Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
0
Fiber Connector End-face Inspection Project
Dr. Tatiana Berdinskikh, Dr. Sun-Yuan Huang
Douglas H. Wilson March 26, 07
1
Project participants, 2004Project participants, 2004--20072007
• Tatiana Berdinskikh, Celestica• Jose Garcia, JDS Uniphase• Steve Lytle, Westover Scientific• Randy Manning, Tyco Electronics• David Fisher, Tyco Electronics• Brian J. Roche, Cisco Systems• Tom Mitcheltree, Cisco Systems• Mike Hughes, USConec• Thomas Ronan, Aerotech• Heather Tkalec, Alcatel • Frank (Yi) Zhang, Avanex• Denis Gignac, Nortel Networks• Doug Wilson, PVI Systems• Dr. Chip Kilmer, Sagitta• Dr. Sun-Yuan Huang, Intel• Carla Gleason, ExceLight
Communications Inc/ Sumitomo Electric
• Harvey Stone, Microcare• John Culbert, Megladon Mfg• Yutaka Sadohara, Sumitomo Electric
2
Past participants, 2002Past participants, 2002--20042004
• Tatiana Berdinskikh, N. AlbeanuCelestica
• Jennifer Nguyen, Solectron• Yves Pradieu, Solectron-Iphotonics• Randy Manning, Tyco Electronics• Dave Silmser/Heather Tkalec, Alcatel• Tom Mitcheltree, Cisco Systems• Thomas Ronan, Ingrid Levy, Aerotech• Frank (Yi) Zhang, Avanex• Denis Gignac, Nortel Networks• Carla Gleason, ExceLight
Communications Inc/ Sumitomo Electric
• Les Aseere, Sanmina• Matt Brown, USCONEC• Steve Lytle, Westover Scientific• Susan Grant, Corning• Arnaud Nicolas, FCI• Mark Vogel, Trace Labs• David Horat, Diamond
3
Presentation Outline Presentation Outline
• Introduction• Experimental Methodology• The Influence of Contamination on Optical
Performance • Particle and Occluded Area Analysis using Images• Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area Analysis• Inspection Criteria• Conclusions and Recommendations
4
IntroductionIntroduction
• iNEMI (International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative) research to develop a cleanliness specification for fiber optic connectors
– Based on correlation with optical performance metrics– Insertion Loss (IL) and Return Loss (RL) for this study
• Well known that contamination results in degraded performance, but existing company specific standards lacked scientific basis
• Fiber optic connector end-face cleaning recognized as a necessity• Quantitative experiments conducted to evaluate the impact that
contamination has on 2.5 mm and 1.25 mm ferrule based connector’s performance.
• Contamination within 25 um of the core has most influence on theoptical performance of SC connectors.
• Research used in the development of IPC-8497-1 “Cleaning Methods and Contamination Assessment of Optical Assembly”standard.
5
ProjectsProjects
• The Fiber Connector End-Face Inspection Specifications is a follow-on initiative to the NEMI Fiber Optics Signal Performance Project – Optical Signal Performance Project ( Dec, 02- Oct, 04)– The Fiber Connector End-Face Inspection ( Oct, 04- Jan, 07)
• A Project Chair- Tatiana Berdinskikh, Celestica, Inc.• A Project Co-Chair- Heather Tkalec, Alcatel-Lucent
6
Fiber Optic Signal Performance ProjectFiber Optic Signal Performance Project
7
35
4045
50
5560
65
D44
D54
D55
D56
D57
D601
D614
D621
D625
D30
D262
D320
D45
D603
D604
D613
D615
D616
D617
D626
D050
D728
D323
Connector Number Launch cable & DUTs defects-free
Launch cable defects-free, CUTs S/N D44 to D320 scratches applied to thecaldding area, DUTs S/n D45 to D323 scratches applied to the fiber MFD
Graph shows impact of scratches on Return Loss- Most scratches in this study have minor impact on Return Loss
Fiber Optic Signal Performance ProjectFiber Optic Signal Performance Project
Published by Journal of SMTA, 2003
8
a) Particles on Ferrule and Cladding Area
00.20.40.60.8
11.2
JSC
1
JSC
3
JSC
5
LSC
4
TSC
152
TSC
153
Conn. ID
IL (d
B)
B-IL(1550)B-IL (1310)A-IL(1550)A- IL (1310)
b) Particles on Ferrule and Cladding
020406080
JSC
1
JSC
3
JSC
5
LSC
4
TSC
152
TSC
153
Conn. ID
RL(
dB) B- RL (1550)
B- RL (1310)A RL (1550) A RL (1310)
•IL-1550nm/1310nm(clean)=0.24/0.25dB;
•IL-1550nm/1310nm(contaminated)=0.92/1.07dB;
•RL-1550nm/1310nm (clean)=57.3/55.5dB;
•RL-1550/1310nm (contaminated)=56.5dB/55.6dB
Particle is on the cladding layer
Published by Journal of SMTA, 2003
Fiber Optic Signal Performance ProjectFiber Optic Signal Performance Project
The impact of Carbon Particles
9
The Factors Affecting the Optical PerformanceThe Factors Affecting the Optical Performance
Delta IL vs Distance from Core
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance From Core (micron)
Del
ta IL
Delta IL
Published by APEX 2004
10
The Factors Affecting on Optical PerformanceThe Factors Affecting on Optical Performance
Delta RL vs Distance From Core
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from Core (micron)
Del
ta R
L
Delta RL
Published by APEX 2004
11
Fiber Optic Signal Performance ProjectFiber Optic Signal Performance Project
)cos21()cos2( 212
22
1212
22
1 δδ rrrrrrrrR ++++=
hnnnnnr
nnnnr 2
12
122
20
201
4,,λπδ =
+−
=+−
=
no non1
dn2, High index layer due to polishing
⎥⎦
⎤⎢⎣
⎡⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛−= dnRdBRL
λπ 14cos12log10)(
Connection/contact layer
Return Loss Modeling
Published by APEX 2005
12
RL Modeling DataRL Modeling Data
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
50
100
150
200
250
Sample Connector Number
Laye
r Thi
ckne
ss [n
m]
p y
Arizona dust contaminated connectors: estimated contamination layer thickness at 1550 nmParticles trapped in between two endfaces result in air gap
Published by APEX 2005
13
Fiber Connector EndFiber Connector End--face Inspectionface Inspection
Our Objectives:• Develop cleanliness criteria for SMF Pigtail and Patchcord
Connectors based on quantitative data• Collaborate with IPC on development of IPC-8497-1 • Contamination assessment of optical assembly• Harmonize our recommendations across all
vendors/CMs/OEMs to achieve a true international standard• Update the criteria in IEC doc “61300-3-35: Basic test and
measurement procedures”• Develop a recommendation for singlemode connector
pass/fail criteria for consideration by the members ofWG6 and WG4 for possible inclusion into an IEC SC86B standards document on fiber optic connector end face requirements.
The project started in Oct, 04
14
Design of the ExperimentDesign of the Experiment
• Repeatability experiment– Mate/demate clean test fiber and clean reference fiber 10 times– Measure IL/RL– Save the fiberscopic images after each mating/de-mating operation
• Data analysis ( IL & RL)– Calculate STDEV for clean fiber :SDTDEV (IL) and STDEV (RL)– Calculate Delta (IL)= Mean(IL(contaminated)-IL(clean))– Calculate Delta (RL)=Mean(RL(clean)-RL (contaminated))– Compare Delta (IL) with 3SDTDEV(IL)– Compare Delta (RL) with 3SDTDEV(RL)– Failed criteria: Delta (IL)> 3*SDTDEV(IL) or Delta (RL)>3*SDTDEV(RL)
• The second approach for the data analysis was based on the hypothesis testing
15
Experiment ProcedureExperiment Procedure
Procedure
• Measure Geometry for test and reference connectors• Clean connectors, both DUT and reference• Mate, demate, measure IL/RL and record images (10x)• Apply Arizona dust powder
– Two grades used 1-5 um and 6-25 um• Mate, demate, measure IL/RL and record images (5x)• Reference cable replaced after each 5 mating/ de-
mating operations• Analyze results
16
Cleaning and Measurement MethodsCleaning and Measurement Methods
• All DUTs and reference connectors cleaned– Cleaning cassette (Cletop or Optipop)
• End-face inspected and images were saved– Westover Scientific Probe 1 and FiberChek™ software
• Interferometer data (radius of curvature, apex offset and fiber undercut) were recorded for each DUT and reference– Norland interferometer (NC-3000).
• IL and RL were measured– Agilent 8164A
• Measured the number of particles, size, and locations on and measured Occluded Area– FiberQA™ software from PVI Systems
17
Experimental Block DiagramExperimental Block Diagram
18
IL & RL Measurement DiagramIL & RL Measurement Diagram
Return Loss (dB)= 10 log (Pincident/ Preflected)=P0-P2-1.0
Note: During return loss test , the DUT jumper must be terminated by bending.
Inserion Loss (dB)= 10 log (Pincident/ Pout)=P0-P1
19
Clean Fiber
Area near the core, d<25um
Cladding, 25um<d<120um
Epoxy Ring Zone, 120um<d<130um
Contact Diameter130um<d<250um
Ferrule Diameter250um<d<400um
Zone Definitions for Fiber Surface AnalysisZone Definitions for Fiber Surface Analysis
20
Connectors Tested SummaryConnectors Tested Summary
• SC connectors >80 SMF cables• FC connectors 5 DUTs• LC connectors 12 DUTs• MU connectors 5 DUTs
• Total of > 550 experimental points including IL, RL and fiberscopic images for the test cable and reference cable before and after contamination
21
FC01-5th Mating Reference Cable
Initial IL: 0.04dBInitial RL: 54dB
IL after contamination: 0.04dBRL after contamination: 55dB
Passed: Within 3 Standard Deviations of Clean Fiber
3 x Standard Deviation of IL: 0.02dB3 x Standard Deviation of RL: 3dB
FC ConnectorsFC Connectors-- FC01 5th MatingFC01 5th Mating
22
FC04- 2nd mating Reference Cable
Initial IL: 0.13dBInitial RL: 54dB
IL after contamination: 0.26dBRL after contamination: 34dB
Failed: Not Within 3 Standard Deviations of Clean Fiber
3 x Standard Deviation of IL: 0.03dB3 x Standard Deviation of RL: 1.4dB
FC ConnectorsFC Connectors-- FC04 2nd MatingFC04 2nd Mating
23
LC07-1st Mating Reference Cable T07
Initial IL: 0.11dBInitial RL: 53dB
IL after contamination: 0.12dBRL after contamination: 53dB
3 x Standard Deviation of IL: 0.02dB3 x Standard Deviation of RL: 1dB
Passed: Within 3 Standard Deviations of Clean Fiber
LC ConnectorsLC Connectors-- LC07 1st MatingLC07 1st Mating
24
LC07-3rd mating Reference cable T07
Initial IL: 0.11dBInitial RL: 53dB
IL after contamination: 0.23dBRL after contamination: 28dB
Failed: Not Within 3 Standard Deviations of Clean Fiber
3 x Standard Deviation of IL: 0.02dB3 x Standard Deviation of RL: 1dB
LC ConnectorsLC Connectors-- LC07 3rd MatingLC07 3rd Mating
25
Initial IL: 0.11dBInitial RL: 53dB
IL after contamination: 0.57dBRL after contamination: 19dB
LC07- 5th mating Reference Cable T07
3 x Standard Deviation of IL: 0.02dB3 x Standard Deviation of RL: 1 dB
Failed: Not Within 3 Standard Deviations of Clean Fiber
LC ConnectorsLC Connectors-- LC07 5th MatingLC07 5th Mating
26
MU connector (DUT)-5th matingMU connector (DUT)- 1st mating
IL1 after contamination: 0.12dBRL1after contamination=51dB
IL5 after contamination: 1.23dBRL5 after contamination: 15dB
Initial IL: 0.11dB Initial RL: 52dB 3 x Standard Deviation of IL: 0.03dB3 x Standard Deviation of RL: 1dB
FailedPassed
MU ConnectorsMU Connectors-- DUT 1st MatingDUT 1st Mating
27
T05 (reference)- 5th matingT05 (reference)-1st mating
IL1 after contamination: 0.12dBRL1 after contamination: 51dB
IL5 after contamination: 1.23dBRL after contamination: 15dB
Fifth Mating: FailedFirst Mating: Passed
MU ConnectorsMU Connectors-- Ref 1st & 5th MatingRef 1st & 5th Mating
28
Image AnalysisImage Analysis
• Over 270 images were processed using FiberQA• All particles within the cladding and core area
detected and measured• Particle area, feret diameter and location cataloged• Occluded area computed using a fine set of annular
rings (2.5 µm spacing)• Occluded area data used to compute various
normalized metrics• Quantitative, detailed data provides means of
objectively comparing particle blockage to insertion loss and return loss data
• Particle counts, sizes and locations can be examined for all images and all particles
29
Particle Detection OverlaysParticle Detection Overlays
Raw Cropped Image
Detected Particle Overlay• The raw image (left) was processed to detect and quantify the
particles on the surface, shown in overlay (right).• Scratch processing was disabled for purposes of this analysis.
30
Labeled Detected Particles with 5 µm annular rings.Black area is ferrule and grey is fiber.
Raw image for LC07-WD-5M taken with Westover Microscope
Occluded Area OverlayOccluded Area Overlay
31
Occluded Area ImagesOccluded Area Images--More DetailMore Detail
Labeled Detected Particles(color coded by annular ring)
Labeled with rings
32
Incremental occluded area vs radius
Occluded Area GraphsOccluded Area Graphs
Cumulative occluded area vs radius
Data for connector LC07
For comparison, core exclusion zone area is about 491 µm2
33
Normalized Occluded AreaNormalized Occluded Area
• Occluded area within each ring is normalized by the area of that ring
• Plotted as percentage of incremental area
• Emphasizes occlusions closer to the fiber center
• This was first attempt at normalizing data that lead to weighting by intensity distribution vs radius
% Cumulative Occluded Area vs Ra
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Radius (um
LC07 LC07-WD LC07-WD-1MLC07-WD-2M LC07-WD-3M LC07-WD-4MLC07-WD-5M
34
Occluded Area Increased by MatingOccluded Area Increased by Mating
• The sample LC07 exhibited movement of contamination towards the core over a series of mating/demating cycles– Before mating core clean– 1st mating 1.4% occluded– 2nd mating 11.6% occluded– 4th mating 32.9% occluded
• The particle movement resulted in significant degradation of optical performance (delta IL=0.46dB and delta RL=24dB) over the mating cycles
35
Gaussian Weighting FactorGaussian Weighting Factor
• Dr. Sun-Yuan Huang of Intel, suggested a valuable improvement that takes into account the Gaussian distribution ofthe fundamental mode of the fiber.
• The intensity distribution of fundamental fiber mode is expressed as I0 exp(-2r2/ωf
2), where I0 is the peak intensity, r is the radial position and ωf is the mode-field radius of fiber mode.
• To account the effect of intensity profile on the insertion loss we introduce the Gaussian weighting factor Γ = exp(-2r2/ωf
2).• The Gaussian weighted % occluded area is defined as
where ai is the size of particle at ith ring, Γi is the Gaussian weighting factor for the ith ring, and Ai is the area of the ith ring. For i = 0 it denotes the initial circle.
100(%)
0
0 •Γ
Γ=
∑
∑N
ii
N
ii
A
af
36
Fiber Intensity DistributionFiber Intensity Distribution
13.5%2 ωf
I(r) = Io exp(-2r2/ωf2)
Mode field diameter of SMF-28 is 9.2 µm at 1310 nm and 10.4 µm at 1550 nm.
37
ExampleExample
4
0
123
0: Initial circle with radius of 2.5 µm1: 1st ring with 2.5 µm width2: 2nd ring with 2.5 µm width3: 3rd ring with 2.5 µm width4: 4th ring with 2.5 µm width
The Gaussian weighted % occluded area isf(%) = (a1Γ1+a2Γ2+a4Γ4)/ (A0Γ0+A1Γ1+A2Γ2+A3Γ3+A4Γ4)
3.56f (%) =
0.000100.023351.1710411.9596216.44723AΓ (µm2) =
0.000000.000000.058550.996630aΓ (µm2) =
176.71137.4498.1758.9019.63A (µm2) =
4.910.004.914.910a (µm2) =
0.000000.000170.011930.203030.83765Γ =
11.258.756.253.751.25r (µm) =
43210i =
Three non-removable particlesat the end-face of fiber stub:
38
Delta IL Delta IL vsvs Gaussian Weighted % Occluded AreaGaussian Weighted % Occluded Area
The Delta IL for the worse-case defects and scratches based on inspection criteria is less than 0.03 dB
Delta IL vs Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area
y = 0.0009x 2 - 0.0065x + 0.0239
R 2 = 0.8166
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 10 20 30 40
GWpOA
delta ILPoly. (delta IL)
39
Inspection Criteria for SMF EndInspection Criteria for SMF End--faceface
anynone > 10 microns130 to 250 microns2 — Contact Zone
anyany120 to 130 micronsAdhesive Zone
none > 3 micronsany < 2 microns
5 from 2 - 5 micronsnone > 5 microns
25 to 120 microns1b — Cladding Zone
nonenone0 to 25 microns1a — Core Zone
Scratches (width)Defects (diameter)DiameterZone/Description
Allowable Defects and Scratches
40
Worst Case for SMF EndWorst Case for SMF End--face Defectsface Defects
15 um
12.5 um
17.5 um
5 Defectswith 5 um diameter
31 Defectswith 2 um diameter
41
Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area for Worstfor Worst--case Defects per Inspection Criteriacase Defects per Inspection Criteria
0.00028f(%)=4411310Sum(um2)
00001.24E-108922.841.34E-11158.756057.5
00002.04E-99883.572.31E-10256.2557.555
00001.33E-90844.301.57E-9353.755552.5
00003.42E-82805.034.25E-8551.2552.550
00003.49E-74765.764.56E-7748.755047.5
00001.04E-12333.793.12E-1521.2522.520
00001.50E-09294.525.09E-1218.752017.5
1.62E-0749.09558.41E-07255.253.29E-0916.2517.515
4.15E-0549.09551.83E-04215.988.45E-0713.751512.5
8.23E-0597.392311.83E-04215.988.45E-0713.751512.5
1b –Cladding
00001.52E-02176.718.60E-0511.2512.510
00000.48137.443.47E-038.75107.5
00005.4698.170.066.257.55
000020.8258.900.353.7552.5
000017.4919.630.891.252.50
1a - Core
GWF*ai(um2)
DefectArea
(um2)
DefectDiameter
(um)N of
DefectGWF*Ai(um2)
Ai(um2)GWFi
MidRadius(um)
OuterRadius(um)
InnerRadius(um)Zone
42
Worst Case for SMF EndWorst Case for SMF End--face Scratchesface Scratches
3 um scratch width
15.5 um
12.5 um
Scratched area
43
Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area for Worstfor Worst--case Scratches per Inspection Criteriacase Scratches per Inspection Criteria
0.00017f(%)=4411310Sum(um2)
00001.24E-108922.841.34E-11158.756057.5
00002.04E-99883.572.31E-10256.2557.555
00001.33E-90844.301.57E-9353.755552.5
00003.42E-82805.034.25E-8551.2552.550
00003.49E-74765.764.56E-7748.755047.5
00002.84E-16373.067.60E-1923.752522.5
00001.04E-12333.793.12E-1521.2522.520
00001.50E-09294.525.09E-1218.752017.5
00008.41E-07255.253.29E-0916.2517.515
7.57E-05149.74341.33E-04263.895.06E-071415.512.5
1b –Cladding
00001.52E-02176.718.60E-0511.2512.510
00000.48137.443.47E-038.75107.5
00005.4698.170.066.257.55
000020.8258.900.353.7552.5
000017.4919.630.891.252.50
1a - Core
GWF*ai(um2)
ScratchArea
(um2)
ScratchWidth(um)
N ofScratch
GWF*Ai(um2)
Ai(um2)GWFi
MidRadius(um)
OuterRadius(um)
InnerRadius(um)Zone
44
Inspection Criteria for SMF EndInspection Criteria for SMF End--faceface
anynone > 10 microns130 to 250 microns2 — Contact Zone
anyany120 to 130 micronsAdhesive Zone
none > 3 micronsany < 2 microns
5 from 2 - 5 micronsnone > 5 microns
25 to 120 microns1b — Cladding Zone
nonenone0 to 25 microns1a — Core Zone
Scratches (width)Defects (diameter)DiameterZone/Description
Allowable Defects and Scratches
Inspection Criteria for SMF Pigtail and Patchcord Connectors
45
Inspection Criteria Table NotesInspection Criteria Table Notes
• Any contaminants that are removable must be cleaned from the endface.
• Any contaminants that fall across multiple zones are subject to the most stringent criteria.
• Always use the largest (major) diameter when measuring the size of contaminants.
• Non-Removable contaminants (NRs) are defined as “permanent non-linear features”. This is equivalent to the IEC definition of “pits”.
• Scratches are defined as “permanent linear surface features”.
46
Sumitomo/ExceLight experiment for Receptacle Modules
Published by Photonics North 2006 conference
Receptacles ModulesReceptacles Modules
47
ESD Effects From CleaningESD Effects From Cleaning
• The increased accumulation of particles near the core during a series of mating/de-mating operations was investigated. One cause for this accumulation was ESD (electrostatic discharge) effects from cleaning. Methods to prevent this phenomenon were studied.
The paper “Accumulation of Particles Near the Core during Repetitive Fiber Connector Matings and De-matings “ will be
presented at NFOEC 2007, Anaheim, Mar, 07
48
ESD Effects from CleaningESD Effects from Cleaning
• The dust particle distribution on the connector end faces can be described by a single parameter Rc, which is called the center of particles. ∑
∑= N
i
N
ii
c
a
arR
0
0
y = 166.18x
R2 = 0.9073
0
50
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Charge (nC)
Relationship between the particle center moving speed and the charge
49
Sample MT Endface DataSample MT Endface Data
Clean DUT Contaminated DUT (Arizona Road Dust)
Zone A – 25 micron
Core – 10 micron
611-23 Ref – 604B DUT; F6 D1 IL (dB) RL (dB)average (10X) 0.098 69.4std deviation 0.013 0.7average + 3X std dev 0.137 67.4
0.430 33.4
clean
Contaminated
US Conec Research
50
Leading the IndustryLeading the Industry
Collaboration with TIA, IEC and IPC• The Project is collaborating with International Electrotechnical
Committee (IEC), Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and IPC to develop a cleanliness standard.
iNEMI presentations:• OMI conference, Ottawa, Apr-29-May 1, 2003• IEC meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Oct 6-13, 2003 (presented by T.
Berdinskikh, Celestica)• APEX2004, Anaheim, California, Feb 19-Feb 26, 2004• IEC meeting, Locarno, Switzerland, Apr, 04 (presented by T. Mitcheltree,
Cisco)• IEC meeting, Warsaw, Poland, Sep, 04 (presented by R. Manning, Tyco)• APEX2005, Anaheim, California, Feb, 05 • IEC meeting, Charlotte, NC, Apr, 05 (presented by R. Manning, Tyco)• A draft of IPC-8497-01 “ Cleaning Methods and Contamination Assessment for Optical
Assembly” has been submitted to IPC (June, 04)
• OFC2006, Anaheim, California, Feb, 06 • IEC meeting, Quebec City, Canada, Oct, 06 ( presented by T. Berdinskikh and
Heather Tkalec)
51
PublicationsPublications“Optical Connector Contamination/ Scratches and its Influence on Optical Signal Performance’, Journal of SMTA, V. 16, issue 3, 2003, pp.40-49“ At the Core:How Scratches, Dust, and Fingerprints Affect Optical Signal Performance’, Connector Specifier, January 2004, pp.10-11“ Degradation of Optical Performance of Fiber Optics Connectors in a Manufacturing Environment’, Proceedings of APEX2004, Anaheim, California, Feb 19-Feb 26, 2004, pp.PS-08-1-PS-08-4“Cleaning Standard for Fiber Optics Connectors Promises to Save Time and Money”, Photonics Spectra, June 2004, pp.66-68“Development of Cleanliness Specification for Single- Mode Connectors”, Proceedings of APEX2005, Anaheim, California, Feb 21-26, 2005, pp. S04-3-1- S04-3-16.“Keeping it clean: A cleanliness specification for single-mode connectors”, Connector Specifier, Aug, 05, pp.8-10.“Contamination Influence on Receptacle Type Optical Data Links”, Photonics North, 2005, Toronto, Canada, Sep, 05.“Development of Cleanliness Specifications for 2.5 mm and 1.25 mmferrules Single- Mode Connectors” – Proceedings of OFC/NFOEC, Anaheim, California, Mar 5-10, 06“ Standardizing cleanliness for fiber optic connectors cuts costs, improves quality” Global SMT & Packaging, June/July 2006, pp10-12.
9 Papers published by the Project Team
52
ConclusionsConclusions
• The iNEMI team conducted experiments to compare the effects of specific contamination on the optical performance of fiber optic connectors
• The similarities and some differences in optical performance of contaminated 2.5 mm ferrule (SC, FC) and 1.25mm ferrule (LC, MU) connectors were found.
• The zone of 25 µm diameter was identified as critical zone in terms of the contamination influence on optical signal performance for all types of investigated connectors
• In 60 % of all examined LC and MU connectors, a series of five repeated matings/demating operations resulted in an increase of IL of 0.5 to 1.1 dB due to particle movement from the ferrule and cladding areas towards the core
53
ConclusionsConclusions
• Developed empirical model between IL and the Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area.
• The cleanliness specification for SMF Pigtail and Patchcord Connectors has been developed
• The acceptance of industry standard for SM connectors will result in significant cost savings by:– elimination of insufficient cleaning and over cleaning– reduction of contaminated non-conforming material.
• The standard IPC -8497-1” Cleaning Methods and Contamination Assessment’ for Optical Assembly”was been published in Feb 2006
54
Further ResearchFurther Research
• Development a cleanliness specification for multimode (MM) fiber, MTP connectors and receptacle type of devices
• SM connectors– Measure the particles thickness in order to correlate the
RL changes with the size of the air gap • Correlate the changes of IL & RL of contaminated
connectors with the signal integrity ( Bit Error Rate)