I'm using Matt's code to do error analysis for AlGaAs coatings. This time I vary materials' parameters and compare the thermo optic noise, reflected phase and transmission. There is no alarming parameter that will be critical in TO optimization, but the values of refractive indices will change the transmission considerably.
Eric, Matt and I discussed about this to make sure that even with the errors in some parameters, the optimization will still work.
Parameters in calculation and one sigma estimated from Matt
% Coating stuff
betaL = 1.7924e-4 +/- 0.07e-4; %dn/dT
betaH = 3.66e-4 +/-0.07e-4 ;
CL = 1.6982e6 +/- 5% ; % Heat Capacity per volume
CH = 1.754445e6 +/- 5%;
kL = 69.8672 +/- 5% ; % Thermal Conductivity
kH = 55 +/- 5%;
alphaL = 5.2424e-6 +/- 5%; % Thermal expansion
alphaH = (5.73e-6 ) +/- 5%;
sigmaL = 0.32 +/- 10%; % Poisson Ratio
sigmaH = 0.32 +/- 10% ;
EL = 100e9 +/-20e9; % Young's modulus
EH = 100e9 +/-20e9;
nH = 3.51 +/-0.03 ; % Index of refraction
nL = 3.0 +/-0.03 ;
* Note: when I change nH and nL value, I keep the physical thickness of the layers constant. This is done under the assumption that the manufacturing process controls the physical thickness. The optical thickness in the calculation will be changed, as the actual dOpt = physical thickness * actual n / lambda. And averaged values of coatings will depend on physical thickness.
This is fixed in Line 120-180
== Effect on TO cancellation from each parameters==
First, I calculate the TO cancellation when one of the parameter changes. Some parameters, for examples, Poisson ratios, Young's moduli, are chosen to be the same for both AlAs and GaAs. In this test, I vary only one of them individually, to see which parameters are important. The numbers indicate the ratio between the PSD of TO noise with change in the parameter and the optimized TO noise . Not the standard deviation of the parameters.
params |
+sigma |
-sigma |
Note |
BetaL |
1.02 |
1.12 |
|
BetaH |
1.03 |
1.15 |
|
Young L |
8.0 |
1.77 |
A |
Young H |
8.3 |
1.8 |
A |
Young HL |
28.3 |
4.7 |
B |
|
|
|
|
alpha L |
1.54 |
1.2 |
|
alpha H |
1.19 |
1.53 |
|
kappa L |
0.979 |
1.023 |
|
kappa H |
0.975 |
1.028 |
|
CL |
0.99 |
1.0143 |
|
CH |
0.99 |
1.0137 |
|
sigmaL |
|
20.6 |
C |
sigmaH |
|
21.7 |
C |
sigmaHL |
|
84.14 |
B |
nH |
1.168 |
1.004 |
|
nL |
11.15 |
6.507 |
|
- A) + value for Young modulus is 142 Gpa, and - value is 83 Gpa, the value in the section below is 100 +/- 20 GPa
- B) Young's moduli and Poisson's ratios for the two materials are the same value in the calculation, Young HL row calculate the TO noise when both materials have the same value of Young's modulus, while YoungH and Young L row calculate the TO noise under the assumption that only nH material or nL material has different Young's mod.
- C) + value for Poisson is the nominal value, and - value is 0.024 the value in the section below is 0.32 +/- 10%
Turns out that the change in Young's moduli and Poisson's ratios are quite important.
==Effect on TO cancellation, from all paramerters==
Then, I calculate the TO noise when all parameters vary in Gaussian distribution, similar to what I did before,all parameters are uncorrelated. The histograms from 1000 runs are shown below.

- Top, ratio of PSD of TO noise at 100Hz. The cancellation should still work well.
- Bottom left, reflected phase. It is still close to 180 degree.
- Bottom fight, transmission. The design is 200ppm, the result spread out in a big range from 10-500ppm.
I'll try more run overnight. Each run takes about 1 second.
== combined effect from errors in layer thickness and material parameters==
Since the comparison does not need to calculate the thermal fluctuations and finite size correction all the time, I cut that calculation out and save some computation time. Now I compare errors from
- Error in both layer thickness and materials parameters (red)
- Error in layer thickness only (green)
- Error in materials parameters only (blue)
- Error in refractive indices only (cyan)
Each simulation contains 5e4 runs. The Transmission varies a lot depending on the material parameters ( mostly refractive indices, see the cyan plot).

The cancellation seems still ok. Most of the time it will not be 10 times larger than the optimized one. Only the transmission that seems to be a problem, but this is highly depends on refractive indices. It's weird that the error makes the mean of the transmission smaller. |