1: \documentclass[10pt,letterpaper]{article}
2: \usepackage{opex3}
3: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Measurement of throughput variation across a large format
8: volume-phase holographic grating}
9:
10: \author{Naoyuki Tamura, Graham J. Murray, Ray M. Sharples, David
11: J. Robertson, \& Jeremy R. Allington-Smith}
12:
13: \address{Centre for Advanced Instrumentation, Department of Physics,
14: University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK}
15:
16: \email{naoyuki.tamura@durham.ac.uk}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: In this paper, we report measurements of diffraction efficiency and
20: angular dispersion for a large format ($\sim$ 25 cm diameter)
21: Volume-Phase Holographic (VPH) grating optimized for near-infrared
22: wavelengths (0.9 $\sim$ 1.8 $\mu$m). The aim of this experiment is to
23: see whether optical characteristics vary significantly across the
24: grating. We sampled three positions in the grating aperture with a
25: separation of 5 cm between each. A 2 cm diameter beam is used to
26: illuminate the grating. At each position, throughput and diffraction
27: angle were measured at several wavelengths. It is found that whilst the
28: relationship between diffraction angle and wavelength is nearly the same
29: at the three positions, the throughputs vary by up to $\sim$ 10\% from
30: position to position. We explore the origin of the throughput variation
31: by comparing the data with predictions from coupled-wave analysis. We
32: find that it can be explained by a combination of small variations over
33: the grating aperture in gelatin depth and/or refractive index modulation
34: amplitude, and amount of energy loss by internal absorption and/or
35: surface reflection.
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \ocis{(050.7330) Diffraction and gratings, volume holographic gratings;
39: (300.6340) Spectroscopy, infrared}
40:
41: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
42: \bibitem{barden1}
43: S. C. Barden, J. A. Arns, and W. S. Colburn, ``Volume-phase
44: holographic gratings and their potential for astronomical
45: applications,'' in {\it Optical Astronomical Instrumentation,}
46: S. D'Odorico, ed., Proc. SPIE {\bf 3355,} 866--876 (1998).
47:
48: \bibitem{barden2}
49: S. C. Barden, J. A. Arns, W. S. Colburn, and J. B. Williams,
50: ``Volume-Phase Holographic Gratings and the Efficiency of Three
51: Simple Volume-Phase Holographic Gratings,'' Publication of Astronomical
52: Society of Pacific {\bf 112,} 809--820 (2000).
53:
54: \bibitem{blanche}
55: P. -A. Blanche, S. L. Habraken, P. C. Lemaire, and C. A. J. Jamar,
56: ``Large-scale DCG transmission holographic gratings for astronomy,''
57: in {\it Specialized Optical Developments in Astronomy,}
58: E. Atad-Ettedgui and S. D'Odorico, eds., Proc. SPIE {\bf 4842,} 31--38,
59: (2003).
60:
61: \bibitem{kimura}
62: M. Kimura, T. Maihara, K. Ohta, F. Iwamuro, S. Eto, M. Iino,
63: D. Mochida, T. Shima, H. Karoji, J. Noumaru, M. Akiyama,
64: J. Brzeski, P. R. Gillingham, A. M. Moore, G. Smith, G. B. Dalton,
65: I. A. J. Tosh, G. J. Murray, D. J. Robertson, and N. Tamura,
66: ``Fibre-Multi-Object Spectrograph (FMOS) for Subaru Telescope,''
67: in {\it Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared
68: Ground-based Telescopes,} M. Iye, and A. F. Moorwood, eds.,
69: Proc. SPIE {\bf 4841,} 974--984, (2003).
70:
71: \bibitem{kogelnik}
72: H. Kogelnik, ``Coupled-wave theory for thick hologram gratings,''
73: Bell System Tech. J. {\bf 48,} 2909--2947, (1969).
74:
75: \bibitem{rallison}
76: R. D. Rallison, R. W. Rallison, and L. D. Dickson, ``Fabrication and
77: testing of large area VPH gratings,'' in {\it Specialized Optical
78: Developments in Astronomy,} E. Atad-Ettedgui and S. D'Odorico, eds.,
79: Proc. SPIE {\bf 4842,} 10--21, (2003).
80:
81: \bibitem{smith}
82: G. A. Smith, W. Saunders, T. Bridges, V. Churilov, A. Lankshear,
83: J. Dawson, D. Correll, L. Waller, R. Haynes, and G. Frost,
84: ``AAOmega: a multipurpose fiber-fed spectrograph for the AAT,''
85: in {\it Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy,} A. F. Moorwood,
86: and M. Iye, eds., Proc. SPIE {\bf 5492,} 410--420, (2004).
87:
88: \bibitem{tamura}
89: N. Tamura, G. J. Murray, P. Luke, C. Blackburn, D. J. Robertson,
90: N. A. Dipper, R. M. Sharples, and J. R. Allington-Smith,
91: ``Cryogenic Tests of Volume-Phase Holographic Gratings I. Results at
92: 200 K,'' Experimental Astronomy, {\bf 15,} 1--12, (2003).
93:
94: \end{thebibliography}
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: Volume-Phase Holographic (VPH) gratings potentially have many advantages
99: over classical surface-relief gratings (\cite{barden1};
100: \cite{barden2}). They are already in operation in some existing
101: astronomical spectrographs and their use is also planned for a number of
102: forthcoming instruments (e.g., \cite{smith}). In applications to
103: spectrographs for extremely large telescopes, one has to consider that
104: the beam diameter in a spectrograph will become very large ($\sim$ 30 cm
105: or even larger) to obtain a reasonably high resolving power and
106: consequently large optics and dispersing elements will be demanded. In
107: this respect, VPH gratings may have an advantage. Unlike classical
108: surface relief gratings, VPH gratings with such large formats can be
109: rather easily fabricated at a reasonable cost. However, the optical
110: uniformity across the aperture has rarely been investigated, despite the
111: fact that during certain stages of fabrication, there is a significant
112: risk of introducing spatial variation. In particular, the uniformity of
113: diffraction efficiency and angular dispersion, the key to the
114: performance of a spectrograph, should be confirmed by experiments.
115: %
116: We note that throughput measurements at the two positions (centre and
117: corner) of a VPH grating with the size of 16 cm $\times$ 20 cm and the
118: line density of 1520 lines/mm are presented (\cite{rallison}) but the
119: grating was made before the manufacturer's fabrication process was
120: improved and it shows a large difference in diffraction efficiency
121: between the centre and corner of the grating.
122:
123: In this paper, results from measurements of throughput and angular
124: dispersion of a large format grating are presented. A picture of the
125: grating is shown in Fig. \ref{vph}. This grating was manufactured by
126: Ralcon Development Lab for the FMOS project (e.g., \cite{kimura}) with a
127: diameter of $\sim$ 25 cm. The line density is 385 lines/mm and thus the
128: peak of diffraction efficiency is around 1.3 $\mu$m at the Bragg
129: condition when the incident angle of an input beam to the normal of the
130: grating surface is 15$^{\circ}$. The measurements are performed at
131: wavelengths between 0.9 $\mu$m and 1.6 $\mu$m. In the next section, we
132: will describe the test facility and the measurement procedures. Note
133: that the grating investigated here has the same specification as that
134: used for the cryogenic tests (\cite{tamura}), but this element has not
135: previously been exposed to vacuum or cryogenic temperature.
136:
137: \begin{figure}[t]
138: \begin{center}
139: \includegraphics[height=10cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig1.ps}
140: \caption{A picture of the sample VPH grating. The grating has a
141: diameter of 250 mm with a line density of 385 lines/mm.}
142: \label{vph}
143: \end{center}
144: \end{figure}
145:
146: \section{The test set-up and measurements}
147:
148: \begin{figure}[t]
149: \begin{center}
150: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig2.ps}
151: \caption{Schematic view of the test optics configuration.}
152: \label{config}
153:
154: \end{center}
155: \end{figure}
156:
157: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.7mm}
158: \begin{table}[b]
159: \caption{The main components used for the measurements.}
160: \begin{tabular}{llll} \hline
161: & Manufacturer & Product ID & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Comments} \\ \hline
162: Light source & Comar & 12 LU 100 &
163: Tungsten-halogen lamp \\
164: Monochromator & Oriel Instruments & Cornerstone 130, &
165: 600 lines/mm grating, \\
166: & & Model 74000 &
167: Blaze at 1 $\mu$m \\
168: Visible blocking filter & Comar & 715 GY 50 &
169: Transparent at $\lambda \geq 715$ nm \\
170: Near-infrared detector & Indigo Systems & Alpha$-$NIR &
171: 320 $\times$ 256 InGaAs array \\ \hline
172: \end{tabular}
173: \label{comps}
174: \end{table}
175:
176: In Fig. \ref{config}, the overall configuration of the optical
177: components used for the measurements is indicated (detailed information
178: for the main components is given in Table \ref{comps}). Light exiting
179: from the monochromator is collimated and used as an input beam to
180: illuminate the VPH grating. The spectral band-width of this input beam
181: is set by adjusting the width of the output slit of the monochromator.
182: The slit width and the corresponding spectral band-width were set to 0.5
183: mm and $\sim$ 0.01 $\mu$m, respectively, throughout the measurements;
184: the beam diameter was set to $\sim$ 2 cm by using an iris at the exit of
185: the lamp house.
186:
187: The input beam is diffracted by the grating, and the camera section
188: consisting of lenses and a near-infrared detector (320 $\times$ 256
189: InGaAs array) is scanned to capture the diffracted beam. The output slit
190: of the monochromator is thus re-imaged on the detector. Since the
191: detector exhibits some sensitivity at visible wavelengths, a visible
192: blocking filter which is transparent at wavelengths longer than 0.75
193: $\mu$m is inserted after the monochromator to reduce contamination of
194: visible light from higher orders.
195:
196: \begin{figure}
197: \begin{center}
198: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig3.ps}
199: \caption{Schematic view of the sampled positions on the VPH grating
200: (referred to as ``L'', ``C'', and ``R''). The region near the edge
201: indicated in grey is occupied by the support structure of the grating
202: mount and is not optically accessible.}\label{pos}
203: \end{center}
204: \end{figure}
205:
206: The basic measurement procedures are as follows: First, the brightness
207: of the lamp and the wavelength of light exiting from the monochromator
208: are fixed (the brightness of the lamp is kept constant by a stabilized
209: power supply during the measurement cycle at a given wavelength), and
210: the total intensity included in the image of the slit is measured
211: without the VPH grating. Then, the VPH grating is inserted at an angle
212: to the optical axis, and the intensities of the zero and first order
213: ($+1$) diffracted light are measured. The diffraction angle is also
214: recorded. Next, the grating is set at a different incident angle and the
215: intensities of the diffracted light and diffraction angles are measured
216: again. After these measurements are repeated for all the incident angles
217: of interest, a different wavelength is chosen and the same sequence is
218: repeated. The brightness of the lamp can be changed when moving from one
219: wavelength to another: a higher brightness is used at shorter
220: wavelengths because the system throughput is lower. After all the
221: incident angles and wavelengths are scanned, the grating position is
222: moved and fixed on the rotation stage so that a different position of
223: the grating aperture is illuminated. We sampled three positions as
224: shown in Fig. \ref{pos} (labelled as ``L'', ``C'', and ``R'').
225: %
226: Since each position of the grating illuminated is mechanically located
227: at the centre of the rotation stage, any aiming errors of illumination
228: angles to the grating are expected to be equally small at all the
229: measured positions.
230:
231: \section{Results and discussions}
232:
233: \begin{figure}
234: \begin{center}
235: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig4.ps}
236: \caption{Diffraction efficiency measured for an incident angle of
237: 12.5$^{\circ}$. Throughputs measured at the centre are shown by solid
238: circles (and solid line), and those at the other two positions are
239: indicated by open triangle (and dashed line) and open square (and
240: dotted line). The upper three lines are for the $m=+1$ order diffracted
241: light and the lower ones are for the 0th order light.} \label{eff125}
242:
243: \end{center}
244: \end{figure}
245:
246: \begin{figure}
247: \begin{center}
248: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig5.ps}
249: \caption{Same for Fig. \ref{eff125}, but for an incident angle of
250: 15$^{\circ}$.} \label{eff150}
251: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig6.ps}
252: \caption{Same for Fig. \ref{eff125}, but for an incident angle of
253: 17.5$^{\circ}$.} \label{eff175}
254: \end{center}
255: \end{figure}
256:
257: In Fig. \ref{eff125}, \ref{eff150}, and \ref{eff175}, diffraction
258: efficiency measured at the three positions is plotted against wavelength
259: for incident angles of 12.5$^{\circ}$, 15.0$^{\circ}$, and
260: 17.5$^{\circ}$, respectively. Random errors are dominated by
261: fluctuations of the bias level of the detector on short timescales
262: ($\sim 0.1 - 1$ sec) and the error bars are calculated from a typical
263: value of these fluctuations (for clarity error bars are shown only for
264: the data at the position ``C''). The measurements suggest that,
265: independently of incident angle, the throughputs at the position ``L''
266: tend to be at variance with the others; the difference in throughput can
267: be $\sim$ 10 \%. The differences are seen in the measurements both of
268: the zero and first order diffractions in a mutually compensating manner;
269: when the throughput of the first order diffraction is lower, that of the
270: zero order is higher, and vice versa. Also, on the whole, the peak of
271: the throughput appears to shift towards shorter wavelengths (this is
272: clearest at an incident angle of 12.5$^{\circ}$). These suggest that the
273: differences originate in the diffraction process, and are not due
274: primarily to some additional absorption or reflection at that position.
275:
276: \begin{figure}
277: \begin{center}
278: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig7.ps}
279: \caption{Relationship between diffraction angle and wavelength.
280: Difference of diffraction angle from that predicted for a line density
281: of 385 lines/mm (solid line; this is the specification of the VPH
282: grating) and an incident angle of 40$^{\circ}$ are plotted against
283: wavelength. The symbols have the same meanings as in the previous
284: figures. Dot-dashed, dashed, and dotted line shows the relationship
285: expected for 375, 380, and 390 lines/mm, respectively.}
286: \label{dispersion}
287: \end{center}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290: Measurements of diffraction angles are given in Fig. \ref{dispersion}.
291: The difference of diffraction angle from that predicted for a line
292: density of 385 lines/mm (the nominal line density of the VPH grating)
293: and for an incident angle of 40$^{\circ}$ is plotted against wavelength.
294: The predicted relationship for line density of 375, 380, and 390
295: lines/mm is also shown for comparison. The data points show the actual
296: measurements at the three positions. The error is typically
297: $\sim$0.4$^{\circ}$, which is estimated from a comparison of the
298: diffraction angles measured at the position ``C'' with those measured
299: mechanically afterwards for the same incident angle (see \cite{tamura}).
300: Again, for clarity, the error bars are shown only for the data points at
301: the position ``C''. A large incident angle was chosen for this test
302: because the greater the incident angle is, the more sensitive are the
303: results to changes in line density. While the data points show some
304: scatter around the predicted relationships, this plot indicates that the
305: diffraction angles measured at one position exhibit no clear discrepancy
306: from the others and that the spectral dispersion is nearly independent
307: of position.
308: %
309: The scatter of the data points in Fig. \ref{dispersion} is probably due
310: to measurement errors and thus the line density is likely to be rather
311: uniform across the grating. Line density is normally well controlled in
312: the manufacturing process, with a typical accuracy of $\sim$ 1 line/mm
313: over a grating aperture. Nevertheless, it is worth treating the range
314: between 375 lines/mm and 385 lines/mm, where the data points are
315: scattered, as an upper limit for the variation of the line density in
316: the following analysis.
317:
318: \begin{figure}
319: \begin{center}
320: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig8.ps}
321: \caption{The throughput curves measured at the positions ``C'' and
322: ``L'' for an incident angle of 12.5$^{\circ}$ are plotted; these are
323: the same as shown in Fig. \ref{eff125}. They are compared with
324: predictions from coupled-wave analysis, which are indicated by grey
325: smooth (solid and dashed) curves. Grey solid lines indicate the
326: predictions for line densities of 375 and 385 lines/mm. In these
327: calculations, a refractive index modulation amplitude of 0.05 and a
328: dichromated gelatin depth of 12 $\mu$m are assumed. 15\% energy loss is
329: also considered (this is expected to be explained by a combination of
330: internal absorption and surface reflection). The grey dashed line shows
331: the model prediction where a dichromated gelatin depth of 11 $\mu$m is
332: assumed instead of 12 $\mu$m. 3 \% additional energy loss (i.e., 18 \%
333: in total) presumably caused by more internal absorption is also
334: inferred. The same refractive index modulation amplitude is adopted
335: (0.05) and the line density is 385 lines/mm.
336: %
337: It should be mentioned that a nearly identical curve to the grey line
338: can be obtained with coupled wave analysis by adopting a refractive
339: index modulation amplitude of 0.045 instead of changing the gelatin
340: thickness.} \label{eff125mod}
341: \end{center}
342: \end{figure}
343:
344: \begin{figure}
345: \begin{center}
346: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig9.ps}
347: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{eff125mod}, but for an incident angle of
348: 15.0$^{\circ}$.}
349: \label{eff150mod}
350: \includegraphics[height=8cm,angle=-90,keepaspectratio]{ntfig10.ps}
351: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{eff125mod}, but for the incident angle of
352: 17.5$^{\circ}$.}
353: \label{eff175mod}
354: \end{center}
355: \end{figure}
356:
357: Now we try to identify which parameters vary across the grating, by
358: comparing the measured diffraction efficiency with the predictions from
359: coupled-wave analysis (\cite{kogelnik}). In Fig. \ref{eff125mod},
360: \ref{eff150mod}, and \ref{eff175mod}, the throughput curves measured at
361: the positions ``C'' and ``L'' for incident angles of 12.5$^{\circ}$,
362: 15.0$^{\circ}$, and 17.5$^{\circ}$ are plotted, respectively, in the
363: same way as for Fig. \ref{eff125}, \ref{eff150}, and \ref{eff175}. Note
364: that the throughput curve measured at the position ``R'' is consistent
365: with that at the position ``C'' and is therefore not shown here for
366: clarity. Overplotted are three model predictions which are described by
367: grey smooth (solid and dashed) curves. Two grey solid lines show the
368: predictions for different line densities; 375 and 385 lines/mm. In
369: calculating these theoretical predictions, a refractive index modulation
370: amplitude of 0.05 and a dichromated gelatin depth of 12 $\mu$m are
371: assumed. Also, 15\% energy loss (presumed to be caused by a combination
372: of internal absorption and surface reflection) is assumed at all the
373: wavelengths, to better fit the predictions to the measurements. It
374: should be emphasized that these assumptions are used in calculating all
375: the grey solid curves plotted in Fig. \ref{eff125mod}, \ref{eff150mod},
376: and \ref{eff175mod}. The energy lost by internal absorption in the
377: dichromated gelatin layer is estimated to be $\leq$ 1\% below 1.8 $\mu$m
378: (e.g., \cite{barden1}) and those by combined surface reflections at
379: boundaries between glass and air are $\sim$ 10\%. Our data may therefore
380: indicate a larger internal absorption. There may also be some energy
381: loss due to surface reflections at boundaries between gelatin and glass,
382: although this is expected to be very small because the refractive
383: indices are similar.
384:
385: The fact that the predictions for line densities of 375 and 385 lines/mm
386: lie close together indicates that even if the line density varies across
387: the grating at this level (as suggested by Fig. \ref{dispersion}), the
388: discrepancy of the throughput curve at the position ``L'' cannot be
389: fully explained. On the other hand, the grey dashed line, fitting better
390: to the measurements at the position ``L'', shows the model prediction
391: where a dichromated gelatin depth of 11 $\mu$m is assumed, instead of 12
392: $\mu$m. Furthermore, 3\% additional energy loss (hence 18\% in total) is
393: assumed. The refractive index modulation amplitude is the same as before
394: (0.05) and the line density is 385 lines/mm.
395: %
396: Nearly identical model predictions to those described with the grey
397: lines in Fig. \ref{eff125mod}, \ref{eff150mod} and \ref{eff175mod} can
398: be obtained by adopting a refractive index modulation amplitude of 0.045
399: instead of changing the gelatin thickness. A combination of small
400: variations in the gelatin thickness and/or refractive index modulation
401: amplitude, and the energy loss due to internal absorption and/or surface
402: reflection are therefore equally likely candidates for the throughput
403: variation, at least for this grating. Variations of the gelatin
404: thickness across a VPH grating by $\sim$ 1 $\mu$m have been suggested by
405: direct measurements on a 14 cm $\times$ 15 cm grating with a line
406: density of 850 lines/mm (\cite{blanche}). However, since refractive
407: index modulation amplitude is proportional to exposure, an uneven
408: exposure within the grating aperture is also a possible cause of the
409: spatial variation.
410:
411: \section{Summary \& Conclusion}
412:
413: In this paper, we report measurements of diffraction efficiency and
414: angular dispersion of a large format ($\sim$ 25 cm diameter) VPH grating
415: optimized for near-infrared wavelengths (0.9 $\sim$ 1.8 $\mu$m). The aim
416: of this experiment is to see whether optical characteristics vary
417: significantly across the grating. We investigated three positions in the
418: grating aperture with a separation of 5 cm between each, using a 2 cm
419: diameter beam to illuminate the grating. At each position, throughput
420: and diffraction angles were measured at several wavelengths. Our data
421: indicate that whilst the line density is nearly constant at the three
422: positions ($\leq$ 3\% variation), the throughput at one position can be
423: different by $\sim$ 10\% due mainly to a small shift of the throughput
424: peak towards shorter wavelengths. Comparing the data with predictions
425: from coupled-wave analysis, we find that this throughput variation can
426: be explained by a combination of small variations in gelatin depth
427: and/or refractive index modulation amplitude and amount of energy lost
428: by internal absorption and/or surface reflection.
429: %
430: If a grating is used at a pupil plane of the spectrograph, such
431: variations will be averaged out for all points in the field of view.
432: However, if it is used in a non-pupil plane, careful specification of
433: tolerances would be required to obtain a system with good astronomical
434: performance.
435:
436: In the near future, we intend to perform similar experiments to those
437: reported here for several VPH gratings to see variations across a
438: selection of gratings with increasing sampling points in the grating
439: aperture. We will also conduct these experiments after exposing the
440: gratings to vacuum and cryogenic temperatures. These results will be
441: reported in a forthcoming paper.
442:
443: \section*{Acknowledgements}
444: %
445: We thank colleagues in Durham for their assistance with this work,
446: particularly Peter Luke, John Bate, and the members of the mechanical
447: workshop. We also thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her comments
448: which were very useful to improving this paper. This work was funded by
449: PPARC Rolling Grant PPA/G/O/2000/00485.
450:
451: \end{document}
452: