The structure, operation, and methodology of the invention, together with other objects and advantages thereof, may best be understood by reading the detailed description in connection with the drawings in which each part has an assigned numeral that identifies it wherever it appears in the various drawings and wherein:
a and 21b are diagrams of the various parameters involved in linking detector space coordinates with those in object or “test” space;
The present invention relates generally to interferometric apparatus and methods and particularly to interferometric apparatus and associated algorithms by which the shapes of aspheric surfaces and wavefronts can be measured and compared with their designs. To achieve this, the invention utilizes interferometric measurements in object space, where a test surface resides in an interferometric cavity, and their relationships to parameters and detector pixels in image space, where interferograms are imaged on a detector comprising an array of pixels. As a part to be measured is scanned along a scan axis with a known wavefront from the reference surface, the position of the part with respect to reference is interferometrically measured where the local slopes of the reference and part match to generate quantitative information in object space about the axial location of the coordinate of the position where these local slopes match. Along with this information, the vertical location of the pixel in image space, i.e., on the detector, corresponding to where the local slopes match is then determined and that information, along with knowledge of the imaging properties of the lens forming the interferogram, is used to calculate the angle in object space along with particular pixels view the part surface at the time of a local slope match. Once the angle is known, the vertical coordinate to the test surface is calculated thereby completely locating the axial and vertical coordinates on the test surface of the slope.
An example of a test system for practicing the invention is shown in
A transmission sphere 28 is positioned and held in place by conventional mounting arrangement 30. A beam of laser radiation 20 is provided from the left. The beam 20 passes through a lens 22 structure to focus it to a point after which it expands to travel through a beamsplitter 24. After emerging from beamsplitter, beam 20 continues to expand until it encounters a lens 26 for collimating it for travel to transmission sphere 28 that generates a converging reference wavefront that ultimately impinges on part 12. The beam illuminating the part is bounded by the dashed rays as it courses from it origin to part 12.
As will be explained in further detail below, part 12 is moved along the scan axis (z-direction for scanning) to generate interferograms where the converging reference wavefront slope matches the local slope of the part. These interferograms are imaged via imaging optics 32 on to a two-dimensional detector (CCD or the like) resident in a camera 34 that may be moved along the z-axis for focusing purposes. The imaging path from the part 12 to the camera 34 is generally bound by the dash-dot rays.
A computer 38 is provided to provide housekeeping and control functions, a user interface, communication with various system components through suitable interfaces, and is otherwise programmed to carry out the various procedural steps and calculations to be described.
Having described the general architecture of the measurement system 10, shown as a Fizeau, a more detailed description of the various measurement and data reduction procedures of the invention will now be taken up with reference to the problems addressed by the invention.
The invention distinguishes between two different problem areas to be solved. The first one involves the problem of reconstructing an aspheric surface of a physical test sample without using (or knowing) its design equation. In this case, use cannot be made of any a priori knowledge of a “design equation” to support the evaluation. The result may be a point cloud x,y,z or, more convenient, z values for a set of x,y-points on a regularly spaced grid. From both, a “best fitting aspheric equation” may be calculated. It is clear, that the rotationally varying part, RV, of the measured surface cannot be expressed by the conventionally used aspheric design equation, which only has the variables h and z, and therefore, is a function in two variables for a rotationally symmetrical surface. Even the rotationally invariant part, R1, of surfaces will not be expressed with high spatial resolution by fitting to a design equation. In practice, when the goal is to determine the equation of the underlying sample, it might be sufficient to deal with the problem in cylindrical coordinates, z=z(h,theta), where z is the axis of rotation (of the axial symmetrical surface), h is the radial coordinate and theta is the azimuthal angle. Then, the mean value of all measurements can be taken along the theta-coordinate (i.e., integrate along circles), and therefore simplify the problem to two dimensions. The information about the typical “aspheric” deviation is completely preserved by this procedure.
The second problem contemplated by the invention it to measure the deviation of an aspheric surface of a test surface compared with its design equation. This can be seen as the comparison of two surfaces against each other where one is “real” and the other is “virtual” (speaking in terms of optical imaging). Here, the procedure for making this comparison must be made, and it is one objective of this description to provide a convincing procedure for accomplishing the comparison. In this task, it is possible (but may be not necessary) to make use of a priori knowledge of the surface given by the design equation.
Consequently, the invention is described as principles of measurement, which use not only measurements at a “zone” where the aspheric surface and the reference surface have common tangents, but also the use of measured points in a vicinity of the zone. At measured points in the vicinity of the zone, there is a lack of information compared to the very zone (the “red circle”), which is, that the slope of the surface-point measured is not known.
The following conventions have been adopted in describing the invention and appear in
index m: measured quantities or quantities derived from measurement
index d: quantities derived from the design equation of the aspheric surface
h,z: Cartesian coordinates of a point Q on the aspheric surface
v,w: v is the is a stage coordinate along z-axis with v=0 at distance R0 from center of fitting spherical apex sphere of the aspheric surface at the test plan, w is the actual position during measurement.
α: angle of actual normal to the surface point Q at “the zone”; α is measured against the scan-direction=z-axis
αmin<α<αmax: range of angles as measured from M when a “broader” zone is measured, i.e. not only the one point at the surface, where the reference surface and the aspheric surface have a common normal with angle α; see
p, q: difference in distance between the Fizeau-gap at the zone and the apex of the aspheric surface, i.e. p=d-d0 in the
Keeping in mind the parameters defined in
It is assumed that for every zone (i.e., where there is a slope match), an equation is given that allows the computation of h, z(h), z′(h). From
From the above equation for h and z, expressed in matrix form, it can be seen that h and z are functions of hpix, M(hpix), R2, and dzone and dapex, all of which are interferometrically measured or predetermined.
The magnification M of the imaging part of the interferometer (imaging the test surface to the detector as shown in
It is assumed that the coefficients ai and bi are already known from a measurement with an artifact in a method to be described more fully hereinafter. Then the functions M(hpix) and M(sinα) can be assumed to be known for every value of sinα. Therefore sinα can be substituted by
or by
depending on whether the test plan is generated using a design equation or the result of a measurement has to be evaluated, computing points h, z of the surface from measurements hpix, dzone, dapex and known value R2 of the reference surface. It will be understood to those skilled in the art that the magnification function M is not strictly the classical magnification but takes into account other optical properties of the imaging system. In the case where the imaging system satisfies the Abbe sine condition then only the first and second coefficients are significant, otherwise higher order terms are present. Further, it will be understood that mathematical functions other than polynomials may be used to express the optical properties.
Reference is now made to
As can be seen from
Reference is now made to
h=(R0+w−q)·sin α (1)
z=(R0+w)−(R0+w−q)cos α (2)
For the following, it is assumed that the aspheric equation of the part is available. The steps to be taken in a measurement sequence are as follows:
1. Make a test-plan, i.e., decide for which positions v (see
The test-plan can be “optimized” using different considerations, including TACT, the needed uncertainty of the result, and the deviation of the test sample from design. The test plan is made such that there is considerable “overlapping of measured areas”. This means, with two consecutive positions w, there will always be points on the surface in common.
2. Take the measurements; this includes:
a. Move the surface to cat's eye (center M of the reference surface coincides with vertex Sa of aspheric surface) position and back to the “home position” by the commanded distance R0 for the stage travel. Null the DMIs (See
b. Align the part by choosing two different w positions, w1 and w2, for which the associated diameters of the zone, 2h1 and 2h2 are considerably different, and for which the quantities:
γ1=1−|R1/Re1| (3a)
γ2=1−|R2/Re2| (3b)
Both are not close to zero; the best positions for w are those for which both quantities are large and 2h2-2h1 is large, with (see
Alignment must be in 4 degrees of freedom, which are x,y as well as rx, ry of the stage. Alignment targets are the 2 tilt components at the two zones (i.e., also 4 targets). A linear system of 4 equations can be established to help perform the alignment. Alignment can be done by measuring the actual tilts (right hand side of the system of equations), and measuring the system “partial reactions”, i.e., both tilt components in the two zones (4 outputs t1x, t1y, t2x, t2y, for the 4 input values x,y,rx,ry). The solution of the equation delivers the 4 unknown shifts x,y and tilts rx,ry which remove the tilts in the zones. (See measurement set up of
c. Move the stage to the msteps scan positions defined in the test-plan. Make 2×msteps measurements at the scan positions and store the results; i.e., move the stage by Δw=0.015 mm between measurement one and measurement two at every scan-position. These measurements are to measure the matrix d=Δq/Δw as an approximation to dq/dw. The matrix q is the average of these two measurements at every scan position.
The measurement sequence is shown in the flow diagram of
In reality, the problem is one of three dimensions, but, for simplicity, and because all important relationships can be described for the two-dimensional case, so the discussion is restricted to 2 dimensions for the time being.
To convert the 3-dimensional measurement to 2-dimensions, we integrate along the θ direction ,i.e. around the scan axis. For this the measured phase-maps at every scan-position are into polar coordinates, as shown in the following
The next step is to make a Fourier Analysis along every (valid) column, up to the second harmonic of θ. This is done by the following piece of MATLAB code, which works on every column of the matrix H:
The values qCo1(k,:), qSi1(k,:) are nonzero when the center-point M of the reference surface with radius R2 is not located on the rotational axis of the aspheric surface for this zone. The values qCo2(k,:), qSi2(k,:) are nonzero when either the part has astigmatism or when the center point of the integration is chosen incorrectly; therefore, this can be used to find the best-fitting center, which should be used throughout the evaluation. Details and examples will be given later; in the cases of
Note that the matrix q calculated in the code above contains nrad columns and msteps lines. The number nrad comes from interpolating the phase-maps in the radial direction when transforming to radial coordinates. It is good practice to chose nrad=numpix, where numpix is the number of pixels used to image the surface from 0 to hmax, where hmax is the largest h value measured. msteps is the number of scan positions chosen in the test plan.
The matrix q has interesting features and will be the main point for further discussion. It contains, together with another matrix d, which will be described in Section 7, all the information which is gathered during the measurement.
One line of the matrix q contains the measured distances as visualized in
The matrix q does NOT contain the absolute distances as shown in
This fact is the main problem for further evaluation of the data the solution of which will be shown hereinafter. But for the sake of understanding, it will now be shown how the matrix q should look in a line by line presentation, i.e., for every scan position.
Referring now to
The next step in the evaluation is to fit spline functions to every line of q. This is done for “valid data”, i.e., the start-point and the end-point of the fit might be different for every line. Also, if there are “drop outs” in the data, the splines should start at the first valid pixel and end at the last valid pixel, starting again after the dropouts. Next, the spline functions are differentiated; the result being a new matrix which is dq/dhpixel or proportional to dq/dα. See
It is also important to recognize that the matrix dq/dhpixel, computed from MEASURED data, also looks like what is shown in
In the example shown in
Reference is now made to
Note that the process can be made more “robust”, but at the expense of a loss of spatial resolution for the measurement result. The way to make the process robust is to fit “smoothing splines” to q in line direction, before further mathematical steps are taken. It has not been observed that this is needed, but it could be helpful in cases exhibiting severe measurement noise to get a robust result. This is an option, not a necessity.
From
Now, the values in d for every pixel are read out at the interpolated scan-position, where the zeros in the matrix dq/dhpixel were found. For this, interpolation between the curves is made again. This interpolation can be done by using a fit to a third-order polynomial with the 4 points nearest to the intermediate scan position. From these interpolated values, we then calculate:
sin αij=sin(arccos(1−dij)) (6)
Reference is now made to
The functions:
“bridge” the phase-maps measured on the detector in pixel coordinates with the associated aperture angles of the chief rays imaging this point in the Fizeau cavity. It is the goal to experimentally find the functions M using data from the measurement because then it is known that there is no discrepancy with what is observed. Because the optics in the imaging system are all “smooth”, it can be concluded that the function M will have no large gradients. Measured data-points for the function M at every pixel are obtained from the knowledge of the scan positions where the matrix dq/dhpixel has zeros, and from the values of the matrix d=dq/dw=1−cosα for these scan positions at every pixel, but, in addition, a low order polynomial is fit to these values to “smooth” the result and suppress experimental noise. As as result M cab be regarded as highly accurate.
As can be seen in Eq. (7) and (8), the fit is to be done twice, once to get M as a function of the pixel coordinates, which then allows calculation with the help of M, the associated angle in object space, and once where M is a function of the angle in object space, which then allows to get the pixel coordinates for a given angle.
When fitting M to the data-points, a weighting function γ should be used. This is given as in Eqs. (3), (4) and (5):
For these quantities, the design equation can be used. They are not quite ready in this form, because they first must be expressed as functions of α. But as it is from the design equation, changes between variables can always be managed.
The magnification function can be achieved with the help of the “differential” measurements where, for every scan position w, another measurement is made with scan position w+Δw, as described before. As shown in
The knowledge of M is needed for the connect algorithm, which is described in the next section. On the other hand, if the values of the matrix q are all “connected”, i.e., the ambiguity of integer multiples of λ/2 is removed, then there is the possibility to achieve M out of the matrix q itself. This “egg and chicken” problem can be solved when the knowledge of M as a function of hpix is iteratively/sequentially refined, and connect the values in q, which also provides new usable information for higher values of hpix. The connect-algorithm in any case solves the problem of unknown integer multiples of λ/2 from the center to the outside of the part. This sequential and iterative approach is symbolically shown in the diagram shown in
Reference is now made to
Reference is now made to
Point Q(h,z) is common to both positions w1 and w2; q1, q2 are the measured values at THIS point. It is assumed that q1 is absolutely known, i.e., including the fringe order number N1, i.e. no ambiguity of N1·(λ/2). It is further assumed that, for q2, only the fringe fraction e2 is known, i.e. the additional length N2·(λ/2) is unknown, in particular the integer fringe order number N2 is unknown. It is:
From the known quantities R0, w1, α1 (α1 from Eq. (8)), h and z of the point Q(h,z) are computed:
h=(R0+w1−q1)·sin α1 (1)
z=(R0+w1)−(R0+w1−q1)·cos α1 (2)
Now we compute what q2 should be, when scan-position w2 is used:
q
2=(R0+w2)−√{square root over (h2+(R0+w2−z)2)} (10)
h
pix2
=M(sin α2)·sin α2 (12)
hpix2 will be not an integer pixel number; therefore we have to interpolate between two pixels. This interpolation should be a higher order one (using more than 2 pixels). With the value of e2 read from the phase-value at the computed location hpix2 and the computed value for q2 after Eq. (10) we now can compute the order number:
The flow diagram of
Now, the question of how to compare the measurement result with the design equation to get the errors Δq of the part will be discussed. Whereas all calculations so far have been derived for the 2-dimensional case, 3 dimensions must now be considered.
Through the image coordinates xpix, ypix of the object coordinate system xR, yR (center of coordinate system is coincident with the center point M of the reference surface) and through the function M (Eqs. (7) and (8)), the azimuthal angle is derived as:
θ=a tan2(ypix,xpix) (14)
and the aperture angle α.
With the measured quantities (R0+w) and qm, the coordinates of the measured point of the aspheric surface can be calculated to be:
x
m=(R0+w−qm)·sin α·cos θ−Δx (15a)
y
m=(R0+w−qm)·sin α·sin θ−Δy (15b)
z
m=(R0+w)−(R0+w−qm)·cos α (15c)
Now, the associated point on the design surface has to be found to be able to derive the surface error. This comparison should be done using the same angle α in object space, i.e., the design values hd,zd must be found using αm.
Referring to
As the real aspheric surface with its coordinate system xA, yA, zA is shifted laterally from its ideal location by Δx, Δy during the measurement, the measurement data contain misalignment coma terms sin(θ), cos(θ).
From the data, the coma-terms sin(θ), cos(θ) are extracted, and with this Δx, Δy is reconstructed. Now, use is made of the SAME position for the center point M of the reference surface during the calculation of the reference data as was used during measurement, thus compensating the effect of misalignment for the computed surface error Δq. This error is not normal to the surface, but very close to normal; when q=p, w=v, then the error becomes normal. i.e., Δq=Δn; this is true for the zero-crossings.
The reference data is gained at the design asphere, which is assumed now to be “measured”. So now, calculation is made of where the line of sight, defined by the angle α as well as by θ and R0+w, hits the design surface. In the intrinsic aspheric coordinate system (in which the design equation z=z(h) is defined), the point Q is defined by h and z. Therefore, the calculation of point Q needs to be iterative. The value of h has to be found which satisfies, at the same time, the aspheric design equation z=z(h) and the lengths of the projection of the line of sight. The following equations give the relationships in detail:
z
A
=z(hA) (16)
x
R(R0w−zA)·tan α·cos θ (17a)
y
R=(R0+w−zA)·tan α·sin θ (17b)
x
A
=x
R
−Δx=(R0+w−zA)·tan α·cos θ−Δx (18a)
y
A
=y
R
−Δy=(R0+w−zA)·tan α·sin θ−Δy (18b)
h
A
2
=x
A
2
+y
A
2 (19)
q
d=√{square root over ((R0+w)2+Δx2+Δy2)}−√{square root over (hA2+(R0+w−zA)2)} (20)
Δq(xA,yA)=qm=qd (21)
Δq(xA,yA)=√{square root over ((xA−xm)2+(yA−ym)2+(zA−am)2)}{square root over ((xA−xm)2+(yA−ym)2+(zA−am)2)}{square root over ((xA−xm)2+(yA−ym)2+(zA−am)2)} (22)
When introducing eq. (15) as well as eq. (16) to (19) into eq. (22), the following much simpler equation (23) results:
zA=z(hA) must be derived iteratively using (18) and (19) to get hA.
For the following the indices A and d are used for the same quantities. A means Aspheric surface, d means design surface.
The connection is needed between α, hd and zd, for a given aspheric equation
The inverse function hd can only be derived numerically by, for instance, using Newton's method:
A function f(hd) is established for which the value hd that makes this function equal to zero is searched:
f(hd)=hd+zd(hd)·tan α−(R0+w)·tan α=0
The surface error Δz in z-direction is:
Δz(xA,yA)=Δq(xA,yA)·cos α=(R0+w−qm)·cos α−(R0+w−zA) (24)
From these quantities, the following are known from the measurement:
α from the known equation for M and the pixel location from which we take q
θ from Eq. (14)
Δx, Δy from Fourier analysis of every column of matrix H, see program-code,
Page 15
R0+w from measurement
zA from design equation
It can be seen, that the critical quantity is hA, which must be calculated using Eqs. (18) and (19); but (18) contains zA, which can only be calculated knowing hA. Therefore, the values for xA, yA, hA, zA must be derived by an iteration. Use of the Newton method is used as seen from the following portion of a Matlab routine.
It is easier to ignore the misalignments introduced by the stage; this is especially justified when the stage is calibrated beforehand with the procedure given in the Flow diagram shown in
In principle, two different goals can be imagined for the measurement:
1. Reconstruct the surface from the measurement and present the result in an Cartesian x,y,z-coordinate system. This is comparable with the measurement result of a coordinate measuring machine. Note: also the aspheric equation is given in an x,y,z coordinate system.
2. Compare the measured surface with the design surface and report only the deviations as a function of x,y-coordinates.
In this second case, the KIND of comparison must be specified in addition to being completed. As two surfaces, a “real” measured surface and a fictive, mathematically defined design surface are never identical, it must be specified how the differences are achieved in detail. In this case, the DISTANCE between the surfaces along lines which always go through the center point of the spherical reference surface in every scan position are measured. In addition, these lines intersect both surfaces. These lines are NEARLY NORMAL to both surfaces, the deviation from normal is very small, less than 1 degree. The variation of the measured distance as a function of the angle of the lines to the surface normal is very small, the relative error being<1.5 e−4. As the surfaces are very close together, typically<100 nm, the absolute variation is<15 pm.
The distance between design surface and measured surface is called Δq and this as shown in
Another procedure for determining M=M(hpix) as a bridge between pixels in image space and angles in object space involves measuring α from the following basic equations (See
but this requires additional measurements. Alternatively, use could be made of known values for q at the same pixel location for different values of w and fit a low-order polynomial to these values of q=q(w) for every pixel. Then, by differentiating these q-polynomials with respect to w, the function dq/dw is available for every pixel and for every value of w. These values for dq/dw are quite stable and can serve as an approximation for dp/dv as the above equations. They are correct when w=v, i.e. always, when the pixel has a common tangent for this value of w=v (i.e., it is a pixel at the “red circle”).
There are other techniques for deriving the value of the optical system properties, M involving optimization techniques. Here, an assumed values of M is made and a calculation is made that should “satisfy” the result which was gained by measurement, i.e., the measurement is simultated by using a trial value for the so far unknown quantity, M. For present purposes, overlapping areas on the part are measured with at least two different scan positions. Two scan positions mean two “common tangent” points at the part surface with different h-values and the points in between must now be covered by both measurements. Looking from the inner red circle there are larger values for α, and looking from the outer red circle, there are smaller values for α. So this covers a certain range for α, and therefore also for the function M(α). Assuming a rough idea of what the function M(α) could be, we want to refine this by→optimization. Then, this function for α is used in the reconstruction of the surface points h,z. All other quantities are known, as was pointed out. When M(α) is wrong, the two “leaves” z=z(h) (drawn as a continuous curve) will not match, and will some gap in between. So now M(α) is changed and the same measurement results are used again, to reconstruct two new leaves z=z(h). If the gap becomes smaller, the refinement of M(α) was in the right direction, otherwise not. Finally, for the correct function for M(α) the two leaves will match. This same procedure can be applied at all areas between the red circles and therefore M(α) can be found for all relevant values of a that occur.
It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the invention may be configured to measure test optics designed for transmission and reflection.
Having described the invention with reference to particular embodiments and methodology sequences, other variants will occur to those skilled in the art based on the teachings of the invention, and such variants are intended to be within the scope of the appended claims.
This application claims the benefit of priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/845,731 filed on Sep. 19, 2006 and entitled SCANNING INTERFEROMETRIC METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING ASPHERIC SURFACES AND WAVEFRONTS, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60845731 | Sep 2006 | US |