JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 21, NO.
10, OCTOBER 2003
Statistical Analysis on Stimulated Raman Crosstalk
in Dispersion-Managed Fiber Links
Toshiaki Yamamoto, Student Member, IEEE, and Seiji Norimatsu, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Power impairments due to stimulated Raman scat-
tering (SRS) in dispersion-managed (DM) fiber links are evaluated
theoretically. We extend previous work on the statistical analysis of
SRS crosstalk to the case of multiple fiber segments. Closed-form
formulas are derived, and the applicable range is presented by
comparison with simulation results. The SRS crosstalk in DM fiber
links is evaluated using derived formulas, and the preferable con-
figuration of DM fiber links for suppressing SRS crosstalk is dis-
cussed. We also evaluate the exact power penalty induced by the
SRS crosstalk in consideration of the log-normal waveform distri-
bution due to SRS and non-Gaussian noise and clarify the system
bounds in some typical DM fiber links. The developed approach
provides a design rule for DM fiber links from the viewpoint of
SRS crosstalk suppression.
Index Terms—Dispersion management, fiber nonlinearity,
optical fiber communication, optical fiber dispersion, stimu-
lated Raman scattering (SRS), wavelength-division multiplexing
(WDM).
I. INTRODUCTION
D ENSE-wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) using
erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) has been an es-
sential technology for large-capacity and long-haul optical fiber
transmission. For high-capacity transmission, ultrawide-band
wavelength-division-multiplexing (WDM) transmission sys-
tems using several wavelength regions (bands) simultaneously
have been proposed utilizing gain-shifted EDFA and fiber
Raman amplifiers [1], [2]. Among the WDM channels, stim-
ulated Raman scattering (SRS) causes a power transfer from
shorter wavelength channels to longer wavelength channels.
Since the Raman gain coefficient increases in proportion to the
wavelength difference between the WDM channels [3], [4],
the waveforms of these channels, which are allocated to such
a wide band, are impaired drastically by the power depletion
and amplification due to SRS. In fact, it has been reported that
the performance of the WDM systems utilizing such a wide
band is limited not only by self-phase modulation (SPM) and
cross-phase modulation (XPM) effects but also by SRS [1].
In high-bit-rate WDM systems, a dispersion management
technique is indispensable. In the simplest dispersion-managed
(DM) fiber link, each repeater span consists of conventional
single-mode fibers (SMFs) and dispersion-compensating fibers
(DCFs) where the accumulated SMF dispersion is compensated
in the DCF at the rear part of the repeater span. Recently, DM
Manuscript received February 27, 2003; revised June 18, 2003. This work was
supported in part by the 21st Century COE program under Grant 14213201.
The authors are with the Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University,
Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JLT.2003.816847
0733-8724/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
2229
fiber links, which consist of positive- and negative-dispersion
fibers (NDFs) alternately, has been proposed for long-haul
transmission [5]–[7]. In such DM fiber links, the accumulated
average dispersion is reduced, and the SPM–group-velocity
dispersion (GVD) effect is suppressed effectively. In DWDM
systems, the XPM–GVD effect may also be a strong factor in
performance degradation. To cope with both the SPM–GVD
and XPM–GVD effects, a “double-hybrid” fiber configuration,
which consists of a two-sectioned fiber span where SMF
and NDF are alternately placed, have been proposed [7].
In such DM fiber links, there is a possibility that not only
SPM/XPM–GVD but also SRS crosstalk may become an
important factor in performance degradation.
The power depletion due to SRS was evaluated, regardless
of the GVD and random modulation [4], [8]–[11]. The effect of
the random modulation was taken into account with [12]–[20]
and without [21] consideration of GVD. The probability density
function (pdf) of SRS impairments was studied, and its mean
and variance were derived [16]–[18], [20], [21]. In previous
reports, SRS crosstalk has been evaluated in a single fiber
segment without repeaters or periodic fiber segments with the
same characteristics where the SMF is followed by the DCF
that is assumed to cause no nonlinear degradation. The SRS
crosstalk was studied in a two-span fiber link with different
span configurations [22], but the effects of SRS in the DCF were
neglected. To our knowledge, SRS crosstalk has yet to be investi-
gated in DM fiber links considering nonlinear degradation in the
segments of dispersion compensation. Therefore, it is necessary
to evaluate SRS crosstalk in DM fiber links and confirm whether
the same configurations of DM fiber links are effective not only
in SPM/XPM–GVD suppression but also in SRS suppression.
We extend the statistical analyses of SRS crosstalk in [16]–[18],
[20], [21] to multiple fiber segments. Because numerous addi-
tional parameters should be considered as the number of fiber
segments increases, it is extremely advantageous to develop a
straightforward tool for evaluating SRS crosstalk in multiple
fiber segments. We derive closed-form analytical formulas and
examine the validity range, comparing with the split-step Fourier
(SSF) method. Using the derived formulas, we evaluate the
SRS crosstalk in the DM fiber links and investigate the effective
configuration in SRS suppression.
In order to evaluate the system performance, it is necessary to
consider the bit- error rate (BER). The pdf of SRS crosstalk has
been shown theoretically to be a log-normal distribution, and the
power penalties evaluated with Gaussian noise [18]. However, it
has been shown that the amplified spontaneous emission (ASE)
noise of the optical amplifiers generally dominates the receiver
shot and thermal noises in p-i-n receivers [23], and the receiver
is described by the square-law detection model, where the pdf
2230
of the noise is the chi-square ( ) distribution [24]. Therefore,
we evaluate the power penalties considering the log-normal dis-
tribution of SRS crosstalk and the noise. The system bounds
induced by the SRS crosstalk are also shown in some typical
DM fiber links.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we explain
how to evaluate SRS crosstalk in multiple fiber segments and
examine the validity compared with the SSF method. SRS
crosstalk is evaluated in the DM fiber links in Section III, and
the system penalties induced by SRS are clarified in Section IV.
Section V concludes this paper.
II. EVALUATION METHOD OF SRS CROSSTALK IN
MULTIPLE FIBER SEGMENTS
In this section, we derive closed-form formulas that approxi-
mate SRS crosstalk: first in the single-fiber-segment configura-
tion and then in the multiple-fiber-segments configuration. The
results of the derived formulas are compared with those of the
SSF method, and the validity range is examined.
A. SRS Crosstalk in Single Fiber Segment
First, we consider that the transmission line consists of a
single fiber segment of length with no repeater. In -channel
WDM systems, the optical power in each channel is depleted
by the Stokes waves in the longer wavelength channels and
amplified by the pump waves in the shorter wavelength chan-
nels. We introduce the assumption that nonlinear gain/loss in
the longer (shorter) wavelength channels is neglected when the
pump power depletion (the Stokes power amplification) is eval-
uated in a particular channel. The validity of the assumption
is verified in Section II-E. The total power change of the th
channel from the shortest wavelength channel is described as
the sum of the depletion due to ( ) channels at longer wave-
lengths and the amplification due to channels at shorter
wavelengths. The optical power of the th channel after a
transmission of length is expressed by
(1)
where is the group velocity of the th channel, and is the
fiber linear loss. The factor denotes the power
change due to SRS, and is expressed as
(2)
In (2), is the power change caused by the th channel
and is described as
(3)
where
(4)
15 THz
(5)
15 THz
JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2003
In (3), describes the transmission data in the th channel and
takes the values of 0 or 1, and is the bit interval. Thus,
is considered to be a random variable. In (4), is the pulse
shape, and is the propagation time differ-
ence between the two different channels during a unit length
transmission. In (5), the Raman gain coefficient is often approx-
imated by the triangular function [3], [4], and expresses the
average slope of the Raman gain profile. is the frequency
of the th channel, and is the effective core area of the
fiber. The parameter depends on the polarization state and is
set to 2 in this paper, corresponding to random polarization. If
the wavelength of the th channel is shorter than that of the th
channel, takes a positive value, and so the optical power
is depleted by the th channel. On the other hand, if the wave-
length of the th channel is longer than that of the th channel,
takes a negative value, and so the optical power is ampli-
fied by the th channel. In the case of , becomes zero.
The mean and the variance of are
given by [18]
(6)
(7)
(8)
respectively. In (6), ( ) denotes the expected value of
, is the average input power, is the
effective length of nonlinearities, and is the Fourier trans-
form of . The second term in (7) is zero for a rectangular non-
return-to-zero (NRZ) pulse and is usually very small for other
pulse shapes. Equation (8) requires some numerical calculations,
such as FFTs and infinite integrations. However, these calcula-
tions can be performed analytically for some pulse shapes.
In WDM systems, each channel is modulated independently
by the random data. Thus, the mean and variance of
in (2) can be approximated as
(9)
(10)
The validity of this approximation is also examined in Sec-
tion II-E. In (9) and (10), the amplification and depletion due
to SRS are considered to be independent. The validity of this
approximation will be examined elsewhere.
YAMAMOTO AND NORIMATSU: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON STIMULATED RAMAN CROSSTALK IN DM FIBER LINKS 2231

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 1. Configuration of the multirepeatered fiber links. (a) Periodically amplified link without dispersion compensation. (b) Accumulated SMF dispersion is
compensated by DCF within each repeater span. (c) Several positive- and negative-dispersion fibers are alternately placed.

B. Extension to Multiple Fiber Segments respectively. As shown in Fig. 1(c), if the th fiber segment is
For long-distance transmission, as shown in Fig. 1, the trans- cascaded to the ( )th fiber segment without the optical am-
mission line consists of multiple fiber segments and EDFAs. We plifier, the power gain is set to 1.
extend the statistical analysis of SRS crosstalk from single fiber The degradation due to SRS is separated into the average
segments to multiple fiber segments. power loss and waveform distortion [12]. In multirepeatered
Because each fiber segment has different characteristics in systems, the simple power loss or gain can be equalized with
practical transmission systems, we define the fiber parameters the optical amplifiers and gain flattering filters. The waveform
by each fiber segment. In an -segment fiber link, is the distortion is caused by the variance of .
length of the th fiber segment, and becomes When the average power loss is compensated by the gain ,
the power change becomes .
the total transmission length. The parameters , , ,
After compensating for the average power loss, the variance
, and are the linear loss, the walkoff parameter, the slope of ( ) is obtained as
of the Raman gain profile, the effective core area of the fiber, and
the power gain of the optical amplifier in the th fiber segment,
respectively.
After transmission of the total fiber length , in
(3) is replaced by
(17)
(11)
Thus, the variance of does not change by
where the compensation for the average power loss and keeps limiting
the system performance. Therefore, we focus on only the vari-
(12) ance or the standard deviation due to SRS, and we will call them
SRS crosstalk variance and SRS crosstalk standard deviation
in the following, respectively. Similar to (8), the SRS crosstalk
variance of is obtained as

(13) (18)

15 THz
(14) where is the Fourier transform of .
15 THz
Equation (18) requires some numerical calculations, such as
respectively. In (13), and are the net power gain and FFTs and infinite integrations. The calculation of (18) becomes
the propagation time difference between the th and th chan- much more complex as the number of fiber segments increases.
nels caused by the transmission through the first ( ) fiber Therefore, it is extremely advantageous to develop a straight-
segments with length . They are expressed as forward tool for evaluating SRS crosstalk in multiple fiber seg-
ments. We perform Fourier transforms and infinite integrations
in (18) analytically for a rectangular NRZ pulse and derive the
(15)
expressions that obtain directly (see the appendix).
By using (A1), (A7), and (A10), the SRS crosstalk variance
(16) in a multiple fiber segments can be calculated in
a much easier way without additional approximations. In large
2232
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF SMF AND NDF FOR NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS
dispersive fiber or high-bit-rate transmission systems, the power
impairments due to SRS do not depend on the pulse shapes,
and only the average fiber input power determines them
[12]. Therefore, the SRS crosstalk obtained using (A1), (A7),
and (A.10) is not specific to the rectangular NRZ pulse and can
also be used as an index for other pulse shapes.
C. SRS Crosstalk in DM Fiber Links
As an example of our approach, we consider SRS crosstalk in
DM fiber links that consist of multiple positive- and negative-
dispersion fibers.
First, we consider the simplest DM fiber link that consists
of periodic amplified fiber segments with the same character-
istics where each fiber segment consists of SMF and DCF. We
assume that DCF causes no nonlinear degradation. In this case,
takes limited values as [16], [18]
(19)
The lower limit is achieved by the fiber link shown in Fig. 1(a),
where the accumulated fiber dispersion is compensated for at the
receiver, and the upper limit by the fiber link shown in Fig. 1(b),
where the accumulated fiber dispersion is completely compen-
sated for within each repeater span. As the number of fiber seg-
ments increases, the difference between the lower and upper
limits of (19) becomes larger. In this case, takes a
value within a very wide range, depending on the residual dis-
persion at each repeater.
Now, we investigate the effect of the residual dispersion at
each repeater on SRS crosstalk. We consider that the transmis-
sion line consists of five repeater spans and each span consists
of an 80-km SMF and DCF. WDM channels are allocated sym-
metrically with respect to an anchor frequency of 193.1 THz
with equal spacings, and we use this configuration throughout
this paper. The number of WDM channels is set to 105. The
bit rate is 10 Gb/s, and the average fiber input power per channel
is 2.0 mW. The fiber parameters are shown in Table I.
We evaluate SRS crosstalk in the worst channel by changing
the residual dispersion at each repeater. In Fig. 2, we show the
improvement from the case of zero residual dispersion at each
repeater that corresponds to the upper limit of (19). We evaluate
SRS crosstalk standard deviation on the decibel scale that is
obtained from in (18) by
(20)
As shown in Fig. 2, SRS crosstalk is reduced drastically if only
a little residual dispersion remains. As mentioned previously,
in (19) takes a value over a wider range when the
JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2003
Fig. 2. Improvement from the worst case versus the residual dispersion at the
wavelength of 1550 nm at each repeater.
number of fiber segments increases. In such a case, nei-
ther the lower nor the upper limits of (19) can approximate
well. The residual dispersion is so effective in sup-
pressing SRS crosstalk that the residual dispersion should be
taken into account. Therefore, the accurate evaluation of SRS
crosstalk in consideration of the residual dispersion is indispens-
able, rather than the worst case evaluation using (19).
Next, we consider the DM fiber links where several positive-
and negative-dispersion fibers are alternately placed between
the optical amplifiers, as shown in Fig. 1(c). In these fiber links,
the sign of in (13) is different, depending on the fiber dis-
persion parameter in the th segment. There may be the pair of
fiber segments that take almost the same value of ( )
in (13), and the power changes due to SRS in such fiber seg-
ments correlate closely and are not independent. Therefore, SRS
crosstalk variance in such fiber links cannot be approximated
well with the simple sum of SRS crosstalk variance in each fiber
segment.
For the exact evaluation of SRS crosstalk in these DM fiber
links, we must use (18) instead of the simple expression (19).
By using the derived formulas (A1), (A7), and (A10), we can
evaluate SRS crosstalk in DM fiber links accurately with little
computation.
D. General Cases
In practical systems, each fiber segment has different char-
acteristics, not only the fiber dispersion but also the linear loss,
nonlinear coefficient, fiber length, effective core area of the
fiber, and so on. For example, the -managed fiber links, in
which each fiber segment has a different amount of , have
been proposed [25]. Generally, in each fiber segment
takes a different value. Accordingly, (19) is not applicable on
its own. The SRS crosstalk with high accuracy can be easily
obtained by using the derived formulas (A1), (A7), and (A10).
The derived formulas can also be applicable to the systems
utilizing the distributed Raman amplification. First, each fiber
segment discussed in Section II-B is divided into pieces
again. The total number of pieces in the fiber link becomes
. Suppose that the number of fiber segments is re-
placed by the number of total pieces in the previous dis-
cussion, and the th piece corresponds to the th fiber segment.
Next, the net power gain in (15) is adjusted to the average
YAMAMOTO AND NORIMATSU: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON STIMULATED RAMAN CROSSTALK IN DM FIBER LINKS
TABLE II
PUMP POWER OF DISTRIBUTED RAMAN AMPLIFIER
launched power in the th piece that is determined by the gain
of the distributed Raman amplifiers. As a result, SRS crosstalk
in the distributed Raman amplifier systems are evaluated using
(A1), (A7), and (A10) in the same way as in Section II-B.
As an example, we show the SRS crosstalk in the distributed
Raman amplifier systems with backward-pumping configura-
tion. We consider the following system configuration. An 80-km
transmission line consists of the SMF and NDF. The dispersion
map is the same as Type-2 in Fig. 7. Ten WDM channels are ar-
ranged with 200-GHz intervals around the anchor frequency of
193.1 THz. The gain of the distributed Raman amplifier is ad-
justed to completely compensate the average signal power loss
at the fiber output, and the average power evolution during fiber
transmission is shown in the inset of Fig. 3. In order to obtain the
same gain in all WDM channels, we consider ten pump lights for
backward-pumping and set the pump wavelengths and power as
shown in Table II. The bit rate is 40 Gb/s, and the average fiber
input power per channel is 1.0 mW. In Fig. 3, the results of our
approach and those of the SSF method are shown. Though the
division number of each fiber segment must be over 500
in order to obtain the accuracy shown in Fig. 3, the calculation
time can be reduced to about 0.1% of that in the SSF method.
E. Comparison With SSF Method
As mentioned previously, our method introduced in Sec-
tion II-A and Section II-B includes a two-step approximation.
First, in the evaluation of the power change in the th channel,
nonlinear gain/loss in the other ( ) wavelength
channels is assumed to be neglected. Second, in (10), SRS
crosstalk by each WDM channel is assumed to be independent
of each other, and the total SRS crosstalk of the th channel
is approximated by the simple sum of the independent SRS
crosstalk by the other ( ) WDM channels.
Here, the validity of these approximations is examined by
comparing with the SSF method. We consider the following
system configurations. Fig. 4 shows the dispersion map. As
shown in the inset of Fig. 4, the transmission line consists
of four repeater spans, and each span consists of two fiber
segments: SMF and NDF. The bit rate is 2.5 Gb/s, and 20 WDM
channels are allocated in the wavelength range of 200 nm,
wider than the Raman gain bandwidth.
We adopt such a wide bandwidth in order to show how much
effects of SRS crosstalk in the future systems will occur because
2233
SRS may become comparable to or exceed the other nonlinear
effects. Though, strictly speaking, there are no optical ampli-
fiers that can cover the whole range of such a wide bandwidth
at present, the transmission systems using several wavelength
bands simultaneously have been proposed utilizing gain-shifted
EDFA [1], and the fiber Raman amplifiers are also useful for
such wide-band transmission [2].
In such a wide band, the dependences of the attenuation co-
efficient and effective core area of fiber on wavelength exist.
However, these dependences are not taken into consideration for
simplicity because they have essentially little effect on our main
results.
The fiber parameters are shown in Table I. In our approach,
the SRS crosstalk standard deviation is calculated using (18),
(20), (A1), (A7), and (A10). In the SSF method, we adopt 2
pseudorandom bit sequences (PRBSs) as the transmission data
sequences, and the SRS crosstalk is obtained from re-
peated calculation, changing the setting point of the PRBS in
each channel.
Fig. 5 shows the SRS crosstalk in all WDM channels. The
average fiber input power per channel is set to 1.0 mW. The
results of by our approach agree well with those of by
the SSF method for all channels.
We examine the difference between and at the worst
channel. In Fig. 6, the difference is shown by
changing the average input power per channel . The dif-
ference increases as the fiber input power increases. However,
the difference is less than 10% for until 8 mW. As long
as this difference is taken into account, can easily be es-
timated from . Because of the high accuracy in spite of the
small amount of calculation required, our approach is both very
useful and attractive.
III. EXAMPLES OF SRS CROSSTALK IN SOME TYPES OF DM
FIBER LINK CONFIGURATIONS
In this section, we show SRS crosstalk in some types of DM
fiber links. The dispersion map of the fiber links under con-
sideration is shown in Fig. 7. The transmission line consists
of five repeater spans, and each span length is 80 km. Each
span consists of SMF and DCF in Type-1 and consists of SMF
and NDF in Types-2–4, respectively. Usually, DCF is put in the
middle stage of EDFA so that the optical power in the DCF is
not necessarily low. However, in Type-1, we assume that DCF
causes no nonlinear degradation, and this configuration can be
considered as the extreme case of Types-2–4 that the length
of NDF is shortened to 0 km. We show the results of Type-1
as the examples of the previous reports that assumed the per-
fect dispersion compensation at the amplifiers [12], [18]. In
Types-2–4, SMF and NDF are alternately placed once, twice,
and thrice in each repeater span, respectively. The configura-
tions of Types-2–4 were reported to be effective in suppressing
the SPM/XPM–GVD effects because the maximum accumu-
lated dispersion in Types-2–4 is smaller than that in Type-1, as
can be seen from Fig. 7 [7]. In Types-1–4, there is no residual
dispersion at each of the repeaters. In addition, we consider the
transmission lines Types-1 and - 2 that are the same configura-
tions as Types-1 and -2, respectively, except that there remains
about 130-ps/nm residual dispersion at each repeater.
2234 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2003

Fig. 3. SRS crosstalk standard deviation  in the distributed Raman amplifier systems. The gain of the distributed Raman amplifier is adjusted to completely
compensate the average power loss at the fiber output. The relative average power evolution is also shown in the inset.

Fig. 4. Configuration of the transmission line and the dispersion map of the
DM fiber links. The transmission line has four repeater spans that consist of
SMF and NDF.
Fig. 5. SRS crosstalk obtained by our approach and the SSF method. Dotted
line: Results  of our approach. Solid line: Results  of the SSF method.
The average input power per channel is set to 1.0 mW. The bit rate is 2.5 Gb/s,
and 20 WDM channels are allocated in 200 nm.

The system parameters are as follows. The channel spacings

are 200 GHz, and the number of channels is set to 105. The
bit rate is 40 Gb/s, and the average fiber input power per channel
is 6.3 mW. The fiber parameters in Table II are also used.
Fig. 8 shows SRS crosstalk calculated using (18), (A1), (A7),
and (A10). SRS crosstalks in Types-2–4 are larger than that in
Type-1. In Types-2–4, SRS crosstalk becomes much larger as
SMF and NDF alternate more frequently. This fact indicates that
the DM fiber links proposed to suppress SPM/XPM–GVD are
not effective in suppressing SRS crosstalk. This is considered to
be for three reasons.
1) SRS causes a simple power transfer and is not affected
by GVD directly. Therefore, the accumulated dispersion Fig. 6. Difference in SRS crosstalk at the worst channel between our approach
is not important for SRS crosstalk. and the SSF method.
YAMAMOTO AND NORIMATSU: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON STIMULATED RAMAN CROSSTALK IN DM FIBER LINKS
Fig. 7. Transmission line and dispersion map of the DM fiber links. In Types-1
and 1 , each repeater span consists of SMF and DCF. In Types-2, 2 , 3, and 4,
SMF and NDF are alternately placed once, twice, and thrice in each repeater
span, respectively. In Types- 1 and 2 , there remains about 130-ps/nm residual
dispersion at each repeater.
Fig. 8. SRS crosstalk  in the DM fiber links. The transmission line consists
of five repeater spans. The average input power per channel is set to 6.3 mW.
The bit rate is 40.0 Gb/s, and 105 WDM channels are allocated with 200-GHz
spacings.
2) Because NDF has a higher nonlinear coefficient than
SMF, NDF should be placed at the rear of the repeater
span, where the optical power becomes lower due to the
fiber linear loss.
3) When SMF and NDF alternate frequently, the correlation
between SRS crosstalk in each fiber segment becomes
large and SRS crosstalk increases.
As a result, the simple DM fiber link that consists of SMF and
DCF is effective from the viewpoint of SRS crosstalk suppres-
sion. This configuration is not the same as the DM fiber links
proposed from the viewpoint of SPM/XPM–GVD suppression.
Therefore, in the design of DM fiber links for wide-band use, the
tradeoff between SRS crosstalk and SPM/XPM–GVD should be
considered.
Fig. 8 also shows that the residual dispersion is much more
effective in the suppression of SRS crosstalk. SRS crosstalk in
Types-1 and - 2 is less than in Types-1 and -2, respectively. It is
notable that the SRS crosstalk in Type- 2 is almost the same as
2235
that in Type-1. Even if the transmission line consists of SMF and
NDF, adequate residual dispersion at each repeater can suppress
SRS crosstalk to the same level as that in the transmission line
that consists of SMF and DCF.
IV. LIMITATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDUCED BY SRS
CROSSTALK IN DM FIBER LINKS
The degradation due to SRS is separated into average power
loss and waveform distortion [12]. The average power loss can
be compensated for by the optical amplifiers and gain-flattering
filters. As for SRS, only the crosstalk variance de-
termines the system performance. In this section, we investigate
the power penalty induced by SRS and clarify the limitation of
the system performance in some typical DM fiber links.
When the signal “1” is transmitted, SRS crosstalk causes
waveform distortion, and the received power at decision time
fluctuates around the average received power. In the following,
we refer to this distribution of the received power at decision
time as the waveform distribution. Considering both the wave-
form distribution due to SRS crosstalk and the noise, the BER
of the system is
(21)
where is the pdf of the waveform distribution,
( ) is the pdf of the noise when the signal “0” (“1”) is
transmitted, and is the decision level. In the second term, the
asterisk ( ) denotes the convolution. In (21), we assume the in-
finite extinction ratio.
First, the pdf of the waveform distribution induced by SRS is
considered. The pdf of SRS crosstalk can be approximated well
by a log-normal distribution when the fiber has a large disper-
sion or the number of WDM channels is large [18]. In this case,
the pdf is described as
(22)
where is the Gaussian random variable, and the stan-
dard deviation of corresponds to SRS crosstalk standard de-
viation that can be obtained by (18). is the av-
erage received power on the decibel scale when the signal “1”
is transmitted. The pdf of SRS crosstalk was approximated by a
Gaussian distribution in [16].
Next, we consider the pdf of the noise. In multirepeatered sys-
tems using EDFAs, the ASE noise of optical amplifiers domi-
nates the receiver shot noise and the thermal noise [23], [24].
In this case, the receiver is described by the square-law detec-
tion model, and the pdf of the noise can be approximated by a
distribution. Suppose that the noise has a distribution, the
pdf of the noise when signal “0” is transmitted is
(23)
2236 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2003

where denotes the Gamma function, is the

degrees of freedom for the distribution, and equals .
is the optical bandwidth, is the bit interval, and is
the two-sided spectral density of the ASE noise. The pdf of the
noise when signal “1” is transmitted is

(24)
where denotes the th modified Bessel function of the first
kind, , and is the average optical signal energy.
The pdf of the noise is often approximated by a Gaussian
distribution for simplicity. In such a case, the BER of the system
is calculated by [24]
Fig. 9. Power penalty versus SRS crosstalk. (a) Log-normal waveform
distribution and the  noise. (b) Log-normal waveform distribution and
the Gaussian noise. (c) Gaussian waveform distribution and the  noise.
(d) Gaussian waveform distribution and the Gaussian noise.

(25)

where the mean ( ) and standard deviation ( )

of the Gaussian noise for “0” (“1”) side are, respectively

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

With SRS crosstalk, extra received power is required to

achieve . We define the difference between the
required received powers with and without SRS crosstalk as
the power penalty. For comparison, we evaluate the power
penalty for the next four combinations of waveform distribution
and noise: 1) log-normal waveform distribution and noise;
2) log-normal waveform distribution and Gaussian noise; 3)
Gaussian waveform distribution and noise; and 4) Gaussian
waveform distribution and Gaussian noise. The combination 1)
is considered to be consistent with the theory in the square-law
detection model with SRS crosstalk [18], [24].
In Fig. 9, the power penalty for each combination is shown.
The decision level is always set to the optimum level for
each case. As SRS crosstalk increases, the power penalty varies
greatly, depending on the combinations. Fig. 9 shows that the
power penalty in the Gaussian waveform distribution is overes-
timated compared with that in the log-normal waveform distri-
bution. Fig. 9 also shows that the power penalty in the Gaussian
noise is underestimated compared with that in the noise.
For example, in case 1), the allowable SRS crosstalk standard
deviation to achieve a power penalty of 1 dB is
0.5 dB. However, the difference between cases 1) and 2) be-
comes more than 1.5 dB and that between cases 1) and 3) is
about 0.1 dB. Cases 1) and 4) happen to give the same value
of in the case of 1 dB of power penalty. This value
hardly changes with about a tenfold increase in or from
each ideal condition.
Fig. 10. Maximum transmission length versus the average fiber input power
per channel in the DM fiber links. The bit rate is 40.0 Gb/s and 70 WDM
channels are allocated with 200-GHz spacings.
Note that the result of case 2) does not agree with that in [18,
Fig. 4], though both cases considered the log-normal waveform
distribution and Gaussian noise. The difference comes from the
different treatment of the Gaussian noise that can be easily found
by comparing (25) presented previously to (22) of [18]. If we
assume and in (25), we can
obtain the same result as in [18, Fig. 4]. In optically amplified
systems, does not equal to . It can be said that the
thermal and ASE noise limits are considered in [18] and our
study, respectively.
As for case 1), we investigated the system bounds induced by
SRS crosstalk. In case 1), the SRS crosstalk standard deviation
should be less than 0.5 dB in order to achieve a power
penalty of less than 1 dB. Under the condition of less
than 0.5 dB, we examine the maximum transmission length in
some typical DM fiber links by our approach explained in Sec-
tion II. We consider six types of DM fiber links where each span
consists of fiber segments, as shown in Fig. 7. WDM channels
are allocated with equal spacings of 200 GHz. The number of
channels is set to 70 and so all channels are allocated within
the Raman gain bandwidth. The bit rate is 40 Gb/s. In Fig. 10, the
maximum transmission length for each DM fiber link is shown
YAMAMOTO AND NORIMATSU: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON STIMULATED RAMAN CROSSTALK IN DM FIBER LINKS 2237

by changing the average fiber input power per channel . It is In (A2), we denote and by and
found that the maximum transmission length is severely limited , respectively. Substituting (A2) into and
in the DM fiber links that consist of alternate SMF and NDF. in (A1), we obtain, respectively
Comparing the results between Types-1 and -1 or Types-2 and
-2 , we find that an adequate residual dispersion at each repeater
extends the maximum transmission length. Fig. 10 also includes
the results obtained by (26) of [18] where a log-normal waveform
distribution and Gaussian noise are considered. The transmission
line considered in (26) of [18] is the same as Type-1. We can find
apparent differences between the results of Type-1 and those by
(26) of [18]. The reason is that (26) of [18] was derived consid-
ering Gaussian noise instead of noise and the same standard
(A3)
deviations of Gaussian noise were used for both “1” and “0” sides.

V. CONCLUSION
The power impairments due to SRS in DM fiber links were
evaluated theoretically. Previous work on the statistical analysis
of SRS crosstalk was extended to the case of multiple fiber
segments, and simple closed-form formulas to evaluate SRS
crosstalk in DM fiber links were derived. Moreover, the validity
range of our approach was examined by comparing with the
results of the SSF method. By using the derived formulas (18),
(A.1), (A7), and (A10), SRS crosstalk was evaluated in some
types of DM fiber links, and it was clarified that the preferable
configurations of the transmission line from the viewpoint
of SRS crosstalk suppression are not the same as those from
the viewpoint of SPM/XPM–GVD suppression. In the design
of DM fiber links, the tradeoff between SRS crosstalk and
the SPM/XPM–GVD effects should be considered. We also
showed that SRS crosstalk standard deviation must be less
than 0.5 dB to achieve a power penalty of less than 1 dB under
the assumption of a log-normal waveform distribution due to
SRS crosstalk and noise. The system bounds induced by
SRS crosstalk were also clarified in the DM fiber links. The
developed approach provides design rules for DM fiber links
from the viewpoint of SRS crosstalk suppression.

APPENDIX
Here, we perform the infinite integrations in (18) and present
the closed-form analytical formulas to evaluate SRS crosstalk
in DM fiber links. In (18), is described as

(A1)
where at the end of the expression indicates the addition
of the complex conjugate of the foregoing term. The Fourier
transform of in (13) is described as
(A4)

Now, we consider the rectangular NRZ pulse

(A2) (A5)
2238 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 21, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2003

The Fourier transform of is given as The functions , , , and are defined as

(A6)
(A12)
Substituting (A6) into (A3), we obtain
(A13)

(A14)

(A15)

where the denotes the sign of the real number and is

(A7) defined as . To obtain (A10), we use the formulas

where is the walkoff length. In (A7), we use the

formula for trigonometric functions

(A8)
and the formula of infinite integration [26]

(A9) (A16)

where , , and are the real numbers.

Substituting (A6) into (A4), we obtain

(A17)

(A18)

(A10)
where (A16) is derived from 3.826.1 of [26] using the formulas
where for trigonometric functions

(A19)

(A17) is derived from 3.824.1 of [26] using (A8), and (A18) is

derived from 3.725.1 and 3.725.3 of [26] using the formulas for
trigonometric functions

(A20)

Substituting (A1) into (18) and using (A7) and (A10), the SRS
(A11) crosstalk variance is finally obtained.
YAMAMOTO AND NORIMATSU: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON STIMULATED RAMAN CROSSTALK IN DM FIBER LINKS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge
Prof. T. Sato of Kyoto University for providing insightful
comments.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Kani, M. Jinno, T. Sakamoto, K. Hattori, and K. Oguchi, “Bidirec-
tional transmission to suppress interwavelength-band nonlinear inter-
actions in ultrawide-band WDM transmission systems,” IEEE Photon.
Technol. Lett., vol. 11, pp. 376–378, Mar. 1999.
[2] T. N. Nielsen, A. J. Stentz, K. Rottwitt, D. S. Vengsarkar, Z. J. Chen, P.
B. Hansen, J. H. Park, K. S. Feder, S. Cabot, S. Stulz, D. W. Peckham,
L. Hsu, C. K. Kan, A. F. Judy, S. Y. Park, L. E. Nelson, and L. Grüner-
2
Nielsen, “3.28-Tb/s transmission over 3 100 km of nonzero-disper-
sion fiber using dual C - and L-band distributed Raman amplification,”
IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 12, pp. 1079–1081, Aug. 2000.
[3] R. H. Stolen and E. P. Ippen, “Raman gain in glass optical waveguides,”
Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 22, pp. 276–278, 1973.
[4] R. H. Stolen, “Nonlinearity in fiber transmission,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 68,
pp. 1232–1236, Oct. 1980.
[5] K. Musaka, Y. Akasaka, Y. Suzuki, and T. Kamiya, “Novel network fiber
to manage dispersion at 1.55 m with combination of 1.3 m zero dis-
persion single mode fiber,” in Proc. ECOC ’97, vol. 1, Edinburgh, U.K.,
Sept. 1997, pp. 127–130.
[6] K. Yonenaga, A. Matsuura, S. Kuwahara, M. Yoneyama, Y. Miyamoto,
K. Hagimoto, and K. Noguchi, “Dispersion-compensation-free
2
40-Gbit/s 4-channel WDM transmission experiment using zero-dis-
persion-flattened transmission line,” presented at the OFC ’98, San
Jose, CA, Feb. 1998.
2
[7] Y. Inada, H. Sugahara, K. Fukuchi, T. Ogata, and Y. Aoki, “32 40-Gb/s
dense WDM transmission over 3000 km using double-hybrid fiber con-
figuration,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 14, pp. 1366–1368, Sept.
2002.
[8] A. R. Chraplyvy and P. S. Henry, “Performance degradation due
to stimulated Raman scattering in wavelength-division-multiplexed
optical-fiber systems,” Electron. Lett., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 641–643, Aug.
1983.
[9] A. R. Chraplyvy, “Optical power limits in multichannel wavelength-di-
vision-multiplexed systems due to stimulated Raman scattering,” Elec-
tron. Lett., vol. 20, no. 19, pp. 58–59, Jan. 1984.
[10] , “Limitations on lightwave communications imposed by optical-
fiber nonlinearities,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 8, pp. 1548–1557, Oct.
1990.
[11] X. Zhang, B. F. Jørgensen, F. Ebskamp, and R. J. Pedersen, “Input power
limits and maximum capacity in long-haul WDM lightwave systems due
to stimulated raman scattering,” Opt. Commun., vol. 107, pp. 358–360,
May 1994.
[12] S. Norimatsu and T. Yamamoto, “Waveform distortion due to stimulated
raman scattering in wideband WDM transmission systems,” J. Light-
wave Technol., vol. 19, pp. 159–171, Feb. 2001.
[13] D. Cotter and A. M. Hill, “Stimulated Raman crosstalk in optical trans-
mission: Effects of group velocity dispersion,” Electron. Lett., vol. 20,
no. 16, pp. 185–187, Feb. 1984.
[14] D. N. Christodoulides and R. I. Joseph, “Theory of stimulated Raman
scattering in optical fibers in the pulse walkoff regime,” IEEE J.
Quantum Electron., vol. 25, pp. 273–279, Mar. 1989.
[15] D. N. Christodoulides and R. B. Jander, “Evolution of stimulated Raman
crosstalk in wavelength division multiplexed systems,” IEEE Photon.
Technol. Lett., vol. 8, pp. 1722–1724, Dec. 1996.
[16] F. Forghieri, R. W. Tkach, and A. R. Chraplyvy, Optical Fiber Telecom-
munications, I. P. Kaminov and T. L. Koch, Eds. San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic, 1997, vol. IIIA, ch. 8.
2239
[17] J. Wang, X. Sun, and M. Zhang, “Effect of group velocity dispersion
on stimulated Raman crosstalk in multichannel transmission systems,”
IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 10, pp. 540–542, Apr. 1998.
[18] K.-P. Ho, “Statistical properties of stimulated Raman crosstalk in WDM
systems,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 18, pp. 915–921, July 2000.
[19] S. Wang and C. Fan, “Generalized attenuation coefficients and a novel
simulation model for Raman fiber amplifiers,” IEE Proc. Optoelectron.,
vol. 148, no. 3, pp. 156–159, June 2001.
[20] W. Ding, Z. Chen, D. Wu, and A. Xu, “Asymmetry of Raman crosstalk in
wavelength division multiplexing transmission systems,” Electron. Lett.,
vol. 38, no. 21, pp. 1265–1267, Oct. 2002.
[21] F. Forghieri, R. W. Tkach, and A. R. Chraplyvy, “Effect of modulation
statistics on Raman crosstalk in WDM systems,” IEEE Photon. Technol.
Lett., vol. 7, pp. 101–103, Jan. 1995.
[22] H. Yu and K.-P. Ho, “Limitation of stimulated Raman scattering cancel-
lation in WDM systems via spectral inversion,” IEEE Photon. Technol.
Lett., vol. 12, pp. 998–1000, Aug. 2000.
[23] E. Desurvire, Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifiers: Principles and Applica-
tions. New York: Wiley, 1994.
[24] P. A. Humblet and M. Azizoglu, “On the bit error rate of lightwave
systems with optical amplifiers,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 9, pp.
1576–1582, Nov. 1991.
[25] K. Shimizu, K. Kinjo, N. Suzuki, K. Ishida, S. Kajiya, K. Motoshima,
and Y. Kobayashi, “Fiber-effective-area managed fiber lines with dis-
2
tributed Raman amplification in 1.28-Tb/s (32 40 Gb/s), 202-km un-
repeated transmission,” presented at the OFC 2001, Anaheim, CA, Mar.
2001, Paper TuU2.
[26] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Prod-
ucts, 6th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic, 2000.
Toshiaki Yamamoto (S’00) was born in Kyoto,
Japan, in August 1976. He received the B.E. and
Master of Informatics degrees from Kyoto Univer-
sity, Kyoto, Japan. Currently, he is working toward
the Ph.D. degree at the Department of Communica-
tions and Computer Engineering, Graduate School
of Informatics, Kyoto University.
His major research interest is in fiber nonlinear
effects in wavelength-division-multiplexed (WDM)
lightwave systems.
Mr. Yamamoto is a Member of the Institute of
Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers (IEICE) of Japan.
Seiji Norimatsu (M’93) received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in physics, from Osaka University, Japan, in
1985 and 1987, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in
engineering from Osaka University, Osaka, Japan, in
1997.
In 1987, he joined NTT Laboratories, Kanagawa,
Japan, and conducted research on optical coherent
communication systems, especially on optical homo-
dyne transmission systems. In 1990, he succeeded in
high-speed optical phase-shift-keying (PSK) homo-
dyne transmission for the first time. Since then, in
the series of papers, he has clarified how to design PSK homodyne receivers.
Since 1998, he has been an Associate Professor with the Department of Com-
munications and Computer Engineering, Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto
University, Kyoto, Japan. His current research interest is in the area of optical
communication systems.
Dr. Norimatsu is a Member of the Institute of Electronics, Information and
Communication Engineers (IEICE) of Japan and the Physical Society of Japan.