Calibrated Photodiodes

Click to Enlarge
Figure 1. Overview of the Photodiode's Response Curve,
Highlighting the Saturation Limit and the Noise Floor

We present laboratory measurements of the saturation limit and noise floor of a Thorlabs silicon photodiode. While all photodiodes function similarly, there are a number of parameters that affect the noise floor and saturation limit of a photodiode including the sensor temperature, resistivity, reverse bias voltage, responsivity, and system bandwidth. Here we investigated the effect of reverse bias voltage and load resistance within a silicon-based photodiode detection system. Increasing the reverse bias increased the saturation limit and had minimal effect on the noise floor. Decreasing the load resistance decreased the noise floor until reaching the noise of the measurement system, but also decreased the saturation limit. These results demonstrate some of the considerations necessary for choosing the reverse bias voltage and load resistance, and emphasize that noise sources within all of the components must be considered when creating a detection system.

For our experiment we used the FDS100 Si Photodiode as the photodiode under investigation. The collimated output of a fiber-pigtailed laser diode was used as the light source with output power from 0 to 50 mW. The collimated beam was incident upon a beamsplitter that transmitted the majority of the light to the photodiode under investigation and reflected the rest towards a reference power sensor. The photodiode response was then evaluated under various resistive loads and with different reverse bias voltages.

Click for Full Lab Facts Summary

The plots to the right and below summarize the measured results for the various tested configurations. From these graphs the changes to the photodiode's linear response, noise floor, and saturation limit can be observed under different reverse voltage biases and load resistances. Figure 1 provides an overview of the photodiode response with a reverse voltage bias of 5 V and resistive load of 10 kΩ. The photodiode saturated at the upper limit of the response when the output photovoltage approached the reverse bias voltage. The noise floor at the lower limit of the response was a result of dark current and the thermal noise from the resistive load (Johnson noise). Figure 2 summarizes the results obtained using the photodiode with a 1 kΩ resistive load and various reverse bias voltages. It illustrates that the saturation limit can be raised by increasing the reverse bias voltage (within specification). Figure 3 summarizes the results from using the photodiode with a 5 V reverse bias voltage and various resistive loads. It illustrates that the slope of the photovoltage response increased as the load resistance was increased. Figure 4 summarizes the noise floor results obtained using a 0 V reverse bias voltage and various resistive loads. The noise floor increased when larger load resistances were used. It is important to note that the 1 kΩ data was measured above the theoretical Johnson noise due to the voltage noise within the measurement system. Minimal change in the overall noise floor was seen when using a 5 V reverse bias voltage. For details on the experimental setup employed and these summarized results, please click here.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 2. Photovoltage Dependence on Reverse Bias Voltage

Click to Enlarge
Figure 4. Noise Floor with Various Resistive Loads

Click to Enlarge
Figure 3. Response with Various Resistive Loads

Click to Enlarge
This is the optomechanical setup used to measure responsivity across a selection of photodiodes.

Introduction
The output signal of a photodiode is a function of the responsivity, which is a ratio of the generated photocurrent to the power of the incident light. Responsivity is measured in amps per watt. While this value is typically assumed to be constant when the incident power is within a photodiode’s operating range, the responsivity can vary across its active area. How this variation manifests in a two dimensional space can be defined as spatial uniformity.

Each photodiode has an operating range, which we list on our specification sheets. Photons with wavelengths that fall in this operating range will have the proper energy to become absorbed within the crystal, exciting electrons and activating the photodiode. Features of a photodiode’s spatial uniformity will be observed differently depending on whether the wavelength of the light incident is above or below its operating range. In general, photons with wavelengths below the photodiode’s operating range have too much energy and are absorbed too near the surface of the crystal to activate it, causing loss in responsivity and an increase in heat. The severity of this loss is dictated mainly by the condition of the surface of the crystal. Photons with wavelengths above the photodiode’s operating range have energies too low and normally transmit through the crystal without interaction or heat the crystal. If defects or crystal misalignments exist in the bulk of the material, these low energy photons can contribute to responsivity and give false readings.

In this experiment, we demonstrate how spatial uniformity can vary due to semiconductor material and wavelength, and how responsivity can change from lot-to-lot within a product line.

Procedure
In order to provide a better expectation of photodiode response across material, we characterized the typical uniformity of our Si, Ge, InGaAs, and GaP mounted photodiodes at their peak wavelength. For wavelength variations, we chose three photodiodes of different sensor materials measured at three wavelengths. Lastly, for lot-to-lot variations, eight SM1PD2A photodiodes were tested at their peak wavelength. The setup for taking these measurements consisted of an RC12APC-P01 collimator for use with multiple wavelengths. A 150 mm focal length lens and LTS150 stage were used to control the beam diameter incident upon the detector. The beam was created using our Superluminecent Diode series, save for measurements done at 405 nm, which used an S3FC405 benchtop laser source. The beam diameter used to scan each photodiode was dependent on the active area of the photodiode. Approximately 3600 measurements were taken in a 60 x 60 grid which encapsulated the photodiode's active area. To keep this resolution similar across all photodiodes, the beam size used for each photodiode varied between 50µm and 500µm. Two LNR50S motorized stages were used to translate the diode under this focusing beam. 

Each of the mounted photodiodes was scanned for a typical response curve near its peak wavelength. This consisted of scanning a source across the entire active area to characterize the response as a function of position. One diode for each of the Si, Ge, and InGaAs types was tested at two additional wavelengths to demonstrate the wavelength dependence of the responsivity features. The uniformity scans presented below are each normalized to the response value at the plot origin, corresponding to the center of the active area, and feature 0.25% contours.* Clicking the plots will enlarge them and display their scale bar. Note that the SM1PD5A is no longer available; its responsivity map has been retained here to provide an example of a Ge photodiode. 

Experimental Limitations
The values shown can only be regarded as typical for the diodes tested since a single diode was scanned for each part. While measurements are repeatable for these individual diodes, the uniformity variation for any diode is not guaranteed, because the responsivity can vary from lot to lot. Due to this, the photodiode you receive may have a slightly different response than what has been represented. 

Summary
The data collected show that the Ge and GaP photodiode have greater non-uniformity than the Si and InGaAs photodiodes. At the additional wavelengths tested for the three types, all three photodiode types showed the least amount of variation in response near the peak wavelength compared to other wavelengths. The lot-to-lot consistency showed similar spatial uniformity structure with few anomalous structures that would negatively affect photoresponse. 

*The SM05PD7A was contoured at 0.5%, and the SM1PD2A was contoured at 0.2%.

Results
Below are the measured data displayed in contour maps of the tested photodiodes. Click "More [+]" to reveal the plots, and "Less [-]" to hide them again. 

Click Plots for Details
GaP	Si		InGaAs	Ge

Spatial Uniformity Plots at Various Wavelengths

Click Plots for Details
Si (SM1PD1A)	405 nm	830 nm (Peak Wavelength)	1064 nm	Responsivity Plot
InGaAs (SM05PD5A)	830 nm	1064 nm	1550 nm (Peak Wavelength)	Responsivity Plot
Ge (SM1PD5A)	830 nm	1064 nm	1550 nm (Peak Wavelength)	Responsivity Plot

Click Plots for Details

Measurements of dark current as a function of temperature were acquired for several unmounted photodetectors. As is described in the following section, dark current is a relatively small electrical current that flows in p-n junction photodetectors when no light is incident on the detector. Measurements were taken for silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), gallium phosphide (GaP), and indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) reverse-biased photodiodes over temperatures from 25 °C to approximately 55 °C. 

Figure 1: Current-Voltage Characteristic of a P-N Junction

Current-Voltage Characteristics of p-n Junction Photodiodes

The characteristic current-voltage relationship of p-n junction photodiodes, as diagrammed in Figure 1, possesses forward-biased and reverse-biased voltage regimes. In the reverse-biased voltage regime, in which p-n junction photodiodes are operated, a potential difference applied across the diode resists the flow of current.  Ideally, if no light is incident on a reverse-biased photodiode, no current flows.   

Under real-world conditions, random processes in the semiconductor material of the photodiode always generates current carriers (electrons and holes) that produce current. These current generation processes are not driven by the photogeneration of electrons and holes. Instead, they are largely driven by the thermal energy contained in the semiconductor material.[1] This dark current is generally small, but it is present when the photodiode is reverse biased and not illuminated. Dark current magnitudes vary for photodiodes of different material compositions; the efficiencies of the thermal generation processes depend on the type and crystal quality of the semiconductor used in the detector's sensing head. The magnitude of the dark current can be expected to increase as the temperature of the photodiode increases. 

When a photodiode is illuminated, the current generated by the incident light adds to the dark current. The carriers in the photocurrent are generated by the energy contained in the photons of the incident light. Above a certain illumination threshold intensity, the magnitude of the photocurrent exceeds the magnitude of the dark current. When the photocurrent is larger than the dark current, the magnitude of the photocurrent can be calculated by measuring the total current and then subtracting the contribution of the dark current. When the photocurrent is smaller than the dark current, the photocurrent is undetectable. Because of this, it is desirable to minimize the levels of dark current in photodiodes.

For convenience, both dark current and photocurrent are discussed as being independent of voltage over a range of voltages when the photodiode is reverse biased; however, the current flowing in real-world reverse-biased photodetectors is not completely independent of voltage over any voltage range. Regardless of whether the diode is illuminated, the current will increase as the magnitude of the reverse-bias voltage increases. In addition, if the reverse-bias voltage is increased beyond a certain threshold, the photodiode will suffer reverse breakdown, in which the magnitude of the current increases exponentially and permanent damage to the diode is likely.

Experiment: Dark Currents Measured for Packaged Photodiodes

Dark currents were measured over temperatures of 25 °C to approximately 55 °C for four representative unpackaged photodiodes: the Si-based FDS1010, the Ge-based FDG50, the GaP-based FGAP71, and the InGaAs-based FGA10.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 2: The Nested Metal Box Test Fixture with Covers Removed and FGA10 Installed
Black insulating foam lines the interiors of both boxes.  
A: Thermistor; B: FGA10; C: BNC-to-BNC Feedthrough; D: Outer Box; E: Inner Box; F: BNC-to-Triax Feedthrough; G: BNC-to-BNC Feedthrough 

Click to Enlarge
Figure 4: An electrical circuit that included a resistive foil heater, TED8040 temperature controller, and two rectifying diodes controlled current flow through the resistive current heater as described in the text.   

Click to Enlarge
Figure 3: The Test Setup
The custom-built temperature chamber is on the top of the cart, and the temperature control instrumentation that includes the PRO8000 and TED8040 cards is on the cart's lower shelf.

Experimental Setup
The experimental setup was designed to ensure a constant reverse-bias voltage across the photodiode, control the temperature of the detector, block light from reaching the detector, and establish an electrical path between the detector and the Keithley 6487 ammeter that isolated the measured current from extraneous electromagnetic interference (EMI) noise sources. Dark currents for these detectors can be on the order of nA, which made it important to control these conditions to ensure accurate measurements.

The detector enclosure consisted of a pair of nested aluminum metal boxes, which are shown with their covers off in Figure 2. Only one box would be required to create a light-tight environment for the photodiode, but an outer box was included in the setup to shield the inner box from EMI. The detector was placed inside the inner box, and it was electrically connected to the Keithley 6487 ammeter. The ammeter provided the required 5 V reverse-bias and received the output current signal. The electrical signals between the ammeter and the photodiode were routed through the two boxes using a combination of cables and feedthroughs. The 5 V bias voltage was connected to the photodiode using coax cables and BNC-to-BNC feedthroughs in the walls of both metal boxes. The current signal from the photodiode was connected to the BNC end of a BNC-to-Triax feedthrough integrated into the wall of the inner box. The signal was then routed through the outer box and to the Keithley 6487 using triax cables and a Triax-to-Triax feedthrough in the outer box. Triax cables were used because coax cables are poorly shielded, and using a coax cable to route the signal to the ammeter could introduce noise from EMI sources to the signal read from the detector. As the outer box shields the inner box from EMI, the noise introduced on the signal as it travels from the detector to the BNC-to-Triax feedthrough is mitigated.

Thermistors were used to monitor the temperatures of each photodiode continuously during the experiment. A piece of thermal tape was used to hold the thermistor flush against the TO cans of the FDG50, FGAP71, and the FGA10 during testing. The photosensor of the FDS1010 is mounted on a ceramic substrate, and when it was tested the thermistor was taped to the back of the substrate. The electrical connection between the thermistor and TSP01 temperature logger was performed using BNC cables, BNC-to-BNC bulkhead feedthroughs to route the signal out of the nested boxes, and a custom BNC-to-phono jack cable to connect to the temperature logger.

A custom temperature chamber based on a XE25C9 standard enclosure was used to conduct these tests. It is shown on top of the cart in Figure 3. The enclosure had a floor and four walls, and insulation was attached to all inner and outer surfaces. A lid for the enclosure was fashioned from a sheet of hardboard bordered with XE25 rails, and insulation was attached to the inner surface of the hardboard. Six resistive foil heaters were affixed to the walls of the XE25C9 enclosure, and they were driven using the PRO8000 fitted with six TED8040 thermoelectric cooler (TEC) controller cards placed on the bottom shelf of the cart in Figure 3. Each TED8040 was interfaced with a heater and a thermistor installed in the chamber. The reading from the thermistor determined the current sent to drive the heater. The chamber was not actively cooled; cooling was instead performed by withdrawing the current driving the heaters and, as an option, opening the lid of the chamber. 

The TED8040 units are designed to be interfaced with TECs, which produce heat when current flows in one direction, and which provide cooling when the current flows in the opposite direction. Because of this, when the enclosure exceeded the setpoint temperature, the TED8040 units in this experimental setup did not cut off the driving current. They instead reversed the current flow in an effort to produce cooling. In contrast to TECs, resistive foil heaters generate heat regardless of the direction of current flowing through them. In order to divert the driving current from the heaters, an electrical circuit, diagrammed in Figure 4, that included two rectifying diodes was designed and implemented. Rectifying diodes allow current to flow only in one direction. When the temperature reading from the thermistor was lower than the setpoint temperature, current flowed in the direction of the red arrows and through the resistive heater, and heat was generated. When the temperature of the enclosure exceeded the setpoint temperature, the TED8040 controllers reversed the direction of the current, so that it flowed in the direction of the blue arrows. Under this condition, the circuit diverted the current from the heaters and the chamber was allowed to cool.

Experimental Results
The data curves plotted in Figure 5 are the dark currents measured for the Si-based FDS1010, the Ge-based FDG50, the GaP-based FGAP71, and the InGaAs-based FGA10. Data were acquired continuously while the temperature was between 25 °C and 55 °C (shaded region of Figure 6). Figure 6 is representative of the temperature measured at the photodiode during the experiment. The temperature profile included an initial segment of increasing temperature, followed by a soak that allowed the photodiode to reach the maximum temperature, and concluded with a cool-down. The data plotted in Figure 5 include all dark current measurements measured between 25 °C and 55 °C; current measurements taken at the same temperature, but at different times, overlay one another for each diode. 

The data curves plotted in Figure 5 show that the measured dark current magnitudes differed depending on the material composing the photodiode. From lowest to highest:

• GaP-Based Detector FGAP71 (Lowest Dark Current) 
• InGaAs-Based Detector FGA10
• Si-Based Detector FDS1010
• Ge-Based Detector FDG50 (Highest Dark Current)

These span approximately 6 orders of magnitude. In all cases, the dark current increased with the temperature of the photodiode, as expected. The individual points on this graph, plotted as diamonds, are the values of the dark current specified for each detector at 25 °C. These points specify a maximum value of dark current at 25 °C; each diode's dark current must be equal to or less than this value at 25 °C, but the dark current may exceed this specification at higher temperatures, as is the case for all but the measured FDS1010 detector.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 5: Dark Current Data Measured for Four Unmounted Photodiodes
The discrete data points, plotted as diamonds, are values of the dark current specified for each detector at 25 °C.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 6: Temperature of a Representative Photodiode Controlled by the Conditions in the Environmental Chamber
Dark current measurements were acquired between 25 °C and 55 °C (indicated by the shaded region) and are plotted in Figure 5 .

Experimental Limitations
Measurements were performed using a single representative of each detector type, as these data were intended to illustrate overall trends. These data should not be taken as specific for a particular diode. The measured dark current is a function of voltage bias, temperature dependence of resistive loads, and other effects. Efforts were made to suppress their influence on these measurements, including using the Keithley 6487 ammeter to provide the required 5 V reverse bias.  Using the ammeter removed the need to use a load resisitor, which may exhibit its own temperature dependence. The thermistor was placed as close to the semiconductor sensor as was possible, but it was not placed in direct contact with the sensor. Because of this, there may have been a difference between the measured temperature and the temperature of the semiconductor material. The dark current was measured while the temperature of the environmental chamber was continuously varied. Humidity was not controlled during this experiment.

 [1] J. Liu, Photonic Devices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005

Noise Equivalent Power (NEP) was determined as a function of temperature for several unmounted photodetectors. As is described in the following section, NEP is a common metric used to describe the minimum sensitivity of a photodetector. Measurements were taken for silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), gallium phosphide (GaP), and indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) reverse-biased photodiodes over temperatures from 25 °C to approximately 55 °C. 

Noise Equivalent Power

The most general definition of NEP is "the input signal power that results in a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 1 in a 1 Hz output bandwidth." [1] Therefore, in order to determine the NEP, the minimum noise of the photodiode must be determined. When the optical signal is blocked, noise is still present, which is generated by the detector itself. There are two main contributors to photodiode noise: the shot noise due to dark current and thermal noise due to the shunt resistance.

Dark current is a relatively small electric current present in photosensitive devices that flows through the device, including when there is no incident light. More information on the dark current can be found in the "Dark Current as a Function of Temperature" section above. Shot noise is due to the quantized nature of the charge carriers. For the case where there is no light incident on the detector, it can be calculated from the dark current of the detector using the equation [2]

where i_s is the shot noise, I_d is the dark current, q is the electron charge, and f_BW is the bandwidth, which will be set to 1 Hz to allow for comparison between different photodiodes.

Thermal, or Johnson, noise is due to the random thermal motion of the charge carriers. Thermal noise will be generated only by the resistive elements of the system. For the photodiode detector, the shunt resistance needs to be considered. Shunt resistance is the resistance of the zero-biased photodiode p-n junction; put another way, it is the inverse of the slope of the I-V curve at the zero-voltage point. Since it is difficult to correctly calculate the slope at the zero crossing, the generally accepted industry practice is to measure the current at V = ±10 mV and then calculate the slope. Then the thermal noise due to the shunt resistance, R_SH, can be expressed as:

where i_t is the thermal noise (expressed as a current), k_B is Boltzmann's constant, T is temperature, R_SH is shunt resistance, and f_BW is the bandwidth.

The total noise, i_total, is the quadrature sum of all noise sources:

Note that this result is the total noise expressed for the current output of the photodiode, while the NEP is expressed in terms of incident optical power. Thus, to compare with the NEP specifications a typical responsivity value,,  is chosen for the specified wavelength:

Also, to allow for comparison between different diodes, we set the bandwidth to 1 Hz for the calculation.

Experiment: Dark Current and Shunt Resistance Measurements

NEP was determined over 25 to 55 °C for four representative unpackaged photodiodes: the Si-based FDS1010, the Ge-based FDG50, the GaP-based FGAP71, and the InGaAs-based FGA10. 

Click to Enlarge
Figure 1: The nested metal box test fixture with covers removed and FGA10 installed.
Black insulating foam lines the interiors of both boxes.  
A: Thermistor; B: FGA10; C: BNC-to-BNC Feedthrough; D: Outer Box; E: Inner Box; F: BNC-to-Triax Feedthrough; G: BNC-to-BNC Feedthrough 

Click to Enlarge
Figure 3: An electrical circuit that included a resistive foil heater, TED8040 temperature controller, and two rectifying diodes controlled current flow through the resistive current heater as described in the text.   

Click to Enlarge
Figure 2: The Test Setup
The custom-built temperature chamber is on the top of the cart, and the temperature control instrumentation that includes the PRO8000 and TED8040 cards is on the cart's lower shelf.

Experimental Setup
The experimental setup was designed to ensure a constant reverse-bias voltage across the photodiode, control the temperature of the detector, block light from reaching the detector, and establish an electrical path between the detector and the Keithley 6487 ammeter that isolated the measured current from extraneous electromagnetic interference (EMI) noise sources. Dark currents for these detectors can be on the order of nA, which made it important to control these conditions to ensure accurate measurements.

The detector enclosure consisted of a pair of nested aluminum metal boxes, which are shown with their covers off in Figure 1. Only one box would be required to create a light-tight environment for the photodiode, but an outer box was included in the setup to shield the inner box from EMI. The detector was placed inside the inner box, and it was electrically connected to the Keithley 6487 ammeter. The ammeter provided the required reverse-bias voltage and received the output current signal. The electrical signals between the ammeter and the photodiode were routed through the two boxes using a combination of cables and feedthroughs. The bias voltage was connected to the photodiode using coax cables and BNC-to-BNC feedthroughs in the walls of both metal boxes. The current signal from the photodiode was connected to the BNC end of a BNC-to-Triax feedthrough integrated into the wall of the inner box. The signal was then routed through the outer box and to the Keithley 6487 using triax cables and a Triax-to-Triax feedthrough in the outer box. Triax cables were used because coax cables are poorly shielded, and using a coax cable to route the signal to the ammeter could introduce noise from EMI sources to the signal read from the detector. As the outer box shields the inner box from EMI, the noise introduced on the signal as it travels from the detector to the BNC-to-Triax feedthrough is mitigated.

For dark current measurements, the bias voltage was set to 5 V. In order to calculate the shunt resistance, measurements of the current were made with the bias voltage set to +10 mV and -10 mV.

Thermistors were used to monitor the temperatures of each photodiode continuously during the experiment. A piece of thermal tape was used to hold the thermistor flush against the TO cans of the FDG50, FGAP71, and the FGA10 during testing. The photosensor of the FDS1010 is mounted on a ceramic substrate, and when it was tested the thermistor was taped to the back of the substrate. The electrical connection between the thermistor and TSP01 temperature logger was performed using BNC cables, BNC-to-BNC bulkhead feedthroughs to route the signal out of the nested boxes, and a custom BNC-to-phono jack cable to connect to the temperature logger.

A custom temperature chamber based on a XE25C9 standard enclosure was used to conduct these tests. It is shown on top of the cart in Figure 3. The enclosure had a floor and four walls, and insulation was attached to all inner and outer surfaces. A lid for the enclosure was fashioned from a sheet of hardboard bordered with XE25 rails, and insulation was attached to the inner surface of the hardboard. Six resistive foil heaters were affixed to the walls of the XE25C9 enclosure, and they were driven using the PRO8000 chassis fitted with six TED8040 thermoelectric cooler (TEC) controller cards placed on the bottom shelf of the cart in Figure 2. Each TED8040 was interfaced with a heater and a thermistor installed in the chamber. The reading from the thermistor determined the current sent to drive the heater. The chamber was not actively cooled; cooling was instead performed by withdrawing the current driving the heaters and, as an option, opening the lid of the chamber.

The TED8040 units are designed to be interfaced with TECs, which produce heat when current flows in one direction, and which provide cooling when the current flows in the opposite direction. Because of this, when the enclosure exceeded the setpoint temperature, the TED8040 units in this experimental setup did not cut off the driving current. They instead reversed the current flow in an effort to produce cooling. In contrast to TECs, resistive foil heaters generate heat regardless of the direction of current flowing through them. In order to divert the driving current from the heaters, an electrical circuit, diagrammed in Figure 3, that included two rectifying diodes was designed and implemented. Rectifying diodes allow current to flow only in one direction. When the temperature reading from the thermistor was lower than the setpoint temperature, current flowed in the direction of the red arrows and through the resistive heater, and heat was generated. When the temperature of the enclosure exceeded the setpoint temperature, the TED8040 controllers reversed the direction of the current, so that it flowed in the direction of the blue arrows. Under this condition, the circuit diverted the current from the heaters and the chamber was allowed to cool.

Experimental Results
The data curves plotted in Figure 4 are the dark currents measured for the Si-based FDS1010, the Ge-based FDG50, the GaP-based FGAP71, and the InGaAs-based FGA10. Figure 5 shows the calculated shunt resistance values for the same diodes as Figure 4. Data were acquired continuously while the temperature was between 25 °C and 55 °C (shaded region of Figure 7). Figure 7 is representative of the temperature measured at the photodiode during the experiment. The temperature profile included an initial segment of increasing temperature, followed by a soak that allowed the photodiode to reach the maximum temperature, and concluded with a cool-down. The data plotted in Figures 4 and 5 include all dark current measurements measured between approximately 25 °C and 55 °C; current measurements taken at the same temperature, but at different times, overlay one another for each diode. 

As shown in Figure 5, the shunt resistance for the measured GaP, InGaAs, and Si detectors is relatively large; therefore in many situations it can be ignored. For the Ge-based FDG50 the shunt resistance is relatively low, especially at higher temperatures. For this diode the shunt resistance might need to be considered if there is a high load involved.

Figure 6 shows the calculated NEP vs. temperature for each diode. Since the NEP is a function of responsivity, which varies with wavelength, the NEP values are calculated at the peak responsivity value as given in the table to the right.

The data curves plotted in Figure 6 show that the calculated NEP magnitudes differed depending on the material composing the photodiode. From lowest to highest:

• GaP-Based Detector FGAP71 (Lowest NEP) 
• InGaAs-Based Detector FGA10
• Si-Based Detector FDS1010
• Ge-Based Detector FDG50 (Highest NEP)

These span approximately 6 orders of magnitude. In all cases, the dark current increased with the temperature of the photodiode, as expected. The individual points on this graph, plotted as diamonds, are the values of the dark current specified for each detector at 25 °C. These points specify a maximum value of dark current at 25 °C; each diode's dark current and NEP must be equal to or less than this value at 25 °C, but the dark current and NEP may exceed this specification at higher temperatures.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 4: Dark Current Data Measured for Four Unmounted Photodiodes
The discrete data points, plotted as diamonds, are values of the dark current specified for each detector at 25 °C.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 5: Shunt Resistance Calculated as Described in the Text for Four Unmounted Photodiodes

Click to Enlarge
Figure 6: NEP Calculated from the Quadrature Sum of Shot Noise and Thermal Noise for Four Unmounted Photodiodes
The discrete data points, plotted as diamonds, are values of the NEP specified for each detector at 25 °C. There is no point for FGA10 since the NEP is not specified at the peak responsivity wavelength.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 7: Temperature of a Representative Photodiode Controlled by the Conditions in the Environmental Chamber
Dark current measurements were acquired between 25 °C and 55 °C (indicated by the shaded region) and are plotted in Figure 5 .

Experimental Limitations
Measurements were performed using a single representative of each detector type, as these data were intended to illustrate overall trends. These data should not be taken as specific for a particular diode. The measured currents were functions of voltage bias, temperature dependence of resistive loads, and other effects. Efforts were made to suppress their influence on these measurements, including using the Keithley 6487 ammeter to provide the required 5 V reverse bias. Using the ammeter removed the need to use a load resistor, which may exhibit its own temperature dependence. The thermistor was placed as close to the semiconductor sensor as was possible, but it was not placed in direct contact with the sensor. Because of this, there may have been a difference between the measured temperature and the temperature of the semiconductor material. The currents were measured while the temperature of the environmental chamber was continuously varied. Humidity was not controlled during this experiment.

[1] Thorlabs' Noise Equivalent Power White Paper.

[2] Quimby, Richard S. Photonics and Lasers: An Introduction. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2006, pp 241-244.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 1: Normalized change in output current for a fixed incident power as the photodiode Device Under Test (DUT), FDS1010, was translated through the focus of a lens.

We present laboratory measurements showing the effect of beam size on the saturation point of a Thorlabs silicon photodiode. As defined here, saturation is a 1% deviation from the linear response region. As illustrated in Figure 1, the photodiode saturated at lower incident power levels as the beam size decreased. Several additional calculations and experiments were performed to verify the cause of the change in saturation was not a function of the power density. These results suggest that users should be cognizant of the beam size when attempting to measure absolute power with a power sensor, such as our S130C photodiode power sensor.

For our experiment, we used the SM1PD1A mounted photodiode, which consists of an FDS1010 photodiode in an SM1-threaded housing. An 830 nm superluminescent diode was used as the light source. A beamsplitter directed 20% of the light to a monitor photodiode while the remainder was transmitted through a focusing lens. Power values were calibrated using an integrating sphere, while the beam size of the focusing beam was calibrated with a beam profiler mounted to a translation stage. After calibration, the beam profiler was replaced with the device under test (DUT), an SM1PD1A at a 0 V bias. The output current was measured with an ammeter to remove the need for a load resistor. We then recorded datasets as the beam diameter was continuously scanned from 0.06 mm to 5 mm while power was held constant, as well as measurements for beam diameters ranging from 1 mm to 5 mm (measured to the 5% clip level) as the incident power was continuously scanned from 0.12 mW to 5 mW.

The figures show the results from the measurements. Figure 1 (right) and Figure 2 (below) show the deviation from linear response for continuously varying beam diameter at a fixed 1 mW incident power (Figure 1) and continuously varying incident power for several beam diameters (Figure 2).  Figure 1 shows that for a 1 mW input, the photodiode saturated at beam sizes less than 300 µm. Figure 2 shows that beam diameters ≥2 mm did not saturate at the power levels investigated.

Click for Full Lab Facts Summary

One hypothesis for these results was that local saturation due to a large power density locally depleted or reduced the population of available carriers. In Figure 3, we calculated the power density by taking the quotient of the measured power and beam diameter presented in Figure 2 and plotted the current output as a function of that power density. If the results were due to local saturation, we would have expected that all of the beam diameters would saturate at a single power density; however, this was not the case.

Since the results presented in Figure 3 coupled the beam size change with a change in optical power density, we performed another experiment to increase the power density incident on the sensor within the same envelope of beam area to see if there was a change in the saturation point. This was done by segmenting the Gaussian beam into an array of beamlets with a microlens array, concentrating the overall optical power into smaller spots within the same Gaussian envelope. This created larger power densities while maintaining a similar electrical path to the sensor leads. Figure 4 shows the same results as Figure 2 with the results from the microlens array overlaid as dashed lines. Since the results are nearly identical to the original Gaussian beam for all diameters, the saturation appears to be dependent on the overall beam diameter and independent of the power density. In the complete Lab Facts presentation, we discuss how these results support the theory of Scholze et al. that the change in saturation with beam size is due to a change in the series resistance of the photodiode  [1].

Click to Enlarge
Figure 2: Percent Deviation from the linear response with increasing power for 1 mm - 5 mm beam diameters. The 1% deviation level is indicated with a dashed horizontal line.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 3: Normalized output current versus power density for 1 mm - 5 mm beam diameters. This shows the saturation effects do not appear to be based on a single power density.

Click to Enlarge
Figure 4: Normalized output current versus optical power for 2 mm - 5 mm beam diameter with (Dashed Line) and without (Solid Line) the microlens array (MLA) prior to the photodiode.

[1] F. Scholze, R. Klein, R. Muller, Linearity of silicon photodiodes for EUV radiation. 2004 Proc. SPIE 5374 926–34.