Abstract

A new laser differential confocal ultra-large radius measurement (LDCRM) method is proposed for high-precision measurement of ultra-large radii. Based on the property that the zero point of a differential confocal axial intensity curve precisely corresponds to the focus points of focusing beam, LDCRM measures the vertex positions of the test lens and the last optical surface of objective lens to obtain position difference L1, and then measures the vertex positions of the reflector and the last optical surface of objective lens to obtain the position difference L2, finally uses the measured L1 and L2 to calculate the radius of test lens. This method does not require the identification of confocal position. Preliminary experimental results and theoretical analyses indicate that the relative uncertainty is 0.03% for a convex spherical lens with a radius of approximately 20 m. LDCRM provides a novel approach for high-precision ultra-large radius measurement.

© 2016 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

Spherical lenses with ultra-large radii are widely used in large optical systems like laser fusion systems, astronomical telescopes and high-resolution observation systems. The radii of some spherical lenses in laser fusion programs measure up to 50 m. The imaging quality and performance of these optical systems depend on the accuracy of radius measurement. The existing radius measurement methods mainly include contact and noncontact methods.

Contact measurement methods use instruments like spherometers, profilometers, and coordinate measuring machines, which can scratch or deform the test surface. The measurement accuracy is only 0.2% for a test lens with radius 20 m [1,2]. Noncontact measurement methods mainly use shearing interferometry [3], Newton interferometry [4], Talbot interferometry [5], etc. Yun Woo Lee et al. used a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer and directly compared the fringe widths in the two fields to obtain the radius of a test lens (10 m) with a relative measurement error of 0.2% [6]. K. V. Sriram et al. calculated the radius of a test lens (5 m) with an uncertainty of 0.5% using a technique based on Talbot interferometry and angle variation in moiré fringes [7].

A conventional method of noncontact radius measurements is the ‘cat’s eye and confocal’ method. The measurement principle is shown in Fig. 1. The radius R of a test lens is obtained by identifying the cat’s eye position A on the surface of the test lens and the confocal position B on the center of the test sphere [8]. Lars A. Selberg et al. used phase shifting interferometry to determine the cat’s eye position and confocal position of a test lens (R less than 100 mm) with a relative error of 0.001% [9]. In order to extend the range of radius measurement, Quandou Wang et al. devised a technique that combined Fizeau interferometry and a holographic zone plate to shorten the light path, and measured the radius of a test lens (10 m) with an error of 0.1% [10]. However, in practice, the interferometry fringes are affected by environmental factors such as temperature, vibrations, and airflow. Therefore, these above-mentioned methods have measurement uncertainties associated with environmental fluctuations [11,12]. In order to improve the measurement precision and tolerance to environmental factors, we previously proposed a laser differential confocal radius measurement method that uses the differential confocal focusing technique to identify the cat’s eye position and confocal position, with a relative measurement precision of 5 ppm [13].

 figure: Fig. 1

Fig. 1 A schematic of ‘cat’s eye and confocal’ radius measurement.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

However, the above measurement technique still has the following problems:

  • 1) As shown in Fig. 1, when measuring the radius of a convex lens, focal length f ′ of the objective lens LO needs to be larger than radius of the test lens. This increases the working distance of LO and the moving distance of test lens, and lowers the tolerance to environmental disturbances. Therefore, this method is not suitable for measuring the radii of large convex lenses.
  • 2) As shown in Fig. 1, when the test lens has a small vibration, the deviation in focus point detected by positioning system at the confocal position B is much larger than that of cat’s eye position A [14,15]. Thus, this method is stringent in signal processing, adjustment precision and the fields of detectors.

The key issues that need to be addressed in ultra-large radius measurement techniques are, reducing the moving distance of test lens, and avoiding large deviations at confocal position.

Therefore, a new laser differential confocal ultra-large radius measurement (LDCRM) method is proposed in this paper which does not require the identification of the confocal position. This method uses differential confocal focusing techniques to obtain the radius of a test lens by precisely identifying the cat’s eye position and the vertex position on the last optical surface of the objective lens. Compared to the existing methods, LDCRM technique shortens the light path and the moving distance of a test lens. This method also extends the measurement range of radii and improves the tolerance to environmental disturbance.

2. LDCRM principle

As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, using the property that the zero point Q on the differential confocal axial intensity curve I(u, uM) corresponds precisely to the focus point of the focusing beam, LDCRM measures the position differences L1 of a test lens (TL) by precisely identifying the vertex positions of TL and the last optical surface of LO, and then measures the position differences L2 of a reflector (RL) by precisely identifying the vertex positions of RL and the last optical surface of LO, finally the radius R of the TL is calculated from the measured L1 and L2, and thus, high precision measurement of the ultra-large radius is achieved.

 figure: Fig. 2

Fig. 2 Position difference L1 measurement. BS is the beam splitter, LC is the collimating lens, TL is the test spherical lens, LO is the objective lens, PH is the pinhole, DMI is the distance measuring instrument.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

 figure: Fig. 3

Fig. 3 Position difference L2 measurement.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

2.1 Position difference L1 measurement

As shown in Fig. 2, a laser beam is transmitted through a fiber to produce a divergent beam, which is then passed through a beam splitter (BS) and collimated into a parallel beam using a collimating lens (LC). The parallel beam is then focused onto the cat’s eye position A by the objective lens (LO). The reflected light from the TL passes through LO and LC again and reflected by the BS onto another beam splitter (LB). The light is split by LB into two components, which are received by detector 1 before the focus and detector 2 after the focus. Finally, LDCRM yields the differential confocal intensity curve IA(u, uM) through differential subtraction of two signals from detector 1 and detector 2. When the TL moves to position B, the converging beam is reflected by the TL and focused on the vertex position P on the last optical surface of LO. The reflected light from position P is also received by the detectors, and the differential confocal intensity curve IB(u, uM) is generated.

When the TL moves towards the cat’s eye position A, the differential confocal intensity curves IA(u, uM) generated by the differential confocal system is:

IA(u,uM)=I2(u,uM)I1(u,+uM)=[sin(u/2+uM/4)(u/2+uM/4)]2[sin(u/2uM/4)(u/2uM/4)]2,
where,

{u=π2λ(DfO)2zuM=π2λ(DfC)2M.

Here λ is the wavelength of the laser beam, u is the axial normalized optical coordinate, D is the effective aperture of collimating lens LC and objective lens LO, which is equal to the smaller aperture between LC and LO. fO is the focal length of LO, z is the axial coordinate, M is the axial offset, uM is the axial normalized optical coordinate of the offset and fC is the focal length of LC.

When TL moves towards position B, the differential confocal intensity curves IB(u, uM) generated by the differential confocal system is:

IB(u,uM)=I2(u,uM)I1(u,+uM)={sin[(1+α)/2u+uM/4][(1+α)/2u+uM/4]}2{sin[(1+α)/2uuM/4][(1+α)/2uuM/4]}2,
where,

α=(2L2L1L1)2.

The position difference L1 between A and B can be obtained by using the distance measuring instrument (DMI). It gives a precise measure of the distance between QA and QB, which correspond to zero points on the differential confocal intensity curves IA(u, uM) and IB(u, uM), respectively.

2.2 Position difference L2 measurement

As shown in Fig. 3, when RL moves to the cat’s eye position A, the focusing beam is reflected by RL. The reflected beam from RL is received by the differential confocal system, and the differential confocal intensity signal IA(u, uM) is generated. When RL moves to position C, the focusing beam is reflected by RL onto the vertex position P on the last optical surface of LO, and the differential confocal intensity curve IC(u, uM) is generated.

When RL moves towards cat’s eye position A, the differential confocal intensity curves IA(u, uM) generated by the differential confocal system is:

IA(u,uM)=[sin(u/2+uM/4)(u/2+uM/4)]2[sin(u/2uM/4)(u/2uM/4)]2.

When RL moves towards position C, the light reflected by RL is focused onto P. When the distance between reflector RL and position C is z, the distance between the converging point of the focusing beam and the last surface of the LO is 2z, then the differential confocal intensity curves IC(u, uM) received by the differential confocal system is:

IC(u,uM)=[sin(u+uM/4)(u+uM/4)]2[sin(uuM/4)(uuM/4)]2.

The position difference L2 between A and C can be obtained using DMI to precisely measure the distance between QA and QC, corresponding to the zero points of differential confocal intensity curves IA(u, uM) and IC(u, uM), respectively.

2.3 Radius calculation

As shown in Fig. 4, the angle between the light axis m and light beam is θ, the distance between the cat’s eye position A and the vertex position P is L, the normalized aperture of light beam is ρ, the radius of TL in normalized aperture ρ is Rρ, and the angle between light axis and Rρ is θ1.

 figure: Fig. 4

Fig. 4 Radius calculation.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

According to the geometrical optics theory, it follows that L, ρ, L1, L2, θ, θ1, D and Rρ satisfy Eq. (7) as follows:

{L=2L2θ=arctan(ρD2L)tanθ12=2LRρ(1-cosθ1)ρD[L1Rρ(1cosθ1)]Rρ=(LL1)sin(θ2θ1)sin(θθ1)sin(θ2θ1).

The value of Rρ can be calculated from Eq. (7) and radius R of the TL is obtained by integrating Rρ with respect to variable ρ from 0 to 1, such that,

R=012πρRρdρ012πρdρ=201ρRρdρ.

From the measured position differences L1 and L2, and using Eqs. (7) and (8), a high-precision measurement of R can be achieved.

3. System and experiments

3.1 System design

From Eqs. (7) and (8), we obtain the relations between ∂R/∂L1 and L2, and ∂R/∂L2 and L2 as shown in Fig. 5 when radii of TL are 5 m, 10 m, 15 m and 20 m, respectively.

 figure: Fig. 5

Fig. 5 Error transfer coefficient.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the error transfer coefficients ∂R/∂L1 and ∂R/∂L2 decrease rapidly when the parameter L2 of objective lens LO increases, and thereby it is beneficial to improve the measurement precision. However, increase in L2 extends the light path significantly and reduces the tolerance to environmental disturbance, thus making the setup more difficult to engineer. Considering the factors of measurement precision and engineering difficulty, an objective lens (Zygo Corporation) with parameter L2 = 522.5 ± 0.5 mm was chosen to be used as LO.

The focusing sensitivity at zero-crossing point for different uM and normalized radius vPH of pinhole are shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), respectively.

 figure: Fig. 6

Fig. 6 The focusing sensitivity for different uM and vPH.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the focusing sensitivity is best when uM = 5.21 and vPH ≤ 2.

Then, the main structure of LDCRM system, which includes differential confocal system, distance measuring system and control system is designed as shown in Fig. 7.

 figure: Fig. 7

Fig. 7 The main structure of a LDCRM system.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

The actual LDCRM system is shown in Fig. 8.

In the LDCRM system, a He-Ne laser (λ = 632.8 nm) is used as the light source. An achromatic lens (Linos Corporation) with a focal length of 1250 mm and diameter of 150 mm is used as the collimating lens LC, and the maximum measuring aperture of TL is Dmax = 0.5 × 150 mm = 75 mm. An XL-80 laser interferometer (Renishaw Corporation) is used as the DMI and its relative measurement precision is 1 ppm. A high-accuracy air bearing slider made in our laboratory with a straightness of 0.3 μm and an effective moving range of 2000 mm is used as the motion rail. A convex lens with a radius of 20 m ( ± 1%) is used as TL in the following experiments.

3.2 Experiments

The following experiments were done under the following conditions: the pressure is 102,540 ± 60 Pa, the temperature is 21.0 ± 0.5°C, and the relative humidity is 44 ± 5%.

3.2.1 Position difference L2 measurement

As shown in Fig. 3, when the RL is moved to the cat’s eye position A, the measured differential confocal intensity curve is IA(z) (shown in Fig. 9), and the zero point QA of IA(z) obtained by linear fitting is at zA = - 0.0281 mm. When the RL is moved to the position C, the measured differential confocal intensity curve is IC(z) (shown in Fig. 9), and the zero point QC of IC(z) obtained by linear fitting is at zC = 522.5086 mm. The position difference is L2 = zCzA = 522.5367 mm.

 figure: Fig. 9

Fig. 9 Measurement results of position difference L2.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

From ten measurements of the position difference L2 (shown in Fig. 10), we obtained an average value of L2 represented by L2avg = 522.5353 mm and the repeatability σL2 = 0.0036 mm.

 figure: Fig. 10

Fig. 10 Repeatability of L2 measurement data.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

3.2.2 Position difference L1 measurement

As shown in Fig. 2, when the TL is moved to the cat’s eye position A, the measured differential confocal intensity curve is IA(z) (shown in Fig. 11), and the zero point QA of IA(z) obtained by linear fitting is at zA = - 0.0154 mm. When TL is moved to position B, the measured differential confocal intensity curve is IB(z) (shown in Fig. 11), and the zero point QB of IB(z) obtained by linear fitting is at zB = 508.7811 mm. The position difference is L1 = zBzA = 508.7965 mm.

 figure: Fig. 11

Fig. 11 Measurement results of position difference L1.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

From ten measurements of the position difference L1 (shown in Fig. 12), we obtained the repeatability σL1 = 0.0032 mm.

 figure: Fig. 12

Fig. 12 Repeatability of L1 measurement data.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

From Eqs. (7) and (8), we can obtain the radius of convex lens is R = 19889.3 mm, the average of R is Ravg = 19885.1 mm and its repeatability is σR = 4.6 mm.

4 Uncertainty analyses

4.1 Uncertainty components u(L1)

4.1.1 Uncertainty u(L1)axial caused by axial misalignment error

As shown in Fig. 13, in the LDCRM system, axis m of LO, axis t of TL, and axis l of DMI should be aligned, but deviations in angles always exist in practice. The deviation in angle between m and t can be adjusted to be smaller than 10″, so that its effects on the measurements are negligible. If the angle between l and m is β, then the axial misalignment error is:

 figure: Fig. 13

Fig. 13 Axial misalignment between the LDCRM axes.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

σaxialL1(1cosβ).

Angle β can be adjusted within 2′ when the slide movement range is 2000 mm and the position deviation of laser beam between the two ends of air bearing slider can be controlled within 1 mm by the careful adjustment. Angle β ∈ [0, γ] (γ = 2′ = 0.00058) obeys a uniform distribution, thus σaxial obeys a projection distribution, and the probability density of the projection distribution is:

f(σaxial)={1γ1(1σaxial)2σaxial[0,1cosγ]0else.

Its stand deviation is D = (3/20)γ2, so the stand uncertainty u(L1)axial introduced by σaxial is:

u(L1)axial=3×0.000582×|L1|20.

4.1.2 Uncertainty u(L1)offset caused by two detectors with different offsets

As shown in Fig. 14, when the offsets of two detectors are different, the zero points QA and QB of differential confocal curves IA and IB will deviate from positions A and B, respectively. Thus, the measurement of L1 will change.

 figure: Fig. 14

Fig. 14 Schematics of detectors with different offsets.

Download Full Size | PPT Slide | PDF

Let the offsets of detectors 1 and 2 be M and –M + δ, the axial normalized offsets be uM and -uM + uδ, the zero points QA and QB from positions A and B in the measurements be ΔLA and ΔLB, and the normalized axial offset of ΔLA and ΔLB be ΔuA and ΔuB, respectively.

Then, the differential confocal intensity curves IA(u, uM) and IB(u, uM) can be expressed based on Eq. (1) and (3), respectively, as:

IA(u,uM)=[sin(u/2+uM/4)(u/2+uM/4)]2{sin[u/2(uMuδ)/4][u/2(uMuδ)/4]}2,
IB(u,uM)={sin[(1+α)/2u+uM/4][(1+α)/2u+uM/4]}2{sin[(1+α)/2u(uMuδ)/4][(1+α)/2u(uMuδ)/4]}2.

According to Eq. (12) and (13), we obtain ΔuA and ΔuB as follows:

ΔuA=uδ4andΔuB=uδ4(1+α).

The actual offsets ΔLA and ΔLB can be obtained from ΔuA and ΔuB according to Eq. (2), and the error due to two detectors with different offsets is:

σoffset=α4(1+α)fo2fc2δ.

Where fo′ is the focal length of LO, and fo′ = 1080 mm.

Assuming that the error obeys an uniform distribution, the uncertainty u(L1)offset caused by two detectors with different offsets is:

u(L1)offset=σoffset3=α43(1+α)fo2fc2δ.

In the LDCRM system, the offsets of detectors δ can be easily controlled within 0.02 mm by using the self-collimation technique when the positioning accuracy of adjustment motors used in the adjustment is better than 0.01 mm.

4.1.3 Uncertainty u(L1)DMI caused by position measurement errors

In a LDCRM system, the position difference L1 is measured using the XL-80 interferometer and its measurement error is:

σDMI=1×106×L1.

The uncertainty u(L1)DMI due to errors in distance measurement is:

u(L1)DMI=1×106×L13.

4.1.4 Uncertainty u(L1)σ1 observed by repeated measurements

Despite the aforementioned errors, some random factors, such as environmental disturbance and system noise, can also result in measurement errors. These errors can be expressed as the standard deviation σL1 over repeated measurements. Thus, uncertainty u(L1)σ1 observed by repeated measurements is:

u(L1)σ1=σL1.

Considering the aforementioned uncertainty components, the combined uncertainty u(L1) can be obtained by the following formula.

u(L1)=u(L1)axial2+u(L1)offset2+u(L1)DMI2+u(L1)σ12.

Hence, when R = 19885.18 mm, by substituting β = 2, δ = 0.02 mm, L1 = 508.7965 mm, L2 = 522.5353 mm and σL1 = 0.0032 mm into Eq. (11), (16), (18) and (20), we obtain u(L1)axial = 2.58 × 10−5 mm, u(L1)offset = 1.14 × 10−3 mm, u(L1)DMI = 5.08 × 10−4 mm, and u(L1)σ1 = 0.0032 mm, and

u(L1)=3.43×103mm.

4.2 Uncertainty component u(L2)

The uncertainty u(L2) due to position difference L2 of RL can be written as:

u(L2)=12[(σaxial3)2+(σoffset3)2+(σDMI3)2]+(σL210)2

Where σoffset is the errors caused by two detectors with different offsets, σaxial is the alignment error, and σL is the distance measurement error. These errors have been discussed in detail in [16]. In addition, σL2 is the stand deviation of ΔL2 from ten measurements. The existing errors in LDCRM are σaxial = 2.2 × 10−4 mm, σoffset = 2.7 × 10−3 mm, σDMI = 1.04 × 10−3 mm, and σL2 = 3.6 × 10−3 mm after the careful adjustments and experiments. The stand uncertainty u(L2) calculated using Eq. (22) is:

u(L2)=1.64×103mm.

4.3 Combined uncertainty uc(R)

Assuming that the aforementioned uncertainty components of radius R for TL measurements are independent of each other, the combined measurement uncertainty in LDCRM can be obtained by using Eq. (24) as follows:

uc(R)=[c1u(L1)]2+[c2u(L2)]2,
where c1 and c2 are the uncertainty transfer coefficients of L1 and L2, respectively.

The relative combined uncertainty is:

urel(R)=uc(R)R×100%.

From Eqs. (7) and (8), we obtain:

c1=1449.59andc2=686.68.

Substituting Eqs. (21), (23) and (26) into Eq. (24), the combined uncertainty is:

uc(R)=5.1mm.

Therefore, the relative combined uncertainty is:

urel(R)=0.026%.

Considering some negligible uncertainty components, the relative uncertainty of LDCRM is expected to be less than 0.03% for a test lens of approximately 20 m radius. Although the LDCRM has a stronger tolerance to environmental disturbance compared with the interferometry method, we still need to control the environmental disturbance to further improve the measurement precision.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we proposed a method for high-accuracy measurement of the ultra-large radius for convex spherical surface. By using the zero points of differential confocal axial intensity curves, LDCRM measures the vertex positions of the test lens and the last optical surface of objective lens to obtain position difference L1, and then measures the vertex positions of the reflector and the last optical surface of objective lens to obtain the position difference L2, finally uses the measured L1 and L2 to calculate the radius of test lens. Compared to existing methods, LDCRM has the following advantages.

  • 1) It uses reflection light path to avoid identifying the confocal position, which can greatly shorten the light path and the moving distance of test lens, and extends the measurement range.
  • 2) It uses non-interference focusing techniques to determine the cat’s eye and vertex position precisely based on differential confocal axial intensity, which improves the tolerance to environmental interference.

Theoretical analysis and preliminary experimental results indicate that the relative uncertainty of LDCRM is less than 0.03% for a convex lens with an approximate radius of 20 m, thus providing a novel approach for high-precision measurement of the ultra-large radius.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61327010 and 51405020); National Instrumentation Program (NIP, No.2011YQ04013602).

References and Links

1. J. W. Gates, K. J. Habell, and S. P. Middleton, “A precision spherometer,” J. Sci. Instrum. 31(2), 60–64 (1954). [CrossRef]  

2. H. Tsutsumi, K. Yoshizumi, and H. Takeuchi, “Ultrahighly accurate 3D profilometer,” Proc. SPIE 5638, 387–394 (2005). [CrossRef]  

3. Y. P. Kumar and S. Chatterjee, “Application of Newton’s method to determine the focal length of lenses using a lateral shearing interferometer and cyclic path optical configuration setup,” Opt. Eng. 49(5), 053604 (2010). [CrossRef]  

4. D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010). [CrossRef]  

5. Y. Nakano and K. Murata, “Measurements of phase objects using the Talbot effect and Moire techniques,” Appl. Opt. 23(14), 2296–2299 (1984). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

6. Y. W. Lee, H. M. Cho, and I. W. Lee, “Measurement of a long radius of curvature using a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer,” Opt. Eng. 35(2), 480–483 (1996). [CrossRef]  

7. K. V. Sriram, M. P. Kothiyal, and R. S. Sirohi, “Talbot interferometry in noncollimated illumination for curvature and focal length measurements,” Appl. Opt. 31(1), 75–79 (1992). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

8. U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004). [CrossRef]  

9. L. A. Selberg, “Radius measurement by interferometry,” Opt. Eng. 31(9), 1961–1966 (1992). [CrossRef]  

10. Q. Wang, U. Griesmann, and J. A. Soons, “Holographic radius test plates for spherical surfaces with large radius of curvature,” Appl. Opt. 53(20), 4532–4538 (2014). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

11. T. L. Schmitz, A. D. Davies, and C. J. Evans, “Uncertainties in interferometric measurements of radius of curvature,” Proc. SPIE 4451, 432–447 (2001). [CrossRef]  

12. C. Lin, S. Yan, Z. Du, G. Wang, and C. Wei, “Symmetrical short-period and high signal-to-noise ratio heterodyne grating interferometer,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 13(10), 100501 (2015). [CrossRef]  

13. W. Zhao, R. Sun, L. Qiu, and D. Sha, “Laser differential confocal radius measurement,” Opt. Express 18(3), 2345–2360 (2010). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

14. R. Sun, L. Qiu, J. Yang, and W. Zhao, “Laser differential confocal radius measurement system,” Appl. Opt. 51(26), 6275–6281 (2012). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

15. T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002). [CrossRef]  

16. J. Yang, L. Qiu, W. Zhao, and H. Wu, “Laser differential reflection-confocal focal-length measurement,” Opt. Express 20(23), 26027–26036 (2012). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

References

  • View by:

  1. J. W. Gates, K. J. Habell, and S. P. Middleton, “A precision spherometer,” J. Sci. Instrum. 31(2), 60–64 (1954).
    [Crossref]
  2. H. Tsutsumi, K. Yoshizumi, and H. Takeuchi, “Ultrahighly accurate 3D profilometer,” Proc. SPIE 5638, 387–394 (2005).
    [Crossref]
  3. Y. P. Kumar and S. Chatterjee, “Application of Newton’s method to determine the focal length of lenses using a lateral shearing interferometer and cyclic path optical configuration setup,” Opt. Eng. 49(5), 053604 (2010).
    [Crossref]
  4. D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010).
    [Crossref]
  5. Y. Nakano and K. Murata, “Measurements of phase objects using the Talbot effect and Moire techniques,” Appl. Opt. 23(14), 2296–2299 (1984).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Y. W. Lee, H. M. Cho, and I. W. Lee, “Measurement of a long radius of curvature using a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer,” Opt. Eng. 35(2), 480–483 (1996).
    [Crossref]
  7. K. V. Sriram, M. P. Kothiyal, and R. S. Sirohi, “Talbot interferometry in noncollimated illumination for curvature and focal length measurements,” Appl. Opt. 31(1), 75–79 (1992).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004).
    [Crossref]
  9. L. A. Selberg, “Radius measurement by interferometry,” Opt. Eng. 31(9), 1961–1966 (1992).
    [Crossref]
  10. Q. Wang, U. Griesmann, and J. A. Soons, “Holographic radius test plates for spherical surfaces with large radius of curvature,” Appl. Opt. 53(20), 4532–4538 (2014).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. T. L. Schmitz, A. D. Davies, and C. J. Evans, “Uncertainties in interferometric measurements of radius of curvature,” Proc. SPIE 4451, 432–447 (2001).
    [Crossref]
  12. C. Lin, S. Yan, Z. Du, G. Wang, and C. Wei, “Symmetrical short-period and high signal-to-noise ratio heterodyne grating interferometer,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 13(10), 100501 (2015).
    [Crossref]
  13. W. Zhao, R. Sun, L. Qiu, and D. Sha, “Laser differential confocal radius measurement,” Opt. Express 18(3), 2345–2360 (2010).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. R. Sun, L. Qiu, J. Yang, and W. Zhao, “Laser differential confocal radius measurement system,” Appl. Opt. 51(26), 6275–6281 (2012).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002).
    [Crossref]
  16. J. Yang, L. Qiu, W. Zhao, and H. Wu, “Laser differential reflection-confocal focal-length measurement,” Opt. Express 20(23), 26027–26036 (2012).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]

2015 (1)

2014 (1)

2012 (2)

2010 (3)

W. Zhao, R. Sun, L. Qiu, and D. Sha, “Laser differential confocal radius measurement,” Opt. Express 18(3), 2345–2360 (2010).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Y. P. Kumar and S. Chatterjee, “Application of Newton’s method to determine the focal length of lenses using a lateral shearing interferometer and cyclic path optical configuration setup,” Opt. Eng. 49(5), 053604 (2010).
[Crossref]

D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010).
[Crossref]

2005 (1)

H. Tsutsumi, K. Yoshizumi, and H. Takeuchi, “Ultrahighly accurate 3D profilometer,” Proc. SPIE 5638, 387–394 (2005).
[Crossref]

2004 (1)

U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004).
[Crossref]

2002 (1)

T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002).
[Crossref]

2001 (1)

T. L. Schmitz, A. D. Davies, and C. J. Evans, “Uncertainties in interferometric measurements of radius of curvature,” Proc. SPIE 4451, 432–447 (2001).
[Crossref]

1996 (1)

Y. W. Lee, H. M. Cho, and I. W. Lee, “Measurement of a long radius of curvature using a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer,” Opt. Eng. 35(2), 480–483 (1996).
[Crossref]

1992 (2)

1984 (1)

1954 (1)

J. W. Gates, K. J. Habell, and S. P. Middleton, “A precision spherometer,” J. Sci. Instrum. 31(2), 60–64 (1954).
[Crossref]

Abdelsalam, D. G.

D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010).
[Crossref]

Chatterjee, S.

Y. P. Kumar and S. Chatterjee, “Application of Newton’s method to determine the focal length of lenses using a lateral shearing interferometer and cyclic path optical configuration setup,” Opt. Eng. 49(5), 053604 (2010).
[Crossref]

Cho, H. M.

Y. W. Lee, H. M. Cho, and I. W. Lee, “Measurement of a long radius of curvature using a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer,” Opt. Eng. 35(2), 480–483 (1996).
[Crossref]

Davies, A.

T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002).
[Crossref]

Davies, A. D.

T. L. Schmitz, A. D. Davies, and C. J. Evans, “Uncertainties in interferometric measurements of radius of curvature,” Proc. SPIE 4451, 432–447 (2001).
[Crossref]

DeBra, D.

U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004).
[Crossref]

Du, Z.

Eloker, M. M.

D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010).
[Crossref]

Estler, W. T.

T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002).
[Crossref]

Evans, C. J.

T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002).
[Crossref]

T. L. Schmitz, A. D. Davies, and C. J. Evans, “Uncertainties in interferometric measurements of radius of curvature,” Proc. SPIE 4451, 432–447 (2001).
[Crossref]

Gates, J. W.

J. W. Gates, K. J. Habell, and S. P. Middleton, “A precision spherometer,” J. Sci. Instrum. 31(2), 60–64 (1954).
[Crossref]

Griesmann, U.

Q. Wang, U. Griesmann, and J. A. Soons, “Holographic radius test plates for spherical surfaces with large radius of curvature,” Appl. Opt. 53(20), 4532–4538 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004).
[Crossref]

Habell, K. J.

J. W. Gates, K. J. Habell, and S. P. Middleton, “A precision spherometer,” J. Sci. Instrum. 31(2), 60–64 (1954).
[Crossref]

Kim, D.

D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010).
[Crossref]

Kothiyal, M. P.

Kumar, Y. P.

Y. P. Kumar and S. Chatterjee, “Application of Newton’s method to determine the focal length of lenses using a lateral shearing interferometer and cyclic path optical configuration setup,” Opt. Eng. 49(5), 053604 (2010).
[Crossref]

Lee, I. W.

Y. W. Lee, H. M. Cho, and I. W. Lee, “Measurement of a long radius of curvature using a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer,” Opt. Eng. 35(2), 480–483 (1996).
[Crossref]

Lee, Y. W.

Y. W. Lee, H. M. Cho, and I. W. Lee, “Measurement of a long radius of curvature using a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer,” Opt. Eng. 35(2), 480–483 (1996).
[Crossref]

Lin, C.

Middleton, S. P.

J. W. Gates, K. J. Habell, and S. P. Middleton, “A precision spherometer,” J. Sci. Instrum. 31(2), 60–64 (1954).
[Crossref]

Murata, K.

Nakano, Y.

Qiu, L.

Schmitz, T. L.

T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002).
[Crossref]

T. L. Schmitz, A. D. Davies, and C. J. Evans, “Uncertainties in interferometric measurements of radius of curvature,” Proc. SPIE 4451, 432–447 (2001).
[Crossref]

Selberg, L. A.

L. A. Selberg, “Radius measurement by interferometry,” Opt. Eng. 31(9), 1961–1966 (1992).
[Crossref]

Sha, D.

Shaalan, M. S.

D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010).
[Crossref]

Sirohi, R. S.

Soons, J.

U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004).
[Crossref]

Soons, J. A.

Sriram, K. V.

Sun, R.

Takeuchi, H.

H. Tsutsumi, K. Yoshizumi, and H. Takeuchi, “Ultrahighly accurate 3D profilometer,” Proc. SPIE 5638, 387–394 (2005).
[Crossref]

Tsutsumi, H.

H. Tsutsumi, K. Yoshizumi, and H. Takeuchi, “Ultrahighly accurate 3D profilometer,” Proc. SPIE 5638, 387–394 (2005).
[Crossref]

Wang, G.

Wang, Q.

Q. Wang, U. Griesmann, and J. A. Soons, “Holographic radius test plates for spherical surfaces with large radius of curvature,” Appl. Opt. 53(20), 4532–4538 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004).
[Crossref]

Wei, C.

Wu, H.

Yan, S.

Yang, J.

Yoshizumi, K.

H. Tsutsumi, K. Yoshizumi, and H. Takeuchi, “Ultrahighly accurate 3D profilometer,” Proc. SPIE 5638, 387–394 (2005).
[Crossref]

Zhao, W.

Appl. Opt. (4)

Chin. Opt. Lett. (1)

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol (2)

T. L. Schmitz, C. J. Evans, A. Davies, and W. T. Estler, “Displacement Uncertainty in Interferometric Radius Measurements,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 51(1), 451–454 (2002).
[Crossref]

U. Griesmann, J. Soons, Q. Wang, and D. DeBra, “Measuring form and radius of spheres with interferometry,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technol 53(1), 451–454 (2004).
[Crossref]

J. Sci. Instrum. (1)

J. W. Gates, K. J. Habell, and S. P. Middleton, “A precision spherometer,” J. Sci. Instrum. 31(2), 60–64 (1954).
[Crossref]

Opt. Eng. (3)

Y. P. Kumar and S. Chatterjee, “Application of Newton’s method to determine the focal length of lenses using a lateral shearing interferometer and cyclic path optical configuration setup,” Opt. Eng. 49(5), 053604 (2010).
[Crossref]

L. A. Selberg, “Radius measurement by interferometry,” Opt. Eng. 31(9), 1961–1966 (1992).
[Crossref]

Y. W. Lee, H. M. Cho, and I. W. Lee, “Measurement of a long radius of curvature using a half-aperture bidirectional shearing interferometer,” Opt. Eng. 35(2), 480–483 (1996).
[Crossref]

Opt. Express (2)

Opt. Lasers Eng. (1)

D. G. Abdelsalam, M. S. Shaalan, M. M. Eloker, and D. Kim, “Radius of curvature measurement of spherical smooth surfaces by multiple-beam interferometry in reflection,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 48(6), 643–649 (2010).
[Crossref]

Proc. SPIE (2)

H. Tsutsumi, K. Yoshizumi, and H. Takeuchi, “Ultrahighly accurate 3D profilometer,” Proc. SPIE 5638, 387–394 (2005).
[Crossref]

T. L. Schmitz, A. D. Davies, and C. J. Evans, “Uncertainties in interferometric measurements of radius of curvature,” Proc. SPIE 4451, 432–447 (2001).
[Crossref]

Cited By

Optica participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from Optica Publishing Group journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (14)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 A schematic of ‘cat’s eye and confocal’ radius measurement.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Position difference L1 measurement. BS is the beam splitter, LC is the collimating lens, TL is the test spherical lens, LO is the objective lens, PH is the pinhole, DMI is the distance measuring instrument.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Position difference L2 measurement.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Radius calculation.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Error transfer coefficient.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6 The focusing sensitivity for different uM and vPH.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7 The main structure of a LDCRM system.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8 LDCRM system.
Fig. 9
Fig. 9 Measurement results of position difference L2.
Fig. 10
Fig. 10 Repeatability of L2 measurement data.
Fig. 11
Fig. 11 Measurement results of position difference L1.
Fig. 12
Fig. 12 Repeatability of L1 measurement data.
Fig. 13
Fig. 13 Axial misalignment between the LDCRM axes.
Fig. 14
Fig. 14 Schematics of detectors with different offsets.

Equations (28)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

I A ( u , u M ) = I 2 ( u , u M ) I 1 ( u , + u M ) = [ sin ( u / 2 + u M / 4 ) ( u / 2 + u M / 4 ) ] 2 [ sin ( u / 2 u M / 4 ) ( u / 2 u M / 4 ) ] 2 ,
{ u = π 2 λ ( D f O ) 2 z u M = π 2 λ ( D f C ) 2 M .
I B ( u , u M ) = I 2 ( u , u M ) I 1 ( u , + u M ) = { sin [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u + u M / 4 ] [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u + u M / 4 ] } 2 { sin [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u u M / 4 ] [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u u M / 4 ] } 2 ,
α = ( 2 L 2 L 1 L 1 ) 2 .
I A ( u , u M ) = [ sin ( u / 2 + u M / 4 ) ( u / 2 + u M / 4 ) ] 2 [ sin ( u / 2 u M / 4 ) ( u / 2 u M / 4 ) ] 2 .
I C ( u , u M ) = [ sin ( u + u M / 4 ) ( u + u M / 4 ) ] 2 [ sin ( u u M / 4 ) ( u u M / 4 ) ] 2 .
{ L = 2 L 2 θ = arc tan ( ρ D 2 L ) tan θ 1 2 = 2 L R ρ ( 1 - c o s θ 1 ) ρ D [ L 1 R ρ ( 1 cos θ 1 ) ] R ρ = ( L L 1 ) sin ( θ 2 θ 1 ) sin ( θ θ 1 ) sin ( θ 2 θ 1 ) .
R = 0 1 2 π ρ R ρ d ρ 0 1 2 π ρ d ρ = 2 0 1 ρ R ρ d ρ .
σ a x i a l L 1 ( 1 cos β ) .
f ( σ a x i a l ) = { 1 γ 1 ( 1 σ a x i a l ) 2 σ a x i a l [ 0 , 1 cos γ ] 0 else .
u ( L 1 ) a x i a l = 3 × 0.00058 2 × | L 1 | 20 .
I A ( u , u M ) = [ sin ( u / 2 + u M / 4 ) ( u / 2 + u M / 4 ) ] 2 { sin [ u / 2 ( u M u δ ) / 4 ] [ u / 2 ( u M u δ ) / 4 ] } 2 ,
I B ( u , u M ) = { sin [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u + u M / 4 ] [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u + u M / 4 ] } 2 { sin [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u ( u M u δ ) / 4 ] [ ( 1 + α ) / 2 u ( u M u δ ) / 4 ] } 2 .
Δ u A = u δ 4 and Δ u B = u δ 4 ( 1 + α ) .
σ o f f s e t = α 4 ( 1 + α ) f o 2 f c 2 δ .
u ( L 1 ) o f f s e t = σ o f f s e t 3 = α 4 3 ( 1 + α ) f o 2 f c 2 δ .
σ D M I = 1 × 10 6 × L 1 .
u ( L 1 ) D M I = 1 × 10 6 × L 1 3 .
u ( L 1 ) σ 1 = σ L 1 .
u ( L 1 ) = u ( L 1 ) a x i a l 2 + u ( L 1 ) o f f s e t 2 + u ( L 1 ) D M I 2 + u ( L 1 ) σ 1 2 .
u ( L 1 ) = 3.43 × 10 3 mm .
u ( L 2 ) = 1 2 [ ( σ a x i a l 3 ) 2 + ( σ o f f s e t 3 ) 2 + ( σ D M I 3 ) 2 ] + ( σ L 2 10 ) 2
u ( L 2 ) = 1.64 × 10 3 mm .
u c ( R ) = [ c 1 u ( L 1 ) ] 2 + [ c 2 u ( L 2 ) ] 2 ,
u r e l ( R ) = u c ( R ) R × 100 % .
c 1 = 1449.59 and c 2 = 686.68.
u c ( R ) = 5.1 mm .
u r e l ( R ) = 0.026 % .

Metrics