1. science
2. physics
3. optics

Reliability of High Power Diode Laser Systems Based on
Single Emitters
Paul Leisher*, Mitch Reynolds, Aaron Brown, Keith Kennedy, Ling Bao,
Jun Wang, Mike Grimshaw, Mark DeVito, Scott Karlsen, Jay Small,
Chris Ebert, Rob Martinsen, and Jim Haden
nLIGHT Corp., 5408 NE 88th Street, Bldg E, Vancouver, WA, USA 98665
ABSTRACT
Diode laser modules based on arrays of single emitters offer a number of advantages over bar-based solutions including
enhanced reliability, higher brightness, and lower cost per bright watt. This approach has enabled a rapid proliferation of
commercially available high-brightness fiber-coupled diode laser modules. Incorporating ever-greater numbers of
emitters within a single module offers a direct path for power scaling while simultaneously maintaining high brightness
and minimizing overall cost. While reports of long lifetimes for single emitter diode laser technology are widespread, the
complex relationship between the standalone chip reliability and package-induced failure modes, as well as the impact of
built-in redundancy offered by multiple emitters, are not often discussed. In this work, we present our approach to the
modeling of fiber-coupled laser systems based on single-emitter laser diodes.
Keywords: high power diode laser, single emitter, fiber coupled module, reliability
1. MOTIVATION
High power fiber lasers continue to placing ever-increasing demands on the brightness of fiber-coupled diode laser pump
modules. Higher brightness pumps enable higher power CW fiber lasers through the ability to improve the fiber core-tocladding ratio, increasing the modal overlap of the pump with the doped fiber core thus leading to a reduced pump
absorption length. Diode laser modules based on arrays of single emitters offer a number of advantages over bar-based
solutions including enhanced reliability, higher brightness, and lower cost per bright watt. This approach has enabled a
rapid proliferation of commercially available high-brightness fiber-coupled diode laser modules. Incorporating evergreater numbers of emitters within a single module offers a direct path for power scaling while simultaneously
maintaining high brightness and minimizing overall cost. While reports of long lifetimes for single emitter diode laser
technology are widespread, the complex relationship between the standalone chip reliability and package-induced failure
modes, as well as the impact of built-in redundancy offered by multiple emitters, are not often discussed. Until recently,
there have been few reports on the reliability of these high-brightness fiber-coupled laser modules. In this work, we
present our approach to the modeling of fiber-coupled laser systems based on single-emitter laser diodes.
2. SINGLE EMITTER PERFORMANCE AND RELIABILITY
The design of nLight’s 9xx-nm broad area diode laser is optimized for simultaneous delivery of high power, high
efficiency, and good reliability. The vertical laser waveguide is selected to be a large optical cavity for low loss, and the
layer composition and doping concentration are optimized for low voltage and good temperature performance. The
epitaxial structure is grown by metal-organic chemical vapor deposition, and the wafers follow a standard fabrication
procedure which includes metal contact deposition, isolation, passivation, and coating. Coated bars are cleaved into
single emitter chips, and bonded p-side down with AuSn solder to expansion-matched heatsinks. The devices are
subjected to multiple inspection processes, and a test, burn-in, test regimen. Calibration of measured power and
efficiency is NIST-traceable, and all reported values are directly measured from the devices (for example, package
resistance is not subtracted).
18
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 0
0
70
70
40
40
30
30
3
3
20
976 nm 20
976
nm
CW, 25 C
25 C 10
95CW,
μm stripe
95mm
μm cavity
stripe 10
3.8
0
3.8 mm cavity
0
6
9
12
15
18
6
9
12
15
18
Current (A)
Current
(a) (A)
976 nm
976
CW,nm
25 C, 10A
CW,
25stripe
C, 10A
95 μm
95
3.8μm
mmstripe
cavity
3.8 mm cavity
300
300
89 µm FWHM
89
105µm
μmFWHM
FW1/e2
105 μm FW1/e2
400
400
500 600 700
500 600 700
Position (µm)
Position (µm)
(c)
800
800
900
900
units)
(arb.
Intensity
units)
(arb.
Intensity
50
50
(%)
Efficiency
(%)
Efficiency
60
60
976 nm
976
CW,nm
25 C, 10A
CW,
25stripe
C, 10A
95 μm
95
3.8μm
mmstripe
cavity
3.8 mm cavity
3.6 nm FWHM
3.6 nm FWHM
945
945
(a.u.)
Intensity
Field
Far
(a.u.)
Intensity
Field
Far
(a.u.)
Intensity
Field
Near
(a.u.)
Intensity
Field
Near
(W)
power
Output
(W)
power
Output
The device geometry for the results reported herein consists of a 3.8 mm cavity length with a 95 μm stripe width. The
typical optical power and wall-plug efficiency verses continuous wave (CW) drive current for emitters operating at 976
nm are shown in Figure 1(a). Each plot includes data from 10 devices at a heatsink temperature of 25C. With
optimized electrical and optical designs, these devices demonstrate wallplug efficiencies (at a 10W rated use condition)
of ~67%. Figure 1(b) depicts the lasing spectrum measured at a 10A use condition. The lateral near-field and
lateral/vertical far-field intensity profiles are shown in Figure 1(c) and (d), respectively.
960
975
990
960
975
990
Wavelength (nm)
Wavelength
(b) (nm)
976 nm
976
CW,nm
25 C, 10A
CW,
25stripe
C, 10A
95 μm
95
3.8μm
mmstripe
cavity
3.8 mm cavity
-45
-45
-30
-30
-15
-15
1005
1005
Fast Axis
Axis
29Fast
FWHM
29 FW1/e
FWHM2
49
49 FW1/e2
Slow Axis
Slow
Axis
8.3º
FWHM
8.3º FW1/e
FWHM2
10.3
10.3 FW1/e2
0
15
0
15
Angle (º)
Angle (º)
(d)
30
30
45
45
Fig. 1: Typical performance of nLight’s 9xx-nm 95 um stripe single emitter lasers. (a) Power and efficiency vs. drive
current for ten devices, measured CW at 25°C. (b) Lasing spectrum, (c) near-field, and (d) far-field intensity profiles
measured at 10A.
Figure 2 depicts results from a multicell accelerated lifetest experiment on the design. Complete details of this study are
reported in [1], but the key results are highlighted here. First, >2.7M raw device hours have been collected from a >2
year multicell lifetest of 208 devices, with 14 failures observed to date. The validity of the exponential distribution has
been confirmed, and the data set is analyzed using a numerical technique (maximum likelihood estimate approach). The
dependence of optical power and temperature on reliability are calculated and the models are verified (the uncertainty in
these models is also derived). Based on a 90% lower confidence calculation, at the 10W per chip, 25°C heatsink rated
use condition, the chips show 95% reliability to 12 years, corresponding to 470 FIT.
0.10
10W, 25°C
use condition
90% lower
confidence
U n re l i a b i l i t y
0.08
0.06
•
•
•
•
•
0.04
Power - Beta= 1
Temperature-NonThermal
Exponential
323|10
F= 14 | S= 194
Data Points
Unreliability Line
Top CB-I
Bottom CB-I
208 devices, >2 years testing (ongoing)
>2.7M raw device hours
14 failures to date
Exponential distribution confirmed
Acceleration parameters (Ea, n) are
calculated & models are verified
• n = 6.2 ± 2.7
• Ea = 0.98 ± 0.26 eV
0.02
0.00
0.0
5.0E+4
1.0E+5
1.5E+5
2.0E+5
2.5E+5
Time
At 10W, 95% survival to 12 years (470 FIT) @ 90% confidence
Fig. 2: Summary results of a multicell accelerated lifetest of nLight’s 9xx-nm diodes. At a 10W, 25°C rated use condition,
the diodes achieve 95% survival to 12 years @ 90% statistical confidence.
3. SYSTEM RELIABILITY METHODOLOGY
The single emitters described in the previous section form the building blocks of nLight’s high-brightness module, and
are stacked in a stair-step manner to provide an excellent thermal path from the diode to the cooling plate, maintaining a
low junction temperature. This mechanical arrangement conveniently stacks the emitters in the fast axis, maintaining the
brightness of the diode lasers. Each diode is individually collimated with fast axis and slow axis lenses, resulting in
unsurpassed pointing accuracy and an excellent optical “fill factor.” The geometry of the emitters and corresponding
optics are arranged to reduce “dead space” between each emitter, maximizing diode brightness. The two columns of
light are combined using polarization multiplexing, and simple focusing lenses couple the collimated beams into the
fiber at the appropriate numerical aperture. The result of this package is a system that is unsurpassed in terms of
electrical to optical efficiency and system brightness [2].
nLight’s products target a reliability goal of >95% reliability for >2 years with >90% statistical confidence. In order to
unequivocally demonstrate that the product meets this reliability target, each module configuration brought to production
would need to be separately qualified; this qualification would involve demonstrating failure-free operation of a
minimum quantity of 45 modules (if a single module failure is observed, this number increases to 77 modules) over
>17,600 hours. Budget and timeline constraints in the product development cycle make such lifetesting impractical. As
a result, simplifications to the qualification plan must be made.
The reliability of the Pearl system is analyzed using standard block diagram methodology [3]. Figure 3 provides an
overview of the approach. The reliability of the single emitters are assessed in a standalone manner via accelerated
lifetesting [1]. We assume that the module principally fails in one of two ways. First is a failure at the fiber (or other
optics within the system). These failure modes may be revealed through module-level lifetesting, or can be captured and
modeled using standalone testing (for example, testing the reliability of the packaged optics within the system). The
other classification of failures is due to a failure of the emitter. This failure may, or may not, be caused by the package.
That is to say, the inherent reliability of the single emitter may be modified when tested within the module. By testing
the reliability of the complete module, all effects can be simultaneously captured. Care must be taken, however, in the
analysis of such competing failure modes.
Single-emitter multicell
lifetest
Free-running
chiplet reliability
Nonfiber PIF
Optical system
reliability
Module-level
lifetesting
Pearl™ minimum reliability
>95% reliability for
>2 years with
>90% statistical confidence
Optical system
lifetesting
Fig. 3: System reliability block diagram.
We investigate the dependence of the inherent reliability of the package due to the constituent emitters, without taking
into account the effect of package-induced failure modes and the reliability of the optical system. Electrically, the
emitters fail as electrical diodes, with little change to the overall current vs. voltage characteristics of the overall box.
Figure 4 illustrates the power, efficiency, and voltage versus drive current for a 100-W rated 16-emitter module before
and after the failure of 3 constituent emitters. The cause of failure for this module was determined to be optical feedback
from the solid state gain medium (nLight’s modules now feature isolation to prevent such problems from occurring).
Nevertheless, as shown, the electrical characteristics remain unchanged after the failure of three emitters.
30
100
25
80
20
60
15
40
10
20
5
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Amps
6
7
8
9
Volts
Watts, ηWP
120
The above image shows 3 failed chiplets
within a 16 chiplet Pearl and the LIV is
consistent showing a ~18% drop in power
and wall plug efficient, but the voltage of the
unit remains unchanged indicating no
change is electrical performance.
Despite three chip failures, electrical characteristics are unchanged
Voltage traces overlay one another, red lines depict pre-failure performance and black lines depi
Fig. 4: Power, efficiency, and voltage versus drive current for a 100-W rated 16-emitter module before and after the failure
post-failure performance
of three emitters. As shown, the electrical characteristics of the module remain unchanged.
Thermally, the emitters are widely separated within the module. When a single emitter fails, the local heating increases
by the reduction of power (ie. if a 10W chip fails while remaining electrically equivalent, the local heat dissipation must
increase by 10W). The effect of this increase in local heating on temperature is illustrated in Figure 5, and was modeled
using a finite element thermal analysis approach. As shown, the increase in local heating caused by a single failure
results in a change heatsink temperature rise of the nearest neighbor of only 1°C. This change is expected to change the
reliability of the emitter by less than 10%. Other considerations, such as cross-contamination due to material ejection
caused by a catastrophic failure of the emitter are also mitigated by the wide separation distance of constituent emitters.
As a result, for the purposes of assessing the module-level reliability, emitter failures are assumed to be independent.
36.1°C
32.4°C
32.0°C
31.4°C
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5: Finite element thermal analysis of the package heatsink (a) before and (b) after the failure of a single constituent
emitter. The failure results in a temperature perturbation of the nearest neighbor of just 1°C
Because the emitter failures are considered to be independent, the module reliability (in the absence of package-induced
failure modes) is straightforwardly calculated from the binomial distribution. The module is considered to have failed at
the point where the observed power degradation for constant current is 20%. In cases where this is due to cumulative
emitter failures, the module is considered to have failed when the integer number of failed chips is closest to 20%. For
example, in a 16-emitter module, 3 failures corresponds to 19% power degradation and 4 failures corresponds to 25%
power degradation, as such the module is deemed to have failed at the time of the 3 rd emitter failure – see Figure 6.
14 or more
paths required
Fig. 6: Block diagram schematic of a 16-emitter module. The reliability of each emitter is considered to be independent of
the other emitters. The module is considered to have failed upon the failure of the 3 rd chip.
Equation 1 provides the reliability vs. time of a 16-emitter module as a function of the chip reliability versus time, where
a failure at the module level is defined to be the time at which the third chip in the module fails (corresponding to an
18% power degradation, if the module is operated in a constant current mode).
RP16 (t )  120RChip (t )14  224RChip (t )15  105RChip (t )16
(1)
Figure 7 depicts the reliability versus time for single emitters and the example 16-chip module, with chips rated to
various power levels (6W, 8W, and 10W). A few features are immediately apparent. First, as the rated single-emitter
power decreases, the overall reliability improves. Second, over short periods of time, the module reliability is actually
better than that of the single emitter. This is because the system based on multiple single-emitters offers a degree of
built-in redundancy early in the life of the module. Third, over long periods of time, the module reliability is actually
worse than that of the constituent emitter. While the emitters have been shown to fail with a constant failure rate
(exponential distribution), the failure rate is monotonically increasing with time. This is because as chips fail randomly,
their effect on the module accumulates with time. The two key conclusions from this are 1) the reliability of the module
is not the same as the reliability of the single emitter – while the emitters are known to fail with a constant failure rate,
the module always operates in a wear-out mode and 2) the reliability at the module level can be directly engineered
through modification to the total chip count in the package (offering increased redundancy) and by further de-rating the
chip power (and temperature).
102%
100%
6W, 25 C
98%
8W, 25 C
96%
94%
92%
10W, 25 C
90%
Module Reliability90%CB (%)
Chip Reliability90%CB (%)
102%
6W, 25 C
100%
98%
8W, 25 C
96%
10W, 25 C
94%
92%
90%
0
4
8
12
16
20
0
4
8
12
Time (Years)
Time (Years)
(a)
(b)
16
20
Fig. 7: Reliability (90% lower confidence) vs. time for (a) a single emitter and (b) a 16-emitter module at several emitter
power levels. As shown, built-in redundancy leads to lower failure rates early in the life of the module.
Thus far, the approach highlighted has not considered the effects of package-induced chip failures and reliability of the
optical system. The principal objective of lifetesting at the module level is to reveal the presence of such failure modes,
and bound their effect on the system reliability. With respect to failures of the optical system, standalone lifetesting of
the components (such as the fiber) is required to develop reliability models which can be utilized in the system model
described in Figure 3. These components are expected to be similarly accelerated with operating power and temperature
(other stress factors include spot size and divergence), though the acceleration parameters will be different than those
which describe the acceleration of failures of the chips. With respect to package induced failures of the constituent
emitters, we adopt a model which treats the effect as a relative acceleration. It should be clear that in many cases this
approach is not accurate – the failure mode might actually change. Therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate that no such
change in failure mode has occurred. In this case, it means that if the chips fail randomly outside of the package, it must
be shown that the failure distribution remains exponential-like in the package. In making this simplification, it becomes
possible to perform module testing to place a worst-case statistical bound on the effect.
4. CONCLUSION
The system reliability methodology for nLight’s high-brightness fiber-coupled laser diodes operating in the 9xx-nm
regime is presented. These modules are based on arrays of widely separated single emitters, which are shown to behave
quasi-independently. Block diagram methodology can be utilized to calculate the reliability of the package. We show
that initially, the reliability of a module consisting of single emitters is expected to be better than that of a single emitter,
due to the built-in redundancy offered by the approach. Over long periods of time, however, the modules will fail in a
wear-out mode, due the accumulation of failures in time. Testing at the module level must be performed to validate the
model and ascertain a worst-case estimate of the interaction of package effects with the reliability of free-running
emitters and to confirm validity of the full model.
5. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
L. Bao, P. Leisher, J. Wang, M. DeVito, D. Xu, M. Grimshaw, W. Dong, X. Guan, S. Zhang, C. Bai, J. G. Bai,
D. Wise, and R. Martinsen, "High Reliability and High Performance of 9xx-nm Single Emitter Laser Diodes "
SPIE Photonics West, vol. 7918, (2011).
S. R. Karlsen, R. K. Price, M. Reynolds, A. Brown, R. Mehl, S. Patterson, and R. J. Martinsen, "100-W 105-u
m 0.15NA fiber coupled laser diode module," Proc. SPIE, vol. 7198, (2009).
M. Modarres, M. Kaminskiy, and V. Krivtsov, Reliability engineering and risk analysis: a practical guide.
New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc., (1999).