OSA's Digital Library

Applied Optics

Applied Optics


  • Editor: Joseph N. Mait
  • Vol. 52, Iss. 32 — Nov. 10, 2013
  • pp: 7838–7850

Interferometric filters for spectral discrimination in high-spectral-resolution lidar: performance comparisons between Fabry–Perot interferometer and field-widened Michelson interferometer

Zhongtao Cheng, Dong Liu, Yongying Yang, Liming Yang, and Hanlu Huang  »View Author Affiliations

Applied Optics, Vol. 52, Issue 32, pp. 7838-7850 (2013)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (699 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Thanks to wavelength flexibility, interferometric filters such as Fabry–Perot interferometers (FPIs) and field-widened Michelson interferometers (FWMIs) have shown great convenience for spectrally separating the molecule and aerosol scattering components in the high-spectral-resolution lidar (HSRL) return signal. In this paper, performance comparisons between the FPI and FWMI as a spectroscopic discrimination filter in HSRL are performed. We first present a theoretical method for spectral transmission analysis and quantitative evaluation on the spectral discrimination. Then the process in determining the parameters of the FPI and FWMI for the performance comparisons is described. The influences from the incident field of view (FOV), the cumulative wavefront error induced by practical imperfections, and the frequency locking error on the spectral discrimination performance of the two filters are discussed in detail. Quantitative analyses demonstrate that FPI can produce higher transmittance while the remarkable spectral discrimination is one of the most appealing advantages of FWMI. As a result of the field-widened design, the FWMI still performs well even under the illumination with large FOV while the FPI is only qualified for a small incident angle. The cumulative wavefront error attaches a great effect on the spectral discrimination performance of the interferometric filters. We suggest if a cumulative wavefront error is less than 0.05 waves RMS, it is beneficial to employ the FWMI; otherwise, FPI may be more proper. Although the FWMI shows much more sensitivity to the frequency locking error, it can outperform the FPI given a locking error less than 0.1 GHz is achieved. In summary, the FWMI is very competent in HSRL applications if these practical engineering and control problems can be solved, theoretically. Some other estimations neglected in this paper can also be carried out through the analytical method illustrated herein.

© 2013 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(120.2440) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Filters
(280.1100) Remote sensing and sensors : Aerosol detection
(280.3640) Remote sensing and sensors : Lidar
(280.1350) Remote sensing and sensors : Backscattering
(010.0280) Atmospheric and oceanic optics : Remote sensing and sensors

ToC Category:
Remote Sensing and Sensors

Original Manuscript: August 22, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: October 7, 2013
Published: November 8, 2013

Zhongtao Cheng, Dong Liu, Yongying Yang, Liming Yang, and Hanlu Huang, "Interferometric filters for spectral discrimination in high-spectral-resolution lidar: performance comparisons between Fabry–Perot interferometer and field-widened Michelson interferometer," Appl. Opt. 52, 7838-7850 (2013)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. E. Eloranta, “High spectral resolution lidar,” in Lidar, C. Weitkamp, ed. (Springer, 2005), pp. 143–163.
  2. M. Esselborn, M. Wirth, A. Fix, M. Tesche, and G. Ehret, “Airborne high spectral resolution lidar for measuring aerosol extinction and backscatter coefficients,” Appl. Opt. 47, 346–358 (2008). [CrossRef]
  3. J. W. Hair, C. A. Hostetler, A. L. Cook, D. B. Harper, R. A. Ferrare, T. L. Mack, W. Welch, L. R. Izquierdo, and F. E. Hovis, “Airborne high spectral resolution lidar for profiling aerosol optical properties,” Appl. Opt. 47, 6734–6752 (2008). [CrossRef]
  4. S. T. Shipley, D. H. Tracy, E. W. Eloranta, J. T. Trauger, J. T. Sroga, F. L. Roesler, and J. A. Weinman, “High spectral resolution lidar to measure optical scattering properties of atmospheric aerosols. 1: theory and instrumentation,” Appl. Opt. 22, 3716–3724 (1983). [CrossRef]
  5. J. T. Sroga, E. W. Eloranta, S. T. Shipley, F. L. Roesler, and P. J. Tryon, “High spectral resolution lidar to measure optical scattering properties of atmospheric aerosols. 2: calibration and data analysis,” Appl. Opt. 22, 3725–3732 (1983). [CrossRef]
  6. D. Liu, Y. Yang, Z. Cheng, H. Huang, B. Zhang, T. Ling, and Y. Shen, “Retrieval and analysis of a polarized high-spectral-resolution lidar for profiling aerosol optical properties,” Opt. Express 21, 13084–13093 (2013). [CrossRef]
  7. C. Y. She, R. J. Alvarez Ii, L. M. Caldwell, and D. A. Krueger, “High-spectral-resolution Rayleigh-Mie lidar measurement of aerosol and atmospheric profiles,” Opt. Lett. 17, 541–543 (1992). [CrossRef]
  8. J. D. Klett, “Stable analytical inversion solution for processing lidar returns,” Appl. Opt. 20, 211–220 (1981). [CrossRef]
  9. F. G. Fernald, “Analysis of atmospheric lidar observations: some comments,” Appl. Opt. 23, 652–653 (1984). [CrossRef]
  10. P. Piironen and E. W. Eloranta, “Demonstration of a high-spectral-resolution lidar based on an iodine absorption filter,” Opt. Lett. 19, 234–236 (1994). [CrossRef]
  11. H. Shimizu, S. A. Lee, and C. Y. She, “High spectral resolution lidar system with atomic blocking filters for measuring atmospheric parameters,” Appl. Opt. 22, 1373–1381 (1983). [CrossRef]
  12. D. S. Hoffman, K. S. Repasky, J. A. Reagan, and J. L. Carlsten, “Development of a high spectral resolution lidar based on confocal Fabry-Perot spectral filters,” Appl. Opt. 51, 6233–6244 (2012). [CrossRef]
  13. D. Liu, C. Hostetler, I. Miller, A. Cook, and J. Hair, “System analysis of a tilted field-widened Michelson interferometer for high spectral resolution lidar,” Opt. Express 20, 1406–1420 (2012). [CrossRef]
  14. P. B. Hays and R. G. Roble, “A technique for recovering Doppler line profiles from Fabry-Perot interferometer fringes of very low intensity,” Appl. Opt. 10, 193–200 (1971). [CrossRef]
  15. H. Jahn, G. Fellberg, B. Gladitz, and M. Scheele, “Maximum-likelihood optimization of a Fabry-Perot interferometer for thermospheric temperature and wind measurements,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 386–391 (1982). [CrossRef]
  16. M. J. McGill, W. R. Skinner, and T. D. Irgang, “Analysis techniques for the recovery of winds and backscatter coefficients from a multiple-channel incoherent Doppler lidar,” Appl. Opt. 36, 1253–1268 (1997). [CrossRef]
  17. G. G. Shepherd, W. A. Gault, D. W. Miller, Z. Pasturczyk, S. F. Johnston, P. R. Kosteniuk, J. W. Haslett, D. J. W. Kendall, and J. R. Wimperis, “WAMDII: wide-angle Michelson Doppler imaging interferometer for Spacelab,” Appl. Opt. 24, 1571–1584 (1985). [CrossRef]
  18. G. G. Shepherd, “Application of Doppler Michelson imaging to upper atmospheric wind measurement: WINDII and beyond,” Appl. Opt. 35, 2764–2773 (1996). [CrossRef]
  19. W. A. Gault, S. F. Johnston, and D. J. W. Kendall, “Optimization of a field-widened Michelson interferometer,” Appl. Opt. 24, 1604–1608 (1985). [CrossRef]
  20. G. Thuillier and M. Hersé, “Thermally stable field compensated Michelson interferometer for measurement of temperature and wind of the planetary atmospheres,” Appl. Opt. 30, 1210–1220 (1991). [CrossRef]
  21. R. Hilliard and G. Shepherd, “Wide-angle Michelson interferometer for measuring Doppler line widths,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 362–369 (1966). [CrossRef]
  22. D. Bruneau and J. Pelon, “Simultaneous measurements of particle backscattering and extinction coefficients and wind velocity by lidar with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer: principle of operation and performance assessment,” Appl. Opt. 42, 1101–1114 (2003). [CrossRef]
  23. Z. Liu, I. Matsui, and N. Sugimoto, “High-spectral-resolution lidar using an iodine absorption filter for atmospheric measurements,” Opt. Eng. 38, 1661–1670 (1999). [CrossRef]
  24. G. Hernandez, “Analytical description of a Fabry-Perot photoelectric spectrometer,” Appl. Opt. 5, 1745–1748 (1966). [CrossRef]
  25. B.-Y. Liu, M. Esselborn, M. Wirth, A. Fix, D.-C. Bi, and G. Ehret, “Influence of molecular scattering models on aerosol optical properties measured by high spectral resolution lidar,” Appl. Opt. 48, 5143–5154 (2009). [CrossRef]
  26. C. Flesia and C. L. Korb, “Theory of the double-edge molecular technique for Doppler lidar wind measurement,” Appl. Opt. 38, 432–440 (1999). [CrossRef]
  27. D. Bruneau, “Mach-Zehnder interferometer as a spectral analyzer for molecular Doppler wind lidar,” Appl. Opt. 40, 391–399 (2001). [CrossRef]
  28. D. Bruneau, A. Garnier, A. Hertzog, and J. Porteneuve, “Wind-velocity lidar measurements by use of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, comparison with a Fabry-Perot interferometer,” Appl. Opt. 43, 173–182 (2004). [CrossRef]
  29. G. Thuillier and G. G. Shepherd, “Fully compensated Michelson interferometer of fixed-path difference,” Appl. Opt. 24, 1599–1603 (1985). [CrossRef]
  30. Matlab Peaks Function, (The Mathworks), http://www.mathworks.com/help/techdoc/ref/peaks.html .

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited