Translator Disclaimer
6 June 2019 Influence of beam shape on piston and tilt error in coherent combined laser array
Author Affiliations +
An analysis of beam combining quality and the influence of beam profile on tilt and piston error tolerances is presented. We define beam combining performance metrics in terms of powers contained within a specific radius. It is shown that the selection of this radius has a significant effect on the obtained tolerance values. We have taken the tolerance limit as a decrease in intensity of 20%, for piston and tilt error. In addition, for the tilt error, as tolerance limit, we have taken a pointing error equal to the diffraction limit. Our analysis demonstrates that the beam combining performance metric based on the diffraction-limited radius functions best for describing the impact of aberrations on the coherent combined laser array optical system. Our results lead to two important conclusions. First, the tilt error has a greater impact on the degradation of beam quality. Second, a Gaussian beam has greater tolerance for both errors than a top-hat beam.



High average power lasers have found their application in materials processing,1 defense systems,2,3 and fundamental research.4 The challenge is not only to obtain multi-kilowatt output power but also to maintain near diffraction-limited beam quality. Solid-state lasers deserve special attention due to their compactness, performance, and reliability.5 However, the development of the power scaling of such lasers has thus far been hampered by beam-quality degradation due to thermo-optical phenomena.68 To date, several-kilowatt average powers from single-aperture solid-state lasers have been demonstrated.911

Another approach for power scaling is to use multiple lasers with relatively small output powers and combine them to obtain a single-aperture laser propagation characteristic. This class of techniques is called laser beam combining, and it can be divided into two general groups: coherent beam combining (CBC) and wavelength beam combining (WBC).12 In CBC, all the individual beams must be mutually coherent, and this type of beam combining technique can be subdivided into two classes depending on the configuration used: side-by-side (tiled aperture), for which the divergence angle is reduced but the beam size is increased with respect to each individual beam, or filled-aperture, in which a beam combining element is used to obtain a single beam of the same beam size and divergence as the individual beams from which it is constructed. A special case of beam combining is when the phase of the array of beams is not controlled, which leads to incoherent beam combining (IBC). In WBC, mutual coherence is not required, and the emitters have nonoverlapping optical spectra and are combined at wavelength-sensitive beam combiner. Unlike CBC, the output beam is not monochromatic, which renders the technique inappropriate for some applications. Increasing power density while maintaining beam quality can be achieved only via CBC or WBC, where upon increasing the number of emitters in the array, the beam divergence angle remains unchanged. The reverse situation occurs in IBC; beam divergence increases with the number of beams in the array and beam quality decreases. Many successful CBC1315 and WBC1618 implementations have already been reported in the literature.

An advantage of WBC is that it does not require mutual coherence, which makes it easier to reach stable operation. The utilization of a beam combiner element results in additional dissipative losses. This limitation disappears in the case of CBC in a tiled-aperture configuration. However, side-by-side beam arrays require the control of a larger number of parameters, which can easily result in beam-quality degradation.19 The errors associated with this degradation can be divided into two groups: geometric, related to array architecture, and nongeometric, related to the quality of the coherent combining system. The most important representatives of the latter group are phase mismatch (piston error) and tilt errors. These low-order aberrations cause energy spreading into the side lobes and distortion of the main lobe in far-field irradiance patterns. To achieve effective beam combining, piston and tilt errors must be controlled with high accuracy, to a fraction of a wavelength.




Coherent Beam Arrays in the Far Field

The amplitude of an array composed of N laser subapertures in the near field is defined as follows:

Eq. (1)

where (αm,βm) and Anf,N(xnf,ynf) are subaperture center coordinates and the amplitude function of m-’th subaperture, respectively. Assuming the paraxial approximation and identical subapertures, the diffraction pattern is described as a Fourier transform of the individual subaperture function multiplied by an array in the same configuration as the point source pattern.20 In this case, the intensity in the far field at the focal point f is expressed as

Eq. (2)

where Aff(xff,yff) is the Fourier transform of the individual subaperture function, k=2π/λ is the wavenumber, λ is the wavelength, and a is the subaperture radius; μm,n is the degree of coherence between the m-’th and n’th beams, which takes the values μ=1 for full coherence, 0<μ<1 for partial coherence, and μm.n=δm,n (the Kronecker delta) for incoherence. To simulate the physical problem, we used spatial coordinates proportional to λ/RA, where RA is the array aperture radius. Considering Eq. (2), it is apparent that the form of the summation part depends on the centers of the apertures, and the resulting intensity will take a different form for each array symmetry. The pattern of the summation for hexagonal symmetry [Fig. 1(a)] is shown in Fig. 1(b).

Fig. 1

(a) Hexagonal array with seven beamlets and (b) corresponding far-field summation pattern.



Beam Profile

The amplitude in near field within each subaperture is described by a super-Gaussian (SG) function as follows:21

Eq. (3)

where w0 is the beam radius, p is the order of the SG, rnf2=xnf2+ynf2 defines the radial coordinate, and cnorm is a normalization factor; the latter takes the form

Eq. (4)


In the case of radial symmetry, to calculate the amplitude in the far field, a Hankel transform may be used as follows:

Eq. (5)


In our analysis, we considered three cases of input amplitude, p={1,3,32}, which correspond to Gaussian, super-Gaussian, and approximate top-hat distributions, respectively. To get the best subaperture filling factor, beam radii were selected so that the power inside the aperture, which was normalized to unity, corresponded to the maximum possible w0 with an accuracy of 0.005. The determined beam radii are w0={0.513a,0.847a,0.994a}. Intensity cross sections are presented for the near and far fields in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), respectively. Figure 3 shows the influence of beam shape on a far-field CBC intensity pattern, using normal and logarithmic scales, for a hexagonal array [Fig. 1(a)].

Fig. 2

Normalized intensity cross sections for p={1,3,32} in (a) the near field and (b) the far field.


Fig. 3

Far-field intensity pattern in linear (top) and logarithmic (bottom) intensity color scales for a hexagonal array of seven Gaussian-type beamlets with (a, b) p=1 – Gaussian, (c, d) p=3 – super-Gaussian, and (e, f) p=32 – approximate top-hat distribution.



Beam Combining Performance

The intensity distribution in the far field for CBC always has side lobes due to the incomplete filling of the exit aperture. The use of classical parameters to describe the beam, such as the beam quality parameter M2 and Strehl ratio SR,22 have been unsuccessful due to their failure to use all of the information contained in beam profile in the far field. M2 increases with number of emitters in the laser array and does not include the side lobes. SR, on the other hand, contains information about the on-axis peak intensity, not the energy encircling the peak in the main lobe.23 To account for all factors, we use a power in the bucket (PIB) distribution, defined as22

Eq. (6)


In previous work,24 we showed that metrics based on the horizontal PIB (HPIB) or vertical PIB (VPIB) were not able to describe CBC performance well. Because factors describing quality based on the PIB distribution were not well established, we proposed three metrics defined as follows:

Eq. (7)

which is the ratio of 86.5% of the total power (P86.5%=0.865) within the corresponding radius R86.5% and that radius

Eq. (8)

the ratio of the power inside the main lobe P0mode;within the corresponding radius R0mode and that radius, which is defined as the first inflection point of the PIB curve; and

Eq. (9)

the ratio of the power Pdl inside the circle with radius Rdl and that radius, which corresponds to the diffraction limit 0.75λ/RA for which the PIB86.5% for the “top hat” amplitude function in the near field.

PIB curves (for the intensity patterns shown in Fig. 3) with marked bucket radii are given in Fig. 4. The values determined for the three metrics are summarized in Table 1, and they demonstrate that the quality of the beam combining is better for beam shapes similar to the top-hat shape.

Fig. 4

PIB distribution for the three cases of beam shape shown in Fig. 3, p=1 (solid line), p=3 (dashed line), and p=32 (dotted line); the bucket radii for all three proposed metrics are indicated by vertical lines.


Table 1

Parameter values for each of the three metrics for the PIB curves shown in Fig. 4.



Impact of Piston Error

Piston error, otherwise known as phase error, is the difference in the optical path of each element of the laser array and is equivalent to the delays between the subapertures of the wavefront.25,26 A visualization of this effect is shown in Fig. 5. Piston error results from the fact that the use of phase locking for each channel does not allow cancellation of the relative phase between the elements of the laser array. This error also includes the effects of the mechanical accuracy of optomechanical elements, thermal factors, and the experimental environment.19

Fig. 5

Three-dimensional (3-D) visualization of piston error for a hexagonal beam array.


Considering the piston error, the intensity in the far field takes the form

Eq. (10)

where Δφm,n=|φmφn| is the phase difference between the m-’th and n’th beamlets. By analyzing Eq. (10), we can conclude that the phase mismatch results in distortions and shifts of cosine minima and maxima. Consequently, energy can be dissipated within a limited area defined by the beam shape function |Aff(xff,yff)|2.

Our simulations were performed for three cases of beam shape, for p={1,3,32} with corresponding w0={0.513a,0.847a,0.994a}. Piston error c was drawn from a uniform distribution in the range (c,c), where c(0,3λ/5). For each c, 500 attempts were made, and the intensity profiles were averaged.

The three metrics we defined, I86.5%, I0mod, and Idl as well as SR for comparison, each normalized to unity, are shown in Fig. 6 as functions of the rms phase mismatch ΔφRMS. According to the Maréchal criterion, the tolerance of the wavefront aberration error in a diffraction-limited optical system occurs for SR above 80%.27 We have extended this assumption to the metrics we propose. Consequently, as an acceptable error for the optical system, we consider one for which the power contained in a given radius does not fall below 80%. The values we determined for the permissible ΔφRMS of the limiting case are presented in Table 2. Figure 6(a) shows that the I86.5% parameter cannot be used to determine beam combining performance due to the lack of correlation between curves depending on the parameter p. I0mod and Idl, on the other hand, show correlations with the p parameter and can be approximated by the curve y=a·exp[b·(x)2]+c, which is similar to the one describing SR. Both for I0mod and Idl, the piston error tolerance is higher in the case of a value of smaller p. This may be because for the smaller p, less energy is contained within the main diffraction lobe, which translates into a lower susceptibility to changes in the cosine function amplitude in the summation in Eq. (10) because of the piston error. Figure 6(d) shows that the shape of the laser beam does not affect the SR parameter, which disqualifies it as a potential metric for beam combining performance.

Fig. 6

(a) I86.5%, (b) I0mod, (c)Idl, and (d) SR as functions of rms piston error for p=1 (black squares), p=3 (red triangles), and p=32 (blue triangles).


Table 2

Determined values of admissible rms piston error for SR, I0mod, and Idl for which the power limited in a given radius does not fall below 80%, for three cases of the parameter p.


Different PIB curves for various rms piston errors are presented in Fig. 7. These plots show that as the error increases, the curves begin to resemble those resulting of the amplitude function. In addition, the energy of the side lobes increases at the cost of the main lobe from which it is dissipated.

Fig. 7

PIB distribution for selected rms piston error as a function of dimensionless bucket radius for (a) p=1, (b) p=3, and (c) p=32.


Intensity profiles for rms piston error corresponding Idl=0.8 for p={1,3,32} are presented in Fig. 8 in normal linear (top) and logarithmic (bottom) intensity color scales.

Fig. 8

Far-field intensity pattern with rms piston error corresponding to Idl=0.8in linear (top) and logarithmic (bottom) intensity color scales for a hexagonal array of seven Gaussian-type beamlets with (a, b) p=1 – Gaussian, (c, d) p=3 – super-Gaussian, and (e, f) p=32 – approximate top-hat distribution.



Impact of Tilt Error

Tilt errors result from the accuracy of optomechanical components, and they cause errors in the relative far-field beam pointing of the elements.28 To achieve effective beam combining, this error must be controlled at the level of a fraction of the wavelength. Tilt can be visualized as a tilt of the wavefront in the near field, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

3-D visualization of tilt error for a hexagonal beam array.


In Fourier space, the tilt of the wavefront by an angle θ is equivalent to shifting the image from the center by ftanθ. The amplitude coming from the m’th beamlet of the aperture therefore takes the form

Eq. (11)

where * is the convolution operator and δ is the Dirac delta function. From Eq. (11), it follows that each subaperture of the laser array has a different amplitude function, therefore, it cannot be separated before the summation factor in Eq. (2). In this case, the intensity at the focal point takes the form

Eq. (12)


Analysis of Eq. (12) leads us to the conclusion that tilt error causes an overlapping of the amplitude function, which in turn leads to a spreading of the beam profile intensity in the far field.

Simulations were carried out for the same p and w0 parameters as in the case of piston error. Shifts in the x and y directions, Δx and Δy, respectively, have been drawn from a uniform random distribution so that Δx, Δy(d,d) where d(0,R86.5%) and Δs=(Δx)2+(Δy)2. For each d, 500 attempts were made, and intensity profiles were averaged. Because Δs depends on λ, f, and RA, instead of the angle, we used a shift distance in dimensionless units. The angle of rms tilt error can then be calculated using the expression θ=arctan(Δsλ/RA).

Figure 10 shows the dependence of the parameters I86.5%, I0mod, Idl, and SR on rms pointing error ΔsRMS. We have, in addition, determined the intensity value for which ΔsRMS is within the range of the diffraction limit 0.75λ/RA. Similar to the case of piston error, the dependence of I86.5% on ΔsRMS [Fig. 10(a)] does not take the same function for the three different p. However, for the parameters I0mod, Idl, and SR, in each case of p, a curve of the type y=a·exp[b·(x)2]+c, may be fitted to the plot; this situation is identical to that of the piston error analysis. In addition, the Gaussian beam (p=1) seems to have a greater tolerance to the tilt error. This may be because a larger surface area is occupied by this beam than that of the p=32 beam (top-hat) beam, as given by its Fourier transform, and thus the overlapping amplitudes are much smaller for p=1. The values of ΔsRMS determined for I86.5%, I0mod, and Idl when SR=0.8, and of I0mod, Idl, and SR when ΔsRMS=0.75 are listed in Table 3.

Fig. 10

(a) I86.5%, (b) I0mod, (c) Idl, and (d) SR as functions of rms tilt error for p=1 (black squares), p=3 (red triangles), and p=32 (blue triangles).


Table 3

Determined values of admissible rms pointing errors for SR, I86.5%, I0mod, and Idl for three cases of the parameter p for which the power limited in a given radius does not fall below 80% and intensity values for the diffraction-limited shift ΔsRMS=0.75.

ΔsRMS for I=0.8
I for ΔsRMS=0.75

PIB curves for each p are presented in Fig. 11. In comparison to the piston error, as the pointing error increases, the PIB curve is shifted, and there is some degradation.

Fig. 11

PIB distribution for selected rms tilt errors as a function of dimensionless bucket radius for (a) p=1, (b) p=3, and (c) p=32.


Intensity profiles for rms tilt error corresponding Idl=0.8 for p={1,3,32} are presented in Fig. 12 in normal linear (top) and logarithmic (bottom) intensity color scales.

Fig. 12

Far-field intensity pattern with rms tilt error corresponding to Idl=0.8 in linear (top) and logarithmic (bottom) intensity color scales for a hexagonal array of seven Gaussian-type beamlets with (a, b) p=1 – Gaussian, (c, d) p=3 – super-Gaussian, and (e, f) p=32 – approximate top-hat distribution.




An analysis of beam combining performance and the influence of beam profile on tilt and piston error tolerances have been presented. As a result, the metrics I0mod and Idl were observed to effectively describe CBC performance. However, while in the case of tilt error, these two functions are well defined, in the case of piston error I0mod is not well determined. This is because R0mod is determined numerically and a for large rms piston error, the main lobe is barely discernable and the calculated value of I0mod is subject to a large error.

For best CBC performance without the presence of errors, the top-hat beam is better than Gaussian beam, because more energy is contained in main lobe. On the other hand, our analysis of piston and tilt errors shows that the Gaussian beam has a higher tolerance for piston and tilt errors than those similar with profiles similar to a top-hat. For the piston error, acceptable errors for Idl=0.8 are ΔφRMS,p=1=0.149λ, ΔφRMS,p=3=0.139λ, and ΔφRMS,p=32=0.133λ. For the tilt error, rms pointing errors are ΔsRMS,p=1=0.685λ/RA, ΔsRMS,p=3=0.568λ/RA, and ΔsRMS,p=32=0.492λ/RA. The intensity for the diffraction-limited rms pointing error, ΔsRMS=0.75λ/RA, drops as p increases from Idl,p=1=0.767, to Idl,p=3=0.681, and Idl,p=32=0.602. For the piston error, this may be due to a lower power content in main lobe, which is less susceptible to changes in the difference between the maximum and the minimum of the cosine function. However, in the case of tilt error, the greater tolerance may result from the Gaussian function than the (sombrero) 2J1(x)/x function, which results in the overlap of amplitudes being smaller.


The work was financed by the National Centre for Research and Development of Poland in the framework of strategic program DOB-1-6/1/PS/2014.



J. F. Ready, Effects of High-Power Laser Radiation, Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1971). Google Scholar


B. Zohuri, Directed Energy Weapons: Physics of High Energy Lasers (HEL), Springer International Publishing, New York (2016). Google Scholar


P. Sprangle et al., “High-power lasers for directed-energy applications,” Appl. Opt., 54 (31), F201 –F209 (2015). APOPAI 0003-6935 Google Scholar


Y. Izawa et al., “High power lasers and their new applications,” J. Opt. Soc. Korea, 12 (3), 178 –185 (2008). 1226-4776 Google Scholar


H. Injeyan and G. D. Goodno, High Power Laser Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York (2011). Google Scholar


J. W. Dawson et al., “Analysis of the scalability of diffraction-limited fiber lasers and amplifiers to high average power,” Opt. Express, 16 (17), 13240 –13266 (2008). OPEXFF 1094-4087 Google Scholar


C. Jauregui, J. Limpert and A. Tünnermann, “High-power fibre lasers,” Nat. Photonics, 7 861 –867 (2013). NPAHBY 1749-4885 Google Scholar


M. N. Zervas and C. A. Codemard, “High power fiber lasers: a review,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron., 20 (5), 0904123 (2014). IJSQEN 1077-260X Google Scholar


Q. Fang et al., “5 kW near-diffraction-limited and 8 kW High-brightness monolithic continuous wave fiber lasers directly pumped by laser diodes,” IEEE Photonics J., 9 (5), 1506107 (2017). Google Scholar


G. D. Goodno et al., “Coherent combination of high-power, zigzag slab lasers,” Opt. Lett., 31 (9), 1247 –1249 (2006). OPLEDP 0146-9592 Google Scholar


L. Sun et al., “10.8 kW, 2.6 times diffraction limited laser based on a continuous wave Nd:YAG oscillator and an extra-cavity adaptive optics system,” Opt. Lett., 43 (17), 4160 –4163 (2018). OPLEDP 0146-9592 Google Scholar


T. Y. Fan, “Laser beam combining for high-power, high-radiance sources,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron., 11 (3), 567 –577 (2005). IJSQEN 1077-260X Google Scholar


N. Satyan et al., “Coherent power combination of semiconductor lasers using optical phase-lock loops,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron., 15 (2), 240 –247 (2009). IJSQEN 1077-260X Google Scholar


H. Bruesselbach et al., “Self-organized coherence in fiber laser arrays,” Opt. Lett., 30 (11), 1339 –1341 (2005). OPLEDP 0146-9592 Google Scholar


M. Wickham et al., “Coherently coupled high power fiber arrays,” in Adv. Solid-State Photonics, MA4 (2004). Google Scholar


R. K. Huang et al., “High-brightness wavelength beam combined semiconductor laser diode arrays,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett., 19 (4), 209 –211 (2007). IPTLEL 1041-1135 Google Scholar


T. H. Loftus et al., “Spectrally beam-combined fiber lasers for high-average-power applications,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron., 13 (3), 487 –497 (2007). IJSQEN 1077-260X Google Scholar


B. Chann et al., “Near-diffraction-limited diode laser arrays by wavelength beam combining,” Opt. Lett., 30 (16), 2104 –2106 (2005). OPLEDP 0146-9592 Google Scholar


A. Brignon, Coherent Laser Beam Combining, Wiley‐VCH, Weinheim, Germany (2013). Google Scholar


J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, McGraw-Hill, New York (1996). Google Scholar


F. M. Dickey, Laser Beam Shaping: Theory and Techniques, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida (2014). Google Scholar


T. S. Ross, Laser Beam Quality Metrics, SPIE Press, Bellingham, Washington (2013). Google Scholar


P. Zhou et al., “Numerical analysis of the effects of aberrations on coherently combined fiber laser beams,” Appl. Opt., 47 3350 –3359 (2008). APOPAI 0003-6935 Google Scholar


P. Gontar and J. K. Jabczynski, “Tolerance analysis of coherent combining optical system,” Proc. SPIE, 10976 1097615 (2018). PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar


C. D. Nabors, “Effects of phase errors on coherent emitter arrays,” Appl. Opt., 33 (12), 2284 –2289 (1994). APOPAI 0003-6935 Google Scholar


J. B. Shellan, “Phased-array performance degradation due to mirror misfigures, piston errors, jitter, and polarization errors,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 2 (4), 555 –567 (1985). JOAOD6 0740-3232 Google Scholar


H. Zügge et al., Handbook of Optical Systems, Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems, Wiley VCH, Weinheim, Germany (2007). Google Scholar


P. Zhou et al., “Tolerance on tilt error for coherent combining of fiber lasers,” Chin. Opt. Lett., 7 (1), 39 –42 (2009). CJOEE3 1671-7694 Google Scholar


Przemyslaw Gontar is a PhD student at MUT. He received his MSc Eng degree in nanoengineering from Wroclaw University of Technology in 2017. He has been with the Institute of Optoelectronics since 2017. His current research interests include high-power laser systems.

Jan K. Jabczynski is a full professor at Military University of Technology (MUT), Warsaw, Poland. He received his MSc Eng, PhD, and DSc degrees in 1981, 1989, and 1997, respectively. Since 1982, he has been a worker at the Institute of Optoelectronics, MUT. He has been a tutor of applied optics, laser optics, and propagation at MUT. His current research interests include laser optics, coherent optics, high-power laser systems, and diode-pumped lasers.

© The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.
Przemyslaw Gontar and Jan K. Jabczynski "Influence of beam shape on piston and tilt error in coherent combined laser array," Optical Engineering 58(6), 066103 (6 June 2019).
Received: 7 March 2019; Accepted: 16 May 2019; Published: 6 June 2019


Back to Top