Citation: | Luo Qian, Wu Shibin, Wang Lihua, et al. Optimization of sparse subaperture array model for stitching detection of plane wavefront[J]. Opto-Electronic Engineering, 2018, 45(5): 170638. doi: 10.12086/oee.2018.170638 |
[1] | 侯溪, 伍凡, 杨力, 等.子孔径拼接干涉测试技术现状及发展趋势[J].光学与光电技术, 2005, 3(3): 50–53. Hou X, Wu F, Yang L, et al. Status and development trend of sub-aperture stitching interferometric testing technique[J]. Optics & Optoelectronic Technology, 2005, 3(3): 50–53. |
[2] | Sj dahl M, Oreb B F. Stitching interferometric measurement data for inspection of large optical components[J]. Optical Engineering, 2002, 41(2): 403–408. doi: 10.1117/1.1430727 |
[3] | Kim C J. Polynomial fit of interferograms[J]. Applied Optics, 1982, 21(24): 4521–4525. doi: 10.1364/AO.21.004521 |
[4] | He Y, Wang Z X, Wang Q, et al. Testing the large aperture optical components by the sub-aperture stitching interferometer [J]. Proceedings of SPIE, 2007, 6624: 66240D. |
[5] | Xu X D, Shen Z X, Tong G D, et al. Sparse subaperture stitching method for measuring large aperture planar optics[J]. Optical Engineering, 2016, 55(2): 024103. doi: 10.1117/1.OE.55.2.024103 |
[6] | 闫锋涛, 范斌, 侯溪, 等.稀疏子孔径采样检测大口径光学器件[J].强激光与粒子束, 2011, 23(12): 3193–3196. Yan F T, Fan B, Hou X, et al. Large-aperture mirror test using sparse sub-aperture sampling[J]. High Power Laser and Particle Beams, 2011, 23(12): 3193–3196. |
[7] | Chow W W, Lawrence G N. Method for subaperture testing interferogram reduction[J]. Optics Letters, 1983, 8(9): 468–470. doi: 10.1364/OL.8.000468 |
[8] | 王琰, 伏瑞敏, 廖志波.基于稀疏孔径的波前重构算法[J].航天返回与遥感, 2015, 36(5): 51–59. Wang Y, Fu R M, Liao Z B. Wavefront reconstruction algorithm based on sparse aperture[J]. Spacecraft Recovery & Remote Sensing, 2015, 36(5): 51–59. |
[9] | Chen S Y, Dai Y F, Li S Y, et al. Error reductions for stitching test of large optical flats[J]. Optics & Laser Technology, 2012, 44(5): 1543–1550. |
[10] | Smith G A, Burge J H. Subaperture stitching surface errors due to noise[J]. Proceedings of SPIE, 2015, 9575: 95750W. doi: 10.1117/12.2188085 |
[11] | Hill J M, Salinari P. The large binocular telescope project[J]. Proceedings of SPIE, 2000, 5489: 603–614. |
[12] | Chung S J, Miller D W, De Weck O L. Design and implementation of sparse aperture imaging systems[J]. Proceeding of SPIE, 2002, 4849: 181–192. doi: 10.1117/12.460077 |
Overview: The sparse subaperture stitching is one of the main methods of quality detection for large and oversized aperture optical systems. Tradition methods using parallel light pipe and plane mirror autocollimation have some limitations, and they are difficult to realize full-caliber high-precision wavefront aberration detection. The sparse subaperture stitching is based on the principle of interference autocollimation, and the system contains three parts, including interferometer, optical system to be measured and a plane mirror. Unlike overlapping subaperture stitching, a plurality of small aperture plane mirror structure according to the arrangement of a certain composition sparse aperture can replace a large flat mirror. Each subaperture wavefront information was used to reconstruct the full aperture wavefront by stitching algorithm to achieve the required accuracy. The precision of stitching algorithm is closely related to the arrangement, number and size of subaperture, and the coverage ratio of the subapertures in the whole region is represented by the filling factor M. Therefore the better M, the better the precision of stitching algorithm. In this paper, a mathematical model was established to deduce the relation curve between the subaperture number k and fill factor M when the value of k ranges from one to infinite. Though the relation curve between the subaperture number k and fill factor M, the maximum value of fill factor M=0.77778 was obtained when k equals to 7. As a result, the coverage ratio of the subapertures in the whole region is the largest, which collects most of the information. Seven sparse subapertures, which is the optimal layout diagram for the detection systems below 1.5 m was selected. Multiple subapertures ranging from 4 to 9 were stitching and detected, respectively. After stitching, the data were processed by removing tilt The data of the stitching wavefront and the full aperture test data were subtracted, and the residual error was compared. The obtained RMS is 0.0391λ and the direct detection RMS is 0.038λ when sampling the wavefront data with seven subapertures. The relative error is 2%. The residual wavefront RMS between stitching and direct detection is 0.0092λ. Compared with other subaperture, the reconstructed full-aperture wavefront is the most consistent with directly detected full-aperture wavefront, which verifies the rationality of the mathematical model. That is to say, self-collimation interference detection of Φ200 mm demonstrates the rationality of the arrangement.
Schematic diagram of sparse subaperture detection
Honeycomb-shaped arrangement of subapertures
The relation curve between subaperture number and filling factor (k=1~19)
The relation curve between subaperture number and filling factor (k=1~∞)
Optimal arrangement
Photograph of experimental setup
Sparse subaperture arrangement diagrams with four to nine subapertures
Surface pattern after removing phase constant andtilt
Full aperture wavefront mapping for multiple subaperture stitching detection. (a) Four subapertures; (b) Five subapertures; (c) Six subapertures; (d) Seven subapertures; (e) Eight subapertures; (f) Nine subapertures
Wavefront residuals between stitching and direct detection with multiple subapertures. (a) Four subapertures; (b) Five subapertures; (c) Six subapertures; (d) Seven subapertures; (e) Eight subapertures; (f) Nine subapertures