Wave-front analysis with high accuracy by use

of a double-grating lateral shearing interferometer

G. W. R. Leibbrandt, G. Harbers, and P. J. Kunst

A phase-stepped double-grating lateral shearing interferometer to be used for wave-front analysis is

presented. The resulting interference patterns are analyzed with a differential Zernike polynomial
matrix-inversion method. Possible error sources are analyzed in the design stage, and it is shown that
the inaccuracy can be kept within 2–5 ml rms. The apparatus was tested and evaluated in practice.
Comparison with a phase-stepped Twyman–Green interferometer demonstrates that the accuracy of the
two methods is comparable. Lateral shearing interferometry scores better on reproducibility, owing to
the stability and robustness of the method. © 1996 Optical Society of America
Key words: Lateral shearing interferometry, optical measurement, phase stepping, common-path
interferometers, active component testing.

1. Introduction widely. For static analyses the inaccuracies can be

For many decades now shearing interferometry has
been used as a tool to inspect and analyze wave
fronts. For many applications it serves as a conve-
nient means of quickly testing optical elements, la-
sers, and surfaces. In shearing interferometry, the
wave front under test interferes with a modified ver-
sion of itself, either by translation ~lateral shear!,
magnification ~radial shear!, or rotation ~rotational
shear!. Thirty years ago, Murty described these
three types of shearing,1–3 and since then many vari-
ations, implementations, and applications have been
presented.
Lateral shearing ~LS! interferometers have found
the widest range of applications. Collimation testing
is the primary application, often in a qualitative way,
sometimes using a quantitative approach.4 Murty2
showed how various wave-front aberrations can be
identified from the LS interferograms. Subsequently,
authors have developed various approaches to deter-
mine these aberrations quantitatively.5–7
LS may be induced by parallel plates,4,8
gratings,6,9 –12 birefringence,13 prisms,14 and a Mach–
Zehnder arrangement.7,15
The accuracies reported in the literature vary
The authors are with Philips Research Laboratories, Professor
Holstlaan 4, 5656 AA Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Received 23 October 1995; revised manuscript received 15 April
1996.
0003-6935y96y256151-11$10.00y0
© 1996 Optical Society of America
brought down to approximately a quarter of a wave
peak to valley.5 Using phase-stepping techniques,
Yatagai7 reports inaccuracies of ly32 rms. Using
a double-grating phase-stepping interferometer,
Bétend-Bon et al. achieved for rotationally symmet-
ric fronts only accuracies of the same order of mag-
nitude.6 Recently, Melles-Griot introduced a
commercial LS interferometer that uses parallel
plates, for which they claim an inaccuracy of ly50
rms. In conventional interferometry @e.g.,
Twyman–Green ~T-G!, Mach–Zehnder, and
Fizeau!, the use of phase-stepping techniques has
brought the inaccuracy down to the ly200 –ly500
rms region.16,17
We present a phase-stepped double-grating LS in-
terferometer with variable shear ratio. We propose
the use of rectangular phase gratings and zero-order
suppression. Such an approach has the advantage
over previously proposed double-grating LS inter-
ferometers in that neither bending of the optical axis6
nor spatial filtering11 is required. The data recorded
in this LS interferometer are processed by a differ-
ential Zernike polynomial matrix-inversion algo-
rithm for reconstruction of the measured wave front,
a newly developed method that is presented in a com-
panion paper.18 Briefly, the method pseudoinverts
the ~nonsquare! matrix relating polynomial represen-
tations of the wave-front differences to the Zernike
polynomial representation of the original wave front.
In principle, the polynomials may be of arbitrarily
high order. The method is exact up to the chosen
order. Importantly, the amplification factor for

1 November 1996 y Vol. 35, No. 31 y APPLIED OPTICS 6151


Fig. 1. Basic LS interferometer setup in which two gratings are
used.
measurement errors through the algorithm is close to
unity.
It is our aim to exploit the favorable error propa-
gation properties of the reconstruction algorithm in
building a LS interferometer with an accuracy com-
parable with that of conventional interferometry.
To this end, in Section 4 we investigate the various
error contributions and discuss how these can be min-
imized. After identification of all major error
sources, the accuracy of the method is estimated. In
Section 5 we subsequently test the LS interferometer
in practice by comparing it with a phase-stepped T-G
interferometer. In this section we also experimen-
tally investigate some of the error contributions dis-
cussed earlier.
The motivation to test the LS interferometer
against a T-G interferometer is that our LS inter-
ferometer was developed primarily for the measure-
ment of wave-front aberrations introduced by optical
components. To test its applicability and accuracy,
we need to compare it with an instrument currently
used for such measurements. Such an instrument is
the T-G interferometer ~like Fizeau interferometry,
which is based on the same principles!, which has
found widespread use in component testing and is
commonly considered to be a trustworthy instrument
well suited for such measurements.
2. Principle of Operation
The arrangement of the interferometer, in which
gratings introduce lateral shear, is shown in Fig. 1.
Here the collimated wave front of a laser diode is
measured. Two rectangular phase gratings with
equal period ~ p! and duty cycle 0.5 are positioned
parallel to each other at a certain distance ~d!. In
such gratings, all even orders vanish. If the depth of
the grating is adapted to the wavelength ~l!, the ze-
roth order also vanishes. If a ~nearly! parallel beam
with radius R passes through the gratings, it is split
up into two laterally displaced beams. The amount
of shear, or shear ratio as defined in our companion
paper,18 assuming that l ,, p, is given by
ld
s5 . (1)
Rp
Phase stepping is achieved when one of the gratings
is translated in the direction perpendicular to the
grating lines. Translation over a distance of half a
grating period results in a 2p phase step. By rotat-
ing the complete assembly that contains the gratings
over 90°, one can generate shear in the X and the Y
directions. In LS interferometry, shearing mea-
surements in two different directions are necessary to
discriminate between rotationally and nonrotation-
ally symmetric aberrations.
A measurement starts with shearing in the hori-
zontal direction ~X!. Five interference patterns, sep-
arated by py2 phase steps, are recorded with a CCD
camera. These images are processed by the use of
the averaging five-step algorithm introduced by Hari-
haran et al.19 This is a robust algorithm, especially
with respect to systematic phase-step errors. By us-
ing this algorithm and standard phase-unwrapping
techniques, we find the wave-front phase difference
for each pixel in the overlap region. This procedure
is repeated while shearing takes place in the vertical
direction ~Y!. Zernike polynomials are fitted to the
wave-front differences from both measurements.
The polynomial coefficients thus found form the so-
called shear coefficient vector. Together with the
shear ratio s, it serves as input for the procedure
explained in our companion paper,18 which recon-
structs the original wave front in terms of Zernike
polynomials in the form of the wave-front coefficient
vector.
Some care must be given to sign conventions that
relate to the coordinate system in which the phase-
stepping directions are defined. It can be shown, for
instance, that interchanging X measurements and Y
measurements, which is equivalent to changing the
phase-stepping direction in either the horizontal or
the vertical direction, leads to the misinterpretation
of defocus for astigmatism and vice versa. To estab-
lish the correct coordinate system, one must take into
account all sign-dependent steps in the matrix-
inversion procedure, as well as in the imaging system
~mirrors, CCD camera!. In practice we find it more
efficient to check the signs for a particular arrange-
ment by using a known wave front ~e.g., with signif-
icant defocusing and coma!.
3. Experimental Setup
The experiments described in this paper were per-
formed with a LS interferometer that was set up
according to the above-mentioned principles. A
cross-sectional view of the mechanical implementa-
tion is displayed in Fig. 2. The rectangular phase
gratings are made by replication in a diacryl layer on
a 5-mm-thick optically flat glass substrate. The
grating depth h should match the laser wavelength in
the way that is discussed below in Section 4. One
finds that h 5 557 nm and h 5 698 nm for l 5 630 nm
~n 5 1.5658! and l 5 780 nm ~n 5 1.5589!, respec-
tively. The gratings have a 25 6 0.1 mm period and
a duty cycle of 0.50 6 0.01. Usually two gratings
made from the same mold are used, and variations in
the grating period are unimportant. This was the
case in all experiments described in this paper. If
gratings are from different molds, the grating period
inaccuracy can introduce an angle between the two
overlapping beams of the order of 0.5 mrad. This

6152 APPLIED OPTICS y Vol. 35, No. 31 y 1 November 1996

Fig. 2. Cross-sectional view of the actual LS interferometer used
in this investigation.
should be taken into account in a separate calibra-
tion.
The grating molds are made from a stack of SiO2 on
Si covered by a resist layer and exposed to an electron
beam. On development, the resist is removed from
the unexposed areas and subsequently the grating is
dry etched in the SiO2 layer. The grating depth
achieved in this way is found to be within 30 nm of
the target.
A piezoelectric translator performs the translation
of one of the two gratings mounted on a leaf-spring
construction. This piezostack can expand 20 mm,
which is sufficient for the 12.5-mm translation re-
quired for a phase step of 2p. Through calibration,
the nonlinear response of the translator to the ap-
plied voltage is compensated for in software such that
deviations from linearity remain below 0.05 mm over
the required 12.5-mm range. The stationary grating
can be aligned with respect to the movable grating by
adjustment of the small rotation table. The distance
between the gratings can be adjusted between 5 and
35 mm by the use of spacers of variable length. In
this way the shear ratio can be varied. The free
aperture is 10 mm. This whole assembly is fitted
into a cylinder approximately 100 mm long and 50
mm in diameter. This in turn is mounted on a ro-
tator that can switch between two perpendicular po-
sitions for horizontal and vertical shear. The
inaccuracy of the rotation angle is of the order of 1°.
A computer-controlled rotation over 90° takes ;3 s in
our prototype.
The LS interference pattern is imaged on a CCD
camera. A PC controls the setup and performs the
data analysis of the interferometer. It comprises an
analog-to-digitalydigital-to-analog card controlling
the rotator and the calibrated high-voltage supply for
the piezotranslator and a framegrabber card to col-
lect the phase-stepped CCD images. A complete
measurement plus reconstruction of the wave front is
Fig. 3. Interference pattern measured with the LS interferome-
ter. The vertical fringes are the result of defocus. The straight
fringes indicate a good wave-front quality.
performed in ;7 s, when performed on a Pentium PC
with sufficient memory.
Equation ~1! is not well suited to establish the
shear ratio s because it is difficult to determine R with
satisfying accuracy. A simpler and more accurate
way is to examine the interference pattern, as re-
corded by the CCD camera, such as the one shown in
Fig. 3, and determine the radius r of each of the two
beams in pixels and the displacement q in pixels.
The shear ratio is then given by
q
s5 . (2)
2r
In this way, the shear ratio in Fig. 3 was found to be
0.113 6 0.002.
To test the absolute accuracy and repeatability of
the phase-stepped LS interferometer, the system was
compared with a phase-stepped T-G interferometer.
To this end, the modified T-G arrangement of Fig. 4
was built. The reference mirror is piezodriven for
phase stepping. A beam splitter in the measure-
ment arm directs part of the beam under consider-
ation into the LS interferometer. The influence of
the beam splitter was checked by the measurement of
one wave front both after reflection and after trans-
mission by the beam splitter. It was thus found that
the beam splitter does not contributes measurably to
the wave-front aberrations. If the shutter is open,
the T-G interference patterns can be recorded by the
CCD camera in the lower left of the figure. If the
shutter is closed, the LS interference patterns are
recorded on the CCD camera at the top of the figure.
This interferometric setup is built virtually vibration
free on an air-pressure-stabilized optical table. This
ensures optimal conditions for T-G interferometry.
The reference front in the T-G interferometer was
measured separately with the LS interferometer. It
1 November 1996 y Vol. 35, No. 31 y APPLIED OPTICS 6153
 Fig. 5. Error propagation in the matrix-inversion method: ex-
pected effective errors in the calculated Zernike coefficients anm as
a result of measurement errors of 1 ml in the measured shear
coefficients rjk.

Fig. 4. Experimental setup designed to measure a test sample in
both a T-G interferometer and a shearing interferometer. If the
shutter is opened, the arrangement functions as a T-G interferom-
eter, and if closed, the beam wave front can be analyzed with the
LS interferometer.
was found to be almost perfectly flat, i.e., all aberra-
tion terms were less than 3 ml rms ~1 ml 5 ly1000!.
In Subsection 5.B the displayed T-G results have
been corrected for the measured reference-front data.
The fractional errors Dr and Dq are both 0.5. Typ-
ical values are r 5 150 pixels and q 5 75 pixels,
giving a relative inaccuracy of less than 1%. This
gives an absolute error of approximately Ds 5 0.002
at a shear ratio of 0.25. Ds 5 0.002 results in a
relative wave-front error of ;0.5% at shear ratios
between 0.15 and 0.5, as is evident from Fig. 6. In
first order this relationship is linear, i.e., an increase
in the shear ratio error results in a similar increase of
the wave-front error.

4. Error Analysis 2. Rotation Angle

A. Error Contributions
The accuracy of the LS interferometer is limited by
several error sources. In this section we identify
them and estimate their contribution to the overall
measurement inaccuracy.
In our companion paper we discuss the error prop-
agation properties of the matrix-inversion method.
This was done along two lines: ~a! errors in the
analysis of the difference wave front and ~b! errors in
the determination of the shear ratio. The results
are summarized in Figs. 5 and 6.
We consider the following contributions to the mea-
surement inaccuracy.
Deviations from perpendicularity between the hori-
zontal and the vertical shearing directions affects the
evaluation of coefficients of only the noncircularly
symmetric Zernike terms in the reconstructed wave
front. For small deviations, e.g., 2°, the orientation
of the evaluated aberration ~e.g., the axis of astigma-
tism! is misjudged by half the deviation. In our LS
interferometer the rotational error is kept below 2°
without special measures being taken. In this re-
gime the ~relative! contribution to amplitude errors
in the aberration terms is less than 1% for the non-

1. Estimation of s
The accuracy in the determination of shear ratio s
@see Eq. ~2!# is in practice limited only by the error
that is due to the use of a limited amount of pixels.
In principle, errors in the aspect ratio of the imaging
system ~apparent deviation from squareness of the
CCD pixels! also affect the accuracy, but we find that
this ratio can be determined with sufficient precision,
such that the estimation of the shear ratio is not
affected. The relative error in the shear ratio s
therefore is

Ds
s
5 FS D S D G
Dr
r
2

1
Dq
q
2 1y2

. (3)
Fig. 6. Error propagation in the matrix-inversion method: rel-
ative errors in the calculated Zernike coefficients anm as a results
of a shear ratio error Ds 5 0.002.

6154 APPLIED OPTICS y Vol. 35, No. 31 y 1 November 1996

 Table 1. Zernike Coefficients that are Primarily Affected by a nonzero a1, 21 Zernike polynomial coefficient, where
Misalignment, as Follows from the Model described in the Texta

s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 2R

a1, 21 5 f, (5)
D58 l
edge
a4, 24 266.4 260.0 225.1 88.9
D 5 10 for the difference wave fronts, and through the in-
edge
a4, 24 263.6 254.1 41.9 177.5 verted matrix multiplication this will propagate into
edge
a6, 24 217.9 18.9 147.7 277.5 the wave-front reconstruction.
D 5 12 Consider astigmatism at 45° in the original wave
edge
a4, 24 263.5 232.4 48.0 171.0 front. This also gives rise to fringes parallel to the
edge
a6, 24 217.9 57.2 174.0 271.0
shearing direction. The direction of the apparent
edge
a8, 24 0.6 84.0 95.6 282.1
tilt in the X direction, however, is then just opposite
a
Given are, for different matrix dimensions D, the edge values to that in the Y direction, whereas misalignment
~expressed in milliwaves! that result from a 6-mrad grating mis- gives rise to tilt that is equal in both directions. In
alignment and a 2-mm pupil radius. fact, the matrix-inversion procedure cannot find a
satisfactory solution for this situation, and applica-
tion of the procedure to the shear coefficient vector in
circularly symmetric aberrations and zero for rota- the case of misalignment shows that only higher-
tionally symmetric aberrations. order terms, a4, 24, a6, 24, . . . , are significantly af-
fected. The way these are affected is highly
3. Grating Alignment dependent on the highest fitted polynomial order,
The two parallel gratings should have the same ori- which is represented by the matrix dimension18 D
entation. In first order, a relative rotation over an- and the shear ratio, as is evidenced by Table 1. This
gle a between the two gratings induces a tilt f table summarizes the results for a flat wave front
between the two beams, perpendicular to the shear with a 2-mm radius analyzed by two gratings with a
direction, and with a magnitude of mutual rotation of a 5 6 mrad.
For larger misalignments this simple model is in-
2al adequate and the following second-order effect must
f5 (4) also be taken into account. Because of misalign-
p ment, the position of the two sheared beams in the
CCD image will change, as a result of which the
for small angles a and a grating period p of 25 mm in apparent shear direction and shear value changes as
our setup. This results in the appearance of fringes well, as is illustrated by Fig. 7. Nonzero a1, 11
in the interference pattern parallel to the direction of Zernike polynomial coefficients are now evaluated for
shearing. Some authors deliberately introduce such the difference wave front, which in the reconstructed
a tilt in order to produce fringes whose straightness wave front translates into defocus, a20. The relative
can be judged.8,20 Such a tilt, however, gives rise to displacement v of the image of the beams, perpendic-

Fig. 7. ~a! Perfect grating alignment, ~b! alignment error of 1°.

1 November 1996 y Vol. 35, No. 31 y APPLIED OPTICS 6155

ularly to the shearing direction and normalized on
the radius of the beam images, is given by
ff
v5 , (6)
MR
where f and M are the focal length and the magnifi-
cation of the camera lens, respectively. The appar-
ent shear direction is tilted over g 5 arctan~vys! '
vys, and the evaluated amount of a1, 11 is
2R 2f 2
a1, 11 5 f sin g 5 f . (7)
l sMl
It follows that a20 in the reconstructed wave front is
affected quadratically with misalignment. It is clear
that the need to consider this second-order effect is
dependent on the particular choice of the CCD imag-
ing system. A change of the position of the beams in
the CCD image also affects the apparent shear ratio.
This effect is a cotangent function of vys and therefore
is a third-order effect. Table 1, however, shows that
in the presence of misalignment, a4, 24, a6, 24, . . . ,
are steep functions of s, and the effect may therefore
be significant.
If for the moment we consider only the first-order
linear effect, we can estimate the required accuracy
on misalignment by using Table 1. Restricting our-
selves to D 5 8, we see that for a 5 6 mrad the
erroneous a4, 24edge term can be of the order of 60 ml,
or ;20 ml rms. As is shown in Section 5, a can be
set with an accuracy of better than 1 mrad. Conse-
quently the error contribution to a4, 24 is ;3 ml rms,
whereas it is less than 1 ml for other aberration
terms.
4. Unwanted Diffraction Orders
The two laterally displaced interfering beams are the
result of two subsequent first-order diffractions by
the two gratings: one beam through the sequence
positive first order 3 negative first order, the other
through the sequence negative first order 3 positive
first order. Thus the beams are parallel to the opti-
cal axis after passing the two gratings. In general,
rays that are diffracted through the positive nth order
~n 5 0, 1, 2, . . . ,! at the first grating and the negative
nth order at the second one, or vice versa, will be
parallel to the optical axis and contribute to the final
image. A diaphragm behind the interferometer in-
tercepts all other diffraction combinations, as shown
in Fig. 8.
Disturbance-free operation of the LS interferome-
ter assumes that the gratings produce only first-order
diffractions. In practice other orders will be present
as well. Rectangular phase gratings produce only
odd diffraction orders, plus the zeroth-order beam.
It follows from standard diffraction theory that the
relative amplitude of the third-order beams after two
diffractions with respect to the first orders is R~3, 1!
5 1y9, for fifth-order beams it is R~5, 1! 5 1y25, and
so forth, independent of the wavelength or depth of
the grating. Measurements on the actual gratings
6156 APPLIED OPTICS y Vol. 35, No. 31 y 1 November 1996
Fig. 8. Orders involved in the LS interferometer.
accurately reproduce these figures. We also need to
consider the zeroth-order beam. For a given grating
depth, the zeroth order is suppressed for a single
wavelength ~and odd fractions thereof !, whereas R~0,
1! can be larger than unity for other wavelengths.
The error contributions that are due to the pres-
ence of third-order beams were determined in com-
puter simulations. A complicated picture appears in
which the exact error contributions oscillate without
a clear trend as functions of the aberrations present
in the wave front and of the shear ratio. However,
given the relative amplitude R~3, 1! 5 1y9, the error
contributions do not exceed 4 ml rms and on average
they are 2 ml rms or less per aberration term. The
effect of fifth- and higher-order beams is negligible.
5. Wavelength Dependence
The relative amplitude of the zeroth order, R~0, 1!, is
dependent on the wavelength. When used in air, it
is zero for a given wavelength l0 if the depth h of the
grating is
l0~k 1 1⁄2!
h5 , k 5 0, 1, 2, . . . , (8)
n21
where n is the diffractive index of the phase-grating
material. Strictly speaking, for each wavelength a
different set of gratings is therefore required. In
practice, a range of wavelengths can be used without
significant loss of accuracy. Computer simulations
indicate that on the average a zeroth-order amplitude
ratio of R~0, 1! 5 0.10 results in deviations smaller
than 2 ml rms for the complete wave-front analysis.
We apply the conservative criterion R~0, 1! # 0.08 for
an acceptable assembly.
Figure 9 depicts the amplitude ratio R~0, 1! of the
zeroth order with respect to the first order as a func-
tion of l, calculated for a pair of rectangular gratings
with depth h 5 350 nmy~n 2 1!, i.e., l0 5 700 nm.
These calculations assume a diacryl phase grating
~on a glass substrate! and include the wavelength
dependence of the refractive index of this material.
The requirement R~0, 1! # 0.08 when two l0 5 700
nm gratings are used yields a range of operation from
630 to 790 nm. This range only just includes the
interesting wavelengths of 633 and 785 nm.
Using two different gratings gives a broader range.
Figure 10 shows R~0, 1! as a function of l when a l0

Fig. 9. Ratio R~0, 1! of the zeroth order with respect to the first-
order amplitude as a function of l ~nm! for a couple of rectangular
gratings for l0 5 700 nm.
5 630 nm grating is used together with a l0 5 780 nm
grating. There is now complete extinction at both
630 and 780 nm, whereas at wavelengths in between,
R~0, 1! does not exceed 0.08. The complete range of
operation for this system is 610 – 820 nm. This
range includes virtually all commercial short-
wavelength solid-state lasers. R~0, 1! remains be-
low 0.02 even in the most intensively used regions
near 633 and 785 nm.
6. Other Error Sources
In view of the common-path character of the LS in-
terferometer, we do not need to consider environ-
metal influences like air turbulences or vibrations, as
one would need to in a T-G interferometer.
Other error sources are CCD pixel noise, overall
intensity variations, and systematic and random
phase-step errors. It is known that these effects are
dependent on the choice of the phase-step algo-
rithm.17,21 When the averaging five-step algorithm
is used, the error contributions to the difference wave
fronts do not exceed 1 ml rms. Figure 5 shows that
for shear ratios in the 0.2 , s , 0.5 range, measure-
ment errors are not amplified as they propagate
through the wave-front reconstruction algorithm.
We therefore conclude that the contributions of these
Fig. 10. Ratio R~0, 1! as a function of l ~nm! for a set consisting
of a l0 5 630 nm grating and a l0 5 780 nm grating.
sources to the inaccuracy in the reconstructed wave
front can be kept below 1 ml rms.
B. Estimation of the Total Error
We can now sum these error contributions and esti-
mate the total inaccuracy to be expected for the LS
interferometer. The estimation of s and the rotation
angle are both relative contributions, 0.5% and
0%–1% ~0% for rotationally symmetric terms, 1% for
others!, respectively. We may sum the errors qua-
dratically and conclude that the total relative inac-
curacy is 1%. The grating alignment, unwanted
diffraction orders, and other error sources are all ab-
solute contributions, 1, 2, and 1 ml, respectively.
Quadratic summation yields a total absolute inac-
curacy of 2 ml ~2.4 ml! rms. The wavelength de-
pendence need not be considered, assuming the
wavelength is in one of the minima of Fig. 9 or
Fig. 10.
Combining absolute and relative errors, we can
state that when we are measuring wave fronts with
total aberrations of less than 200 ml rms, the ex-
pected inaccuracy is 2– 4 ml rms.
5. Results
A. Comparison with the Twyman-Green Interferometer
Figure 11 shows interference patterns from the LS
interferometer in the two orthogonal directions.
The curved fringes indicate the presence of primary
aberrations like coma and spherical aberration in the
wave front under test. The diagonal direction of the
fringes is indicative of astigmatism.
Figure 12 shows the interference pattern from the
same test object, but in the T-G interferometer. De-
focus, astigmatism, and other primary aberrations
are clearly present.
Four different test objects were measured in order
to test the phase-stepped LS interferometer against
the T-G interferometer: ~1! a laser collimator, which
has a cylindrical component with an astigmatic dis-
tance of 20 mm; ~2! a biaspheric plastic compact-disc
lens, deliberately used at a wrong conjugation dis-
tance, resulting in spherical aberration; ~3! a similar
lens deformed by exposure to high temperatures, re-
sulting in many large aberrations, and ~4! a low NA
doublet, resulting in a nearly perfect wave front. In
all cases the shear analysis was performed at l 5 780
nm with a shear ratio of s ' 0.2 and a matrix dimen-
sion of D 5 8.
Each of these samples was measured with both
interferometers in the fashion described above. In
each case, the measurements were repeated 10 times
to test the repeatability, a measure of the stability of
the method.
Table 2 summarizes the results for the four test
objects. For each object, the rms value of defocus,
the first 10 aberration terms, and the overall wave-
front deviation ~rms, without defocus and tilt! are
given as determined by both methods and averaged
over 10 measurements. In addition, the standard
deviation ~s! of the 10 measurements is given for each
1 November 1996 y Vol. 35, No. 31 y APPLIED OPTICS 6157
Fig. 11. LS interference patterns in ~a! the X-shear direction, ~b! the Y-shear direction, recorded from a test sample in the setup of Fig.
4.
aberration term. Except for the third sample, the
agreement is very good: the deviation is never more
than a few milliwaves. Note, furthermore, that the
s values are generally lower in the LS measurements
than in the T-G measurements. s values of only a
few tenths of a milliwave indicate that the method is
stable, as is expected from its common-path nature.
The third sample has been included to illustrate
that a good determination of the shear ratio is crucial
to obtain high accuracy. After a severe heat treat-
ment of this plastic lens, the pupil has lost its per-
fectly round shape, and consequently the shear ratio
Fig. 12. T-G interference pattern recorded from the same test
sample as in Fig. 11.
6158 APPLIED OPTICS y Vol. 35, No. 31 y 1 November 1996
is estimated with less accuracy; e.g., an error of 0.02
in the determination of s results in a 5% error in the
wave-front reconstruction, as discussed in Section 4,
which explains the deviations observed in Table 2.
The accuracy of LS interferometry follows from the
comparison with the results of the T-G measure-
ments. Here the T-G interferometer serves as a ref-
erence that is assumed to be fully proven and reliable.
In practice, the limit of absolute accuracy of T-G in-
terferometers in analyzing wave fronts is of the order
of 3–5 ml rms. This is of the order of the discrep-
ancies found in Table 2. We therefore conclude that
the accuracy of the LS interferometer is at least of
comparable magnitude.
In another experiment, the LS interferometer was
set up on an ordinary tabletop, with no stabilization
or dampening facilities. We did not find any effect
on the standard deviations over 10 measurements.
Even if moderate vibration sources, such as a venti-
lator or a transportable radio playing at loud volume,
were operated on the same tabletop, the measured
values were not significantly affected and the s val-
ues remained below 1 ml per aberration and below 2
ml for the overall wave front. This evidences the
robustness and stability against vibrations of this
wave-front analysis method.
B. Different Shear Ratios
In our companion paper18 it is observed that the
matrix-inversion method, which is an essential ele-
ment in the analysis of shear interference patterns, is
most stable when the shear ratio is chosen 0.15 , s ,
0.50. This follows from the error propagation prop-
erties of the method as illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6.
In a series of measurements we have measured an
 Table 2. Comparison Measurements of the LS Interferometer versus the T-G Interferometera

Collimator CD Lens Bad CD Lens Doublet

Parameter LS T-G LS T-G LS T-G LS T-G

a20 51.6 44.2 397.8 397.6 211.5 200.5 38.5 35.6

sb 0.6 2.2 8.0 2.3 7.9 0.4 0.2 0.2
a22 137.9 133.8 7.1 15.5 48.4 58.9 12.4 15.5
s 1.2 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.2
a31 1.9 4.7 40.6 44.4 60.2 70.2 7.8 10.0
s 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.2 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.3
a33 5.3 2.9 10.8 5.8 19.2 28.4 1.9 0.9
s 0.4 1.7 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.3
a40 4.7 7.1 186.5 189.4 287.5 278.4 8.3 10.9
s 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.3
a42 2.3 4.2 4.3 5.5 8.9 10.1 3.8 4.6
s 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3
a44 2.9 3.1 3.2 2.1 7.9 4.9 3.3 1.9
s 0.3 1.8 1.0 0.5 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
a51 4.5 2.4 10.4 10.8 26.6 29.0 2.0 2.7
s 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.3
a53 1.2 1.9 8.9 5.9 9.3 9.1 0.2 1.9
s 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.6
a60 1.5 3.4 31.6 34.6 89.1 72.6 1.2 2.3
s 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4
a62 1.9 2.2 4.9 2.9 5.3 5.4 0.7 0.8
s 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4
Totalc 138.3 137.8 194.6 199.6 313.1 306.2 17.9 22.9
s 1.1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2
a
All measurements are in milliwaves rms.
b
Standard deviation in 10 subsequent measurements.
c
Overall rms wave-front aberration after subtraction of the defocus term.

aberrated wave front with the LS interferometer by
using different shear ratios. In each series the mea-
surement was repeated 10 times to determine the
variation s. The sample was also measured in the
T-G interferometer.
Figure 13 shows the values of a number of aberra-
tions terms present in the wave front as measured
with the LS interferometer ~data points! compared
with the T-G results ~dashed lines: 3s limits!. The
error bars on the data points indicate 3s ranges.
Note that these limits do not refer to absolute accu-
racies.
The measured values are in good agreement with
the T-G result for 0.2 , s , 0.4, and we conclude that
the best shear ratios for performing LS interferome-
try are in this range.
We compare the experimental results of Fig. 13
with the error propagation properties of the matrix-
inversion method as summarized in Figs. 5 and 6.
The standard deviation in the measured a22 is largest
at the low end of the range of shear ratios, which is in
agreement with Figs. 5 and 6. The observed devia-
tion of measured coma a31 from the T-G result at both
the low and the high ends of the range is also in
agreement with the expectations from the error prop-
agation properties. The measured values a40 and
a60 deviate only at the high end of the range, whereas
the agreement for a62 between the two interferom-
eters holds over the whole range. Because these ab-
erration terms are all quite small, the relative errors
of Fig. 6 have little significance here. The measured
effects for these three aberration terms are in good
agreement with the calculations of Fig. 5.
C. Alignment Errors
Grating misalignment leads to erroneous results,
most notably in the a4, 24, a6, 24, . . . , terms, as dis-
cussed in Section 4.
In a series of measurements a nearly flat wave
front originating from a laser diode was analyzed
with the LS interferometer, with a shear ratio of s 5
0.35, while the angle a was varied between the grat-
ing orientations between 0° and 1° ~17.5 mrad!. The
alignment angle was set with an accuracy of ;29.
Figure 14 summarizes the measured results. The
appearance of large an, 24 terms after misalignment
is obvious. Near the 0-mrad position the relation
between the angle and the magnitude of these terms
is linear, as expected from Section 4. We also see the
expected parabolic deviation of the a20 term. Fur-
thermore, we note that for larger misalignment an-
gles the response of the an, 24 also deviates from
linearity. For a 5 1°, the apparent shear ratio is s 5
0.38 ~see Fig. 7!. From Table 1 we see that this
increase in shear ratio results in the calculation of
larger an, 24 terms. This effect is additional to the
linear response and explains the observed relation-
ship. Finally, we observe that other aberration
terms are not strongly affected by misalignment.
Figure 14 demonstrates that for a , 3 mrad, all

1 November 1996 y Vol. 35, No. 31 y APPLIED OPTICS 6159


Fig. 13. Averages and distribution of five aberration terms in a
wave front measured with the LS interferometer for varying shear
ratios. Each measurement is performed 10 times. The error
bars indicate the 3s ranges. The dashed lines indicate the 3s
upper and lower boundaries as measured with a T-G interferom-
eter.
higher-order effects can be neglected, and it is indeed
justified to apply the simplified linear model to esti-
mate the error contribution, as we did in Section 4.
There we stated that a should be set with an accuracy
of 1 mrad.
A practical way to check alignment is by the in-
spection of defocus fringes that should run perfectly
vertically, i.e., along the long axis of the elliptical
overlap region. The wave front under test should of
course be free of A222 aberrations. We found that
alignment can be best achieved in the presence of a
single defocus fringe by adjusting one grating until
the fringe runs exactly vertically. An alignment ac-
curacy of Da ' 29–39 can be achieved in this way.
Once the alignment is performed, the interferometer
is ready for prolonged use, and no further alignment
is required unless the gratings are replaced or the
distance between the gratings is changed.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The experimental comparison between the LS inter-
ferometer and the T-G interferometer led to the con-
clusion that the accuracy of LS interferometry is
comparable with or better than that of T-G inter-
ferometry, i.e., the inaccuracies are less than 3–5 ml.
This is clearly in strong agreement with the outcome
6160 APPLIED OPTICS y Vol. 35, No. 31 y 1 November 1996
Fig. 14. Propagation of small alignment errors into wave-front
determination errors; matrix dimension D 5 12.
of the error analysis. In practice we obtain inaccu-
racies of less than 5 ml, even for wave fronts with
;200-ml rms aberrations. Given the presence of
several relative contributions among the error
sources, one expects even better accuracies when
measuring wave fronts with small aberrations ~e.g.,
,70 ml rms!.
In Section 1 we observed that many authors dis-
cuss LS interferometry, but only a few report values
for the accuracy and reproducibility. We saw that
the smallest inaccuracies reported up to now were of
the order of 20 ml rms.
Clearly the accuracy obtained in the present work
is nearly 1 order of magnitude better than that
achieved in previous investigations. The generation
of shear with rectangular phase gratings with zero-
order suppression and the use of phase-stepping
principles enables accurate determinations of the
wave-front differences. The exact and robust matrix-
inversion method ensures higher accuracy in the sub-
sequent reconstruction of the original wave front
than do the more approximate integration methods.
The repeatability of measurements with the LS
interferometer is generally better than with the T-G
interferometer. This is due to the common-path
character of the shearing interferometer and the ro-
bustness of the wave-front reconstruction algorithm.
We observed that good stability can be achieved with-
out taking special stabilizing measures. This makes
the technique well suited for use in a manufacturing
environment. Given the comparable accuracy of
conventional and LS interferometry, the latter has a
wider range of applications, owing to its self-
referencing nature: it can analyze wave fronts for
which no flat reference is available, e.g., laser beams
or modulated beams.
We find that in practice the LS interferometer func-
tions as a convenient and user-friendly measuring
tool. The module as such can be positioned in any
collimated beam that is to be tested. No special
alignment is required for a measurement, as the sys-
tem does not strictly define an optical axis, and the
collimated beam may pass through the gratings off
perpendicularity by several degrees without affecting
the performance. Owing to its compact size, it is
easily transportable, and as no special stabilizing
measures are required, it can be operated on site in a
wide range of locations. The shear ratio can be
freely chosen within the range 0.2 , s , 0.4, and this
can be used to tune the fringe density in the case of
strongly aberrated wave fronts.
Only a few settings in the LS interferometer re-
quire some care. The gratings must be accurately
aligned, and we have seen that this can be achieved
with reasonable ease. Some care must be given to
sign conventions, but this requires a qualitative cal-
ibration for only a particular arrangement. The
depth of the gratings must match the wavelength
being used, but we have shown how the gratings can
be chosen to allow continuous operation in the range
610 – 820 nm.
In short, we conclude that the phase-stepped
double-grating LS interferometer, in combination
with the inverted-matrix analysis method, is a prac-
tical and convenient wave-front analyzer, providing
the same accuracy and reliability as a phase-stepped
T-G interferometer, and, in addition, it is self-
referencing, stable against vibrations, compact, and
easily transportable.
This work was part of European Union project
Dimios ~BCR2! in cooperation with the Institut für
Technische Optik, Universität Stuttgart. The sup-
port of the commission of European Union is grate-
fully acknowledged. The authors thank H. J.
Tiziani ~Stuttgart! for fruitful discussions and F. Zijp
for assistance with some of the experiments.
References
1. M. V. R. K. Murty, “A compact radial shearing interferometer
based on the law of refraction,” Appl. Opt. 3, 853– 857 ~1964!.
2. M. V. R. K. Murty, “The use of a single plane parallel plate as
a lateral shearing interferometer with a visible gas laser
source,” Appl. Opt. 3, 531–534 ~1964!.
3. M. V. R. K. Murty and E. C. Hagerott, “Rotational-shearing
interferometry,” Appl. Opt. 5, 615– 619 ~1966!.
4. S. N. Srivastava, M. S. Tomar, and R. S. Kasana, “Determina-
tion of the linear thermal expansion coefficient of long metallic
bars by Murty shearing interferometer,” Opt. Laser Technol.
22, 283–286 ~1990!.
5. W. C. Sweatt and R. N. Shagam, “New configuration for the
rotating shear-plate interferometer, a.k.a. SHEAR madness,”
in Nonlinear Optical Properties of Organic Materials V, D. J.
Williams, ed., Proc. SPIE 1775, 131–137 ~1992!.
6. J.-P. Bétend-Bon, L. Wosinski, and M. Breidne, “Double grat-
ing phase stepping interferometry for testing aspherics,” Pure
Appl. Opt. 1, 55– 69 ~1992!.
7. T. Yatagai, “Fringe scanning Ronchi test for aspherical surfac-
es,” Appl. Opt. 23, 3676 –3679 ~1984!.
8. L. Ping, C. Xiaolan, and L. Changjiang, “A modified shearing
interferometer and interferogram analysis,” Optik 86, 61– 63
~1990!.
9. J. C. Wyant, “Double frequency grating lateral shear inter-
ferometer,” Appl. Opt. 12, 2057–2060 ~1973!.
10. P. Hariharan, W. H. Steel, and J. C. Wyant, “Double grating
interferometer with variable lateral shear,” Opt. Commun. 11,
317–320 ~1974!.
11. K. Patorski, “Grating shearing interferometer with variable
shear and fringe orientation,” Appl. Opt. 25, 4192– 4198
~1986!.
12. J.-A. Lin, S.-W. Hsu, and F.-T. Wu, “Double grating inter-
ferometer with large lateral shear,” Optik 84, 28 –32 ~1990!.
13. J. W. Hardy and A. J. MacGovern, “Shearing interferometry:
a flexible technique for wavefront measurement,” in Interfero-
metric Metrology, N. A. Massie, ed., Proc. SPIE 816, 180 –195
~1987!.
14. J. B. Saunders, “A simple, inexpensive wavefront shearing
interferometer,” Appl. Opt. 6, 1581–1583 ~1967!.
15. W. J. Bates, “A wavefront shearing interferometer,” Proc.
Phys. Soc. 59, 940 –950 ~1947!.
16. J. H. Bruning, D. R. Herriott, J. E. Gallagher, D. P. Rosenfeld,
A. D. White, and D. J. Brangaccio, “Digital wavefront measur-
ing interferometer for testing optical surfaces and lenses,”
Appl. Opt. 13, 2693–2703 ~1974!.
17. K. Creath, “Phase-measurement interferometry techniques,”
in Progress in Optics, E. Wolf, ed. ~North-Holland, Amsterdam,
1988!, Vol. XXVI, pp. 349 –392.
18. G. Harbers, P. J. Kunst, and G. W. R. Leibbrandt, “Analysis of
lateral shearing interferograms by the use of Zernike polyno-
mials,” Appl. Opt. 35, 6162– 6172 ~1996!.
19. P. Hariharan, B. F. Oreb, and T. Eiju, “Digital phase-shifting
interferometry: a simple error-compensating phase calcula-
tion algorithm,” Appl. Opt. 26, 2504 –2506 ~1987!.
20. J. D. Briers, “Interferometric testing of optical systems and
components: a review,” Opt. Laser Technol. 4, 28 – 41 ~1972!.
21. J. Schwider, R. Burow, K.-E. Elssner, J. Grzanna, R. Spola-
czyk, and K. Merkel, “Digital wave-front measuring inter-
ferometry: some systematic error sources,” Appl. Opt. 22,
3421–3432 ~1983!.
1 November 1996 y Vol. 35, No. 31 y APPLIED OPTICS 6161