Optical Turbulence Parameters Characterized Via Optical Measurements Over A 2.33 KM Free-Space Laser Path

Optical turbulence parameters characterized via
optical measurements over a 2.33 km free-space

laser path
Arnold Tunick
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD 20783
atunick@arl.army.mil
Abstract: Optical turbulence research contributes to improved laser

communications, adaptive optics, and long-range imaging systems. This
paper presents experimental measurements of scintillation and focal spot
displacement to obtain optical turbulence information along a near-
horizontal 2.33 km free-space laser propagation path. Calculated values for
the refractive index structure constant (Cn2) and Fried parameter (r0) are
compared to scintillometer-based measurements for several cases in winter
and spring. Optical measurements were investigated using two different
laser sources for the first and second parts of the experiment. Scintillation
index estimates from recorded signal intensities were corrected to account
for aperture averaging. As a result, we found that an earlier calculation
algorithm based on analysis of log-amplitude intensity variance was the best
estimator of optical turbulence parameters over the propagation path
considered.
©2008 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (010.1300) Atmospheric propagation; (010.1330) Atmospheric turbulence;
(010.3310) Laser beam transmission.
References and links

1. V. I. Tatarski, The Effects of the Turbulent Atmosphere on Wave Propagation (Israel Program for
Scientific Translations, 1971).
2. T. Chiba, “Spot dancing of the laser beam propagated through the turbulent atmosphere,” Appl. Opt. 10,
2456-2461 (1971).
3. D. L. Fried, G. E. Mevers, M. P. Keister, “Measurements of laser beam scintillation in the atmosphere,” J.
Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 787-797 (1967).
4. Ishimaru, “The beam wave case and remote sensing,” in Laser Beam Propagation in the Atmosphere,
(Springer-Verlag, 1978), pp. 129-170
5. G. Parry, “Measurement of atmospheric turbulence induced intensity fluctuation in a laser beam,” Opt.
Acta. 28, 715-728 (1981).
6. G.W. Carhart, M.A. Vorontsov, L.A. Beresnev, P.S. Paicopolis, and F.K. Beil, “Atmospheric laser
communication system with wide-angle tracking and adaptive compensation,” Proc. SPIE 5892 (2005).
7. M. Vorontsov, G. Carhart, M. Banta, T. Weyrauch, J. Gowens, and J. Carrano, “Atmospheric Laser Optics
Testbed (A_LOT): Atmospheric propagation characterization, beam control, and imaging results,” Proc.
SPIE 5162 (2003).
8. Y. Han Oh, J. C. Ricklin, E. S. Oh, S. Doss-Hammel, and F. D. Eaton, “Estimating optical turbulence
effects on free-space laser communication: modeling and measurements at ARL’s A_LOT facility,” Proc.
SPIE 5550, (2004).
9. T. Weyrauch
and M.A. Vorontsov, “Atmospheric compensation with a speckle beacon in strong scintillation conditions:
directed energy and laser communication applications,” Appl. Opt. 44, 6388-6401 (2005).
10. Tunick, “Statistical analysis of optical turbulence intensity over a 2.33 km propagation path,” Opt. Express
15, 3619-3628 (2007).
11. E. Polnau, M.A. Vorontsov, G.Carhart, T.Weyrauch, and L.A. Beresnev, “Adaptive compensation over a
2.33 km propagation path with retro reflectors under strong scintillation conditions,” Proc. SPIE 6708
(2007).
#97707 - $15.00 USD Received 20 Jun 2008; revised 5 Aug 2008; accepted 27 Aug 2008; published 3 Sep 2008
(C) 2008 OSA 15 September 2008 / Vol. 16, No. 19 / OPTICS EXPRESS 14645
12. Tunick, “Statistical analysis of measured free-space laser signal intensity over a 2.33 km optical path,”
Opt. Express 17, 14115-14122 (2007).
13. Tunick, “Modeling microphysical influences on optical turbulence in complex areas,” Meteorol. Atmos.
Phys. 96, 293-304 (2007).
14. L. C. Andrews,
R. L. Phillips, and C. Y. Hopen, Laser Beam Scintillation with Applications (SPIE Optical Engineering
Press, Bellingham, 2001).
15. T-i Wang, G. R. Ochs, and S. F. Clifford, “A saturation-resistant optical scintillometer to measure Cn2,” J.
Opt. Soc. Am. 68, 334-338 (1978).
16. M. C. Roggemann and B. M. Welsh, Imaging Through Turbulence (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1996).
17. User’s Guide. LOA-004-xR Long Baseline Optical Anemometer and Atmospheric Turbulence Sensor.
Revision 3/20/2003. Optical Scientific, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD (2003), http://www.opticalscientific.com/.
18. Operating Instructions. Model 81000 Ultrasonic Anemometer. Revision 01/24/2007, R.M. Young Co.,
Traverse City, MI (2007), http://www.youngusa.com/.
19. F. S. Vetelino, K. Grayshan, and C. Y. Young, "Inferring path average C2n values in the marine
environment," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, 3198-3206 (2007)
20. M. F. Stell, C. I. Moore, H. R. Burris, M. R. Suite, M. J. Vilcheck, M. A. Davis, R. Mahon, E. Oh, W. S.
Rabinovich, G. C. Gilbreath, W. J. Scharpf, and A. E. Reed, "Passive optical monitor for atmospheric
turbulence and windspeed," Proc. SPIE 5160, 422-431 (2004).
21. Tunick, “Toward increasing the accuracy and realism of future optical turbulence (Cn2) calculations,”
Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 90, 159-164 (2005).
1. Introduction
Optical turbulence is an important microphysical effect that acts on the propagation of light
waves to distort optical propagation paths and intensity. Along the propagation path of a free-
space laser communication system, optical turbulence can produce significant intensity
fluctuations and variations in the direction the transmitting beam propagates [1-5]. These
circumstances typically lead to signal fading at the receiving aperture, which can result in data
loss and increased transmission bit errors, i.e., when detection hardware does not receive
adequate optical power. In turn, these effects can severely impact the performance of Army
free-space laser optics communication systems [6]. Therefore, optical turbulence research can
contribute greatly to improving laser communications, adaptive optics, and long-range
imaging systems.
As discussed previously [7-12], the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), Atmospheric
Laser Optics Testbed (A_LOT) is a unique experimental facility to examine optical turbulence
and its effects on laser optical signal propagation over its complex, non-uniform landscape.
Within the A_LOT, a near horizontal, 2.33 km optical path extends from the top of a tall
water tower to the Intelligent Optics Laboratory (IOL) rooftop at ARL (Fig. 1). The A_LOT
optical path traverses an open sand lot, a fairly continuous forest stand, several local roads,
and various building arrays. Complex microphysical influences may (at times) affect the
A_LOT measured data and research applications. Some microclimate influences may be due
to irregular wind flow patterns around the IOL (High Bay building) and the water tower.
Other effects may be due to varying wind shears, temperature gradients, and moisture changes
across the top of nearby (and underlying) building and forest canopies. To this end, computer
simulation models may provide some meaningful results even though all the pertinent
landscape or canopy characterization data along the optical path may not yet be known or
available [13]. At the same time, detailed data analysis from new laser-optics experiments
may help us to better understand the physics relationships between refractive index structure,
scintillation, beam wander, and microclimate fluctuations. Also, exploring methods to obtain
atmospheric parameters from optical measurements at the ARL A_LOT can provide a basis
for obtaining these kinds of data over alternate propagation paths in diverse microclimate
environments. In this paper, we present further experimental research to obtain useful optical
turbulence information along the A_LOT propagation path from simultaneous measurements
of laser signal intensity and focal spot displacement. Our approach and equation set are
outlined in Section 2, followed by a description of the experiment in Section 3 and our data
analysis in Section 4. Section 5 contains a summary and conclusions.
Fig. 1. A schematic of the ARL A_LOT optical path
2. Approach
The normalized variance of free-space laser signals or scintillation index ( σ I2 ) can be
determined experimentally as,
2
I2 − I
σ I2 = 2
. (1)
I
where I is the measured signal intensity and is the temporal mean. However, aperture
averaging can significantly reduce the measured variances if the aperture radius of the receiving
optics ( D 2 ) is larger than the spatial scales of the optical scintillations of interest, i.e., when
D 2 > L k , where L is the propagation path length, k = 2π λ is the wave number and λ is
wavelength. For weak turbulence conditions (Rytov variance, σ 12 ≤ 0.3 ), Andrews et al. [14]
suggest that the normalized variance for a circular aperture [ σ I2 ( D ) ] can be corrected for
aperture averaging as,
σ I2 ( D) = Aσ I2 (0) , (2)
where σ I2 (0) is the normalized variance for a point aperture, and A is the aperture averaging
factor, e.g., for spherical waves
−7
⎡ 5 ⎤ 5
⎛ kD 2 ⎞ 6
⎢ ⎥
A= 1 + 0.33⎜ ⎟ . (3)
⎢ ⎜ 4L ⎟ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
In addition, it is widely accepted that for weak turbulence conditions,
7 11
σ I2 = σ 12 = 0.5C n2 k 6L 6 , (4)
where σ 12 is the Rytov variance and Cn2 is the refractive index structure constant. Here, Cn2
represents a quantitative measure of the intensity of optical turbulence. Thus, Eq. (4) suggests
that Cn2 can be derived directly from optical measurements of laser signal intensity. However,
to what extent can the above equations be applied when turbulence conditions are stronger, e.g., if
scintillation is measured within the transition region from weak to strong turbulence, i.e.,
0.3 < σ 12 ≤ 1.0 , or higher? This question will be examined in Section 4 (Data analysis).
Alternately, Cn2 can be estimated as a function of the log-amplitude variance ( σ χ2 ) of the
measured laser signal as shown in a recent paper [12]. This model is based on an earlier
expression derived by Wang et al. [15], i.e.,
7
C n2 = Cσ χ2 Dt 3 L−3 , (5)
where C = 4.48 D r Dt , Dt is the transmitting aperture diameter and Dr is the receiving

aperture diameter. Here, application of Eq. (5) requires that the light source be partially
incoherent and uniformly illuminated across the transmitting aperture. Hence, it may be
useful to re-examine calculated values for Cn2 from Eq. (5) for different turbulence conditions
in comparison to those calculated from Eq. (4).
The effects of optical turbulence also can result in random displacement of a received image
in the focal plane of an imaging system, i.e., focal spot displacement [14] If one assumes that
focal spot displacement ( σ F ) is only caused by fluctuations in wavefront angle of arrival, then
σ F can be expressed as,
1
σF = F α2 2
, (6)
where F is the focal length (m) of the collecting lens of the receiver and α 2 is the mean
(horizontal component) angle of arrival variance. For spherical waves, α 2 can be expressed
as,
−1
α 2 = 1.093C n2 LD 3 . (7)
Hence, Eq. (7) may be similarly useful to estimate values for Cn2 via optical measurements of
focal spot displacement. Note that estimates of Cn2 based on the mean (vertical component)
angle of arrival variance β
2
can be determined as,
−1
β 2 = 1.093C n2 LD 3 . (8)
Finally, the Fried parameter (r0), a length scale of refractive-index fluctuations, can be
calculated from estimates of Cn2, as shown in Ref. [16], i.e.,
[
r0 = 0.158k 2 LC n2 ]
−3
5
, (9)
where typically r0 ~ 2.5 cm for wavelength, λ= 808 nm in strong optical turbulence conditions
( C n2 = 2 × 10 −14 ) at the ARL A_LOT.
3. Experimental setup
The wave propagation geometry for this experiment is shown in Fig. 2. A beam-splitter was
mounted within a cube with an appropriate laser filter to send equal amounts of received laser
light to a high-speed photo-detector and a position sensing detector (Fig. 3). A video camera
(to the left of the beam splitter) was focused toward the center of the photo-detector to
optimize focal spot alignment and received signal strength. The beam-splitter cube was
positioned behind a Schmidt-Cassegrain compound telescope (receiving aperture diameter, Dr
= 127 mm; focal length, fl = 1347 mm). The optical detectors were connected to a data
acquisition module to record high frequency (f > 100 Hz), aperture averaged signal intensity
and focal spot displacement. The laser transceiver (aperture diameter Dt = 60 mm) was
located on top of the 73 m water tower, while the receiving optics were located at 12 m (above
ground level) within a climate controlled equipment shed located on the IOL rooftop. For the
first part of the experiment the source for the optical transmitter at the water tower was an 80
mW single-mode laser diode (wavelength, λ= 1064 nm) located at ground level and coupled
to a 100 m long multimode fiber. For the second part of the experiment the laser source was a
100 mW (λ= 808 nm) laser diode coupled directly to the 100 m multimode fiber. It was
assumed that when either laser source propagated within the long multi-mode fiber, the
exiting light could be considered a collimated, partially coherent beacon due to modal
dispersion and fiber vibrations9, although initially the 808 nm laser was a more incoherent
source. As a result, a cursory visual analysis of scintillation intensity patterns showed slightly
more uniform illumination across the pupil plane of the receiving optics from the 808 nm
beacon. The effects from such differences in laser signal intensity recorded during the first
and second parts of the experiment will be discussed in the next section (Data analysis). Note,
to capture simple scintillation intensity pattern images, a second video camera, which
included an appropriate laser filter, was mounted behind an objective lens (fl = 50 mm)
focused at the pupil plane of the second telescope (to the left in Fig. 3). The second telescope
was identical to the first, and together with apparatus mentioned above, was mounted on top
of a large vibration isolation platform to increase stability.
Fig. 2. Schematic of the wave propagation geometry for this experiment, where laser signal
data are collected at the focal plane of the receiving optics.
Fig. 3. Photograph of the receiving optics (as detailed in the text). Note, aluminum plates and
disks are placed on top of the breadboard to act as ballasts for the vibration isolation platform.
In addition, a boundary layer scintillometer [17] measured continuous, path-averaged

values for Cn2 along the A_LOT line-of-sight. The scintillometer transmitter is mounted on
top of the water tower and the receiver is located in front of the equipment shed on the IOL
rooftop. Also, a single 3-axis sonic anemometer [18] is mounted on a 2 m tripod on the IOL
rooftop. The anemometer provided additional characterization of microclimate conditions,
e.g., mean (one-minute averaged) wind velocity and temperature data.
4. Data analysis
The data set is comprised of 35 cases collected during winter and 28 cases collected during
spring. A general data section criterion was for fair weather conditions, i.e., no rain or snow.
Signal intensity and linear position data were recorded for individual two-minute periods
during daytime hours only. Scintillometer retrieved Cn2 data (in units m-2/3) represent two-
minute averages recorded along the 2.33 km A_LOT propagation path. The observed Fried
parameter and Rytov variance data are based on the measured scintillometer data.
Figure 4 presents optical turbulence calculations based on signal intensity data analysis
during winter and spring. Here, calculation of Cn2 based on an expression for the Rytov
variance (Eq. (4)) is compared to calculation of Cn2 as a function of the log-amplitude variance
of the measured laser signal (Eq. (5)). In the first case, the calculation incorporates values for
the measured scintillation index corrected for aperture averaging. In the latter case, receiver
and transmitter aperture diameter information are included in the calculation. Much of the
data analyzed agree within a factor of two (or better), although the reason for the offset in the
scintillation index based estimates shown in Fig. 4b is not yet clear. Nevertheless, the results
in the spring, to include the estimates of Cn2 based on Eq. (5), appear to have fewer extreme
outliers than those calculated in winter (Fig. 4(a)). Perhaps, the signal variance statistics for
the winter cases were (at times) affected by optical jitter of the transmitting beacon due to
high wind velocities. Optical jitter would artificially increase scintillation variance statistics
beyond that which represents atmospheric effects. While wind velocity data are not available
at the water tower, some justification for suspecting optical jitter is provided by IOL rooftop
recorded winds, in particular, those data associated with the largest discrepancies (see Fig. 5).
However, wind velocity analysis for the entire winter data set was inconclusive.
a) b)
Fig. 4. Optical turbulence (C2

n) calculations based on signal intensity data analysis for the data
set collected during (a) winter and (b) spring. The dashed lines identify the boundary for
estimates within a factor of two
.
In the spring (Fig. 4(b)), the Cn2 values calculated from Eq. (5) agree remarkably well with
the measured scintillometer data. Of course, the scintillometer (with an incoherent LED light
source) uses a similar algorithm [17] to derive its values for Cn2. Nevertheless, we suggest
that the main differences between the winter and spring cases shown in Fig. 4 were due to the
change in laser source. In contrast, the estimates of Cn2 based on Eq. (4) agree only within a
factor of about two or three for both weak and strong turbulence conditions. This later result
follows from the comparison of observed Rytov variance versus measured scintillation index
(Fig. 6). Interestingly, Fig. 6a shows fairly close agreement between these two parameters under
strong ( σ12 > 1 ) turbulence conditions (contrary to widely held theoretical limitations [14]).
Fig. 5. IOL rooftop recorded wind velocity data (one-minute averaged) for the largest outliers
shown in Fig. 4a. The vertical axis is the ratio of modeled C2n using Eq. (5) to scintillometer
measured data.
a) b)
Fig. 6. Observed Rytov variance versus measured scintillation index for the data set collected
in (a) winter and (b) spring. The dashed lines identify the boundary for estimates within a
factor of two.
Alternately, Fig. 7 presents optical turbulence (Cn2) calculations based on focal spot
displacement data analysis for winter and spring. In the winter (Fig. 7a), agreement between
calculated Cn2 and the scintillometer is less than optimal (a factor of 10 or more) for both
weak and strong turbulence conditions. Also, in Fig. 7a, the values for Cn2 calculated from the
vertical component of the angle of arrival variance β 2 provided slightly better agreement to the
scintillometer data than those calculated from the horizontal component α 2 . In the spring (Fig.
7b), the opposite effect is shown. More noticeably, however, the modeled estimates of Cn2
(overall) were improved slightly, particularly in strong turbulence conditions. Others
investigating this approach [19, 20] have reported similar results. Nevertheless, we are fairly
confident that our data and Cn2 estimates were affected by the use of different laser sources (as
discussed earlier) as well as other possible influences from platform or rooftop vibrations
and/or noise in the position detector signal, particularly in weak turbulence conditions. Also,
our angle of arrival measurements may have been sensitive to intermittent turbulence sources
located close to the receiving optics, e.g., from air vents and heating ducts on adjacent buildings.
In contrast, the scintillometer data are (by design) centrally weighted along the propagation path,
and thus remain mostly unaffected by disturbances close to the receiver or transmitter. Therefore,
assuming uniform turbulence conditions may be deficient or in error for the A_LOT landscape
[13, 21].
a) b)
Fig. 7. Optical turbulence (C2n) calculations based on focal spot displacement data analysis for
the data set collected during (a) winter and (b) spring. The dashed line identifies the boundary
for estimates within a factor of ten.
Finally, Fig. 8 presents modeled versus measured Fried parameter (r0) calculations based
on four different estimates Cn2 for the data set collected during winter and spring, i.e., based
on scintillation index ( σ I2 ), log-amplitude variance( σ χ2 ), horizontal component of angle of
arrival variance α 2 and vertical component of angle of arrival variance β 2 . Rather close
agreement (better than a factor of two) is shown for r0 values calculated from signal intensity
variance analysis for weak and strong turbulence conditions. In contrast, r0 values calculated
from angle of arrival variance analysis agreed poorly with the observed data, especially in winter.
In the end, however, the use of Eq. (5), which is based on log-amplitude intensity variance
analysis, provided the best estimates of optical turbulence parameters over the A_LOT
propagation path.
a) b)
Fig. 8. Fried parameter (r0) calculations based on different estimates C2n for the data set
collected during (a) winter and (b) spring. The dashed lines identify the boundary for estimates
within a factor of two.
5. Summary and conclusions
An experiment was conducted to obtain optical turbulence information along the 2.33 km
A_LOT propagation path from measurements of scintillation and focal spot displacement.
Calculated values for the refractive index structure constant and Fried parameter were
compared to scintillometer-based measurements for several cases in winter and spring.
Optical measurements provided slightly better estimates for Cn2 and r0 during the second part
of the experiment in comparison to the first part. This result was due (in part) to several
factors, to include the laser source, magnitude and direction of the winds, platform vibrations,
detector signal noise, and intermittent turbulence in the vicinity of the receiving optics.
Nevertheless, we found that an earlier calculation algorithm based on analysis of log-
amplitude intensity variance was the best estimator of optical turbulence parameters across the
A_LOT propagation path. In future works, we will integrate more analysis of optical
measurements into the A_LOT system.
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the anonymous reviewers for providing helpful
comments with regard to the manuscript and its content. In addition, the author extends
thanks to Thomas Weyrauch (University of Maryland) and Ronald Meyers (ARL) for
providing helpful and instructive comments with regard to the experimental setup and data
acquisition. The author would also like to thank Mikhail Vorontsov (ARL) for scientific
guidance and Gary Carhart (ARL) for technical support with regard to A_LOT hardware and
software.

Optical Turbulence Parameters Characterized Via Optical Measurements Over A 2.33 KM Free-Space Laser Path

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Optical Turbulence Parameters Characterized Via Optical Measurements Over A 2.33 KM Free-Space Laser Path

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Optical turbulence parameters characterized via

optical measurements over a 2.33 km free-space

Abstract: Optical turbulence research contributes to improved laser

References and links

Fig. 1. A schematic of the ARL A_LOT optical path

In addition, it is widely accepted that for weak turbulence conditions,

where C = 4.48 D r Dt , Dt is the transmitting aperture diameter and Dr is the receiving

In addition, a boundary layer scintillometer [17] measured continuous, path-averaged

Fig. 4. Optical turbulence (C2

Potrebbero piacerti anche