OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 17, Iss. 4 — Feb. 16, 2009
  • pp: 2611–2622
« Show journal navigation

Laser Doppler distance sensor using phase evaluation

P. Günther, T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 2611-2622 (2009)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.002611


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (168 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

This paper presents a novel optical sensor which allows simultaneous measurements of axial position and tangential velocity of moving solid state objects. An extended laser Doppler velocimeter setup is used with two slightly tilted interference fringe systems. The distance to a solid state surface can be determined via a phase evaluation. The phase laser Doppler distance sensor offers a distance resolution of 150 nm and a total position uncertainty below 1 μm. Compared to conventional measurement techniques, such as triangulation, the distance resolution is independent of the lateral surface velocity. This advantage enables precise distance and shape measurements of fast rotating surfaces.

© 2009 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

Distance, shape and vibration measurements of rotating objects, e.g. to analyze dynamic rotation processes, are an important task in the field of process control and production measurement. Due to online monitoring, zero-error production becomes possible, which will increase the production efficiency. Additionally, a higher durability and reliability of the technical equipment is achievable. Hence, optical measurement techniques became more and more important in production metrology in the last years. Compared to tactile measurement techniques, which are commonly used up to the present, optical measurement techniques are fast and contactless, which is important for sensitive as well as fast moving surfaces, and easy to extend. Because of these advantages a lot of optical sensors are applied depending on the measurement problem, e.g. triangulation [1

1. R. G. Dorsch, G. Häusler, and J. Herrmann, “Laser triangulation: fundamental uncertainty in distance measurement,” Appl. Opt. 33, 1306-14 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], low coherence interferometry [2

2. A. Kempe, S. Schlamp, and T. Rösgen, “Low-coherence interferometric tip-clearance probe,” Opt. Lett. 28, 1323–1325 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], absolute distance interferometry (ADI) [3

3. L. Sheng-Hua and L. Cheng-Chung, “Measuring large step heights by variable synthetic wavelength interferometry,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 13, 1382–1387 (2002). [CrossRef]

], conoscopic holography [4

4. G. Y. Sirat and D. Psaltis, “Conoscopic Holograms,” Opt. Commun. 65, 243–249 (1988). [CrossRef]

], mode-locking external cavity laser sensor [5

5. J. Czarske, J. Môbius, K. Moldenhauer, and W. Ertmer, “External cavity laser sensor using synchronously-pumped laser diode for position measurements of rough surfaces,” Electron. Lett. 40, 1584–1586 (2004). [CrossRef]

], time-of-flight or laser Doppler techniques [6

6. B. E. Truax, F. C. Demarest, and G. E. Sommargren, “Laser Doppler velocimeter for velocity and length measurements of moving surfaces,” Appl. Opt. 23, 67–73 (1984). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 7

7. K. Matsubara, W. Stork, A. Wagner, J. Drescher, and K. D. Müller-Glaser, “Simultaneous measurement of the velocity and the displacement of the moving rough surface by a laser Doppler velocimeter,” Appl. Opt. 36, 4516-20 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

Triangulation, a widely used technique for distance measurement, conoscopic holography and low coherence interferometry offer low measurement uncertainties down to the sub-micrometer range. Nevertheless, due to necessary scanning processes or because of using a position sensitive detector, the measurement rate is restricted to some kHz. Additionally, the measurement uncertainty increases with increasing object velocity due to the decreasing averaging time.

Laser Doppler vibrometers offer a resolution of some nanometers and a high measurement rate in the MHz range. However, they are restricted by their incremental measurement method, which can cause errors at rough surfaces if phase jumps higher than half the wavelength occur. In this case, the displacement can not be determined unambiguously.

The majority of optical measurement methods can determine only one measurand, e. g. distance or velocity, which is not sufficient to determine the absolute shape of a rotating object. The laser Doppler distance sensor with frequency evaluation we invented earlier [8

8. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, “Laser Doppler profile sensor with sub-micrometre position resolution for velocity and absolute radius measurements of rotating objects,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 16, 627–641 (2005). [CrossRef]

, 9

9. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, J. Czarske, H. Krain, and R. Schodl, “Turbo machine tip clearance and vibration measurements using a fibre optic laser Doppler position sensor,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, 1693–1705 (2006). [CrossRef]

] overcomes this drawback by measuring the position and velocity of a moving object simultaneously. Based on the conventional laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV), two fan-shaped interference fringe systems with contrary fringe spacing gradients are superposed. By evaluating the quotient of the two resulting independent Doppler frequencies, the object position inside the measurement volume can be determined. With this frequency evaluating technique, simultaneous measurements of distance and velocity are possible allowing to determine the absolute shape of a rotating object by only one single sensor [8

8. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, “Laser Doppler profile sensor with sub-micrometre position resolution for velocity and absolute radius measurements of rotating objects,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 16, 627–641 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. In addition, the position uncertainty is in principle independent of the object velocity in contrast to conventional distance sensors [9

9. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, J. Czarske, H. Krain, and R. Schodl, “Turbo machine tip clearance and vibration measurements using a fibre optic laser Doppler position sensor,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, 1693–1705 (2006). [CrossRef]

]. However, due to the measurement principle and the speckle effect at rough solid state surfaces, the distance uncertainty of the laser Doppler distance sensor σz,tot is limited to about 1% of the measurement range lz, currently.

Fig. 1. Principle of the phase laser Doppler distance sensor. Superposition of interference fringe systems with approximately constant and equal fringe spacing d, which are tilted towards each other by an angle ?.

This paper is structured as follows: section 2 contains a description of the principle of the novel phase sensor. In section 3, the experimental setup is described. Section 4 deals with the theoretical uncertainty estimation followed by experimental results in section 5. Finally, the most important results are summarized in section 6.

2. Sensor principle

Conventional laser Doppler velocimeters (LDV) are based on the evaluation of scattered light signals which are generated from measurement objects passing the interference fringe system in the intersection volume of two coherent laser beams. These scattered light signals exhibit an amplitude modulation with the Doppler frequency f. Thus, the measurement object velocity v can be calculated by [10

10. H.-E. Albrecht, M. Borys, N. Damaschke, and C. Tropea, Laser Doppler and Phase Doppler Measurement Techniques (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003).

, 11

11. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111–2120 (2003). [CrossRef]

]:

v=fd,
(1)

where d is the mean fringe spacing due to the sensor setup. Conventionally, an average of the velocity over the measurement volume is obtained. In order to gain higher spatial resolution the two crossing laser beams have to be focused more strongly. However, this is accompanied with a higher velocity uncertainty due to increased wavefront curvature of the laser beams resulting in a stronger curvature of the fringe spacing function. Hence, with a conventional LDV, it is only possible to obtain either a high spatial resolution or a low velocity uncertainty [12

12. J. W. Czarske, “Laser Doppler velocimetry using powerful solid-state light sources, Review Paper,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, R71–R91 (2006). [CrossRef]

]. In order to achieve both features simultaneously, a novel laser Doppler sensor with slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation was invented for flow measurements [11

11. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111–2120 (2003). [CrossRef]

].

Now, an adapted and modified sensor setup using phase evaluation is utilized for simultaneous distance and velocity measurements of moving solid state objects. Its measurement volume is formed by two interference fringe systems of different laser wavelengths. These interference fringe systems with approximately equal fringe spacing are superposed slightly tilted towards each other, see Fig. 1. A scattering object crossing this measurement volume results in two distinguishable scattered light signals. These two signals exhibit a phase difference which depends on the axial position z of the scattering object. Assuming plane wavefronts, the phase difference φ can be described as:

φ(z)=sz+φ0
(2)

where s is the slope of the phase difference function φ(z) and φ 0 the phase offset in the center of the measurement volume (z = 0). By evaluating this phase difference, the position z inside the measurement volume can be determined using the inverse function of Eq. (2). With the known working distance D 0 between sensor front face and measurement volume, also the distance D = D 0 + z of the measurement object with respect to the sensor can be determined. Consequently, only the position z is considered in the following.

Due to the known position z inside the measurement volume, the local fringe spacing can be taken into account allowing a more precise velocity determination compared to a conventional LDV. Thus, Eq. (1) can be transformed to:

v=f1vzd1(z)=f2vzd2(z).
(3)

In order to obtain a low measurement uncertainty, the calibration curve φ(z) should have a high slope s (cp. section 4). However, for an unambiguous determination of the position the calibration curve has to be bijective. Hence, the range of the phase difference inside the measurement volume usually has to be restricted to 2π. Therefore, an optimum slope sopt exists, which is given by [11

11. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111–2120 (2003). [CrossRef]

]:

sopt=2πlz,
(4)

where lz is the length of the measurement volume in z-direction.

If a lower measurement uncertainty is needed, it is easily possible to increase the slope of the calibration function φ(z) by increasing the tilting angle ψ between the two interference fringe systems, see Fig. 1. With a higher slope of the calibration curve, a lower measurement uncertainty can be achieved if σφ remains constant, see Eq. (5). This possibility of reducing the measurement uncertainty without decreasing the size of the measurement volume significantly is a key advantage of the phase sensor compared to the laser Doppler distance sensor with frequency evaluation [8

8. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, “Laser Doppler profile sensor with sub-micrometre position resolution for velocity and absolute radius measurements of rotating objects,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 16, 627–641 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. However, when using a higher slope than sopt, the determination of the position is no longer unambiguous within the whole measurement volume. Hence, one additional information is needed, which can be obtained by a further interference fringe system employing a third discriminable laser wavelength. The three interference fringe systems have to be adjusted in such a way, that in addition to the steeper phase function φ 1(z) one bijective phase function φ 2(z) is obtained, see Fig. 2. Thus, it is possible to determine the object position first roughly via the calibration function φ 2(z) and secondly very accurate via the steeper calibration function φ 1(z). Consequently, a more precise position measurement is possible. Nevertheless, the requirement of a third laser wavelength demands a higher technical effort in practice.

3. Sensor setup

The experimental setup was arranged with an optical bench, see Fig. 3. Two laser diodes, a red one (660 nm) and an infrared one (785 nm), were used as light sources. The two laser beams were combined via a dichroic mirror and focused at a transmission phase grating, which acts as beam splitter. The first positive and negative diffraction orders were used as partial beams, all other orders were blocked by beam stops. A Keplerian telescope behind the grating, consisting of two achromatic lenses, focused the partial beams into the measurement volume, see Fig. 3. Since lenses with low chromatic abberation for the red and near-infrared wavelength were employed, a good overlap of the two interference fringe systems with an axial shift of only 25 μm was achieved. The length of the measurement volume in z-direction, i.e. the position measurement range, was about 800 μm. The lateral diameter of the measurement volume is equal to the spot size at a technical surface and was 60 μm with this setup.

Fig. 2. Principle of the high resolving sensor setup with one ambiguous and one unambiguous phase function.

There are two possibilities of adjusting the relation between the phase difference φ of the two scattered light signals and the position z inside the measurement volume. Tilting the dichroic mirror results in a change of the angle between both interference fringe systems. Consequently, the slope s of the calibration function φ(z) can be tuned appropriately. The phase difference offset φ 0 can be changed by tilting the glass plates inside the Keplerian telescope [11

11. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111–2120 (2003). [CrossRef]

, 13

13. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Passive directional discrimination in laser-Doppler anemometry by the two-wavelength quadrature homodyne technique,” Appl. Opt. 42, 3843–3852 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

The bi-chromatic scattered light from the measurement object was detected in backward direction. Collimated by the front lens, the scattered light was coupled out by a small mirror between the partial beams inside the Keplerian telescope. With a subsequent lens the light was coupled into a multimode fiber patch cable and guided to the detection unit. At this point, the bi-chromatic light was split into the two different wavelengths by a second dichroic mirror and focused onto two photo detectors. The electrical photo detector signals were sampled simultaneously by a 14-bit A/D converter card installed in a standard PC.

Further signal processing and evaluation was done by a MATLAB program. Thereby, the Doppler frequencies f 1,2 where calculated with a least square fit of the fast Fourier transformed photo detector signals. For phase estimation the cross-correlation function of the two photo detector signals was calculated. Via a cosine least square fit, the time shift of the maximum of the cross-correlation function was determined, which is proportional to the phase difference φ.

4. Theoretical measurement uncertainty

The statistical position uncertainty is defined as the standard deviation σz of repeated measurements at a fixed axial position of the measurement object. Using Eq. (2) the position uncertainty can be described by:

σz=φz1σφ=s1σφ.
(5)

Assuming that the two scattered light signals have equal Doppler frequencies, the minimum standard deviation for the phase difference estimation is given by the Cramer-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) [10

10. H.-E. Albrecht, M. Borys, N. Damaschke, and C. Tropea, Laser Doppler and Phase Doppler Measurement Techniques (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003).

]:

Fig. 3. Experimental setup of the phase laser Doppler distance sensor.
σφ2SNRN,
(6)

where SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio and N the number of statistically independent sampling points. The minimum position uncertainty can be written now as:

σz,min=s12SNRN.
(7)

Hence, the position uncertainty is independent of the object velocity, which is an important advantage of the laser Doppler distance sensor compared to other distance sensors.

To estimate the phase difference φ, the two Doppler frequencies f 1,2 have to be equal. Therefore, both interference fringe spacing functions d 1,2 have to be identical (d 1(z) = d 2(z)). Assuming ideal Gaussian laser beams with their beam waists located in the center of the measurement volume, the interference fringe spacing functions d 1,2(z) are given by [14

14. P. Miles and P. O. Witze, “Evaluation of the Gaussian beam model for prediction of LDV fringe fields,” in Proc. 8th Int. Symposium an Application of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics Lisabon/Portugal, vol. 40.1, pp. 1–8 (1996).

]:

di(z)=λi2sinθi[1+λi2cos2θiπ2w0i4z2];i=1,2,
(8)

where θi denotes the half crossing angle of the partial laser beams and w 0i the beam waist radius for the respective laser wavelength i = 1,2. Since a diffraction grating is used for beam splitting with sin α 1/λ 1 = sinα 2/λ 2, the minimum fringe spacings at the center of the measurement volume, i.e. z = 0, are equal [13

13. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Passive directional discrimination in laser-Doppler anemometry by the two-wavelength quadrature homodyne technique,” Appl. Opt. 42, 3843–3852 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. However, due to the different wavelengths, the fringe spacing curves differ outside the center of measurement range. Thus, in general, the two Doppler frequencies f 1,2 are not equal for z ≠ 0 resulting in a phase drift Δφ during the measurement time causing a systematic phase deviation [11

11. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111–2120 (2003). [CrossRef]

, 13

13. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Passive directional discrimination in laser-Doppler anemometry by the two-wavelength quadrature homodyne technique,” Appl. Opt. 42, 3843–3852 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]

Δφ(z)=2π(1d2(z)1d1(z))2w0.
(9)

In order to obtain a phase drift Δφ = 0 the two modulation frequencies f 1,2 and thus the interference fringe spacings d 1,2 have to be equal. Therefore, the terms in the square brackets in Eq. (8) have to be equal for any position z. In approximation, this requirement is fulfilled when the beam waists of the two wavelengths w 01,2 match with [11

11. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111–2120 (2003). [CrossRef]

, 13

13. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Passive directional discrimination in laser-Doppler anemometry by the two-wavelength quadrature homodyne technique,” Appl. Opt. 42, 3843–3852 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]:

w02=λ1λ2w01.
(10)

In practice, a relative deviation between the two interference fringe spacings of 10-4 … 10-3 has been achieved by adjusting the sensor setup according to Eq. (10). Hence, it can bes assumed that d 1(z) ≈ d 2(z) ≈ d(z) and therefore the systematic phase drift described by Eq. (9) can be neglected.

Besides the position z, also the velocity of the measurement object can be determined. Based on Eq. (1) the relative measurement uncertainty for the velocity σv/v can be calculated by the Gaussian uncertainty propagation assuming the statistical independence of fringe spacing d and Doppler frequency f

σvv=(σff)2+(σdd)2.
(11)

With the relation σd = (∂d/∂z)σz and Eq. (5) the relative measurement uncertainty for the velocity can be written as:

σvv=(σff)2+(dzs1d1σφ)2.
(12)

Since the slopes of the interference fringe systems ∂d/∂z in the center of the measurement range are approximately zero, the second term inside the square root of Eq. (12) can be neglected and the relative measurement uncertainty for the velocity can be approximated by:

σvvσff
(13)

As a result, the relative velocity uncertainty is equal to the relative Doppler frequency uncertainty, which can be as small as the respective CRLB [15

15. J. Czarske, “Statistical frequency measuring error of the quadrature demodulation technique for noisy single-tone pulse signals,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 12, 597–614 (2001). [CrossRef]

]. Hence, this sensor allows more precise velocity measurements than conventional LDVs.

5. Experimental results

In order to verify the theoretical estimations from section 4, measurements with test objects of steel and aluminum were carried out. These test surfaces had different but defined roughnesses with Ra-values (arithmetical mean deviation of the roughness profile) between 0.1 μm and 3.6 μm. The metal objects were mounted on a motor with stabilized rotation frequency, which was moved through the measurement volume in z-direction by a motorized translation stage. Thus, measurements at defined axial positions and with well known object velocities can be accomplished. At each position 25 individual measurements were carried out in order to obtain the statistical uncertainties. For each individual measurement, the Doppler frequencies f 1,2 and the phase difference φ were calculated from the whole time domain signals corresponding to an averaging over the 12 mm broad tip of the metal objects.

For the experiments, two different setups of the phase sensor were used. At first, the sensor was adjusted with a bijective phase function within the whole measurement range of lz = 800 μm corresponding to a slope sI = 0.45°/μm. Secondly, a sensor setup with a slope of sII = 5.5°/μm was arranged corresponding to a bijective range of only 65 μm. The phase difference functions for the two setups are shown in Fig. 4. For the latter setup, the measurements were carried out only for the bijective range around z = 0 in order limit the technical effort. In future, also measurements within the whole measurement range of 800 μm will be investigated by using a third interference fringe system as explained in section 2.

Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show the measurement results of two test objects with a mean surface roughness of Ra = 0.2 μm and Ra = 3.6 μm, respectively. It can be seen that the measured position uncertainties σz(z) of the two different test objects are similar, see Fig. 5(a). In the center of the measurement range (z = 0) a minimum position uncertainty of σz = 0.98 μm was obtained. This value matches the theoretical uncertainty estimation of σztheor =0.78 μm well, when using Eq. (7) with a SNR = 5 dB, a number of data points N = 18000 and a slope |s -1| =0.45°/μm, which are typical values occurring at these experiments. At the outer regions the statistical uncertainties increase due to the lower SNR and the lower numbers of fringes caused by the decreasing intersection area of the two partial laser beams. The mean value of the statistical position uncertainty over the whole measurement range is ⟨σzߩ ≥ 2.2 μm for both test objects.

Fig. 4. Measured phase difference functions of the two sensor setups: (a) bijective phase function with sI - 0.45°/μm and (b) steep phase function with sII - 5.5°/μm.

However, due to the random surface structure at rough solid states, systematic deviations occur in addition to the statistical uncertainties, which are depicted in Fig. 5(b). Unlike the statistical uncertainties, these systematic deviations show no regular behavior and are a priori unknown. The functions Δz(z) are completely different from each other, which is due to the speckle pattern caused by coherent scattering at the random structures of the solid state surfaces. The maximum absolute values of the systematic deviations within the measurement range are Δzmax = 8 μm for Ra = 0.2 μm and Δzmax = 14 μm for Ra = 3.6 μm.

Using the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), a total measurement uncertainty σz,tot can be calculated. Assuming that the probability density of the systematic deviations is uniformly distributed in the interval [-Δzmax, Δzmax], the Gaussian uncertainty propagation result in:

σz,tot=σz2+(Δzmax3)2.
(14)

Thus, the total measurement uncertainties for the two test objects are σz,tot = 5.2 μm and σz,tot = 8.7 μm, respectively.

For the second setup, the statistical uncertainties and the systematic deviations were obtained in the same way. As an example, the measurement results for one test object with Ra = 0.2 μm are presented in Fig. 5(c) and 5(d). A minimum position uncertainty of σz = 140 nm and a corresponding mean value of ⟨σz⟩ = 280 nm were achieved over a measurement range of 65 μm. Due to the speckle effect at random surface structures the maximum systematic position deviation Δzmax = 1.5 μm is again significantly higher than the statistical uncertainties. Using Eq. (14), a total measurement uncertainty of σz,tot = 0.91 μm could be obtained with the steep phase function setup of the phase sensor.

Comparing the measurement results of the two sensor setups, it can be noticed that by increasing the slope s by a factor k = 12.2 from sI = 0.45°/μm to sII = 5.5 °/μm a reduction of the mean statistical position uncertainty by a factor k = 7.9 was obtained. Also the maximum systematic position deviation and thus the total measurement uncertainty are reduced by a factor k = 9.3. This is in good agreement with theory, see Eq. (2), since σz is indirectly proportional to the slope s of the phase difference function assuming that sφ remains constant. In a subsequent experiment the influence of the slope s on the position uncertainty was investigated in more detail. Therefore, measurements with different slopes s were carried out. Figure 6(a) shows the measured statistical uncertainties in comparison with a 1/s- regression proving that theory and experimental results agree well. Also the systematic deviations behave in the same manner resulting in a 1/s- behavior also for the total measurement uncertainty, see Fig. 6(b). These results confirm that the measurement uncertainty can be reduced directly by increasing the slope s of the phase difference function as predicted. However, to expand this reduced uncertainty to the whole measurement range of 800 μm, a third interference fringe system has to be applied, see Fig. 2. Respective experiments with an extended setup are planned for the future.

Fig. 5. Measurement results of the position evaluation: (a) statistical uncertainties and (b) systematic deviations of the sensor setup with sI = 0.45°/μm; (c) statistical uncertainties and (d) systematic deviations of the sensor setup with sII = 5.5°/μm.
Fig. 6. Experimentally obtained position uncertainties of the phase sensor depending on the slope s of the phase difference function. (a) statistical uncertainties σz and (b) total uncertainties σz,tot.
Fig. 7. Total position uncertainty of the phase sensor σz,tot in dependence of Ra.

In order to analyze the influence of the surface roughness on the measurement uncertainty, a measurement series with test objects exhibiting different but defined surface roughnesses were carried out with the phase sensor setup having a slope sI = 0.45°/μm. Figure 7 shows the obtained total measurement uncertainties σz,tot within the whole measurement range of 800 μm according to Eq. (14), which are between 5.2 μm and 8.2 μm. No significant dependence on the surface roughness could be observed. In addition, for several test objects, measurements with different object velocities were accomplished. According to theory the object velocity should have no influence on the position uncertainty, see Eq. (7). The measurement results confirm this feature of the phase sensor, see Fig. 7.

For the purpose of detailed investigations of this special feature of the phase sensor, measurements on a rotating brass wheel with one tooth of 2 mm width and a radius of 40 mm were accomplished. At varying circumferential speed v, the tooth tip position was measured simultaneously by the phase sensor with a steep phase function (sII = 5.5°/μm) and two commercial triangulation sensors manufactured by Micro-Epsilon, one with a measurement rate of 2.5 kHz (TS2.5k) and the other one with 20 kHz (TS20k). The latter one comprises an elliptical laser spot in order to reduce the influence of the speckle effect on the measurement result. Both triangulation sensors have a measurement range of 2 mm. Regarding Fig. 8, the position uncertainty of both triangulation sensors worsens with increasing velocity v of the brass tooth, which is due to the decreasing averaging time. The position uncertainty of the triangulation sensor TS2.5k increases from σz = 2.1μm at v = 0.5 m/s to σz = 6.6μm at v = 7.5 m/s. Due to the higher measurement rate and the special shape of the laser spot, the measurement uncertainty of the triangulation sensor TS20k is significantly lower and increases only from σz = 0.1 μm at v = 0.5 m/s to σz = 1.2 μm at v = 12.5 m/s. In contrast to the triangulation sensors, the position uncertainty σz of the phase sensor remains nearly constant at σz = 500 nm over the whole velocity range proving that its position uncertainty is indeed independent of the object velocity, see Fig. 8. Hence, the phase sensor is predestined for precise position measurements on fast moving objects. This feature opens up new applications such as process control of turbo machines, vacuum pumps and at grinding and turning.

Fig. 8. Measured statistical position uncertainties σz in dependence of the object velocity v for the phase sensor and the two triangulation sensors (TS).
Fig. 9. Comparison of the relative uncertainties: (a) relative uncertainty of the frequency evaluation σf/f , (b) relative uncertainty of the velocity evaluation σv/v.

In addition to the position determination inside the measurement volume, the velocity of the measurement object can be determined by Eq. (3). The measurement results presented in Fig. 9 confirm that the relative measurement uncertainty of the velocity depends mainly on the relative frequency uncertainty, cp. Eq. (13). Hence, the velocity can be determined very accurately without influence of the curvature of the fringe spacing functions d 1,2 resulting in a mean relative measurement uncertainty of σv/v = 3.5×10-4. Due to the simultaneous measurement of axial position and tangential velocity, the diameter and thus the two-dimensional shape of rotating test objects can be calculated as described in [8

8. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, “Laser Doppler profile sensor with sub-micrometre position resolution for velocity and absolute radius measurements of rotating objects,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 16, 627–641 (2005). [CrossRef]

, 16

16. T. Pfister, P. Günther, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, “Shape and vibration measurement of fast rotating objects employing novel laser Doppler techniques,” in Proc. of SPIE Conf. Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection, vol. 6616, pp. 66,163S1-12 (2007).

].

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we have presented a novel laser Doppler distance sensor using two tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation which allows simultaneous measurement of position and velocity of moving solid state objects. By using a high slope of the phase difference function, a total position uncertainty σz,tot < 1 μm within a measurement range of 65 μm was achieved. In the future, this measurement range can be extended without increasing the measurement uncertainty significantly by using a third interference fringe system. Since also the surface velocity is determined, the absolute radius and thus the two-dimensional shape of rotating objects can be calculated additionally. It was shown that the velocity can be measured with a relative uncertainty σv/v = 3.5 × 10-4 within the whole measurement volume. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the position uncertainty is independent of the object velocity, which is an important advantage compared to many other optical sensors, such as triangulation. Hence, interesting applications of the phase sensor are distance and shape measurements of fast rotating objects such as turbo machines and vacuum pumps or at grinding and turning.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Micro-Epsilon for providing one of the triangulation sensors for the comparative measurements. The financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (founding code: Cz 55/19-1) is gratefully acknowledged.

References and links

1.

R. G. Dorsch, G. Häusler, and J. Herrmann, “Laser triangulation: fundamental uncertainty in distance measurement,” Appl. Opt. 33, 1306-14 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2.

A. Kempe, S. Schlamp, and T. Rösgen, “Low-coherence interferometric tip-clearance probe,” Opt. Lett. 28, 1323–1325 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3.

L. Sheng-Hua and L. Cheng-Chung, “Measuring large step heights by variable synthetic wavelength interferometry,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 13, 1382–1387 (2002). [CrossRef]

4.

G. Y. Sirat and D. Psaltis, “Conoscopic Holograms,” Opt. Commun. 65, 243–249 (1988). [CrossRef]

5.

J. Czarske, J. Môbius, K. Moldenhauer, and W. Ertmer, “External cavity laser sensor using synchronously-pumped laser diode for position measurements of rough surfaces,” Electron. Lett. 40, 1584–1586 (2004). [CrossRef]

6.

B. E. Truax, F. C. Demarest, and G. E. Sommargren, “Laser Doppler velocimeter for velocity and length measurements of moving surfaces,” Appl. Opt. 23, 67–73 (1984). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

K. Matsubara, W. Stork, A. Wagner, J. Drescher, and K. D. Müller-Glaser, “Simultaneous measurement of the velocity and the displacement of the moving rough surface by a laser Doppler velocimeter,” Appl. Opt. 36, 4516-20 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8.

T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, “Laser Doppler profile sensor with sub-micrometre position resolution for velocity and absolute radius measurements of rotating objects,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 16, 627–641 (2005). [CrossRef]

9.

T. Pfister, L. Büttner, J. Czarske, H. Krain, and R. Schodl, “Turbo machine tip clearance and vibration measurements using a fibre optic laser Doppler position sensor,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, 1693–1705 (2006). [CrossRef]

10.

H.-E. Albrecht, M. Borys, N. Damaschke, and C. Tropea, Laser Doppler and Phase Doppler Measurement Techniques (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003).

11.

L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111–2120 (2003). [CrossRef]

12.

J. W. Czarske, “Laser Doppler velocimetry using powerful solid-state light sources, Review Paper,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, R71–R91 (2006). [CrossRef]

13.

L. Büttner and J. Czarske, “Passive directional discrimination in laser-Doppler anemometry by the two-wavelength quadrature homodyne technique,” Appl. Opt. 42, 3843–3852 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

P. Miles and P. O. Witze, “Evaluation of the Gaussian beam model for prediction of LDV fringe fields,” in Proc. 8th Int. Symposium an Application of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics Lisabon/Portugal, vol. 40.1, pp. 1–8 (1996).

15.

J. Czarske, “Statistical frequency measuring error of the quadrature demodulation technique for noisy single-tone pulse signals,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 12, 597–614 (2001). [CrossRef]

16.

T. Pfister, P. Günther, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, “Shape and vibration measurement of fast rotating objects employing novel laser Doppler techniques,” in Proc. of SPIE Conf. Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection, vol. 6616, pp. 66,163S1-12 (2007).

OCIS Codes
(120.0120) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology
(120.5050) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Phase measurement
(120.6650) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Surface measurements, figure
(280.3340) Remote sensing and sensors : Laser Doppler velocimetry
(150.5495) Machine vision : Process monitoring and control

ToC Category:
Instrumentation, Measurement, and Metrology

History
Original Manuscript: December 2, 2008
Revised Manuscript: January 12, 2009
Manuscript Accepted: January 12, 2009
Published: February 6, 2009

Citation
P. Günther, T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, "Laser Doppler distance sensor using phase evaluation," Opt. Express 17, 2611-2622 (2009)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-17-4-2611


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. R. G. Dorsch, G. Häusler, and J. Herrmann, "Laser triangulation: fundamental uncertainty in distance measurement," Appl. Opt. 33, 1306-14 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. A. Kempe, S. Schlamp, and T. Rösgen, "Low-coherence interferometric tip-clearance probe," Opt. Lett. 28, 1323-1325 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. L. Sheng-Hua and L. Cheng-Chung, "Measuring large step heights by variable synthetic wavelength interferometry," Meas. Sci. Technol. 13, 1382-1387 (2002). [CrossRef]
  4. G. Y. Sirat and D. Psaltis, "Conoscopic Holograms," Opt. Commun. 65, 243-249 (1988). [CrossRef]
  5. J. Czarske, J. Möbius, K. Moldenhauer, and W. Ertmer, "External cavity laser sensor using synchronouslypumped laser diode for position measurements of rough surfaces," Electron. Lett. 40, 1584-1586 (2004). [CrossRef]
  6. B. E. Truax, F. C. Demarest, and G. E. Sommargren, "Laser Doppler velocimeter for velocity and length measurements of moving surfaces," Appl. Opt. 23, 67-73 (1984). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. K. Matsubara, W. Stork, A. Wagner, J. Drescher, and K. D. Müller-Glaser, "Simultaneous measurement of the velocity and the displacement of the moving rough surface by a laser Doppler velocimeter," Appl. Opt. 36, 4516-20 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, "Laser Doppler profile sensor with sub-micrometre position resolution for velocity and absolute radius measurements of rotating objects," Meas. Sci. Technol. 16, 627-641 (2005). [CrossRef]
  9. T. Pfister, L. Büttner, J. Czarske, H. Krain, and R. Schodl, "Turbo machine tip clearance and vibration measurements using a fibre optic laser Doppler position sensor," Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, 1693-1705 (2006). [CrossRef]
  10. H.-E. Albrecht, M. Borys, N. Damaschke, and C. Tropea, Laser Doppler and Phase Doppler Measurement Techniques (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003).
  11. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, "Spatial resolving laser Doppler velocity profile sensor using slightly tilted fringe systems and phase evaluation," Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 2111-2120 (2003). [CrossRef]
  12. J. W. Czarske, "Laser Doppler velocimetry using powerful solid-state light sources, Review Paper," Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, R71-R91 (2006). [CrossRef]
  13. L. Büttner and J. Czarske, "Passive directional discrimination in laser-Doppler anemometry by the twowavelength quadrature homodyne technique," Appl. Opt. 42, 3843-3852 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. P. Miles and P. O. Witze, "Evaluation of the Gaussian beam model for prediction of LDV fringe fields," in Proc. 8th Int. Symposium an Application of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics Lisabon/Portugal, vol. 40.1, pp. 1-8 (1996).
  15. J. Czarske, "Statistical frequency measuring error of the quadrature demodulation technique for noisy single-tone pulse signals," Meas. Sci. Technol. 12, 597-614 (2001). [CrossRef]
  16. T. Pfister, P. Günther, L. Büttner, and J. Czarske, "Shape and vibration measurement of fast rotating objects employing novel laser Doppler techniques," Proc. SPIE 6616, 66,163S1-12 (2007).

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  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited