See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234985113

Radiation losses of waveguide-based two-dimensional photonic crystals:

Positive role of the substrate

Article  in  Applied Physics Letters · January 2000

DOI: 10.1063/1.125809

CITATIONS READS

235 176

8 authors, including:

C. Weisbuch T.F. Krauss

University of California, Santa Barbara The University of York
354 PUBLICATIONS   17,951 CITATIONS    568 PUBLICATIONS   20,454 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Cassagne
Université de Montpellier
114 PUBLICATIONS   3,281 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

2D materials nanolaser View project

All content following this page was uploaded by C. Weisbuch on 17 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS VOLUME 76, NUMBER 5 31 JANUARY 2000

Radiation losses of waveguide-based two-dimensional photonic crystals:

Positive role of the substrate
H. Benisty,a) D. Labilloy,b) and C. Weisbuch
Laboratoire de Physique de la Matière Condensée, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France
C. J. M. Smith and T. F. Krauss
Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Glasgow University, G12 8LT Glasgow,
United Kingdom
D. Cassagne, A. Béraud, and C. Jouanin
Groupe d’Etude des Semiconducteurs, Université Montpellier II CC074, 34095 Montpellier
Cedex 05, France
共Received 22 June 1999; accepted for publication 4 December 1999兲
Radiation losses occurring in photonic crystals etched into planar waveguides are analyzed using a
first-order perturbation approximation. Assuming the incoherent scattering limit, the model indicates
that losses diminish as the cladding index approaches the core index. A simple scheme is devised
to include these losses into purely two-dimensional calculations by using an imaginary index. Such
calculations are shown to agree with corresponding experimental transmission through near-infrared
photonic crystals, reproducing the contrasting behavior of the ‘‘dielectric’’ and ‘‘air’’ band edges.
© 2000 American Institute of Physics. 关S0003-6951共00兲03205-8兴

To take advantage of the superior light confinement
properties of two-dimensional photonic crystals 共2D-PCs兲 in
optoelectronic devices, one has to combine them with planar
waveguiding in the third dimension.1–4 The common belief
is that holes perforating a waveguide induce coupling of the
guided wave to radiation modes in the two claddings.1,5–9
Because knowledge of these radiation losses 共RLs兲 is essen-
tial for future applications, we give here a semiquantitative
account of them obtained by viewing the holes as a pertur-
bation ⌬ ⑀ (r) in a separable approximation of the perforated
waveguide. Using a first-order approximation,10 RLs arise
from the perturbed polarization ⌬ P(r), caused by ⌬ ⑀ (r),
and can be viewed as an effective imaginary index in the
hole. Agreement between 2D transmission calculations and
measurements of 2D-PCs etched through a Ga共Al兲As laser-
like heterostructure11 suggests that incoherent Rayleigh-type
RLs, neglecting Bragg-type coherence among scatterers, ap-
plies to this configuration. The behavior of RLs is found to
originate from the fact that Bloch states sample ⌬ ⑀ (r) in a
strongly band-dependent way, an effect also seen in specific
distributed feedback 共DFB兲 lasers.12,13 Finally, our model
suggests the somewhat nonorthodox conclusion, hinted at by
computational results,6 that membrane guides, supported by
glass or self-supported, exhibit more losses than conven-
tional cladding with moderate index contrast ⌬n⭐0.5, pro-
vided holes extend well into the cladding.
In the model we consider the perforated symmetric
monomode waveguide of Fig. 1共a兲, ⑀ 2 and ⑀ 1 being the di-
electric constants of the core—of thickness w—and the clad-
ding, respectively. The mode effective index of the basic
waveguide is denoted by n eff⫽冑⑀ eff and its profile by ␨ (z).
Air-filled cylindrical holes form a triangular lattice of period
a兲
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; electronic mail:
hb@pmc.polytechnique.fr
b兲
Present address: CERF, Corning SA, 7bis Ave. de Valvins, F-77210 Avon,
France.
a. For a 25% air-filling factor, the TE polarized gap as well
as optical confinement in microcavities based on this 2D-PC
have been demonstrated.4,11,14–16
The solution of the scalar wave equation for the system
⑀ 3D(x,y,z) of Fig. 1共a兲 is untractable because ⑀ 3D(x,y,z) is
not the sum of a ‘‘horizontal’’ and a ‘‘vertical’’ contribution.
We show in the Appendix, however, that an approximate
solution is a separable field E s (x,y,z)⫽ ␺ (x,y) ␨ (z), the so-
lution of the separable map ⑀ h (x,y)⫹ ⑀ v (z) of Fig. 1共b兲 in
which ␺ (x,y) is the solution of the 2D-PC. This map differs
from ⑀ 3D by the term ⌬ ⑀ (r) of Fig. 1共c兲 共volume V
⫽ ␲ a 2 w, at the intersection of the holes and the core, and
magnitude ⌬ ⑀ ⫽ ⑀ 2 ⫺ ⑀ 1 兲. In the first Born approximation,10 a
radiating electric dipole p⫽ 具 ⌬ P 典 V V⫽ ⑀ 0 ⌬ ⑀ 具 E s 典 V V sits in
each hole, 具 E s 典 V being the average field in volume V. This
dipole is embedded in a textured waveguide, so that its ra-
diation is not trivial. However, we approximate the total
power radiated by p by the power W it emits in a bulk me-
dium of index n 2 . This is based on studies of layered
structures17 that show that W differs from the bulk value by a
FIG. 1. 共a兲 Waveguide perforated by infinite holes forming a photonic crys-
tal; 共b兲 dielectric map obtained by summing a vertical contribution ⑀ v (z)
⬅ ⑀ 1 / ⑀ 2 / ⑀ 1 to a 2D contribution ⑀ h (x,y); 共c兲 the difference between the
perforated waveguide and the separable map forms of an array of cylinders
of height w and dielectric constant ⌬ ⑀ ⫽ ⑀ 2 ⫺ ⑀ 1 .

0003-6951/2000/76(5)/532/3/$17.00 532 © 2000 American Institute of Physics

Downloaded 24 Mar 2009 to 169.231.68.31. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://apl.aip.org/apl/copyright.jsp
Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 76, No. 5, 31 January 2000
factor of 2 at worse, often much less. Hence,
p 2␻ 4n 2
W⫽ , 共1兲
12␲ ⑀ 0 c 3
where ␻ ⫽2 ␲ c/␭, ␭ being the vacuum wavelength, and ⑀ 0
and c have their usual meaning. Radiation losses W RL are the
fraction ␩ of W going into radiation modes. For radiation
from a periodic collection of holes one expects coherent
Bragg scattering and cutoff effects that may strongly modu-
late RLs. However, we expect here only moderate correction
factors as coherence is much diminished by finite crystal
effects stemming either from the few physical rows or the
short light penetration depth. This leads us to consider, in a
semiquantitative approach, scatterers emitting incoherently.
Methods to obtain the extraction efficiency ␩ of dipole
radiation in multilayer stacks17,18 should then be used. It
turns out that, with the exception of resonant vertical cavity
structures, ␩ is often close to the value 1⫺cos ␪c obtained by
integrating isotropic dipole emission from normal incidence
up to the critical angle ␪ c ⫽sin⫺1(n1 /n2). Here, we restrict
ourselves to a semiquantitative approach and leave ␩ as an
explicit factor in the formula and discussion below. Hence,
RLs per hole read, with a little algebra
具 E s 典 V2 共 ⌬ ⑀ 兲 2 V2 ␲ 3c ⑀ 0
W RL⫽ ␩.
n 32 共 ␭/2n 2 兲 4
12
To include these losses into otherwise purely two-
dimensional calculations, we remark that the power W diss
dissipated by the PC field ␺ (x,y) in a small volume V hav-
ing an imaginary dielectric constant ⑀ ⬙ reads
1 V␲c
W diss⫽ ⑀ 0 ⑀ ⬙ 具 兩 ␺ 兩 2 典 V , 共3兲
2 n 2 共 ␭/2n 2 兲
in which n 2 has been introduced ad hoc.
Equating W diss and W RL gives a value of ⑀ ⬙ in which the
ratio 具 E s 典 V2 / 具 兩 ␺ 兩 2 典 V appears. In the context of guided wave
optics, this ratio is the confinement factor ⌫ 1 of the guided
mode, ⌫ 1 ⫽ 兰 core兩 ␨ (z) 兩 2 / 兰兩 ␨ (z) 兩 2 , accounting for the overlap
of ␨ (z) with V in the z direction. This leads to the following
expression of the imaginary part of ⑀:
␲2 V 共 ⌬⑀ 兲2
⬙ ⫽
⑀ RL ␩⌫1 .
6 共 ␭/2n 2 兲 3 n 22
For the remainder of this letter, we compare Eq. 共4兲 to
experimental results and elucidate the role of the cladding
index ⑀ 1 . Our theory is compared to measured transmission
data T(␭) of 2D-PCs etched through a Ga共Al兲As laser-like
heterostructure.11 Crystals of seven different periods a from
180 to 300 nm and two orientations, ⌫M or ⌫K, are probed.
Here we focus on PCs with N⫽8 rows, sufficient enough to
sharpen band edges and have a clear ‘‘fine structure’’ of
secondary oscillations along pass bands.11
A numerical simulation of T(␭) was made in 2D using
the transfer-matrix method 共TMM兲19 with a matrix dielectric
constant ⑀ ⫽11.3, a fitted air filling factor f ⫽21.3%, and by
using as a fitting parameter ⑀ ⬙ ⫽0.18 in the holes. The ex-
perimental results stitched together as a function of the nor-
malized frequency u⫽a/␭ are shown in Figs. 2共a兲–2共d兲
共thin lines兲 with the TMM calculations T(u) 共Fig. 2, bold
Downloaded 24 Mar 2009 to 169.231.68.31. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://apl.aip.org/apl/copyright.jsp
Benisty et al. 533
FIG. 2. 共a兲–共d兲 Comparison of experimental transmission of eight rows
thick 2D-PCs 共thin line兲 with calculations with losses ⑀ ⬙ ⫽0.18 共bold line兲
and without losses 共dashed line兲, as a function of the normalized frequency
u⫽a/␭. Orientations 共⌫K on top and ⌫M on bottom兲 and polarizations 共TE
to the left and TM to the right兲 are indicated.
lines兲 for the four (TE,TM)⫻(⌫K,⌫M ) cases. The dotted
lines represent T(u) for the lossless case ⑀ ⬙ ⫽0.
The introduction of ⑀ ⬙ diminishes T(u) as well as the
共2兲 contrast of the fine structure, both effects agreeing with mea-
surements. A dramatic effect is also to smooth the edge of
the ‘‘air band,’’ and its ‘‘fine structure,’’ rather than those of
the ‘‘dielectric’’ band. This difference, since ⑀ ⬙ is constant,
stems from the Bloch wave differently sampling the holes at
each band edge, and hence suffering very different losses.
Similar effects arise in DFB lasers with periodic gain or
losses.12,13 Here, modes of the ‘‘dielectric’’ band edge have
their nodes in the holes, and radiation losses are minimal; the
converse holds for the bottom of the ‘‘air band,’’ with the
largest RLs. The agreement of simulation with experiment
justifies the Rayleigh approximation, i.e., neglecting the
Bragg-type coherence effects, especially on both sides of the
gap where Bragg effects of the investigated PCs are liable to
large changes due to the different role of the ‘‘light line.’’ 1,20
Discrepancies might stem from the single value ⑀ ⬙ ⫽0.18
used in Fig. 2, whereas: 共i兲 the hole area, and hence V, vary,
共ii兲 the etch depth is known to decrease for the two smallest
共4兲 periods, 180 and 200 nm,11 likely causing excess losses and
lower transmission. Quantitatively, the present waveguide is
asymmetric, the GaAs core 共w⫽240 nm, ⑀ 2 ⫽n 22 ⫽12.2兲 hav-
ing claddings with dielectric constants 11.5 and 9.6.11 As for
the hole radius, for a⫽240 nm 共corresponding to the ‘‘air’’
band edge, for which RLs are of greatest relevance兲, and f
⫽21.3%, we have r⫽58 nm. We find by adapting our ap-
proach to asymmetric guides that RLs in this situation are
dominated by the cladding with largest ⌬⑀, here ⌬ ⑀ ⫽2.6.
Then using Eq. 共4兲 with ⌫ 1 ⬇0.55 yields ⑀ ⬙ ⫽0.24 共⑀ ⬙
⫽0.18 was used in Fig. 2兲. Given the number of approxima-
tions made, this agreement is more than satisfactory.
Let us now discuss briefly the relevance of this model to
the substrate issue. It is often said that RLs would be mini-
mal and waveguiding well maintained if one starts from a
situation of ‘‘strong confinement,’’ e.g., with self-supported
membrane.1,5,6,7 The discussion here is aimed at localized
defect modes which do couple to radiation modes 共although
534 Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 76, No. 5, 31 January 2000
a periodically perforated membrane in air does support genu-
ine guided modes兲.1,21 Two extreme cases for cladding/core
contrast are: 共i兲 ⌬ ⑀ Ⰶ ⑀ 2 , as holds for most conventional
semiconductor-cladding waveguides and 共ii兲 ⌬ ⑀ ⫽ ⑀ 2 ⫺1, the
membrane or air-bridge limit. Both cases are to some extent
documented through the in-plane cavity-Q numerical calcu-
lation of Ref. 6 for which ⑀ 2 ⫽n 22 ⫽10.89 and ⑀ 1 takes either
the value 9 or 1 共air兲. Figure 3 of Ref. 6 gives Q factors for
1D cavities as a function of etch depth. We only refer here to
the fully perforated membrane and, for the ⑀ 1 ⫽9 cladding,
to the largest etch depth given, for which Q saturation is still
not obvious. Results are Q⬇600 for the membrane and Q
⬇7500 for the ‘‘conventional’’ cladding. We find a similar
trend from our approach for RLs based on the sole values of
the (⌬ ⑀ ) 2 ␩ product in Eq. 共4兲, 2.05 and 4.60 respectively,
neglecting variations of ⌫ 1 共larger for the air cladding, hence
underestimating the difference兲. The smaller difference in
our approach may come from its perturbational aspect, espe-
cially for the membranes owing to their large index step. But
the agreement on the trend suggests that, contrary to a well-
established belief,1,22 substrate removal is not necessarily the
best route to high-Q cavities,4,7 which can be well achieved
with conventional waveguide claddings, e.g., high-index
semiconductors, the nature of the underlying substrate then
hardly playing any role.
Application-wise, one should evaluate every condition.
First, it might seem that diminishing ⌬⑀ to its limit, i.e.,
using vanishingly small waveguiding, should lead to mini-
mal losses. However, this requires an unfeasible aspect ratio
for holes to fully overlap the mode profile. One is limited
here by the etching performance. Also, for applications to
PC-based guides, Bragg scattering certainly plays a role
which may reduce losses well below the incoherent value.
Finally, for spontaneous emission control, e.g., by the Purcell
effect,23 the larger radiation losses for large ⌬⑀ are somewhat
balanced by the better coupling of spontaneous emission to
the guided mode and the shrinkage of the effective mode
width, hence of the modal volume.
In conclusion, a semiquantitative formulation was pro-
posed for radiation losses that occur in waveguide-based 2D-
PCs, assuming incoherent scattering as a first step. Radiation
losses can be accounted for in two-dimensional models 关Eq.
共4兲兴, avoiding the task of 3D modeling in numerous 2D-PC
applications. Our model agrees with transmission measure-
ment through PCs, reproducing the contrasting behavior of
radiation losses at the two photonic band edges. Our ap-
proach also confirms that, with sufficient etch depth, high-
index claddings are superior to low-index ones to form
high-Q cavities, one of the crucial points in assessing appli-
cation prospects of photonic crystals.
This work was supported by the Project ‘‘SMILED.’’
Appendix: A first order scalar approximation to the solution
of Fig. 1共a兲 is a separable field E s (x,y,z)⫽ ␺ (x,y) ␨ (z)
obeying a wave equation with a ‘‘separable’’ dielectric map
⌬ ␨ ␺ ⫹k 20 关 ⑀ v 共 z 兲 ⫹ ⑀ h 共 x,y 兲 ⫺A 兴 ␨ ␺ ⫽0,
where k 20 ⫽ ␻ 2 /c 2 ,
with the usual meaning, and A is a con-
stant. ⑀ (z) is the virgin guide profile ⑀ 1 / ⑀ 2 / ⑀ 1 and the PC-
v 23
related horizontal profile ⑀ h (x,y) is a function to be deter-
Downloaded 24 Mar 2009 to 169.231.68.31. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://apl.aip.org/apl/copyright.jsp
View publication stats
Benisty et al.
mined, taking two values ⑀ hc , ⑀ mh
in the cylinders and in the
matrix, respectively. To find them, we remark that since the
separability yields (⌬ ␺ ) ␨ ⫹ ␺ (⌬ ␨ )⫽⌬( ␺ ␨ ), Eq. 共A1兲 is sat-
isfied if the two separate equations hold:
⌬ ␺ 共 x,y 兲 ⫹k 20 ⑀ h 共 x,y 兲 ␺ 共 x,y 兲 ⫽0, 共A2兲
⌬ ␨ 共 z 兲 ⫹k 20 共 ⑀ v 共 z 兲 ⫺A 兲 ␨ 共 z 兲 ⫽0. 共A3兲
Equation 共A3兲 is satisfied with A⫽ ⑀ eff⫽␤2k⫺2 0 , ␤ being the
propagation constant of the single mode of the virgin guide.
Then the problem amounts to fit the four distinct values
taken by ⑀ v (z)⫹ ⑀ h (x,y)⫺ ⑀ eff in the various regions to the
three actual dielectric constants ( ⑀ 1 , ⑀ 2 ,1) of Fig. 1共a兲. In the
matrix, taking ⑀ m h
⫽ ⑀ eff retrieves both ⑀ 1 and ⑀ 2 . In the cyl-
inders, we chose ⑀ hc such that ⑀ ⫽1 at the cladding level,
hence ⑀ hc ⫽1⫹ ⑀ eff⫺⑀1 , so that at the core level, one has ⑀
⫽ ⑀ hc ⫹ ⑀ 2 ⫺ ⑀ eff⫽1⫹⑀2⫺⑀1 . Hence, when subtracting ⌬ ⑀
⫽ ⑀ 2 ⫺ ⑀ 1 关Figs. 1共a兲–1共b兲兴 in the region sketched in Fig. 1共c兲
we obtain the perturbation.
1
P. R. Villeneuve, S. Fan, S. G. Johnson, and J. D. Joannopoulos, IEE
Proc.: Optoelectron. 145, 384 共1998兲.
2
R. D. Meade, A. Deveny, J. D. Joannopoulos, O. L. Alerhand, D. A.
Smith, and K. Kash, J. Appl. Phys. 75, 4753 共1994兲.
3
T. Baba, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 3, 808 共1997兲.
4
C. J. M. Smith, T. F. Krauss, R. D. L. Rue, D. Labilloy, H. Benisty, C.
Weisbuch, U. Oesterle, and R. Houdré, Electron. Lett. 35, 228 共1999兲.
5
J. C. Chen, H. A. Haus, S. Fan, P. R. Villeneuve, and J. D. Joannopoulos,
IEEE J. Lightwave Technol. 14, 2575 共1996兲.
6
B. D’Urso, O. Painter, J. O’Brien, T. Tombrello, A. Yariv, and A. Scherer,
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 15, 1155 共1998兲.
7
R. K. Lee, O. J. Painter, B. D’Urso, A. Scherer, and A. Yariv, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 71, 1522 共1999兲.
8
P. S. J. Russell, D. A. Atkin, T. A. Birks, and P. J. Roberts, in Microcavi-
ties and Photonic Bandgaps: Physics and Application, edited by J. Rarity,
C. Weisbuch 共Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996兲, pp. 203–218.
9
D. M. Atkin, P. S. J. Russell, T. A. Birks, and P. J. Roberts, J. Mod. Opt.
43, 1035 共1996兲.
10
M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 4th ed. 共Pergamon, Oxford,
1970兲, p. 453.
11
D. Labilloy, H. Benisty, C. Weisbuch, C. J. M. Smith, T. F. Krauss, R.
Houdré, and U. Oesterle, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1649 共1999兲.
12
R. Kazarinov and C. H. Henry, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-21, 144
共1985兲.
13
R. Baets, K. David, and G. Morthier, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-29,
1792 共1993兲.
14
D. Labilloy, H. Benisty, C. Weisbuch, T. F. Krauss, R. M. De La Rue, V.
Bardinal, R. Houdré, U. Oesterle, D. Cassagne, and C. Jouanin, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 79, 4147 共1997兲.
15
C. J. M. Smith, T. F. Krauss, R. De La Rue, D. Labilloy, H. Benisty, C.
Weisbuch, U. Oesterle, and R. Houdré, IEE Proc.: Optoelectron. 145, 337
共1998兲.
16
H. Benisty, C. Weisbuch, D. Labilloy, M. Rattier, C. J. M. Smith, T. F.
Krauss, R. M. De La Rue, R. Houdré, U. Oesterle, and D. Cassagne, IEEE
J. Lightwave Technol. 17, 2063 共1999兲.
17
H. Benisty, R. Stanley, and M. Maier, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, 1192 共1998兲.
18
H. Benisty, H. De Neve, and C. Weisbuch, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 34,
1612 共1998兲.
19
J. B. Pendry, in Photonic Band Gap Materials, edited by C. M. Soukoulis
共Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996兲, pp. 203–220.
20
The PC field may have in-plane Fourier components at wave vectors
smaller or larger than the cladding light line k⫽ 冑⑀ 1 ␻ /c, only the former
being allowed to radiate in the cladding.
21
S. Fan, P. R. Villeneuve, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78,
3294 共1997兲.
共A1兲 22
J. S. Foresi, P. R. Villeneuve, J. Ferrera, E. R. Thoen, G. Steinmeyer, S.
Fan, J. D. Joannopoulos, L. C. Kimerling, H. I. Smith, and E. P. Ippen,
Nature 共London兲 390, 143 共1997兲.
J. M. Gérard, B. Sermage, B. Gayral, B. Legrand, E. Costard, and V.
Thierry-Mieg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1110 共1998兲.