materials

Article
Impact of an Antiresonant Oxide Island on the Lasing
of Lateral Modes in VCSELs
Marta Wi˛eckowska , Robert P. Sarzała , Rafał Ledzion and Maciej Dems ∗
Institute of Physics, Lodz University of Technology, ul. Wólczańska 219, 90-924 Łódź, Poland;
[email protected] (M.W.); [email protected] (R.P.S.); [email protected] (R.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 16 April 2020; Accepted: 5 May 2020; Published: 11 May 2020


Abstract: Use of antiresonant structures is a proven, efficient method of improving lateral mode
selectivity in VCSELs. In this paper, we analyze the impact of a low-refractive antiresonant oxide
island buried in a top VCSEL mirror on the lasing conditions of lateral modes of different orders.
By performing comprehensive thermal, electrical, and optical numerical analysis of the VCSEL
device, we show the impact of the size and location of the oxide island on the current-crowding
effect and compute threshold currents for various lateral modes. If the island is placed close to
the cavity, the threshold shows strong oscillations, which for moderate island distances can be tuned
to increase the side mode discrimination. We are therefore able to pinpoint the most important
factors influencing mode discrimination and to identify oxide island parameters capable of providing
single-lateral-mode emission.

Keywords: VCSEL; ARROW; oxidation; antiresonance; waveguiding; optical modeling; electrical

modeling

1. Introduction
Designing high-power vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers (VCSELs) that operate on a single
lateral optical mode is still a challenge. A common way to achieve single-mode emission is to
make a relatively small electrical aperture (around 4 µm) [1–3]. However, small apertures result
in increased differential resistivity, higher current densities, and stronger heating [4]. These effects
limit the laser output power to less than 1 mW [5–7]. Various approaches have been considered
to overcome this limitation, like use of graphene-bubble dielectric distributed Bragg reflectors
(DBRs) [8], double cavities [4,9], shallow relief [10] zinc-diffusion with oxide-relief [11,12], and grating
couplers [13–15]. One of the promising possibilities is the application of antiresonant reflecting optical
waveguides (ARROWs) within the VCSEL structure [16–19]. Several such approaches have been
successful, including a simplified version of the ARROW structure (S-ARROW) containing a low-index
core surrounded by a single high-index ring. With this structure, substantial mode discrimination has
been observed for 980 nm VCSELs with a core diameter of 8–12 µm [20–26].
In a previous work [27], we introduced an S-ARROW structure directly into the VCSEL cavity,
inside the device aperture (i.e., on its axis). The structure was in the form of an oxide island
manufactured with a planar oxidation technology [28,29]. We showed that such an oxide island
can have a strong impact on the lateral modes in the VCSEL. Their optical losses do not change
monotonically with the island size, but are of an oscillatory nature. We proved that these oscillations
are caused by the distorting effect of the island, which has a low-refractive-index, on the spatial profiles
of the modes. For low island sizes, the modes have a tendency to focus on the high-effective-index
region outside its radius, while with larger islands they are confined within it. To our knowledge,
this was the first demonstration of the impact of an S-ARROW structure buried in the laser.

Materials 2020, 13, 2195; doi:10.3390/ma13092195 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 2195 2 of 13

Because the oscillations were different for modes of different orders, we identified a set of parameters
for which the optical losses of one of the modes were significantly smaller than those of the others.
For those parameters, the investigated laser had strong potential for being a single-mode device.
The main drawback of the analysis presented in [27] was the fact that it was a purely cold-cavity
analysis, which did not consider the impact of the oxide island on the current flow. In the present
article, we address this gap by investigating not only the optical modes but also the current flow and
the resulting temperature distribution inside the laser structure. As a consequence, we can propose
a design for a 850 nm VCSEL with improved modal discrimination, capable of single-lateral-mode
high-power emission.

2. Methodology
In order to investigate the impact of the oxide island on the thermo-electric properties the analyzed
device, we performed a rigorous finite-element analysis of the current flow coupled with heat
dissipation. Details of the numerical model used for this purpose are presented elsewhere [30],
so we provide only a summary here. In general, the computations are based on the finite-element
method with both electric and thermal conductivities dependent on temperature. This makes it
necessary to perform the calculations in a self-consistent loop, in order to determine stable current and
temperature distributions.
Since, due to the presence of a semiconductor junction, there is no simple linear relation between
the voltage and the current [31,32], the determination of the current density distribution also requires
an iterative procedure. The number of iterations is usually significantly larger than the number
of repetitions due to the thermal effects. Therefore, the thermal computations can be intermixed with
the electrical computations and it is sufficient that the temperature distribution is updated once every
10–20 electrical iterations [33].
Once the temperature and current density distribution has been computed and the electric carrier
concentration has been determined, we can compute optical gain distribution in the active region.
This translates into the complex refractive index in the cavity and allows the hot-cavity optical modes to
be determined. We also treat the refractive index as a complex quantity everywhere outside the active
region, with the imaginary part resulting from material absorption. The already known temperature
distribution allows consideration of the thermal lensing effect. However, we show later that this effect
is significant only at high currents, while for low and moderate currents, its influence on the optical
modes is minor compared to that of the oxide island.
The optical calculations are performed using both a fully vector plane-wave admittance
method [34] and an effective-frequency method [35]. Although the latter is a scalar method and
neglects the vector properties of light (it is therefore only capable of analyzing LP modes), we have
verified that both methods yield consistent results. We determine the thresholds of all modes by
requiring their net optical loss to be equal to zero (i.e., we do not need to compute the overlap integrals
to approximate the threshold gain). Above the threshold, the carriers distribution in the active region
is adjusted by considering the spatial hole burning effect and the optical modes are recomputed
in a self-consistent loop in order to determine the emitted power.

3. Analyzed Structure
The investigated device, shown schematically in Figure 1 is an 850 nm VCSEL with the active
region consisting of three 6.5-nm-thick active GaAs quantum wells separated by 4-nm-thick AlGaAs
barriers. Inside the resonant cavity, with a thickness equal to 1.5 wavelengths of emitted radiation,
there is a 40-nm-thick AlAs layer oxidized externally to create a 10 µm electrical aperture for current
confinement. Such large aperture is typical for high-power devices [36,37]. The resonant cavity is
surrounded by 32 pairs of silicon doped n-type DBRs and 24 pairs of carbon doped p-type DBRs made
of Al0.2 Ga0.8 As/Al0.9 Ga0.1 As. In contrast to our previous work [27], we removed the oxidized island
from the resonant cavity and placed it inside the subsequent layers of the top DBRs. When analyzing
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 3 of 13

the impact of the island on optical and thermo-electric properties, we changed not only the diameter
of the island but also its position. Setting the island further from the resonant cavity makes it possible
to increase the diameter to a value greater than that of the electrical aperture (the results of this analysis
are presented below). Both ring contacts are made of gold.

Layer Material Thickness Doping

[nm] [cm−3 ]

Cap GaAs 68.4 C:1019

Al0.2 Ga0.8 As 61.5 C:1018

Top DBR × 24
Al0.9 Ga0.1 As 69.9 C:1018

Outer Oxide Al0.2 Ga0.8 As 39.5 C:1018

and Surrounding
Top AlAs + AlOx 40.0 C:1018
Contact
Interlayer Al0.6 Ga0.4 As 48.0 C:1018
Oxide Island
Cladding Al0.3 Ga0.7 As 107.5 —
R
Top DB Outer O
xide 3 × QW GaAs 6.5 —
Active 2 × Barrier
y Region
Cavit Al0.3 Ga0.7 As 4.0 —
Res onant
Cladding Al0.3 Ga0.7 As 107.5 —
m DB R B o �o
B o� o m Al0.9 Ga0.1 As 69.9 Si:1018
Conta
ct Bottom DBR × 32
Al0.2 Ga0.8 As 61.5 Si:1018

Substrate GaAs Si:2 × 1018

Figure 1. Schematic diagram and layers summary of the analyzed VCSEL. In the image, the active
region is marked in red and there are two oxide layers (marked in beige). The outer layer,
manufactured classically, is at the edge of the cavity, and the oxide island (shown in full) is in one
of the Al0.9 Ga0.1 As layers in the top DBR.

Technologies currently under development allow for the oxidation of areas inside laser structures
during their processing. It is therefore possible to oxidize selectively buried layers of AlGaAs [28,29,38].
The process starts with the etching of micron holes in the epitaxial structure above the oxidized layer,
by the use of standard lithography techniques. Oxidation follows through the holes and spreads inside
the AlGaAs layer. The speed of oxidation depends both on the amount of Al in the material and
on the thickness of the layer [39]. After the process of oxidation, the next phase of epitaxial growth can
be performed and a stack of layers can be grown above the oxidized material. This technology enables
the processing of an ARROW VCSEL with an oxide island, such as that described in this paper.

4. Impact of an Oxide Island on Current Flow

As can be seen in Figure 1, if the oxide island is located in the lower part of the bottom DBR there
is not much space for current flow between the oxidation layers. This should result in very strong
current-crowding near the outer oxidation edges. Such an effect can be expected to increase with larger
oxide island diameters and to decrease as the distance between the island and the cavity increases (i.e.,
when the island is located in more distant DBR layers), as this impacts the area at which the current
may spread. To confirm this expectation, we computed the current density distributions in the active
region for several voltage values. Figure 2 shows these distributions for a structure with no oxide
island. Below 2 V, there is only slight current-crowding, increasing to a moderate level at higher
voltages. The situation is different with an oxide island (Figure 3). If the island is located close to
the cavity (in the 1st DBR pair, Figure 3a–c), it effectively blocks the current flow beneath it. In the case
of a moderate distance (in the 6th pair, Figure 3d–f), its impact is still visible. If it is placed in the 12th
pair (Figure 3g–i) or above, it has a minor impact on current-crowding (although there is still some).
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 4 of 13

ŚŖ
řǯŖȱ
řś
Řǯśȱ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ
řŖ ŘǯŖȱ
ŗǯśȱ
Řś
ŘŖ
ŗś
ŗŖ
ś
Ŗ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ

Figure 2. Current density distribution in the active region for several contact-to-contact voltages
in a structure without an oxide island. There is some current-crowding at the outer oxidation edges,
but only at high voltages. The dashed vertical line indicates the outer oxide aperture radius.

ŚŖ ŚŖ ŚŖ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ
řǯŖȱ
řŖ řŖ řŖ Řǯśȱ
ŘǯŖȱ
ŘŖ ŘŖ ŘŖ ŗǯśȱ

ŗŖ ŗŖ ŗŖ

Ŗ Ŗ Ŗ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(a) 5 µm island in 1st DBR (b) 10 µm island in 1st DBR pair (c) 15 µm island in 1st DBR

ŚŖ ŚŖ ŚŖ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

řŖ řŖ řŖ

ŘŖ ŘŖ ŘŖ

ŗŖ ŗŖ ŗŖ

Ŗ Ŗ Ŗ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(d) 5 µm island in 6th DBR (e) 10 µm island in 6th DBR (f) 15 µm island in 6th DBR

ŚŖ ŚŖ ŚŖ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

ž››Ž—ȱŽ—œ’¢ȱǽ”ȦŒ–ŶǾ

řŖ řŖ řŖ

ŘŖ ŘŖ ŘŖ

ŗŖ ŗŖ ŗŖ

Ŗ Ŗ Ŗ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(g) 5 µm island in 12th DBR (h) 10 µm island in 12th DBR (i) 15 µm island in 12th DBR

Figure 3. Current density distribution in the active region for several contact-to-contact voltages and
with oxide islands of various sizes in different positions. Each figure caption indicates the island
diameter and the number of the top DBR pairs in which it is located, counted from the cavity.
Current crowding decreases as the island is moved away from the cavity, but becomes larger as the size
of the island increases. Large oxide islands strongly increase structure resistivity. Vertical lines indicate
the oxide aperture radii (dashed—outer oxidation radius, solid—the island radius).
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 5 of 13

The increase in current-crowding results in higher total structure resistivity, which is stronger for
an island located closer to the cavity. The I-V curves (Figure 4) reveal that with with the same voltage
but larger islands the total current drops. This effect is very strong when the oxide island is located right
next to the cavity, and becomes marginal if the island is placed far away. However, when the oxide
island has a diameter of 5 µm or less, it has no visible impact on structure resistivity, regardless
of its distance from the cavity. On the other hand, it does influence the current density distribution
(Figure 3), increasing in value directly outside the island aperture and decreasing in the center
(compare Figure 3a,d with the reference current distribution computed in Figure 2, in the absence
of an oxide island).

Řś Řś Řś —˜ȱ’œ•Š—

ŘŖ ŘŖ ŘŖ ’œ•Š—ȱśǯŖȱΐ–
ž››Ž—ȱȱǽ–Ǿ

ž››Ž—ȱȱǽ–Ǿ

ž››Ž—ȱȱǽ–Ǿ
’œ•Š—ȱŗŖǯŖȱΐ–
ŗś ŗś ŗś
’œ•Š—ȱŗśǯŖȱΐ–
ŗŖ ŗŖ ŗŖ
ś ś ś
Ŗ Ŗ Ŗ
ŖǯŖ Ŗǯś ŗǯŖ ŗǯś ŘǯŖ Řǯś řǯŖ řǯś ŖǯŖ Ŗǯś ŗǯŖ ŗǯś ŘǯŖ Řǯś řǯŖ řǯś ŖǯŖ Ŗǯś ŗǯŖ ŗǯś ŘǯŖ Řǯś řǯŖ řǯś
˜•ŠŽȱȱǽǾ ˜•ŠŽȱȱǽǾ ˜•ŠŽȱȱǽǾ
(a) island in 1st DBR (b) island in 6th DBR (c) island in 12th DBR

Figure 4. I-V curves for islands located in the 1st, 6th, and 12th DBR pairs for three different oxide
island diameters. The impact of the island on structure resistivity is significant if it is close to the cavity
and decreases with increasing distance.

Although—even in the structure with no oxide island—current-crowding is evident for voltages

above 2.5 V, the gain distribution is much more uniform due to the carrier diffusion. The gain profile
shows a significant dip in the structure center only if the oxide island is located close to the cavity
(Figure 5a,b). However, if the the oxide island is located far enough away from the cavity (in the 12th
DBR pair in this case), it only slightly influences the gain distribution (Figure 5c). Hence, in this case,
the antiresonant effect and its impact on the optical mode thresholds (analyzed in detail in the next
section) is not affected by the distorted gain distribution.

Ŝ Ŝ Ŝ
řǯŖȱ
Ś Ś Ś Řǯśȱ
Š’—ȱǽŗŖŖŖȦŒ–Ǿ

Š’—ȱǽŗŖŖŖȦŒ–Ǿ

Š’—ȱǽŗŖŖŖȦŒ–Ǿ

ŘǯŖȱ
Ř Ř Ř ŗǯśȱ
Ŗ Ŗ Ŗ
Ř Ř Ř
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(a) 5 µm island in the 1st DBR (b) 10 µm island in the 1st DBR (c) 10 µm island in the 12th DBR

Figure 5. Gain distribution (with spatial hole burning effect neglected) in the active region for several
contact-to-contact voltages in a structure with 5 µm (a) and 10 µm (b,c) oxide islands located in the 1st
(a,b) and 12th DBR pair (c) compared to the structure with no oxide island at all (thin dashed lines
in all plots). The presence of the island influences the gain distribution only if it is located very close to
the cavity.

It is important to mention that the profiles shown in Figure 5 do not consider the spatial
hole burning effect. However, we have intentionally neglected it, as it gives the minimum modes
discrepancy and helps to find the optimal structure [40–42]. The impact of the spatial hole burning is
discussed in Section 5.
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 6 of 13

5. Lasing Conditions for Optical Modes

In order to understand the real impact of the oxide island on the modal behavior of the analyzed
VCSEL, we determine threshold currents for lateral modes of different orders for various island
diameters and positions. As stated in the introduction, we performed a similar analysis in a previous
study for a cold cavity [27], and demonstrated strong oscillations in the optical losses, mainly
in the HE11 and HE12 modes. Although the structure was slightly different than that considered
in here—the oxide island was located inside the cavity (instead of in the top DBR) and the top DBR was
dielectric—the physical mechanism causing these oscillations (the changing of the mode profiles due
the differently sized islands) remains the same. We can therefore expect similar behavior in the current
structure. However, this time we take a step further and consider the overlap between the gain and
the optical mode profile which is distorted by the island, as well as the impact of the thermal heating
caused by the current flow.
A good estimate of these effects is the threshold current, which is computed for each mode
separately. We compute the threshold current for the dominant modes (namely LP01 , LP02 , LP11 ,
and LP21 ) in the case of an island located around the 12th DBR pair. As shown in Figures 4 and 5,
this distance is sufficient to avoid a significant increase in structure resistivity and to keep the gain
distribution in the active region acceptably uniform. The results are shown in Figure 6. As can clearly
be seen, the modal behavior strongly depends on the distance of the oxide island from the cavity. When
it is positioned below the 12th DBR pair, there are strong oscillations in the threshold current which
increase with the island diameter. For more distant island locations, these oscillations are strongly
suppressed and almost disappear.

Řǯś Řǯś Řǯś

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ

ŘǯŖ ŘǯŖ ŘǯŖ

ŗǯś ŗǯś ŗǯś

ŗǯŖ ŗǯŖ ŗǯŖ

Ŗǯś Ŗǯś Ŗǯś

Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś
¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(a) island in the 9th DBR (b) island in the 10th DBR (c) island in the 11th DBR

Řǯś Řǯś Řǯś

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ

Ŗŗ
ŘǯŖ ŘǯŖ ŘǯŖ ŖŘ
ŗŗ
ŗǯś ŗǯś ŗǯś Řŗ

ŗǯŖ ŗǯŖ ŗǯŖ

Ŗǯś Ŗǯś Ŗǯś

Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś
¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(d) island in the 12th DBR (e) island in the 13th DBR (f) island in 15th DBR

Figure 6. Dependence of threshold current on the size of the oxide island for several locations
in the DBR layers. The position of the island has a strong impact the qualitative behavior of the modes.
Below the 12th pair, strong oscillations are visible. A rapid increase in threshold current can be observed
for critical island diameters (10 µm and around 5 µm for the LP02 mode). Dashed gray lines indicate
selected parameters for which the optical profiles are analyzed.

For islands positions where oscillations occur, the strongest increase of the threshold current can
be observed with diameters of around 10 µm, which is exactly the diameter of the outer oxidation
located in the cavity. There are two possible reasons for this: an increase in the optical modal loss,
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 7 of 13

or a decrease in the overlap between the light and the gain. Figure 7a,b show the overlap factor for
an island located in the 10th and 12th DBR pairs. This factor is a unitless value that should be 1 if
the profile of the gain exactly matches the profile of the optical mode and 0 if there is no overlap at all.
It is calculated as R
P g r dr
η = qR R
P2 r dr g2 r dr

where P is the light intensity distribution, g is the material gain, and the integration is performed over
the active region. As can be seen from Figure 7c, there is no expected negative correlation between
the overlap factor and the threshold. At the 10 µm island (where the threshold is highest), the overlap
not only does not decrease but increases visibly to double the size of the overlap for the 15 µm island
(for which the threshold is the lowest). This happens for all the analyzed modes. Hence, we conclude
that for the analyzed island distances (9th–15th DBR pairs) the overlap between the optical mode and
the gain has a negligible impact on the threshold current.

ŘŖ ŘŖ ŗŝǯś

ŸŽ›•Š™ȱŠŒ˜›ȱǽƖǾ

ŸŽ›•Š™ȱŠŒ˜›ȱǽƖǾ

ŸŽ›•Š™ȱŠŒ˜›ȱǽƖǾ
ŗś ŗś ŗśǯŖ
ŗŘǯś
ŗŖ ŗŖ Ŗŗ
ŗŖǯŖ ŖŘ
ś ś ŝǯś
ŗŗ
Řŗ
Ŗ Ŗ śǯŖ
Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś ŗǯŖ ŗǯś ŘǯŖ
¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ
(a) island in 10th DBR (b) island in 12th DBR (c) Correlation with Threshold

Figure 7. Overlap factor at threshold for the oxide island located in the (a) 10th and (b) 12th DBR pairs
and (c) the correlation between the overlap factor and the threshold current for all island distances
presented in Figure 6. The oscillations of the threshold current are not correlated with the overlap factor.

The oscillations in the threshold current are similar in character to the oscillations
of the cold-cavity modal loss we investigated in [27]. There, we explained such oscillations in terms
of the match/mismatch of the optical mode profile with the island aperture. In the present work,
the situation is different, as the oxide island is located not in the cavity but in the top DBR.
However, the origin of the threshold variations is the same: match or mismatch of the modal profile
with the antiresonant oxide aperture. As evidence, we present the profiles of the optical modes
in selected characteristic points (defined by the size of the oxide island and its vertical position,
indicated with vertical gray dashed lines in Figure 6), where the threshold currents presented show
peculiar behavior (Figure 8).
Regardless of the position of the island, it forces all LPx1 modes to shift their maximum to
the high-index region, which for closer islands increases their optical losses and, as a consequence,
the threshold current. However, for an island size close to that of the outer aperture and larger,
the modes shift back to the center and their profiles resemble those of the modes when there is no oxide
island (Figure 8a). As a result, modal losses are reduced. This also explains why the threshold stabilizes
for islands significantly larger than the outer aperture.
The LP02 mode behaves differently from the other modes. For example, for an island located
in the 10th DBR pair, the LP02 mode is pushed away to the outer radii (the primary maximum
in the center widens and the secondary maximum shifts outside the outer aperture (Figure 8c).
This results in a rise in the threshold current. For wider islands, the secondary maximum disappears
(Figure 8d) and the threshold drops: it becomes the lowest of all the modes. If the island size reaches
the outer aperture, all the modes but LP01 have a strong (either primary or secondary) maximum
at the aperture edge (Figure 8e) and thus a very high threshold (Figure 6b).
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 8 of 13

ŗǯŖŖ ŗǯŖŖ ŗǯŖŖ

Ŗŗ
˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ
Ŗǯŝś Ŗǯŝś Ŗǯŝś ŖŘ
ŗŗ
ŖǯśŖ ŖǯśŖ ŖǯśŖ Řŗ
ŖǯŘś ŖǯŘś ŖǯŘś
ŖǯŖŖ ŖǯŖŖ ŖǯŖŖ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(a) no oxide island present (b) 8.8 µm island in 9th DBR (c) 5.8 µm island in 10th DBR

ŗǯŖŖ ŗǯŖŖ ŗǯŖŖ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ
Ŗǯŝś Ŗǯŝś Ŗǯŝś
ŖǯśŖ ŖǯśŖ ŖǯśŖ
ŖǯŘś ŖǯŘś ŖǯŘś
ŖǯŖŖ ŖǯŖŖ ŖǯŖŖ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(d) 7.8 µm island in 10th DBR (e) 9.8 µm island in 10th DBR (f) 5.8 µm island in 11th DBR

ŗǯŖŖ ŗǯŖŖ ŗǯŖŖ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ

˜Žȱ›˜’•ŽȱǽŠ›‹ǯžǯǾ
Ŗǯŝś Ŗǯŝś Ŗǯŝś
ŖǯśŖ ŖǯśŖ ŖǯśŖ
ŖǯŘś ŖǯŘś ŖǯŘś
ŖǯŖŖ ŖǯŖŖ ŖǯŖŖ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(g) 6.2 µm island in 12th DBR (h) 9.8 µm island in 12th DBR (i) 4.2 µm island in 15th DBR

Figure 8. Light intensity profiles for selected island positions and sizes. Dashed vertical black lines
indicate the outer aperture radius, while the solid gray line shows the island aperture radius. In points
where LP02 has a low threshold current, it is mostly located near the device axis. When it has a strong
second-order peak its threshold rises.

The role of the distance of the island from the cavity can be seen by comparing Figure 8c
with Figure 8g,i, which show island sizes of approximately 6 µm. With a closer island, the LP01 mode
drops almost entirely to 0 at the axis and its profile resembles the profiles of the higher order modes
(e.g., LP11 ). When the island is located just two more DBR pairs further away, there is non-negligible
light intensity in the device axis. For even further island, the fundamental mode drop in its region is
minor (Figure 8i). Similarly, comparison of Figure 8e,h (made for an island of approximately 10 µm)
reveals that in the latter case the mode profiles are almost completely undistorted when compared with
the island-less structure (Figure 8a). The closer island still strongly distorts the LP21 mode, causing its
threshold to rise.
From a practical point of view, the impact of the oxide island on the lasing threshold
of different-order modes can be used to ensure single-mode operation of the laser. To achieve this goal,
we must ensure that one of the modes is strongly preferred over the others. As the results presented
in Figure 6 suggest, this is possible for islands located closer to the cavity, i.e., in the 9th or 10th DBR
pair. Figure 9 shows the threshold discrimination in these cases, defined as

Ith [2] − Ith [1]

D= ,
Ith [1]
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 9 of 13

where Ith [1] is the threshold current for the mode with the lowest threshold and Ith [2] is the threshold
current for the second lowest-threshold mode. The colors of the lines in Figure 9 indicate the mode
which should start lasing first. It is known [40–42] that a large difference in the threshold, caused by
a strong discrepancy in the optical losses, favors the lowest-threshold mode in the modal competition
and provides single-mode emission in a wide driving current range.

ŗŖŖ Řǯś ŗŖŖ Řǯś

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱ’Ž›Ž—ŒŽȱǽƖǾ

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱ’Ž›Ž—ŒŽȱǽƖǾ
‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ

‘›Žœ‘˜•ȱž››Ž—ȱǽ–Ǿ
Ŗŗ
ŞŖ ŘǯŖ ŞŖ ŖŘ ŘǯŖ
ŜŖ ŜŖ
ŗǯś ŗǯś
ŚŖ ŚŖ
ŘŖ ŗǯŖ ŘŖ ŗǯŖ

Ŗ Ŗǯś Ŗ Ŗǯś
Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś Ŗ ś ŗŖ ŗś
¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ¡’Žȱœ•Š—ȱ’Š–ŽŽ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(a) island in the 9th DBR (b) island in the 10th DBR

Figure 9. Threshold current differences between the mode with the lowest threshold and that
with the next lowest threshold current. The line colors indicate the lowest-threshold mode.
For reference, we reproduce threshold currents from Figure 6.

Analysis of Figure 9 provides useful insights regarding the size and location of the oxide island
that gives the highest discrimination. As can clearly be seen, an island of approximately 10 µm–11 µm
in the 9th DBR pair should be optimal. However, in this case, all the modes are relatively lossy,
the fundamental mode has a high threshold, and both the threshold and the discrimination vary very
quickly with island size. Taking into account the limited precision of both the numerical analysis and
the fabrication process, these parameters are not stable enough to be of practical use.
For an island in the 9th DBR pair, a much safer choice is a diameter of 8.8 µm, for which modal
discrimination is 40%. In this case, the lowest threshold mode is LP02 and its profile is the most
Gaussian-like of all the modes, with the highest maximum located in the device axis (Figure 8b).
Much higher discrimination of around 80% can be achieved for a 10 µm island in the 10th DBR
pair. The physical origin of the discrimination peak is the same as that of an island in the 9th DBR
pair, which we consider impractical. However, in this case the LP01 threshold changes much more
smoothly and, more importantly, shows no strong rise, as there was in the previously analyzed case.
The fundamental mode profile is much wider (Figure 8e) than in the case without an oxide island.
This delivers the additional advantage of lower diffraction.
For the optimal design, where D is the largest (which corresponds to the 10.2 µm island in the 10th
DBR pair) we have investigated the output power for the increasing input current. The device is not
single-mode for its whole range of operation, however, it remains single-mode up to the 3.75 mA,
which gives emitted power of 2.9 mW. Although this is not a record value for a 850 nm VCSEL (e.g.,
when compared to [11]), it proves that the oxide island has positive impact on the single-mode mode
and we expect it can be improved by tuning design other parameters than the oxide island, which is
out of scope of this article.
The input current of 3.75 mA, at which the LP11 mode appears is higher than its estimated
threshold shown in Figure 6b (2.17 mA). This is caused by the spatial hole burning effect induced by
the LP01 mode, which was neglected in the earlier calculations. However, it is shown in Figure 10a,
which presents comparison of the gain profile at 3.75 mA determined neglecting spatial hole burning
and with taking it into consideration.
To maintain a single-mode regime, the impact of the oxide island on the optical properties of the
laser must be larger than the thermal lensing effect. Up to the input current of 3.75 mA this is indeed
the case, as the heating is not significant: around 12 K over ambient temperature of 300 K, as shown
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 10 of 13

in Figure 10b. In consequence the radial effective-index distribution of the VCSEL shows a strong
change only at the island radius (Figure 10c). For comparison, at 15.54 mA, where the laser heats by
70 K, the thermal lensing is strong and the effect of the oxide aperture is reduced (see yellow lines
in Figure 10b,c). Hence, the laser switches to the multi-mode regime and (as our calculations show)
the total emitted power reaches 10 mW.

ŘŖŖŖ řŞŖ

ŒǯȱŽǯȱŽ–™Ž›Šž›Žȱǽ Ǿȱȱ
Œ’ŸŽȱŽ’˜—ȱ Š’—ȱǽŗȦŒ–Ǿ

řǯŘřś

ŽŒ’ŸŽȱ—Ž¡ȱ—ŽȱǽȬǾ
ŗŖŖŖ řŜŖ
řǯŘřŖ ŗśǯśŚȱ–
Ŗ řŚŖ ŗśǯśŚȱ– ȱȱřǯŝśȱ–
ȱȱřǯŝśȱ– řǯŘŘś
ŗŖŖŖ ˜ȱ
˜•Žȱž›—’— řŘŖ
’‘ȱ
˜•Žȱž›—’—
řŖŖ řǯŘŘŖ
Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ ŖǯŖ Řǯś śǯŖ ŝǯś ŗŖǯŖ Ŗ Ř Ś Ŝ Ş ŗŖ
›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ ›ȱǽΐ–Ǿ
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10. (a) Gain profile at 3.75 mA with and without spatial hole burning. (b) Temperature profile
in the active region for input currents of 3.75 mA and 15.54 mA. (c) Effective index distribution for
the same input currents. For the lower current, the heating is low and the oxide island has the strongest
impact on the effective-index distribution, while for the high current, thermal lensing has strength
comparable to that of the oxide island. Visible staircase is a result of the numerical approximations used
in our calculations. In all plots, black dashed and solid gray vertical lines indicate the outer aperture
and the island radius, respectively.

6. Conclusions
The use of an antiresonant, low-refractive-index oxide island, manufactured by the planar
oxidation method and located in the top DBR, can affect both the current flow and the lasing conditions
of a VCSEL. Placing the island close to the cavity significantly increases current-crowding (for small
island diameters) or the differential resistance (for large diameters). However, if the distance between
the cavity and the island is more than 6 DBR pairs, both these effects are reduced and, for an island
in the 12th DBR pair, they have a negligible impact on the current flow.
In the analyzed laser, the critical point at which the qualitative behavior of the modal loss and
threshold gain change seems be at a distance of 12 DBR pairs. With closer islands, there are strong
oscillations in the threshold current which increase with the oxide island diameter and diminish
with increasing distances between the island and the cavity. The origin of these oscillations is related
to the mode profile and the amount of light outside the outer aperture.
The strong impact of the oxide island on the lasing conditions of different-order modes can be
tailored to increase modal discrimination and support single-mode operation of the laser.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.D.; methodology, R.P.S. and M.D.; software, M.D. and R.P.S.;
validation, M.W., R.L., and M.D.; formal analysis, M.W.; investigation, M.W.; data curation, M.W. and R.L.;
writing–original draft preparation, M.W. and M.D.; writing–review and editing, M.W., R.P.S., R.L. and M.D.;
supervision, M.D.; project administration, M.D.; funding acquisition, M.D. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work has been supported by National Science Center of Poland, program
No. 2015/19/B/ST7/00562 “Modeling novel VCSEL structures manufactured using intra-cavity selective planar
oxidation for high-power single-mode emission”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 11 of 13

References
1. Jung, C.; Jäger, R.; Grabherr, M.; Schnitzer, P.; Michalzik, R.; Weigl, B.; Müller, S.; Ebeling, K. 4.8 mW
Singlemode Oxide Confined Top-Surface Emitting Vertical-Cavity Laser Diodes. Electron. Lett. 1997, 33, 1790.
doi:10.1049/el:19971207. [CrossRef]
2. Grabherr, M.; Jager, R.; Michalzik, R.; Weigl, B.; Reiner, G.; Ebeling, K. Efficient Single-Mode Oxide-Confined
GaAs VCSEL’s Emitting in the 850-Nm Wavelength Regime. IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 1997, 9, 1304–1306.
doi:10.1109/68.623244. [CrossRef]
3. Ueki, N.; Sakamoto, A.; Nakamura, T.; Nakayama, H.; Sakurai, J.; Otoma, H.; Miyamoto, Y.; Yoshikawa, M.;
Fuse, M. Single-Transverse-Mode 3.4-mW Emission of Oxide-Confined 780-Nm VCSELs. IEEE Photon.
Technol. Lett. 1999, 11, 1539–1541. doi:10.1109/68.806839. [CrossRef]
4. Shchukin, V.; Ledentsov, N.N.; Kropp, J.; Steinle, G.; Ledentsov, N.; Burger, S.; Schmidt, F. Single-Mode
Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser via Oxide-Aperture-Engineering of Leakage of High-Order Transverse
Modes. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 2014, 50, 990–995. doi:10.1109/JQE.2014.2364544. [CrossRef]
5. Stepniak, G.; Lewandowski, A.; Kropp, J.; Ledentsov, N.; Shchukin, V.; Ledentsov, N.; Schaefer, G.;
Agustin, M.; Turkiewicz, J. 54 Gbit/s OOK Transmission Using Single-Mode VCSEL up to 2.2 Km MMF.
Electron. Lett. 2016, 52, 633–635. doi:10.1049/el.2015.4264. [CrossRef]
6. Puerta, R.; Agustin, M.; Chorchos, L.; Toήski, J.; Kropp, J.R.; Ledentsov, N.; Shchukin, V.A.; Ledentsov, N.N.;
Henker, R.; Monroy, I.T.; et al. 107.5 Gb/s 850 Nm Multi- and Single-Mode VCSEL Transmission over 10
and 100 m of Multi-Mode Fiber. In Proceedings of the 2016 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and
Exhibition (OFC), Anaheim, CA, USA, 20–22 March 2016; pp. 1–3.
7. Kao, H.Y.; Tsai, C.T.; Chi, Y.C.; Peng, C.Y.; Leong, S.F.; Wang, H.Y.; Cheng, C.H.; Wu, W.L.; Kuo, H.C.;
Cheng, W.H.; et al. Long-Term Thermal Stability of Single-Mode VCSEL Under 96-Gbit/s OFDM
Transmission. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2019, 25, 1–9. doi:10.1109/JSTQE.2019.2908554. [CrossRef]
8. Guan, B.; Li, P.; Arafin, S.; Alaskar, Y.; Wang, K.L. Investigation of Single-Mode Vertical-Cavity
Surface-Emitting Lasers with Graphene-Bubble Dielectric DBR. Photonics Nanostructures Fundam. Appl. 2018,
28, 56–60. doi:10.1016/j.photonics.2017.07.005. [CrossRef]
9. Ledentsov, N.; Turkiewicz, J.P.; Chorchos, Ł.; Ledentsov, N.N.; Agustin, M. Leaky Cavity 850 Nm
Single-Mode VCSELs for High-Speed Data Transmission over Multi-Mode Fiber. In Proceedings of the
2018 Photonics in Switching and Computing (PSC), Limassol, Cyprus, 19–21 September 2018; pp. 1–3.
doi:10.1109/PS.2018.8751240. [CrossRef]
10. Haglund, Å.; Gustavsson, J.S.; Vukušić, J.; Modh, P.; Larsson, A. Single Fundamental-Mode Output Power
Exceeding 6 mW From VCSELs With a Shallow Surface Relief. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 2004, 16, 368–370.
doi:10.1109/LPT.2003.821085. [CrossRef]
11. Shi, J.W.; Wei, Z.R.; Chi, K.L.; Jiang, J.W.; Wun, J.M.; Lu, I.C.; Chen, J.; Yang, Y.J. Single-Mode, High-Speed,
and High-Power Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers at 850 Nm for Short to Medium Reach (2 Km)
Optical Interconnects. J. Light. Technol. 2013, 31, 4037–4044. doi:10.1109/JLT.2013.2281235. [CrossRef]
12. Khan, Z.; Shih, J.C.; Cheng, C.L.; Shi, J.W. High-Power and Highly Single-Mode Zn-Diffusion VCSELs at
940 Nm Wavelength. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Photonics Conference (IPC), San Antonio, TX, USA,
29 September–3 October 2019; pp. 1–2. doi:10.1109/IPCon.2019.8908460. [CrossRef]
13. Bao, L.; Kim, N.H.; Mawst, L.J.; Elkin, N.N.; Troshchieva, V.N.; Vysotsky, D.V.; Napartovich, A.P. Single-Mode
Emission From Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers With Low-Index Defects. IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.
2007, 19, 239–241. doi:10.1109/LPT.2006.890058. [CrossRef]
14. Dems, M.; Beling, P.; G˛ebski, M.; Piskorski, Ł.; Walczak, J.; Kuc, M.; Frasunkiewicz, L.; Michał, W.;
Sarzała, R.; Czyszanowski, T. VCSEL Modeling with Self-Consistent Models: From Simple Approximations
to Comprehensive Numerical Analysis. Proc. SPIE 2015, 9381, 93810K. doi:10.1117/12.2078321. [CrossRef]
15. Haglund, E.; Jahed, M.; Gustavsson, J.S.; Larsson, A.; Goyvaerts, J.; Baets, R.; Roelkens, G.; Rensing, M.;
O’Brien, P. High-Power Single Transverse and Polarization Mode VCSEL for Silicon Photonics Integration.
Opt. Express 2019, 27, 18892–18899. doi:10.1364/OE.27.018892. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Kokubun, Y.; Baba, T.; Sakaki, T.; Iga, K. Low-Loss Antiresonant Reflecting Optical Waveguide on Si Substrate
in Visible-Wavelength Region. Electron. Lett. 1986, 22, 892–893. doi:10.1049/el:19860608. [CrossRef]
17. Koch, T.; Koren, U.; Boyd, G.; Corvini, P.; Duguay, M. Antiresonant Reflecting Optical Waveguides for III-V
Integrated Optics. Electron. Lett. 1987, 23, 244–245. doi:10.1049/el:19870172. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 12 of 13

18. Yin, D.; Schmidt, H.; Barber, J.P.; Hawkins, A.R. Integrated ARROW Waveguides with Hollow Cores.
Opt. Express 2004, 12, 2710–2715. doi:10.1364/OPEX.12.002710. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Ledentsov, N.N.; Shchukin, V.A.; Kalosha, V.P.; Ledentsov, N.N.; Kropp, J.R.; Agustin, M.; Chorchos,
Ł.; St˛epniak, G.; Turkiewicz, J.P.; Shi, J.W. Anti-Waveguiding Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Laser at
850 Nm: From Concept to Advances in High-Speed Data Transmission. Opt. Express 2018, 26, 445–453.
doi:10.1364/OE.26.000445. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Wu, Y.; Li, G.; Nabiev, R.; Choquette, K.; Caneau, C.; Chang-Hasnain, C. Single-Mode, Passive
Antiguide Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 1995, 1, 629–637.
doi:10.1109/2944.401251. [CrossRef]
21. Goltser, I.V.; Mawst, L.J.; Botez, D. Single-Cladding Antiresonant Reflecting Optical Waveguide-Type Diode
Laser. Opt. Lett. OL 1995, 20, 2219–2221. doi:10.1364/OL.20.002219. [CrossRef]
22. Zhou, D.; Mawst, L.J. High-Power Single-Mode Antiresonant Reflecting Optical Waveguide-Type
Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 2002, 38, 1599–1606.
doi:10.1109/JQE.2002.805107. [CrossRef]
23. Tee, C.W.; Yu, S.F. Design and Analysis of Cylindrical Antiresonant Reflecting Optical Waveguide.
J. Light. Technol. 2003, 21, 3379–3386. doi:10.1109/JLT.2003.820040. [CrossRef]
24. Tee, C.; Tan, C.; Yu, S. Design of Antiresonant-Reflecting Optical Waveguide-Type Vertical-Cavity
Surface-Emitting Lasers Using Transfer Matrix Method. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 2003, 15, 1231–1233.
doi:10.1109/LPT.2003.816116. [CrossRef]
25. Tee, C.; Yu, S.; Chen, N. Transverse-Leaky-Mode Characteristics of ARROW VCSELs. J. Light. Technol. 2004,
22, 1797–1804. doi:10.1109/JLT.2004.831091. [CrossRef]
26. Tee, C.W.; Yu, S.F.; Penty, R.V.; White, I.H. Transient Response of ARROW VCSELs. IEEE J. Quantum Electron.
2005, 41, 140–147. doi:10.1109/JQE.2004.839713. [CrossRef]
27. Wi˛eckowska, M.; Czyszanowski, T.; Almuneau, G.; Dems, M. Shaping Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting
Laser Mode Profiles with an Antiresonant Oxide Island for Improved Single-Mode Emission. J. Opt. Soc.
Am. B 2018, 35, 2259. doi:10.1364/josab.35.002259. [CrossRef]
28. Amat, C.; Almuneau, G.; Gallo, P.; Jalabert, L.; Moumdji, S.; Dubreuil, P.; Camps, T.; Doucet, J.B.; Havard, E.;
Bardinal, V.; Fontaine, C.; Muñoz-Yagüe, A. Free Engineering of Buried Oxide Patterns in GaAs/AlAs
Epitaxial Structures. Electron. Lett. 2007, 43, 730–732. doi:10.1049/el:20070974. [CrossRef]
29. Chouchane, F.; Doucet, J.B.; Arnoult, A.; Lacoste, G.; Fontaine, C.; Almuneau, G. A New Approach of
Planar Oxidation of Buried Al xGa 1-xAs/GaAs Epitaxial Structures for Optical and Electrical Confinement
Applications. Phys. Status Solidi Curr. Top. Solid State Phys. 2012, 9, 338–341. doi:10.1002/pssc.201100264.
[CrossRef]
30. Sarzała, R.; Czyszanowski, T.; Wasiak, M.; Dems, M.; Piskorski, L.; Nakwaski, W.; Panajotov, K. Numerical
Self-Consistent Analysis of VCSELs. Adv. Opt. Technol. 2012, 689519. doi:10.1155/2012/689519. [CrossRef]
31. Zeghuzi, A.; Wenzel, H.; Wünsche, H.J.; Radziunas, M.; Bandelow, U.; Knigge, A. Modeling of Current
Spreading in High-Power Broad-Area Lasers and Its Impact on the Lateral Far Field Divergence. In Physics
and Simulation of Optoelectronic Devices XXVI; Osiński, M., Arakawa, Y., Witzigmann, B., Eds.; SPIE:
San Francisco, CA, USA, 2018; p. 52. doi:10.1117/12.2289803. [CrossRef]
32. Radziunas, M.; Fuhrmann, J.; Zeghuzi, A.; Wünsche, H.J.; Koprucki, T.; Brée, C.; Wenzel, H.; Bandelow, U.
Efficient Coupling of Dynamic Electro-Optical and Heat-Transport Models for High-Power Broad-Area
Semiconductor Lasers. Opt. Quant. Electron. 2019, 51, 69. doi:10.1007/s11082-019-1792-1. [CrossRef]
33. Piskorski, Ł.; Sarzała, R.P.; Nakwaski, W. Self-Consistent Model of 650 Nm GaInP/AlGaInP
Quantum-Well Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Diode Lasers. Semicond. Sci. Technol. 2007, 22, 593–600.
doi:10.1088/0268-1242/22/6/002. [CrossRef]
34. Dems, M.; Kotynski, R.; Panajotov, K. Plane Wave Admittance Method—A Novel Approach for Determining
the Electromagnetic Modes in Photonic Structures. Opt. Express 2005, 13, 3196. doi:10.1364/opex.13.003196.
[CrossRef]
35. Wenzel, H.; Wünsche, H.J. The Effective Frequency Method in the Analysis of Vertical-Cavity
Surface-Emitting Lasers. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 1997, 33, 1156–1162. doi:10.1109/3.594878. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 2195 13 of 13

36. Li, T.; Hao, E.J. High Performance 850nm VCSELs with Surface Relief. In Proceedings of the 2010 Academic
Symposium on Optoelectronics and Microelectronics Technology and 10th Chinese-Russian Symposium on
Laser Physics and Laser TechnologyOptoelectronics Technology (ASOT), Harbin, China, 9–12 August 2010
2010; pp. 103–105. doi:10.1109/RCSLPLT.2010.5615392. [CrossRef]
37. Moser, P. Energy-Efficient VCSELs for Optical Interconnects; Springer Theses; Springer International Publishing:
Cham, Switzerland, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24067-1. [CrossRef]
38. Calvez, S.; Calmon, P.F.; Arnoult, A.; Gauthier-Lafaye, O.; Fontaine, C.; Almuneau, G. Low-Loss
Buried AlGaAs/AlOx Waveguides Using a Quasi-Planar Process. Opt. Express 2017, 25, 19275.
doi:10.1364/oe.25.019275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Suarez, I.; Condé, M.; Bouscayrol, L.; Fontaine, C.; Almuneau, G. Structure-Induced Effects on the
Selective Wet Thermal Oxidation of Digital Alx Ga1–x As Alloy. J. Mater. Res. 2008, 23, 3006–3012.
doi:10.1557/JMR.2008.0360. [CrossRef]
40. Czyszanowski, T.; Dems, M.; Sarzała, R.P.; Nakwaski, W.; Panajotov, K. Precise Lateral Mode Control in
Photonic Crystal Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 2011, 47, 1291–1296.
doi:10.1109/JQE.2011.2159363. [CrossRef]
41. Czyszanowski, T.; Sarzała, R.P.; Dems, M.; Walczak, J.; Wasiak, M.; Nakwaski, W.; Iakovlev, V.; Volet, N.;
Kapon, E. Spatial-Mode Discrimination in Guided and Antiguided Arrays of Long-Wavelength VCSELs.
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2013, 19, 1702010. doi:10.1109/JSTQE.2013.2251324. [CrossRef]
42. Czyszanowski, T.; Volet, N.; Walczak, J.; Dems, M.; Sarzala, R.P.; Iakovlev, V.; Sirbu, A.; Mereuta, A.; Caliman,
A.; Kapon, E. Numerical Analysis of Mode Discrimination by Intracavity Patterning in Long-Wavelength
Wafer-Fused Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 2014, 50, 732–740.
doi:10.1109/JQE.2014.2331764. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).