You are on page 1of 13

Optical surface measurements for very large flat mirrors

J. H. Burge, P. Su, J. Yellowhair, and C. Zhao College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
ABSTRACT
Flat mirrors as large as 4 meters in diameter can be manufactured to high accuracy, limited by the surface metrology. We present metrology systems that are specifically optimized for measuring very large flats to high accuracy. A large aperture vibration insensitive Fizeau interferometer combined with stitching software provides high resolution surface measurements. Low order shape errors can be measured using scanning slope measurements from precision inclinometers or an autocollimator with scanning pentaprism. Keywords: Flat mirrors, optical fabrication, optical testing, large optics

1. INTRODUCTION
High quality flat mirrors that are several meters in diameter have been proposed for use as autocollimating flats for system testing and for turning mirrors in giant new telescopes. The production of such mirrors requires new techniques for optical metrology that are inherently scalable. We have developed three different measurement methods that are not limited in size and could easily accommodate flat mirrors up to 4 meters across using existing hardware. The easiest test to implement uses only electronic inclinometers or levels.1 In this test, the levels are placed on the optical surface to measure the slope. Operating in a differential mode, these measurements can achieve 0.35 µrad slope accuracy per sampled point, which allows measurement accuracy of only 32 rms power for a 4-m diameter flat. Twoaxis levels and dense sampling can be used to provide higher order surface measurements. A similar slope measurement uses an autocollimator and scanning pentaprism2 to achieve measurement accuracy of 0.2 µrad, which provides < 50 nm rms power for a 4-m diameter flat mirror. This system has inherent advantages over the scanning levels because it is non-contact for the optical surface and it can be performed at any orientation. The highest accuracy measurements can be performed with a vibration insensitive 1-m aperture Fizeau phase shifting interferometer.3 This system can make measurements with ~ 2 nm accuracy. The data from multiple subapertures can be combined to give full aperture data for the large flat with < 5 nm rms accuracy. The data from the subapertures can be combined using a modal maximum likelihood method4, which provides simultaneous calibration of the reference flat with the mirror being measured. Alternatively, the subaperture data can be combined using stitching, which preserves the full resolution of the measurements.5

2. SLOPE MEASUREMENTS
The surface of a flat is unique—the ideal flat mirror has the same slope at all points. We can use this fact for measuring departures from flatness. If we measure the slope variations accurately, then we can determine the shape errors. We use two fundamental references for measuring slope variations – the earth’s gravitational field, and the linear propagation of light. The systems that utilize these principles are discussed below.

jburge@optics.arizona.edu; phone 520-621-8182, fax 520-621-3389

Advanced Optical and Mechanical Technologies in Telescopes and Instrumentation, edited by Eli Atad-Ettedgui, Dietrich Lemke, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7018, 701817, (2008) · 0277-786X/08/$18 · doi: 10.1117/12.790048

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7018 701817-1

. We can increase the number of scans to sample higher order errors and to reduce the noise for the lower order terms. We modified two high precision uni-axis electronic levels (Leveltronic made by Wyler AG) to rest on three polished tungsten carbide half-spheres.1. Z7. andZl . or electronic levels to measure surface slope variations. We use two levels. The levels and geometry are shown in Figure 1. Z7. We recognize the value in using dual-axis levels and sampling the full surface. Proc. ZE. of SPIE Vol.2. Custom base p late w ith three S:an' ifl9 le•. general scans Reference level ann. a reference B and a scanning level A. The layouts for the scans are shown in Figure 2. Z8. Since the levels measure in one direction. Reference e. So far.eI :f:xeo. The scanning level is moved sequentially across the mirror and the difference between A and B is recorded. Z6.1 Measurement of slope variation using inclinometers We use inclinometers. Scan layout for single axis and dual axis scans. it is important to maintain their alignment. Electronic levels can be used for measuring surface flatness.eI hIfspheits Large flat mirror Figure 1. we have only used the single axis levels. easLres 4.l.:el eas ur es Z and Z 4f A Scan rr or /1 r/easLres Z& Z5.ZS.andZ11. Figure 2. linear scans (a) Dual axis levels. Then we place the scanning level A adjacent to level B and we set the zero for both levels. Single axis levels. 7018 701817-2 . We make a set of measurements across different diameters with the uniaxial levels. We place the reference level B onto the surface and adjust the tilt of the flat until the absolute level is within 20 arcsec or so.

34 µrad variation per measurement (0.13 0.25 0. Table 1.13 0.01 0. The effect of the noise can be reduced by averaging.10 0. optical version of this test that uses an electronic autocollimator and pentaprisms. Table 2. Proc. This result would scale linearly with mirror diameter. Random position errors couple with the mirror slope High frequency surface errors are not fully sampled Local gravity variation Value (rad) 0. as shown in Figure 2c.The accuracy of the measurements with the electronic levels is quite good.34 A least squares fit is used to determine the low order shape errors as represented by Zernike polynomials using the slope data. 7018 701817-3 . The results for a 2m mirror show overall accuracy of 50 nm rms overall and only 16 nm rms power. of SPIE Vol.10 µrad by re-sampling a reference point Random variations of the scanning e-level orientation couple with the absolute tilt of the flat.10 0. Measurement accuracy for 2-m flat mirror from Monte Carlo simulation with 0. Error analysis for flat measurement with E-levels Error source Noise in the levels and calibration Drift due to environment Axes coupling (guide rail) Levels placement and setting Software fit error (residual) Gravity Total error (root sum square) Explanation Determined from repeatability experiments This is monitored and kept to 0. A Monte Carlo simulation of three line scans. A detailed analysis is presented elsewhere1 and summarized here. this test is cumbersome to perform and it cannot be used on coated optics without risking damage to the coatings.34 µrad error per measurement Aberration Power Astigmatism Zernike Z4 = 2(x2 + y2) – 1 Z5 = (x2 – y2) Z6 = 2xy Coma Spherical RSS Z7 = 3(x3 + xy2) – 2x Z8 = 3(x2y + y3) – 2y Z9 = 6(x4 + y4) – 6(x2 + y2) + 1 Gradient 4xî + 4y 2xî – 2y 2yî + 2x (9x2 + 3y2 – 2)î + 6xy 6xyî + (3x2 + 9y2 – 2) 12x(2x2 – 1)î + 12y(2y2 – 1) Measurement accuracy (nm rms) 16 29 29 11 11 8 50 The advantage of the e-level measurement is obviously the low cost. The dominant error in the measurements comes from noise in the levels themselves. The slope errors for the system at the University of Arizona are listed in Table 1. so a 4-m mirror can be measured to 32 nm rms power.48 µrad for a differential measurement). with 12 measurements per scan was performed assuming 0. However. We have pursued a more accurate.

2. Thus no additional reference is required.02 µrad rms. The effects of alignment and geometry are limited to 0. This technique scans the beam from an autocollimator across the pupil using a pentaprism. This accuracy is achieved even though the prisms themselves and all of the static and dynamic alignment terms are allowed to be 1000 times larger than this.6-m flat mirror are shown in Figure 4. Multiple scans can be made to build up a full surface. The dominant error comes from the 0. as shown in Tables 3 and 4. such as that shown in Figure 3. which is completely insensitive to tilt of the prism itself. This test has been proven at the University of Arizona where a 1. 7018 701817-4 . of SPIE Vol. This test achieves very high accuracy using a high performance autocollimator and utilizing the weak sensitivity of measurement errors to systematic error in the alignment. Proc.2 µrad noise that arises from air motion in the lab.2 Measurement of slope variation using autocollimator with scanning pentaprism The shape of the flat mirror can be sampled with a scanning pentaprism2. Data from a 1. nominally 90°. Slope variations are measured and integrated to give the profile along the line of the measurement.2 This simple system achieves such high accuracy by taking advantage of a special property of the pentaprism – the light is deviated by an angle.6-m diameter flat mirror was measured to 12 nm rms. Scanning Pentaprism Test • • • • • Two pentaprisms are co-aligned to a high resolution autocollimator The beam is deviated by 90 to the test surface Any additional deflection in the return beam is a direct measure of surface slope changes Electronically controlled shutters are used to select the reference path or the test path One prism remains fixed (reference) while the other scans across the mirror Feedback mirror UDT (Alignment AC) Fixed prism (reference ) ELCOMAT (Measuring AC) Coupling wedge Scanning prism Autocollimator system Shutters • A second autocollimator (UDT) maintains angular alignment of the scanning prism through an active feedback control Mechanical supports 1 Figure 3. Scanning pentaprism measurement for large flat mirrors.6 system.

The data was then fit to the first three modes. so they can be measured more accurately than power and astigmatism. The pentaprism test was modeled with a random Gaussian distribution with standard deviation of 0.10 mrad 2PP PP AC PP AC PP Table 4. With 0. Proc. Measurement of M3 with the scanning pentaprism system was simulated.05 mrad rms < 0. We evaluate the performance of the scanning pentaprism system for determining the lowest order shape errors in the flat.2 µrad rms noise and multiple scans.2 µrad. Table 5 lists the results. Higher order modes have increased slope variation per µm of surface height. Sources of error for UA scanning pentaprism system Parameter Description Tolerance Contribution < 0.13 mrad < 0. but only if enough scans are made to fully sample them.13 mrad < 0.5 meters.05 mrad rms PP PP Analysis of scanning pentaprism measurements were made for the TMT tertiary mirror7. A MonteCarlo simulation was run to see the uncertainty in determining the first three modes of the mirror: mostly astigmatism and power.5 x 2. each mode can be determined to < 20 nm rms.6-m flat. Data from University of Arizona scanning pentaprism measurement of 1.Meesured Slope Deta With Zemlke PoPyllomlel FIt 1000 800 600 400 200 0 slope data I ': -600 f -800 -1 00O radius (normalized) Figure 4. Effect of errors on slope measurement Line of sight deviation (nrad rms) 13 7 7 5 5 18 PP PP Initial misalignment of the prism roll Variation in prism roll Misalignment of the autocollimator roll relative to direction of motion Initial misalignment of the prism yaw Variation in prism yaw AC AC AC PP AC PP RSS Variation in autocollimator roll < 0. 100 Monte-Carlo runs were performed and statistics of the fitted coefficients of the three modes and the residual were calculated. 7018 701817-5 .9 Table 3. shown in Table 5. of SPIE Vol.05 mrad rms < 0. This large flat has an elliptical shape 3. including the data reduction. power and astigmatism.

6 -0.2rad measurement uncertainty is per point.5-m TMT tertiary mirror with 0.Odc S. SLao. of SPIE Vol. J.6 ae Figure 5. 7018 701817-6 .1b (a) i. The resulting error for each of the low order modes is given. Results of 100 Monte-Carlo simulations of the pentaprism measurements of the 3.4 Z. -—1— — — — — —. Proc.Table 5.Soc. Mode 1: 20 nm rms Mode 2 : 24 nm rms Mode 3: 9 nm rms S U US II I5 -l -05 0 U -U U U UU We have presented two slope measurement methods. 0L 0L i. £ — ——— b ll. J2 0 02 Z. The raw slope data and the calculated surface shape are presented for both cases in Figure 5.. fl SaflmEi1aL.. ————————————— -i I (a) -Z. The same surface measured with the electronic levels and the scanning pentaprism system produce virtually identical results..-&r: .8 -Z.5 x 2. We measured the same surface with both techniques and found the agreement to be exceptional.

SUBAPERTURE INTERFEROMETRY WITH STITCHING SOFTWARE 3. This freezes out the effect of vibration. Phase shifting interferometry can be performed by either pushing the reference plate with PZT piezoelectric transducers or by using a simultaneous phase shifting interferometer that uses polarization to separate the reflections. of SPIE Vol. As long as the physical separation is small. then the effects of imperfect wavefronts due to limitations in the illumination optics and the test plate glass do not significantly affect the measurement. These two are each reflected from the reference surface and from the surface under test.9 The use of a standard vibration insensitive Fizeau interferometer with the remote test plate was demonstrated for 1-m aperture measurements. The analysis for such errors is given by Burge8. Measurements achieve a noise level of 3 nm rms over the 1-m aperture. The test configuration is shown Figure 1 Illumination Optic LHC RHC (B) (A) 1 m reference flat Polarization Instantaneous interferometer Alignment mode Spots from the reference surface A B Mirror Under Test A B Spots from the test surface Software screen Figure 6.10 This system used the H-1000 instantaneous Fizeau system from ESDI and included an off-axis parabola for illumination. Also. one can select the reference and test beam with appropriate orthogonal polarizations. By setting the relative tilts for the optics. 7018 701817-7 .1 Fizeau interferometry Large optics can be measured efficiently with subaperture Fizeau interferometry. and the difference between the two reflected wavefronts is used for the measurement. the effect of birefringence in the test plate has been shown to have negligible effect for the simultaneous phase shifting interferometers as long as circular polarization is used. The simultaneous phase shifting interferometer uses two beams with orthogonal polarization with some tilt difference.3. Proc. Layout of Fizeau test for subaperture interferometric measurement The Fizeau interferometer uses reflection from a reference surface that is held only a few mm from the surface being measured. Commercially available systems that can be used in this mode are produced by ESDI and 4D Technologies. Then the phase shifting is performed using polarization optics to create 3 or 4 interferograms that have 90° relative phase shift and can be read out simultaneously. The wavefront phase is then calculated from the set of interferograms. The reflection from the reference surface is interfered with light reflected from the surface under test. The data from the subaperture measurements can be stitched together to give full surface maps. There are two key technical issues with this method: efficiency and accuracy.

The least squares algorithm described above was used to solve for the alignment degrees of freedom to minimize the difference between the measurements in the overlap region. we have written software that solves for the tip. In the overlapped area. For the case of the secondary mirror. A large flat mirror can be fully measured by measuring subapertures. those that concentrate on the overlap regions4. The basic algorithm was taken from a paper by Otsubo et al. Proc. It would not be difficult to develop software that has slightly better noise rejection. the data from the subapertures to create a full aperture map. and those that solve for more global consistency.6 m test flat 1 m (8) 1 subapertures Figure 7. The software was tested with some examples and shown to be quite robust.2 Subaperture stitching Software is used to combine. 7018 701817-8 . Stitching is typically a least-squares type of process where the relative alignment degrees of freedom are determined based on the consistency of the different measurements. This software was never carefully optimized for this application. There are two different types of stitching algorithms. The stitched full-aperture map can be decomposed into Zernike polynomials and the residual is calculated after Zernike decomposition. The noise sensitivity for the individual measurements is presented separately for the cases of the secondary mirror and tertiary mirror. average was taken from the fitted sub-aperture data. Little effort was devoted to better memory management or improving calculation speed. The algorithm is briefly described here: A full-aperture map and valid data mask was created using synthetic data.3. which was done by adding up the masks to determine how many sub-apertures cover a specific pixel. Requires 8 subaperture measurements to get complete coverage Interference occurs here 1 m reference flat Large flat miror Rotary air bearing table 1.4 The software was written in MATLAB.5 They have both been proven to work to the noise limit. tilt. power for each subaperture was determined as well. Sub-aperture masks determined the overlapped area. and piston of each map in order to optimize the data consistency in the overlap regions. of SPIE Vol. The test accuracy and efficiency are improved with larger subapertures. whose powerful matrix manipulation functions are taken advantage of. or stitch. Each sub-aperture map has the same matrix size and valid data was masked by its own mask and the fullaperture mask. Test cases were used to verify the accuracy of the software. For this project. but the gains will be marginal. 11.

7018 701817-9 .6-m flat mirror.6-m mirror under test. The University of Arizona has developed a large phase shifting Fizeau test for measuring a 1. Proc.3. of SPIE Vol.12 This uses a 1-m transmission flat.3 Demonstration of Fizeau with subaperture stitching The University of Arizona has successfully developed the world’s largest vibration insensitive phase shifting Fizeau interferometer. By rotating both flats. we were able to calibrate all of the errors except power. Power was measured with the scanning pentaprism system.5 The comparison between the full resolution stitching and the modal reconstruction is excellent. We developed software for calibrating the subaperture Fizeau test using the ensemble of data we obtain from rotating both the measurement mirror and the reference mirror. This maximum likelihood approach was used to provide the shape errors for both parts for the 1-m reference and the 1. The geometry for this system is shown in Figure 8 and the details for the reference flat support are shown in Figure 10. and is capable of measuring to < 3 nm rms over the 1-m diameter. 1 m illumination OAP H1000 Fizeau interferometer Fold flat 1 m reference flat Large flat miror Rotary air bearing table 1 Figure 8.

Proc. modally where the modal coefficients are optimized to provide consistency with the data and by direct stitching where the individual maps are used directly. Data from a 1. [P.6-m flat mirror were reduced two different ways. Reference Flat Surface measurement Reference flat 80 80 184 nm PV 42 nm RMS V Reference Flat FEA 40 20 -20 -40 -80 -80 (nm) -IOU 1 Test flat Polishing table C— t Upper support Bonded pucks and attached cables '. The 1-m reference flat is supported at the edge with counterweight offloading. We require hardware modifications to enable the measurement of the larger flat mirrors. The subaperture measurements must be made at two radial positions to cover the full mirror. of SPIE Vol.power/astigmatism removed Reconstruction by stitching 4-. moving the test hardware between measurements. with adjustments in tilt and piston.7-m flat mirror.Modal reconstruction 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Flat Surface by Stitching Method .mE 129 nm PV 29 nm RMS (nm) 75 59 43 27 11 -6 -22 -38 Figure 10. The figure below shows how we can accomplish this for measuring a 2. Su] [R. Spowl] 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 6 nm rms after removing power & astigmatism 7 nm rms after removing power & astigmatism Figure 9. 7018 701817-10 .

-2.5m x 2. A total of 19 measurements are needed to cover the whole surface. Figure 12 shows the sub-aperture distribution assumed for this analysis. The uncertainties of the fitted coefficients of the 10 modes are shown in Figure 14. the 2.6 0 0. At each position. 7018 701817-11 . In the simulations.6 Figure 12. of SPIE Vol. The actual matrix for the full-aperture map is 350x350 pixels.6 -2 -1. The optical test system will be moved to two different locations for the testing of two radial positions.6 1.6 2 2. we used 100x100 pixels for each sub-aperture and 250x350 pixels for the full M3 aperture.5m TMT elliptical flat mirror M3. The stitched maps were fitted to the 10 modes of M3.6 -l -0. Proc. Sub-aperture distributions for the test of the 3.7-m flat mirror. We studied the case of using 1m diameter reference mirror for sub-aperture measurements of the elliptical TMT flat mirror (M3). An additional 50 Monte Carlo simulations were run and the full-aperture map was stitched from the 19 sub-aperture measurements each of which has correlated noise of 3 nm. Fizeau measurement of a 2. The subaperture measurements are 1 meter in diameter.65-m mirror is rotated 360°.Figure 11. An example of the stitching simulation is shown in Figure 13.

(3 nm rms after removing global tilt) U I i Mode 2 2.4 nm rms I Figure 13.8 nm rms L& • I 'a'.4 nm rms Mode 9 0. the residual noise is about 3 nm rms.9 nm rms a 1 \1 i'.\SJ.4 nm rms Mode 6 0.2nm rms. Proc. This causes an error in the low order terms of 3. The uncertainties of the fitted modes and the residual of the stitched map obtained from 50 M-C simulations with 3 nm rms noise per subaperture. of SPIE Vol.).M3 Subaperture example: 3nm M3 stitched map: 6.8 nm rms *__I Mode 10 0. Mode 3 1. Figure 14. An example of stitched map of sub-aperture measurements with 3nm rms noise.1 nm rms Mode 5 1.4nm rms U / M3 low order error from fitting: 3.5 nm rms Mode 4 1. Mode 1 2.8 nm rms Mode 8 0.6 nm rms Residual from fitting all modes 3 nm rms !aY .8nm rms M3 residual from fit: 5.8 nm rms. 7018 701817-12 . After removing these terms. E RSS for all modes: 4.8 nm rms a Mode 7 0.

D. 6) P. edited by E. Zhao. Mallik. (2006). Okada. Doherty and H. “Measurement of large plane surface shapes by connecting small aperture interferograms." Appl. J. 8466-8474 (2007). H. 9) C.H.” in International Optical Design Conference 2006. Proc. H. The University of Arizona has developed and implemented flat mirror metrology methods that have been proven on a 1. O. REFERENCES 1) J. Proc. Zhao. Novak. W. of SPIE Vol. Burge. and are directly scalable to mirrors that are many meters across. Osten. Proc. edited by E.” Optical Engineering 47 (2). D. Joseph Antebi and Dietrich Lemke. Stahl. Williamson. Su. P. 12) J. Editors. C.4. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation as a General Method of Combining SubAperture Data for Interferometric Testing. ed. Burge. Faehnle. SPIE 3134. R. V. SPIE 6671.. RA Sprowl. 62930K. P. Stahl. Sasian. Proc. "Analysis of a scanning pentaprism system for measurements of large flat mirrors.A. J. was unthinkable. Zhao. (1997). “Figure measurement of a large optical flat with a Fizeau interferometer and stitching technique. 127-138 (1995).6-m mirror. “Fizeau interferometry for large convex surfaces. W. Yellowhair. M. Gorecki. 46. “Effects of birefringence on Fizeau interferometry that uses a polarization phaseshifting technique. coupled with the proven techniques of large tool grinding and computer controlled polishing enable the University of Arizona to manufacture flat mirrors as large as 4 meters with proven equipment. of SPIE 6293. Novak. H. Gorecki. Burge. Bray. M Bray. many meters in diameter. Otsubo. 39-50. 5) P. P. R. V. J. et al. “Stitching interferometer for large plano optics using a standard interferometer”. Burge. This measurement capability. H. editors. “Measurement of a 2-meter flat using a pentaprism scanning system. Proc. Bray. 8) J. 11) M. Opt. Su. (1994). 7) Blanco. in Optical Manufacturing and Testing II. ed. 10) C. J. 62930K. JH Burge. 7018 701817-13 . 023602 (2007). Burge. C. 023604 (2008). (2006). C.” in Interferometry XIII. and J. J Tsujiuchi. J. of SPIE 6293. 3) C. 4) M. C. J. 2) J. Proc.” Optical Engineering 46 (2). 608-613. Burge.” Applied Optics 44. 2006. SPIE 6273. Novak. Proc. 33 (2). Yellowhair and J. Burge. Osten.H.” Optical Engineering. (2006). SPIE 2536.” in Optical Manufacturing and Testing VII. M. 7548-7553 (2005). “Figure measurement of a large optical flat with a Fizeau interferometer and stitching technique. Proc. Yellowhair. CONCLUSION Until recently.” in Interferometry XIII. by J. Burge.” in Optical Manufacturing and Testing. Eli Atad-Ettedgui. Zhao. Sprowl. and R. in Optomechanical Technologies for Astronomy. J. H. “Measurement of optical flatness using electronic levels. the possibility of a giant flat mirror. Kang. (2007). “Control & Support of 4-meter class secondary and tertiary mirrors for the Thirty Meter Telescope”. Sprowl. “Fabrication and testing of large flats. K. SPIE 6342 (2006). Burge.