2ooo Testefore

JOSA COMMUNICATIONS
Communications are short papers. Appropriate material for this section includes reports of incidental research results,
comments on papers previously published, and short descriptions of theoretical and experimental techniques.
Communications are handled much the same as regular papers. Proofs are provided.
On the zero-thickness model of diffractive

optical elements
Markus Testorf
University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, One University Avenue,
Lowell, Massachusetts 01854
Received October 28, 1999; accepted March 10, 2000

In a recent paper [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 113 (1999)] a thin-element approximation of diffractive optical ele-
ments was used to describe diffraction of oblique incident wave fronts. This expression motivated by a ray
optical analysis is shown to be incorrect. I discuss how the thin-element approximation can be generalized to
arbitrary diffraction geometries. This includes an intuitive interpretation of the results. © 2000 Optical So-
ciety of America [S0740-3232(00)01406-X]
OCIS codes: 050.1940, 050.1970.
This communication was prompted by several private reference plane z 0 to the diffractive surface and of the
communications, as well as by a recent publication on the projections BA and DC from the surface back to the ref-
comparison between rigorous and approximate diffraction erence plane. The choice of z 0 corresponds to a constant
models.1 The problem that is addressed here is the ap- phase in the transmission function, and Eq. (1) can be ob-
proximation of diffractive optical elements (DOE’s) as tained for z 0 ⫽ 0.
thin diffraction screens, which is valid for paraxial wave If the angle between the direction of the incident wave
fronts only.2 This approximation is referred to as the and the optical axis z exceeds the paraxial domain, the
thin-element approximation (TEA), or zero-thickness phase modulation changes. A recent publication1 derives
model. In diffractive optics this model is also termed sca- the modified expression for the phase modulation by cal-
lar approximation.1 In particular, how the phase-only culating the optical path-length distribution from projec-
transmission function relates to the profile of a surface- tions A 1 BA 2 and C 1 DC 2 , respectively. This yields a
relief DOE in the case of an oblique incident wave front is phase distribution that is characterized by substitution of
discussed. ⌳ ⫽ ⫺2/cos ␣ into Eq. (1). Although this idea on how the
The surface-relief structure can be described as a depth TEA has to be modified in the case of an oblique incidence
profile z ⫽ h(x), with x and z being the lateral and lon- seems to be rather widespread, it is incorrect neverthe-
gitudinal coordinates, respectively. The TEA yields the less.
corresponding transmission function as a phase-only A formal way to derive the correct expression for the
modulation of the incident complex amplitude distribu- TEA is provided by the Born approximation (BA) of
tion. The phase distribution is given as surface-relief elements.3,4 For reflecting boundaries, an
equivalent expression is provided by the extended Kirch-
2␲
␾ 共 x兲 ⫽ h 共 x兲 ⌳, (1) hoff approximation (EKA).5 Unlike the Kirchhoff ap-
␭ proximation for reflecting boundaries,6 the EKA does not
assume surface fields to vanish in geometrical shadow re-
with ␭ being the wavelength of the monochromatic signal.
gions. Both the BA and the EKA are not limited to
For dielectric interfaces and an incident plane wave
paraxial wave fronts. In fact, the TEA can be derived as
propagating along z, one finds ⌳ ⫽ n 1 ⫺ n 2 , where n 1
a small-angle approximation of the BA,3 which makes it
and n 2 are the refractive indices on either side of the in-
well suited to explore the validity of the TEA. Assuming
terface. For reflecting surfaces it is ⌳ ⫽ ⫺2, where the
a two-dimensional geometry and a plane-wave incident at
sign accounts for the fact that a larger height h causes a
an angle ␣, BA and EKA predict the plane-wave spectrum
smaller phase delay. Equation (1) can be interpreted as
of the diffracted wave as
a projection of the surface profile scaled with the optical
path-length difference in wavelength units.
In Fig. 1 the geometry of a reflecting surface with two
different modulation depths h 1 and h 2 is shown. The
phase distribution with which an incident wave parallel ũ 共 ␯ 兲 ⫽ C 关 ␤ 共 i 兲 , ␤ 兴冕
⫺⬁
⬁
exp(⫺i2 ␲ 兵关 ␤ ⫺ ␤ 共 i 兲兴 h 共 x, y 兲
to the z coordinate is modulated can be calculated as the
optical path length of the projections AB and CD from a ⫹ 关 ␯ ⫺ ␯ 共 i 兲兴 x 其 )d x, (2)
0740-3232/2000/061132-02$15.00 © 2000 Optical Society of America

JOSA Communications Vol. 17, No. 6 / June 2000/ J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1133
provide the correct expression. To this end, it is impor-

tant to realize that the TEA provides a transmission func-
tion that allows calculation of the diffracted field from a
pointwise multiplication with the incident wave front.
For instance, to obtain the diffracted wave at point A the
incident wave at point A is multiplied with a transmission
function evaluated at the same point. By calculation of
the path A 1 BA 2 , in Fig. 1, however, the diffracted wave
at point A2 is calculated from the incident field at point
A1, which is not in agreement with the concept of a trans-
mission function. Instead of analyzing the propagation
of optical rays, one has to consider the corresponding
plane wave propagating along A 1 BA 2 . The lines AP 1
and AP 2 mark planes of constant phase of the incident
and the reflected wave, respectively, both intersecting
with point A. Therefore the phase delay at point A is
given as the optical path length necessary to propagate
the wave front from P 1 to B and from B to P 2 . This
again yields the correct result ⌳ ⫽ ⫺2 cos ␣.
In summary, I have generalized the relation between
Fig. 1. Geometry of diffraction at a reflecting step profile.
the profile of surface-relief DOE’s and the phase modula-
tion predicted by the TEA. An analysis based on the
where the factor C 关 ␤ ( i ) , ␤ 兴 depends on the type of diffrac-
EKA shows that a simple evaluation of the ray optical
tive structure. The incident wave is specified by a spatial
path-length distribution may lead to incorrect results. It
frequency ␯ ( i ) ⫽ sin ␣/␭ and a propagation constant ␤ ( i )
should be pointed out that the use of the correct expres-
⫽ cos ␣/␭. Equally, each diffracted plane-wave compo-
sion for the TEA does not only influence the accuracy of
nent is described by a frequency ␯ and a propagation con-
the predicted diffraction pattern. More significant, if the
stant ␤. To retrieve the TEA from Eq. (2), we assume the
thin-element model is used to calculate the required etch
propagation constant to be equal for all diffraction angles,
depth for a photolithographic fabrication of DOE’s, it di-
i.e., 关 ␤ ⫺ ␤ ( i ) 兴 ⬇ ⫺2 ␤ ( i ) for reflecting surfaces. Equation
rectly impacts the performance of the element and its
(2) can be recognized as the Fourier transformation of a
function in an optical system.
phase-only function. A comparison of this phase function
with Eq. (1) yields The author can be reached at the address on the title
⌳ ⫽ ⫺2 cos ␣ , (3) page or by telephone at 978-934-3306, by fax at 978-934-
3027, or by e-mail at testorf@galileo.eng.uml.edu.
where we have assumed ␤ ⬍ 0. A similar analysis can
(i)
be carried out, if the diffractive structure changes the ori-

entation of the main propagation direction, for instance,
by use of a high-frequency diffraction grating. If all dif-
fracted plane-wave components propagate with a direc- REFERENCES
tion that is well approximated by ␤ ⬇ cos ␣⬘/␭ we find 1. J. M. Bendickson, E. N. Glytsis, and T. K. Gaylord, ‘‘Metal-
lic surface-relief on-axis and off-axis focusing diffractive cy-
⌳ ⫽ ⫺共 cos ␣ ⬘ ⫹ cos ␣ 兲 . (4) lindrical mirrors,’’ J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 113–130 (1999).
2. B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamentals of Photonics
Finally, the thin-element approximation for dielectric (Wiley, New York, 1991), Chap. 2, pp. 55–63.
surface profiles is derived by appreciating that the propa- 3. W. Singer and K.-H. Brenner, ‘‘Transition of the scalar field
gation constants are ␤ ( i ) ⫽ n 1 cos ␣/␭ and ␤ ⫽ n 2 cos ␣⬘/␭ at a surface in the generalized Kirchhoff diffraction theory,’’
before and behind the interface, respectively. The corre- J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 1913–1919 (1995).
sponding phase distribution is defined by 4. M. Testorf, ‘‘Perturbation theory as a unified approach to
design diffractive optical elements,’’ J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16,
⌳ ⫽ n 1 cos ␣ ⫺ n 2 cos ␣ ⬘ . (5) 1115–1123 (1999).
5. P. C. Waterman, ‘‘Scattering by periodic surfaces,’’ J.
Note that essentially the same relation for the phase Acoust. Soc. Am. 57, 791–802 (1975).
modulation was derived independently for use in a wide- 6. A. Ishimaru, Electrodynamic Wave Propagation, Radiation,
angle beam propagation method7 and can be found in and Scattering (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.,
1991), Chap. 6.3, pp. 156–157.
textbooks as well.2 7. K.-H. Brenner and W. Singer, ‘‘Light propagation through
It seems worthwhile to discuss why the heuristic deri- microlenses: a new simulation method,’’ Appl. Opt. 32,
vation from the projection of the ray optical path does not 4984–4988 (1993).

2ooo Testefore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ooo Testefore

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ooo Testefore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOSA COMMUNICATIONS

On the zero-thickness model of diffractive

Received October 28, 1999; accepted March 10, 2000

0740-3232/2000/061132-02$15.00 © 2000 Optical Society of America

provide the correct expression. To this end, it is impor-

be carried out, if the diffractive structure changes the ori-

You might also like