COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TRANSMITTERS USING 1550NM AND 10000NM IN FSO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 7, No 3, June 2015
DOI:10.5121/ijcsit.2015.7309 107
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TRANSMITTERS USING
1550NM AND 10000NM IN FSO COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS
Poonam Singal, Saloni Rai, Rahul Punia and Dhrove Kashyap
Department of Electronics and Communication
Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology
Murthal, Sonipat, India
ABSTRACT
In the recent past Free Space Optical (FSO) communication has taken over the radio frequency
communication and microwave systems due to its advantages like its long-range operations devoid of need
of license. In this paper we will find the most efficient transmitter suitable for free space optical (FSO)
communication. The theoretical analysis of behaviour of an FSO wireless communications system is done
using on off keying with different transmitters over fog weather conditions. Based on different models for
optical beam propagation at 1550nm and 10000nm on an FSO, the bit error rate (BER) and Q-factor under
fog weather are analyzed.
KEYWORDS
Free Space Optics; Bit Error Rate; Q-factor; Turbulence.
1. INTRODUCTION
Free space means air, vacuum and outer space. Free-space optical communication (FSO) is
an optical communication technology which uses light, propagating in free space to transmit data
wirelessly for telecommunications. It is point to point infrared spectrum based optical
communication between optical transceivers that are separated by physical medium known as air
[1]. It has evolved as a future technology for coming generation indoor and outdoor broadband
wireless applications. Indoor wireless optical communication is also called wireless infrared
communication; outdoor optical wireless communication is commonly called FSO. FSO
communication involves direct Line Of Sight and point-to-point laser links from transmitter to
receiver via atmosphere [2]. There are numerous benefits of free space optics: lower costs
associated with the system, no fibre cable required, no rooftop installations required and no
license is required. Transmission rate of this system is very high i.e. around 1.25 GB per second,
hence can transmit a large amount of data. In future it is expected that it will increase to 10 GB
per second .This speed is due to the fact that the signals can be transmitted through the air faster
than they can be transmitted through fibre optic cables. Interference between signal and radio
frequencies is negligible [3]. The FSO technology is line of sight (LOS) link based technology
which uses a small divergence angle laser or LED as transmitter and receiver whose field of view
(FOV) is very narrow to communicate data between two points. FSO is a cheaper option
compared to the fibre optics and RF systems because it offers a bandwidth which is similar to that
of optical fibre at a low cost and much ease of deployment. The features of FSO systems such as
unregulated spectrum, fast deployment, light weight and a secure communication, make it very

108
attractive for commercial uses [4]. But it also has certain limitations as reliability of an FSO
communication system is greatly affected by the atmospheric conditions through which it has to
propagate. Aerosol, fog, gases, rain and various other suspended particles in the atmosphere
causes the optical beam scattering and absorption which results in a large path loss and as a
consequence limiting the link length to less than 100m [5, 6, 7].Even in clear sky conditions
atmospheric turbulence, which are caused by temperature and pressure inhomogeneity’s present
in the atmosphere, leads to refractive index fluctuations in atmospheric layers. When signal
propagate through such turbulent atmospheric layers, it will experience random fluctuations. The
variations in the amplitude and phase of the received signal due to atmospheric turbulence effect
are known as scintillation. Scintillation causes deep signal fading that lead to increased bit error
rate and hence degrades the link performance especially for link ranges greater than 1km [7]. The
consequence of scintillation is more critical for small aperture receivers [5, 8].
2. ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE
Perhaps most important difference between Fiber Optics and FSO is that FSO is affected by
prevailing conditions of environment [9]
A. Thick fog is one of the most complex forms of interference in free space optical
communication. This occurs because of the moisture in the fog that can reflect, absorb, and
scatter the signal.
B. Absorption and scattering both occur when there is a lot of moisture in air. Absorption of the
signal causes a reduction in signal strength. Scattering causes the signal to be dispersed in
various directions. This is an issue particularly for long distances.
C. Physical obstructions, such as trees and even building, can also be a problem.
D. Scintillation, is heat rising from the earth or man-made, can also disrupt in the signal.
E. Alignment, the main challenge with FSO systems is maintaining transceiver alignment. FSO
transceiver transmits highly directional and narrow beams of light.
When an optical beam propagates in atmosphere, it experiences different refractive indices in its
path which causes random variation in its intensity and phase that results in the signal fading [9].
Each of these conditions are explained below.
Fog Condition: Fog is the most pivotal weather phenomenon with respect to FSO as it consists of
small water droplets with radii nearly the size of infrared wavelengths. The particle size
distribution varies according to different levels of fog. Weather condition is referred to as fog
when visibility range lies between 0–2,000 meters. Sometimes it is difficult to describe foggy
conditions using physical methods, therefore expressive words such as "advection fog" or
"convection fog" are used to characterize the nature of fog [10].
Snow Condition: Snowflakes are ice crystals that come in a variety of sizes and shapes. Whiteout
conditions might attenuate the beam, but this problem for FSO systems can be coped with as the
size of snowflakes is large in comparison to the operating wavelength [11]. The amount of
attenuation in snow condition is 3 dB/km to 30 dB/km[6]
Rain Condition: Rain has a distance-reducing impact on FSO, but still its influence is
significantly less than that of other weather conditions. The influence is due to large difference
between the radius of raindrops and the wavelength of typical FSO light sources [12]. Typical
rain attenuation values are reasonable in nature.
Clear Weather Condition: When there is a clear weather; there is very less attenuation. The
attenuation factor value in the clear weather ranges from 0 to 3 dB/km [13].

109
Table 1 shows the different weather conditions with their attenuations
Condition Attenuation in dB/km
Heavy Fog 80-200
Light Fog 40-70
Snow 20-30
Rain 4-17
Clear Weather 0.2-3
2.1. Optical Wavelengths
Most of the available FSO systems for commercial use operate in the near‐IR wavelength range
lying from 750 and 1600 nm, with some systems being developed to operate at the IR wavelength
of 10,000 nm. But there are numerous factors according to which a given design team takes the
decision of wavelength to be chosen [14].
2.1.1. 1520‐‐‐‐1600 nm
These wavelengths are well suited for free‐space transmission with high‐quality transmissions
and its detector components are readily available. It has several drawbacks such as high price;
detectors being less sensitive and a smaller receiver surface area in comparison to silicon APD
detectors which operate in the 850‐nm wavelength.
2.1.2. 10,000 nm (10 microns)
The claims of better fog transmission have resulted in its commercial use with new components
being developed because there are very few components available at 10 microns for use. Also,
10‐micron energy does not penetrate glass hence it is ill‐suited to behind‐window deployments.
However, the poor glass penetration means it is highly unlikely to be concentrated by optical aids,
thus allowing for high‐power operation in unrestricted environments.
3. DIFFERENT TRANSMITTERS
3.1. Led
These have advantages over traditional UHF RF-based systems from improved isolation between
systems, the cost and size of receivers/transmitters, Government licensing laws and by combining
space lighting and communication into the same system. Lasers sources make transmission
possible at high data rates when compared to fiber communication networks.
3.2. Laser
There are several advantages of semiconductor lasers for free space optics (FSO) compared to
LEDs: high optical output, better optical spectrum, advantages for beam shaping. There are
several atmospheric transmission windows and high quality semiconductor lasers with a suitable
wavelength for these windows are available.
3.3. Laser Safety
Laser safety is a seminal issue. The basic safety concern is the exposure of the eye or skin to the
laser. High‐power beams can cause injury to skin. As the eyes are able to focus light and therefore
concentrate optical energy, the risk of injury to eyes is increases. A laser which is considered to

110
be “eye‐safe” is automatically taken to be “skin‐safe.” Like sunlight, laser light travels in parallel
rays that depend upon wavelength thus eye focuses to a point on the retina and layer of cells
responds to light. Exposure to a laser beam of sufficient power has similar adverse effect on the
eye as staring at the sun can have.
Longer wavelengths present in the IR spectrum have more injurious effect in comparison to the
UV and visible radiation of sunlight. Naturally, eye turn away from a bright visible light when
light is focused on it. So, eye’s respond in different manner within the range (400 to 1400 nm
4. SYSTEM MODELLING
FSO design has been modelled and simulated for performance characterization by using
OptSim5.4. Fig.1 shows a block diagram of FSO communication link. The transmitter consists of
a PRBS generator at bit rate 1.25Gbps, modulation driver, and a directly modulated CW
Laser/LED at different wavelengths. Optical power used in transmitter is 1.3dBm[10]. The FSO
link has a 500m range with beam divergence angle of 3mrad. The APD receiver is followed by a
BER tester for determining q factor and BER.
Figure.1. Block Diagram
The FSO compound component is shown in Fig.2. It comprises of optical attenuator block
followed by optical noise adder block which is used to add the background radiation to received
signal.
Figure.2. Simulation set-up for the FSO link
Figure.3. Simulation setup for FSO link

111
Fig 3 shows simulation set-up for FSO link. It consists of transmitter section, free space channel
and receiver section.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this proposed design, performance of different modulation transmitters has been studied in free
space optical communication. Here a comparative study has been carried out at different
transmitters for free space optical communication. Results have been taken by selecting various
parameters such as wavelength (1550nm, 10000nm), transmitter power 1.3dBm, data rate
1.25Gbps, standard deviation (sigma) of 1.9dB, attenuation factor of 40dB/km , divergence angle
3mrad and transmission length 500m.
Figure.4. BER Comparison
Fig 4 shows the bit error rate using various transmitters such as CW Laser, VCSEL, LED and at
two different wavelengths (1550nm, 10000nm). BER is better at 40 db/km using CW Laser
instead of VCSEL laser in case of 10000nm wavelength.
.
Figure.5.Q-Factor Comparison

112
Fig 5 shows Q factor using various transmitters such as CW Laser, VCSEL, LED and at two
different wavelengths(1550nm,10000nm) . Q-Factor is good at 40db/km using CW Laser in case
of 10000nm instead of VCSEL laser.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, FSO communication link is established for 500m length between transmitter and
receiver at data rate of 1.25 Gbps. Results show that CW Laser is better in comparison to VCSEL
and LED when used at 10000nm wavelength for FSO Communication under foggy conditions
(40db/km) on the basis of BER and Q-Factor.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the reviewers for giving valuable review comments that helped in modifying the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Sridara K, “free space optical communication”, International Journal of Latest Research in Science
and Technology,vol.1 , Issue 3,pp.202-205. Oct.2012
[2] Indoor Optical Wireless Communication: Potential and State of Art. IEEE Communications
Magazine. September 2011
[3] D.Killinger, “Free space optics for laser communication through air,” Optical.Photon.News,vol.13,
no.3, pp.36-42,Oct.2002.
[4] Z.Ghassemlooy and W.O.Popoola (2010). Terrestrial free-space optical communications, Mobile and
Wireless Communications Network Layer and Circuit Level Design, Salma Ait Fares and Fumiyuki
Adachi (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-042-1, InTech, Available from: http:// www. intechopen.com
/articles/show/ title/terrestrial - free-space-optical-communications.
[5] R.R.Iniguez, S.M.Idrus, and Z. Sun, "Atmospheric transmission limitations," in Optical Wireless
Communications - IR for Wireless Connectivity London: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2008, p. 40.
[6] L.Jia, J.Q.Liu, and D.P.Taylor, "Optical communication using subcarrier PSK intensity modulation
through atmospheric turbulence channels," IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 55, pp. 1598
- 1606, August 2007.
[7] W.O.Popoola and Z. Ghassemlooy, ”BPSK subcarrier intensity modulated free space optical
communication in atmospheric turbulence”, Journal of Light wave Technology, vol. 27, pp. 967-973,
2009
[8] D.L.Fried, "Optical heterodyne detection of an atmospherically distortion wave front," Proceedings of
the IEEE, vol.55, pp. 57 -77, January 1967
[9] X.ZHU and J.M Kahn,” Free space optical communication through atmospheric turbulence channels.”
IEEE transaction on communication, vol.50,pp.1293-13000,August 2002.
[10] Kim, I., Mcarthur, B., Korevaar, E. Comparison Of Laser Beam Propagation At 785 And 1550 Nm In
Fog And Haze For Opt. Wireless Communications. In Proc. Spie, 2001, Vol. 4214, Pp. 26 To 37.
[11] Akiba, M., Ogawa, K., Walkamori, K., Kodate, K., Ito, S. Measurement And Simulation Of The
Effect Of Snow Fall On Free Space Optical Propagation. Applied Optics, 2008, Vol. 47, No. 31, P.
5736-5743.
[12] Achour, M.Simulating Free Space Optical Communication; Part I, Rain Fall Attenuation. In Proc.
Spie Vol. 3635, 2002.
[13] Bouchet, O., Marquis, T., Chabane, M. Alnaboulsi, M., Sizun, H.Fso And Quality Of Service
Software Prediction. In Proc. Spie, 2005, Vol. 5892, Pp.01-12.
[14] Understanding the Performance of Free‐Space Optics Reprint from: 2003 Optical Society of America
JON 2330 June 2003 / Vol. 2, No. 6 / Journal Of Optical Networking
[15] Binu Madhavan, Harikrishnan H, Sudheer S.K, V.P Mahadevan Pillai Inveatigation of Various
Parameter on the performanceof high bit rate free space optics using different modulation formats
Volume: 03 Special Issue: 01 | NC-WiCOMET-2014 | Mar-2014.

113
Authors
Ms.Poonam Singal is Associate Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering
at Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Haryana (INDIA). She
did her Btech from Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University Of Science and Technology in
1993. She did her Mtech from DTU, Delhi in 2007. Her research interest mainly
encompasses in area of Optical Communication.
Ms. Saloni Rai is a student. She is pursuing her master’s degree in Electronics and
Communication Engineering from Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and
Technology, Haryana (INDIA).She received her Btech degree in Electronics and
Communication Engineering in 2009 from BMIET College, Sonepat. Her interest area
includes Optical Communication.
Mr. Rahul Punia is a student. He is pursuing his master’s degree in Electronics and
Technology, Haryana (INDIA).He received his Btech degree in Electronics and
Communication Engineering in 2009 from Vaish College , Rohtak. His interest area
includes Optical Communication.
Mr. Dhrove Kashyap is a student. He has completed his master’s degree in Electronics and
Technology, Haryana (INDIA). He received his Btech degree in Electronics and
Communication Engineering in 2009 from NC College of Engineering Israna, Panipat. His
interest area includes Optical Communication and Control System Engineering.

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TRANSMITTERS USING 1550NM AND 10000NM IN FSO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TRANSMITTERS USING 1550NM AND 10000NM IN FSO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TRANSMITTERS USING 1550NM AND 10000NM IN FSO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS