Laser-induced damage tests based on a marker-based watershed algorithm with gray control

Yajing Guo; Shunxing Tang; Xiuqing Jiang; Yujie Peng; Baoqiang Zhu; Zunqi Lin

doi:10.1017/hpl.2014.20

Collection Of theses on high power laser and plasma physics, Volume. 12, Issue 1, 21(2014)

Laser-induced damage tests based on a marker-based watershed algorithm with gray control

Yajing Guo^1,2, Shunxing Tang^1、*, Xiuqing Jiang^1,2, Yujie Peng^1,2, Baoqiang Zhu¹, and Zunqi Lin¹

¹Joint Laboratory on High Power Laser and Physics, Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, PR China

²University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, PR China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(12)

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the imaging process using the MWGC.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 2. Results of image segmentation. (a) Original damage image; (b) by image binarization; (c) by threshold segmentation; (d) by marker-based watershed algorithm without gray control; (e) by MWGC.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 3. Damage site morphology captured by OM.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 4. Experimental set-up for laser-induced damage testing.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 5. Temporal profile of a 3 ns pulse at 1053 nm.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 6. (a) Near-field energy density distribution at 351 nm. (b) Profile along the line in (a).

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 7. Damage growth of (a) Corning-7980 and (b) Heraeus-Suprasil 312 samples at 351 nm.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 8. Damage site size distribution for the Corning-7980 sample at 351 nm.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 9. Damage site size distribution for the Heraeus-Suprasil 312 sample at 351 nm.

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1. Comparison of Damage Site Sizes Obtained by Different Measurement Methods.

View table

View in Article

Table 1. Comparison of Damage Site Sizes Obtained by Different Measurement Methods.

Diameter by MWGC (m)	59.0	84.8	115.5	135.5	27.1	37.8	50.5	74.6
Diameter by OM (m)	54.5	79.6	115.5	138.5	30.1	32.9	44.5	81.8
Absolute error (m)	4.5	5.2	0	3.0	3.0	4.9	6.0	7.2
Relative error (%)	8.3	6.5	0	2.1	1.0	14.9	13.4	8.8
Average absolute error (m)					0.93
Average relative error (%)					2.8

Table 2. Pixel Size Calibration for Different Damage Images.
View table
View in Article
Table 2. Pixel Size Calibration for Different Damage Images.
No. Corresponding sample Pixel size ($\mu $m/pixel)
1 Corning-7980 7.09
2 Heraeus-Suprasil 312 7.32

Table 3. Damage growth for Corning-7980 and Heraeus-Suprasil 312 samples.
View table
View in Article
Table 3. Damage growth for Corning-7980 and Heraeus-Suprasil 312 samples.
Sample Average Average Standard Fitting
fluence growth deviation of goodness
(J cm) coefficient growth coefficient (%)
Corning-7980 9.60 1.10 0.31 98.8
Heraeus-Suprasil 312 8.56 0.60 0.09 97.3

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Yajing Guo, Shunxing Tang, Xiuqing Jiang, Yujie Peng, Baoqiang Zhu, Zunqi Lin. Laser-induced damage tests based on a marker-based watershed algorithm with gray control[J]. Collection Of theses on high power laser and plasma physics, 2014, 12(1): 21

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites