lose coefficient of the lowest-order leaky mode of the strongly asymmetric waveguide shown in Fig. 13,wherep ~ 6 um, A '0.6328 pm, myo 2281, Myo = ZITA, Myaie = 2.2799, nga BAGO, and risus ~ Maat ™ 1 .258 J. Opt. Soe. Am. A/V. 10, No. 2/February 1998, solutions are available, shows that the approximate results are accurate in the limit of small anisotropy even for strongly asymmetric waveguides, as long as one of the in- terfaces is weakly guiding. Examples drawn from planar and fiber waveguides il- lustrate general trends for the dependence of the loss on the profile height 4, the angle between the optical axis and the waveguide axis @, and the anisotropy 8, For symmet: rie planar waveguides, the loss is proportional to A* cot? a. For strongly asymmetric waveguides, the loss is insensitive to the large-profile height and proportional to the square of the small-profile height 4. Compared with a symmet- ric waveguide that has the same A, the loss of a strongly asymmetric waveguide is much larger when A << 6 but is of the same order when 4 ~ 8. The lose for a birefringent fiber with a # 0 is of the order A~ larger than that of a fiber with a = 0 and is comparable with that of a symmet- rie planar waveguide that has similar profile height and anisotropy. The loss of a planar waveguide with a lin- carly graded refractive-index profile is much smaller than that of a step profile when 2mp5""/A >> 1 but is com- parable when this quantity is of order unity. APPENDIX A: INTEGRAL EXPRESSIONS FOR THE COUPLED FIELDS AND THE PROPAGATION CONSTANT Snyder and Ruhl! approximate the j component of a pre- dominantly i-polarized leaky mode (i and j are set to be y and x, respectively) by the integral vi 8) = [ setieea,, fan where e{(@,) are the continuum solutions to the homoge- neous Eq. (I4a). To find the modal coefficients a,, one firat substitutes the form given in Eq. (AL) for eft in Bq, (14b), then multiplies Bq, (14b) by el), "(Q/). With the orthogonality relation EMQWNCTIAY = NBQ, ~ QW, (a2 4, is obtained as _ LEMQ)P vith) &* NBimaet~ Bus)” (as) and the j component of the leaky mode becomes ee pt pel *(Q)) Prete (nlQs) aie ee eve where the relation dQ, = ~p*B(0.¢48.m-/@) has been used. In the expression for Bj given by Eq, (15), only the third term can result in an imaginary component. ‘Thus, by taking (2, in the form given in (Ad), one is led to 4, — — + tm) [°%* 2*etu@nPielty? | i Bene if 7 2Q,M Bung ~ Boo) P** (a5) where the relation WE "Q)Peeih) = fel" Pye (QM (a6) is used. Equation (A6) results from the requirement that the perturbative modes be orthogonal to each other and is M. Lu and M. M. Fier correct to lowest order in & and 6, Therefore the function to be integrated in Hq, (AB) is real, If Bio > kya, the integral in Eq. (A6) is real since the contour is on the real axis only, while for By < kr, deformation of the con- tour around the pole Bia, — Bin gives rise to an imagi nary part ofthe integral, ‘Thus we ean define a threshold value for Bip, Bes, a8 Buy = Rega)" = bra, (an) such that for ico > Bas the imaginary part ofthe propaga- tion constant vanishes, while for By» < fa the imaginary part ofthe propagation constant is given by HeGy*Q)Pue foe Bue 2N, Qe) ‘The correction to the modal field that comes from the coupling between e(! and the i-plarized radiation modes can be obtained in the same way, and the rosult is same as Eq. (A4) with j replaced by i. However, this e°, will not introduce the loss to the mode. To see this, we can go through a similar process from Eqs. (A5)-(A8) and find that there is no pole in the contour of the integral in Bq. (AB) if is replaced by i, beeause no i-polarized radia tion mode can be degenerate with e{ B= Buna = Boo (8) APPENDIX B: LP MODES ‘The LP modes ef}, and e{%, are the solutions of Eq. (14a), mn this appendix we present the expressions for LP modes of several model-guiding structures,_In these expressions normalized transverse coordinate 3, i defined by = = x/p for planar waveguides, and fis defined by R= rip for waveguides of circular eros section, where pis a character- istie dimension ofthe guiding region that is defined below. 1, Symmetric Step-Profile Planar Waveguide A symmetric step-profile planar waveguide is shown in Fig. 2. An even-guided LP mode of the y polarization has the form'* oe (eca(tz) F>-1+ (BB) expla + D) F< 1 Vol. 10, No.2/Februsry 1993/J. Opt. Soe. Am.A 259 where tan(g.)) = 2 tanlU, + $y) (aus) and dim = cos" + F)!"]. ‘There are two types of rode, with Fa, m = 1,2 representing two orthogonal solu: tions chosen in such a way that in the limit of a symmetric waveguide even and odd radiation modes result. ‘The above requirement yields the following expressions for F, where = cos(U,/V,.), and the normalization integral and Fy a Vast cost2U,) + (Qes/Qui)Va? + [Vast + 2(Qe2/QaVa'Vez? cos(2U.) + (Quc'/a Wa'* 5 oa Vas" sin(2U,) te is given by where for F the positive sign is used and for F the nega: ve tive sign is used. The corresponding normalization con- 0-214 stants are 8) - Fe (: (Bn) a4 By Vat vay where p is the thickness of the asymmetric waveguide. Na FO + Fad] 1+ G5 sins + Om) The eigenvalue equation for this mode is given by U2 = Wa, ee Ue — Wao al a (Bs) ‘There are two kinds of radiation mode. ‘The first kind 0 as the side where the modes decay) ‘and oscillates in the other. ‘These modes exist for ha < Buoy < kao (We have assumed that 7,1 < Max) and have the forms lexpl—Waz) z>0 _ [siz + da) ee 7 nF + D+ ba) oy U sin(b.a) (39) where ot( dn) — — He (m0 cota) =~ (a0) etl) = ~ FE cot, ~ 4.) un ‘The normalization constant of the above mode is Vat 1+ 2 cost, - on) 2) gsc. 4 | na) The other kinds of radiation mode, oscillatory in both superstrates and substrates, exist when Buy < kr «1 and have the forms" con Qa) + Gea sin(Qut) elle = joa, #) + Fy sin(U,) coslQ.a(% + 1) + b.') - (eos) ~ Fy sin(Uy) MOAT +@(1 2 Mat _ Fat ) . Qe Qa Lt Fee, 3. Strongly Asymmetric Step-Profile Planar Waveguide In strongly asymmetric waveguides the profile height 4 is small on one side only, esis shown in Fig. 13. ‘The guided LLP modes ofthe TE polarization can be deduced directly from those for weakly guiding waveguides by taking the limit A.sdya < Aaydn. ‘The expression for the modal field, Bq (B6), remains unchanged, while the normaliza- tion integral, Bq (3), becomes (B16) en) and the eigenvalue equation, Eq, (BS), becomes Ws costs) = ~ FE is) The LP radiation modes of the TM polarization, ¢{%,., are not solutions of Eq, (18b) anymore; instead they satisfy Lent). (92 + eae ~ Bante = -2(ef3,22 as is discussed in Section 5. Using U,,Wra,Vea < Vai, and @i\¢260 J. Opt. Soe. Amn A/Vol, 10, No. 2/February 1993 Vix = Wa, we derive from Eq. (B19) Foo - £09163) oats couQalz +1)+ ba) go acne) Feo (20) ean) where das and dz are determined from the continuity of the derivative of e/2, at the two interfaces, obeying (B22) atau, ~ 64). (523) Notice that e'%, is not continuous at the large A interface, but ene (2, is. tan(ba) = 4. Step-Profile Circular Fiber For the circular fiber depicted in Fig. 8, the y-polarized ‘guided LP mode has the form* LAUR) Gd) Re1 of AO) ef. . (Baa) KiULR) Kaw Ge) RA and the x-polarized radiation mode is given by co — [PuhURIG.(6) R<1 USGL) + HMQRIG LO) R>1 (B25) ‘where the constants p, and q, are Pu = Ud UHI.) ~ Qed OPA, (B26) FPG WII LQ) ~ Qeh(Vo QD, 2 cos(/4) for even modes, G(s) ~ sin(I6) for ‘The normalization constants are Ve AU, FI) the radius of the circular waveguide, M. Livand MM. Fejer 5, Symmetric Linear-Profile Planar Waveguide A symmetric linear-index profile is shown in Fig. 10. An even-guided mode of the y polarization for waveguides with such a profile has the field expression™ izl<1 oy oo) ee ie Fa > Ys exp(—-WF| - 0) and the modal solution for an odd s-polarized radiation e (i jie zI<1, oe A sin[Q.()2) — 1) + db.) =) Fiz MAO OT gio (B31) where 9 (B39) and Aa) and Bits) are Airy functions equation for ef, is given by (gs) -0e(ge) Sl) -an())- ‘The coefficients d, are given by “Aus Bi(-U,/V,") _ Ai), Bi(-UZ/V.) The normalization integral e( ‘The eigenvalue ei) ota a (0) w asm and the somatization enstatof te radiation mote B(00 +22). om APPENDIX C: EXACT SOLUTION FOR THE PROPAGATION CONSTANT OF AN ASYMMETRIC PLANAR WAVEGUIDE Marcuse” has given the exact solution forthe propagation constants and the modal fields of aymmetrie waveguides. Following his procedure, we can derive the exaet solution for asymmetric waveguides. Here we list only the result for the propagation constant, which satisfies th following equation: AD -CB=0, «cy whereM, Lu and MM. Fejer Vol. 10, No, 2/February 1988/1, Opt. Soc. Am.A 261 A ea GW . Nestle Uu, RU, 5" u) : (C2) = gin gy, Pita gotta sin U. ) 0 eB, ia 7k hiha cot” asin Ue | (cuss Fy, fanse a © €exc0F Fa Uz (e# Fo eco Fe We Joos U, + (1 FPL tax! uP perme cee rh he (G Wa . PRA, Sexes @ Wa p= 88 (SB amu, «ow ts) + (one wot) es pis the thickness of the waveguide; h is the free-space 4. D. P. Gia Russo and J. H, Harris, “Wave propagation in aniso- feopagtion constant; a0d'FG, We, Wa Ua Case Wp thn apt seogie'Op Se in, defined as in Marcuse’s r: rg ale Paper 5. W. K. Burns, S. K. Shem, and A. F. Milton, ‘Approximate ee Sesion on er Sd Us = pi kteinee — B), (C6) LiNbO; waveguides,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-15, as tase 1280 (09, Wal = p(B? ~ Reina (c7) 6. M. Cada, J. Ctyroky, I. Gregora, and J. Schrofel, “WKB analy- Ss of ided aod Conlaly toes in rade iner an | (C8) tropic optical waveguides,” Opt. Commun. 28, 59-63 (1979). p 1. Simi Okemo, F Makot, Anal and . dain af semicay-type thin-film opal wevepue bole we~p[e(sota sete) Heda], eo) Bgeees etait OE er [wes 7 aa 8. K. Yamanouchi, T: Kamiya, and K. Shibayama, “New leaky surface waves in anisotropic metal-difused optical wave: R= Wed cot? a = p*keinas, (cw) fuides.” TEE Trans. Microwave Thoory Tech. MTT-2 1296-3065 (2978). C= Us cot? a+ pK (C1) 9, FE Ruhland A. W.Soyder, “Anisotropic bers studied bythe Green's function method.” IEEE J. Lightwave Technol. LT. and h, is defined as, 2, 284-291 1964). 10. A.W Snyder and A. Ankiowice, “Anisotropic fibers with non By = EincoWad® + einai. (cia) (stress) axes,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 856-863 11, A, W Snyder and J. D. Love, Optical Waveguide Theory cl i ‘Giapman & Hall London, 198). 288-257 eens ‘12, A. W Snyder and F. F. Ruhl, “Anisotropic multimoded fibers We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with Eicon Leto 18, 401-402 1983) Tile ese ae a 'S Air 1%. P.M. Morse and H, Feshbach, Methods of Theoretical Physies Laney ech eee AE ett (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953), pp. 884-886. Force Office of Scientific Research and the Defense Ad- 14. MJ. Adams, An Introduction o Optical Waveguides (Wiley, vanced Research Projects Agency Optoelectronic Mate- Chichester, UK. 1980, p. 7 rials Center. 15. D. Marcuse, Light Transmission Optics (Van Nostrand Rein- hold, New York, 1962), pp. 305-22. 16. D. Marcuse, Theory of Dielectric Optice! Waveguides (Aca REFERENCES ddemie, New York, 1874, pp. 7-26. 17. A. Tonning, “Circular symmetric optical waveguide with 1. A.W Snyder and F. Rul, “Single-mode, single-polarzation ‘strong anisotropy,” IEEE ‘Trans. Microwave Theory Tech {bers made of birefringent materia,” J. Opt. Soe. Am. 78, “MIT-0, 790-74 (1982) 1165-1174 (1989). 18. J, Badan, R. Hierle, A. Perignud, and P. Vdakovie, in Nonlin- 2. D. Marcuse and I. P. Kaminoy, “Modes of @ symmot- ‘ear Optical Properties of Organic Molecules and Crystals, D. ie alab optical waveguide in birofringont media. Part IL S'Chomla, ed. (Academic, Orlando, Pla, 1987), Chap. 11-4 Slab with coplanar optical axis,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. pad QE-15, 92-101 (1979) 19.8. Sudo, A. Cordova, R, L. Byer, and H. J. Shaw, 8. A. Knoesen, T. K. Gaylord, and M. G. Moharam, “Hybrid ‘MgO:LiNbOs single-crystal fiber with magnesium-ion modes in uniaxial dielectric planar waveguides,” IEEE. J. in-diffused cladding,” Opt Lett. 12, 935-840 (1887) Lightwave Technol. LT-6, 1089-1108 (988), 20, Ref. 4, pp. 126-128,