Open Access
29 October 2019 Impact of contamination and aging effects on the long-term laser damage resistance of SiO2/HfO2/TiO2 high reflection coatings for 1054 nm
Ella S. Field, Damon E. Kletecka
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The laser damage thresholds of optical coatings can degrade over time due to a variety of factors, including contamination and aging. Optical coatings deposited using electron beam evaporation are particularly susceptible to degradation due to their porous structure. In a previous study, the laser damage thresholds of optical coatings were reduced by roughly a factor of 2 from the years 2013 to 2017. The coatings in question were high reflectors for 1054 nm that contained SiO2 and HfO2 and/or TiO2 layers, and they were stored in sealed PETG containers in a class 100 clean room with temperature control. At the time, it was not certain whether contamination or thin-film aging effects were responsible for the reduced laser damage thresholds. Therefore, to better understand the role of contamination, the coatings were recleaned and the laser damage thresholds were measured again in 2018. The results indicate that the contamination played the most dominant role in reducing the laser damage thresholds of these optical coatings, even though they were stored in an environment that was presumed to be clean.

1.

Introduction

Optical coatings with high resistance to laser damage are integral to the operation of the Z-Backlighter laser facility1 at Sandia National Laboratories. The Z-Beamlet kJ-class laser operates with nanosecond pulses in the terawatt peak power range at both 1054 and 527 nm, and the Z-Petawatt laser operates with nanoseconds to subpicosecond pulses at 1054 nm. Our large optics coating system2 utilizes electron beam evaporation to produce optical coatings that usually consist of HfO2 and SiO2 layers to achieve high laser-induced damage thresholds (LIDTs).

In previous studies,3,4 we experimented with replacing HfO2 layers with TiO2 layers in mirror coatings to increase high reflection bandwidth and angle-of-incidence (AOI) flexibility at 1054 nm. However, TiO2 has a lower bandgap and exhibits lower LIDTs compared to HfO2.5 We also discovered that the LIDTs of both HfO2- and TiO2-based mirror coatings from 2013 degraded even more after the coatings were stored for 4 years in sealed PETG containers in a temperature-controlled, class 100 clean room environment.6 At the time, it was unclear whether contamination and/or thin-film aging effects were responsible for the reduced LIDTs, although both phenomena were suspected.6 Therefore, the aim of this study was to better understand whether contamination influenced the lower LIDTs. In a nutshell, this was accomplished by cleaning the aged coatings and then measuring the LIDTs again to determine if laser damage resistance was improved by the cleaning.

2.

Method

The mirror coatings that were tested in this study were first produced in 2013.3 They are all 42 layers, quarter-wave stack designs, for 1054 nm, 45 deg AOI, P-polarization, with a half-wave outer layer of SiO2 to improve resistance to laser damage.7 SiO2 was used for the low index layers, and HfO2 and/or TiO2 were used for the high index layers. The model in Fig. 1 shows that electric field intensities diminish near the substrate. The TiO2 layers replaced HfO2 layers near the substrate to afford more protection from the high electric field intensities since TiO2 has a lower LIDT compared to HfO2.

Fig. 1

Electric field intensity model at 1054 nm, 45 deg AOI, P-polarization, in mirror coating containing 10 inner TiO2 layers and 11 outer HfO2 layers. Vertical dashed lines indicate layer boundaries. The electric field intensity diminishes near the substrate. Using the TiO2 layers near the substrate in the area of lowest electric field intensity is a strategy to protect TiO2 layers from laser damage. This model was generated with Optilayer software.8

OE_58_10_105105_f001.png

Of the five coatings produced in 2013, they contained either 7, 10, 13, 16, or 21 inner TiO2 layers, with the coating containing 21 TiO2 layers having no HfO2 layers. An example of the layer thicknesses of the coating containing 10 inner TiO2 layers is shown in Fig. 2. Also, a sixth coating was added to this study at a later time: in 2014, we produced a coating of the same design containing just HfO2 and SiO2 layers to use for comparison.

Fig. 2

Layer thicknesses of mirror coating containing 10 inner TiO2 layers and 11 outer HfO2 layers.

OE_58_10_105105_f002.png

The coating process was electron beam evaporation in our custom chamber,2 with ion-assisted deposition (IAD) from a 16-cm diameter RF ion source. The coating parameters are presented below in Table 1. In addition to IAD, the HfO2 and TiO2 layers were deposited with a backflow of oxygen gas into the coating chamber. The total pressure in the coating chamber during the deposition of HfO2 and TiO2 layers in 2013 was 1.5×104 Torr, but this pressure measurement is suspected because our ion gauge was not calibrated at the time. In 2014, using a calibrated ion gauge, the total pressure in the coating chamber was 1.2×104 Torr during the deposition of the HfO2 layers. The deposition temperature was 200°C for all coatings. In addition, the coating system used masking to maintain uniformity, planetary rotation, and quartz crystal monitoring for layer thickness control.

Table 1

Coating deposition parameters with IAD.

Starting materialDeposition rate (Å/s)Ion beam current (mA)Ion beam voltage (V)Ar neutralizer flow (sccm)Ar flow (sccm)O2 flow (sccm)
SiO21–3 mm granules742540062525
HfO2Hf shavings36004007045
TiO2Ti 2–3 mm granules36004007045

Following deposition, each coated sample was cleaned. Previous studies have shown that LIDTs can degrade due to environmental factors such as contamination, but, in some cases, the LIDT recovered to the original values after the coatings were cleaned in an alcohol/deionized water bath9,10 or baked.11 However, our lab is not equipped to accommodate the cleaning and bakout processes described in Refs. 910.11 if they are applied to meter-class optics. Therefore, we utilized our standard cleaning process instead, because it scales up to cleaning meter-class optics with our existing equipment. Our standard cleaning process involves washing the optic by hand with deionized water and Micro 90 detergent.12

Following cleaning, all samples were sent to Spica Technologies13 for initial LIDT testing in 2013 or 2014. Since then, all samples were stored in clean polyethylene terephthalate-G (PETG) plastic containers in our class 100 clean room, which is temperature controlled. When LIDT testing occurred again in 2017, the samples were not cleaned, and testing was performed in a different quadrant of the sample compared to before. The results in 2017 revealed that the LIDTs of each coating diminished significantly, often by a factor of 2, and this LIDT decline occurred regardless of the number of TiO2 layers in the coating.6 Because contamination was a suspected cause of the LIDT decline, in 2018, the samples were cleaned with Micro 90 detergent and deionized water and sent to Spica Technologies again for laser damage testing in a different quadrant. In total, each sample has undergone three LIDT tests: 2013 or 2014 (after cleaning), 2017 (no cleaning), and 2018 (after cleaning).

The LIDTs were measured at 1064 nm, 45 deg AOI, in P-polarization. The LIDT tests were conducted according to the NIF-MEL protocol.14 Single transverse mode (Gaussian) and multilongitudinal mode laser pulses of 3.5 ns duration produced at a 5-Hz repetition rate in a 1 mm diameter collimated beam are incident one at a time per site in a raster scan composed of 2500 sites over a 1  cm2 area. In the raster scan, the laser spot overlaps itself from one site to the next at 90% of its peak intensity radius. The laser fluence typically starts at 1  J/cm2 in the cross section of the laser beam. After testing the 2500 sites at 1  J/cm2, the fluence is increased in a 1  J/cm2 increment and the 2500 sites are tested again. This progression repeats until the damage threshold fluence is reached.

The NIF-MEL procedure is essentially an N-on-1 test at each of the 2500 sites. Laser damage is identified as some type of melt or crater that alters the coated surface, but in some cases, the damage stabilizes as a damage site that does not propagate (grow in size) as the laser fluence increases. These nonpropagating (NP) damage sites tend to be caused by the interaction of the laser field with nanodefects (pits, nodules, or contamination) in the coating. In other cases, the damage does propagate. Propagating damage tends to be intrinsic, governed by how the laser field interacts directly with the coating molecules.15

According to the NIF-MEL damage criterion, the LIDT is reached at the fluence at which one or more propagating damage sites occurs, or the fluence at which the number of NP damage sites accumulates to at least 25, whichever fluence is smaller. The 25 or more NP sites are 1% or more of the 2500 sites tested and constitute about 1% or more of the 1  cm2 coating area tested. Our reason for choosing an LIDT test with these damage criteria is the following. We know we cannot tolerate a propagating damage site in the laser beam train because it will quickly develop into catastrophic damage in the form of a large crater in the optic or worse; and 25 or more NP damage sites per cm2, while they are benign because they may not grow, are flaws in the coating that scatter about 1% of the laser light out of the beam, and that level of loss of laser intensity is unacceptable for us.

The initial LIDT tests conducted in 2013/2014 were performed in the ambient environment (i.e., some humidity was present), whereas the tests conducted in 2017 and 2018 were performed in a dry nitrogen environment (0% humidity present). Ideally, all of the laser damage tests would have been performed in a dry nitrogen environment, because moisture in the coating can lead to higher LIDT.16

3.

Results

The spectral transmission characteristics of each coating are shown in Fig. 3. The coating containing 21 TiO2 layers (0 HfO2 layers) has an high reflection (HR) bandwidth of 232 nm, whereas the coating containing 0 TiO2 layers (21 HfO2 layers) has an HR bandwidth of 77 nm (HR bandwidth is taken as interval, where transmission is <0.5%). Between 2013 and subsequent measurements in 2017, the coatings experienced a spectral shift due to aging, and the 2017 measurement of the coating containing 21 TiO2 layers is shown in Fig. 3 as an example. The high reflection band of this coating was originally centered at 1088 nm and is now centered at 1119 nm. There is a spectral shift of 31 nm, which is 2.85% larger than the original 1088-nm bandwidth. However, the HR bandwidth of this coating still encompasses the LIDT test wavelength of 1064 nm.

Fig. 3

Transmission spectra of all mirror coatings at 45 deg AOI, P-polarization. Between 2013 and 2017, the coatings experienced a spectral shift, and the coating containing 21 TiO2 layers is shown as an example.

OE_58_10_105105_f003.png

The spectral shift to longer wavelengths is not a surprise. Due to their porosity, coatings deposited with electron beam evaporation undergo a spectral shift to longer wavelength, often referred to as “aging.” Aging mostly occurs within the first month of deposition. This means the center of the HR bandwidths in 2013 is lower than those in 2017, and this hampers our ability to make a straightforward comparison between the initial LIDT tests and the LIDT tests that occurred in 2017 and 2018. Furthermore, the difference in humidity between the initial LIDT tests (ambient humidity) and the 2017/2018 tests (0% humidity) also limit our ability to directly compare LIDT results. Therefore, the LIDT results from 2013/2014 are suitable mostly as an approximation. In other words, we do not expect the LIDT measurements of the recleaned samples from 2018 to exactly recover to the original 2013/2014 values. The primary focus is the improvement in LIDT between 2017 and 2018 that occurred as a result of cleaning the samples with just mild detergent and deionized water.

The LIDT of each coating is shown in Fig. 4. These results indicate that LIDTs can be improved significantly by cleaning the coatings with mild detergent after they have spent years in storage. This suggests that contamination can accumulate in storage after long periods even if the storage method was reputed to be cleaned (sealed PETG containers, class 100 clean room, temperature control). The fact that the LIDTs improved after cleaning with just mild detergent and deionized water indicates that most of the contamination was weakly attached to the surface. In addition, because the coatings are porous, some water retention from the cleaning process is expected, especially because the samples were not laser damage tested in vacuum. That being said, the laser damage tests occurred in a dry nitrogen-filled environment, so the effect of moisture on the LIDT results is presumed to be minimal.

Fig. 4

LIDT of each mirror coating taken at 1064 nm, 45 deg AOI, in P-polarization. The measurement error is ±1  J/cm2. The LIDT degradation between the initial tests and the later tests taken in 2017 is an apparent characteristic of every coating.

OE_58_10_105105_f004.png

Overall, coatings containing lower numbers of TiO2 layers exhibited the largest LIDT improvements between 2017 and 2018. Specifically, the coatings containing 0, 7, 10, and 13 TiO2 layers experienced the largest LIDT improvement between 2017 and 2018: the 2018 LIDTs increased by roughly a factor of 2 from 2017. When the number of TiO2 layers increased to 16 and beyond, large improvements in LIDT between 2017 and 2018 are no longer observed. This indicates that TiO2 may not be a robust coating material for long-term use, but further studies are required to understand all the factors that contribute to this.

As mentioned previously, the NIF-MEL protocol tracks the number of NP defects present in the coating at the damage fluence. The number of NP defects observed for each coating is shown in Fig. 5. The initial LIDT tests have an NP defect distribution that appears random, regardless of the number of TiO2 layers in the coating. However, the additional LIDT data from 2017 and 2018 indicate a trend toward higher numbers of defects in coatings that contain more TiO2 layers. This again questions the robustness of TiO2 for long-term use in laser systems. Interestingly, cleaning the coatings in 2018 in most cases did not reduce the number of defects present, even though laser damage thresholds improved. This suggests that contamination may not be fully responsible for NP defects. Intrinsic properties that change over time, particularly in the coatings that contain more TiO2 layers, may be responsible for the escalation of NP defects.

Fig. 5

Number of NP defects present at the laser damage threshold fluence in each mirror coating.

OE_58_10_105105_f005.png

4.

Conclusion

HfO2/TiO2/SiO2 mirror coatings can be exposed to contamination even if the storage method is presumed to be clean (PETG containers, class 100 clean room, temperature control). Surface contaminants significantly lowered the LIDTs of the coatings, but the LIDTs were improved by cleaning the coatings with just mild Micro 90 detergent and deionized water. The coatings containing higher proportions of HfO2 layers as the high index material benefitted the most from cleaning, and LIDTs improved by about a factor of 2. The coatings containing mostly TiO2 layers as the high index material experienced the lowest LIDT improvements after cleaning and continued to exhibit the highest numbers of NP defects. This questions the robustness of TiO2 coatings for long-term use in high fluence laser systems. Further studies could be devoted to improving the quality of the TiO2 films to decrease the long-term growth of defects. Also, if the LIDT tests had been conducted in the femtosecond regime, this could have helped to identify the impact of intrinsic thin film properties on the reduction of LIDTs over time since ultrafast LIDTs depend mainly on intrinsic properties of the coating materials rather than extrinsic problems such as contamination.17,18

Acknowledgments

The paper is based on SPIE proceedings: “E. Field et al., “The impact of contamination and aging effects on the long-term laser damage resistance of SiO2/HfO2/TiO2 high reflection coatings for 1054 nm” in Proc. SPIE Laser-Induced Damage in Optical Materials, Vol. 10805 (2018).” Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. This paper describes objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that might be expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.

References

1. 

P. Rambo et al., “Sandia’s Z-Backlighter laser facility,” Proc. SPIE, 10014 100140Z (2015). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2245271 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar

2. 

J. Bellum et al., “Meeting thin film design and production challenges for laser damage resistant optical coatings at the sandia large optics coating operation,” Proc. SPIE, 7504 750411 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.836907 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar

3. 

J. Bellum et al., “Reactive ion-assisted deposition of e-beam evaporated titanium for high refractive index TiO2 layers and laser damage resistant, broad bandwidth, high reflection coatings,” Appl. Opt., 53 (4), A205 –A211 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.53.00A205 Google Scholar

4. 

E. Field et al., “Laser damage comparisons of broad-bandwidth, high-reflection optical coatings containing TiO2, Nb2O5, or Ta2O5 high index layers,” Opt. Eng., 56 (1), 011018 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.56.1.011018 Google Scholar

5. 

L. Gallais, “Laser damage resistance of optical coatings in the sub-ps regime: limitations and improvement of damage threshold,” Proc. SPIE, 9893 989305 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2231532 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar

6. 

E. Field and D. Kletecka, “Comparison of aging effects in hafnia and titania thin films on the laser damage resistance of high reflection coatings for 1054 nm,” Proc. SPIE, 10447 1044714 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2280708 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar

7. 

C. J. Stolz, F. Y. Genin, “Laser resistant coatings,” Optical Interference Coatings, 309 –333 Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany (2003). Google Scholar

8. 

A. Tikhonravov and M. Trubetskov, “Optilayer Thin Film Software,” (2019) http://www.optilayer.com Google Scholar

9. 

T. Jitsuno et al., “Oil-contamination problem in large-scale pulse compressor,” Proc. SPIE, 7842 784221 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.867528 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar

10. 

H. Murakami et al., “Influences of oil contamination on LIDT and optical properties in dielectric coatings,” Proc. SPIE, 8530 853024 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.977705 PSISDG 0277-786X Google Scholar

11. 

W. H. Lowdermilk et al., “Optical coatings for laser fusion applications,” Thin Solid Films, 73 155 –166 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6090(80)90342-9 THSFAP 0040-6090 Google Scholar

12. 

E. Field et al., “Impact of different cleaning processes on the laser damage threshold of antireflection coatings for Z-Backlighter optics at Sandia National Laboratories,” Opt. Eng., 53 (12), 122516 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.53.12.122516 Google Scholar

13. 

M. Thomas, “Laser Induced Damage Measurements,” (2019) http://www.spicatech.com Google Scholar

14. 

J. Wolfe et al., “Small optics laser damage test procedure,” (2005). Google Scholar

15. 

R. Negres et al., “Laser-induced damage of intrinsic and extrinsic defects by picosecond pulses on multilayer dielectric coatings for petawatt lasers,” Opt. Eng., 56 (1), 011008 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.56.1.011008 Google Scholar

16. 

Y. Pu et al., “Mechanism for atmosphere dependence of laser damage morphology in HfO2/SiO2 high reflection films,” J. Appl. Phys., 112 (2), 023111 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4737405 JAPIAU 0021-8979 Google Scholar

17. 

M. Mero et al., “Scaling laws of femtosecond laser pulse induced breakdown in oxide films,” Phys. Rev. B, 71 115109 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.115109 Google Scholar

18. 

B. Mangote et al., “Femtosecond laser damage resistance of oxide and mixture oxide optical coatings,” Opt. Lett., 37 1478 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.37.001478 Google Scholar

Biography

Ella S. Field is an engineer at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She manages operations at the Optical Support Facility and develops optical coatings for the Z-Backlighter laser. She received her bachelor’s degrees in mechanical engineering and Asian languages and literature from the University of Minnesota in 2009 and received a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2011.

Biographies for the other authors are not available.

CC BY: © 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.
Ella S. Field and Damon E. Kletecka "Impact of contamination and aging effects on the long-term laser damage resistance of SiO2/HfO2/TiO2 high reflection coatings for 1054 nm," Optical Engineering 58(10), 105105 (29 October 2019). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.58.10.105105
Received: 21 May 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 29 October 2019
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 6 scholarly publications.
Advertisement
Advertisement
KEYWORDS
Optical coatings

Contamination

Hybrid fiber optics

Laser induced damage

Laser damage threshold

Resistance

Mirrors

RELATED CONTENT


Back to Top