蒙特卡罗分析ISO和光栅扫描激光损伤协议

Laser Damage Pub Date : 2019-11-20 DOI:10.1117/12.2536443
C. Stolz, R. Negres, J. Arenberg
{"title":"蒙特卡罗分析ISO和光栅扫描激光损伤协议","authors":"C. Stolz, R. Negres, J. Arenberg","doi":"10.1117/12.2536443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The typical measurement error reported for laser damage tests is the fluence uncertainty due to inaccuracies in measuring the laser beam energy and its diameter. However, the inherent uncertainty of the testing protocol should also be included in the reported laser damage threshold error bars. Underestimating measurement errors can lead to false conclusions about the impact of process changes on laser damage resistance. In this study, four different laser damage precursor fluence distributions were created from randomly generated numbers and then evaluated using the ISO and raster scan laser damage test protocols to determine a laser damage threshold. Measurement errors are determined for flat top test beams for multiple cases. To add real world relevance, the impact of Gaussian test beams with beam pointing instability was modeled for the lowest accuracy laser damage precursor distribution. The impact of damage test area compared to optic dimension is also examined. The measurement error for the raster scan test ranged from 8% to 24% depending on the test beam spatial profile (flat top or Gaussian) and beam pointing stability. ISO measurement errors ranged from 4% to 250% for a simulated 10 J/cm2 test and was much more sensitive to the laser damage precursor distribution as well as the spatial profile and pointing of the test beam. Both testing protocols poorly predicted the laser damage resistance of large areas with Gaussian precursor laser damage distributions.","PeriodicalId":202227,"journal":{"name":"Laser Damage","volume":"191 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monte Carlo analysis of ISO and raster scan laser damage protocols\",\"authors\":\"C. Stolz, R. Negres, J. Arenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1117/12.2536443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The typical measurement error reported for laser damage tests is the fluence uncertainty due to inaccuracies in measuring the laser beam energy and its diameter. However, the inherent uncertainty of the testing protocol should also be included in the reported laser damage threshold error bars. Underestimating measurement errors can lead to false conclusions about the impact of process changes on laser damage resistance. In this study, four different laser damage precursor fluence distributions were created from randomly generated numbers and then evaluated using the ISO and raster scan laser damage test protocols to determine a laser damage threshold. Measurement errors are determined for flat top test beams for multiple cases. To add real world relevance, the impact of Gaussian test beams with beam pointing instability was modeled for the lowest accuracy laser damage precursor distribution. The impact of damage test area compared to optic dimension is also examined. The measurement error for the raster scan test ranged from 8% to 24% depending on the test beam spatial profile (flat top or Gaussian) and beam pointing stability. ISO measurement errors ranged from 4% to 250% for a simulated 10 J/cm2 test and was much more sensitive to the laser damage precursor distribution as well as the spatial profile and pointing of the test beam. Both testing protocols poorly predicted the laser damage resistance of large areas with Gaussian precursor laser damage distributions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laser Damage\",\"volume\":\"191 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laser Damage\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2536443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laser Damage","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2536443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

激光损伤测试报告的典型测量误差是由于测量激光束能量及其直径的不准确性而引起的影响不确定度。然而,测试方案的固有不确定性也应包括在报告的激光损伤阈值误差条中。低估测量误差会导致错误的结论,即工艺变化对激光损伤抗力的影响。在这项研究中,从随机生成的数字中创建了四种不同的激光损伤前体通量分布,然后使用ISO和光栅扫描激光损伤测试方案进行评估,以确定激光损伤阈值。测量误差确定了平顶测试梁的多种情况。为了增加现实世界的相关性,对最低精度激光损伤前体分布进行了高斯测试光束指向不稳定性的影响建模。研究了损伤试验面积对光学尺寸的影响。光栅扫描测试的测量误差范围从8%到24%,这取决于测试光束的空间轮廓(平顶或高斯)和光束指向稳定性。对于模拟的10 J/cm2测试,ISO测量误差范围为4%至250%,并且对激光损伤前驱体分布以及测试光束的空间轮廓和指向更加敏感。两种测试方案都不能很好地预测高斯前驱体激光损伤分布的大面积激光损伤抗力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Monte Carlo analysis of ISO and raster scan laser damage protocols
The typical measurement error reported for laser damage tests is the fluence uncertainty due to inaccuracies in measuring the laser beam energy and its diameter. However, the inherent uncertainty of the testing protocol should also be included in the reported laser damage threshold error bars. Underestimating measurement errors can lead to false conclusions about the impact of process changes on laser damage resistance. In this study, four different laser damage precursor fluence distributions were created from randomly generated numbers and then evaluated using the ISO and raster scan laser damage test protocols to determine a laser damage threshold. Measurement errors are determined for flat top test beams for multiple cases. To add real world relevance, the impact of Gaussian test beams with beam pointing instability was modeled for the lowest accuracy laser damage precursor distribution. The impact of damage test area compared to optic dimension is also examined. The measurement error for the raster scan test ranged from 8% to 24% depending on the test beam spatial profile (flat top or Gaussian) and beam pointing stability. ISO measurement errors ranged from 4% to 250% for a simulated 10 J/cm2 test and was much more sensitive to the laser damage precursor distribution as well as the spatial profile and pointing of the test beam. Both testing protocols poorly predicted the laser damage resistance of large areas with Gaussian precursor laser damage distributions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
All-glass metasurface laser optics for lensing, antireflections, and waveplates Laser-induced damage of dielectric-enhanced surface-modified single-point-diamond-turned Al-6061 multiband mirrors Optical damage considerations in the design of the matter in extreme condition upgrade (MEC-U) laser systems Broadband, 920-nm mirror thin film damage competition Temporally and spatially resolved photoluminescence of laser-induced damage sites of fused silica
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1