| Literature DB >> 28067824 |
Kun Qian1, Jun Tang2, Hao Guo3, Wenyao Liu4, Jun Liu5, Chenyang Xue6, Yongqiu Zheng7, Chengfei Zhang8.
Abstract
As an important sensing element, the whispering gallery mode resonator (WGMR) parameters seriously affect the resonant micro-optic gyroscope (RMOG) performance. This work proposes an under-coupling resonator to improve the resonator's Q value and to optimize the coupling coefficient to maximize the RMOG's sensitivity. GeO₂-doped silica waveguide-type resonators with different coupling coefficients were simulated, designed, fabricated and tested. An under-coupling ring resonator with a quality factor of 10 million is reported. The RMOG system was built based on this resonator and the scale factor was tested on a uniaxial high-precision rotating platform. Experimental results show that this resonator could improve the RMOG sensitivity by five times.Entities:
Keywords: Sagnac effect; gyroscopes; planar; resonators; waveguides
Year: 2017 PMID: 28067824 PMCID: PMC5298673 DOI: 10.3390/s17010100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) Basic model of WGM resonator; (b) resonant spectrum of the resonator; (c) resonant spectra corresponding to critical coupling (t = a), under-coupling (t > a) and over-coupling (t < a); (d) full width at half maximum (FWHM) and resonant depth as functions of transmission efficiency a2 = 0.95.
Figure 2Gyroscope sensitivity and dynamic range as functions of resonant depth (as the coupling state varies from under-coupling to critical coupling).
Figure 3(a) Designed silica waveguide resonator; (b) test system used to measure the Q actor and the resonant depth; (c) test results for resonator with a 4.8 μm gap; (d) scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of waveguide cross-section; (e) coupling region viewed under confocal microscope.
Transmission coefficient, full width at half maximum and resonant depth obtained by the simulation.
| Gap (μm) | Transmission Coefficient | FWHM (MHz) | Resonant Depth (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.8 | 0.9649 | 37.64 | 90 |
| 4.0 | 0.9690 | 34.68 | 93.39 |
| 4.2 | 0.9752 | 30.21 | 97.84 |
| 4.4 | 0.9807 | 26.42 | 99.9 |
| 4.6 | 0.9846 | 23.6 | 95.21 |
| 4.8 | 0.9884 | 20.91 | 89.69 |
| 5.0 | 0.9938 | 17.18 | 75 |
| 5.2 | 0.9945 | 16.72 | 70 |
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the RMOG.
Figure 5(a) Comparison of measured and simulated FWHM values for different gaps; (b) Comparison of measured and simulated resonant depth values for different gaps.
Figure 6(a) Gyroscope signal with different rotational angular velocities; (b) fitting analysis of stair effects; (c) comparison of measured and simulated values of RMOG sensitivity for the different gaps.