Non Regenerative Fiber backbone Power Loss Budget

  • K. A. Dotche College of Technology, Dept. Electrical Technology University of Education Winneba Kumasi-Ghana
  • W Banuenumah College of Technology, Dept. Electrical Technology University of Education Winneba Kumasi-Ghana
  • Willie K Ofosu Faculty of Engineering Technology/ Pennsylvania State University Lehman, USA
Keywords: Fiber power loss budget, Optical interfaces, Power deficit

Abstract

The most important stage in the design of a Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) fiber optic system is about the choice of the correct optical transmitter, and receiver combination. This depends on the signal to be transmitted over the channel. By adopting the WDM two (2) signals at two (2) different wavelengths of 1310nm and 1550nm, can conveniently be carried on the same fiber. The WDM fiber link can carry 32,256 channels and the throughput too is high (>=2.5Gbps). Many television channels can be accommodated. The amplification along the fiber backhaul remains a bottleneck due to the non-linearity effects that could be additive. In order to minimize the non-linearity effect of the amplifiers, non-regenerative solutions are nowadays used.

This paper develops a power loss budget for an optical sparse WDM long haul without inserting any regenerator along the transmission line. The study gives details of establishing a 200 km fiber optic link, operating at 2.5Gbps and supporting a digital signal of Synchronous Transport signal-48/ Synchronous Transport Module 16 (STS-48/STM-16).  The link is assumed to carry 8 (WDM). In the dimensioning, the optical interfaces were chosen in agreement with the ITU-T G 654 applicable values. The system power deficit was not satisfactory in the first attempt. Then, the Erbium Doped-Fiber Amplifiers (EDFA) were inserted at the light source, and a preamplifier at the optical detector side. The system power deficit was still negative but not much. The transmitting system should have a positive value of the system power deficit so that the link budget can be suggested for the required transmission. Finally the change of the detector sensitivity gave the best estimation in the design process for the required link budget.

References

(1) Jim HAYES, Fiber Optics Technician Manual, 2nd Edition

(2) Liu et al., Prospects and Problems of Wireless Communication for Underwater Sensor Networks, WILEY WCMC SPECIAL ISSUE ON UNDERWATER SENSOR NETWORKS

(3) Debbie Kedar, Underwater sensor network using optical wireless communication, http://spie.org/x8509.xml?ArticleID=x8509, accessed date 24/ 08/ 2011

(4) Heidemann et al., Underwater Sensor Networks: Applications, Advances, and Challenges, http://www.mit.edu/~millitsa/resources/pdfs/royal.pdf, accessed date 20/ 08/ 2011

(5) Waechter et al, Chemical Sensing Using Fiber Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy, www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/10/3/1716/pdf, ISSN 1424-8220

(6) Tuomo von Lerber, Application of Fiber Optical Resonators in Measurement and Telecommunications Technology, Ph. D. Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, 2007; http:// ib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789512289028/isbn9789512289028.pdf, accessed date 20/ 08/ 2012,

(7) Sascha Liehr, Nils Nöther and Katerina Krebber, Incoherent optical frequency domain reflectometry and distributed strain detection in polymer optical fibers, 2010

(8) López-Higuera et al., In-service communication channel sensing based on reflectometry for TWDM-PON systems, 23rd International Conference on Optical Fibre Sensors, 2014

(9) Wesson et al., Insertion Loss Measurement of Low Loss Fiber Optic Splices, 2016

(10) Roger L. FREEMAN, Fiber-Optic System for Telecommunications, 2nd Edition

(11) Goving P. AGGRAWAL, Fiber-Optic Communication

Systems, 3rd Edition

(12) Perry Joseph Wright, The Future of Fiber Optics in the Offshore Oil Industry (A review of the subsea applications of optical fiber), , Ocean Design, Inc. 2000.

Published
2016-12-30
How to Cite
Dotche, K. A., Banuenumah, W., & Ofosu, W. K. (2016). Non Regenerative Fiber backbone Power Loss Budget. Transactions on Networks and Communications, 4(6), 68. https://doi.org/10.14738/tnc.46.2535