Optical Response of One Dimensional Photonic Crystals

with Rough Interfaces

S. Jena*, R. B. Tokas, S. Thakur, and D. V. Udupa
Atomic & Molecular Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India
*
Author e-mail address: shujena@barc.gov.in; shuvendujena9@gmail.com

Abstract: Most of the manufacturing techniques used to fabricate one dimensional photonic
crystal (1DPC) inherently generate roughness at the interfaces, which significantly affects the
performance of the 1DPC optical devices. In the preset work, the effect of interface roughness on
the optical response of the 1DPCs with and without a defect layer has been explored. The results
show that the photonic bandgap gets narrower, and the defect mode intensity gets lower with
increasing interface roughness. The resonant transmission in the defective 1DPC having layer
thicknesses less (greater) than quarter-wave thickness undergoes redshift (blueshift) with
increasing interface roughness.
Keywords: Photonic bandgap; Defect mode; Transfer matrix; Interface roughness

1. Introduction
One dimensional photonic crystal (1DPC) is most popular in the optics and photonics industry and it is made of
materials having periodic dielectric permittivity variation only in one direction. It exhibits wavelength tunable
photonic bandgap (PBG). The presence of PBG gives high reflectivity which leads to design of distributed Bragg
reflector (DBR). The introduction of a defect layer in the 1DPC breaks its periodicity, consequently generates
allowed states that are strongly localized around the defect in the PBG which can be exploited to design bandpass
filters [1]. Ideally, a 1DPC with or without a defect layer targeting an optical device is designed with smooth
interface, but the manufacturing techniques inherently generates roughness at the interfaces [2]. Generally, light
gets scattered from a rough surface, consequently reduces the specular reflectivity of that surface. When each
interface of a multilayer 1DPC exhibits finite roughness, then the impact of roughness on optical performance
should be considered while designing 1DPC based optical devices. Hence, the question needs to be addressed is
that how sensitive is the optical response of a defective and a defect free 1DPC to the interfacial roughness?
2. Theoretical Framework
Schematic of a 1DPC with rough interfaces is shown in Fig. 1(a). The spectral response of the 1DPC is computed
using Transfer matrix method (TMM). Each layer in the 1DPC is assumed as non-magnetic and dielectric having
refractive index n. The impact of interface roughness is introduced in TMM using s statistical treatment of the
reflected light from a rough surface, which describes the interface roughness as an effective roughness derived
from the size distribution. This effective roughness is known as the root mean square roughness (RMS) denoted as
σ. The roughness at the interface changes the phase of the reflected and transmitted EM field, consequently
influence the field intensity. The modified Fresnel coefficients (r, t) for jth rough interfaces in the TMM are [3]

1, j exp[ 2(2 n j 1 j  ) ]

rj 1, j  rj(0) 2

, j 1 exp[ 2(2 n j j  ) ]
rj , j 1  rj(0) 2

j 1, j exp[  1 2 (2 (n j  n j 1 ) j  ) ]

t j 1, j  t (0) 2

j , j 1 exp[  1 2 (2 (n
t j , j 1  t (0) j 1  n j ) j  ) 2 ]
3. Results and Discussions
The 1DPC is made of two alternate layers of material A and B having refractive index n = 1.46 and 2.35,
respectively, placed on a glass substrate. Each layer of A and B has quarter wave optical thickness at the design
wavelength of 550 nm i.e. the physical thickness of layer A and B is 94 nm and 59 nm, respectively. Material B is
used as a defect layer having half wave optical thickness (~ 186 nm) in between two DBR; as a result the defective
 1DPC gives resonant transmission at the defect frequency. The photonic structures of a defect free and a defective
1DPC are (AB)2N and (AB)NB(AB)N, respectively. The value of N is fixed at 4 for the present calculation.
3.1. 1DPC without a defect layer (distributed Bragg reflector)
The computed reflection spectrum of 8-bilayer 1DPC with varying interface roughness from 0 to 15 nm is shown
in Fig. 1(b). The figure shows that the reflectivity decreases across the bandgap and the photonic bandgap gets
narrower with increasing roughness. It is observed that [4] the change in reflectivity with roughness across the
bandgap is much higher as compared to that of higher period 1DPC. The photonic bandgap undergoes redshift with
increasing roughness for lower period 1DPC, while it does not change much in case of higher period 1DPC.
(a) (b)

Fig. 1: (a) Schematic of 1DPC with rough interfaces and (b) reflection spectrum of the 1DPC with varying
interface roughness.
3.2. 1DPC with a defect layer (bandpass filter)
The computed transmission spectrum of the 1DPC containing a defect layer with varying interface roughness is
plotted in Fig. 2(a). The figure shows that the resonant peak transmission of the defective 1DPC at the defect
frequency decreases with increasing interface roughness, while its peak frequency does not change. The effect of
layer thickness other than quarter-wave thickness (d 0) in a defective 1DPC is also explored, and the computed
spectrum with varying interface roughness is plotted in Fig. 2(b). The figure shows that the defect frequency or
peak frequency of the defective 1DPC undergoes red-shift for layer thickness less than d 0, and blue-shift for layer
thickness greater than d0. The peak transmission decreases with roughness irrespective of layer thickness.

(a) (b)

Fig. 2: (a) Transmission spectrum of the 1DPC containing a defect layer and (b) layer thickness dependent
transmission of the defective 1DPC with varying interface roughness.
4. References
[1] S. Jena et al. “Tunable mirrors and filters in 1D photonic crystals containing polymers,” Physica E 114, 113627 (2019).
[2] K. R. Maskaly et al. “Diminished normal reflectivity of one dimensional photonic crystals,” Opt. Lett. 29, 2791-2793 (2004).
[3] I. A. Lujan-Cabrera et al. “Effects of interface roughness in the optical response of porous silicon,” Physica B 560, 133-139 (2019).
[4] K. R. Maskaly et al. “The effect of interfacial roughness on the normal incidence bandgap,” Opt. Exp. 13, 8380-8389 (2005).