NISTIR 7117

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

United States Department of Commerce

Technology Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Performance Analysis of Next-Generation LADAR for

Manufacturing, Construction, and Mobility
Cover Images: (left): Zeemax* optics program output for a candidate aspheric lens for

a prototype FPA detector; (right) wooded terrain at NIST acquired at 20 mm accuracy

and 0.24 degree angular spacing using a Riegl* Z-210 904 nm wavelength scanner.

The image is mapped from the native polar coordinate system of the sensor (r, θ, φ =

range, pan angle, tilt angle) to a false-color bitmap where the computed elevation has

been replaced with a linearly-applied RGB variation for height cueing (blue = lowest;

red = highest) and the θ, φ discrete angle steps map to column number and row number, respectively. The image was displayed using software developed at NIST running

on Open/DX

* Certain trade names and company products are mentioned in the text or identified in

an illustration in order to adequately specify the software, experimental procedure, or

equipment used. In no case does such an identification imply recommendation or

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply

that the products are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
NISTIR 7117

Performance Analysis of Next-Generation LADAR for

Manufacturing, Construction, and Mobility

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

Technology Administration

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L. Bement, Director

William C. Stone

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Maris Juberts, Nick Dagalakis, Jack Stone, Jason Gorman 

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

May 2004

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
ii
ABSTRACT

The NIST Construction Metrology and Automation Group (CMAG), in cooperation with

the NIST Intelligent Systems Division (ISD), is developing performance metrics and

researching issues related to the design and development of a Next-Generation

LADAR (laser radar) sensor that will enable general automation in structured and

unstructured environments. This report reviews the basic physics and implementation

of various LADAR technologies, describes the problems associated with available "offthe-shelf" LADAR systems, summarizes world-wide state-of-the-art research, and elaborates on general trends in advanced LADAR sensor research and their likely impact

on manufacturing, autonomous vehicle mobility and on construction automation. 

KEYWORDS: AM-CW; angular resolution; beam steering; digital mirror devices; field-of-view

(FOV); FM-CW; focal plane array (FPA); laser radar (LADAR); phase-based time-of-flight;

pulse time-of-flight; range accuracy; range resolution; scanning.

iii
Table of Contents

Abstract....................................................................................................................

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................

1.1 Background

1.2 Definition of Terms

1.3 Project Objectives

2.0 A Brief LADAR Physics and Technology Overview.....................................

2.1 Direct Time-of-Flight (TOF)

2.1.1 Limitations of Direct TOF

2.2 Phase-Based AM-CW

2.2.1 Range Determination in AM-Homodyne LADAR

2.2.2 Limitations of AM Phase Measurements

2.3 Chirped AM-CW

2.4 Coherent LADAR

2.4.1 Hardware Variations

2.4.2 Range Accuracy for Coherent Laser Radar

3.0 Beam Scanning Technology............................................................................

3.1 Single Beam Scanners

3.1.1 Polygonal Scanners

3.1.2 Galvanometric Scanners

3.1.3 Acousto-Optic Scanners

3.1.4 Electro-Optic Scanners

3.1.5 Holographic Scanners

3.1.6 Tilt Platform Scanners

3.2 Beam Array Scanners

3.2.1 Scanning Micro Mirror Beam Arrays

3.2.2 Binary Micro Mirror Beam Arrays

3.2.3 Micro Positioner Beam Arrays

3.2.4 Micro Crystal Beam Arrays

3.2.5 Thermo Optic Beam Array Switches

3.2.6 Liquid Crystal Beam Switches

3.3 Fast Beam Steering

3.4 Risley Prisms

iii

iv

1.1

1.1

1.3

1.6

2.1

2.2

2.4

2.9

2.13

2.18

2.20

2.27

2.29

2.32

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.9

3.9

3.12

3.12

3.12

3.13

3.20

iv
4.0 Measurement Limitations Imposed by the Refractive Index of Air..............

4.1 Refractive Index: General considerations

4.2 Ranging Errors: Magnitude of the Problem

4.3 Correcting range measurements for refractive index 

in regions of varying air temperature

4.4 Angular Errors: Magnitude of the Problem

4.5 Correcting angular measurements for refractive index variation

4.6 Atmospheric Turbulence

4.7 Summary of refractive index effects

5.0 Focal Plane Arrays............................................................................................

5.1 All CMOS Solutions

5.1.1 CMOS Readout Techniques

5.1.1.1 Floating Diffusion Readout

5.1.1.2 Current Output Sensing Readout

5.2 Image Tube Solutions

5.3 APD Solutions

5.3.1Timing

5.3.2 Fabrication

5.3.3 Compensating for Low Detector Fill Factor

5.4 Z-Stacking and VISA Solutions

5.5 VISA Chip Research

5.6 Coherent Solutions

6.0 Status Report on NIST BAA:

Next Generation LADAR for Driving Unmanned Ground Vehicles..............

6.1 Background

6.2 BAA Status Report

6.3 Synopses of Designs

6.3.1 Advanced Scientific Concepts Inc. (ASC)

6.3.2 Coherent Technologies Inc. (CTI)

6.3.2.1 Synopsis of the Architectural Approach

6.3.2.2 Advantages of the Approach

6.3.2.3 Technical Feasibility

6.3.2.4 Cost-Scaling, Power-Scaling, Upgrades

6.3.3 Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control

6.3.4 Raytheon Missile Systems

6.4 Strategy for Further Development

7.0 Discussion and Recommendations................................................................

7.1 FOV Limitations 

7.2 Timing Issues 

7.3 Illumination Source Limits

7.4 Performance Metrics and 3D Scene Generation Issues

7.5 Recommendations for further Research

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.7

4.10

4.12

4.14

5.1

5.2

5.5

5.6

5.8

5.11

5.17

5.20

5.27

5.29

5.31

5.40

5.42

6.1

6.1

6.3

6.4

6.4

6.5

6.5

6.6

6.8

6.8

6.9

6.11

6.14

7.1

7.1

7.2

7.4

7.5

7.10

v
8.0 References.........................................................................................................

8.1 General References

8.2 Micromirror References

8.3 Coherent LADAR References

8.4 Scanning References

8.5 ROIC and Focal Plane Array (FPA) References

8.6 Super Resolution References

8.7 Femtosecond Laser References

8.8 Atmospheric Effects

Appendix A: NIST Survey of LADAR Technology 2003.......................................

Appendix B: NIST BAA Next-Generation LADAR................................................

8.1

8.1

8.2

8.2

8.3

8.5

8.5

8.6

8.6

A.1

B.1

vi
Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank a number of individuals and organizations for freely

sharing information regarding their LADAR design and development research. In particular we wish to thank Stefan Baten of EADS Dornier for insights into their mobility

LADAR; to Peter Seitz and Nicolas Blanc at CSEM for their tour-de-force lecture on

photonic mixing concepts; to Bernd Buxbaum and Robert Lange of PMD Technologies

GmbH for further discussions on 4-tap AM-CW detection; to Barry Stann, Bill Ruff, and

Greg Sztankay at the Army Research Lab (ARL) for explaining their work in Chirped

AM-CW LADAR; to Ward Trussel and Nick Barr at the Army Night Vision Lab for sharing their insights on multiple-return system design; to Colin Smithpeter and Bob

Nellums of Sandia Labs for their discussions on real-time AM-CW LADAR as well as

their work on pure pulse time-of-flight Flash LADAR; to Bob Dillon at Lumen Labs, Inc.

for discussions on fast light shutters; to Dave Ludwig of Irvine Sensors for explaining

chip stacking; to Richard Marino, Brian Aull, Dan Fouche, and Rick Heinrichs of Lincoln

Lab for explaining the inner workings of their Flash LADAR designs; to Tony Slotwinski

at Metric Vision and Phil Gatt and Duane Smith at Coherent Technologies Inc. for discussions on the mathematics of coherent LADAR range accuracy; and to Roger

Stettner of Advanced Scientific Concepts for material on image tube FPA systems.

Many of the above individuals generously gave permission to utilize images and figures relating to their work in this report. Where used these are credited to the source

institution.

vii
1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

This document summarizes a general technology assessment for laser radar conducted at NIST in response to the common needs of the Building and Fire Research

Laboratory’s (BFRL) Construction Integration and Automation (CONSIAT) program and

those of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory’s programs for automation in manufacturing and autonomous vehicle mobility. Both groups had been making daily use

of laser radar (LADAR) sensors prior to this study for significantly different reasons and

both found the limitations of existing LADAR technology to be a controlling factor to

furthering their independent research programs. 

In the former case, LADAR was being used for construction site characterization for

the purpose of controlling construction machinery and also to generate web-based billable quantities for earthmoving operations [Cheok and Witzgall, 2002]. One sigma, σ,

uncertainties on the order of +/- 25 mm with a range of 350 m were obtainable but

dense scans required acquisition times of 20 min to 90 min per range image. The

research team working on automated steel construction at NIST [Lytle et.al., 2002]

needed a real-time 3D sensor that could be used for docking steel beams at millimeter-level accuracy. “Real-time,” in the context of this report means frame update rates

of 10 Hz or greater. Likewise, size, weight, and cost are key issues for ubiquitous use

on a construction site. Present commercial LADARs run anywhere from $25,000 to in

excess of $400,000 with $100,000 being the average cost. Sizes vary but almost none

have volumes less than 15,000 cc with masses in excess of 15 kg. Although these

can be hand carried and set on a tripod, they were not at all in the range of the ubiquitous “coffee cup-sized sensor” that the roboticists had in mind.

The Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL), on the other hand, had LADAR

units mounted on autonomous vehicles that were being driven in rugged, off-road conditions, including forests, to test mobility metrics. In the application, LADAR systems

proved essential for obstacle avoidance. MEL used a different class of military

LADAR that achieved 30 Hz frame rates but did so at the cost of accuracy (about +/-

150 mm) and a reduced Field of View (FOV) of +/- 40 degrees by +/- 10 degrees.

The narrow FOV forced the team to design an inertially stabilized “nodding” platform in

order to “see” areas closer to the vehicle, such as potholes in a road in between longer

look scans to see what was coming down the path. The size of these units were on

the order of 35,000 cc with a commensurate mass of 35 kg. This robotics team

reached the similar conclusion that smaller, more accurate sensors with a wider FOV

were needed without losing the required frame rate.

As a result of a four year effort in support of the Army Research Lab Demo III

Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) program, the research team working on the mobility

program at NIST has identified the needs of high performance LADAR sensors for

autonomous on and off-road driving. In June of 2002, NIST released a Broad Agency

1.1
Announcement (BAA) for the design of next generation LADARs for driving unmanned

ground vehicles. The LADAR sensors were to be mounted on unmanned military robotic vehicles in order to provide range image information about the environment through

which the vehicle is driving through with sufficient resolution and image quality to provide reliable and robust obstacle/object detection and terrain feature information.

Phase I of the solicitation was for concept designs which could meet the desired performance and size requirement at a reduced cost in comparison with current limitations. Appendix B contains the original published BAA announcement on the requirement specifications and Section 6.0 is a status report on the results of Phase I. 

A joint task force was subsequently established at NIST to investigate the possibility of

developing a compact, high resolution, fast frame rate Next-Generation LADAR (NGL)

and developing the procedures and instrumentation to characterize the performance

metrics of such a device. This report represents the findings of that team.

1.2
1.2 Definition of Terms

The following terms are used throughout this report. They are the acronyms and jargon of the most commonly used nomenclature of the discipline. Terms in bold text

within the context of a definition are those for which explicit definitions are presented

elsewhere in this section. We will provide verbal descriptions here; more complete

technical discussions of many of these terms appear in later chapters where appropriate in describing a particular approach to the development of LADAR systems. 

APD: Avalanche Photo Diode. A variation of a p-n junction photodiode that is

designed to accomodate high electric fields. Light impinging on an APD creates electron-hole pairs. The electron is subsequently accelerated by the electric field. When it

impacts the crystal lattice of the semiconductor substrate it generates further electronhole pairs, in effect amplifying the signal. This technique is commonly used in low

light environments to detect the arrival of photons. The main development efforts in

APDs have been as fiber optic terminators in telecommunications. The bandwidth of

an APD detector is the number of unambiguous distinct signal measurements it can

make per second. APDs can be fabricated using a number of chemistries, including

traditional CMOS, but current efforts are moving towards InGaAs (Indium Galium

Arsenide) and InP (Indium Phosphide) due to their preferred operational optimum

wavelength which is proximal to the eyesafe 1.5 μm zone, thus allowing more power to

be used at the photon source.

CCD: Charge Coupled Device. imaging principle where individual pixels in an array

are allowed to transport, store, and accumulate optically-generated charge carriers to

defined sites within the device. CCD principles, combined with on-chip timers for each

pixel can be used to create a time-of-flight focal plane array.

Flash: A generic term for a LADAR system comprised of a broad field illumination

source (commonly a laser, but for close proximity it can be a bank of LEDs) and an

FPA detector, such that the range image is completely acquired simultaneously in one

burst. Although in some applications scanners can achieve real-time frame rates, only

flash LADARs can achieve very high frame rates. In general, because of the limited

number of pixels available on an FPA (currently about 256x256 is the maximum in the

laboratory) flash LADARs are unable to achieve the pixel density of a scanner.

However, hybrids are being developed in which flash LADARs themselves become the

instrument that is mounted e.g. in a pan-tilt platform or beam steering mechanism.

FOV: Field of View. The angular mapping of the LADAR frame. Some scanned

LADARS can achieve nearly full 2π steradian coverage; most FPA systems achieve

much smaller fields of view (e.g. 40o x 40o) as do real-time scanning LADARs. The

FPA limit is determined by lens optics; the real-time scanner limit is determined by the

required update rate and the speed of discrete LADAR range measurements.

1.3
FPA: Focal Plane Array. A 2-D “chip” in which individually addressable photo sensitive

“pixels” can be accessed. Early FPA detectors were developed as, first, infrared

imagers and later as FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed) detectors, largely for military

purposes. CCD FPAs in the early 1960s made it possible to consider “on chip” processing electronics, making it possible to multiplex the signals from a large imaging

array in real-time. These were not, however, ranging devices. Additional electronics

must be added to an FPA in the form of timing circuitry. This costs “real-estate” and

tends to limit the size of the array. While current CCD video camera chips can have

an FPA with in excess of 1000x1000 pixels, the best operational LADAR FPA is

presently a 32x32 array, although several labs have ongoing work to develop 128x128

and 256x256 arrays.

Frame: A complete 3-D data sample of the world produced by a LADAR taken at a

certain time, place, and orientation. A distinguishing aspect of a LADAR over a laser

rangefinder is that the LADAR produces a 3-D image of the world whereas the

rangefinder supplies a single distance between two points. Raw LADAR data is

almost always obtained in polar coordinates (i.e., angle, angle, range). The “image”

can be represented as a mapping of the vertical and horizontal angles to y and x pixel

locations, respectively, on a 2-D pixel map with the color of each pixel representing the

range. The size of the frame is determined by the FOV in the horizontal and vertical

directions divided by their respective angular resolutions. A single LADAR frame is

also referred to as a range image.

Frame Rate: The number of LADAR frames that can be acquired per second. For

example, if 10 frames could be acquired in one second, the frame rate would be 10

Hz. This is generally a metric that is only applicable to real-time systems, since most

commercial LADAR systems have update rates on the order of 20 min to 90 min. 

LADAR: Laser Detection and Ranging, or Laser Radar. A device consisting of a photon source (frequently, but not necessarily a laser), a photon detection system, a timing

circuit, and optics for both the source and receiver. Distance from the device to targets

struck by the emitted photons is measured by the time-of-flight (TOF) divided by the

speed of light. Strictly speaking the device could be a single shot “0-D” measurement

system (range only), but these are more commonly referred to as laser rangefinders.

LADAR, on the other hand, is generally assumed to generate a 3-D Range Image.

Mixed pixels: Originally developed to describe an FPA in which portions of the unit

cell were fabricated using CMOS technology while others were fabricated using, e.g.

III-V InGaAs technology.

NGL: Next-Generation LADAR. Small (“coffee cup sized”), economical, high accuracy

devices that can be used at high frame rates for machine control and automated field

metrology applications at less than 100 m range.

1.4
Range Measurement Accuracy: The uncertainty in a range measurement, usually

expressed in mm. This is a metric associated with each physical LADAR instrument.

It can only be established at a calibration facility by taking scores, hundreds, or thousands of measurements across a precisely known distance and to a target with a specified degree of reflectivity. A more rigorous, mathematical definition is given in Chapter

2.

Range Measurement Precision: The deviation of a group of range measurements

about a mean value (not necessarily the true value). In essence it is a measure of the

repeatability of the instrument. A more rigorous, mathematical definition is given in

Chapter 2.

Range Resolution: The smallest distance separation between two distinct objects

illuminated by a LADAR source that can be detected in the signal return. In large part

this term is controlled by the bandwidth of the receiver. 

ROIC: Read-Out Integrated Circuit. In infrared imaging sensors this was a physically

separate chip that resided beneath the detector FPA and provided the signal processing needed to obtain a usable image. It included such things as transimpedence

amplifiers (to boost the signal strength), analog to digital converters, and frame capture

electronics. In LADAR applications an additional capability must be added: timing circuitry. Many architectures have been developed in the past 30 years. Almost all of

the current LADAR FPA signal processing approaches stem from concepts originally

develped for FLIR detectors. The timing circuitry, on the other hand, has developed

along several complicated paths that are LADAR-specific. A sampling of these architectures are discussed in detail later in this report.

Scanner: Any physical mechanism that provides the capability for a laser rangefinder

to create a LADAR frame. Many different scanning mechanisms exist. The simplest

to understand is a “pan-tilt” platform to which a fast laser rangefinder has been affixed.

The entire instrument is tilted in discrete steps at the angular resolution of the mechanism while range measurements are made to acquire a vertical line of points. Then

the entire instrument is panned by an amount equal to the angular resolution of the

panning mechanism and a new vertical line is acquired. This process repeats until the

entire LADAR frame is obtained. A faster approach is to use mirrored beam deflectors

that can sweep the beam both horizontally and vertically. Mirrored systems make use

of discrete angle planar mirrors or spinning mirrored polygons. Other optical

approaches involving lenses and rotating prisms have been used as well to create the

same effect. 

Unit Cell: The view of an FPA as a stack (or column) of discrete functions underlying

each pixel that include such basic requirements as photon detection, signal amplification, signal processing, analog to digital conversion, frame capture, and timing.

1.5
1.3 Project Objectives

NIST has for a number of years conducted research in autonomous robotic platforms

and machinery and has reached a consensus regarding the required performance of a

“vision” system needed for effective control of machinery, be it an unmanned mobility

platform or a construction crane. A LADAR meeting these criteria would have the following attributes:

Some of these individual criteria can be met by certain existing systems. Taken

together, however, there is no present solution that resolves the core (second through

fifth) criteria at any size or price. The first FOV requirement is for construction machinery; the second and third are for peripheral and foveal mobility needs, respectively. 

Frequently there is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy. LADAR frames can be

created by scanning high resolution laser rangers (see Scanner) in which a singledegree-of-freedom laser rangefinder is mechanically swept over the scene using either

encoder-equipped pan/tilt servos or a rotating mirror combined with either a pan or tilt

servo. There are many scanner variants1 though due to mechanical reliance these

systems have inherent speed and accuracy limitations associated with the servos, the

physical mechanisms, and their encoders. There are novel approaches being investigated at NIST for high-speed, compact beam deflection that may allow fast 0-D

LADARs to be used for real-time, narrow FOV applications. As well, new work in FPA

design shows promise for both improving range resolution as well as speed. And only

this latter approach shows promise for the level of miniaturization needed to achieve

the last two criteria listed above. 

1.6

Table 1: Ideal Attributes of Ground Mobility and Machine

Automation LADAR-based Vision Systems

1 For an excellent summary up through 1993, see “Optomechanical Scanning Applications, Techniques,

and Devices,” by Jean Montagu and Herman DeWeerd, Chapter 3, Vol. 3, of the SPIE Infrared &

Electro-Optical Systems Handbook.

Attribute Value 

Illumination Source Eye Safe (1500 nm) 

Field of View 90ox90o; 40ox90o; 9ox9o

Range Resolution 1 mm @ 15 m; 3 mm @ 5 m to 100 m 

Angular Resolution <0.03o

Frame Rate >10 Hz 

Size "Coffee Cup" 

Cost < $1000 U.S. 
The FOV and angular resolutions listed in Table 1 translate to a 3000x3000 pixel FPA

for the largest FOV listed. The largest range-imaging FPA yet to be demonstrated successfully is 124x160 pixels [the CSEM SR-2, see Appendix A], although several labs

have 128x128 pixel arrays under development and one claims to have a 256x256 pixel

array in development. There are other significant optical issues relating to FPAs.

Illuminating a large FPA FOV requires considerable laser power, possibly exceeding

eyesafe output levels at most of the compatible wavelengths. Scanned, smaller FPAs

provide possible solutions that will be discussed in detail later. 

There are several additional factors currently limiting the development of high frame

rate LADARs for precision metrology and machine control. All LADARs base their

range determination on some form of time-of-flight (TOF) measurement, either by edge

triggered synchronized differential time measurement, or by phase correlation between

the outbound and incoming signals. The major sources of error are from the precision

with which the initial laser pulse is generated (continuous wave, pulsed, or chirped);

the nature and ambiguity of the light detection system (the current state-of-the-art

involves CMOS and III-V semiconductor (e.g. InGaAs) avalanche photodiode arrays;

and the means for precise timing of these events (integrated into the ROIC in the case

of an FPA). Ultimately, quantum efficiency and thermal noise (dark current) have been

the limiting factors in present detection systems. We attempt to discuss each of these

issues in this report and suggest, where possible, potential avenues to improve the

speed, accuracy, size and weight reduction of LADAR systems..

1.7
2.0 A Brief LADAR Physics and Technology Overview 

Laser Detection and Ranging (LADAR) is currently poised to become the ubiquitous

3D spatial measurement tool in many disciplines. Initially used for remote sensing and

aerial surveying, LADAR applications now include reverse engineering (3D models),

ground surveys, automated process control, target recognition, and autonomous

machinery guidance and collision avoidance to name just a few. Efforts are currently

underway at NIST to develop national artifact-traceable LADAR calibration facilities; to

develop rapid, LADAR-based long range autoID systems; and to establish the scientific

and engineering underpinning needed to develop miniature, high resolution next-generation LADAR systems. 

The power of LADAR lies in the inherent 3-D nature of the data it produces, namely

spatial coordinates associated with each pixel in a so-called “range image” acquired by

the device. A range image is effectively a spherically acquired (r, θ, φ) dataset mapped

to a 2-D matrix, or “frame.” LADAR frames are frequently presented as false color

depth images and in 3-D using stereo displays. Additional data, including reflectance

intensity associated with each pixel and multi-spectral intensity information, are commonly available. Color reflectance intensity (as opposed to active illumination frequency-specific reflected intensity) is obtained from co-boresighted RGB CCD sensors.

Such a wealth of information can be rapidly segmented for use by a wide variety of

real-time systems for machine control and post-processed for such metrology applications as as-built geometry checking for buildings and other civil infrastructure. This

said, why are we not seeing LADAR systems on every construction site? The reasons

most frequently cited are: slow speed of operation, bulky, high cost, and widely varying

accuracy that presently lacks standardized calibration metrics. There are other related

issues such as methods for processing the data (both real-time and offline) but that

subject will not be addressed in this report.

Frequently the performance of a LADAR is defined by the following metrics: 

2.1

• Maximum permissible illumination power

• Sensor horizontal Field of View (FOV)

• Sensor vertical FOV

• Wavelength of optical source

• Maximum distance to be measured

• Measurement time / frame rate

• Measurement resolution (depth)

• Measurement resolution (angular)

• Range Measurement accuracy
To these one frequently must consider:

At the conclusion of this paper we will present a set of design criteria we feel are representative of those needed to achieve ubiquitous use of LADAR sensing for construction operations. We will also comment on the research needed to achieve a physical

sensor meeting such criteria.

2.1 Direct Time-of-Flight (TOF)

Figure 2.1.1 shows a “family tree” of LADAR devices that have at one time or another

been built to operate at optical and near-optical wavelengths. Useful in-depth discussions on many of these devices are provided in [Lange, 2000; Besl, 1988; and

Kammerman, 1993]. No attempt will be made here to duplicate these previous efforts,

but rather, to summarize some of the basic principles and to extrapolate and expand

them based on more recent hardware and software developments.

Figure 2.1.1: “Family Tree” of optical and near-optical wavelength time-of-flight range measurement devices (adapted from Lange, 2000).

2.2

• Intensity of background (passive) illumination

• Color temperature of the (passive) background

• Target reflectivity (texture, color, specularity)

• Angle of beam incidence on the object

• Overall size (volume) of the sensor

• Manufactured cost of the sensor
The simplest of the concepts uses direct time-of-flight (TOF) incoherent design, as

illustrated in Figure 2.1.2. An illumination pulse is generated, frequently by means of a

Nd-YAG microchip laser -- but any short pulse laser will work, and the time of this

event is made available to a timing circuit. The beam traverses a distance equal to 2d

and arrives at a photonic detector in time:

where c = speed of light. A clock time of 1 ns represents a 300 mm round-trip flight or

an absolute range of 150 mm. One can immediately see that an extremely accurate

clock is required to achieve a level of accuracy sufficient for autonomous fabrication. 

Figure 2.1.3 shows a typical physical implementation of a direct TOF LADAR [Schilling

and Barr et al, 2002]. The microchip laser generates 1 ns pulses at a rate of 10 kHz,

producing an unambiguous range interval of 15 km. The signals are detected by an

avalanche photodiode (APD). In this particular implementation an optical beam splitter

is used to divert a portion of the source signal to the APD, thus providing the “start

timer” mark for range determination. The accuracy of such systems depends on a

number of factors including the pulse width, detector electronics bandwidth, and the

processor implementation. If the APD bandwidth is 2 GHz and the analog-to-digital

2.3

Figure 2.1.2: Fundamental physics of pure “pulsed” time-of-flight. Key performance metrics

are synchronization precision of pulse initiation between the source and detector, pulse width

and power, and detector bandwidth. (adapted from Lange, 2000)

c

d

t

2 = Eq. 2.1.1
readout (see ROIC) is matched, then the timing “bin” width is approximately 0.5 ns, but

since that is round-trip, the range bin accuracy is thus 75 mm. This 0-D ranging system is then scanned in 2D using electromechanically steered mirror systems.

2.1.1 Limitations of Direct TOF

Thus far we have made the assumption that all of the photons that are generated hit

one specific object and are reflected back to the detector in a narrowly discriminating

beam yielding one range measurement per pixel. This is not the case as shown in

Figure 2.1.4. 

Figure 2.1.4: Source beam divergence variance

and its effect on absolute beam diameter at 

100 m range.

Figure 2.1.3: Typical physical implementation of a direct time-of-flight LADAR Scale is approximately 300 mm long by 150 mm wide (image courtesy Night Vision Lab).

2.4
Due to imperfect optics and atmospheric dispersion the source illumination beam

(pulse) expands with range; good industrial LADARS that have achieved near-diffraction limited optics have beam dispersion angles of around 0.2 mrad. Even so, this produces a finite beam diameter at 100 m of around 20 mm. This has explicit physical

consequences in the reported range measurement. Because the unambiguous range

of the device shown in Figure 2.1.3 is on the order of 15 km, one receives, in time,

responses from photons from the illumination pulse arriving at different times related to

the different objects they hit within the cone of the dispersed beam. Figure 2.1.5 illustrates this point. A single “pixel” in the LADAR frame will in fact frequently have multiple valid ranges as the expanded beam penetrates the foliage. Figure 2.1.6 shows a

time-domain response that might be anticipated from a system that was able to record

the entire record of the received pulse over time. Any strong return above the noise

threshold represents a valid object

detection. Thus, one could store

not one value, but a vector of values, for each pixel. Some

LADARs now being developed illuminate at more than one wavelength. The response at each pixel

can then be represented by a

matrix with n returns per source frequency f, as shown at right.

Figure 2.1.5: Due to beam divergence photons

associated with a single “pixel” in a LADAR

frame may represent significantly differing range

data.

Figure 2.1.6: Full time-domain response for a 1ns

pulse. Response was captured in 801 “range bins.”

The time-width of each bin was 0.5 ns, or 150 mm

(courtesy Night Vision Lab).

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅

⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅

⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅

⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⋅⋅

⋅⋅⋅

m

m

n f n f

f

f

f f f f

R R

R

R

R R R R

, ,

3,

2,

1, 1, 1, 1,

1

1

1

1 2 3

2.5
Figure 2.1.7: Phantom Points Phenomenon. 2.1.7a (top left): Calibration block at NIST that was used

for performance testing of LADAR point cloud registration and meshing algorithms. 2.1.7b (lower left)

and 2.1.7c) (above right) illustrate the presence of phantom points formed along both the vertical edges

(2.1.7c) and horizontal edges (2.1.7b) for instruments that report a single averaged range reading (as

opposed to all valid returns within a pixel field of view). The block was modeled in 3-D using four registered scans at a reported accuracy of +/- 20 mm; the thick black lines shown in Figures 2.1.7b) and

2.1.7c) are in fact composed of thousands of 3-D points and the composite graphically illustrates the

variance on an otherwise planar surface. Individual scans were taken from viewpoints along radials at 3

m from the center of the block through the vertical corner edges. Two such viewpoints, “A” and “B” in

2.1.7c are marked in the plan view of the block. The phantom points associated with the rear vertical

edges are highlighted in orange. The un-colored 3-D point outliers in Figure 2.1.7c are shown in orange

in the side view of Figure 2.1.7b (below, left). Some instrument makers are now providing software

options to select either the first or last return to be recorded. In many cluttered environments, however,

including construction, the advantages of an “N-return” per pixel system are significant.

2.6

2.1.7a

2.1.7b

2.1.7c
At present, no commercial pulse TOF LADAR provides the user with this kind of pixel

response matrix (or even a single frequency time domain vector). Instead, it is common to average earlier arrivals that have a strong signal-to-noise radio (SNR) and

report that as a single range per pixel. The results of this averaging are shown in

Figure 2.1.7, where non-existent “phantom” points become part of the point cloud data

set. The point here is that each of the valid returns shown in Figure 2.1.6 represent

usable engineering information that is presently not available. The development of

methods to achieve the acquisition of such “n-return” per pixel capability is considered

a high priority for Next-Generation LADAR. 

Recognizing this limitation, particularly in the presence of fog or dust, some LADAR

manufacturers have begun offering “first” and “last” return options. If some of the outgoing photons manage to make a 2-way transit of the intervening medium (fog, dust,

tree leaves) then the last return can be expected to represent “ground truth” -- the true

range of a physical solid detected within the scene blurred by environmental effects.

But this ignores the problem of multiple, valid targets within a pixel field of view, and

this problem persists regardless of whether “first” or “last” returns are reported. It is a

limitation of existing technology that not all valid returns above the noise threshold are

reported. 

Figure 2.1.8: The achievable accuracy in a direct time-of-flight LADAR is controlled not only by the signal to noise ratio (SNR) but also by the bandwidth of the system at each component. Very fast APDs

(running at approximately 10 GHz) are now available commercially through telecommunications component manufacturers; yet the fastest single channel digitizer can sample only 4*109 samples/second.

2.7
Pulse TOF systems, such as diagramatically shown in Figure 2.1.8, are limited in their

accuracy not only by the bandwidth of the detector (currently limited to a maximum of

approximately 10 GHz*), although research in fiber optic tele-communications is competitive and is pushing this figure of merit higher), but also by the bandwidth of the

post-detection conversion read-out circuitry. Presently, fast stand-alone single channel

digitizers can achieve 4*109samples per second** operating throughput. All other elements of the system notwithstanding, this immediately limits the best direct range resolution bin size to 250 ps round trip (1/ 4*109 = 250*10-12s), or 125 ps = 75 mm for oneway distance to the target (∆d, following Eq. 2.1.2 below). 

Similarly, the pulse width of the source illumination affects the achievable accuracy,

since edge detection is enhanced by a shorter, sharper pulse. The shortest pulse

source currently used in an operational LADAR device is 250 ps [Aull et al, 2001],

although this is by no means close to the shortest laser pulses thus far generated.

More on this subject will be presented in Chapters 4 and 5.

Desipite this apparent physics limitation, many commercial direct time-of-flight LADARs

report range accuracies in the 10 mm to 20 mm range, not 75 mm. Approaches to

range accuracy improvement generally center around what are broadly referred to as

“super resolution” algorithms [e.g. Cheeseman, 1994] originally developed for sharpening blurred video images and techniques for improving edge detection in the presence

of noise. 

Super resolution is the process of combining information from multiple low-resolution

images to form a single high-resolution image. The Cheeseman algorithm for superresolution is based on a Bayesian framework that can be adapted to the analysis of

several consecutive single pixel responses (e.g. the binned return signal output from a

4 Giga-sample/s digitizer) to produce a sub-bin-length estimate for the time-of-flight.

Ultimately, the circuit speed of the digitizer will be limited by the responsivity of the

semi-conductor materials.

2.8

2

c t d ⋅∆ ∆ = Eq. 2.1.2

*e.g. the SU020-10A-TO 10 GHz Avalanche photodiode from Sensors Unlimited, Inc.; http://www.sensorsinc.com/product

**e.g. the Cougar 1010-4, 4 Giga-sample per second standalone V-Class Multichannel Digitizer,

http://www.acqiris.com/products
2.2 Phase-Based AM-CW

One means for improving accuracy over direct time-of-flight distance measurement is

through the use of phase detection. This concept is illustrated in Figure 2.2.1. If the

source is modulated at a single sinusoidal frequency, f, then a phase shift of 

will be observed between the transmitted and received signal. Therefore, the object

distance is given by:

The unambiguous range resolution is directly proportional to the source modulation frequency, f, while the accuracy is directly proportional to the SNR. The two are related;

the smaller the unambiguous range for a given SNR the finer can be parsed the phase

difference, thus improving the accuracy. For the case shown in Figure 2.2.1, the

unambiguous range is half the wavelength at f = 20 MHz, or 7.5 m. 

Figure 2.2.1: Phase-based determination of time-of-flight. Primary modulation frequency establishes the

maximum unambiguous range for the device. 

( ) ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆φ = π = π

c

2d 2 f t 2 f ROUNDTRIP

f

c d

π

φ

4

∆ =

Eq. 2.2.1

Eq. 2.2.2

2.9
SNR can be improved by integration over many cycles, but at the cost of raw throughput (frame rate). Both modulation frequency and SNR play a direct role in determining

the range accuracy as per Eq 2.2.3:

The SNR (dB), refers to the measured signal read from the sensor and is defined as: 

where A2 is the measured signal amplitude and A1 is the background noise amplitude.

From an electronics standpoint Eq. 2.2.4 is means of quantifying how many more signal electrons are being produced at the sensor than noise electrons. More signal electrons, provided the digitizing system (e.g. an analog-to-digital converter) contains

enough bits to resolve the count, equates to a finer parsing of the unambigous range

and hence improved accuracy. Some practical solutions to how this is actually

achieved in practice will be discussed later in this section.

The important lesson is that repeated sampling (often numbering in the thousands of

samples), higher return light flux (both from using higher power sources and better

optics), and higher efficiency photoelectron production in the sensing material will all

improve the S/N value and hence the accuracy for a phase-based measurement system. As an example then, for an AM/CW LADAR with a source modulation frequency

of 20 MHz , and a measured SNR of 70 dB, we find an approximate accuracy (thermal

noise and other issues to be discussed later notwithstanding) of:

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅

≅

⋅

λ

≅

λ

σ ∝

20

SNR

20

SNR

2 10

f

c

2 10

SNR

2

2.37 mm

2 10

2 10 cycles/s

3 10 m /s

20

70

7

8

=

⋅

⋅

⋅

σ ≅

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

1

2

A

A SNR = 20⋅log

Eq. 2.2.3

Eq. 2.2.4

Eq. 2.2.5

2.10
There is a tradeoff to this equation. If you can receive greater power at the sensor you

can shorten the integration time to achieve a desired level of accuracy. Conversely, a

longer integration time collects more background radiation (noise). So the balance is

to select a measurement time to where the SNR is as good as you need. As mentioned earlier if you raise the frequency, f, the non-ambiguous range grows shorter as

the achievable measurement accuracy improves. There are several methods that

have been developed to extend accuracy to greater distances including:

The latter technique is used in the commercial LADAR produced by Z+F [Langer

2000].

The approach shown in Eq. 2.2.3 for estimating the accuracy of an AM-CW LADAR

assumes that 100 % of the signal modulation is transferred into the sensor material

and converted to a usable signal. In actual practice, due to bipolar diffusion current,

the modulation depth is less than 1. The more general form for the transmitted (modulated) and received signals is:

From this one may calculate the measurement uncertainty (standard deviation) as:

where N is the phase shifting number (that is, the number of equally-spaced places the

signal is sampled along a given wavelength), and λ the modulation wavelength. K is

known as the “modulation contrast” and is given by:

( ) 1 cos( ) Isignal t = + a1 ⋅ ωt −φ

2

1 2 a a K ⋅ =

4 N K ( ) SNR

2

K 2 1

d

2

⋅π⋅ ⋅ ⋅

λ⋅ ⋅ +

∆ =

( ) cos( ) mod 2 I t a t ulation = ⋅ ω Eq. 2.2.6

Eq. 2.2.8

Eq. 2.2.9

Eq. 2.2.7

2.11

• FM-CW

• Pseudorandom Noise

• Use of second or multiple wavelengths
Eq. 2.2.8 is plotted in Figure 2.2.2 and shows the achievable accuracy for an AMhomodyne LADAR. The modulation contrast, K, is dependent on the characteristics of

the semiconductor materials used in the detector and their efficiency at converting photoelectrons into measurable current that can be sensed; the SNR can be improved by

any of the methods previously discussed.

Figure 2.2.2: Accuracy of AM-CW Homodyne LADAR based on CMOS photonic mixer technology as a

function of modulation contrast (K) and SNR for a single modulation frequency of 20 MHz and a sampling constant, N, of 8. [from Buxbaum, 2003]. 

2.12
2.2.1 Range Determination in AM-Homodyne LADAR

Range determination using phase measurement is adapted from earlier work in radar

in which the source and received signals are mixed and the phase, amplitude, and offset of the resulting signal are determined through solution of the resulting correlation

function. The phase shift between the transmitted and received signals is determined

by the 3D content of the illuminated scene and is the principal item of interest to be

extracted from the mixed signal. Although there are a number of ways to do this, one

of the most common is to synchronously demodulate the signal in the detector, through

a process known as “photonic mixing.” 

The measurement of the cross-correlation function at specified phase locations allows

the unknown phase of the return signal to be derived. The derivation presented below

follows that of [Lange, 2000]. For an AM-CW LADAR the received optical signal will

have the form:

where ‘a’ is the modulation amplitude, φ is the phase, ω the modulation frequency, and

‘t’ the time. The source signal (used to demodulate the return signal) is given by:

The correlation function is then given by:

Substituting Eqs 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 in Eq. 2.2.12 and expanding yields Eqs. 2.2.13 and

2.2.14 as:

⎪

⎭

⎪

⎬

⎫

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎨

⎧

τ = → ∞ + ⋅ ω − φ ⋅ ω + ωτ ∫

−

2

T'

2

T'

[1 a cos( t )] [cos( t )]dt

T'

1

c( ) limT'

c(τ) = [ ][ ] 1+ a ⋅ cos(ω t − φ) ⊗ cos(ω t) Eq. 2.2.13

Eq. 2.2.14

s(t) =1+ a ⋅ cos(ωt −φ)

g(t) = cos(ωt)

c(τ ) = s(t)⊗ g(t) Eq. 2.2.12

Eq. 2.2.11

Eq. 2.2.10

2.13
from which a closed form solution is obtained:

In order to obtain a numerical solution for the amplitude, phase, and offset (DC signal

component) one must evaluate the function at different phases, ωτ. Further, the measured signal will also include a component, denoted by the constant b here, that represents the background radiation component (e.g. from sunlight). If the function is sampled at a spacing of π/2 the following four equations result:

The phase and amplitude of the incident signal is then obtained as:

[ ][ ]

2

(3) (1) (0) (2) 2 2

c c c c

a − + − =

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

−

− = −

(0) (2)

(3) (1) tan 1

c c

c c φ

Eq. 2.2.18

cos( ) 2 (τ ) = φ +ωτ

a

c Eq. 2.2.15

b ac = cos( ) +

2 (0) φ

b ac = − sin( ) +

2 (1) φ

b ac = − cos( ) +

2 (2) φ

b ac = sin( ) +

2 (3) φ

Eq. 2.2.16a

Eq. 2.2.16d

Eq. 2.2.16c

Eq. 2.2.16b

Eq. 2.2.17

2.14
A more computationally flexible approach that lends itself to discretization as well as

implementation in hardware [e.g. Buxbaum, 2002, Spirig, 1997] is to sample the modulated signal synchronously. If one uses N sampling points, the Nyquist criteria allows

calculation of N/2-1 harmonics of the modulation frequency. Using the Discrete

Fourier Transform

One can then solve for the magnitude of the nth coefficient as:

The offset is:

And the phase of the nth coefficient is:

Several groups, including [Lange, 2000; Buxbaum, 2002; and Smithpeter et al 2000]

have built operational AM-CW systems using a 4-sample (N=4) approach. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 2.2.3.

By using a single sinusoidal modulation frequency and by sampling the response at

the detector at intervals of π/2 (at four equally spaced temporal points) one can reduce

Eqs 2.2.20 - 2.2.22 as follows for, respectively, phase, amplitude, and offset:

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⎟ + ⋅ ⋅ − ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = ⋅ ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ = ∑ ⋅ ∑ ∑

−

=

−

=

−

=

− 1

0

1

0

1

0

2

cos 2 sin 2 1 1 ( )

N

k

N

k

k k

N

k

N

n i k

n k N

n i I k

N

n I k

N

I e

N

DFT I π π

2 1

0

2 1

0

cos 2 sin 2 1

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ + ⋅ − ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = ∑ ⋅ ∑

−

=

−

=

N

k

k

N

k

n k N

n I k

N

n I k

N

A π π

∑

−

=

=

1

0

0

1 N

k

k I

N

A

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⋅

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⋅

=

∑

∑

−

=

−

− =

1

0

1

1 0

cos 2

sin 2

tan N

k

k

N

k

k

n

N

n I k

N

n I k

π

π

φ

Eq. 2.2.20

Eq. 2.2.19

Eq. 2.2.21

Eq. 2.2.22

2.15
where 

represents a signal attenuation factor that depends on the integration time period ∆t.

and A0, A1, A2, A3 represent the charge integration of the mixed signal over the intervals shown in Figure 2.2.3. 

The the physical implementation of this technology can take several forms, some of

which will be discussed in greater detail later in this report. One now-common

approach makes use of so-called photonic mixing (Figure 2.2.4) in which a standard

CMOS photo diode is reverse biased by the same frequency source that modulates

the transmitted illumination signal. This diode responds directly to the mixed signal

consisting of the modulated bias and the incoming photoelectrons (which have been

delayed, and hence phase-shifted to provide information on the 3D scene they illumiFigure 2.2.3: In a phase-based solution the transmitted and received signals are mixed. Discrete

Fourier Transform (DFT) theory allows extraction of the phase, amplitude, and offset by sampling four

points at an interval of π/2 along the resulting waveform (from Lange, 2000)

[ ][ ]2

0 2

2

3 1 2 sin

A A A A

t

A − + − ⋅∆ ⋅ = δ

δ

t

A A A A B ⋅∆

+ + + = 4

0 1 2 3

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

−

− = −

0 2

1 3 1 tan

A A

A A φ Eq. 2.2.23

Eq. 2.2.24

Eq. 2.2.25

2

⋅∆t = π δ Eq. 2.2.26

2.16
nate). This technique is known as an AM-Homodyne LADAR. Timing circuitry causes

the charge integrated over the white portions of the curve in Figure 2.2.3 to ground

while summing (through a capacitor) the regions A0, A1, A2, A3, respectively, and

selectively storing those values for later processing, either on-chip or offboard using

Eq. 2.2.23. Figure 2.2.4a illustrates the process schematically and is the basis of two

of the LADAR systems shown in Appendix A produced by CSEM and PMD. Figure

2.2.4b shows the electrical schematic of the connection between the CSEM CMOS

photogate and the ROIC. 

It is possible to implement 2D detectors using all CMOS fabrication technology in the

form of Focal Plane Arrays (FPAs) such as that depicted schematically in Figure

2.2.4b. Individual pixels within a LADAR field of view are mapped (optically) to pixels

on the FPA. Similar FPAs can be constructed to work on the the direct time-of-flight

principle described earlier. Both approaches are referred to as flash LADAR. 

Figure 2.2.4: (a) (left): Example of an “Active Pixel Sensor,” (APS) one of many versions of a Focal

Plane Array (FPA) that can be used to simultaneously sample hundreds to thousands of pixels. (b)

(right): a Focal Plane Array comprised of a matrix of APS sensors. FPAs form the core of “flash”

LADAR. (from Lange, 2000, and Spirig, 1997). 

2.17
2.2.2 Limitations of AM Phase Measurements

Pure homodyne (single frequency, non-coherent) LADARs suffers from two significant

limitations. As the modulation frequency is increased, thereby improving potential

accuracy, the un-ambiguous range is reduced -- leading to aliasing or false targets if

the range happens to be greater than the unambiguous range. A solution to this problem is to use multiple frequencies [4] in which a lower frequency signal is used to

establish an un-ambiguous interval over a longer distance within which the higher frequency response is located. The mathematics for solving this approach are not significantly more complicated than for the pure homodyne solution, but it has yet to be

implemented in silicon; a commercial 2-frequency LADAR is produced by Z+F (see

Appendix A). 

A much more serious problem with phase-based measurement is illustrated in Figure

2.2.5. Due to beam divergence and varying reflectivity of target surfaces, both accuracy and resolution are affected for all types of LADAR, but particularly for AM-homodyne

class devices which in effect integrate the reflected photons from all surfaces that are

illuminated within the pixel FOV, thereby producing an erroneous average range. This

error can be great, particularly if the targets are at substantial range and where either

multiple discrete targets exist (e.g. shooting through foliage) or when a fully-resolved

target has sharply inclined facets. The effect is, in fact, more serious than that for

direct TOF measurement devices because the result is based on the presumption that

the return photoelectron flux is directly proportional to the range, which it most definiteFigure 2.2.5: Due to beam divergence and varying reflectivity of target surfaces, both accuracy and resolution are affected for all types of LADAR, but particularly for AM-homodyne class devices which in

effect integrate the reflected photons from all surfaces that are illuminated, thereby producing an erroneous average range.

2.18
ly is not in many practical cases. For example, if the lower right block in Figure 2.2.5

happened to be coated with a retroreflective material (or even simply a more reflective

material than the blocks in front) the resulting range reported would be longer, and

erroneously biased towards the front surface of that block. The range is in effect a

weighted average of the returns from all of the objects illuminated within a particular

pixel. This, in turn, leads to the same type of phantom points described earlier.

2.19
2.3 Chirped AM-CW

It is possible to recover multiple ranges per pixel in an amplitude modulated LADAR by

producing a very specifically-shaped amplitude modulation, known as a chirp. The

theory for such an approach was initially developed for radar [Skolnik, 1980] but only

recently has been adapted to optical systems [e.g. Stann et al, 1996]. In a chirp pulse

the frequency is varied linearly with time (see Figure 2.3.1). Experimental LADAR

breadboards have been built where the start frequency of the chirp is 200 MHz and the

end frequency is 800 MHz. The start and stop frequencies are limited by the modulation bandwidth of the laser source and the bandwidth of the detector. The range resolution (per pixel) in such a LADAR is given as:

in which ∆F is the the difference (Hz) between the start and stop frequencies. For ∆F

of 600 MHz ∆R = 250 mm. There are several methods for modulating the illumination

source. These include amplitude modulation of the laser power (incoherent LADARs);

direct frequency modulation of the

laser; and phase modulation of the

source (coherent LADARs), with each

approach following the general prescribed variance with time as shown

in Figure 2.3.1. For simplicity of

exposition we follow [Stann et al] in

this section and describe only the first

method, that of modulating the amplitude of the source laser. This

method is technically referred to as

chirped AM/CW modulation. True frequency modulation (in which the actual frequency of the laser is varied

over time) typically requires changing

the optical cavity length of the laser,

either by mechanical (e.g. piezo) or

electro-optical means. Precision

oscillators are required in both cases.

Commercial devices using monolithic

microwave integrated circuits are

available for this purpose that are

suitable for short range applications

such as envisioned for NGL.

In a chirped AM/CW system the chirp

signal is fed into a wideband power

F

c R

∆

∆ = 2

Figure 2.3.1: Linear Chirp. Frequency vs Time plot

(top); Amplitude vs Time (bottom).

Eq. 2.3.1

2.20
Figure 2.3.2: Block diagram for an experimental single channel (2-D) chirped-AM/cw LADAR.

[courtesy ARL]. 

Figure 2.3.3: Chirped AM/CW ranging. A self-mixing detector is located at the focal plane of the receiver

optics. The transmitter modulation waveform (local oscillator) is applied across the detector and the

resulting photo-current is the product of the local oscillator waveform and that of the return signal. The

transmitted and received waveform (dashed line) differ by the the intermediate frequency fif, which can

be sampled by the read-out circuit. [courtesy ARL]. 

2.21
amplifier that modulates the current driving a semiconductor laser diode. A circuit

between the power amplifier and the laser diode matches the driving impedance of the

amplifier to the laser diode impedence over ∆F. This causes the light beam intensity to

modulate over the chirp bandwidth. The laser diode characteristics limit the achievable

modulation bandwidth of the system and hence the achievable accuracy. 

The laser diode converts the chirp current waveform into a light waveform where the

power is proportional to the driving current, hence the name AM/CW (Amplitude-modulated, continuous wave). The return light signal enters an array of self-mixing custom

metal-semiconductor-metal (MSM) detector that is biased by a portion of the signal

coming from the RF amplifier that drives the laser, thus producing a similar electronic

effect to the previously described photonic mixing technology for single range measurement AM/CW LADARs. Strictly speaking this is electronic, not optical, mixing of the

two signals.

Because the optical return signal is mixed electronically with the source modulation

signal (as opposed, e.g., to coherent mixing discussed below) the bandwidth of the

detector is of critical importance in high resolution designs. Commercial telecommunications photodiodes (e.g. APDs and MSMs) have bandwidths ranging from 1 GHz to

10 GHz and similarly limit one-way range resolution to 300 mm (at 1 GHz) and 30 mm

(at 10 GHz). In the approach taken by Stann et al the current from the MSM photodiode is converted into a voltage with a transimpedence amplifier. The system shown in

Figure 2.3.2 consists of an MSM array and CMOS read-out circuit. The result is a

sinusoidal signal whose frequency is proportional to target range and whose amplitude

is proportional to target reflectivity. This signal must be subsequently processed, using

an FFT, to obtain a time domain response. 

Stann et al (1996) describes the mathematics of FM ranging theory as follows. The

frequency of the transmitted waveform is given by:

where f0 is the center or carrier frequency of the chirp waveform, t is the time, and T is

the total time to complete one chirp (or chirp duration). 

2 2 ( ) , 0

T

t

T

t

T

F f t f ⋅ − ≤ ≤ ∆ = + Eq. 2.3.2

2.22
The phase of the transmitted chirp waveform is given by: 

and the received signal phase is:

The term τ in Eq. 2.3.4 is the round trip flight time from the source to target to detector,

in seconds. The difference in phase between the received and transmitted signal is:

Substituting Eqs. 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 yields:

This can be solved to give:

Noting that T (the chirp length) can be designed to be much greater than τ, Eq. 2.3.7

can be simplified to obtain: 

t dt

T

F

t f

t

R ⎟ ′

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⋅ ′ ∆ = + ∫

−

−∞

τ

φ π 0 ( ) 2

(t) (t) (t) ∆φ = φ X −φ R

Eq. 2.3.4

Eq. 2.3.5

t dt

T

F

t f

t

t

⎟ ′

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⋅ ′ ∆ ∆ = + ∫

( − )

0 ( ) 2

τ

φ π Eq. 2.3.6

t dt

T

F

t f

t

X ⎟ ′

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⋅ ′ ∆ = + ∫

−∞

0 φ ( ) 2π Eq. 2.3.3

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⋅ − +

∆ ⎟ − − + ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⋅ ∆ ∆ = + 2 2

0

2

0 ( 2

2

2 ( ) 2 φ ( ) 2π π τ t tτ τ

T

F

t f t

T

F

t f t Eq. 2.3.7

t

T

F φ t πf τ π τ

∆ ∆ ( ) = 2 + 2 0 Eq. 2.3.8

2.23
The intermediate frequency (IF) waveform can be shown as: 

where aR is the amplitude of the received signal, accounting for all propagation, scattering, detection, and mixing losses and amplifier gains. The first term in Eq. 2.3.9 is a

fixed Doppler phase term that is proportional to the carrier frequency and time delay or

distance to the target. The second term represents a frequency proportional to the distance to the target.

The range can be determined by measuring the frequency of Vm(t) over T. This can

be accomplished through computation of the Fourier transform of the waveform as:

Integration of Eq. 2.3.10 yields:

In Eq. 2.3.11 the term aR has been removed to normalize the response. For a LADAR

architecture employing the discrete Fourier transform to obtain range cells, each complex output sample of the transform represents the magnitude and phase of the

respective harmonic frequency components of the input waveform that occur at integer

multiples of 1/T. This allows f to be replaced in Eq. 2.3.11 with n/T as follows:

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆ = + t

T

F V t a f M R 0 ( ) cos 2πτ

t e dt

T

F f Ta F f j f t T

T

R π πτ 2 / 2

/ 2 0 ( ) cos 2 −

∫− ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆ = +

Eq. 2.3.9

f T

T

F

f T

T

F

e

f T

T

F

f T

T

F

F f e j f j f

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

∆ +

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

∆ +

+ ⋅

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

∆ −

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

∆ −

= ⋅ −

τ

π

τ

π

τ

π

τ

π π τ π τ

sin sin

( ) 0 0 2 2

[ ] ( )

( )

[ ] ( )

( ) F n

F n

e

F n

F n

e

T

n F j f j f

∆ +

∆ +

+ ⋅ ∆ −

∆ − = ⋅ −

π τ

π τ

π τ

π τ sin π τ π τ sin ( ) 2 0 2 0

Eq. 2.3.12

Eq. 2.3.11

Eq. 2.3.10

2.24
The exponential factors in Eq. 2.3.12 represent the Doppler component present in

each harmonic line, while the (sin x) / x factors represent the amplitude of the Doppler

components. For n > 4 the second term can be ignored. The harmonic component of

F(n/T) in the first part has a maximum for:

This means that the output samples of the discrete fourier transform have been

mapped to normalized range. Thus, each output sample corresponds to a range gate.

The system response, for n > 4 approaches that of a sync function whose maxima is

centered on an integer value of normalized range. The spacing is uniform and integer

which means that:

However, from a variant of Eq. 2.1.1:

and thus, the range resolution of this class of system is given by:

Which confirms Eq. 2.3.1. Experimental and numerical simulations conducted by

[Stann et al.,1996] verify that the above theory is applicable for situations where ∆F is

a high percentage of f0, which would be the case for the design of high resolution

LADARs.

The chief limitations of the AM-CW LADAR approach are the need for additional frontend hardware (complicated chirp-generation electronics that add both cost, size, and

an additional level of noise), the frequency response of the laser source (which may be

bandwidth limited); and the manifold increased mathematical post-processing that is

involved for real-time performance. 

∆Fτ = n

∆F∆τ =1

F

c R

∆

∆ = 2

Eq. 2.3.13

Eq.2.3.14

Eq. 2.3.16

c

∆R ∆ == 2

τ Eq. 2.3.15

2.25
For a typical laser diode with a bandwidth of 2 GHz the achievable range resolution

(“bin” or “gate” width at the detector) is 75 mm round trip. From this it becomes immediately clear that for a system being designed for a range resolution of several mm that

the source and detector bandwidth will be the problem forcing itself upon our attention.

This physics limitation applies to both pulsed and chirped systems. 

2.26
2.4 Coherent LADAR

The terms coherent and non-coherent have specific architectural connotations in

LADAR literature. In coherent detection (also known as heterodyne) the return signal

from the target is optically mixed with a reference laser, known as a local oscillator or

“LO” - commonly a highly stable continuous wave laser. The two mixed signals, which

must be wavefront matched and combined through a heterodyne mixer, are focused

onto a photodetector (e.g. an APD or PIN chip). A simplified schematic of how this

might be implemented is shown in Figure 2.4.1. Other examples are given later from

implemented commercial products.

The intensity (in W/m2) response at the detector is given by [Kamerman, 1996] as:

Where

P P P 2 ãP P cos(2ðos( è) detector = LO + S + LO S +

Figure 2.4.1: Simplified schematic of a coherent laser radar. A highly precise local oscillator (LO) is

used to synchronize the continuous wave laser illumination source as well as to illuminate the heterodyne mixer. Although the LO and the coherent illumination source can be one and the same physical

device it is more common to have a physically separate LO and to use mode-locking to synchronize the

illumination source. In this manner the LO power impinging on the heterodyne mixer can be arbitrarily

boosted to a level just short of saturation. Such techniques can be used to produce a shot noise dominated response that is effectively insensitive to ambient radiation sources (e.g. sunlight).

( ) [ ] 2 cos(( ) ) 2 2

0 I t c E E E E t LO S LO S ωS ωLO = ε + + − Eq. 2.4.1

2.27
The power (spatial integral of the intensity) on the detector is given by [Gatt, 2003] as:

where

Equations 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 are comprised of three parts: the incident power at the

detector due to the local oscillator (LO); the incident power from the return signal

(reflected from the target); and the interference power, given by the third term in Eq.

2.4.2. It is this term that carries the signal information (amplitude and phase). Simple

inspection shows that PLO can be arbitrarily increased in power (up to the point of saturation of the detector). It is this feature that makes coherent detection ladar 

so much more sensitive than direct detection. The amplification process occurs in the

optical domain (via mixing with an optical LO), before any thermal noise gets into the

system. In direct detection usually the amplification is done in the electrical domain

(i.e., electron gain), which amplifies noise as well. Coherent LADARs can be

designed to be shot noise limited. The significance of this is discussed in Section

2.4.1.

Is = R*Pd 

electric permittivity of free space

c speed of light in a vacuum

local oscillator signal electric field frequency inHz

received signal electric field frequency inHz

E received signal electric field amplitude in V/m

E local oscillator electric field amplitude in V/m

I(t) intensity incident on the detector in W/m2

0

LO

S

S

LO

ε =

=

ω =

ω =

=

=

=

2 cos(2 ) Pdet ector = PLO + PS + γPLO PS π∆ft +θ

is the heterodyne mixing efficiency

is the phase difference between E and E

, where Zo is the impedance of free space (377 ) 1c

2 f

P integral of c over detector area

P integral of c over detector area

LO S

0

0

S

2

S 0

2

LO 0

γ

θ

ε

π ω ω

ε

ε

= Ω 

∆ = −

=

=

Z

E

E

LO

S

LO

Eq. 2.4.2

2.28
2.4.1 Hardware Variations

An unmodulated continuous-wave source is suitable for velocity measurements but is

incapable of measuring range [Kamerman, 1996; Lange 2000]. If range information is

required the transmitted beam must be modulated separately from the LO. This is typically accomplished, for fully coherent ladar, by generating a chirp waveform (Figure

2.4.2) in the frequency domain. The methods of achieving this are conceptually simple

yet difficult to practically implement in a stable, linear system. One approach is to thermally control the laser cavity; as the cavity expands and contracts under thermal excitation the coherent wavelength of the laser changes. Similarly, one could change the

length of the cavity mechanically using extremely fast piezoelectric actuators, or modelock the laser excitation to an ultra-stable oscillator whose frequency is changed using

similar mechanisms. Achieving repeatable linearity over an ultrawide bandwidth (see

Figure 2.4.2) is the crux of the design.

Using coherent detection principles it is feasible to obtain very high range resolution

and accuracy within a specified range band (in general, the smaller the range band the

higher the achievable accuracy, unlike pulse time of flight devices). This can be

understood, again, in terms of Figure 2.4.2. Because the range information is contained within the mixed, intermediate frequency (IF) signal (the third part of Eqs. 2.4.1

and 2.4.2) for close targets there will only be a small IF frequency shift between the

transmitted and received signal. A small frequency difference means close range; a

long frequency difference (δf in Figure 2.4.2) means long range. In this situation, the

detector bandwidth only has to accomodate the range of interest (e.g. 0 m to 20 m; or

200 m to 400 m etc). The range resolution, following classical radar theory, is given by

Eq. 2.3.1 (reprinted):

Figure 2.4.2: Frequency chirp (FM-CW) used in the Metric Vision MV-200 coherent laser radar.

Compare this with the chirped AM architecture discussed in Section 2.3 [Courtesy Metric Vision]

2.29
This is defined by the Rayleigh Criteria as the range extent of a waveform for which

two equal strength point targets produce a combined double peak echo which dips

down to 1/2 of the peak values between the two targets. However, with phase-based

measurements, the precision can far exceed the resolution. As the carrier to noise

ratio (CNR) increases, the measurement error decreases. In addition, if one averages

a measurement 10,000 times, the precision of the result is 100 times better than if one

did not average the measurements [Gatt, 2003]. Yet the resolution of the waveform is

unaffected by the CNR or the number of averaging measurements (N). It is an intrinsic

property of the transmitted waveform, not the receiver characteristics (see Section

2.4.2).

As an example, the chirp shown in Figure 2.4.2 has a slope of 100 GHz in one millisecond. This means the laser frequency is being “tuned” at 575kHz per meter. If the

input signal is digitized and we then perform a 1024 bin FFT, where each bin is 254 Hz

in width, the corresponding range resolution bin size is 0.442 mm wide. It is possible

at this point to employ “super-resolution” interpolation algorithms [Stoker, 1998] -- e.g.

a 3-point cubic fit using the largest bin and its neighbors -- to achieve sub-bin resolution. The accuracy (or repeatability) of this interpolation is dependent upon the original

SNR. It also depends upon how many waveforms we stack or average prior to performing the FFT (which increases the SNR) [Slotwinski, 2003]

Further, if a particular resolution is desired that can be obtained in the range of, say, 

0 m to 20 m, one can extend the refined measurement window to any desired starting

point by putting a delay between the local oscillator and the receiver. This could be

achieved, physically, through the use of a 1 km spool of fiber optic line connected to

the output end of the LO and to the input end of the optical mixer before the detector.

The effective high resolution window of measurement would then be 1000 m to 1020

m. Some high resolution coherent laser radar (CLR) devices make use of this technique to successively bound range zones to continuously cover larger ranges at high

resolution (e.g. 0 m to 20 m; 20 m to 40 m etc) within the context of a single instrument.

Thus far we have spoken only in terms of the simple schematic given in Figure 2.3.1. A

more detailed system design example is given in Figure 2.3.3. Coherent laser radars

were in fact among the first class of LADAR to be developed. As such, mixing optics

were typically in the form of glass beam splitters (“BS” in Figure 2.3.3). These types of

systems have very high construction precision requirements on the optical system. In

order to generate the IF signal the signal and the local oscillator must be spatially and

temporaly coherent, well aligned with respect to each other, and have identical polarizations. If these conditions are met then the two optical signals generate temporal

interference at a frequency equal to the frequency difference between them

[Kammerman, 1996]. 

F

c R

∆

∆ = 2 Eq. 2.4.3

2.30
Figure 2.4.3: Frequency chirp (FM-CW) used in the Metric Vision MV-200 coherent laser radar.

[Courtesy Metric Vision, Inc.]

Figure 2.4.4: Modern CLR implementation employing telecom fiber optic routers and junctions. LO1

stands for Local Oscillator 1. The light in the LO1 path and in the signal path must come from the same

source. If a different laser source were used in the LO1 path, then the smallest drift or variation in one

of the lasers' frequency would cause large range errors. The only way to avoid this would be to mode

lock one laser to the other which would be expensive and difficult. FO stands for Fiber Optic. D stands

for detector. Dual detectors can be used for two purposes. First, to collect as much signal power as

possible. Fiber optic 2x2 couplers split the input light into the two outputs so that the light collected from

both outputs can be used to maximize the signal. In addition, the mixing process in the coupler is such

that the signal in the two outputs are 180 degrees out of phase with each other while the laser

intensity noise is in phase. By using the differential amplifier, the intensity noise can be cancelled (common mode rejection) while doubling the signal. For most CLR designs intensity noise is not an issue

and most such designs employ fiber optic 1x2 couplers and a single detector. [Courtesy Metric Vision]

2.31
2.4.2 Range Accuracy for Coherent Laser Radar

Unlike AM-CW LADAR ranging, the accuracy for a coherent laser radar (CLR) is ultimately controlled not only by the chirp bandwidth, but also by the signal to noise ratio

at the detector and the number of samples (N) acquired per measurement. One of the

most succinct summaries on this subject is given by Slotwinski [Slotwinski, 2003]:

“The signal generated by a Coherent Laser Radar (CLR) system is proportional to the

amount of light reflected off the target and recaptured by the focusing lens. Thus, the

signal depends greatly on the target's surface roughness, reflectivity and absorption

properties. For an opaque solid composed of a number of individual scatterers that

have dimensions on the order of the wavelength of light, the scattered field is

Lambertian where the reflected light is confined to a solid angle of 2π steradians oriented normal to the surface. Therefore, the amount of optical power captured by the

lens is proportional to the area of the lens' aperture and inversely proportional to the 

Figure 2.4.5: Commercial FM-CW CLR architecture using fiber optic connections. For improved accuracy of this metrology-level instrument (2 ppm accuracy) all fiber optic connections and delay lines are

maintained in a temperature-controlled oven. The unit also includes a beam auto-focus for improving

the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). See Section 2.4.2 for a discussion of the accuracy of CLR sensors.

[Courtesy Metric Vision]

2.32
surface area of the hemisphere of scattered light at the target range, as shown in

Equation (2.4.4):

where:

Eq. 2.4.4 incorporates the target reflectivity, ρ, and the space loss. A third term, transmission loss (LT ), must also be included. In general, transmission loss is defined as

the fractional amount of optical energy that remains after the light is attenuated by

such factors as lens component reflections, system losses, and atmospheric attenuation. Due to relatively short range application of this sensor, atmospheric effects can be

ignored and the losses associated with the antenna lens and the system dominate. If

PT is the power transmitted by the laser source, the signal power at the detector chip,

PS = PR LT is then given by:

where LT is the two way fractional transmission loss for the lens and the system.

In any optical system, the minimum detectable, or quantum limited, power, PQ , is

given by:

2

2

2

2

2 8

4

R

P d

R

d P

P T

T

R

ρ

π

ρ

π

= =

target range

target reflectivity

lens aperture diameter

transmitted power

received power

R

d

 

 

=

=

=

=

=

ρ

T

R

P

P

Eq. 2.4.4

2

2

8R

P L d P t T

S

ρ = Eq. 2.4.5

η

h v B PQ = Eq. 2.4.6

2.33
where:

The condition for quantum limited operation of a heterodyne receiver is that the shot

noise produced by the local oscillator (L.O.) in the detector is sufficient to override the

thermal noise in the amplifier. If the current generated by the L.O. is much greater than

both the photodetector dark current and the signal current, then the heterodyne noise

equivalent power (NEP) is given by:

where:

The NEP is defined as the amount of signal power spectral density necessary to make

the signal-to-noise in an optical receiver equal to unity. 

For sufficiently large local oscillator power, PLO, equation (2.4.4) reduces to the quantum, or shot noise limited value of (PQ / B). For a wavelength of 1550 nm and a detector quantum efficiency of 0.6, the shot noise limited NEP is 2.14 x 10-19 W/Hz

In the case of the CLR, shot noise limited performance represents the most sensitive

mode of operation. Thus, it is important to utilize an optical receiver that minimizes the

thermal noise and to ensure that the LO power is sufficient to operate in this mode.

From equation (2.4.2) and (2.4.4), and including a term for excess laser noise (NEP),

the CLR signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) can be represented as:

Detector quantum efficiency

B Measurement bandwidth

v Optical frequency

h Plank's Constant

=

=

=

=

η

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = +

e R

h v

P

h v k T NEP

LO

Het

2 1 ( )

2

η η

Eq. 2.4.7

e Electron charge

R Receiver load resistance

T Effective amplifier temperature

k Boltzman Constant

=

=

=

=

HET e

t T

NEP R B N

P L d

SNR 2

2

8( )

ρ = Eq. 2.4.8

2.34
where Ne is the laser excess noise factor. This term results from the fact that lasers

are not ideal "noiseless" sources, but have noise in excess of the quantum noise that

is frequency dependent. For the diode lasers used in such systems, typical values for

Ne at frequencies greater than 1 MHz range from 2 to 4.

Equation (2.4.8) represents the case when the target is at the beam focus. If the target

is at a position other than focus, defocusing loss occurs. This loss is given by: (for a

Gaussian beam):

where:

The SNR is also affected by the coherence length of the source. For a Lorentzian

shaped source linewidth, the fringe is given by:

where: 

As the measurement length increases, the loss due to coherence length increases as

the square of the visibility. Thus, including the losses due to the defocusing and coherence, the SNR equation becomes:

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

− = −

λ

2

1

2.2

0.3

log

d

R

R X

Ld Eq. 2.4.9

focus position

 absolute value of the distance from the focus.

=

− =

X

R X

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆ −

= c

R f

V e

2π

c speed of light

 source linewidth

=

∆ f =

Eq. 2.4.10

2.35
The one sigma accuracy of a chirp radar range measurement is determined by the

accuracy of measuring the frequency of a pure sinusoidal signal over a measurement

interval (chirp period) T. This is given by:

where = SNR0 in a 1 Hz bandwidth (i.e. B = 1 Hz)

The one sigma range accuracy, is thus determined by:

where 

As an example of of a practically-implementable system Table 2.4.1 provides minimum

performance values for the various parameters in the above equations for the Metric

Vision MV200 CLR. The defocusing loss is set to 1 denoting that the system is

focused on the target. A target range of 10 meters was selected for this example.

From Equations (2.4.11) and (2.4.13), one can see that the theoretical range accuracy

is a function of the target reflectivity. Table 2.4.2 shows the single measurement accuracy for a number of different target types and reflectivities based on the parameters

from Table 2.4.1. Note that with all phase-based systems it is possible to improve

these numbers still further through longer integration times (that is, multiple sampling

of the same target). 

Het e d

t T

NEP B N R L

P L d V SNR 2

2 2

8( )

ρ =

2

1

2

3

2

1

( )

1

2

3

o

f

π T SNR

σ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = Eq. 2.4.12

2

1

2

1

( ) ( )

2

3

2

2

o

R F

f T SNR

c

f

cT

∆

= ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

∆ =

π

σ σ Eq. 2.4.13

T sweep period (1/measurement rate)

laser frequency excursion

=

∆f =

Eq. 2.4.11

2.36
Table 2.4.1 Typical parameters for the Metric Vision MV-200 CLR

Table 2.4.2 Theoretical Range Accuracies for Different Targets for the sensor as

described in Table 2.4.1 [courtesy Metric Vision]

As can be seen from Table 2.4.2, for all but the dimmest of targets, the theoretical

range accuracy is less than 2.5 ppm at a range of 10 m. For targets brighter than

about 1000 % the SNR becomes limited by the coherence noise floor so the range

accuracy does not increase beyond this point. Also, accuracy can be increased by

averaging successive single sweep measurements with the accuracy increasing with

the square root of the number of averages (that is, σR in Eq. 2.4.13 will decrease

inversely with the square root of the number of measurements).

In the real world, absolute accuracies below a few parts per million are difficult

to achieve due changes in the air's temperature, pressure and humidity which affect

the laser beam's time of propagation (See Chapter 4). Metrology-level LADARs frequently contain a “weather station” to compensate for these parameters but gradients

along the measurement path will degrade the accuracy. Also, during assembly, a standard interferometer is frequently used to calibrate each sub-system. The absolute

accuracy of the calibrating interferometer will limit the absolute accuracy of the metrology sensor. 

Parameter Symbol Value 

Transmitted Power Pt 2 mW 

Transmission Loss Lt 0.2 

Lens Aperture d 40 mm 

Fringe Visibility V 0.5 

Heterodyne Noise Equivalent Power (NEP)Het 2.14 x 19 10− W/Hz

Laser Excess Noise Ne 4

Range R 10 m

Defocusing Loss Ld 1

Speed of Light c 3 x 108 m/s

Laser Frequency Excursion Df 100 GHz

Sweep Period T 1 ms

Target Type Typical Reflectivity (r) Range Accuracy

Machined aluminum (normal incidence) 1000 % 0.54 μm

White paper 100 % 1.7 μm

Dark paper 10 % 5.4 μm

Flat black paint 1 % 17 μm

Black absorber 0.1 % 54 μm

2.37
Target surface effects also limit the accuracy of CLR sensors. Surface range noise

due to speckle and beam penetration can cause increases in the range error. This can

be significant for some types of targets. In general, the best system performance is

achieved off tooling ball targets [Slotwinski, 2003].

The above discussion has been limited to a “0-D” (that is, single point) CLR ranging

system. As with similar pulse time-of-flight 0-D systems, such a CLR would have to

be scanned in order to create a range image. The requirement for optical mixing

places severe constraints on the implementation of a CLR focal plane array. However,

for situations where extraordinary resolution within a specified range gate and/or direct

velocity measurements are considered crucial, then CLR is a logical solution.

2.38
3.0 Beam Scanning Technology

The following observations are a result of a contemporary assessment of this technology as well as ongoing research at NIST, both in laser deflection for optical space communications and, more directly, associated with extremely high speed deflection systems for LADAR. 

With the exception of pure flash (FPA) systems (and even some of these are steered )

most LADAR systems must sequentially illuminate each pixel in a range image. The

methods for achieving this are referred to variously as scanning and beam-steering.

The Next-Generation LADAR issue with beam steering is simply that existing methods

are too large, complex, and bulky for low cost, compact, mass-production implementation. The mirrors, prisms, and spinning polygons used in current technology are all

made of precision glass or ceramics in forms controlled by macro fabrication technology. Their high mass and geometry in turn impose physical (stress) limits to achievable

angular deflection rates. Microfabrication may point the way onward. With reduced

size comes reduced inertia, which in turn permits higher performance. Likewise, with

substantially reduced size new avenues for fabrication - avenues inherently predisposed to mass fabrication - become available.

In this section we rapidly review the technology of commercially available beam steering mechanisms and then proceed to describe a new concept of beam array micro

scanners. These are small size devices with overlapping workspaces, which would

allow higher resolution mapping (zooming) of any desired location in the workspace,

with a vastly higher angular deflection rate being a predictable bonus.

For an excellent, in-depth discussion of many of the existing devices described below

through 1996 the reader is referred as well to Montagu and DeWeerd [1996]. We list

these current technologies here briefly for completeness before providing more

detailed discussion of the approaches currently being investigated at NIST.

3.1 Single Beam Scanners

The largest application of single beam scanners is for reading and writing information

of supermarket products, copier documents and optical disks, [Marshall, 1991],

[Gottlieb, 1983]. High resolution and high scanning speed are the main performance

requirements of these scanners.

3.1.1 Polygonal Scanners

High speed uniform scanning are the main advantages of polygonal scanners. The

most common errors of this type of scanners are bowtie and line cross-scan. If the

plane of the incoming and reflected beams is not perpendicular to the polygon axis of

rotation a curved scan line results. If two polygonal scanners are used, in order to

generate a 2D scan, a characteristic bowtie shape is generated. Wobble of the poly3.1
gon rotation and pyramidal errors of the reflecting surfaces result in cross-scan errors

of the scan lines.

3.1.2 Galvanometric Scanners

Galvanometric scanners are very popular. Like in the case of polygonal scanners the

two reflecting surfaces, necessary in order to create a 2-D scan, are separate from

each other thus complicating the optics design. Compared to polygonal scanners

these scanners have the great advantage that the axis of rotation can lay on the plane

of the reflecting surface. These scanners can have bowtie and line cross-scan errors

for reasons given in the polygonal scanners section.

Figure 3.1.1. Typical examples of polygon mirror deflectors. Rotational speeds can reach several thousand revolutions per second.

Figure 3.1.2. Typical example of a galvonometer-driven planar mirror. These are typically referred to as

“galvos” in the industry.

3.2
3.1.3 Acousto Optic Scanners

Acousto-optic devices use acoustic waves propagating in a variety of optic materials to

control the refractive index of the material and thus the angle of the output light beam.

A typical 2-D scanner uses a pair of acousto-optic beam deflectors and has an angular

deflection range of up to 10 degrees and sweep frequency of a few KHz. An acoustic

wave passing through an optic device behaves like a sinusoidal grating that diffracts

the laser beam. The angular deflection of the most efficient power first order beam is

proportional to the frequency of the acoustic wave and is used for scanning. One

problem with this type of scanners is the large absorption of the laser beam, typically

80 % to 85 % depending on wavelength.

3.1.4 Electro Optic Scanners

Electro-optic scanners operate by changing optical material properties through the

application of voltages to photoelastic materials. The varying input voltage can be

used to change the polarization of the illumination beam which in turn affects the

degree to which the beam can be deflected through the appropriate material. The

deflection angle is dependent on the wavelength of light, with longer wavelengths

allowing greater deflection. Response times can be as low as a microsecond but total

deflection is limited to less than 2 degrees.

3.1.5 Holographic Scanners

Holography is an optical information storage process where the amplitude and phase

information of the light illuminating the recording medium create permanent changes to

that medium, which can be used later in order to generate desired waveforms under

proper illumination. A hologram can be designed to act as a conventional refracting

lens. Shining a small diameter beam onto such a hologram results in a deflection and

focusing of that beam. A relative translation of the hologram or the beam about a

plane parallel to that of the hologram results in a scanning angular motion of the output

beam [Beiser, 1988]. Such a motion can be generated by an XY translation micro

positioner, which may carry the hologram or an optical fiber. Laser beam scanners of

that type will be described in the micro positioners beam arrays section. A more common mechanism is to etch holographic patterns on the periphery of a disk and then

spin it in front of the illuminating beam. This is the predominant scanning mechanism

used by super market check out counter machines. A hologram can be designed to

generate variable aperture, variable focal length beams and variable scan angle gain.

As in the case of polygonal scanners, holographic scanners may have bowtie, wobble

and pyramidal errors.

3.1.6 Tilt Platform Scanners

These are one, two or three axes compact fast steering mirror devices that are used

for a variety of diverse applications. They have cylindrical or rectangular shapes with 

3.3
typical dimensions of a few cm length by a few cm diameter. They can tilt a reflecting

mirror about one or two orthogonal XY axes and some of them can translate the mirror

about a third orthogonal Z axis. They are actuated by piezoelectric or voice coil actuators, can tilt very fast and depending on the size of the mirror can have a bandwidth of

several hundred Hz. The tilt platform structure is usually built from a single piece of

annealed metal with a deforming structure suspension, which eliminates backlash and

stiction errors, very common with conventional motion systems. High quality tilt platforms are equipped with capacitance or strain gage displacement sensors, which

measure the angular displacement of the mirror and can be used for closed loop control thus generating high accuracy and repeatability scans. Two possible sources of

error are cross talk and thermal drift. With the use of high quality materials, good

design, machining and the use of pairs of actuators [Physik Instruments 1] it is possible

to minimize these errors. Typical range that can be achieved by tilt platform devices

varies from a fraction to a few degrees of angular displacement.

3.2 Beam Array Scanners

The Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA) is funding a program on

Steered Agile Beams [STAB, 2000]. According to its program overview this program "is

developing small, lightweight laser beam scanning technologies for the replacement of

large, heavy gimbaled mirror systems." This program is funding several projects,

which are developing "solid state/micro-component technologies such as optical

MEMs, patterned liquid crystals, diffractive micro-optics and photonic crystals (that) will

be used to build small, ultra-light, rapidly steered laser beam sub-systems." The target

applications of these technologies are free space optical communications and electrooptics countermeasures.

In [Dagalakis et al., 2002] we proposed the use of laser beam arrays for nano assembly. Here we propose to expand the application of this technology to LADAR sensors.

It is expected that this technology can reduce the size and cost of the LADAR scanners and can increase resolution. The environment mapping application of LADAR

dictates the use of very accurate and precise micro scanners. The micro positioner

beam scanners that we are developing have the potential to meet that requirement.

3.2.1 Scanning Micro Mirrors Beam Arrays

For more than a decade the research laboratories of many semiconductor manufacturers and telecommunications equipment manufacturers have been working hard on the

development of micro-mirror arrays (MMA). The first applications were in digital projection equipment, which has now expanded into digital cinema projectors, with sometimes more than two million micro-mirrors per chip switching at frequencies of up to 66

kHz [Younse, 1995; Texas Instruments, 2004; DLP, 2004]. Later these MMAs were

used on telescopes to enhance fuzzy images and studies are underway to use them

for the next generation space telescope and multi space object spectrometer [Sandia,

3.4
Figure 3.2.2. Micro-mirror electrostatic actuation pads

Figure 3.2.1. Two of the array micro-mirrors used in the NIST beam deflection experiments

3.5
1999]. Recently MMAs are finding applications in the large telecommunications market

as optical multiplexers and cross-connect switches. State of the art devices have 512

switches, while it is expected that this number could rise to 10,000 in a few years

[Lucent, 2004]. Most MMAs are fabricated from silicon and thus fall into the general

category of Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems (MEMS). The size of an MMA mirror is

usually less than a mm across, requires a very small amount of power to move it, and

can move fast - typically in milliseconds.

The first generation of MMAs was binary, which means that the micro-mirrors could

only assume two positions. In the last few years a new generation of MMAs is being

introduced, which are equipped with servo control. These are sometimes referred to

as Scanning MMAs (SMMA), because the micro-mirror tilt angle is a function of the

input command signal. We have started experimenting with a Scanning Two Axis Tilt

Mirror MEMS Optical SMMA [MEMS Optical, 2004]. These SMMAs are available in

arrays of 4 by 1 and 8 by 1 micro-mirrors. We are currently using a 4 by 1 SMMA.

The size of these micro-mirrors is 520 μm across and they have an octagonal shape.

Fig. 3.2.1 is a magnification of two of those micro-mirrors. The micro-mirrors are actuated by electrostatic actuators (Fig. 3.2.2), which are located behind the reflecting front

face of the mirrors. They consist of four capacitor pads separated by two orthogonal

channels parallel to the two axes of rotation of the corresponding micro-mirror. The

mirror is grounded and the four pads are placed under a bias voltage to mechanically

preload the mirror. By modulating the voltage of the four pads about the bias level it is

possible to generate controlled rotations of the micro-mirrors. The range of rotation is

+/- 3o, which corresponds to a +/- 6o of laser beam rotation. The manufacturer-measured resonant frequencies are approximately 1.4 kHz for one axis and 1kHz for the

other. Another company [Applied MEMS, 2004] has a similar product with a rotation

angle of +/- 14o, which corresponds to a +/- 28o of laser beam rotation and capacitive

position sensing of the mirror plate. Unfortunately their micro-mirror array is not yet

commercially available.

Micro-mirror arrays could prove to be a very useful technology for the control of the

resolution of LADAR sensors. Micro-mirrors can act as a distributed scanner that generates a large number of micro-beams that can scan the workspace from different

angles and positions. An alternative use of the micro-mirror arrays could be that of an

optical switch that routes a laser beam to various optical fibers, which then become the

generators of the Ladar beam scanning action. In order to improve and control the

resolution of LADAR sensors we propose the use of arrays of micro-beam scanners,

which we feel will offer an advantage as compared to single motorized scanners or

fixed position emitter-receivers. We are testing various techniques to split laser beams

with arrays of micro-scanners and to generate micro-beams that can scan in many

directions from different locations. In terrain locations where sharp transitions are

detected, directed scanning from multiple micro-scanners of overlapping workspaces

could be used to increase the mapping resolution (directed multi-mirror scanning).

This is equivalent to several people observing the same scene from different locations

3.6
and directions. The terrain observations are collected by the same controller and are

combined to provide a high-resolution 3D image of the scene. The calibration and control of these distributed sensors is a very challenging problem. Stitching together (i.e.

registering) and properly displaying multiple images generated by arrays of microscanners is going to be a difficult problem.

Fig. 3.2.3 shows a picture of a micro-mirror array chip that is being calibrated in our

lab. The chip is mounted on a socket, in the middle of the picture and is illuminated by

a laser beam. There are several ways to illuminate the mirror arrays in order to generate an array of laser micro-beams. The simplest technique is flood illumination, preferably with a beam that is shaped to have a cross-section similar to that of the mirror

array [Dagalakis et. al., 2002]. The main advantage of this technique is simplicity,

while the main disadvantages are that a portion of the beam power is not utilized and

that the micro-mirror surrounding structures might generate unwanted reflections.

Another illumination technique would be to aim optical fibers to the center of each

micro-mirror. This technique would require the careful calibration of the optical fiber

array and the use of an optical switch to route the laser power into each optical fiber

with the desired timing.

Figure 3.2.3. Micro-mirror with electrostatic actuation pads

3.7
Since the mirror arrays are built on chips that are mounted on sockets they can be

located anywhere in the workspace. Furthermore, a socket-supporting plate could be

built that is optimized for the resolution requirements of a particular workspace. Fig.

3.6 shows an example of such a plate with a concave surface. Mirror array chips are

mounted at different locations on this surface, while the reflected beam sensor is located in the middle. The laser beams are generated by laser diodes or optical fibers

located on the periphery of the mounting surface. One beam and one micro mirror are

used in order to demonstrate the scanning ability of these devices. It is obvious that

the size, shape and curvature of the mounting surface determine the available size of

the scanned workspace. If the operation of the micro-mirrors is coordinated by a central controller it is possible to achieve flexible scanning and to zoom to certain segments of the workspace where higher resolution is necessary. The SMMA response to

the input command signals is non-linear and requires a good controller for high performance operation. Micro-mirrors with feedback sensors should be able to give very

accurate and repeatable beam scanners.

Micro-mirror beam scanners suffer from the bowtie and cross-scan errors described in

the polygonal scanners section. The intensity of the scanned beam is limited by the

allowable temperature rise of the mirror material.

Figure 3.2.4. Micro-mirror array scanner concept under development at NIST

3.8
3.2.2 Binary Micro Mirror Beam Arrays

Binary MMAs can generate very fast beam scanners, but they have a scanning accuracy and repeatability problem that is difficult to solve. The commercial units that are

currently available have no micro mirror displacement sensors, so it is difficult to know

the azimuth and elevation angle of the beam at any particular moment of time. A calibration setup similar to the one depicted in Fig. 3.2.5 may be used to map angular displacement versus switching time for each micro-mirror, but there is no warranty that

this map will not change during actual field operation.

3.2.3 Micro Positioner Beam Arrays

The mapping accuracy of a LADAR sensor depends on the accurate knowledge of the

azimuth and elevation angles of the beam scanner. Unfortunately the scanning micromirror array and binary micro mirror array devices, which are currently commerciallyavailable, are not equipped with angular position sensors which can provide that information. In [Boone et al., 2002] we propose the use of a high performance micro positioner for a deep space communications laser scanner. Fig. 3.2.5 shows the schematic drawing of a calibration setup of such a scanner. A laser diode or fiber coupler is

placed at the focus of a small refractive beam collimating lens. The lens is mounted

on the moving stage of a 2D planar micro positioner, which can generate a beam

Figure 3.2.5. Micro positioner beam array scanner calibration setup

3.9
azimuth and elevation angular displacement as the stage moves along two orthogonal

X and Y axes. The calibration setup includes a 2D lateral effect photo diode, which

measures the beam spot XY deviation. Fig. 3.2.6 shows the picture of a credit card

size Parallel Cantilever Biaxial Micro Positioner (PCBMP) beam scanner being prepared for testing. PCBMPs have very low cross talk and angular deviation errors

[Amatucci et al., 2000] and are ideal for high accuracy beam steering. An additional

feature of PCBMPs is that they allow the displacement sensors to be aligned with the

force actuator axis thus eliminating the effect of Abbe sine errors*.

To generate arrays of steerable laser beams [Dagalakis et. al., 2002] it is possible to

build MEMS size arrays of PCBMPs with integrated laser beam sources and displacement sensors. In order to simplify the moving stage fabrication and to reduce mass it

is possible to replace the refractive lens with a flat Fresnel lens, or a holographic optical element [Marshall, 1991], or mount the optical fiber on the moving stage. These

arrays of micro positioner scanners can be built on chips that are mounted on sockets

Figure 3.2.4. Credit card size Parallel Cantilever Biaxial Micro Positioner beam scanner.

* Abbe sine error is defined as the displacement error generated by the angular deviation error of a

position sensor target, which is equal to sine(angular deviation error) x (distance between the actuator

center line and the target location).
Figure 3.2.8. Multiple scanner plates mounted on a convex frame

Figure 3.2.7. Multiple micro positioner scanners mounted on a triangular plate

3.11
and can be located anywhere in the workspace. Because there is no need for external

laser sources it is possible to use a convex or flat mounting plate. Fig. 3.2.7 shows an

example of a triangular mounting plate for such sockets. Several of these plates can

be mounted at different locations for the complete coverage of a wide workspace. Fig.

3.2.8 shows a convex frame supporting three such plates. 

3.2.4 Micro Crystal Beam Arrays

An interesting recent development from the field of optoelectronics is the use of arrays

of micro crystals for the control of laser beam direction. These arrays are used for

optical switch routing [Trellis Photonics, 2004], but could perhaps find applications as

beam scanners too. Similar to an acousto optic device these micro crystals use a voltage controlled Bragg grating to route optical beams for communication purposes.

These switches do not rely on moving parts and thus can switch in 10 ns [McCarthy,

2001]. Like binary micro mirrors though the commercial products currently available

are not equipped with beam deflection angle sensors and thus their accuracy and

repeatability could vary with operating conditions. 

3.2.5 Thermo Optic Beam Array Switches

Another technology for optoelectronic switching uses heat to control the laser beam

direction. Bubblejet switches pioneered by [Agilent Technologies, 2004] rely on the

generation of small bubbles that change the refractive index along an optical channel

and divert a laser beam to another channel. The bubble is created by a micro heater

inside a small cavity, which contains fluid that has an index of refraction identical to

that of the optical channel. Arrays of these optical channels intersecting at precise

angles allow the routing of several input beams to all the channels they intersect. A

similar switch, which is using a small capillary partially filled with oil, was built by [NTT

Electronics, 2004]. In another variation of the same basic technology a thermally actuated micro mirror optical switch was pioneered by [Nanovation Technologies, 2004].

All commercially available thermo optic beam array switches are binary devices with

no beam deflection angle sensors.

3.2.6 Liquid Crystal Beam Switches

Liquid crystals can be used to rotate a laser beam polarization. Polarization beam

splitters can then route the polarized beam in the desired directions. [Spectra Switch,

2004] is using this technology to build optical shutters and optical switches. Liquid

crystal beam switches are binary with no beam deflection angle sensors.

3.12
3.3 Fast Beam Steering

To date the fastest mechanical beam deflection mechanisms are rotating polygon mirrors and galvo-driven mirrors (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). There are physical limits to

how fast such systems can scan. In the case of rotating polygons the mirrors are supported as facets on a stable glass. Maximum rotation rate is generally given by

[Montagu and DeWeerd, 1996] as:

where r0 is the radius (m) from the axis of rotation to the mirror facet; σult is the tensile

strength of the mirror (Pa = kg-m/s^2) where the supporting structure is assumed as a

solid; ρ is the material density (kg/m^3); and η the Poisson’s Ratio for the support

material. This generally limits angular rotation rates to around 1000 revolutions per

second for glass and a few thousand revolutions per second for a high strength metal

substrate; deformation of the mirror will further limit the achievable angular rotation

rate. Commensurate scan rates can be as high as 50 kHz. However, the faster scan

rates are generally achieved through the use of a greater number of polygon facets

with a commensurate reduction in FOV. Furthermore, the movement (rotation) of the

polygon is continuous; there is no means to stop and start it in a controlled fashion so

as to permit, for example, re-targeting of the field of view.

Galvo scanners are presently limited to a 100 microsecond response time for a 0.1

degree discrete rotational step. Certain manufacturers have indicated that it may be

possible to to move a galvo-driven mirror 0.01 degrees in 50 microseconds. Using the

former figures, a 20 degree FOV could be scanned in (20/0.1)*100 = 20 ms yielding a

scan rate of 50 Hz (200 degrees / s). When operated under open loop control and

using a sinusoidal driving function, high end galvos can reach significant update rates

for relatively small FOVs (see Figure 3.3.1).

Neither galvos nor rotating polygon mirrors lend themselves to mass production in

small, compact devices at affordable prices of the type envisioned in this paper for

NGL. As previously described, work is currently underway at NIST to investigate

MEMS (micro electro-mechanical systems) concepts for beam steering using mirror

systems with individual macro-scale mirror elements on the order of 1mm2 and

response times on the order of 1 ms (i.e. these are much smaller than normal galvo

mirrors, but their size is such that even with piezoelectric actuation their peak response

time is on the order of milliseconds, not microseconds. The smaller the mirror the

smaller the mass moment of inertia and thus the faster achievable mirror acceleration. 

3.13

ρ( ) η

σ

π

ω

+ = 3

ult

0 2 r

1 & Eq. 3.3.1
The FANDANGO (Fast

ANgular Deflection At

Nist.GOv) experiment currently underway seeks to

solve the fast mirror problem by using planar arrays

of mirrors that that have

individual mirror dimensions

on the order of 10 μm on a

side, with correspondingly

faster angular response.

Presently, the FANDANGO

experiment makes use of a

TI 0.7 XGA DMD (digital

mirror device) with 1024 x

768 binary mirrors, 13.7 μm

x 13.7 μm mirror patches,

+/- 12o mirror tilt, 24 μs

cycle time, 80 % optical fill

factor, and 10 W/cm2 max

irradiance.

The FANDANGO experiment uses a fast 0-D

LADAR as its core distance

measuring device. The unit

operates at 780 nm with a

22 mW illumination power

and is capable of acquiring

range measurements at a

rate of 625*103 samples per

second. The exit beam

diameter (3.5 mm), divergence angle (0.1 mrad),

and power were selected

for compatibility with the

afforementioned DMD

deflector. 

3.14

Figure 3.3.2. DMD micro deflector array concept; each of 

786,432 MEMS mirrors are individually addressable.

Figure 3.3.1. Typical performance envelope for a galvo scanner

operating in a continuous sinusoidal oscillation mode.
Figure 3.3.3. NIST FANDANGO experiment architecture.

3.15
Figure 3.3.4. NIST FANDANGO experiment showing core 0-D dual frequency AM ladar and MEMS digital mirror deflector. Control and interface electronics are shown in the background. High speed (Fire

Wire) interfaces to a local fast PC (64 bit bus) provide for LADAR and DMD control and data offload.

3.16
Figure 3.3.6. Determination of minimum receiver aperture size for FANDANGO.

Figure 3.3.5. FOV determination for the NIST FANDANGO experiment 

3.17
The receiver aperture requirements were determined as follows. The angular deflection rate of the DMD, based on binary state specifications (+/- 12o in 24 μs) is:

The additional “2” in the numerator accounts for the doubling of the deflection angle of

the laser beam since the incident and reflected angles must be the same (see Figure

3.3.5). The time delay, which accounts for the round-trip time, is:

where d1 and d2 are the distance from the laser source to the DMD mirror and the distance from the DMD mirror plane to the target, respectively, as defined in Figure 3.3.6

below. 

There is a point at which the scanning angular deflection rate can in fact be too fast -

this occurs when the detector aperture radius, Ha, is not large enough to capture the

returning light bearing the range data.

In the time it takes for the beam to reach the target and return to the detector, the

deflector mirror will rotate an angle, α, given by:

The required aperture radius, with all units in meters, is given by:

which can be simplified to:

Figure 3.3.7 shows a plot of this value as a function of the laser to DMD mirror distance (d1) and the target range (d2). For the purpose of NGL concept development,

the minimum value of d2 = 50 m, although 100 m would be preferable for a number of

( )2

4

1 H d sin 0.74e d a π− = ⋅

α =τ ⋅α&

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = ⋅ 360

2

1 sin πα Ha d

3.18

s

deg rees 2 10

24 10

2 2 12 6

6 ⎟ = ⋅ ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅

⋅ ⋅ = − α& Eq. 3.3.2

( ) 1 2 d d

c = +

2

τ Eq. 3.3.3
machine control applications. The current receiver aperture for the core LADAR used

in FANDANGO is 50 mm so the angular rotation rate of 2(10)6 degrees/s is accomodated and preliminary lab bench results support the achieving of scan data at this rate. 

Figure 3.3.7. Required detector apertures for various DMD beam steering options.

3.19
3.4 Risley Prisms

Optical stages for microscopes have for some time been optionally equipped with

Risley prisms for the purpose of directing the field of view over the object under study.

This same concept has been implemented in at least two LADAR systems. Risley

prisms consist typically of circular-cut lenses in which the thickness varies in a planar

fashion from one side to the other. For scanning operations these are customarily

operated in pairs that are co-boresighted and axially aligned. Scanning is accomplished by counter-rotating the two prisms with respect to one another and the speeds

of individual rotation of each prism in the pair can be different in order to achieve a

desired scan “field of regard” (FOR). This is of particular interest in the area of staring

array (FPA) LADAR, since these devices commonly have relatively small (on the order

of a few mrad) FOVs and require scanning mechanisms to make them of practical use.

Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 provide examples of a system recently implemented by MIT

Lincoln Labs as part of their contribution to the Jigsaw program. The FPA (a 32x32

pixel Geiger-mode device) had a native FOV of about 10 mrad x 10 mrad. The clear

aperture for each of the Risley prisms was 75 mm with a maximum individual prism

thickness of 10 mm. These are driven by a planetary gearing system as shown in the

upper right portion of Figure 3.4.1. 

Figure 3.4.1: Implementation of a Risley prism scanner for an FPA staring array LADAR. Courtesy MIT

Lincoln Lab.

3.20
In the Lincoln Lab approach the prisms were operated at a constant angular rate to

reduce power with one prism rotated at 36 Hz and the other at 28 Hz. This difference

produces a spirograph pattern with the scanned areas comprising pedal-like

apendages to a central locus. The entire pattern precesses due to the different angular rotation rates of the two prisms, thereby assuring complete coverage of a circular

field of regard (FOR) that is much larger than the native FOV (see Figure 3.4.2, lower

right). For the device tested the FOR was approximatey 11 degrees -- still quite small

by the standards of scanning LADARs. The advantages are relative compactness in

the scanning hardware.

Figure 3.4.2: Scan pattern field of regard (FOR) for a Risley prism scanner for an FPA staring array

LADAR. Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab.

3.21

0.25 s

scans
4.0 Measurement Limitations Imposed by the Refractive Index of Air

4.1 Refractive Index: General considerations

The index of refraction of air comes into play for all high-precision optically based

measurements. As a general rule it is a relatively small effect, not of paramount importance for common measurement needs in the construction industry, but it plays a pivotal role in defining the accuracy of high-end measurements employing the most precise instruments available (such as the MetricVisionTM* system described in the

Appendix, or interferometer-based laser-tracker systems). Refractive index effects are

a major limitation in ultra-high precision surveying or in the most demanding construction projects, including applications such as: 

• Maglev rails, where desired specifications on the rail straightness are beyond 

current measurement capabilities;

• The Large Millimeter Telescope (currently under construction atop Sierra Negra in 

Mexico), which requires control of dimensions at the micrometer level over distances

up to 50 m; and

• Linear accelerator alignment, with needs for sub-millimeter measurements over 

distances on the order of 1 km. 

Uncertainty in refractive index is the ultimate limiting factor in dimensional measurements outside of a controlled, laboratory environment. 

The refractive index is primarily important in two ways: 

* Commercial equipment and materials are identified in this paper as examples of certain types of

instruments. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are

necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

For ranging systems, the range measurement depends on the velocity of light,

hence on the refractive index. The propagation speed ν of a pulse through the

atmosphere is ν = c/ng, where c is the speed of light in vacuum and ng, the group

refractive index of air, is about 1.0003 under normal conditions. The group refractive index ng determines the speed of pulse propagation, while the phase refractive

index n (usually referred to simply as refractive index) provides the proper wavelength correction for distance measurement with single-frequency interferometry. 

(1)

Variations in refractive index perpendicular to the line of sight refract transmitted

light, displacing the image of the object being measured. This will give rise to angular errors in optical measurement systems. Errors in vertical angular measurement

are usually a greater problem than in horizontal measurement. 

(2)

4.1
We may also distinguish between turbulent temperature fluctuations and larger-scale

persistent thermal gradients arising from local sources of heating. When measuring

distances on the order of tens of meters, we estimate that turbulent effects represent a

somewhat smaller danger to measurement accuracy than do gradients arising from the

worst sources of local heating, but both effects are significant. Turbulence is discussed in Section 4.6.

The air refractive index is primarily a function of atmospheric pressure, temperature,

and humidity. For visible or near-infrared light, variations in the refractive index over

modest distances are primarily a function of temperature gradients, with only small

additional contributions from humidity and pressure variations. In the visible spectrum,

a 1 oC increase in air temperature decreases the refractive index by a little less than

1x 10-6. Using this fact, we can estimate the likely errors due to refractive index

effects, both ranging errors and angular errors. These sources of uncertainty, and

methods for avoiding these errors, are discussed in the following sections.

4.2 Ranging Errors: Magnitude of the Problem

High-accuracy range measurements usually correct for the refractive index by measuring atmospheric pressure, temperature, and possibly humidity. Based on these measurements, the refractive index can be computed using the Ciddor equation [Ciddor

1996] or one of several other equations that relate these parameters to the refractive

index. The accuracy of the correction depends on (1) the accuracy of the sensors

and (2) how well the air sampled by the sensors is representative of the measurement

path. Sensor errors that will cause a 1x10-6 relative error in range measurements

include:

• an error of 1 oC in temperature measurement

• an error of 400 Pa in pressure measurement

• an error of 90% in relative humidity measurement at 25 oC.

The primary source of concern is that a local measurement of temperature is not representative of the average temperature along the measurement path. (Variations in

pressure may also be an issue if measuring vertically; a height measurement of 100 m

would be in error by 0.16 mm if refractive index were calculated using the pressure at

one endpoint.) Some of the worst potential errors in temperature measurement can be

avoided if suitable care is taken. Temperature sensors must be shielded from direct

heating by the sun and should not be placed too near localized sources of heat. This

includes heat generated by the measurement equipment itself; a poorly designed system with sensors mounted directly on the equipment is unlikely to achieve high accuracy, or a temperature sensor accidentally placed near heat exhaust from the measuring

electronics can easily give errors in range measurements of several parts per million.

Rüeger [1996] recommends that temperature sensors should be placed at least 1.5 m

away from any object-including the ground or people. 

4.2
When a relative uncertainty smaller than about 2x10-6 is required (that is, better than

20 μm on a 10 m length), it may be necessary to employ special equipment, as

described below, in order to insure that the average temperature along the measurement path is compensated correctly. 

4.3 Correcting range measurements for refractive index 

in regions of varying air temperature

There have been several methods proposed to compensate for possible temperature

variations along the measurement path. The most straightforward method is to use a

series of temperature sensors strung out along the measurement path, but this is usually impractical. Two other methods, both of which directly compensate for temperature variations integrated along the entire measurement path, have demonstrated

promise. 

(1). Two-color techniques based on dispersion have been studied since the 1970’s.

The difference in refractive index for two different wavelengths in air depends linearly

on air density, as does the refractivity of the air. (Refractivity is n-1, where n is the

refractive index.) Thus, by measuring quantities related to the difference in refractive

index for two wavelengths, it is possible to deduce the index of refraction if the air

composition (and hence the dispersion) is known. If air composition varies – due to

variations in humidity, for example – then three or more colors of light must be used to

solve for the unknown composition. For example, see [Huggett and Slater, 1975]

where a microwave beam is used to account for humidity variations. 

When an unknown distance is measured twice, using two different wavelengths of

light, the two results will differ if no correction is made for dispersion. The difference

in the two results provides a direct measure of the dispersion for the two wavelengths.

From this difference and the known dispersive properties of air, the refractive index at

either wavelength, integrated along the measurement path, can be deduced. The challenge in implementing a practical system based on this principle is that the dispersion

is very weak and consequently it is difficult to perform the measurement sufficiently

well to achieve useful results. Over the entire visible spectrum the refractivity varies

only by about 2.5 % or 1/40. This factor represents a de-magnification of sensitivity,

requiring that the precision of the individual measurements in the two colors must be

40 times greater than the meaningful precision of the result. In other words, errors in

measuring the two individual lengths that are not common to both measurements are

multiplied by 40 in the final result; to achieve an uncertainty below 1 μm it is necessary

to compare the two length measurements with non-common-mode errors below 25 nm

when visible light is used, or to achieve a relative uncertainty below 1 x10-6 it is necessary to compare the two length measurements at a level better than 2.5 x10-8. This

situation is improved somewhat by using one color in the ultraviolet (where dispersion

is greater), and this approach is used in some commercial instruments. 

4.3
In addition to the work of Huggett and Slater, early work on multi-color systems

includes studies by [Levine, 1984] and the development of a commercial instrument,

the Terrameter. The Terrameter could measure a length L with an uncertainty on the

order of 0.3 mm +0.12x10-6 L, as reported by [Langbein et al,1987]. 

A particularly interesting recent implementation of the two-color technique was commercialized by Sparta, Inc [Lis, 1995]. This product as it currently exists was developed

for the semiconductor industry and is too costly to be practical for all but high-end

applications, but the basic measurement scheme is clever and has been shown to

yield excellent results. The Sparta system frequency-doubles a portion of a laser beam

into the ultraviolet, and the resulting two-frequency beam traverses the measurement

path of interest (see figure 4.3.1). After traversing the measurement path, the two

beams pass through a phase modulator and a second frequency doubler. In the second doubler, a portion of the beam at the original frequency is doubled, bringing it to

the same frequency as the ultraviolet that traversed the measurement path, and these

two equal-frequency beams interfere on a detector. (Some of the ultraviolet beam from

the measurement path is also doubled a second time in the second doubler, but this

light is discarded.) The phase of interference on the detector can be determined with

the help of the phase modulator.

In the absence of dispersion, the two common-path beams would remain precisely in

phase as they propagate along the measurement path, but in the presence of air the

phase of the frequency-doubled ultraviolet beam lags behind that of the visible beam

because of the larger refractive index in the ultraviolet. The phase shift observed in

the final interfering beams is a very direct and accurate measurement of dispersive

effects. The Sparta instrument achieves order-of-magnitude reductions in turbulence

errors over short distances in an environment characteristic of turbulence inside a

stepper used for integrated circuit manufacture. The two-color correction procedure

reduces turbulence errors from 30 nm to less than 3 nm.

Laser Doubler

Phase

Modulation

Measurement Path

Doubler Detector

Figure 4.3.1. Principle of second-harmonic two-color interferometry. The frequency-doubled beam is

shown above the non-doubled beam in the diagram, but in reality the two beams spatially overlap

except inside the phase modulator (where they are separated, modulated, and recombined). 

4.4
The essential ideas behind this frequency-doubling technique were first demonstrated

by Hoph et al [1980] and further developed by Ishida [1989]. 

Frequency-doubling is also the basis of another recent implementation of the dispersion method as described by Minoshima et al. [2000]. Minoshima's technique is based

on time-of-flight ranging measurements carried out using two colors. Because it is a

time-of-flight ranging system, this technique directly measures group refractive index

whereas the Sparta interferometric system described above measures phase refractive

index (from which group refractive index could be calculated if needed). Minoshima

employed a femtosecond mode-locked laser for the ranging measurements. The rapid

rise time of the femtosecond pulses makes it relatively easy to achieve a robust measurement capability at the 50 μm level, and the high power in the pulses is efficiently

frequency doubled. The difference in time-of-flight for the fundamental and frequencydoubled pulses depends on dispersion in the group refractive index, from which the

actual refractive index can be inferred as before. As with all time-of-flight techniques, it

is difficult to achieve a low relative uncertainty for measurements at shorter distances,

and even over a long measurement path (240 m in a tunnel) Minoshima achieves only

a very modest accuracy of 8x10-6 in his refractive index measurement. However, the

technique shows some promise for the future. 

Another method for determining the integrated refractive index is to use sound-velocity

measurements. Acoustic methods are potentially very attractive because the equipment is orders-of-magnitude less expensive than the more complicated optical methods. It has been recognized for some time that acoustic measurements might provide

a good method for refractive index compensation in non-uniform environments, but to

our knowledge there has been no careful design and testing of an acoustic system

until the very recent work described by [Mihaljov, 2001] and [Lassila and Korpelainen,

2003]. This new system has not been tested in a field environment, but laboratory

tests have given impressive results. 

The underlying principles exploited by an acoustic system are as follows. For an ideal

gas, the speed of sound is proportional to T1/2 where T is the absolute temperature.

The speed also depends on composition of the gas (specifically, the molecular weight

and the ratio of specific heats γ ). For stationary air of uniform composition, the timeof-flight of a sound pulse over a known distance then provides a good measure of the

temperature profile integrated along the path, in the approximation that the sound

velocity varies by only a small amount so that the path integral can be linearized. 

Near 20 oC the speed of sound increases by about 0.6 m/s (a fractional change of

0.17 %) for each 1 oC increase in temperature. The same temperature increase will

decrease the wavelength of visible light fractionally by 1x10-6. Thus, if we are to compensate for refractive index with a relative uncertainty below 1x10-6, it will be necessary to measure the speed of sound with an uncertainty below 0.6 m/s. To measure

4.5
the speed of sound, it is necessary to accurately determine the time of flight for a pulse

over a known distance. If the acoustic measurement path is equal to the optical interferometer's measurement path plus a known, fixed offset, then the distance for the

time-of-flight measurement can be inferred from the optical interferometer reading.

Attenuation of ultrasound puts some limits on system performance. Ultrasonic waves

are strongly attenuated in moist air; at a frequency of 40 kHz the attenuation can

exceed 1 dB/m and the attenuation increases rapidly as the frequency increases

beyond 50 kHz. In addition to the problem of loss of signal, the high frequency attenuation will limit signal rise times to values of about 10 μs or more. In the absence of a

sharp leading edge, the task of determining the time of arrival of a pulse is potentially

complicated by reflected signals superimposed on the desired signal. The ultimate

achievable uncertainty of the time measurement may then be limited by both the cleverness of signal processing and by good design of the acoustic transponders so as to

send out and receive waves in a narrow angular range (reducing multipath reflected

signals and increasing signal strengths at long distances). 

A wind velocity of 5 m/s, blowing parallel to the measurement direction, would shift the

apparent speed of sound by 5 m/s, an order of magnitude more than the desired

uncertainty. Therefore it is necessary to measure bi-directional or round-trip flights so

as to reduce the effect of wind. Simultaneous bi-directional measurements are somewhat superior to a sequential round-trip measurement when the wind is gusting and

wind speed is changing rapidly. In principle, bi-directional measurements make it possible to determine the wind velocity and to make second-order corrections that are

more accurate than simply considering the average round-trip speed. (In practice, second-order effects are rather small for normal wind velocity but increase quadratically

with wind speed, reaching an error of 0.6 m/s only at a rather high wind speed of

15 m/s. A transverse wind will also produce second-order effects, but only half as

large as the second-order correction for wind along the measurement direction.)

Finally, it is necessary to correct for small variations in sound velocity with changing

composition, such as humidity variations. 

The system described by [Lassila and Korpelainen, 2003] addresses many of the concerns raised above. A schematic picture is shown in Figure 4.3.2. The system implements a bi-directional acoustic measurement with the acoustic path arranged symmetrically relative to the optical path (effectively no Abbe offset) so as to ensure a fixed

relationship between the acoustic and the optical pathlengths. A cross-correlator determines the precise delay of the received pulse relative to the pulse sent out. Good performance of the acoustic technique over a 5 m path in the laboratory has been demonstrated: refractive index variations induced by an electric heater are reduced from 

about 1 μm to about 0.2 μm by using the acoustic compensation technique. However,

the ultimate usefulness of the device cannot be fully evaluated until it is tested in a

complex environment such as a construction site.

4.6
4.4 Angular Errors: Magnitude of the Problem

Refractive index gradients bend light, giving rise to angular errors. As stated previously,

we may distinguish two types of errors: errors on a short time scale reflecting rapid,

turbulent variations in the refractive index, and slowly-varying errors reflecting persistent gradients in the refractive index that cannot be removed effectively by time-averaging. Short-term angular variations on a 1 second time scale when measuring over a

50-m path are 2 μrad to 8 μrad [Husler, 1989]. Flach and Mass [1999] report readingto-reading variations of about 0.4 mm measuring across a 86 m grass-covered field,

corresponding to 5 μrad (0.0003o) angular fluctuations.

Persistent errors over larger spatial scales might be expected to cause more significant

problems, as shown below. 

Potential errors from angular refraction by temperature gradients may be estimated as

follows. Consider a temperature gradient dT/dh where h is perpendicular to the direction of light propagation. (Most often, the gradient will be in the vertical direction, and h

will designate height.) As explained in detail in Figure 4.4.1 below, when a light beam

travels a distance dz perpendicular to this direction, then the angular deviation ∆θ, in

radians, can be easily estimated by considering the change in wavefront direction as

the portion of the beam traveling through the high-index (n), low-temperature gas lags

behind the portion traveling through the region with lower refractive index and higher

velocity: 

Figure 4.3.2: Schematic diagram of an acoustic system for measurement of air temperature. The picture

is adopted from Figure 1 of [Lassila and Korpelainen, 2003]. The acoustic transducers (APT) are symmetric about the interferometer light path, which runs between the polarizing beamsplitter and reference

corner cube (PBS/CC) and the measurement-path corner cube (CC). 

4.7

dz

dh

dT dz

dh

dn 6 10− ⎟ ×

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ⎟ ≈

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ∆è = Eq. 4.4.1
Eq. 4.4.1 assumes that n ∼ 1, that ∆θ is small, and that the refractive index varies by

about 1x10-6 per degree Celsius. The actual error in an angular observation depends

on where along the measurement path the deviation ∆θ occurs, because the lateral

deflection of the beam depends on ∆θ and on the distance to the target. The angular

error will be equal to ∆θ for a deviation at the location of the measurement instrument

but will be zero if the deviation ∆θ occurs right at the target. Taking this factor into

account, and within the context of the approximations given above, the overall measurement error α can thus be obtained from the integral:

where L is the path length and the gradient dT/dh is a function of position z along the

path. It may be noted that in this case where a uniform gradient extends over the

4.8

∫ ∫ = − = − −

L L

L z L dn dh dz L z L dT dh dz

0

6

0

α (1/ ) ( )( / ) 10 (1/ ) ( )( / ) Eq. 4.4.2

Figure 4.4.1 Bending of a beam by a refractive index gradient. The wavefront (heavy dotted line), traveling from left to right over a distance ∆z, is bent by an angle ∆θ as a consequence of the difference in

refractive index along the two paths. If the refractive index along the top is greater than the refractive

index along the bottom by ∆n = ∆h x (dn/dh), then the wavefront at the top lags the wavefront at the

bottom as a consequence of the lower light velocity in regions of higher refractive index: z' differs from

z at the bottom by an amount ∆z x ( ∆n/n) ~ ∆z x ∆n. Thus ∆θ = ( ∆z x ∆n)/ ∆h, from which equation

4.1 follows immediately. In this first approximation the angular deviation is a linear function of the travel

distance z, and in a uniform gradient the cumulative perpendicular displacement of a beam over the

pathlength z is z2 x ( ∆n/ ∆h)/2. 
entire measurement path, the angular error is effectively what would occur if the measurement system had an encoder error ∆θ of zx(∆n/ ∆h) / 2, or half the value given in

equation 4.4.1.

The simple formula 4.4.1 is useful for estimating the general magnitude of thermal-gradient induced beam bending. The more complex problem of beam propagation

through turbulence will be discussed in Section 4.6. Examples based on the simple

formula are given below.

A "typical" value for dT/dh in geodetic measurements, at normal measurement heights

of about 1.5 m above the ground, has been estimated by various authors as something

between 0.25 oC/m [Flach, 2000] and 1 oC/m [Böckem, 2000]. Rüger [1996] gives a

summary of various studies that measure light bending observed during geodetic

measurements, from which thermal gradients can be inferred. This data shows that the

magnitude of thermal gradients is a strong function of the distance above the ground,

time-of-day, and cloudiness. On clear days, for heights of 1.5 m to 2 m above either

grass-covered ground or ice, typically the gradient varies diurnally between about -0.3

oC/m and +0.5 oC/m. At a height of 0.5 m, diurnal variations from about -1.7 oC/m to

+2.5 oC/m have been observed. 

If we use a value of 1 oC/m for the gradient, over a distance of 20 m this would give

an angular deviation ∆θ = 20 μrad (0.0012o). This is a small error by most standards,

but its potential impact for high-precision applications cannot be ignored; note that

even this very small angular deviation is much larger than the angular resolution of

MetricVisionTM angular encoders as given in Appendix A. The actual error in lateral

measurement at 20 m in the presence of a uniform gradient of 1oC/m would be 0.2

mm. 

Thermal gradients tend to be greatest near localized heat sources. Close to sun-heated walls, gradients are often several times greater than the estimate given above.

Similarly, there are likely to be substantial gradients when, for example, the measurement beam passes through a small opening in a wall.

Gradients in the air layer right above a concrete road have been measured to be on

the order of 40 oC/m [Gustavsson, 2002]. One might expect even greater gradients

right above a black roof. A gradient of 40 oC/m, over a distance of 10 m, will deflect

light by 400 μrad (0.02o). This is a very significant error but it also clearly represents

an extreme case.

Localized heat sources can generate significant localized disturbances, as is apparent

visually when looking through the exhaust of motorized equipment. Even much smaller heat sources can potentially produce non-negligible errors. We have observed gradients on the order of 5 oC/m to 10 oC/m in the vicinity of computer monitors or several

4.9
feet behind the cooling fan of electrical instrumentation. These thermal plumes are on

the order of 0.5 m wide and might give angular deflections as large as 5 μrad. 

4.5 Correcting angular measurements for refractive index variation

As in the case of correcting range measurements, a straightforward but usually impractical approach for correcting angular measurements is to directly measure thermal gradients along the measurement path. Some more practical alternatives are available,

but none is without drawbacks.

Some significant success in eliminating refractive effects has been achieved using

models of turbulence and heat transfer [Böckem et al., 2000]. The basic concept

behind this technique is the observation that persistent vertical thermal gradients in the

atmosphere are driven by thermal processes which also give rise to turbulence, and

the two can be related to each other using the Monin-Obukhov model or other semiempirical models. By measuring turbulence-induced scintillation (intensity fluctuations)

or image dancing (variations in angle of arrival, giving rise to fluctuations in image

position in the focal plane) it is possible to determine the parameters that characterize

the turbulence (structure constant and inner scale) and with heat-transfer models this

can be related to the thermal gradient along the observation path. 

The method has shown promise although it may not be reliable under all atmospheric

conditions and is particularly unlikely to achieve good results in complex non-uniform

environments such as, for example, if half of the measurement path were over a parking lot and half over grass. For imaging LADAR systems, the most interesting implementation of this technique would be to determine turbulence parameters directly from

measurements of fluctuations in image intensity and jitter in image position, without the

need for additional equipment. This method has been applied to video theodolites

[Böckem, 2000; Flach and Maas, 1999; Flach, 2000].

A relatively simple method has been demonstrated recently to compensate for fluctuating thermal gradients while measuring displacements perpendicular to the line of sight.

The system [Shirley, 2001] is based on sending out two crossed beams of light with a

small angle between them (or observing two point sources along two crossed lines of

sight), and combining the two crossed rays with a small angle between them so as to

form interference fringes at a detector. In the most advanced implementation of this

method, the detector is located right next to the transmitting optics, and the two transmitted rays are reflected by a special optic attached to the structure whose motion is to

be determined. (See Figure 4.5.1)

The position of the fringes changes in response to motions of the reflector perpendicular to the line of sight, but the position is insensitive to thermal gradients bending the

rays. This insensitivity is achieved, for uniform thermal gradients along the measurement path, by employing a geometry where the rays cross at the center of the measurement path, so that the excess refractive index encountered by one beam in the first

4.10
half of its travel is cancelled by an equal deficit in the second half. As demonstrated

thus far, the system works only for uniform gradients but work is underway on methods

of avoiding this limitation. It should be noted that, although the technique successfully

eliminates the effects of changing thermal gradients, it cannot determine the actual

gradient-free angle of observation without the help of additional non-optical equipment

(such as levels) to determine angular relationships between the system components at

the two ends of the measurement path. Furthermore, if this angular relationship cannot be held rigidly constant, it is necessary to measure and correct for any angular

variations.

The most generally applicable method for eliminating gradient-induced angular errors

is a technique analogous to the two-color method previously described for correcting

range data. Two-wavelength instruments for angle measurement ("dispersometers")

have been discussed since the 1930's; an extensive review of early work is given by

[Williams and Kahmen, 1984]. 

As a consequence of dispersion, bending is greater at shorter wavelengths, and the

difference in bending of two beams of different color can be used to infer the absolute

bending of both beams. As in the case of compensation of range data, the two-color

angular compensation is very demanding because the difference in the bending of two

beams is only a small percentage of the overall bending. Fashing and Hauser [1993]

point out that, using their telescope with 1.65 m focal length and an objective of diameter 0.11m, the compensation of atmospheric bending at even a coarse level of 50 μrad

(10 arcseconds) requires measuring separations of 1.1 μm between the two color

spots, while the diffraction limit of their telescope is about 50X times larger than this

value. Many instruments are capable of this performance at short distance, but for

large-scale measurements the task is complicated by turbulence and scintillation.

Although the measurement task seems daunting, Huiser and Gachter [1989] have

apparently demonstrated microradian performance at a distance of 50 m, using a

theodolite that views a two-color light source (864 nm and 432 nm). More precisely,

Figure 4.5.1 Compensation of angular errors using the method of Shirley. The birefringent crystal produces two polarization-encoded images of the source. The target reflector consists of a polarizing

beamsplitter and two retroreflectors.

4.11
they observe the variance in angle-of-arrival, and find that the standard deviation in the

arrival angle is on the order of 1 μrad for integration times of about 10 s. 

4.6 Atmospheric Turbulence

We have not yet discussed short-term fluctuations associated with atmospheric turbulence. The general problem of propagation of a beam of light through a turbulent

medium, where the temperature distribution is given by a statistical distribution, can be

treated using the Helmholtz scalar wave equation with the refractive index described

statistically in terms of its power spectrum [Andrews and Phillips, 1998]. Calculations

are usually based on a Kolmogorov-type model of turbulence. In the Kolmogorov picture, turbulence is modeled as a cascading series of eddies ranging in size from an

outer scale (with a size that is of the order of half the height above the ground) to an

inner scale below which eddies die out because of viscous dissipation. The inner

scale is typically on the order of 5 mm at a height of 1.5 m above the ground. The

larger eddies may refract a light beam ("beam wander") while smaller eddies give rise

to scintillation, beam spreading, and loss of spatial coherence across a laser beam

wavefront. For classical interferometric measurements these effects may cause the

measurement signal to be lost entirely, while for imaging systems it will cause the

image to dance across a focal plane detector. The details of these calculations, as

developed by many researchers and summarized by Andrews and Phillips, are beyond

the scope of this review. Below we list a few relevant formula from Andrews and

Phillips that provide a starting point for estimating the magnitude of turbulence effects . 

1) The strength of turbulence is measured by the index of refraction structure constant,

Cn

2. The structure constant can be determined by measuring instantaneous temperature gradients between nearby points in space or by using a scintillometer. Typical values are on the order of 10-13 m-2/3 at 1.5 m above the ground on a sunny day.

2)Turbulence can be characterized as "weak" or "strong" depending on the value of 

where k is the wavenumber of light and L is the range. Weak turbulence, corresponding to σ1

2 < 1, leads to relatively simple analytic expressions for parameters that characterize the effect of turbulence on the beam. Assuming that we are using red light,

with 

and L = 100 m, Eq 4.6.1 gives σ1

2 < 0.17, indicating that weak turbulence characterizes the applications of interest here. For a Gaussian beam with radius W at the

4.12

2 2 7/ 6 11/ 6

1 σ =1.23Cn k L Eq. 4.6.1

3

2

2 13 2 10 − − Cn

≈ × m
receiver, an additional requirement for weak turbulence is that 

where the Fresnel ratio, Λ, is given by

For a red beam of reasonable diameter at 100 m range Λ is less than 1 and Eq 4.6.2

is not important. 

3) For weak turbulence, beam wander (random variations over time in the position of

the beam centroid) and beam spread (an increase in short-timescale beam size)

increase the effective size of the beam from a radius W to an effective radius We given

by 

As an example, consider a Gaussian beam of red light that is collimated with 5 mm

diameter, so that the radius at the source is Wo= 2.5 mm. At a range L = 100 m the

beam will spread due to diffraction, increasing the spot size from Wo to 

W = W0[1+{2L / (kW0

2)}2 ]1/2 = 8.4 mm

Equation 4.6.4 now implies that turbulence will further increase the beam radius to We

= 8.8 mm, a small increase relative to the diffraction effect. The turbulence-induced

increase is primarily a consequence of beam wander with only a small contribution

from short-timescale beam spread. 

4) For a plane wave, variance in the angle of arrival, denoted σ2

β , is given by

where D is the diameter of the receiver aperture. Equation 4.6.5 is valid if (L/k)1/2<<D.

With D= 25 mm and other parameters as given previously, this predicts that the stan1 2 5/ 6 σ1 Λ < Eq. 4.6.2

2 /( )

2 Λ = L kW Eq. 4.6.3

2 5/ 6 1/ 2

1 W = W (1+1.33σ Λ ) e

Eq. 4.6.4

4.13

2 2 1/3 2.914 − σ β = Cn LD Eq. 4.6.5
dard deviation σβ = 14 μrad. More complex expressions predict fluctuations of the

same order of magnitude for a Gaussian beam. Image dancing in the focal plane can

be determined from σβ by multiplying by the focal length. 

Additional measures of the effect of turbulence (including covariance functions, scintillation index, spatial coherence radius, short-term beam radius, etc.) can be calculated

as well; the reader is referred to Chapters 6 and 7 of Andrews and Phillips (1998) for a

complete discussion of weak turbulence. Additional atmospheric considerations such

as spatial variations in the structure function and double-pass effects (enhanced

backscatter) are also discussed by Andrews and Phillips. All of these atmospheric

effects plus additional complications have been incorporated into complex LADAR

models such as described by [Burton et al, 2002]. 

4.7 Summary of refractive index effects

In summary, non-uniformity of air temperature will cause refractive index variations that

might, under unfavorable circumstances, give rise to errors as large as a few parts per

million in range and possibly several hundredths of a degree in angle. Methods to

eliminate these errors have been developed, but all of these techniques either have

significant limitations or are very difficult to implement. Newer techniques show promise of overcoming many of the drawbacks of older methods but have not yet been tested under a variety of realistic conditions. Additional testing and development is needed to provide us with practical systems in which we have confidence. 

4.14
5.0 Focal Plane Arrays

In Chapter 2 we presented overviews of the primary technologies currently being used

to achieve light-based range measurement in operational LADAR systems. All of

those technologies can be implemented as stand-alone, “0-D” single point measurement devices. When so done, and equipped with a pan (yaw) / tilt (pitch) mechanism

that moves the physical sensor, or with a beam deflection system (Chapter 3) that

raster-scans the illumination beam across the scene of interest, we can create a “scanning” LADAR.

The intent of this chapter is to summarize the state-of-the art in focal plane array (FPA)

detector technology as applied to LADAR. We devote an entire chapter to this subject

because this is an area that is seeing heavy R&D funding at this time, largely driven by

a demand for real-time, medium accuracy sensors for the military. Certain of the

approaches presented here, however, do have potential for miniaturization and extension to low cost high-resolution sensors in the class that would be suitable for machine

control and surveying. 

Although mentioned briefly in Chapter 2 (Figures 2.2.4 and 2.3.2) a focal plane array is

a 2D chip in which individually-addressable photo sensitive “pixels” can be accessed.

Early FPA detectors were developed as, first, television imagers and later as passive

IR (infrared), and later as FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed) detectors, the latter largely

for military purposes. For an in-depth discussion that represents the state-of-the-art

through 1996 in passive FPA detectors, see (Crowe et al., 1996). CCD FPAs in the

early 1960s made it possible to consider “on chip” processing electronics, making it

possible to multiplex the signal from a large imaging array in real-time. These were

not, however, ranging devices. Additional electronics must be added to an FPA -- in

the form of timing circuitry -- in order to turn an FPA into a LADAR detector. The addition of such timing circuitry, and ancillary signal conditioning, analog and digital components, costs “real estate.” This circuitry must fit behind each pixel in the array and usually causes the pixel size to be large relative to the pixel sizes in digital cameras, for

instance. This tends to limit the physical size of the array. As an illustration of how

much this “pixel logic” costs, current video camera chips - which are passive devices

whose response is tuned to the optical wavelengths - can have an FPA with well in

excess of 1,000 x 1,000 pixels (the Nikon D1X camera uses a 3,000 x 1,960 pixel chip

e.g.). Yet the best fielded operational LADAR FPA is presently a 32x32 array.

Laboratory demonstration tests have been performed with 128x128 arrays, but this is

still more than an order of magnitude more sparse than a common digital camera CCD

chip. Despite these difficulties, there are advantages to moving towards FPA LADARs

or, as some have labeled them, “3D video cameras” (since most of the effort is being

directed at acquiring the LADAR frames in real-time). We will discuss in detail these

advantages in the following sections.

An FPA LADAR can superficially look a lot like a scanning 0-D LADAR (see Figure

5.0.1), particularly if the array size is small and the system must be scanned to cover

5.1
an overall field of regard that is larger than the sensor FOV. The distinguishing attribute of an FPA LADAR is that a significant number of independent range measurements are being made in parallel and, while not a requirement, a general design objective in such sensors is the achievement of real-time (>10 Hz) frame rates for the entire

array. The process of sensor measurement parallelization is the crux of such designs.

Implied in the notion of parallel sensor measurements is the necessity of each pixel in

the array being illuminated by the return signal at the same time. Hence, there is a

common lens that focuses the returned light onto the FPA. This has dramatic consequences on the power requirements of the illumination source (e.g. the laser). An “n x

n” FPA represents an n2 increased illumination power requirement, all other things

held equal. The alternatives to increased illumination power include larger receiver

apertures, photoelectron boosting techniques, and the use of single-photon detectors.

In the sections below we present four distinct solutions that have been developed into

operational LADAR systems and discuss their differences with respect to detector and

ROIC design.

5.1 All CMOS Solutions

Photonic Mixing Devices (PMDs) [see Section 2.2], can be fabricated using all-CMOS

fabrication methods (as opposed to, e.g. hybrid approaches using InGaAs photodetectors and backing CMOS ROICs). In either case, each pixel must be accompanied by a

readout circuit. The PMD approach is inherently one that can be integrated into a

monolithic FPA chip and fabricated using standard CMOS processes. 

5.2

Figure 5.0.1: Generic FPA LADAR architecture showing use of a 4x4 pixel APD (Avalanche

PhotoDiode) detector. Courtesy Lincoln Labs
5.3

Figure 5.1.1 Photonic Mixing Concepts. The

figure at left shows a simplified 2-gate PMD.

a) Overview of chip layout. The central

areas are two transparent photo gates (the

active, optical input window for receiving RFmodulated optical signals. The total optical

active zone is square to maximize sensitivity.

b) Cross section of the layout showing readout circuit. The modulation gates ‘am’ and

‘bm’ with conductive and transparent electrodes, are isolated from the p- doped substrate by an SiO2- or Si3N4-isolation layer.

They are bounded between the left and right

sides by (n+)-diffusion areas that form the

cathodes of two pn-diodes ‘a’ and ‘b’.

Positive voltages UaK = UbK of about 5 v

are applied to reversely bias both diodes,

with common anodes on ground potential.

c) & d) illustrate the surface potential distributions for two different snapshot cases of

+/- u

m, respectively

e) Electrical schematic of the 2-gate PMD

representing a balanced optical mixer. The

electrodes are associated with those

described in b) above. The 2-gate PMD is a

five terminal device with an optical input window. Two input electrodes, ‘am’ and ‘bm’,

control the modulation gates that are connected to the push-pull RF-modulation voltage um, based upon a positive offset U0

depending on the CMOS process. The maximum voltage U0 + |um| should be lower

than the cathode voltage UaK = UbK. The

readout circuits process the photo currents

ia and ib, delivering both the balanced mixing product as the output difference, ∆uab,

and the total photo current as the output

sum, Σuab.

(Courtesy PMD Technologies GmbH,

Siegen, Germany)

a)

e)

d)

c)

b)
One approach to photonic mixing, taken by S-tec/PMD Technologies [Buxbaum and

Gollewski, 2002* ] uses two transparent photogates as the active zone for receiving

RF-modulated optical signals (see Figure 5.1.1). The modulation gates “am” and “bm”

have conductive, transparent electrodes and are isolated from the (p-) doped substrate

by an SiO2 or Si3N4 layer. They are bounded on the left and right sides by (n+) diffusion areas that form the cathodes of two pn-diodes “a” and “b”. Positive voltages Uak

= Ubk of around 5 v are applied to reverse bias both diodes.

The PMD operation principle is determined by the dynamic modulation process. The

optical active area works at deep depletion mode. The potential distributions shown in

Figure 5.1.1 c) and d) act like a “seesaw” that makes the carriers moving to the left

and right in the potential wells. Thus, the mixing effect results from the synchronized

charge drift and separation, which is caused by the applied push-pull RF-modulation

voltages. Physically, the charge-transfer mechanism of the PMD is dominated mainly

by the fringing field effect that governs the self-induced drift and the termal diffusion.

PMD structure optimization means to enhance the dominant fringing field.

To understand the modulation process several characteristic cases should be discussed. If no push-pull RF-modulation voltage is applied, the photo-generated charges

symmetrically drift to both cathodes ‘a’ and ‘b’ with a current difference of ia-ib=0 or

charge difference qa-qb=Dq=0.

As shown in Figure 5.1.1c) the surface potential configuration makes most of the photo

generated electrons move always from the potential well under the right modulation

gate bm to that under the left modulation gate am. Further, most of the carriers are

coupled and drained to the readout diode a. However, some of the carriers drift and

diffuse to the right readout diode b. For another case of surface potential distribution,

as shown in Figure 5.1.1 d), most of the photo electrons are driven to the right potential well.

5.4

The averaged photo currents ai and bi can be sensed by an on -chip readout circuit in a 

way similar to a CCD camera, including reset MOSFETs. In practice a low impedance 

or current readout circuit is preferred beca use of eliminating feedback effects. The 

charge transfer of the device described here operates in the surface channel mode. It 

can also operate in a buried channel mode. The buried channel has a larger effective 

potential gradient under the electrodes t hat speeds up the signal charges transferring to 

the readout diodes. Besides, the buried channel minimizes interface trapping, providing 

the charge transfer inefficiency as low as 10 -5 at usual CCD-clock rates. Hence, the 

PMD is suitable to operate up to very high frequencies with high transfer efficiency in a 

short channel case.

* The majority of Section 5.1 is extracted directly from this document, which was commissioned by NIST

under contract.
Range calculation using a PMD approach is illustrated in Figure 5.1.2. If a constant

flow of photons ‘falls’ into a homogeneously ‘seesawed’ potential well, the potential

well separates the photo-generated charges into two equal parts, as shown in Figure

5.1.2 b. The device cannot determine the range in this condition. However, if the photons are timed or modulated, the potential well separates the photo-generated charges

into one side; the charges are not equally collected as shown in Figure 5.1.2 c. For

this extreme situation, one can determine the distance from the light source to the

potential well by using the same modulation frequency for both the illumination source

and as a bias on the potential well. For an ideal case of sinusoidal mixing with a modulation frequency f, the mixed output signal Ua at the readout port a can be expressed

as:

5.1.1 CMOS Readout Techniques

The pixel pitch in an FPA designed using the PMD approach can be about the same

size as those in a traditional CMOS sensing array. Therefore, the photo charge to be

measured in a frame integration cycle is at a very low level. Like a CMOS sensor, it is

usually not transported to an off-chip circuit without an on-chip readout circuit. The

sensed signal is scaled by photo-generated charges in an area with a dimension of

only several microns. The main task of the readout circuit is first to convert a small

quantity of charge to a measurable voltage. Then the voltage is pre-amplified by an

on-chip amplifier. The gain of the pre-amplifier is not crucial in comparison to its load

ability and linearity for the PMD application case. With attention to detail the signal

5.5

[ ] ( ) Ua = A + K φ0 +φd 1 cos

Ub = A[ ] 1+ K cos( ) φ0 +φd +π

In which A is the local mean value, K the contrast, φ0 the phase offset, and φd the 

phase delay due to the time of flight. The output signal, U b, at the readout port b, has a 

phase delay of π due to the push-pull modulation voltage applied to the gates. 

Therefore:

Evaluating several measurements (that is, measuring the voltage at 4 intervals π / 2

apart along one period of the modulated response) the phase delay d d φ = 2π f t can be 

obtained which corresponds to the time of flight. The s ignal mixing (between the 

returned signal and the modulated voltage bias) takes place only in the PMD gate 

region. The fact that the mixing takes place on the CMOS chip itself means that a 

single-chip solution can be obtained, since it is possible using standard CMOS 

processes to also include the timing circuitry adjacent each pixel.

Eq 5.1.1

Eq 5.1.2
charge packet has less distortion so that it can be transported to an external location

for advanced processing. The on-chip readout circuit performs charge to current conversion. Such a conversion can be achieved in a number of ways. Two that will be

discussed below include floating diffusion sensing and current output sensing. It is

possible to use CCD camera and CMOS camera technology to advantage in PMD

design. The following discussion makes this clear.

5.1.1.1 Floating Diffusion Readout

When a signal charge is directly dumped to a small pre-charged floating diffusion

capacitance on the chip, it causes a voltage variation across the capacitance. This

method is called a floating diffusion sensing technique. An example of this approach is

given in Figure 5.1.3, with a typical readout circuit serving as the structure for the floatParameter Specification Units 

Unit Cell Size 50 x 4000 microns 

ROIC Fabrication Technology 0.18 micron CMOS, 1.8 volts TSMC 

Operating Frequency 2 GHz 

Focal Plane Size 128 x 8 pixels 

Power Dissipation <10 Watts (average) 

Detector Type InGaAs from Sen sors Unlimited PIN – high speed 

Detector Size 40 um active, 50 um centers Indium bumped 

Frame Rate <200 Hz 

Output Rate <40 MHz 

Number of Layers Module 8 demonstrated 32 stacked 

Noise <300 electrons 

ROIC Module Dimensions 0.45 x 0.36 x 0.21 inches 

Detector 128 x 128 InGaAs (128 x 8 accessed) PIN 

5.6

Figure 5.1.2 Simplified structure of a photonic mixing device. Figures c) and d) illustrate the sensing

and mixing processes of the PMD in two special cases. (Courtesy PMD Technologies GmbH, Siegen,

Germany).

The diffusion capacitance C d is first pre-charged by a reset MOS transistor M1. Then 

the diffusion capacitance C d remains in a floating state during the whole sensing 

process so that the signal charge ∆QS can be dumped to it. After a charge dumping 

cycle, a voltage variation ∆VS at the capacitance is produced, which is approximately 

given by:
ing diffusion. 

CGM2 is the gate capacitance of the MOS transistor M2. The charge conversion efficiency (CCE) of the readout technique is reciprocally proportional to the sum of the Cd

and CGM2.

A very high CCE can be obtained by designing a small diffusion capacitance.

However, the dynamic range or charge handling capability, on the other hand, is directly proportional to the sum. Therefore, a compromise should be made between CCE

and the charge handling capability.

The floating diffusion technique can be easily fabricated by a standard CMOS process.

It is the most frequently used readout technique. However, several facts should be

taken into account if this technique is adapted to a PMD FPA. The floating diffusion

capacitance is a voltage dependent variable. Therefore, the charge conversion causes

d GM 2

S

S C C

Q V

+

∆ ∆ =

Figure 5.1.3 Floating diffusion sensing structure with associated readout for a PMD FPA pixel.

(Courtesy PMD Technologies GmbH, Siegen, Germany).

5.7

Eq 5.1.3
some non-linear distortion. In order to keep the floating diffusion less influenced by the

side effect due to the modulation signal, an auxiliary electrode adjacent to the diffusion

area is held at a constant voltage as a screen. Except for the MOS transistors M1 and

M3, which remain as local on-chip circuitry, the transistors M4 and M5 can be treated

as a sharing amplifier for a column or a row in a pixel array.

5.1.1.2 Current Output Sensing Readout

Another readout technique is to dump the signal charge on the diffusion capacitance

that is fixed to a constant voltage value of Vref by an amplifier as shown in Figure

5.1.4. The amplifier with capacitance feedback comprises a Miller integrator.

Therefore, the transported charge on the diffusion capacitance forces a current flowing

in the feedback circuit, rather than accumulating in the diffusion region. The difference

between this technique and the floating diffusion technique mainy lies in the readout

circuits. Although the current will be ultimately be converted to a voltage, this technique is classified as a current-output approach. A voltage variation ∆Vs across the

storage capacitance Cs is given by:

Figure 5.1.4 Current output sensing readout for a PMD FPA. pixel. Figure courtesy PMD Technologies

GmbH, Siegen, Germany.

5.8

S P

S

S C C

Q V

+

∆ ∆ =
In the above equation the signal charge ∆Qs is the integration of signal current over a

time interval ∆T. Therefore the readout voltage CCE, as well as the dynamic range, is

determined by the sum of Cs and parasitic capacitance Cp, instead of the total capacitance of the diffusion region. In contrast to the floating diffusion technique, an additional noise source is involved in the readout circuit, i.e. the bias circuit for the constant

voltage. This current output sensing method also brings advantages to the PMD application. Both readout diodes (i.e. the diffusion regions) are biased with the same voltage, therefore it eliminates the possible feedback of charge back-flow if the voltages

across both diodes are unbalanced.

Moreover, there will be little or no signal charge accumulation in the diffusion regions.

The charge handling problem is delivered to the storage capacitance Cs. this capacitance can be fabricated with two levels of poly-poly structure so that this circuitry has

better linearity. The output gate will reduce the burden of the amplifier due to the RFinterference.

The approaches described above (see also Section 2.2) form the technical basis for

several short range (<10 m), very compact, FPA LADARs that are now available commercially in small numbers from PMD Technologies GmbH and CSEM (see Appendix

A). The accuracy of these devices is on the order of 5-10 mm and depends on both

integration time and range. As explained in Section 2.2, these are phase-based, AMhomodyne devices and as such integrate whatever is within a pixel FOV to produce a

range estimate. For angularly fully resolved targets, the accuracy will approach the

numbers cited here; for non-resolved and multiple targets within a pixel FOV the

results can stray dramatically. Currently, the illumination source for both commercial

examples cited above is in the form of a modulated bank of normal IR-wavelength

LEDs. This illumination power level presently limits the range of the sensor to under

10 m. Furthermore, the design presented above is susceptible to saturation from stray

DC illumination sources (e.g. bright sunlight) and background illumination suppression

and/or compensation schemes must be implemented for outdoor daytime use.

As a further point of discussion, many proponents of FPA systems believe this to be

the future of LADAR. One needs to take this with a grain of salt. A pure FPA LADAR,

without any subsequent scanning of the FPA, may be sufficient for certain applications

(e.g. military target recognition and homing). But it it likely to miss the mark entirely for

general measurement applications, particularly engineering and construction applications. A case in point is shown in Figure 5.1.5. The upper image shows a 25x64 pixel

FPA frame for a steel building beam equipped with a pre-fabricated connector,

designed to enable robotic assembly. The Construction Metrology and Automation

Group at NIST is developing methods for autonomous component identification, capture (e.g. using a specially modified crane), and placement. The picture at center left

in Figure 5.1.5 shows a digital image of the same scene. Even at close range it is evident that 25x64 pixels make for an extraordinarily coarse model -- one that would lead

to a low probability of correct detection in the presence of hundreds of other similar

components likely to be present in the lay down yard of the average construction site.

5.9
Figure 5.1.5 Operational FPA LADAR: CSEM SR-1 FPA

generates a 25 x 64 pixel image at a frame rate of 10 Hz

and an accuracy of approximately 20 mm at less than 7.5

m range. However, the limited number of pixels per

frame (above) make autonomous segmentation and

object recognition of the actual “target” (left, a pre-fabricated steel building frame beam element) a significant

task. The CSEM SR-2 (below) will deliver 5 mm to 10

mm accuracy with a 3-board FPA solution and a 128 x

160 pixel frame size, again with a maximum range of 7.5

m. Above and left: NIST Construction Metrology and

Automation Group; below: Swiss Center for

Microelectronics (CSEM).

5.10
5.2 Image Tube Solutions

The FPA design approach described in Section 5.1 can be considered a “homogeneous” approach in that the detector chip and ROIC are one and the same, fabricated

on the same chip using the same CMOS processes. In general this is not the case.

One particularly recurrent issue in LADAR design is that of eye safety. This is true

even for the majority of military applications, since there can never be guarantees that

friendly forces are not within the field of illumination. In scanning LADAR systems it is

common to incorporate a “kill” feature that disconnects the laser power supply in the

event that either of the scanning servos freezes or dies, such that the laser would be

pointed at a single spot. This is an issue because most commercial scanning LADAR

systems today operate in the 400 nm to 900 nm wavelength regime and eye safety

requirements severly limit allowable laser power. This becomes of critical importance

in FPA LADAR design because there the already limited photon count is spread over

the nxn array. There are two common solutions. The first is to switch detector chemistry. Figure 5.2.1 shows a few sample photonic materials and their spectral responsiveness to impinging light. Silicon, which forms the basis for the CMOS process

described in Section 5.1 above, shows significantly reduced sensitivity (the ability to

generate photo charge, or current per incident photon flux) beyond 1 μm wavelength.

Others, particularly InGaAs (Indium Gallium Arsenide) show peak performance in the

1.5 μm to 1.6 μm regime. Coincidentally, it is in this exact regime that the human eye

can tolerate the highest light intensity without causing irrepairable damage. Other

materials (e.g. HgCdTe, CdZnTe) exhibit similar behavior to InGaAs. For this reason,

all are being considered presently for high power real-time FPA LADAR systems. But,

these alternate chemistries are difficult to fabricate -- far more difficult and costly than

silicon CMOS - and as a result high pixel density is limited. It is inefficient to attempt to

place the ROIC (the timing read out integrated circuitry) on a non-Si detector chip.

Thus, as shown in Figure 5.2.2, a hybrid sensor is required. The detector and ROIC

are frequenty joined through the use of a “bump bonding” technique in which small

“bumps” of either indium (In) or gold (Au) are used to fuse (solder) contacts between

the two dissimilar fabrication components.

Yet another means for enhancing FPA detector sensitivity is through the use of an

“imaging tube” as shown in Figure 5.2.3. An image tube is a device that was pioneered for night vision and infrared vision devices. Incoming photons (P in Figure

5.2.3) strike the high voltage photocathode plate that is located behind a transparent

(at the wavelength of interest) window and inside an evacuated cavity. Electrons are

generated from the back side of the photocathode. The electrons are then accelerated

by the anode-cathode field (E in Figure 5.2.3) and cause impact ionization in the

detector array. The higher impact energy leads to higher photo current output at each

pixel of the FPA array. Because of this, it is possible to use a silicon-based (i.e.

CMOS) detector (as opposed to the previously mentioned alternate detector

chemistries). This approach allows the use of off-shelf silicon detector arrays. The

ROIC, in the example shown in Figure 5.2.3, is provided by the aforementioned technique of bump-bonding to the back side of the detector chip. While this is a feasible

5.11
5.12

Figure 5.2.1 Spectral response for various detector chemistries.

Figure 5.2.2 Traditional non-Si FPA detector and CMOS ROIC (read out integrated circuit)
Figure 5.2.3 Image tube approach to increasing the sensitivity of an FPA. Upper schematic shows a

cross section of the device; central images show front (left) and back of the integrated image tubedetector-ROIC sensor. Bottom figure shows a digital image of the 128x128 pixel detector array.

(Courtesy Advanced Scientific Concepts).

5.13
Figure 5.2.5 Typical “brass board” FPA implementation. (Courtesy Advanced Scientific Concepts).

Figure 5.2.4 Typical FPA control architecure surrounding the sensor chip. (Courtesy Advanced

Scientific Concepts).

5.14

50 mm
Figure 5.2.4 Four sample frames from a 128x128 pixel FPA. a) Upper Left: “shaking hands”; b) Upper

Right: driver’s side of passenger vehicle. Note the no-return zone in the area of the matte black tire; c)

Lower Left: single individual seated on stool indoors; d) Lower Right: three individuals in various poses

indoors. These figures in general continue the theme initially discussed in Figure 5.1.5. FOV is approximately 45o x 45o. For reference, compare Figures 5.1.5 and this set of figures with Figure 5.2.5.

5.15

a)

c) d)

b)
Figure 5.2.5: Typical large-scene images produced using commercial LADAR systems. FOV for the

system that acquired the two images seen here (Humvee, top; Woods scene, below) is 80o x 330o. The

angular resolution for these images is 0.072o -- at least three times finer than that shown in Figure

5.2.4, yet 36 times more coarse than some state-of-the-art commercial systems now available for survey

work. In order to work at this high level of angular resolution a 128 x 128 FPA would have to have an

optical FOV on the order of 0.25o x 0.25o and would therefore have to be scanned in order to image any

significant area.

5.16

5.2.5a)

5.2.5b)
mass-production device, the image tube front end adds significant cost to the sensor

and has a finite lifetime.

The architecture for implementing an FPA-based LADAR must be designed to handle

a flood of data. A 128 x 128 pixel array generating 16 bit range information at 30 Hz

produces a data bus load of a megabyte/s. Typically this is handled by a commercial

“frame grabber” chip. This is assuming that only one range value is reported per pixel.

There are situations (e.g. Figure 2.1.5) where this is not the case and one finds the

entire time history to be of significance. Figure 2.1.6 showed what such a time

domain response might look like where there exist multiple returns of interest within a

single pixel response. If we are working at a nominal 100 m range and the accuracy

(bin size) required is 75 mm, then we must sample each pixel at 2 GHz. For a 30 Hz

system, then, there is an 80 kilobyte/s bandwidth that must be handled in the off-loading of the data per pixel (assuming 2 bytes/sample and approximately 1300 range

bins). Automated thresholding techniques can be used to reduce this required bandwidth (reporting only “hits” that register above the noise threshold). A fast, dedicated

FPGA (field programmable gate array) can then be used to handle multiplexing and

readout. Figures 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 show imaging results from a typical “brass board”

implementation of an FPA LADAR.

5.3 APD Solutions

Work at MIT Lincoln Lab has taken yet another approach to FPA development. Rather

than using image tubes to achieve enhanced impact ionization they have developed a

“geiger-mode” avalanche photodiode (APD) array that is integrated with fast CMOS

time-to-digital converter circuits. The particular detector designed for this work is

responsive to the arrival of single photons. When a photon is detected there is an

explosive growth of current over a period of tens of picoseconds. The advantage to

this approach is that smaller, more compact and lower power eye-safe laser illumination sources can be used. Lincoln has strongly promoted the “geiger mode” detector

approach in the LADAR community and it is worth distinguishing here the difference

between photodiodes, avalanche photodiodes, and “geiger-mode” APDs as these all

are candidate approaches for Next Generation LADAR systems. Aull et al [2001] provides a useful discussion of this distinction: 

P-N Photodiode: An avalanche photodiode is a variation of a p-n junction photodiode. When a p-n junction diode is reverse biased, an electric field exists in the

vicinity of the junction that keeps electrons confined to the n side and holes confined to the p side of the junction. When an incident photon of sufficient energy

(>1.1 eV) in the case of silicon) is absorbed in the region where the field exists, an

electron-hole pair is generated. Under the influence of the field, the electron drifts

to the n side and the hole drifts to the p side, resulting in the flow of photocurrent in

the external circuit. The time integral of the current can be shown to be one electron charge. An electron-hole pair can also be thermally generated, resulting in

leakage current, which is also called dark current because it is present even in the

absence of incident light. 5.17
The drift velocity, for high electric fields in silicon, is about 107 cm/s for both electrons and holes. When a photodiode is used to detect light the number of electronhole pairs generated per incident photon, a metric known as quantum efficiency, is

at best unity. Losses due to reflection or absorption in zero-field regions usually

lower [sic] the quantum efficiency.

Linear Mode APD: An APD detects light using the same principle. The difference

between an APD and a p-n junction photodiode is that an APD is designed to support high electric fields. When an electron-hole pair is generated by photon absorption, the electron (or the hole) can accelerate and gain sufficient energy from the

field to collide with the crystal and generate another electron-hole pair, losing some

of its kinetic energy in the process. The process is known as impact ionization.

The electron can accelerate again, as can the secondary electron or hole, and create more electron-hole pairs, hence the term “avalanche.” After a few transit times,

a competition develops between the rate at which electron-hole pairs are being

generated by impact ionization and the rate at which they exit the high-field region

and are collected. If the magnitude of the reverse-bias voltage is below a value

known as the breakdown voltage, collection wins the competition, causing the population of electrons and holes to decline. This situation represents the most commonly known mode of operation of APDs: measuring the intensity of an optical signal and taking advantage of the internal gain provided by impact ionization. Each

absorbed photon creates on average a finite number M of electron-hole pairs.

Because the average photo-current is strictly proportional to the incident optical

flux, this mode of operation is known as linear mode.

Geiger Mode APD: This effect is achieved by reverse-biasing the APD above the

breakdown voltage using a power supply that can source unlimited current. When

the reverse bias exceeds the breakdown voltage, the electrons and holes multiply

by impact ionization faster, on average, than

they can be extracted. This is the best definition of avalanche breakdown voltage. Figure

5.3.1 shows this concept. The population of

electrons and holes in the high field region and

the associated photocurrent grow exponentially

in time. The more above breakdown the APD

is biased, the faster the growth time constant.

This growth of current continues for as long as

the electric fields in the device are negligibly

altered by the presence of the growing current

and the growing population of electrons and

holes. If there is a series resistance in the

diode, however, more and more voltage is

dropped across that resistance as the current

grows. This effect reduces the voltage

dropped across the high-field region, and

Figure 5.3.1 In Geiger-mode, in which

the APD is biased above the avalanche

breakdown voltage, the growth in the

population of electrons and holes due to

impact ionization outpaces the rate at

which they can be extracted, leading to

exponential growth of current. Courtesy

MIT Lincoln Lab.

5.18
therefore slows down the rate of growth of the avalanche. Ultimately, a steady

state condition is reached where the voltage across the high-field region is reduced

to the breakdown voltage, where the generation and extraction rates balance. At

this point the current neither grows nor decays, and the series resistance provides

negative feedback that tends to stabilize the current level against fluctuations. A

downward fluctuation in current, for example, causes a decrease in the voltage

drop across the series resistance, and an equal increase in the drop across the

APD high-field region, which in turn increases the impact-ionization rates and causes the current to go back up. If the level of steady-state current is not too small

(less than a few tens of microamps), it continues to flow indefinitely. Therefore, an

avalanche initiated by the absorption of a single photon causes the diode current to

grow to some resistance-limited value. The turn-on transient of this current is fast,

typically lasting tens of picoseconds.

Geiger-Mode Quenching: Simply connecting an APD to a low-impedance power

supply gives no way to either detect the turn-on or shut-off of the avalanche so that

the APD is ready to detect another photon. Shutting off the avalanche current is

called quenching, and is accomplished by two types of circuit techniques. In passive quenching circuits (see Figure 5.3.2), the APD is charged up to some bias

above breakdown and then left open circuited. Once the APD has turned on, it discharges its own capacitance until it is no longer above the breakdown voltage, at

which point the avalanche dies out. 

Once the avalanche has been quenched,

the APD can be recharged through a

switch transistor. With passive quenching, the count rate will saturate at low

optical fluxes because many photons will

arrive when the APD is partially or fully

discharged, and therefore unresponsive.

Active quenching circuits, in contrast,

uses a circuit to sense when the APD

starts to self-discharge, and then quickly

discharges it to below the breakdown

voltage with a shunting switch. After sufficient time to quench the avalanche, it

then recharges the APD quickly by using

a switch. With a fast active quenching

circuit, the APD can be reset after each

detection on a time scale as short as

nanoseconds, enabling it to function as a

photon counting device at much higher

optical intensities."

5.19

Figure 5.3.2: In Geiger mode (left) the APD is

charged up to some bias above the breakdown

voltage V and then left open circuited.

Subsequently, once the avalanche has been

initiated, the APD behaves according to a simple circuit model (right). Courtesy MIT Lincoln

Lab.
Figure 5.3.3 indicates that relatively high photon detection efficiencies (probability of

detection of a single photon) can be achieved in Geiger-mode operation of an APD

through the use of high over-bias voltages. 

The limiting accuracy of a time of flight measurement in a LADAR is controlled at the

APD level by the statistical variation of the time interval between the pulse arrival and

the resulting electrical signal from the APD. Lincoln Lab refers to this variance as

"timing jitter" and it is associated with a number of error sources including: finite laser

pulse duration combined with photon detection probabilities less than 1 infers that the

detected return pulse can occur at any point along the received pulse shape; the APD

response time is dependent on how deeply (energetic) the impacting photon reaches

within the silicon - and the absorption length increases with wavelength; statistical

variation in the growth of the avalanche current; and thermal noise due to APD resistance. The approach developed at Lincoln has limited "timing jitter" to +/- 150 ps.

Further details on this subject are available in Aull, et al. 2001.

5.3.1 Timing

The crux of any FPA LADAR design lies in the extraction of the time-of-flight. In the

case of direct detection techniques, this means developing a fast clock and a means

for reading out the time for each pixel. Previously, we have described simple

approaches for single detector scanned systems (e.g. Schilling, Barr et al., 2000) in

Figure 5.3.3: In Geiger mode the APD is charged up to some bias above the breakdown voltage V and

then left open circuited. The photon detection probability is shown at left as a function of the over bias

voltage. A photon detection probability of 1 would imply a valid measurement for each photon received.

The figure at right shows measured photon detection times obtained by repeatedly illuminating an APD

with a series of laser pulses of 250 ps duration, attenuated so that the probability of detection is low.

The width of the curve is due to a combination of the duration of the laser pulse and the timing jitter of

the APD. This curve implies an accuracy error budget of +/- 45 mm (1 sigma) due to these factors

alone. Other elements (e.g. digitizing clock speed) add further to the error budget. (Courtesy MIT

Lincoln Lab).

5.20
which the output of a telecom APD is directly fed to a high speed digitizer. In FPA

design, all of this "pixel circuitry" has to go on the detector chip itself, or in a bumpbonded ROIC chip in a plan form that is no larger than that of the detector pixel. In

actual practice, it is the timing circuitry that practically limits the array size. Figure

5.3.4 illustrates the concept of the "unit cell" or pixel timing "pipeline". Mastery of this

concept means getting the highest timing resolution in the smallest space while prohibiting "cross talk" among neighboring pixels.

The concept of pixel timing circuitry is important enough to NGL that the majority of the

remainder of this chapter is devoted to the subject. The initial approach taken by

Lincoln Lab is shown in Figures 5.3.5 and 5.3.6 which show a block diagram and circuit schematic, respectively of their prototype timing circuit. Aull et al, 2000 explains

the operation of this circuit as follows:

Figure 5.3.4: Basic structure of focal-plane array pixel circuit (unit cell) consisting of Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes bonded to CMOS timing circuitry. In this architecture, the first detected photoelectron triggers an avalanche - a large current pulse; the current pulse, corresponding to a valid object hit

above some predefined threshold, latches the timing register; the register is then decoded and the

range stored. Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab.

[The approach] consists of a pseudorandom counter clocked by a 500-MHz master

clock that is broadcast to all pixels. The pseudorandom counter is a shift register

with a feedback path that has an exclusive OR gate; if the shift register is n bits

long, it cycles through a sequence of 2n - 1 distinct states. The clock is fed to the

counter through a transparent latch whose output is frozen when the photon is

detected. The state of the counter thus encodes the number of clock cycles that

5.21
elapsed from the start of counting to the photon detection time. The state of the

transparent latch, which is also read out, indicates whether the photon was detected in the high-clock or low-clock portion of the clock period. Thus 1-ns photonflight-time resolution is achieved. By generating a secondary clock delayed by 90

degrees with respect to the master clock and storing its state in a second transparent latch, an additional vernier bit is generated, and 0.5 ns resolution is then

achieved. In LADAR applications this approach yields a range resolution of 76 mm

(but see the notes above regarding timing jitter).

The pseudorandom count value must be decoded by table lookup or reverse

encoding after it is read out. The benefit of this implementation is that it gives a

compact pixel circuit; a conventional binary counter would require much more chip

real estate. The vernier bit scheme facilitates achievement of sub-ns precision

without requiring 2 GHz clocking. Therefore, it is possible to use an established

commercial foundry process with 0.5 μm or 0.35 μm gate geometries.

Figure 5.3.5: FPA Timing circuit block diagram showing the method by which a vernier bit is obtained to

improve range precision. Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab.

5.22

The Lincoln Lab approach uses a Geiger-mode APD to serve as a photon detector.

When it detects a photon there is an explosive growth of current - over a period of

around tens of ps with timing “jitters” on the leading edge of the current buildup of tens

of ps. A circuit that could sense the rise of the photocurrent when the APD fires might

have something inherently capable of yielding the mm-level accuracies sought for

NGL. But the question is: how do you sense that current rise? In the Lincoln

approach they are driven by making FPAs. They are not so driven to achieve

enhanced timing for an APD since 76 mm resolution has been sufficient for 
their design purposes. The present Lincoln approach is basically a photon-counter.

One could, alternatively, proceed directly to an APD connected to a pixel circuit. If you

really want to sense the photocurrent event in the APD there are good circuits to do

that, but generally they are analog circuits (see Section 5.4 below). 

Lincoln was interested in a photon counting approach with a compact simple pixel circuit. They did the simplest thing possible and developed an APD to a CMOS inverter.

In that format you sense the voltage, not the current, which means that you have to

wait longer for the current to build up, saturate, and then discharge the capacitance

across the APD to below breakdown. That event -- the time for the APD to discharge

its voltage -- is a longer time scale than the initial buildup of the current. When you

move to voltage sensing you introduce a timing latency on the order of ns rather than

ps. The advantage is that it is a simple pixel circuit, and by careful choice of the bias

voltage on the APD one can achieve a photon-to-digital converter where no analog circuitry in the pixel is needed.

It is important to recognize that in the above approach (and the one described in

Figures 5.3.7 and 5.3.8) that the entire waveform from the APD is not being digitized

(in contrast, see section 5.4). The output of the APD is connected to a thresholding

element. The circuit senses when the voltage on the APD drops below a certain

threshold. When the APD turns on it looks like an RC circuit, that is, a resistance discharging a capacitor. The APD is charged up to 5v, a photon hits the APD and turns

it into a 20 K (ohm) resister that starts discharging the capacitor. Typically the RC time

constant of that combination is of ns duration (not ps). One can easily get “jitter” in the

hundreds of ps just because of the simplicity of the circuit. Unlike some approaches,

there is no oversampling of the entire waveform. 

To obtain time-of-flight, Lincoln Lab uses an ordinary telecom APD next to the laser to

provide an optical trigger (to start the clock). In each pixel of the FPA they also have a

digital counter... a stopwatch...on the CMOS readout chip. The master clock is created using a ring oscillator. This can be created using a circular chain of an odd number of inverters. For example, one could take nine inverters and connect them into a

circle. Logically, this is an inconsistent circuit. If you assume logic 0 on output and

then trace your way around to the same place -- the same node in the circuit -- you

arrive at the conclusion that it has to be logic 1. So the circuit is not stable and it oscillates, producing a clock whose period is the time to make two round trips around the

chain of inverters. This is a standard means of generating a clock. In the Lincoln Lab

approach (Figures 5.3.7 and 5.3.8) one of the inverters is replaced with a NAND gate.

The second input to the NAND gate is a gating signal to turn the clock generator on.

So this is a circuit that produces a clock that can be turned on remotely -- at some

designated time (by the light pulse sensed upon laser firing). Regarding the triggering

of the clock, there are potential problems that arise due to the nature of the illumination

source. If, as in the case of the Lincoln Lab design, a microchip laser is used, then

one can generate significant jitter (due to timing lag) from the command signal that

pumps the pump laser and the actual time that the light comes out 

5.23
(microchip lasers typically use pump laser diodes to provide the lasing energy for the

primary laser chip). Thus, to avoid this timing lag you have to sense the beginning of

the lasing pulse output optically and use that as the trigger signal to start the clock.

Traditionally this is done with a beam splitter. It could also be accomplished by using

scattered light from the optics array itself. If the illumination source is, instead, a diode

laser, then the requirement for optical sensing diminishes since the delay between the

pump circuit charging and actual lasing is on the order of a few ps. 

The CMOS clock signal on chip is broadcast to all the pixels in the FPA. This starts

clocking the digital counters in each pixel. Each pixel’s counter is controlled by this

master clock. Within each pixel the clock goes to the counter through another logic

element that is gated by the signal from the APD. This additional logic element is a

tri-state inverter -- a logic element that has three possible states: 1) 0 and invert to 1;

2) 1 and invert to 0 (a normal inverter); and 3) freeze whatever logic state is on the

output, e.g., if 1, hold that 1 and don't listen to other input; if 0, hold that. So the tristate inverter has input, output, and a control signal that says “invert” or “freeze.” In

each pixel the APD, when it discharges, triggers an inverter that in turn goes to this

input of the tristate inverter that tells it to freeze its output. The APD tells the tri-state

inverter to store the current state of the clock. 

5.24

Figure 5.3.6: Block diagram of the pixel circuit of the timing chip, which functions as stopwatch, timing

the detection of the photon by the APD. A 17-bit shift register with an exclusive OR (XOR) feedback

loop is a pseudorandom counter. Photon detection causes the clocks that drive the counter to freeze.

The counter and the stored states of the clocks encode the time of detection. (Courtesy MIT Lincoln

Lab.
This does two things. First, it stops the counter, which is incremented by transitions of

the clock. Now, stored in the counter in the pixel, there is a digital value that is the

number of clock cycles since the generation of the transmitter start pulse. The counter circuit (see Figures 5.3.7 and 5.3.8) is a chain of flip flops. The flipflops store the

digital values -- each comprising a small memory element. When clock pulses are

applied to the string of flip flops, it increments. When clock pulse is stopped it holds

the last value. 

The accuracy of the system, “timing jitter” issues notwithstanding, is limited by the

clock frequency -- purely the clock frequency. If the ring oscillator on chip generates a

500 MHz clock, then the clock period, and hence the bin size, is 2 ns. The flipflop

5.25

Figure 5.3.7: FPA Pixel (Unit Cell) Timing circuit schematic, 2001. Below: 2001 Master clock generator

circuit. (Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab).

APD
string counter in the pixel has thus stored a number that tells you the flight time (round

trip) with a resolution of 2 ns. Once the counter has been stopped, one can additionally inspect the output of the tri-state inverter to determine whether the clock was high or

low when photon detection occurred. So you have an additional bit that tells what half

of the clock cycle you were in. This additional bit increments on the rising or falling

edge of the clock -- a square wave signal. As a further example, suppose the rising

edge triggered the flip flops in the counter, which increment when you go from low to

high and do nothing when you go from high to low. If you had only the counter you

would know that the photon was detected in that particular clock period. But you

would not know whether it happened during the high or low transition since the counter

5.26

Figure 5.3.8: FPA Pixel (Unit Cell) Timing circuit schematic, 2002. Below: 2002 Master clock generator

circuit. (Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab).

APD
only increments on the rising edge. If the counter is “frozen” at some point in time then

you know by reading out the counter how many clock cycles have elapsed. A string of

flipflops is an unusual counter circuit -- it is essentially a shift register with a feedback

loop, not a conventional counter, that stores a simple binary representation of clock

count. In actuality, it goes through a sequence of states. If you have 15 flip flops the

string will cycle through 215 -1 distinct states before returning to the starting state.

When the flipflop string is read out it must be decoded into an actual timing value.

This can be done most rapidly through a lookup table. The counter overflows (in

range) when you reach (215 -1)* 2 ns. But 2 ns is equal to 300 mm in range and thus

15 bits would provide an unambiguous range far in excess of any range of interest for

NGL development. An 8 bit counter, on the other hand, would provide an unambiguous range of (28 -1)* 300 mm = 76.5 m, which is in the correct range of interest. This

reduction in flip flop count would serve to reduce required pixel real estate and lead to

better form factor in an NGL device. 

As described above, in this timing architecture the clock is gated off in each pixel following photon detection. There is thus only one timing value per pixel per laser pulse.

There has been significant interest in the development of multiple-return per pixel

designs, mainly driven by the DARPA JIGSAW program. Multiple timing values (per

pixel) can be obtained with the above design by accumulating data over multiple laser

pulses. Work is underway at Lincoln Lab to develop advanced pixel architectures in

which the APD is rapidly reset following initial detection. Additional storage is available

in the pixels for more than one timing value. Alternatively, one could assign multiple

detectors to the diffraction limited pixel FOV. A 4x4 array assigned to a single pixel

FOV would thus allow for 16 independent timing values (i.e. “hits” above threshold, not

sequential bins) for a single illumination pulse. 

5.3.2 Fabrication

Before leaving discussion of the Lincoln Lab approach it is worth discussing the methods used to fabricate the FPA since they are non-standard. Aull et al. [2001], explain:

5.27

The voltage requirements and the fabrication process requirements of a Geigermode APD are quite different from those of a CMOS logic process. A standard

CMOS process cannot be used, forcing costly development of a specialized

process that might necessitate compromises between circuit performance and

detector performance. Second, a monolithic process most likely involves a partition

of the pixel real estate into detector and circuit sections, thus limiting the fill factor

of the detector array. In the long run, silicon-on-insulator technology and threedimensional integration techniques are likely to mature and yield monolithic implementations without these drawbacks. In the short run, our approach has been to

use inexpensive foundry services to prototype the timing circuits, which are

received as single unpackaged chips, and to pursue in-house fabrication of full

wafers of APD’s. The integration of the two is then achieved by bonding the chips

face to face with the APD arrays, and illuminating the APD array from the substrate
5.28

Figure 5.3.9: Bridge Bonding: The detector and ROIC wafers are epoxied together, and the APD substrate is removed through selective etching. Electrical connections are made by etching vias between

the APDs and then depositing metal connections in those vias. (Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab).

Figure 5.3.10: Photomicrograph of a bridge-bonded APD/CMOS device, showing features of the individual FPA pixels. (Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab).
5.3.3 Compensating for Low Detector Fill Factor

As can be seen in Figure 5.3.10, the chip real estate occupied by the APD detector

active area is relatively limited in comparison to the chip area assigned to one pixel -

the remainder being occupied by etched vias, bridge bonds, and the CMOS contact

pads and circuitry. A similar situation will arise for any single chip solution, e.g. as

described in section 5.1. A 100 % “fill factor” would imply that the APD occupied 100%

of the usable chip surface (pixel area) exposed to the incident radiation from the laser

illuminator. Although higher fill factors can be achieved by going with a more traditional indium bump-bonded ROIC, the area of the ROIC unit cell will then control the

achievable pixel density to one similar to the approach described above. Alternate

methods for achieving higher pixel density are discussed in sections 5.4 and 5.5 below.

Figures 5.3.11 and 5.3.12 show two commonly used methods to compensate for low fill

factor. Each has advantages and disadvanges that depend on the application of interest. For longer range LADARs, where the FOV is likely to be small, one can use a

microfabricated lenslet array (Figure 5.3.11 b). However, for short range, wide FOV

applications, solar illuminated background can be an issue. One means of overcoming

side (so-called back illumination). ..... [The solution involves developing an] alternative process known as bridge bonding [see Figure 5.3.9 and 5.3.10]. First, the

CMOS chip is epoxied face to face with the corresponding APD array without making any electrical connection whatsoever. The APD wafer, with several CMOS

chips bonded to it, is epoxied, substrate up, to a handle wafer. The resulting

APD/CMOS handle “sandwich” can then undergo the same types of clean-room

fabrication processes that are applied to normal full wafers. The APD substrate is

[then] removed. A shallow p+ implant and laser anneal is done on the exposed

backside of the APD wafer in order to replace the p-side electrical contact layer formerly provided by the substrate. Vias are then etched in between the APDs and

metal “bridges” patterned within the vias to connect each APD with the corresponding timing circuit. The backside of the APD is also metallized to provide a common electrical contact to the p sides. In operation, this backside contact is held at

a negative voltage slightly smaller in magnitude than the breakdown voltage, and

the n side of each APD is chartged up to a positive voltage (typically 4 v or 5 v) by

the pixel circuit.

Successful development of the bridge bonding process required overcoming a

number of technological hurdles. Thinning must be uniform. Curing the epoxies

used must not lead to destructive mechanical stresses due to the large thermalexpansion coefficient mismatch between semiconductors and epoxies. The vias

through the epoxy must have sloped sidewalls to allow good step coverage of the

bridge metal. Because of the vias, most of the required photolithographic steps are

done on a nonplanar surface, which presents challenges of nonuniform photoresist

thicknesses and exposure depth of focus issues. Finally, the handling of the APD

must not result in excess increases in leakage current or dark-count rate. 

5.29
Figure 5.3.11: Two solutions to the

problem of low fill factor. A transmitted spot array (a) has been proposed

(and developed) by several organizations in concert with FPAs as a

means of increasing the incident

power (and hence signal strength) on

the detector pixel. Such a pattern

can be achieved through the use of

binary diffractive optics at the output

stage of the laser illuminator. Care

must be taken to insure that the pattern FOV matches the receiver FOV

for each of the detector pixels. 

Yet another means of increasing the

signal strength at the detector is to

micro-fabricate a “lenslet” array (b)

and mechanically assemble that with

the detector FPA. In this manner a

high percentage of the light impinging

on each pixel area reaches the APD.

Figure 5.3.12 (right): Example of a

32x32 FPA with a lenslet array. One can

see the moiré pattern of connection and

active areas (compare to Figure 5.3.10.)

(Courtesy MIT Lincoln Lab)

(a)

(b)

5.30
that is to focus a portion of the laser illumination towards each pixel FOV. In effect,

the transmission beam is used to illuminate discrete locations associated with each

pixel rather than to “area illuminate” as would normally be the case with staring active

sensors. One can place binary diffractive optics in front of the laser transmitter to produce such a discrete spot array (see Figure 5.3.11a) that is optically mapped to each

pixel. One can use this approach to obtain higher resolution in the illuminated spot

areas.

5.4 Z-Stacking and VISA Solutions

The problem of limited real estate for the ROIC unit cell was recognized long ago when

the first IR focal plane arrays were being developed for infrared imaging (not ranging)

in the 1970s and 1980s. In those cases the ROIC was tasked with signal amplification, conditioning and image readout, not timing. But the concept remains the same.

A novel solution that adds a third dimension to the available circuitry area is shown in

Figure 5.4.1 and is known variously as “Z-technology,” “Z-stacking,” or simply “stacking” (e.g. see Carson [1975], [1984]; SPIE 1097).

In the chip-stacking ROIC concept, the unit cell does not occupy a finite planar area

beneath, and parallel to, the detector plane and defined by the limits of the pixel area.

Rather, the ROIC elements, which are on separate, thinned, IC wafers, are oriented

5.31

Figure 5.4.1: Z-stacked Detector Architecture. A planar FPA photon detector (photodiode or APD array)

is back-side bump-bonded to a glued stack of thinned CMOS ROIC chips. Each ROIC chip handles one

row of pixels from the FPA and the ROIC unit cells extend as pipellines down the length of the CMOS

ROIC chip where they are then connected (through edge contacts) to a multiplexer chip. This approach

provides a dramatic increase in unit cell circuitry real estate.
perpendicular to the plane of the detector, as shown in Figures 5.4.1, 5.4.2, and 5.4.3. 

One can envision this as a stack of pancakes (note that this is only one several possible method of stacking). The signals run down strips and terminate in contact bumps

at the edges of the ROIC chips and the FPA detector chip is bump bonded to the top

5.32

Figure 5.4.2: Chip Stacking in an FPA device. In the example shown above a 128 x 128 pixel detector

array is to be timed by a stacked ROIC. a) Each ROIC die (layer) handles one row of 128 pixels. I/O

connections are established at the ends of the thinned CMOS ROIC chips, usually through the use of

indium bump bonds. b) The individual layers are aligned and glued (generally with a 1 micron glue line

thickness) and edge bond contact pads are established on the faces of the composite slab. c) For test

articles an 8-stack layer was bonded to dummy components to form a cube-like module. d) The FPA

detector is then bump-bonded perpendicular to the plane of the stacked ROIC. Likewise, on the bottom

of the stack, an I/O multiplexor chip is bonded on which serves as the conduit for the data to a frame

grabber. Courtesy Irvine Sensors.

5.4.2a) 5.4.2b)

5.4.2c) 5.4.2d)
5.33

Figure 5.4.3: Actual stacked ROIC and FPA sensor developed for captive flight tests. a) overall components definition and dimensions; b) top view showing APD detector chip; c) bottom view showing frame

grabber interface contacts. Although originally conceived as a 128 x 128 active array, the test article

included only eight ROIC active wafers, bump-bonded to eight rows of the overlying APD array. The

remaining layers consisted of passive silicon. In tests the active 8x128 pixel array was scanned to

achieve the desired sensor FOV. The majority of the depth of the sensor is devoted to storage of a 76

m long return signal record with a 75 mm bin size. (Courtesy Irvine Sensors).

c)

b)

a)
(see Figures 5.4.3 and 5.4.4). In this scenario, if one were developing, say, a

256x256 FPA, and the pixel pitch was 30 microns, then each ROIC stack slice (chip)

would have to be on the order of 25 μm to 28 μm (allowing for inter-chip glue thickness) in order to allow for alignment with the next detector pixel row on the FPA.

Each ROIC chip would then carry 256 unit cell pipelines (channels). 

Current technology as a result of the DARPA JIGSAW program has seen the development of 30 μm wide channels (unit cells) in the ROIC chip with capabilities for those

unit cells to be up to 60 mm in length. Because such ROIC layers are CMOS devices

it is possible to generate them economically through MOSIS on a wafer by wafer basis.

The procedure is to mechanically grind the individual chips to 50 μm thickness and

then to chemically polish to 30 μm. The wafers can be diced part way through before

lapping and will then come off the thinning wheel already diced without the requirement

of handling a thinned wafer. Power dissipation and reduction is a major issue with

stacked devices and special stack end caps of materials such as aluminum nitride or

diamond have been used in such applications. Power reduction methods would

involve the use of custom ASICs as opposed to COTS processors. It is generally

believed that 512x512 pixel stacked arrays are feasible, although the largest that has

thus far been produced in a working prototype is an 8x128 pixel array [Ludwig et al,

2004]. When gluing IC layers there is typically a 1 μm glue line thickness. The procedure for connection of the assembled ROIC stack to the FPA is generally as follows:

etch silicon

passivate silicon

deposit contact pads

bump bond to back side of FPA

The location and sizing of the contact pads must be such as to allow for variance in

spacing due to irregularities in the glue line thickness as well as mask tolerances on

the FPA , and planarity, rotational and translational errors in the positioning of the various ROIC layers during gluing and setup.

Ludwig et al [2004] describe the first stacked LADAR ROIC:

The STROBE receiver is comprised of an innovative, stacked readout electronics

module (ROIC module), support circuit cards, input/output interface connectors, 187

cubic inch housing and 67 mm, F# 1 optical system. It is a self-contained unit

requiring only power and a To (time zero) input to activate its time-of-flight operating system. Other command parameters include a prefire signal (for power dissipation management), a three-bit hold off word (for acquiring return signals from a distance greater than its storage depth), and a four bit threshold word (for threshold to

noise ratio adjustment). 
Figure 5.4.4: Irvine Sensors timing architecture. In previous LADAR applications it

was customary to report only the first

return signal. In many cluttered applications there can be many useful returns

within a given pixel FOV. The approach

shown here is uniquely suited to the waferstacking approach described above since

it requires substantial silicon real estate.

a) Analog input signal from an individual

FPA APD pixel is received and sent to an

analog boost circuit consisting of a transimpedance amplifier. A threshold filter

(software selectable) removes background

noise from the return signal. The resulting

signal train is then digitized as a binary

string of 1’s and 0’s. A “1” indicates a

positive target return; a “0” indicates a noreturn state. The digitizer runs at 2 GHz,

thereby producing a default bin size for 1-

way ranging of 75 mm. The resulting

string of 1’s and 0’s is fed into a 1024 bit

FIFO buffer which effectively stores a 76.8

m range history. The clock is triggered

electronically by the same pulse that fires

the laser illumnator. Following each cycle

the FIFO buffer is read out to a frame

grabber. b) Graphical concept of the unit

cell ROIC pixel circuit in a stacked design.

Each stack wafer contains 128 columns

which underly a corresponding row of APD

detector pixels. Indium bump-bonding is

used to connect the APD to edge contact

pads applied to the stack after chip bonding. Figure a) above Courtesy Irvine

Sensors.

a)

b)

5.35
Figure 5.4.5: Photomicrograph showing a trans-impedance amplifier test article for the STROBE ROIC

unit cell. The pipeline width is on the order of 30 μmwhile the length can be up to 60 mm. These

dimensions are controlled predominately by current CMOS fabrication and chip stacking limits.

Figure 5.4.6: FIFO concept of storing time. Following signal amplification, filtering, and digitizing, the

resulting return signal is stored sequentially as a string of 1’s and 0’s in a FIFO buffer. The speed of the

digitizer determines the bin size (in this case a 2 GHz clock yields a 75 mm bin), but the length of the

FIFO determines the unambiguous range limit before aliasing.

5.36
5.37

Figure 5.4.7: a) ROIC Chip layout for timing a 128 pixel detector row; b) photomicrograph of the same

chip. The large white section at the bottom, occupying more than 30 % of the total chip area, is the

1024 bit FIFO buffer for storing the complete return signal. The chip can be considered as a collection

of 128 vertical processing pipelines, each of which services an individual pixel from a particular row from

the detector array.

a)

b)
5.38

Figure 5.4.8: Block diagram of one signal processing channel for the STROBE ROIC. )Courtesy Irvine

Sensors).

The heart of the receiver is a custom integrated circuit that counts time from the To

trigger to the time of the laser echo's arrival. Received laser echoes are integrated

on the detector during a capture interval. The laser pulse is very short compared to

the capture interval (500 ps versus 500 ns) and multiple returns can be detected in

a single pixel. The integrated signals are amplified and differentiated. This converts the signals back into pulses with an amplified signal strength great enough

that they can be detected by a comparator (see Figure 5.4.4). The comparator

detects if the reconstituted pulses are above or below threshold. The comparator's

output is sampled at up to a 2 GHz rate, resulting in a one bit A to D converted signal. A 1024 deep FIFO (first in - first out) register stores a history of the comparator's output from To to To plus 500 ns. With the FIFO clocking at 2Ghz each stage

of the FIFO represents 500 ps of time history or equivalently 7.5 cm in range history. After the 1024 stages of the FIFO are filled, the ROIC begins to read the data

out using conventional frame and line sync signals at a 20 MHz rate. A high bit in

the FIFO represents the time of arrival of a laser echo, determined by its location

within the register. 

A block diagram for a single channel of the ROIC is shown in Figure 5.4.8. Each

ROIC contains 128 channels that are multiplexed to a single output. The STROBE

focal plane is composed of 8 IC layers stacked to form a 128x8 pixel imaging array.

The dies in the stack are thinned to 50 μm. The center-to-center spacing of the

unit cells within an IC is also 50 μm, allowing a detector array to be bump bonded

to the face of the module. The thinned active layers are imbedded into caps of sili-
range resolution of 75 mm. When considered on a pixel-by-pixel basis, the unit cell

ROIC works in exactly the same fashion as first introduced in Figure 2.1.2, since this is

a direct detection, or pulse time-of-flight architecture. The accuracy is dominated by

the sample rate of the digitizer, which in this case is 2 GHz. This sets the sample bin

size at 75 mm. Setting aside issues of super-resolution techniques for obtaining subbin resolution, if one were interested in mm-level accuracy with such a sensor the digitizer would need to be running at approximately 150 GHz, thus generating 1 mm bins.

For a measurement range of 100 m with 1 mm range resolution, a long FIFO is

required. In Figure 5.4.7b we note that the chip area (height) devoted to the return signal storage FIFO is approximately 30 % of the overall height of the wafer. Figure

5.4.3a reports the wafer physical height as 7.6 mm. This provides us with a rough estimate of 0.0022 mm / FIFO logic element on the wafer. Figure 5.4.9 provides an

approximate relationship between

unambiguous range and range

accuracy, using 60 mm* as the

maximum usable wafer height (disregarding for the moment the real

estate required for such things as

analog trans-impedance amplifier

lines, filters, latches, and digitizers). These figures indicate that a

full response history per pixel

could be stored and read out to

frame grabbers at approxmately 4

mm bin size for a 100 m range.

Commensurately smaller bin sizes

yield the ability to store 1 mm

accuracy at 25 m range. These

all presume the availability of onchip digitizers (timers) operating at

37 and 150 GHz, respectively.

con to give the module height for handling. Input/output connection to the ROIC

module is achieved by wire bonding from buses on the module (side opposite the

detector) to a printed circuit board that attaches to the housing face assembly. 

The approach described above involves straight-forward electronics and yields a

5.39

Figure 5.4.9: Unambiguous Range (in meters) for various

bin sizes (mm) assuming full CMOSwafer utilization for

FIFO real estate in a pulse time-of-flight timing ROIC.

* 60 mm is considered the maximum currently achievable chip dimension in silicon

CMOS fab technology (Dave Ludwig,

Irvine Sensors, 2003 personal comm.)
5.5 VISA Chip Research

An alternate method of wafer stacking that is presently the subject of considerable

research involves the use of horizontally stacked ROIC chips (Figure 5.4.10) and the

use of vertical, thru-wafer vias, analogous to the concepts used for multi-layer printed

circuitry board interconnects. The concept is known as Vertically Interconnected

Sensor Arrays (VISA). Work in this area has only recently begun and there are no

public-domain reports yet available on the results although it is anticipated that such

information will begin to appear in 2005. DARPA describes the program as follows:

The program objectives are to develop and demonstrate vertically interconnected, FPA

5.40

Figure 5.4.10: VISA stacking approach

readout technology capable of more than 20 bits of dynamic range at array readout

rates exceeding 10,000 Hz in 3D unit cells with pixel footprint areas of smaller than

25 μm x 25 μm. The dynamic range of an FPA is defined to be the ratio of the highest signal power which can be linearly measured in an illuminated pixel to the

equivalent noise power measured in an un-illuminated pixel operating under the

same readout conditions. The extremely wide dynamic range can be accomplished

by novel multilayer readout circuits vertically connected to individual detectors in

stacked single-or multi-color 2D staring arrays. These circuits may enable imaging

at more than 20 bits of dynamic range, where the current state of the art (around

10 bits) is over an order of magnitude lower. The ability to bring signals directly

from the detectors to the readouts in a highly parallel manner without initially going

through row-column multiplexers will allow for high frame rates concurrently with
FPA sensors. One advantage of the VISA approach is that, if proven successful, it will

effectively avoid the unit cell length restriction (60 mm) implicit in CMOS foundry wafer

production. On the other hand, practical limitations of bonding quality control and

alignment may limit the effective number of layers. Irvine Sensors has posited that a

512x512 pixel Z-stacked FPA is feasible but beyond that heat dissipation and manufacturing quality control become serious problems. Taking this as a basis, Figure 5.4.11

(below) suggests that a Z-stacking approach yields upwards of 5X more circuitry real

5.41

high-resolution images.

Specific interest is in the development and implementation of massively parallel,

densely interconnected imaging focal plane architectures. This is expected to result

in the achievement (separately or in concert) of high resolution, high fill-factor pixels, ultra-wide dynamic range (greater than 20 bits), multispectral, and very fast

imaging capabilities. [The program is focused on] (1) Process technology for

dense interconnects (electrical or optical) through three-dimensional structures

including via generation, wafer bonding, and thermal management. The ability to

demount and repair stacks may be important; (2) Novel circuitry that capitalizes on

direct connection to the detectors so as to achieve adaptive signal processing

heretofore impossible.

If achieved, such approaches could lead to dramatic cost and size reductions for

Figure 5.4.11: Anticipated physical limits of VISA and Z-stack time-of-flight ROICs.
estate per unit cell than the VISA approach. This may not be a factor in low resolution

real-time 3D cameras, but high resolution systems will push these limits.

5.6 Coherent Solutions

Discussion in this chapter has thus far dealt with pulse time-of-flight or AM homodyne

timing concepts. It is feasible to construct coherent FPAs1, but no one has yet done

so. There are significant design requirements that must be resolved in addition to all

of the issues described above. For example, each spatial pixel must have a diffraction

limited field of view, in order for it to be an optimally efficient optical heterodyne receiver. In a coherent FPA the multipixel scene would be imaged onto the coherent ladar

focal plane and each pixel would present lambda/(aperture diameter) in angular extent

and image a distinct portion of the scene. Then, one optical local oscillator beam

could be broadcast to all of the pixels either by freespace or guided wave optics in

order to optically mix with the signal echoes on each of the pixels. Less than a milliwatt

of LO would be needed on each pixel for heterodyne detection (no LO is required for

autodyne detection) so the LO power required would be modest for up to a 10x10

array which could subsequently be scanned.

1 Personal communication Duane Smith, Coherent Technologies, Inc.

5.42
6.0 Status Report on NIST BAA:

Next Generation LADAR for Driving Unmanned Ground Vehicles

6.1 Background

The U.S. Department of Defense has initiated plans for the deployment of autonomous

robotic vehicles in various tactical operations starting in about 7 years. Several programs, including the Future Combat Systems program, have received significant funding in order for this to take place. Envisioned are manned and autonomous unmanned

ground vehicles as well as manned and unmanned air vehicles performing cooperative

tactical missions. Some of the tactical missions being considered for unmanned ground

vehicles include: Reconnaissance, active or passive surveillance, communication relay,

mine detection or clearing, targeting, search and rescue, supply, terrain control/denial,

forward observation, and lethal or non-lethal missions. These missions will require the

vehicles to drive autonomously over open terrain and on roads which may contain traffic, obstacles, military personnel as well as pedestrians. UGVs must therefore be able

to detect, recognize and track objects and terrain features in very cluttered environments. 

Although several LADAR sensors exist today which have successfully been implemented and demonstrated to provide somewhat reliable obstacle detection which can

be used for path planning and path selection, they tend to be limited in performance

(primarily resolution and maximum range), are effected by obscurants (dust, fog, grass,

foliage), are quite large and expensive. An example of where the current technology

falls short is shown in Figure 6.1. Although the flatness of the road is visible in the display of the 3D range image of the road the vehicle is following, it has very limited

range information from the road and terrain further ahead in the scene. 

Figure 6.1: (left): Digital camera image of road and trees; (right) the same scene as viewed by real-time

(GDRS) LADAR. Where does the technology fall short? The vehicle is effectively myopic. Current

LADAR is low resolution (75 mm to 150 mm accuracy) and short range (50 m). Current LADAR does

not penetrate dust and smoke. Planning is not optimized for road following.

6.1
In addition, although the trees and brush along the sides of the road are seen as

obstructions, it would be very hard to use that information for classifying or identifying

what those obstructions are. Another example of current technology limitations is

shown in Figure 6.2. The figure displays the range image of a scene taken in a parking lot. It is very hard to identify any detected known objects in the scene. In the future,

it is expected that unmanned vehicles be able to locate available parking spaces on

their own and to be able to park autonomously.

What denser, high resolution range data can provide is clearly evident in the range

image taken of a parking lot with a high resolution LADAR camera. This is shown in

Figure 6.3

.

Figure 6.2: Typical point cloud produced by a coarse

UGV LADAR. 

Figure 6.3: High resolution point cloud

image of parking lot.

Image is color-coded in

vertical (z) dimension.

6.2
Detection and identification of cars, tree trunks, overhanging branches, man-made

structures (light pole) and even curbs are highly possible from this kind of data. It must

be pointed out, however, that the data was taken with a high resolution scanning

LADAR that required several minutes to generate the range image.

6.2 BAA Status Report

Even though considerable effort and funding has been provided by the DOD R&D

community, nearly all of the development has been for target detection (ATR) and

tracking from various flying platforms. This includes LADAR technology development

which allows for foliage penetration, permitting detection of target hidden under trees

and camouflage netting. Although much of the development has contributed significantly for furthering the performance of LADAR sensors, they have not addressed the

needs for autonomous driving with unmanned ground vehicles. LADAR sensors for

ground vehicles have their own particular requirements. This includes having a very

broad dynamic range. This is the ability of the sensor to detect and recognize obstacles/objects/terrain features which are at very close range (< 1 m) and at more than

100 m, all in a single frame of data.

Participation in the Army Demo III program, has helped NIST to identify requirement

specifications for LADAR to be used for on and off-road autonomous driving. NIST

envisions the need for two types of LADAR range imaging sensors for this type of

application. One having a wide field-of-view (40o X 90o) with a resolution of about .25

degrees or better per pixel and the second, a foveal LADAR having a narrow field-ofview of approximately 1/10th of the wide field-of-view with a resolution of about .05

degrees or better per pixel. The intent is to make the foveal LADAR quickly steerable

to (points-of-interest) positions within the wide peripheral angle field-of-view LADAR at

a rate of at least 3 saccades per second. Both types of LADAR sensors should have a

resolution of about 5 cm, or better, in range, shall be able to detect the ground plane

out to a distance of about 40 m and vertical surfaces out to a range of at least 100 m.

Frame rates of higher than 10 Hz are expected. Both LADAR must be eye safe and

shall be provided with the capability to penetrate dust, fog, grass and light foliage

(either by sensing multiple returns or looking for the last return), and be able to operate

in full sunlight conditions. Small size and low cost were also emphasized as important

requirements.

The initial BAA announcement, which contained details on the expected requirements,

was released in June of 2002 and is attached as Appendix B for reference. There was

a good industry response to the announcement with 15 proposals being submitted. A

unanimous decision was made by the proposal reviewers to make four awards for

Phase I at the end of September. The four awards went to (listed in alphabetical

order):

6.3
• Advanced Scientific Concepts Inc., Santa Barbara, California

• Coherent Technology Inc., Lafayette, Colorado

• Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Dallas, Texas

• Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona

Synopses of some of the main unique features of each design was prepared by each

contractor for inclusion in this report. These are provided in Section 6.3. Because of

the proprietary nature of the designs, however, the contractors desired to keep much of

the information confidential until an award is made for follow-on development.

At the time of this report, the Phase I LADAR designs have been reviewed, but, plans

for the next phase of development are on hold pending availability of funds. Requests

for additional information can be directed to the contact person or persons listed at the

end of each synopsis.

6.3 Synopses of Designs

The following are the brief technical synopses offered by the four Phase I BAA winners

on their proposed designs for a next generation LADAR for Driving Unmanned Ground

Vehicles.

6.3.1 Advanced Scientific Concepts Inc. (ASC)

Compact Unmanned Ground Vehicle LADAR (CUGVEL)

The objective of the Advanced Scientific Concepts Inc.'s (ASC) contract effort was the

design of a 3-D Flash LADAR system that met specifications discussed elsewhere in

this report. The ASC system is called the Compact Unmanned Ground Vehicle LADAR

(CUGVEL). The ASC designs used COTs parts as much as possible to reduce cost. In

addition a very compact laser was used to reduce volume, weight and power. Two

alternate WFOV designs are discussed using two different photon-amplification detector-array systems. In the first of these designs there are no mechanically moving parts

and only a single laser pulse is needed to capture the entire WFOV. This system is

called the single-pulse WFOV system and uses an image-tube amplification system. In

the second WFOV design two laser pulses are required to capture the entire WFOV

and there is some minor, two-position, mechanical motion to achieve the full field of

view. This system is called the two-pulse WFOV system and uses APDs for the detector system. APDs provide less photon amplification than image tubes.

Both WFOV systems work well as stand-alones. A gimbal-based foveal system with

longer focal length optics than the WFOV systems, but with the same 3-D FPA, that

can access the full WFOV appears to be completely adequate as a NFOV stand-alone.

There are advantages for having two WFOV and NFOV imaging systems; objects that

require fine resolution can be investigated completely independently, without affecting

the WFOV frame rate. In addition the optics is simpler. The disadvantage is the

increased weight and volume of two separate systems. 

6.4
A combined WFOV and NFOV system is also possible. When combined with a foveal

system the ASC WFOV systems offer a simple design. However, the combined systems put increased acceleration requirements on the gimbal in order to satisfy the

WFOV frame rate specifications. As currently designed with off-the-shelf optics, all the

3-D imaging systems are two aperture systems whether they are WFOV, NFOV or a

combination of the two: an aperture for the laser-transmit optics and an aperture for

the 3-D imaging, receive optics. Figure 1 illustrates the single-pulse WFOV design.

Single aperture CUGVEL systems are possible at an increased cost with potentially

reduced weight and volume. Other proprietary design features enhance CUGVEL

object identification.

Additional information on focal plane array technology development is presented in

Chapter 5. Additional information on the BAA Phase I designs for the CUGVEL can be

requested from Roger Stettner (rstettner@advancedscientificconcepts.com)

phone: 805-966-3331.

6.3.2 Coherent Technologies Inc. (CTI)

6.3.2.1 Synopsis of the Architectural Approach

CTI has designed an innovative, first-of-class coherent Frequency Modulated

Continuous Wave (FM-CW) LADAR for an UnMANNED Ground Vehicle (UGV) 3-D

imaging sensor. The proposed approach is a departure from conventional direct and

coherent detection designs. It offers significant size, weight, power, and performance

advantages over direct detection systems such as pulsed Time-of-Flight (TOF) or

Amplitude-Modulated Continuous Wave (AM-CW) waveforms. It also offers cost reduction over conventional pulsed coherent detection designs. For the NIST-specified UGV

sensor, the compact coherent FM-CW system meets or exceeds all narrow field-ofview (FOV) requirements (few cm range resolution, 200m range, IFOV < 1 mrad

(0.05o), frame rate ~20Hz, >9o x 9o FOV) and provides pan/tilt mosaics for the wide

FOV (40ox90o) operation with moderate frame rates. The narrow FOV high-resolution

sensor meets the most stringent requirements while also providing higher sensitivity,

Figure 6.4: Approximate packaged configuration for the standalone WFOV

CUGVEL. Approximate weight is 1.8

kg; the COTs optics is a large fraction

of this weight.

6.5
superior countermeasure/jam/spoof/damage resistance, and greater range-scalability

compared to alternative direct detection architectures.

6.3.2.2 Advantages of the Approach

• The innovative optical (not RF) homodyne receiver architecture offers a path to very

high range resolution (0.75 cm to 3cm) through high effective bandwidths (10 GHz to

40 GHz) that would be difficult or costly to achieve with electronics-based receivers in

direct detection systems, whether they be pulsed TOF, AM-CW, or other variants.

• The unusual homodyne receiver reduces signal processing burdens by more than 10

times versus conventional broadband signal processing approaches. The innovative

approach eliminates the need for range compression by de-ramping, or operating at

full 40 GHz class bandwidths. 

• High quantum efficiency (80 %) shot noise-limited performance is obtained by the

coherent transceiver where mixing function in the optical domain as opposed to the RF

domain, where AM-CW transceivers operate. RF heterodyne receiver noise, while

quite low, cannot match the ultra-quiet performance of optical heterodyne receivers.

Because the sensitive transceiver operates at the fundamental limits of low operating

power, it minimizes the probability triggering opponent's laser warning receivers.

• The transceiver aperture is a few millimeters in diameter vs. many centimeters

required by most direct detection technologies for equivalent power-aperture products

(< 0.1 W/cm2). The miniature aperture significantly simplifies the scanner design;

thereby enabling high-speed raster scans with a compact low power system that would

be difficult and costly with larger apertures. The smaller sensor aperture is also more

defensible against kinetic energy weapons and more covert in battlefield environments

by offering smaller optically augmented returns for adversary's anti-sensor searches.

While a Geiger Mode Avalanche PhotoDiode (GAPD) receiver has comparable sensitivity to the proposed coherent transceiver, it has other limitations that make it undesirable (see below).

• The laser power is transmitted with 100 % duty cycle, enabling full utilization of the

energy to generate target returns and receiver signal. Extra-cavity amplitude modulation schemes are inherently less efficient due to rejected laser power and gain modulation brings many trades, including unwanted sidebands at high modulation depth. The

FM-CW waveform does not suffer these disadvantages and CW operation allows optimization of the threshold, slope efficiency, and dynamic reserve of efficient 1.5 μm

diode lasers and higher power, scalable ion-doped waveguide lasers.

• Costly master oscillators were eliminated in the design, making a coherent transceiver practical for this moderate volume, cost-sensitive market. Cost was a critical driver

in the system-level design. The innovative signal processing and concomitantly simpler MO were motivated by the need to reduce cost and complexity.

6.6
• Highly linear frequency modulation is not required by innovative servo and sensor

designs. The signal processing approach also does not require long range record processing. Multiple report range records are possible, along with maximum report, last

report and "n largest" reports. Highly linear frequency sweep requirements have been

a critical problem and nearly show-stoppers in other radar and LADAR system

designs, so avoiding the challenge is valuable.

• Optically mixing the FM-CW waveform does not encounter the 3 dB SNR loss that is

inherent in AM-CW transceivers (single sideband demodulation) and other RF domain

mixing receivers.

• Countermeasure resistance is unmatched for the coherent transceiver. While a

Geiger Mode Avalanched Photodiode (GAPD) receiver offers sensitivity matching that

of a coherent transceiver, high quantum efficiency GAPDs do not yet exist at 1.5 m

wavelength. If an acceptable 1.5 μm GAPD existed, it would be highly susceptible to

jamming and countermeasures. One such countermeasure would be corner cubes,

with few mitigation approaches available because of GAPDs essentially "zero dynamic

range" (1 bit only) and microsecond class reset/recovery time before it can detect the

next photon. Operating existing GAPD transceivers from 750 nm to 1064 nm non-eyesafe wavelengths means that the system can be detected by advanced night vision

gear, complicating covert operations. The proposed coherent transceiver can reject

large in-spectral band jamming signals by Doppler filtering. Immunity to high intensity

jamming is conferred by the fact that the local oscillator is already intentionally driving

the receiver to the saturation limit of the detectors. Damage due to very high pulse

energy countermeasures requires additional approaches such as nonlinear optical

power limiters at the exit/entrance pupil of the transceiver.

• A coherent transceiver is inherently more immune to background interference. It can

look into the sun's disk and maintain operation where this is difficult to do with any

direct detection transceiver, especially GAPD-based designs. Again, the fact that the

coherent local oscillator is putting milliwatt-class average power on the detectors

means that background light is inconsequential. Still, some care must be exercised to

choose narrow spectral band pass filters on the receiver.

• Coherent transceivers offer significantly higher dynamic range than direct detection

transceivers. A coherent transceiver detects the field amplitude, not the intensity of an

echo as direct detection transceivers do. CD receivers typically have an 80 dB dynamic range vs. 40 dB for DD systems because they are detecting the square root of the

intensity. The dynamic range of GAPD receivers is especially low (dynamic range of

0dB) vs. other DD receivers because it cannot collect intensity data on a single echo

and they must infer it from a statistically large number of samples. The wide dynamic

range improves countermeasure resistance and the ability to detect last reports in difficult situations, such as seeing terrain dips and trip-wires through tall grass. 

6.7
• The proposed design utilizes small pixel count focal plane arrays, but can utilize large

ones as they become available. Coherent detection focal plane arrays are in their

infancy, as are direct detection FPAs. Coherent FPAs are being developed at CTI and

other locations, but their bandwidth, record length, and pixel count leave something to

be desired, thus far. Small linear coherent arrays can be produced at high bandwidth

and therefore are the baseline for the proposed transceiver. Small pixel count arrays

(1x8 for example) are also significantly less costly than larger arrays. 

• Speckle is mitigated in the proposed high bandwidth (> 4 GHz) transceiver. There

are occasional concerns about the "grainy" character of coherent ladar images. This is

not a driving issue here because first, the proposed sensor is only recovering range

data, not intensity data, and second, the spectral diversity for a 4 GHz to 40 GHz

bandwidth waveform is high, strongly mitigating speckle, scintillation and fade. 

6.3.2.3 Technical Feasibility

There have been significant technical advances in all coherent transceiver subsystems, thereby making the proposed system tractable. First, CTI has demonstrated

(patent pending) 1.5 m wavelength, single frequency, diffraction-limited, diode pumped

high power waveguide lasers that offer from 1 to 50 W average power in highly efficient, compact packages. The master oscillators have also improved, with conventional linear resonator designs dropping in cost and improving in performance (100's of

mW, sub-kHz line width). CTI has also initiated detailed technical discussions with a

telecommunications micro-electro-mechanical (MEMs) based master oscillator (MO)

provider who has recently developed a few-gram mass, sub-watt power consumption,

master oscillator that appear to have coherence adequate for the proposed 100's of

meters of FM-CW range operation. The MEMs-MO may require slight modification, but

it appears to be stable and rapidly tunable for the UGV application. The receiver signal processor can be assembled from digital signal processors (DSPs) that CTI has

direct experience with. Depending upon how many range reports are required, cheaper/faster/simpler DSPs can be implemented. The scanner is within the limits of

designs that CTI has fielded before and is made practical by introduction of the small,

few mm diameter aperture in the proposed transceiver. 

6.3.2.4 Cost-Scaling, Power-Scaling, Upgrades

The figure shows a preliminary conceptual engineering drawing of the coherent FMCW

laser radar sensor. The sensor dimensions are 42 cm x17 cm x18 cm (L,W, H). The

design can be made smaller with additional effort. Smaller in many cases, means

lower cost, motivating size reduction. The miniature 2 mm class transceiver aperture

in the design reduces the scanner cost and size significantly, for example. The unit

production cost estimate of the transceiver is challenging to assess without detailing

environmental specifications (thermal, shock, vibration), signal processing requirements (raw vs. partially processed range data vs. end product 3D images), and interface requirements (electrical, thermal, optical, mechanical). At the risk of over-simplify6.8
ing, the objective is $10 k class transceivers in quantities of 1,000. In yet larger quantities, more sophisticated manufacturing approaches such as custom molded optics,

ASICs, roto-molded precision EMI enclosures, and other technologies offer further cost

reduction. 

The baseline hybrid-mount linear array receiver can be upgraded to 2D format (when

such technology exists, and it does not yet), the transmitter can be upgraded from 1 W

to 50W average power (exists) for enhanced range performance and higher frame

rates, and diversity imaging (multispectral, polarimetric, etc.) can be added straightforwardly based on designs that CTI has already developed. 

Additional information on FM-CW LADAR technology is provided in Section 2.4.

Further details on CTI-developed concepts for the BAA Phase I design can be requested from the following contact person: Duane Smith (duane@ctilidar.com), phone: 303-

379-3137.

6.3.3 Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control

A simple system that can meet the shorter-range requirements for autonomous navigation can be constructed using commercial parts and non-developmental items, such as

Lockheed Martin's mature laser pulse signal processing electronics. Our experience

led us to propose a dual-axis scanned, small linear array receiver. This approach

allows us to propose a design that is small, flexible, and inexpensive. Items such as

Figure 6.5: Mockup of Coherent Technologies Inc. FMCW UGV LADAR.

6.9
high-repetition rate, low-pulse-energy lasers, detectors, scanners, and processors are

commercially available. An added benefit is the ability to change the scan rates to

adjust resolution, FOV, and frame rates to meet mission needs without requiring complex gimbaled and/or optical designs.

The basic components of a LADAR sensor are the transmitter, receiver, optical system,

and system electronics. The transmitter is a compact, high pulse rate laser (or laser

diode). The optical system fully scans the laser to create an image with fine angular

resolution. It also provides the collecting aperture for the InGaAs (or Silicon) detector

receiver. The system electronics control the laser, scanner, process the laser returns,

and provides data to update the terrain database. 

A core technology of the system is Lockheed Martin's existing, flight-tested, signal processing electronics to capture and analyze laser pulses. This technology is referred to

as the Pulse Capture Electronics (PCE). It is a well-established direct detection

approach that accurately determines relative reflectivity (scene intensity) under varying

conditions of range, atmospheric attenuation, obliquity, multiple returns, and noise. This

is accomplished by matching a programmed template with the entire return pulse data

to minimize the effects of signal strength variation, noise and distortions. 

Additional information on the advanced LADAR technology being developed at

Lockheed Martin and being offered in the BAA Phase I design can be requested from

the following contact person: Bruno Evans (bruno.evans@lmco.com), phone: 972-603-

7945

Figure 6.6: Lockheed LADAR concept uses proven system architecture, signal processing electronics,

commercial components, and standard interfaces.

6.10
6.3.4 Raytheon Missile Systems

Raytheon is now in the 28th month of a 42 month effort funded by the Air Force

Research Laboratory, Munitions Directorate, Eglin A.F.B, FL, to generate a brassboard

Flash LADAR seeker. Dr. William Humbert is the AFRL/MNGS program manager.

AFRL intends to use the brassboard seeker for development of Flash LADAR

autonomous target acquisition (ATA) algorithms. Delivery of the seeker to AFRL is

planned for May, 2004. To generate the seeker, Raytheon is developing a 256x256

pixel HgCdTe flash LADAR avalanche photodiode (APD) detector array, a multi-pulse

processing read-out-integrated-circuit (ROIC), and Flash LADAR seeker system components and architecture. 

The Flash LADAR APD array and ROIC are well along in the development cycle.

APD's and ROIC's have been designed, fabricated, hybridized and tested. All functionality has been verified. Operability's in excess of 97 % have been achieved. Figure 6.8

shows elements of the detector buildup as well as the final detector configuration on a

leadless chip carrier (LCC). Table 1 lists the detector performance requirements. The

detector records amplitude of the first pulse, and times of arrival of the first and second

pulse returns. The ROIC performs several functions including global bias, individual

bias adjustment for each pixel, timing ramp generation, and signal pre-amplification.

Raytheon is now under an AFRL Dual Use Science and Technology (DUST) contract to

extend the ROIC to three pulse-return capability, as well as improve range accuracy

and resolution by a factor of 2. To achieve these improvements, the DUST ROIC is

being designed with 0.18 μm geometry, whereas the current AFRL/MNGS Flash

LADAR ROIC has been designed with 0.35 μm. First demonstration of DUST ROIC

performance will be in late 2004.

Figure 6.7: LADAR Pulse Processing. Pulse signal processing has first / best / last pulse logic for

improved, single-frame, imaging performance through foliage.

First Pulse Sees Foliage Second Pulse Sees Wall Behind Foliage

6.11
Figure 6.8: Raytheon has successfully generated the technology required to produce a fully functional,

advanced, 256 x 256 Flash LADAR detector array.

Figure 6.9: System layout for Raytheon's AFRL/MNGS Flash LADAR brassboard system. Gimbals and

scanning hardware are not required to collect LADAR imagery over a large field-of- view.

6.12
Figure 6.9 depicts Raytheon's

AFRL/MNGS Flash LADAR system

concept. This brassboard sensor will

be fully computer controlled, provide

real-time imagery display at 10

frames per second, perform burst

mode data collection/transmission at

20 frames per second, and output all

LADAR data to the AFRL/MNGS ATA

data processor.

Table 6.2 highlights the advantages

Flash LADAR has over conventional

scanned LADAR sensors for the

UGV application. Raytheon believes

the detector array developed under

the AFRL/MNGS Flash LADAR program will serve well in demonstrating

UGV LADAR technology, and that

the subsequent DUST array will

serve to generate a high performance, low cost, UGV LADAR production system. 

Additional information on the Ladar BAA design using their Focal Plane Array technology can be requested from the following persons at Raytheon Missile Systems: Al Coit

(coit@raytheon.com), phone: 520-545-9354 or Pat Trotta (patrotta@raytheon.com)

6.13

Table 6.2: Advantages of Flash LADAR for UGV Applications

Geometric Parameters

Format 256x256

Pixel Pitch (μm) 60

Detector Optical Area (μm x μm) 35x35

EO Parameters

Wavelength (mm) 1.55

NEP System (pW/rt-Hz) 0.1

ROIC TIA Noise Current (pA/rt-Hz) 0.5

NEPD APD (pW/rt-Hz) 0.08

NEP APD (nW) 0.52

Bandwidth (MHz) 100

Idark (pregain) (nA) <10

K (electron to hole ionization ratio) 0.1

Gain, M 5-10

Fex 4

QE % >90

Fill Factor % >80

Crosstalk % <1

Table 6.1:AFRL / MNGS 

Flash LADAR Detector Requirements

• Overall system simplicity and ruggedness

• Frame rates potentially reaching 1 μs - 2 μs

• Fine stabilization and motion compensation not required

• No motion artifacts in collected imagery

• Most electronics processing able to be carried out on single integrated circuit
6.4 Strategy for Further Development

In the near term, NIST does not expect to see the announcement of any new LADAR

products that can meet the BAA LADAR requirement specified for driving unmanned

ground vehicles. Therefore, the need is still there. The plan is to continue to pursue

funding support for a follow-on Phase II design validation or prototype development.

Based on the information gained during the Phase I design reviews, NIST believes that

Phase II, if funded, should be conducted in two steps. The proposed development

steps are as follows:

Step 1: 

Conduct design feasibility tests on one or more of the highest scoring designs using

existing hardware and software which is available from the contractors in order to qualify best approaches for further development. Duration of this step is estimated to

require 9 months to 12 months to complete. Some data collection will be required during this step.

Step 2: 

After selection of a qualified design, proceed with final design and fabrication of a

strap-down prototype sensor. Significant sensor testing and evaluation would follow.

Duration of this step in the development process is estimated to require 12 - 24

months to complete, depending on the selected design.

6.14
7.0 Discussion and Recommendations

In the preceding chapters we have described the general technologies and mathematics associated with the development of practical laser radar devices. We have also

attempted to summarize state-of-the-art developments in this area. We have not, by

any means, covered all research and development that is underway in this field. In

some cases, as in Chapter 5, we have selected examples that serve to illustrate general issues and areas where developmental work is still needed. The SPIE AeroSense

conferences (now, as of 2004, known as the SPIE Defense and Security Conference,

usually held in April of each year in Orlando, Florida) continue to provide a forum for

this topic and readers are referred to the proceedings of those meetings for the latestbreaking technical news in this research area. Here we conclude with a collection of

discussions and recommendations needed to advance next-generation LADAR for

mobility, ground machine control, and construction as-built information generation.

7.1 FOV Limitations: 

FPA “staring array” research is presently vigorous along many architectural paths.

However, it is well to remember that a 256 x 256 pixel array remains the largest benchtested system. Referring back to the attributes of an ideal sensor for ground mobility

and machine automation

presented in Table 1, we

would find that for an

angular resolution of

0.03o this would translate

into an FOV of around 8o

x 8o. A typical minimum

steering and navigation

FOV for mobility would be

40o x 90o. The difference between these two

is shown graphically in

Figure 7.1. As a consequence, except for very

limited military applications (e.g. UAV foveal targeting) unrelated to

ground vehicle mobility

and ground machine control, the FPA sensors on

the near-term horizon will

require scanning mechanisms for any practical

implementation. This

Figure 7.1: NFOV (8ox8o) for a 256 x 256 pixel FPA with an angular

resolution of 0.03 degrees compared with a typical desired mobility

navigation window (40ox90o).

7.1
requirement is more severe in the case of precision machine control and construction

operations where a 0.03o angular resolution is currently considered “coarse” -- existing

scanning LADARs (e.g. see page A.14 in Appendix A) provide angular resolutions of

0.002o, more than an order of magnitude more refined. Such angular precision (with

commensurate range accuracy in the 1 mm to 3 mm regime) is required where realtime object recognition and automated machine acquisition and transfer of construction

components is the end objective. At that angular resolution (0.002o) a 256 x 256 staring array would cover only a 0.5o x 0.5o (9 mrad x 9 mrad) FOV. Mechanical scanning

mechanisms, including galvos, rotating polygons, and Risley prisms (see Section 3.4)

have all been proposed or implemented in various forms for steering of FPA staring

arrays. All represent complexities that ultimately control the size and mass of the sensor since the optics and beam deflection subsystems dominate the overall system

design. These are discrete components that are difficult to shrink in their present manifestations and manufacturing approaches and as such will remain bulky and costly.

They are ultimately dead ends for Next-Generation LADAR, which seeks to achieve

coffee-cup size sensors at sub-$1K production pricing.

7.2 Timing Issues:

For pulse time-of-flight ranging devices -- which is the technology being utilized in most

FPA systems now being designed with a range in excess of a few meters -- detector

and digitizer bandwidth

is everything. At present, one can purchase

off shelf telecom digitizers and APDs that

have 2 GHz bandwidth. Beyond that

there are a number of

high-end scientific digitizers, developed largely for the particle

physics community,

that approach 10 GHz

sample rates. But

what we want, in reality, is a picosecond

clock and photon

detector in the 1.55 μm

regime. There are

photodetector

chemistries -- mainly

GeSi -- that are potentially capable of being

7.2

Figure 7.2: Range accuracy for pulse time-of-flight LADAR as a function

of timing accuracy (clock bandwidth). This represents round-trip bin

accuracy with no consideration for sub-bin “super resolution.”
pushed into the near 100 GHz regime. That leaves the question of developing a

picosecond on-chip timer. A 1 ps timer is presently not achievable in silicon. A silicon

CMOS circuit (of the type currently being used in the ROIC of most LADAR systems) is

effectively a group of devices that, when turned on, look like resistors that either

charge up or discharge adjacent capacitors that provide input into the next stage of a

logic circuit. As technology advances (Moore’s Law) the minimum discrete component

size shrinks. As they shrink their RC time constants shrink, producing faster switching

speeds. If one investigates GaAs, which has a less mature fabrication technology, one

finds that the circuits that can be built will have a smaller number of transistors per unit

area. GaAs does not have the native oxide that silicon has and therefore it is not possible to grow ultra-thin oxide layers to produce low power capacitive elements that are

crucial to precision timing devices. 

In silicon, as elsewhere, we are limited by feature size. The best commercial CMOS

process, currently offered by Taiwan Semiconductor, is 0.35 μm. In this regime a

CMOS inverter will introduce a delay in the 100 ps range. Such an element could

become part of a string of such devices forming a delay line for an individual pixel in

an FPA. One could further envision having a counter that keeps track of the clock

cycles following receipt of a trigger pulse. The trigger pulse edge can be propagated

down a string (a long one) of tristate inverters. The arrival of the return pulse (reflected

from a distant target) edge can then be used to freeze the inverter outputs.

One can then determine how far down that delay line the trigger pulse edge propagated when photon detection signal arrived. Using this approach it would be feasible to

digitize time of flight down to the 100 ps level. Since that is round trip flight time, the

range bin size is 15 mm. Design of such a system would be dominated by consideration of noise and jitter sources associated with the large number of inverters required. 

The objective, in this brute force approach, is to cram more circuitry in to the pixel unit

cell. But that has a price in that each pixel becomes larger which ripples down to the

requirement for larger optics and so forth. VISA and Z-stacking may alleviate some of

that real estate demand but will not eliminate it. New silicon processes are on the horizon: 0.25 μm, 0.18 μm and even 0.13 μm technology is considered likely within the

next few years. And the smaller the achievable component size, the faster the timer.

But speed is not linear with technology size. Inverter delay is also a function of power

supply voltage. With a larger drive voltage the transistors are turned on harder and

thus switch faster. There is a limit where gate oxides break down. Impact ionization

and high electric field strengths in the transistor channel will adversely counter and

eventually limit the achievable improvements. Nonetheless, some have suggested

that through aggressive silicon-on-insulator processes gate delays might be reduced to

the sub-30 ps range. It may be proven over the next few years that VISA designs, with

1 μm inter-wafer vias, might be able to capitalize on such aggressive processes. Zstacking solutions may be limited because all inter-layer connections must take place

on the wafer periphery. When one achieves a timing accuracy below 30 ps the

accuracy will begin to be limited by such things as the “jitter” of the photon detector.

7.3
7.3 Illumination Source Limits:

Edge detection of the trigger and return illumination pulse is an inherent component of

LADAR system accuracy. Simplistically stated, the shorter the illumination pulse, the

greater the ability to resolve the time of the receipt of the pulse. Figure 7.3 illustrates

this point. Microchip laser illuminators, particularly diode-pumped NdYAG designs

using Cr4+:YAG saturable absorber layers, have been developed that achieve 218 ps

minimum pulse width (e.g. Albota et al, 2001). This presently represents the shortest

pulse laser illuminator implemented in a practical next-generation LADAR-compatible

size. Laboratory benchtop-scale devices with fs-level output pulse widths are available

commercially -- and more exact systems have been developed in various laboratories -

-- but these are large,

expensive, and generally

produce a continuous

string of such pulses

through cavity resonance

and interference. Due to

the nature of the presently employed pulse generation methods the unambiguous range (for a

LADAR ranging system)

between pulses in a fslevel laser source is currently limited to under 2

m. 

A great deal of effort is

expended in the development of “sub-bin” and

“super-resolution” techniques that in effect

attempt to model the

shape of the generated pulse and thence to use that apriori information to assist in

higher resolution detection of the leading edge (or sometimes trailing edge) of the

return pulse. Regardless of the efforts placed in the development of ps-level timing circuits (see 7.2 above) these are inherently limited by the accuracy with which the stopwatch “start” and “stop” events are able to be detected. Clearly, a more elegant solution to super-resolution approaches would be the development of micro-chip level fs

pulsed laser illuminators, or fs-level continuous pulse illumination generators with cavity resonators that produce unambiguous ranges in the neighborhood of 100 m to 200

m.

7.4

Figure 7.3: Range accuracy as a function of the pulse width of the

laser illuminator used in a pulse time-of-flight LADAR.
7.4 Performance Metrics and 3D Scene Generation Issues:

Thus far all discussion in this report has dealt with LADAR sensor technology. There

is a parallel series of issues that are most germane to the construction automation sector but eventually will have direct consequences for any LADAR destined for a market

for which accountability is required. To illustrate the nature of the issue, Figure 7.4 a)

shows a typical high-resolution scan of a HMMWV vehicle with false-color elevation

scaling. A flat panel on the vehicle was identified for study (as indicated by the yellow

rectangle). The returns from this area were extracted and then rotated 90 degrees so

that the relative viewpoint would be looking down on the edge of the panel vertically.

In an ideal data set the panel would appear as a straight line from this viewpoint.

There is, however, a clear distribution associated with the actual LADAR response.

This distribution is approximatey gaussian. The reported accuracy -- from sales literature -- of the instrument employed was +/- 20 mm with no further reference. From the

data, however, it is evident that this would represent approximately 1σ - one standard

deviation. For certain applications this would be considered extraordinarily accurate;

for others it would be of significant concern. Yet there is no way for the user of such

an instrument to presently know in advance all of the performance metrics for any

given LADAR. In many establishments that use these instruments for manufacturing

metrology extensive calibration facilities must be established just to ascertain what the

data being supplied by the LADAR mean. Calibration procedures are considered highly proprietary to instrument manufacturers (Cheok et al., 2003), largely because illumination source, beam deflection, and sensor idiosyncracies are frequently non-linear.

Some instruments come with embedded lookup error compensation models with more

than 50 correction coefficients. In the more accurate devices these models will include

in addition to spatial data, in-situ temperature, pressure, and humidity.

The data shown in Figure 7.4 represent a near ideal situation for LADAR: a flat, highly

reflecting panel at medium range and perpendicular to the range vector. The variance

for this device (and any other LADAR) will degrade with reduced reflectivity, range,

angle of incidence, surface texture, and in many cases the ambient light level to name

just a few parameters that quantify the performance metrics for any given instrument.

It is presently the “wild, wild west” in the commercial sector and there exists no neutral

facility by which claims of performance can be verified. NIST has undertaken efforts in

this area (Cheok, 2003) to establish a national LADAR performance metrics facility and

a first industry-government workshop was held at NIST in June of 2003 to discuss the

nature of such a facility. The general concensus is that three facilities are required: a

refined environmentally controlled test range for sensors that operate at very high levels of accuracy (<100 μm) within short ranges; a mid-range environmentally controlled

facility for instruments up to 50 m range; and an outdoor test course for autonomous

machinery sensors and mobility platforms that has the capability to generate near synchronous ground truth for any given weather and seasonal consideration. Such a facility would also include calibrated dynamic objects that move about the scene during a

mobility platform test. NIST is proceeding to develop the second facility in FY04/

FY05. 

7.5
7.6

Figure 7.4: Not all LADAR performance is the same. At present, it is the “wild, wild west” with respect

to LADAR performance metrics. There are no national (nor international) standard tests that have been

established by which LADAR systems can be uniformly benchmarked. When an accuracy is quoted for

a LADAR system, what is its basis? The HMMWV scan shown above was acquired with a sensor for

which the stated accuracy was 20 mm. Subsample data were extracted from the flat utility panel designated by the yellow rectangle in a) above. In b) below, those data were rotated 90 degrees on the computer screen so that the view is looking down on the data sample. A flat plate (which is what was

scanned) would have produced a straight line for perfect data. Instead there is a near Gaussian distribution for which the stated accuracy probably represents one standard deviation.

a)

b)
Figure 7.5: Hot Cell Radiation

Mapping: a) 3D model is constructed of a high radiation work space

using an extensible, telescoping

mast. Radiation intensity (gamma)

is sufficient to rapidly destroy active

electronics. b) The LADAR sensor

is maintained outside the hotcell

and a hollow mechanically-driven

beam deflector is used for linear

scans. Telescope rotation captures

an individual frame while telescope

extension provides the equivalent of

a JIGSAW-scenario linear frame

sequence, but with the important

distinction that the frame FOV is

approximately 90

o x 360o. The

white sphere at right on the sensor

head in b) is a split tungsten ball

containing a gamma scintillator connected by radiation hardened fiber

optics to a remote counter.

7.7

a)

b)
Figure 7.6: Automated As-Built Construction Site Model Generation. a) An autonomous site scanning

system equipped with telescoping sensor pod provides more complete models to be developed than

with traditional tripod-mounted surveying techniques. The grey area represents scene data unknown to

the instrument at scan location 1, but visible to location 2; b) Complicated sites require registration of

scores or hundreds of scans to produce legally binding survey records. These invoke a need for performance metrics evaluation from a neutral source.

a)

b)

7.8
As the research community moves towards Next-Generation LADAR it is well to consider that the designs should be versatile enough to permit migration to non-standard

uses. The reason for doing this is largely a matter of economics: LADARs presently

range in price between $25,000 to $400,000. At these rates the market penetration

will remain small and small production lot manufacturing approaches will control pricing. Figures 7.5 and 7.6 (extracted from Stone, 2003) provide two unusual examples

of many possible alternative scenarios where low-cost, next-generation LADAR would

be enabling. 

Figure 7.5 describes the concept of tracking the location of high radiation zones within

a traditional nuclear hot cell. In Figure 7.5a a 3-D model is constructed of a high radiation work space using an extensible, telescoping mast. Radiation intensity (gamma) is

sufficient to rapidly destroy active electronics, so the LADAR illuminator and detector

cannot be inside the cell. Instead, as in Figure 7.5b the LADAR sensor is maintained

outside the hotcell and a hollow tube allows a mechanically-driven beam deflector to

allow acquisition of linear scans. Rotation of the telescoping tube about its axis allows

for the capture of an individual frame while telescope extension provides the equivalent

of a Jigsaw-scenario linear frame sequence, but with the important distinction that the

frame FOV is approximately 90 x 360 degrees. The white sphere at right on the sensor head in Figure 7.5b is a split tungsten ball containing a gamma scintillator connected by rad-hard fiber optics to a remote counter. The entire device comprises the

equivalent of a 3-D borescope but with the important distinction that 3-D geometry is

acquired as well as scalar data (in this case, gamma radiation intensity) that can be

subsequently mapped to the geometry for the purpose of automated decision making

and programming of machinery (e.g. robot arms) that operate within that environment. 

Automated as-built construction site model generation is discussed in Figure 7.6.

Unlike aerial (UAV, OAV) frame sequence capture -- which is inherently a linear collection of “2-1/2 D” frames -- construction site component representation requires a full 3-

D model for both refined object detection in preparation for automated machine handling, as well as to establish legally binding survey information on the geometric state

of the infrastructure. Future automated survey vehicles will self-register to the site

coordinate system and will use extensible masts to improve view factor before moving

to the next pre-designated scan point. The grey section in Figure 7.6a represents terrain not viewable at state 1. Registration of hundreds of such frames collected from

key locations around the construction site are then registered to produce a site model

such as the traffic intersection shown in Figure 7.6b. Already, work is underway at

NIST to equip construction cranes with real-time LADAR for the purpose of steel component placement (Lytle et al, 2003). In this scenario, the crane makes use of two

independent 10 m range FPA LADARS (CSEM SR-2 -- see Appendix A) for the purpose of target recognition, geometric lock-on, and real-time trajectory control. The

intent is, in addition to the immediate instance of local machine vision enhancement, to

lead towards the concept of each piece of machinery operating on a construction site

to become an independent gatherer of 3-D state information. Such information will be

maintained in a general 4-D repository for use by other machines and humans.

7.9
7.5 Recommendations for further Research:

In summary, we recommend that vigorous research be conducted in the following

areas related to Next-Generation LADAR, in order of importance:

• On-chip technology that can achieve 10 ps timing resolution

• Miniaturized and distributed beam-folding and beam deflection array systems

• Eye-safe photodiodes that can operate at 150 GHz bandwidth

• Compact fs pulse illuminators

• Compact, ultra-linear, ultra-wideband FM-chirp generators for CLR devices

• High power VCSEL (surface multi-laser emitters,) wafers and optical couplers

• Standardized means for assessment of LADAR performance metrics

One can modify and tailor the above topics to suit the desired end target - whether it

be mobility LADAR for unoccupied ground vehicles; the control of construction machinery; or the control of manufacturing processes. In all these variations the common

requirement for small, inexpensive, accurate, and fast LADAR systems will force one’s

attention on the above areas of research. 

7.10
8.0 References

8.1 General References

Albota, M.A., Aull, B.F., Fouche, D.G. et al., “Three-Dimentional Imaging Laser Radar

Using Geiger-mode Avalanche Photodiode Arrays and Short-pulse Microchip Lasers,”

Lincoln Laboratory Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 (2001).

Aull, B.F. et al., “Geiger-Mode Avalanche Photodiodes for Three-Dimensional

Imaging,” Lincoln Laboratory Journal, Volume 13, Number 1 (2001).

Besl, P.J., “Active, Optical Range Imaging Sensors,” Machine Vision and Applications

1:127-152 (1988). 

Buxbaum, B., and Gollewski, T., “Feasibility Study for the Next-Generation Laser

Radar Range Imaging Based on CMOS PMD Technology,” Special Contract Report to

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, pp.

65. October 30, 2002. 

Cheok, G. et al., “Proceedings of the LADAR Calibration Workshop June 12-13, 2003,”

NISTIR-7054, October 2003, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD, 20899. 

Frohlich, C., Mettenleiter, M., Hartl, F., Dalton, G., and Hines, D., “Imaging Laser

Radar for 3-D Modeling of Real World Environments,” Sensor Review, Volume 20, No.

4, pp 273-281 (2000). 

Kammerman, G.W., “Laser Radar,” Vol. 6 (Active Electro-Optical Systems), Chapter 1,

The Infrared and Electro-Optical Systems Handbook, Clifton S. Fox, Editor, SPIE

Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, Washington, USA (1996).

Lange, R., “3D Time-of-Flight Distance Measurement with Custom Solid-State Image

Sensors in CMOS/CCD-Technology,” Doctoral Dissertation, Dept. of Electrical

Engineering and Computer Science at University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany, June

28, 2000. 

Lytle, A.M., Saidi, K.S., Stone, W.C., and Scott, N.A., "Towards an Intelligent Job

Site: Status of the NIST Automated Steel Construction Test Bed," Proceedings of

ISARC 2003 (International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction),

Eindhoven, Netherlands. September 22-24, 2003.

Schilling, B.W., Barr, D.N., Templeton, G.C., Mizerka, L.J., and Trussell, C.W.,

Multiple-return laser radar for three-dimensional imaging through obscurations,

APPLIED OPTICS, Vol. 41, No. 15 pp 2791-2799, May 2002

8.1
Spirig, T., “Smart CCD/CMOS Based Image Sensors with Programmable, Real-Time,

Temporal and Spatial Convolution Capabilities for Applications in Machine Vision and

Optical Metrology,” Doctoral Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich,

(1997).

Stann, B.L., Ruff, W.C., and Sztankay, Z.G., “Intensity-Modulated Diode Laser Radar

using Frequency-Modulation / Continuous-Wave Ranging Techniques,” Optical

Engineering, November 1996. 

Stettner, R., and Bailey, H.W., “3D Imaging Laser Radar,” United States Patent

6,133,989, October 17, 2000.

Stettner, R., and Bailey, H.W., 3D Imaging Laser Radar, U.S. Patent 6,133,989,

Advanced Scientific Concepts, Inc. October 17, 2000. 

Langer, D., Mettenleiter, M., Härtl, F., and Fröhlich, C., Imaging Ladar for 3-D

Surveying and CAD Modeling of Real World Environments, The International Journal

of Robotics Research, Vol.19, No.11, Sage Publications, Inc., pp.1075-1088,

November 2000. 

8.2 Micromirror References

Sweeney, M., Rynkowski, G., Ketabchi, M., and Crowley, R., “Design Considerations

for Fast Steering Mirrors (FSM’s),” Axys Technologies Imagins Systems, 2909

Waterview Drive, Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4600.

Dagalakis, N. G., LeBrun, T., Lippiatt, J., "Micro-Mirror Array Control of Optical

Tweezer Trapping Beams," 2nd IEEE Conference on Nanotechnology, Washington DC,

August 2002.

8.3 Coherent Ladar References:

Burton, R.R., Schott, J.R., and Brown, S.D., “Elastic LADAR Modeling for Synthetic

Imaging Applications,” SPIE (2002).

Gatt, P., Thompson, J.A., and Henderson, S.W., “Coherent Laser Radar Range

Precision for Range Resolved and Unresolved Targets, Corporation White Paper,

Coherent Technologies Inc., 655 Aspen Ridge Drive, Lafayette, CO 80026 (2003).

Gatt, P., “ Waveform Range and Velocity Resolution and Precision and TimeBandwidth Product, Corporation White Paper, Coherent Technologies Inc., 655 Aspen

Ridge Drive, Lafayette, CO 80026 (2003).

Shapiro, J.W., “Performance Analysis of Peak-Detecting Laser Radars, “SPIE Vol.

663, pp. 38-56 (1986).

8.2
Van Trees, H.L., “Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory, Part 1, Wiley and

Sons (1968). 

8.4 Scanning References

Montagu, J., and DeWeerd, H., Optomechanical Scanning Applications, Techniques,

and Devices, Vol. 3 (Electro-Optical Components), Chapter 3, The Infrared and

Electro-Optical Systems Handbook, William D. Rogatto, Editor, SPIE Optical

Engineering Press, Bellingham, Washington, USA (1996).

Amatucci, E., Dagalakis, N.G., Kramar, J.A., Scire, F.E., "Performance Evaluation of

a Parallel Cantilever Biaxial Micropositioning Stage," American Society of Precision

Engineering, 15th Annual Meeting 2000, Scottsdale, Arizona, October 2000.

Applied MEMS, "DuraScan Mirror Technology,"

http://www.appliedmems.cc/htmlmems/index.htm (2004).

Beheim, G., Fritsch, K., "Range finding using frequency-modulated laser diode,"

Applied Optics, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 1439-1442 (1986)..

Beiser, L., "Holographic Scanning," Wiley (1988).

Boone, B.G., Bokulic, R.S., Andrews, G.B., McNutt, Jr., R.L., Dagalakis, N., "Optical

and Microwave Communications System Conceptual Design for a Realistic Interstellar

Explorer," 47th SPIE Meeting, Seattle, WA., July 2002.

DLP A Texas InstrumentsTechnology,

http://www.dlp.com/dlp_technology/Default.asp?bhcp=1 (2004).

Gottlieb, M., Ireland, C.L., Ley, J.M., "Electro-Optic and Acousto-Optic Scanning and

Deflection," Marcel Dekker Publisher (1983).

Langer, D., Mettenleiter, M., Hartl, F., Frohlich, C., "Imaging ladar for 3-D surveying

of real world environments," International Journal of Robotic Research, Vol. 19, No. 11,

pp. 1075-1088, (2000).

Lucent Technologies, "LambdaRouterTM All Optical Switch,"

http://www.lucent.com/pressroom/lambda.html (2004).

Marshall, G.F., "Optical Scanning," Marcel Dekker Publisher (1991).

McCarthy, D.C., "Photonic Switches: Fast, but Functional?," Photonics Spectra, March

2001.

8.3
MEMS Optical, "Scanning Two Axis Tilt Mirrors," http://www.memsoptical.com/prodserv/products/twotiltmir.htm (2004).

Physik Instruments, http://www.physikinstrumente.de/products/prdetail.php?secid=3-12

(2004).

Sandia National Laboratories, "Sandia micromirrors may be part of Next Generation

Space Telescope," http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR1999/space.htm (2004)

Spectra Switch Inc.,

http://www.spectraswitch.com/products/product_line/wavewalker_1x2_datasheet.htm

(2004)

STAB, http://www.darpa.mil/mto/stab/ (2000).

Stann, B. L., Ruff, W. C., Sztankay, Z. G., "Intensity-modulated diode laser radar

using frequency modulation/continuous wave ranging techniques," Optical Engineering,

Vol. 35, No. 11, pp. 3270-3278 (1996).

Stone, W.C., “Three Degree-of-Freedom Telescoping Geometry Scanner, U.S. Patent

Number 6,600,553, July 29, 2003.

Texas Instruments, "Digital Micromirror Device Delivering on Promises of "Brighter"

Future for Imaging Applications,"

http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/dmd.shtml (2004).

Trellis Photonics,

http://www.techonline.com/community/member_company/non_member/2713 (2004).

Wallace, A. M., Buller, G. S., Walker, A. C., "3D imaging and ranging by time-correlated single photon counting," Journal of Computing and Control Engineering, pp. 157-

168, August 2001.

Younse, J., "Projection Display Systems Based on the Digital Micromirror Device,"

Proceedings of Micromechanical structures and Microelectromechanical Devices for

Optical Processing and Multimedia Applications, p. 64, October 1995.

8.4
8.5 ROIC and Focal Plane Array (FPA) References

Albota, M.A., et al, "Three-Dimensional Imaging Laser Radars with Geiger-Mode

Avalanche Photodiode Arrays," Lincoln Laboratory Journal, Vol. 13, Num. 2, pp. 351-

367 (2002).

Anderson, C., et al., "HgCdTe APD Arrays and Readouts for 3D Imaging LADAR,”

Proceedings SPIE AeroSense (2002).

Aull, B., et al., "Geiger-Mode Avalanche Photodiodes for Three-Dimensional Imaging,"

Lincoln Laboratory Journal, Vol. 13, Num. 2, pp. 335-348 (2002).

Carson, J., “Infrared mosaic technology,” Proceedings of the SPIE 62, 3-6 (1975).

Carson, J., “Infrared mosaic technology,” Proceedings of the SPIE 510, 79-81 (1984).

Crowe, D.G., Norton, P.R., and Limperis, J.M., Detectors, Vol. 3 (Electro-Optical

Components), Chapter 4, The Infrared and Electro-Optical Systems Handbook,

William D. Rogatto, Editor, SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, Washington,

USA (1996).

Jack, M., et al., "HgCdTe APD Arrays, Readouts, and SCA's for 3D Imaging LADAR,”

Proceedings SPIE AeroSense (2003).

Ludwig, D., et al., “Identifying Targets under Trees - Jigsaw 3D-LADAR CFT Results,”

pre-print of paper to appear in SPIE AeroSense conference proceedings (2004). 

Proceedings of the SPIE 1097, 930, and 1339 contain more than a dozen articles on

Z technology.

Shaefer, T.T., “The RM 20B mosaic measurement experiment,” Proceedings of the

SPIE 62, 36-45 (1975).

Vampola, J.L., Readout Electronics for Infrared Sensors, Vol. 3 (Electro-Optical

Components), Chapter 4, The Infrared and Electro-Optical Systems Handbook,

William D. Rogatto, Editor, SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, Washington,

USA (1996).

8.6 Super Resolution References

Stoker, C.R., et al., “Super-Resolved Surface Reconstruction from Multiple Images,”

NASA Technical Report FIA-94-12, 1994. Analyzing Pathfinder Data using Virtual

Reality and Super-resolved Imaging. Journal of Geophysical Research, February 1998. 

8.5
8.7 Femtosecond Laser References

Fermann, M.E., Yang, L.M., Stock, M.L., and Andrejco, M.J.: 'Environmentally Stable

Kerr-Type Modelocked Erbium Fiber Laser Producing 300 fsec Pulses', Opt. Lett., vol.

19, pp. 43-45 (1994). 

Fermann, M.E., Galvanauskas, A. and Harter, D.: 'All fiber source of 100 nJ subpicosecond pulses, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 64, pp. 1315-1317 (1994).

8.8 Atmospheric Effects

Andrews, L.C. and Phillips, R. L., "Laser beam propagation through random media"

, SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA. (1998).

Böckem B., Flach P., Weiss A., and Hennes M., "Refraction influence analysis and

investigations on automated elimination of refraction effects on geodedtic measurements", XVI IMEKO World Congress 2000, 25-28, Vienna, September 2000.

Burton, R.R., Schott, and J.R., Brown, S.D., "Elastic LADAR Modeling for Synthetic

Imaging Applications", SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 4816, pp. 144-155, July 2002.

Ciddor, P. E., "Refractive index of air: new equations for the visible and near infrared,"

Appl. Optics 35, 1566-1573 (1996).

Fasching, M. and Hauser, H., "Measurement of small angles between electromagnetic waves for refraction studies" Measurement Science Technology 4 ,1065-1069

(1993).

Flach, P., "Analysis of refraction influences in geodesy using image processing and

turbulence models" , Dissertation for Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Diss. ETH

No. 13844), Zurich (2000).

Flach P.H. and Maas H.G., "Vision-based techniques for refraction analysis in applications of terrestial geodesy" International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote

Sensing (IAPRS), Onuma, Vol. XXXII, Part. 5-3W12, pp. 195-201 (1999).

Gustavsson, T. and Bogren, J., "Measurement of Road Climatological Variables"

Road Climate Center, Physical Geography, Department of Earth Sciences, University

of Gotenborg, Box 460, 405 30 Gotenborg, Sweenden. Presented at 11th SIRWEC,

January 2002.

Hoph, F.A., Tomita, A., and Al-Jumaily G., "Second Harmonic Interferometers"

Optics Letters 5, 386-88 (1980).

Huggett, G.R. and Slater, L.E., "Precision Electromagnetic Distance-Measuring

8.6
Instrument for determining secular strain and fault movement" , In: N. Pavoni and R.

Green Editors, Recent Crustal Movements, Tectonophysics 29 (1-4): 19-27 (1975).

Huiser, A. M. J., and Gachter, B.F., "A solution to atmospherically induced problems

in very high-accuracy alignment and levelling" J. Phys D: Appl Phys, 22 pp1630-1638

(1989).

Ishida, A., "Two-wavelength displacement-measuring interferometer using secondharmonic light to Eliminate air-turbulence-induced errors", Japanese Journal of Appl

Physics, vol 28, ppL473-L475 (1989). 

Langbein, J. O., Linker, M. F., McGarr, A.F., and Slater, L.E., Precision of two-color

geodimeter measurements: results from 15 months of observations" J Geophys Res

92(B11), 11644-11656 (1987). 

Lassila, A. and Korpelainen, V., "An acoustic method for determination of the effective temperature and refractive index of air", SPIE Proceedings 5190, Recent

Developments in Traceable Dimensional Measurements II, San Diego, August 3-8

2003, 316-326 (2003).

Levine, J., "Multiple wavelength electromagnetic distance measurements " in

"Geodetic Refaraction" [Brunner FK editor, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York], 45-

51 (1984).

Lis, S. A., "Air-turbulence-compensated interferometer for IC manufacturing", SPIE

Proceedings Vol. 2440, (Santa Clara meeting, 02/19 - 02/24/95) pp.891-901 (1995).

Minoshima, K. and Matsumoto H., "High-accuracy measurement of a 240-m distance

in an optical tunnel by use of a compact femtosecond laser" Applied Optics 39 (30) pp

5512-5517 (2000).

Mihaljov, L., Hemming, B., Lehto, H., and Lassila, A., "A new method for improving

the accuracy of measurements made with laser interferometer" (unpublished, 2001).

Rüeger, J.M., "Electronic Distance Measurement, an Introduction" Fourth Edition,

Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1996).

Shirley, L., United States Patent No. US 6,229,619 B1, May 8 2001.

Williams, D.C., and Kahmen H., "Two wavelength angular refraction measurement",

in "Geodetic Refaraction,” F.K. Brunner, Editor, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg NY, 7-31.

8.7
Appendix A

NIST Survey of

LADAR Technology

2004

Contact:

Dr. William C. Stone

(301) 975-6075

william.stone@nist.gov

A.1
Commercial Systems

A.2
System Architecture dual-frequency AMCW, 

planar-mirror / pan scanning mechanism

Wavelength of illumination source 780 nanometers

Illumination power 22 milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 3.5 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 0.1 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 0 to 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical -135 to +135 degrees

Maximum Range 25.2 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) n/a frames/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 625,000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.38 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.01 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges] 3 millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 300 x 350 x 180 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 16 kilograms

Retail cost $120,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery 10 weeks

Manufacturer's Name Z+F USA, Inc.

Manufacturer's Address One Library Place, #203, 

Pittsburgh, PA 15110

Manufacturer's Phone (412) 469-9210

Manufacturers Email info@zf-usa.com

Manufacturer's FAX (412) 469-9211

Name of Product IMAGER

Product Model Number 5003

Year First Introduced 2002

A.3

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY
System Architecture Dual-axis orthogonal scanning mirror

Wavelength of illumination source 1540 nanometers

Illumination power <10 milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 12 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 0.17 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 40 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 40 degrees

Maximum Range 1500 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) N/A frames/second

Array size (if FPA) N/A pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 2000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 3 mm millimeters

Angular resolution 0.0015 deg (26 μrad) degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges] 10 millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 312 x 312 x 205 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 30 kilograms

Retail cost $150,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery Stock weeks

Manufacturer's Name Optech, Incorporated

Manufacturer's Address 100 Wildcat Rd. 

Toronto, ON

Manufacturer's Phone 416-661-5904

Manufacturers Email mailto:brentg@optech.on.ca

Manufacturer's FAX 416-661-4168

Name of Product ILRIS-3D

Product Model Number

Year First Introduced 2001

A.4

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY
System Architecture Scanner uses a rotating mirror for 

elevation and a rotating base for 

azimuth. The laser is an amplitude 

modulated continuous wave rangefinder - 

"time of flight". 

Wavelength of illumination source 670 nanometers

Illumination power 5 milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 2.5 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 0.5 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal +/- 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical -55 to +90 degrees

Maximum Range 12 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) NA frames/second

Array size (if FPA) NA pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 25000 points/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.25 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.015 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges] 7mm at 12m millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 356 x 356 x 102 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 10 kilograms

Retail cost $44,900; $10,000 for color option U.S. $

Lead time to delivery 30-45 days

Manufacturer's Name 3rdTech, Inc.

Manufacturer's Address 119 E. Franklin St., 3rd 

Fl., Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Manufacturer's Phone (919) 929-1903

Manufacturers Email info@3rdtech.com

Manufacturer's FAX 919-929-2098

Name of Product DeltaSphere 

Product Model Number 3000

Year First Introduced 2000

A.5

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY
System Architecture Frequency Modulated (Chirped) 

Coherent Laser Radar Ranging accurate 

to 2.5 parts per million up to 60 meters. 

The laser beam is expanded to 40mm 

and then focused to a diffraction limited 

spot whose size is approx. 100 microns 

plus 60 microns per meter. Th

Wavelength of illumination source 1550 nanometers

Illumination power 2 (US, International Class 1 eye-safe) milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit Focused beam 0.16mm @ 1meter millimeters

Beam divergence angle Diffraction Limited approx 0.06 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal +/- 200 (i.e. full 360) degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical +/- 45 degrees

Maximum Range 60 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) NA frames/second

Array size (if FPA) NA pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 1000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.0001 millimeters

Angular resolution > 0.000002 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges]

2.5 parts per million: 0.025mm @ 10 m, 

0.065mm at 25 m, 0.15mm at 60 m millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 324 x 454 x 823 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces Sensor = 40, Cart = 80 kilograms

Retail cost 

$320,000 for 24 meter, $410,000 for 60 

meter U.S. $

Lead time to delivery 12 weeks

Manufacturer's Name MetricVision, Inc.

Manufacturer's Address 8500 Cinder Bed Rd, 

Newington, VA 22122

Manufacturer's Phone (703) 550-2945

Manufacturers Email sales@metricvision.com

Manufacturer's FAX (703) 550-2949

Name of Product FM Coherent Laser Radar

Product Model Number MV200

Year First Introduced 2001

A.6

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY
System Architecture Focal plane Arrays based on PMD 

elements with various number and 

orientation of PMD pixels, various 

technologies, e.g. pure CMOS or hybrids 

(CMOS readout combined with GaAs 

PMD-Front-Ends), integrated in compact 

housings with standard interfaces (RS 

232, 

Wavelength of illumination source

depends on application, e.g. 658 nm 

laser or 890/850 nm LEDs-arrays

Illumination power from 1 mW laser up to 1 W LED power

Beam diameter at Exit millimeters

Beam divergence angle

0.1° for 1D-depth 

45° for 3D illumination degrees

Sensor field of view, horizontal e.g. 45° for 3D application degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical e.g. 16° for 3D application degrees

Maximum Range 15 meters

Frame rate (if FPA)

1 to 100 on natural surfaces, up to 1000 

on reflector frames/second

Array size (if FPA)

single elements, line sensors, arrays up 

to 16x16, in 2003 up to 64x16 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other)

Range resolution (depth)

depends on measurement conditions: 

5 to 200 mm millimeters

Angular resolution depend on specified FOV degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] depends on system drift millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 161 x 38.5 x 38.5 millimeters

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 0.3 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $5,000 to $10,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 8 weeks

Source Name PMDTec/S-TEC GmbH

Source Address Wilhelm-von-HumboldtPlatz 13, 57076 

Siegen/Germay

Source Contact Phone (49) 271-2385380

Source Email info@PMDTec.com

Source FAX (49) 271-2385389

Name of Product PMD-"LADAR" 

Prototypes-xD

Product Model Number

Year First Introduced 1999

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.7
System Architecture Focal Plane Array with custom 

CMOS/CCD demodulation pixel image 

sensor. Miniature 3D time-of-flight 

camera with AM-CW LED illumination. 

Read-out and programming via standard 

USB interface.

Wavelength of illumination source 820 nanometers

Illumination power 800 milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 100 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 0.7 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal +/- 15 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical +/- 15 degrees

Maximum Range 20 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) 30 frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 128x160 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 1 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.5 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] 5 millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 40 x 125 x 30 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 0.3 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $4,600 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 8 weeks

Source Name CSEM, Swiss Center for 

Electronics and 

Microtechnology

Source Address Badenerstrasse 569, CH8048 Zurich, Switzerland

Source Contact Phone +41 1 497 14 47

Source Email imaging@csem.ch

Source FAX +41 1 497 14 00

Name of Device/Product Swiss Ranger

Identification (e.g. model, 

make)

SR-2

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.8
System Architecture Scanner Pan & Tilt. pure pulse time-offlight

Wavelength of illumination source Near Infrared nanometers

Laser Class Class 1 EyeSafe

Beam diameter at Exit n/a

Beam divergence

15 mm @ 10 m

20 mm @ 20 m

60 mm @ 60 m

Sensor field of view, horizontal 0 to 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 0 to 360 degrees

Maximum Range 100 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) n/a frames/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel Rate (if scanner or other) 1000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 1 mm millimeters

Angular resolution 0.009 degrees

Range accuracy 4 to 8 millimeters

Length & Diameter 250 X 300 X 320 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 15 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $75,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 6 to 8 weeks

Source Name Riegl Laser Measurement 

System

Source Address 7081 Grand National Drive, 

Suite 112 Orlando, Florida 

32819

Source Contact Phone 407-248-9927

Source Email info@rieglusa.com

Source FAX 407 248 2636

Name of Device/Product LPM 25HA-C - LIDAR 

Scanner

Identification (e.g. model, 

make)

Year First Introduced 2001

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.9
System Architecture Scanner Pan & Tilt. pure pulse time-offlight

Wavelength of illumination source Near Infrared nanometers

Laser Class Class 1 EyeSafe

Beam divergence 1.3 milliradian

Sensor field of view, horizontal 0 to 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 0 to 360 degrees

Maximum Range 800 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) n/a frames/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 1000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 1 mm millimeters

Angular resolution 0.009 degrees

Range accuracy 15 millimeters

Length & Diameter 287 X 300 X 320 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 15 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $75,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 6 to 8 weeks

Source Name Riegl Laser Measurement 

System

Source Address 7081 Grand National Drive, 

Suite 112 Orlando, Florida 

32819

Source Contact Phone 407-248-9927

Source Email info@rieglusa.com

Source FAX 407 248 2636

Name of Device/Product LPM 800HA - LIDAR 

Scanner

Identification (e.g. model, 

make)

Year First Introduced 2002

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.10
System Architecture Scanner ( polygon-polygon) . Pure pulse 

time-of-flight

Wavelength of illumination source 904 nanometers

Laser Class Class 1 Eye Safe

Beam divergence 3 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 0 to 330 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 80 degrees

Maximum Range 450 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) n/a frames/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 28,000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) selectable from 2mm to 50 mm millimeters

Angular resolution 0.18 degrees

Range accuracy 25 millimeters

Length & Diameter 435 X 210 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 15 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $84,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 6 to 8 weeks

Source Name Riegl Laser Measurement 

System

Source Address 7081 Grand National Drive, 

Suite 112 Orlando, Florida 

32819

Source Contact Phone 407-248-9927

Source Email info@rieglusa.com

Source FAX 407 248 2636

Name of Device/Product LMS Z210 - LIDAR 

Scanner

Identification (e.g. model, 

make)

Year First Introduced 1998

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.11
System Architecture Scanner ( polygon-polygon) . pure pulse 

time-of-flight

Wavelength of illumination source 904 nanometers

Laser Class Class 1 Eye Safe

Beam divergence 2 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 0 to 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 0 to 90 degrees

Maximum Range 200 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) n/a frames/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 24,000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 5 mm millimeters

Angular resolution 0.002 degrees

Range accuracy 6 millimeters

Length & Diameter 490 X 210 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 15 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $95,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 6 to 8 weeks

Source Name Riegl Laser Measurement 

System

Source Address 7081 Grand National Drive, 

Suite 112 Orlando, Florida 

32819

Source Contact Phone 407-248-9927

Source Email info@rieglusa.com

Source FAX 407 248 2636

Name of Device/Product LMS Z360 - LIDAR 

Scanner

Identification (e.g. model, 

make)

Year First Introduced 2002

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.12
System Architecture Scanner ( polygon-polygon) . pure pulse 

time-of-flight

Wavelength of illumination source Near Infrared nanometers

Laser Class Class 3R

Beam divergence 0.25 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 0 to 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 0 to 90 degrees

Maximum Range 1000 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) n/a frames/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 3,000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 5 mm millimeters

Angular resolution 0.002 degrees

Range accuracy 6 millimeters

Length & Diameter 463 X 210 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 15 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $150,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 6 to 8 weeks

Source Name Riegl Laser Measurement 

System

Source Address 7081 Grand National Drive, 

Suite 112 Orlando, Florida 

32819

Source Contact Phone 407-248-9927

Source Email info@rieglusa.com

Source FAX 407 248 2636

Name of Device/Product LMS Z420 - LIDAR 

Scanner

Identification (e.g. model, 

make)

Year First Introduced 2002

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.13
Wavelength of illumination source 532 nanometers

Illumination power less than 1 mW milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 12 millimeters

Beam divergence angle

Autofocusing system or adjustable focus 

distance milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 60 degrees

Maximum Range 100 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) frames/second

Array size (if FPA) pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) up to 5000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.1 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.0018 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data]

1.5mm at 25m (4 shots averaging) 

6mm at 100m (4 shots averaging) on 

99% albedo target millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 380 x 420 x 280 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 30 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $125,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Maximum 4 weeks

Source Name MENSI, Inc.

Source Address 35 Technology Parkway 

South, Suite 170, 

Norcross, GA 30092

Source Contact Phone (770) 613-5255

Source Email info@mensi.com

Source FAX (770) 613-5254

Name of Device/Product GS100

Identification (e.g. model, 

make) n/a

Year First Introduced 2002

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.14
Wavelength of illumination source 632 nanometers

Illumination power 2.5 milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 8 millimeters

Beam divergence angle Autofocusing system milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 320 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 46 degrees

Maximum Range 15 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 8000 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) up to 100 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.1 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.011 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data]

0.35 + 0.01*d^2 for 

d = range in meters millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 210 x 730 x 280 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 70 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $69,500 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Maximum 2 weeks

Source Name MENSI, Inc.

Source Address 35 Technology Parkway 

South, Suite 170, 

Norcross, GA 30092

Source Contact Phone (770) 613-5255

Source Email info@mensi.com

Source FAX (770) 613-5254

Name of Device/Product S10

Identification (e.g. model, 

make) N/A

Year First Introduced 1992

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.15
Wavelength of illumination source 632 nanometers

Illumination power 2.5 milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 8 millimeters

Beam divergence angle Autofocusing system milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 320 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 46 degrees

Maximum Range 35 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 8000 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) up to 100 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.1 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.011 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data]

0.35 + 0.01*d^2 mm 

at range d in meters millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 210 x 1030 x 280 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 70 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $69,500 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Max 2 weeks

Source Name MENSI, Inc.

Source Address 35 Technology Parkway 

South, Suite 170, 

Norcross, GA 30092

Source Contact Phone (770) 613-5255

Source Email info@mensi.com

Source FAX (770) 613-5254

Name of Device/Product S25

Identification (e.g. model, 

make) N/A

Year First Introduced 1992

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.16
System Architecture Streak Tube Imaging Lidar (STIL) that 

uses a streak tube with CCD camera to 

obtain push-broom scanned 3D imagery. 

Wavelength of illumination source 532 nanometers

Illumination power 3 Watts

Source characteristic Diode-pumped Nd:YAG laser 

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate 6ns @ 200 Hz

Beam diameter at Exit 20 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 1.3 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal Classified degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical ~0.14 degrees

Maximum Range Classified meters

Frame rate (if FPA) 400 frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 512 x 128 x 2 pixels (binned)

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 400 lines/sec x 1024 azimuth pixels/line pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 25.4 millimeters

Angular resolution Classified degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] ~10 centimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 380 x 380 x 509 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 64 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $1,000,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 52 weeks

Source Name Arete Associates

Source Address 333 N Wilmot Rd. Tucson, 

AZ 85711

Source Contact Phone (520) 571-8660

Source Email garyredford@arete-az.com

Source FAX (520) 571-8232

Name of Device/Product AQS-20X EOID Adaptation

Identification (e.g. 

model, make)

Year First Introduced 2000

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.17
System Architecture PISTL is a double-slit implementation of 

the Streak Tube Imaging Lidar (STIL) 

that uses a streak tube with CCD 

camera to obtain push-broom scanned 

3D imagery. A Wollaston Prism in front 

of the imaging lens separates orthogonal 

polarimetric components simu

Wavelength of illumination source 532 nanometers

Illumination power 2000 milliWatts

Source characteristic Flash-lamp pumped Nd:YAG laser 

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate 9ns @ 100 Hz

Beam diameter at Exit 9 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 2.66 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal +/- 12.5 maximum degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 0.15 degrees

Maximum Range 100 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) 100 frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 512 x 512 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 100 lines/sec x 512 azimuth pixels/line pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 75 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.05 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data]

Does not currently have absolute 

ranging capability (only relative ranging 

with 75mm precision over 20m from 

100m altitude). millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 1000 x 1000 x 875 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 200 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $1,000,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 24 weeks

Source Name Arete Associates

Source Address 333 N Wilmot Rd. 

Tucson, AZ 85711

Source Contact Phone (520) 571-8660

Source Email agelbart@arete-az.com

Source FAX (520) 571-8232

Name of Device/Product

"PISTL" Polarimetric 

Imaging Streak Tube 

Ladar

Identification (e.g. model Prototype v2

Year First Introduced 2000

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.18
System Architecture Direct detection (pulse time of flight)

Wavelength of illumination source 532 nanometers

Illumination power less than 1 milliWatts

Source characteristic

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate 250ps scan rate1000 pts/sec

Beam diameter at Exit 6 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 0.1 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 40 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 40 degrees

Maximum Range 100 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) N/A frames/second

Array size (if FPA) N/A pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 1000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 2mm modeled surface millimeters

Angular resolution 60 microrad/ 0.007o degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] 4mm 1-sigma millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 381 x 336.55 x 429.26 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 20.5 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $108,500 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 1 weeks

Source Name

CYRA Technologies, 

Inc.

Source Address 4550 Norris Canyon 

Road; San Ramon, CA 

94597 USA

Source Contact Phone (866) 920-2300

Source Email info@cyra.com

Source FAX (925) 790-2309

Name of Device/Product CYRAX / Leica

Identification (e.g. model Cyrax 2500 / HDS3000

Year First Introduced 2000 / 2003

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.19
System Architecture Digital multi-pulse, direct detection 

(pulse time of flight). Device uses 

pulsed laser diode array active optics; 

rotating polygon scanner; and 16 

element linear detector array.

Wavelength of illumination source 905 current design; migrating to 1550 nanometers

Illumination power Class 1A milliWatts

Source characteristic

pulsed laser diode array (8 laser beams, 

1 rotating polygon mirror)

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate

Beam diameter at Exit 25 millimeters

Beam divergence angle milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 180 pixels = 90 degrees degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 32 pixels = 20 degrees degrees

Maximum Range

80m (20% target reflectivity) 

30 m (4% target reflectivity) meters

Frame rate (if FPA) 60 Hz frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 32x180 (scanned) pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 345,600 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 76 mm (Gen2a); 20 mm (Gen 2b) millimeters

Angular resolution 0.658 x 0.5 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data]

+/- 76mm 1-sigma (Gen 2a) 

+/- 20 mm 1-sigma (Gen 2b and later) millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) approx. 152 x 432 x 356 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces approx. 9 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $92,569 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Call for estimate weeks

Source Name

General Dynamics 

Robotic Systems

Source Address 1234 Tech Court

Westminster, MD 

21157

Source Contact Phone 410-876-9200

Source Email info@gdrs.com 

Source FAX 410-876-9470

Name of Device/Product Mobility Ladar

Identification (e.g. 

model, make) Gen 2b 

2003

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.20
System Architecture Line Scanner. Pulsed, time of flight light 

is sent and received per measurement 

angle (1/4°,1/2°, 1° increments) with 

respect to the unit. A rotating mirror 

moves the pulse to successive angles 

throughout a 180° pan. 

Wavelength of illumination source nanometers

Illumination power milliWatts

Source characteristic pulsed laser

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate

Beam diameter at Exit millimeters

Beam divergence angle milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 180 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical n/a (1D scanner only) degrees

Maximum Range 80 m (262.5 ft) / 10 m (32.8 ft) meters

Frame rate (if FPA)

Programmable: 3.3 °/ms @ 53 ms / ... 

/13.8 °/ms@13 ms frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 180 / 360 / 720 x 1 (selectable) pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 9.6 / 19.2 / 38.4 / 500 kBd (transfer rate) bytes/second

Range resolution (depth) 10 mm (.39 in) millimeters

Angular resolution 0.25° / .5° / 1° (selectable) degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data]

Typical ± 15 mm (mm-mode), range 1...8 

m; typical ± 40 mm (cm-mode), range 

1...20m millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 352 x 228.5 x 266 mm millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces approx. 9 kg (19.8 lb) kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. ~ $4000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 16 weeks

Source Name Sick, Inc.

Source Address 6900 West 110th 

Street, Bloomington, 

MN 55438 

Source Contact Phone

1-800-325-7425, 

+1(952) 941-6780

Source Email, Web Addr

info@sickusa.com, 

www.sickusa.com

Source FAX +1(952) 941-9287

Name of Device/Product

Laser Measurement 

System

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.21
System Architecture 2D scanning version of the SICK ladar. 

Pulsed, time of flight light is sent and 

received per measurement angle 

(1/4°,1/2°, 1° increments) with respect to 

the unit. A rotating mirror moves the pulse 

to successive angles throughout a 180° 

pan. 

Wavelength of illumination source nanometers

Illumination power milliWatts

Source characteristic pulsed laser

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate

Beam diameter at Exit millimeters

Beam divergence angle milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 80 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 80 degrees

Maximum Range 80 m (262.5 ft) / 10 m (32.8 ft) meters

Frame rate (if FPA)

Programmable: 3.3 °/ms @ 53 ms / ... 

/13.8 °/ms@13 ms frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 180 / 360 / 720 x 1 (selectable) pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 9.6 / 19.2 / 38.4 / 500 kBd (transfer rate) bytes/second

Range resolution (depth) 10 mm (.39 in) millimeters

Angular resolution .25° / .5° / 1° (selectable) degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data]

Typical ± 15 mm (mm-mode), range 1...8 

m; typical ± 40 mm (cm-mode), range 

1...20m millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 457 w. x 394 h. x 279 d. millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 10 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $50,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Call for quote weeks

Source Name OmniTech Robotics

Source Address 2640 South Raritan 

Circle, Englewood, CO 

80110-1147

Source Contact Phone (303) 922-7773

Source Email, Web Addr

David Parish 

www.omnitech.com

Source FAX (303) 922-7775

Name of Device/Product

SICK LMS with 

OmniTech Tilt 

mechanism

Identification (e.g. model Model 200

Year First Introduced

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.22
System Architecture Continuous Wave scanner, modular in 

design, data recording on internal hard 

disk. Class 3A Sacnning time = 4.5 

minutes per 360 revolution

Wavelength of illumination source 785 nanometers

Illumination power 10 milliWatts

Source characteristic Contimuous Wave, Modular system

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate

Beam diameter at Exit 3 millimeters

Beam divergence angle .2 (.012 degrees) milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 360 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 320 degrees

Maximum Range 76 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) n/a frames/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 120,000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.6 (mm) millimeters

Angular resolution horizontal: 0.0011° vertical: 0.011° degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] 3 millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 400*160*280 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 16 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $179,900 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 8 weeks

Source Name iQvolution

Source Address 22 Blue Fox Lane, 

Richboro, PA 18954

Source Contact Phone 215-396-7332

Source Email Tsatterley@iqvolution.com

Source FAX 215-396-1219

Name of Device/Product iQsun

Identification (e.g. model, 

make) Model 880

Year First Introduced 2003

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.23
Research Systems

A.24
System Architecture Direct time-of -flight, 32 X 32 Silicon FPA 

with bump bonded CMOS ROIC array

Wavelength of illumination source 780, 532 nanometers

Illumination power 15, 5 uJ per pulse

Source characteristic Pulsed u-chip laser 

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate 250 ps x 10 kHz

Beam Diameter at Exit Gen 2: 20, Jigsaw: 20 millimeters

Beam divergence angle (Far field - full) Gen 2: 12, Jigsaw: 24 milli-radians

Receiver aperture Gen 2: 100, Jigsaw: 75 millimeters

Sensor field of view, horizontal Gen 2: ~0.5, Jigsaw: ~1.0 Fixed optics degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical Gen 2: ~0.5, Jigsaw: ~1.0 Fixed optics degrees

Total sensor field of view, scanned Gen 2: 20X16, Jigsaw: 12 circular degrees

Maximum Range Gen 2: 1200, Jigsaw: 600 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) 8K, 10K frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 32x32 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) up to 10,000,000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) Gen 2: 150, Jiagsaw: 300 millimeters

Angular resolution Gen 2:~0.01, Jigsaw: ~0.02 degrees/pixel

Range accuracy (depth) Gen 2: 150, Jiagsaw: 300 millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth)

Gen 2: 20,30,45, Jigsaw:21,38,37 plus 

heat exchanger 12,18,34 centimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces Gen 2: 18, Jigsaw: 28 kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. not available currently U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) not available currently weeks

Source Name

M.I.T. Lincoln 

Laboratory

Source Address Lexington, MA, 02420

Source Contact Phone 781-981-7945

Source Email heinrichs@LL.mit.edu

Source FAX 781-981-5069

Name of Device/Product

Geiger mode APD 

(Photon Counting) 

model, make

Gen 2, Jigsaw (Gen 3) 

version

Year First Introduced 2001, 2002

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.25
System Architecture Scannerless Range Imaging utilizing a 

modulated intensified CCD Focal Plane 

Array and flood light illumination. The 

nature of the measurement process is 

multi-frequency AM-CW.

Wavelength of illumination source 805 nanometers

Illumination power 12 Watts

Source characteristic Modulated Laser Diode

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate

Beam diameter at Exit 3 inches

Beam divergence angle 60 fwhm degrees

Sensor field of view, horizontal 40 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 28 degrees

Maximum Range 150 feet

Frame rate (if FPA) 7.5 frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 640 x 480 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.2 inches

Angular resolution 0.0625 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] 0.2 inches

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 3 x 11 x 6 Inches

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 5 Pounds

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. Please Call U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Please Call weeks

Source Name

Sandia National 

Laboratories

POC - Robert D. Habbit

Source Address P.O. Box 5800 

Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, USA 87185-

0329

Source Contact Phone (505)-845-9492

Source Email rdhabbi@sandia.gov

Source FAX (505)-844-9554

Name of Device/Product LDRI

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.26
System Architecture dual-frequency AM/CW with 1D MEMS 

beam deflector (presently configured as 

an ultra-fast line-scanner)

Wavelength of illumination source 780 nanometers

Illumination power 22 milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 3.5 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 0.1 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal 0 to 24 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical n/a degrees

Maximum Range 25.2 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) 42,000

linear 

scans/second

Array size (if FPA) n/a pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 625,000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 0.38 millimeters

Angular resolution 1.6 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges] 3 millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 300x350x180 millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 16 kilograms

Retail cost $250,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery 52 weeks

Source Name National Institute of 

Standards and 

Technology (NIST)

Source Address Building 226 / B148, 

MS-8611, Gaithersburg, 

MD 20899

Source Contact Phone 301-975-6075

Source Email william.stone@nist.gov

Source FAX 301-869-6275

Name of Device/Product FANDANGO

model, make Gen 1

Year First Introduced 2003

NIST 2003 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.27
System Architecture Chirped AM ranging, 32x32 GaAs FPA, 

Will retro fit InGaAs array when available

Wavelength of illumination source 807, 1550 nanometers

Illumination power 4., 1. milliWatts

Beam diameter at Exit 7 millimeters

Beam divergence angle Variable milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal Variable with optics changes degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical Variable with optics changes degrees

Maximum Range

1-2 km with 10 W laser 

100 m with 1 W laser meters

Frame rate (if FPA) 3.3-10 frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 32x32 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) 3300-10000 pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 250 millimeters

Angular resolution Variable degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] 10 @ less than 100 m millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) Laboratory breadboard millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces Laboratory breadboard kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. $100,000 U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) 52 weeks

Source Name Army Research Lab

Source Address 2800 Powder Mill Rd., 

Adelphi, MD

Source Contact Phone 301-394-3141

Source Email stann@arl.army.mil

Source FAX 310-394-5270

Name of Device/Product ARL chirped AM ladar

Identification (e.g. model, m None

Year First Introduced 2002

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.28
System Architecture Scanning single beam; Nd:YAG 

microchip laser; InGaAs APD detector; 

programmable x,y galvo scanners; 2GHz 

digitization (8-bits); digitally records up 

to the full duration of the return signal; 

500 MHz bandwidth; pan and tilt 

pointing; remote control via wi

Wavelength of illumination source 1064 nanometers

Illumination power 6 kW (peak)

Beam diameter at Exit 22 millimeters

Beam divergence angle 0.1 milli-radians

Sensor field of view, horizontal Up to +/- 20 (programmable) degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical Up to +/- 20 (programmable) degrees

Maximum Range 150 meters

Frame rate (if FPA) Depends on number of pixels frames/second

Array size (if FPA) Single scanned beam pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) Nominally 1000 (w/o averaging) pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 250 millimeters

Angular resolution 0.00057 degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported as 1-sigma level; if 

more detailed information is available at 2 

and 3 sigma, please provide] Nominally 75 (based on sample rate) millimeters

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 600 x 600 x 200 (head only) millimeters

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces 9 (head only) kilograms

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype.

$27,000 (COTS parts only, without pan 

and tilt) U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Not for sale weeks

Source Name

Night Vision and 

Electronic Sensors Dir.

Source Address AMSEL-RD-NV-ST-LB 

(Barr), Ft. Belvoir, VA 

Source Contact Phone NA

Source Email NA

Source FAX NA

Name of Device/Product

High Resolution, MultiPulse Laser Radar

Identification (e.g. model, 

make)

Year First Introduced 2001

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.29
System Architecture Scannerless Range Imaging utilizing 4 

parallel modulated intensified CCD Focal 

Plane Arrays with flood light illumination. 

The nature of the measurement process 

is multi-frequency AM-CW.

Wavelength of illumination source 532 nanometers

Illumination power 2 Watts

Source characteristic Pulsed

If pulse laser, specify pulse width and 

repetition rate 10ns x 10 Hz

Beam diameter at Exit 0.2758 inches

Beam divergence angle 3 to 60 deg (Variable) degrees

Sensor field of view, horizontal 2 to 40 degrees

Sensor field of view, vertical 1.5 to 30 degrees

Maximum Range 2 kilometers

Frame rate (if FPA) 10 frames/second

Array size (if FPA) 640 x 480 pixels

Pixel rate (if scanner or other) pixels/second

Range resolution (depth) 6 inches

Angular resolution Variable degrees

Range accuracy (depth) [note: if the 

accuracy varies with range, please list 

examples at several ranges; accuracy 

should be reported at the 1-sigma level 

standard deviation about the true range; if 

data are available at 2 and 3 sigma, 

please provide those data] 6 inches

Overall size of unit (height, width, depth) 9 x 19 x 16 (not including Big Sky Laser) Inches

Weight of the complete sensor, including 

power supplies and any required 

interfaces

15 (Reciever)

60 (Illuminator) Pounds

Retail cost or Estimated cost to duplicate 

a lab prototype. Please Call U.S. $

Lead time to delivery (or estimated time to 

duplicate a lab prototype) Please Call weeks

Source Name

Sandia National 

Laboratories

POC - Robert D. Habbit

Source Address P.O. Box 5800 

Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, USA 87185-

0329

Source Contact Phone (505)-845-9492

Source Email rdhabbi@sandia.gov

Source FAX (505)-844-9554

Name of Device/Product SRI Flash Quad

Identification (e.g. 

model, make)

Year First Introduced 2001

NIST 2004 LADAR TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

A.30
Appendix B

Next Generation LADAR for

Driving Unmanned Ground Vehicles

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

National Institute of Standards and Technology

original 2002 solicitation

For Reference Only

B.1
B.1 Introduction

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is soliciting proposals on Next

Generation LADAR for Driving Unmanned Ground Vehicles.Based on the experience

gained in support of the Army Research Lab (ARL) Demo III Unmanned Ground

Vehicle program over the past four years, the Intelligent Systems Division at the

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has identified the need for high

performance LADAR sensors for autonomous on and off-road driving. These sensors

will be mounted on UGVs and are needed to provide reliable and robust

obstacle/object detection and terrain feature information. The sensors will provide information about the environment surrounding the vehicle sufficient to enable the vehicle

to drive autonomously. Current LADAR sensors used in UGV research have proven to

have limitations in performance, are large in size and are expensive. Phase I of this

solicitation is for the design of an Engineering Prototype to advance the LADAR range

imaging component/subsystem technologies to meet the needs for UGVs. Phase II will

support prototype development.

The Government envisions the requirement for two types of LADAR range imaging

sensors for this type of application, one having a wide field-of-view (40 X 90 deg.) with

a resolution of about .25 degrees or better per pixel and the second, a foveal LADAR

having a narrow field-of-view of approximately 1/10th of the wide field-of-view with a

resolution of about .05 degrees or better per pixel. Inter-pixel spacing of no more than

10% of the specified spatial resolution is anticipated. The intent is to make the foveal

LADAR steerable to any position within the field-of-view of the wide angle LADAR.

Both types of LADAR sensors shall have a range resolution of about 5 cm in range,

shall be able to detect the ground plane out to a distance of at least 40 meters and

vertical surfaces out to a range of at least 100 meters. 10 Hz frame rates or better are

expected. Both LADARs must be eye safe and shall be provided with capability to penetrate dust, fog, grass and light foliage (either by sensing multiple returns or looking for

the last return) and be able to operate in full sunlight conditions. The criterion for scoring the proposed designs are provided below.

Two Phases are planned for this solicitation. Phase I is intended to obtain designs.

Phase II may proceed to fund a prototype(s). In Phase I, in response to this solicitation, responders are to submit proposals describing their intended design concept and

their capabilities to perform the design. Full designs are not sought at this point, however, the concept must be capable of leading to a design (and possibly a prototype)

that can address the technical specifications provided below. The concept description

must include relevant analytical explanation and/or experimental data required to support the concept. The concept description must make clear the principals of operation,

attest to the scientific validity of the approach, and show how the proposed concept

shall support the specifications. These proposals shall be evaluated and one or more

responders may be funded to develop a full design for their concept(s). In Phase II,

B.2
the completed designs shall be evaluated, and an award or awards may be made to

developers of selected designs to build a prototype(s) according to the selected

design(s).

The following describes the Phase I and Phase II components of this solicitation in

more detail:

Phase I: Detailed concept design for Wide FOV LADAR, Narrow (foveal) LADAR

or for the combination of both

Concept Proposal:

1) Proposals for the development of designs shall be reviewed and scored.

2) As many as four awards to develop and provide designs may be given depending

on proposal quality and available funding.

Design:

3) Award funding level will be at least $50K for each award to provide a design. Higher

award amounts are possible and will be based on "best value" to the Government.

4) Within three months of an award, the offeror shall provide a detailed design for NIST

to review.

5) A budget and schedule plan (including when a prototype will be available for testing)

shall be provided with the design.

6) As part of the design, the offeror shall identify proposed computer interfaces necessary to interact with the sensor or sensor platform components, and describe the proposed software organization and proposed algorithms. Capability to be synchronized

with external timing source shall also be supported by the design.

Evaluation of Phase I

The criteria and weights to be used for evaluation of proposals to develop a design will

be:

1) Soundness, technical merit, and innovation (Maximum 40 points)

In addition to the general technical soundness of the proposed concept, technical merit

includes the likelihood that the proposed concept can lead to a design (and possibly

eventual prototype) that can score well with respect to the specifications given below.

2) Qualifications of the proposed technical staff to perform proposed conceptual design

(Maximum 30 points) Includes evaluation of experience with LADAR systems and similar or related system design experience, knowledge of LADAR measurement and performance issues, and knowledge of current approaches.

B.3
3) Potential for use in military UGV applications and product development

(Maximum 30 points) Degree to which concept can be applicable to unmanned ground

vehicle systems. Proposer shall show knowledge of technical issues associated with

this application domain, and indicate how they will be addressed.

The following specifications define the performance capabilities desired in the next

generation LADAR systems being sought. In Phase I, the submitted design concepts

will be evaluated according to the criteria above, which includes the likelihood that the

proposed concept can lead to a design (and possibly eventual prototype) that can

score well with respect to these specifications. In Phase II, these specifications and

the associated points shown, will be used to score full designs as the means to evaluate the full designs for possible awards to build a prototype(s). 

Ladar Specifications (and Phase II Points):

The first two items are for the Wide FOV LADAR. The next two are for the Narrow

FOV LADAR. The Wide FOV and Narrow FOV designs will be scored separately,

whether they are for part of a single, combined system or are for independent Wide

FOV and Narrow FOV systems.

Narrow (foveal) FOV LADAR: If a design for a foveal LADAR is offered, the proposed

FOV will be rated on technical merit in combination with the proposed spatial resolution. A maximum of 10 points is possible. It is expected that the FOV shall not be less

than 4 X 4 deg. or larger than 9 X 9 deg.

B.4

Wide Field-of-view 

Ladar 

Vertical FOV 

(degrees) Points

Horizontal FOV 

(degrees) Points

40 4 90 4

30 < FOV < 40 3 60<FOV<90 3

< 40 0 <60 0

>40 5 >90 5

Spatial Pixel Resolution 

(degrees) Points

0.25 - 0.3 12

< 0.25 15

0.3 - 0.5 8

> 0.5 0

Narrow Field-of-view 

LADAR 

Spatial Pixel Resolution 

(degrees) Points

0.05 - 0.06 12

< 0.06 15

0.06 - 0.1 8

> 0.1 0
The following specifications are common to either the Wide FOV or Narrow FOV

LADAR

B.5

Range resolution 5-10 cm 3

(over min. to max. > 10 cm 0

measurement range) < 5 cm 5

Ground detection maximum 

range >50m 10

(sensor 1.5 m above flat 40-50m 5

ground surface - gravel, dirt, <40m 0

or mowed grass)

Vertical surface detection 125-200m 12

maximum range >200m 15

100-124m 8

<100m 0

Minimum range < 1m 5

1-2m 3

>2m 0

Frame rate <5Hz 0

5-9 Hz 8

10-20 Hz 12

>20 Hz 15

Laser wavelength In 1500 nm range 10

(note laser power / lasers

other wavelength not 

detectable by night vision 

equipment 8

must be eye safe)

Other wavelengths not in 

visible 5

other wavelengths in 

visible 0

Interference prevention Has prevention 5

between multiple active No prevention interference 0

sensors Potential solution provided 3

Reflectance image

Yes, scoring will depend 

on quality 15

No 0

Potential solution provided 8

Dust, smoke, foliage 

penetration

yes, scoring will depend 

on technical quality of 

approach 15

no 0

potential solution provided 8
Maximum possible score of each type of LADAR for technical specifications: 110

Other Design Considerations:

Acceptable designs will be determined through evaluation of the above criteria.

Among the acceptable designs, additional points are available to those designs that

may optionally address the following: 

Since the LADARs sought are engineering prototypes, requirements on size, weight,

power, shock and vibration, protection from rain/humidity and temperature range of

operation are not critical. However, since the ultimate intent is for vehicle-based systems, up to 10 additional points will be awarded for proposed designs according to

their feasibility of implementation on Demo III XUV type (2500 - 3000 lb.) vehicles,

where size, weight, power, shock and vibration, protection from rain/humidity and temperature range of operation will be important. It is anticipated that the size of the production prototypes for that purpose will need to be smaller than a cylinder (20 - 25 cm.

high and about 12 cm. across)

If a design for a foveal pan/tilt stage is offered (in addition to the LADAR imager), up to

10 additional points will be awarded according to its technical merit. Servos in the

stage shall be capable of at least 3 saccades (point to point moves) per second.

Designs for image stabilization must also be provided.

Phase II: Engineering Prototype Development

The designs developed under Phase I award(s) will be evaluated according to the

specifications and points above. Based on the quality of the designs and availability of

funding, NIST will consider funding one or more contracts to build a prototype Wide

FOV LADAR, a Narrow (foveal) LADAR or a combination of both. We anticipate making Phase II award selections before the end of the calendar year. For any prototype

that is developed, the offeror shall fully describe interfaces necessary to interact with

the sensor platform components, and provide software required to control components.

Capability to be synchronized with external timing source shall also be provided.

Proposal Due Date

This notice constitutes a BAA as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation

6.102(d)(2)(i). A formal Request for Proposal or other solicitation regarding this

announcement will not be issued, nor will paper copies of this announcement be

issued. The Government reserves the right to select or award all, some or none of the

proposals received in response to this announcement. All responsible sources may

submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency. Proposals shall be

received by 3:00 PM on July 9, 2002.

B.6