Atmospheric aberrations in coherent laser systems

Snowmass, July 12, 2007

Aniceto Belmonte
belmonte@tsc.upc.edu
2
Atmospheric Optical Systems
3
Simulated Experiments on Atmospheric Propagation


Compensation Methods on Coherent Measurements


Beam Projection on Coherent Lidars


Conclusions
Index
Work Basis
Optical phase perturbations destroy the spatial coherence of a laser beam
as it propagates through the atmosphere. It restricts the received power
levels in optical coherent systems.

Temporal fading associate with optical amplitude fluctuations increases
the uncertainty in the measurements.

Performance limitations imposed by atmospheric turbulence on specific
coherent systems need to be quantify.

Main task is the quantification of the performance achievable in coherent
optical systems using atmospheric compensation techniques.
5
Atmospheric Effects on Received Signal
WIDE-BAND
SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO
PHASE DISTORTION BEAM WANDER BEAM SPREADING SCINTILLATION
RECEIVED POWER UNCERTAINTY RECEIVED POWER LEVEL
SENSITIVITY LINK QUALITY
SIGNAL
RELATIVE ERROR
6
Available Techniques
!?
Rytov
Simulations
Asymptotic
Heuristic ?
7
Split-Step Solution
R z
Gaussian
Beam
p
x

Aperture
Atmospheric
Turbulence
Distorted
Beam
p
y

v
x

v
y

Based on the Fresnel approximation to the wave equation
Atmosphere is modeled as a set of two-dimensional random phase screens
All simulations use the Hill turbulence spectrum (1-mm to 5-m scales)
Uniform and Non-Uniform (Hufnagel-Valley model) turbulence profiles
Temporal and spatial analysis
8
( ) ( )
*
, ,
S LO
DETECTOR
M M d d
}}
1 2 1 2 1 2
w w w w w w
LO
Beam
Receiver
Transmitted
Beam
i
Reflected
Beam
Scatters
Turbulence
Receiver Plane Formulation
9
I z I z d
T BPLO
TARGET
( , ) ( , ) p p p
}
Receiver
Transmitted
Beam
i
BPLO
Scatters
LO
Beam
Target Plane Formulation
10
Simulated Performance: Monostatic
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
C
o
h
e
r
e
n
t

P
o
w
e
r

G
a
i
n

[
d
B
]

Lidar Range [m]
C
n
2
= 10
-12
m
-2/3

= 2 m
C
n
2
= 10
-13
m
-2/3

11
T BPLO
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Lidar Range [m]
C
o
h
e
r
e
n
t

P
o
w
e
r

G
a
i
n

[
d
B
]

-10
C
n
2
= 10
-12
m
-2/3

= 2 m
C
n
2
= 10
-13
m
-2/3

Simulated Performance: Bistatic
12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
C
o
h
e
r
e
n
t

P
o
w
e
r

G
a
i
n

[
d
B
]

Monostatic
Bistatic
10 rad
20 rad
30 rad
40 rad
D=36 cm
C
n
2
= 10
-12
m
-2/3

= 2 m
Range [m]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Range [m]
Monostatic
Bistatic
D= 9 cm
C
o
h
e
r
e
n
t

P
o
w
e
r

G
a
i
n

[
d
B
]

Misalignment Effects
13
Coherent Power Fluctuations
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Strong C
n
2
Coherent Power Standard Deviation
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Coherent Power Standard Deviation
30
60
90 (Zenith)
Moderate C
n
2

= 2 m
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
14
Uncertainty Temporal Averaging
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
N
-1/2

V

= 10 m/s
R

= 5 km
Pulses Averaged
1 kHz
5 kHz
10 kHz
C
n
2
= 10
-13
m
-2/3

= 2 m
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

N
-1/2

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
Pulses Averaged
R

= 3 km
C
n
2
= 10
-12
m
-2/3

15
Free-Space Optical Communication Systems
Optical phase perturbations restricts the received power levels in optical
communications.

Temporal fading associate with optical amplitude fluctuations increases the
error in the communication link.
( ) ( )
*
, ,
S LO
DETECTOR
M M d d
}}
1 2 1 2 1 2
w w w w w w
( )
DETECTOR
I d
}}
w w
LO
Beam
Receiver Transmitter
Signal
Beam
i
16
Simulated Experiments on Atmospheric Propagation


Compensation Methods on Coherent Measurements


Beam Projection on Coherent Lidars


Conclusions
Index
17
APERTURE
INTEGRATOR/ARRAYS
PHASE
COMPENSATED
RECEIVERS
RECIPROCITY
POINTING
ATMOSPHERIC COMPENSATION TECHNIQUES
PHASE DISTORTION BEAM WANDER BEAM SPREADING SCINTILLATION
ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS ON RECEIVED SIGNAL
DIRECT DETECTION
GROUND, DOWNLINK
DIRECT, HETERODYNE
GROUND, DOWNLINK
DIRECT, HETERODYNE
GROUND, DOWN/UP LINKS
Atmospheric Compensation Techniques
18
Phase Compensation on Coherent FSO
In communication with optical heterodyne detection, as in imaging
systems, the aim of phase compensation is to restore diffraction-limited
resolution. Technology of adaptive optics communications is identical to that
of adaptive optics imaging: Measurement, reconstruction, and conjugation of
the wavefront (spatial phase conjugation of Zernike modes).
( )
1
, ,
N
n n
n
c Z
R

=
| |
u =
|
\ .

LO
Beam
Receiver
Transmitter
Signal
Beam
i
19
Atmospheric Compensation Needs in FSO
X [m]
Y
[
m
]
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
X [m]
Y
[
m
]
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
X [m]
Y
[
m
]
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Detector-plane Intensity Distributions
20
Adaptive Optics in Direct-Detection FSO
Transmitter
Optical Power Any
Wavelength Near IR/Visible
Divergence Angle Any
Line-of-Sight Path Horizontal/Slant
Transmission Bandwidth High
Deployment Distance Near and Far Field
Coding Scheme Any
Medium
Visibility Any
Atmospheric Seeing Low (Day Time)
Scintillation Any
Solar Background High (Day Time)
Receiver
Receiver Sensitivity Any
Receive Lens Diameter >10 cm
Receiver Field of View Small (<1 mrad)
Detector Active Area Small (APD)
Reception Diversity Single/Multiaperture
21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Modes Removed
C
n
2
= 10
-13
m
-2/3

R

= 3 km
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
2
4
6
8
10
Modes Removed
C
o
h
e
r
e
n
t

P
o
w
e
r

G
a
i
n

(
d
B
)

C
n
2
= 10
-14
m
-2/3

= 1.55 m D=30 cm
D=20 cm
D=10 cm
FSO Coherent Power Gain
22
The target is a distributed aerosol, which creates target speckle with
decorrelation times in the order of 1 s.

Mirror segments response times are about 0.11ms, hence compensation
system allows system bandwidths of about 1 kHz. Any phase conjugation
system will be too slow to compensate for target speckle.

Speckle in Coherent Lidar
LO
Beam
Receiver
i
Transmitted
Beam
Reflected
Beam
Scatters
23
The Optimization Problem
We need to consider the speckle averaged coherent signal. Consequently,
a rapid pulse repetition rate is required from the laser. Nowadays systems
have the required specifications.

The power level reaching the receiver is extremely low and wavefront
sensor should use coherent detection. Also, wavefront conjugation
technique has problems related to the presence of intensity scintillation.

Wavefront correctors based on MEM systems have large bandwidth and a
reduced tag price. The wavefront sensor and the phase reconstruction
hardware are the major obstacles to achieving fast, inexpensive adaptive
systems.

24
Non-Conjugated Adaptive Optics
There is another wavefront control paradigm. Instead of considering the
wavefront conjugation based on the reciprocity principle, it is possible to
compensate wavefront distortion using direct system performance metric
optimization.

We analyze a system implementing a non-conjugate adaptive optics with
use efficient parallel model-free optimization algorithms (Gradient
descent optimization).

The metric can be considered as a functional that depends on the phase
aberrations introduced by atmospheric turbulence.

25
Blind (Free-Model) Compensation
LO
Beam
Receiver
Transmitted
Beam
i
Reflected
Beam
Scatters
26
Blind (Free-Model) Algorithms
The algorithm choose the mirror shape to maximize the speckle
averaged coherent signal power. Compensation can consider either the
transmitted beam or the local oscillator beam.

Compensation algorithms can be associated with a metric defined in
terms of the overlap integral of the transmitted and BPLO irradiances at
the target plane. The speckle averaged coherent signal power P is defined
through the overlap integral:

( ) ( ) ( )
2
( ) , ,
T BPLO
P R C R j R j R d
+

=
}
p p p
27
LO Atmospheric Beam Projection
The problem of adaptive laser beam projection onto an extended aerosol
target in the atmosphere needs to be considered. Beam compensation is
considered through conjugation of the wave phase.

Using the target-plane formulation and our simulation techniques, it is
straightforward to estimate the phase-correction system reliability and its
effects on the coherent lidar performance.


Receiver
Transmitted
Beam
i
Scatters
BPLO
28
0 10 20 30 40 50
20
22
24
26
28
Overlap Integral (Coherent Power) Evolution
Iteration Number
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
r
i
c

0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

M
e
t
r
i
c

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Range [m]
O
v
e
r
l
a
p

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

Overlap Integral (Coherent Power) Range Dependency
Coherent Power as Quality Metric
29
0 5 10 15 20 25
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Zernike Order
E
n
e
r
g
y

[
d
B
]
]

Defocus
Astigmatism
Coma
Spherical Aberration
Distortion
LO Control Wavefront
30
Beam Projection
31
Index
Simulated Experiments on Atmospheric Propagation


Compensation Methods on Coherent Measurements


Beam Projection on Coherent Lidars


Conclusions
32
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Moderate C
n
2

30
45
60

= 1 m
90 (Zenith)
D = 40 cm
0 5 10 15 20 25
Coherent Power Gain [%]
Strong C
n
2

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain vs Elevation Angle
33
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Moderate C
n
2

30
45
60

= 1 m
90 (Zenith)
D = 20 cm
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
Strong C
n
2

Coherent Power Gain
34
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Moderate C
n
2

30
45
60

= 1 m
90 (Zenith)
D = 10 cm
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
Strong C
n
2

Coherent Power Gain
35
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Moderate C
n
2

0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
Strong C
n
2

= 1 m
D = 10 cm
= 90 (Zenith)
D = 20 cm
D = 40 cm
Coherent Power Gain vs Aperture Size
36
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Moderate C
n
2

0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [%]

= 1 m
D = 10 cm
= 45
D = 20 cm
D = 40 cm
Strong C
n
2

Coherent Power Gain
37
0 5 10 15
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [dB]
Moderate C
n
2

= 1 m
D = 20 cm
90 (Zenith)
60
30
Misalignment 20 m
0 5 10 15
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [dB]
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

Moderate C
n
2
Misalignment 20 m

= 1 m
D = 10 cm
= 90 (Zenith)
D = 20 cm
D = 40 cm
Misalignment Compensation
38
0 5 10 15 20
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Coherent Power Gain [dB]
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
]

30 m
Moderate C
n
2

= 1 m
D = 20 cm
= 90 (Zenith)
20 m
10 m
5 m
Misalignment Compensation
39
Simulated Experiments on Atmospheric Propagation


Compensation Methods on Coherent Measurements


Beam Projection on Coherent Lidars


Conclusions
Index
40
Technique Summary
Feasibility of Beam Propagation Technique
Well-known Limits of Applicability
Simulation of Coherent Laser System Performance
Practical Systems Analysis
Results are encouraging
Compensation techniques may extend the deployment distance
and/or quality of atmospheric optical systems.
Room for improvement
New algorithms and Full Field Compensation
Results must be viewed as benchmarks whose achievements may
require the development of devices.