sensors

Article
Optical Protective Window Design and Material Selection
Issues in the Multi-Sensor Electro-Optical Surveillance Systems
Saša Vujić 1,2, *, Dragana Perić 1,2 , Branko Livada 1,2 , Miloš Radisavljević 1,2 and Dragan Domazet 2

1 Vlatacom Institute, 11070 Belgrade, Serbia

2 Faculty of Information Technologies, Doctoral Studies in Software Engineering,
Belgrade Metropolitan University, 11158 Belgrade, Serbia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Multi-sensor imaging systems have a very important role and wide applications in surveil-
lance and security systems. In many applications, it is necessary to use an optical protective window
as an optical interface connecting the imaging sensor and object of interest’s space; meanwhile an
imaging sensor is mounted in a protective enclosure, providing separation from environmental
conditions. Optical windows are often used in various optical and electro-optical systems, fulfilling
different sometimes very unusual tasks. There are lots of examples in the literature that define optical
window design for targeted applications. Through analysis of the various effects that follow optical
window application in connection with imaging systems, we have suggested a simplified method-
ology and practical recommendation for how to define optical protective window specifications in
multi-sensor imaging systems, using a system engineering approach. In addition, we have provided
initial set of data and simplified calculation tools that can be used in initial analysis to provide
proper window material selection and definition of the specifications of optical protective windows
in multi-sensor systems. It is shown that although the optical window design seems as a simple task,
it requires serious multidisciplinary approach.

Keywords: surveillance systems; multi-sensor imaging systems; electro-optical imaging sensors;

infrared imaging sensors; optical protective window; optical materials; optical coatings;
Citation: Vujić, S.; Perić, D.; Livada,
opto-mechanical design
B.; Radisavljević, M.; Domazet, D.
Optical Protective Window Design
and Material Selection Issues in the
Multi-Sensor Electro-Optical
Surveillance Systems. Sensors 2023,
1. Introduction
23, 2784. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Multi-sensor imaging systems have a very important role and wide application areas
s23052784 in long-range surveillance and security systems [1–5]. They are adaptable modular systems
with multi-spectral imaging sensors used for observation, whose purpose is to provide
Academic Editors: Jianzhong Zhang
and Fabian Ambriz Vargas
data regarding objects of interest, i.e., targets inside the field of regard (FOR). Surveillance
systems use cameras as a key component in the imaging process. In the majority of
Received: 2 December 2022 applications, the camera needs to be isolated from the environment using a transparent
Revised: 14 February 2023 optical window. The purpose of an optical protective window is to provide a clear optical
Accepted: 23 February 2023 aperture to transmit the desired radiation and to keep the two environments separated.
Published: 3 March 2023
An optical protective window is used as optical interface connecting the imaging
sensor and object of interest space; thus, proper selection of a window’s optical performance
is fundamental to guarantee that imaging channel data will not be degraded due to the
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
window of the multi-sensor surveillance system.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Optical protective windows are usually built as plane parallel plates of transparent
This article is an open access article optical material that allow undisturbed application of the imaging sensor while protecting
distributed under the terms and the given system from dust and debris and providing environmental protection and vacuum
conditions of the Creative Commons seals. In addition, optical protective windows are used to protect sensitive and expensive
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// imaging sensors from any harmful actions that could happen during system usage. The
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ protective window design should also allow for easy window replacement. Because of this,
4.0/). optical protective windows are often called “sacrificing glass”.

Sensors 2023, 23, 2784. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052784 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 2 of 24

Optical windows can be designed in other more complicated shapes such as domes,
segmented windows and conical sections. In addition to the fact that windows provide
mechanical protection for optical systems, they are also important optical elements of
these systems. Even though the windows can be simple plane parallel plates, extreme
environmental conditions such as pressure and temperature variations can cause the
windows to distort incoming optical signal, thereby diminishing the performance of the
optical sensor.
One of the most demanding applications of the protective window is the infrared
(IR) dome in the missile homing head, wherein the dome is a part of the aerodynamic
envelope and exposed to extreme mechanical and thermal loads; therefore, all effects
must be treated seriously [6]. The design of optical windows is described in several opto-
mechanical books [7–9]. Optical window shapes and their potential deformations during
exploitation can cause serious image degradation in aerospace systems [10–15]. This leads
to specialized and expensive technical solutions. The complexity of the related solution
depends mostly on the specific application, and always requires additional research and
developmental efforts from the multidisciplinary teams involved. The most illustrative
examples of this are so-called aero-optical effects, which are not present in the case of the
surveillance systems but show all physical sources of the potential image degradation
caused by protective window. We reviewed the aero-optical effect in the Appendix A,
wishing to refer to additional sources of information that can be used for detailed analysis.
It seems that in multi-sensor surveillance systems, environmentally caused image
degradations are not critical, but in long-range systems, the high resolution of the imaging
sensors adds new requirements for window material and design quality.
New challenges in defining optical protective windows’ requirements are bound to
come with the application of the multi-sensor systems in autonomous driving vehicles and
with the application of machine vision systems in agriculture, wherein window cleaning
can be very important to provide constant readiness.
One of the goals of this article is to present a condensed review of the effects that
can cause image degradation. We use scientific results generated in the more complicated
application cases, and define simplified guidelines for optical protective window design
for application in stationary surveillance systems.
For optical protective windows in the multi-sensor surveillance system containing
more electro-optical (EO) and infrared (IR) imaging channels, the process of defining their
requirements is treated as a system design challenge. The potential impact of the window’s
properties and assembly methods on EO/IR imaging systems’ performance and sensitivity
will be discussed following selected practical experience and laboratory-based simulations.
First, we explore the multi-sensor systems’ generalized design and describe the role of
the optical protective windows in such systems. After that, we describe the most important
effects that could appear in various applications, and their influence on defining the
requirements of window design. Additionally, we show some results obtained previously
to illustrate how window design specifications influence the final system quality, and what
can go wrong in the exploitation period.
The design of optical protective windows seems as a simple task, but there are several
factors a designer must be aware of when designing a window for an optical system (e.g.,
mechanical strength, transmission range, environmental durability, optical properties and
available coatings). Optical protective window materials and coating choices are limited,
so they should be carefully selected during multi-sensor system design requirements’ de-
velopment. The design requirements also lead to the optimization of numerous mechanical,
optical, material, and electrical parameters.
The key objective of this paper is to provide a review of the most important effects
of optical protective windows’ implementation in multisensory surveillance systems, and
refer to the other papers with more detailed treatment. Following the surveillance systems’
specificities, we present a simplified methodology and procedures which may assist in
defining initial design requirements, and which proves to be sufficient in most cases.
 Multi-sensor surveillance systems are adaptable modular systems composed of sev-
eral imaging sensors mounted at the sensor head and controlled remotely [16]. The design
of multi-sensor surveillance systems depends on application of many multidisciplinary
scientific fields supporting the required use case scenarios.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 A typical multi-sensor surveillance system is shown in Figure 1a. The multi-sensor 3 of 24
system has the following key components:
The Imaging Group, which contains several imaging channels providing images of
the space of interest. The simplified structure of one imaging channel is shown in Figure
The work presented in this paper provides a simplified methodology and practical
1b. The system is composed using some or all of the elements listed below.
recommendations for an easier systems engineering approach to defining optical protective
• Daylight
windows’ (low light)for
specifications video imaging sensor
multi-sensor imaging systems. This work has resulted from a
•
systemIR engineering
imagers—(short wave through
approach, infrared—SWIR, mid-wave
the analysis infrared—MWIR,
of various long wave
effects that are common to
optical window application
infrared—LWIR) in relation
imaging sensorsto imaging systems.
• LIDAR sensor
2. Optical Protective Window Role in Multi-Sensor Surveillance Systems
• UV imaging sensor
Multi-sensor surveillance systems are adaptable modular systems composed of several
The Position Sensing and Control group, which provides the sensor head’s position
imaging sensors mounted at the sensor head and controlled remotely [16]. The design
and orientation in the space, and collects position and orientation related data.
of multi-sensor surveillance systems depends on application of many multidisciplinary
Imaging sensors’ video signals and position sensors’ data are processed and inte-
scientific fields supporting the required use case scenarios.
grated using an EO system built in computer command and control software packages.
A typical multi-sensor surveillance system is shown in Figure 1a. The multi-sensor
Advanced solutions for image enhancement, image stabilization and sensor data fusion
system has the following key components:
may be optionally added.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Long range multi-sensor surveillance system: (a) typical multi sensor system; (b) imaging
Figure 1. Long range multi-sensor surveillance system: (a) typical multi sensor system; (b) imaging
channel structure.
channel structure.

The basic
The purpose
Imaging Group,of which
an optical protective
contains severalwindow in channels
imaging a complexproviding
electro-optical
images sys-
of
tem is to provide a clear optical aperture and to keep the optical sensor enclosed and
the space of interest. The simplified structure of one imaging channel is shown in Figure 1b. sep-
arated
The fromisoutside
system composedenvironmental
using some influences.
or all of theThe window
elements should
listed be designed to pro-
below.
vide minimal degradation of the optical sensor performance and to protect sensitive parts
•fromDaylight (low light) video
harsh environmental imaging
impact. sensor that the window will be exposed to all en-
This means
•vironmental
IR imagers—(short wave infrared—SWIR,
influences, and because of that, window mid-wave
designinfrared—MWIR, long
and sealing methods wave
applied
infrared—LWIR) imaging sensors
should be rigid enough to minimize mechanical and thermal distortions.
• LIDAR sensor
The desirable characteristics of an optical window are listed below.
• UV imaging sensor
The Position Sensing and Control group, which provides the sensor head’s position
and orientation in the space, and collects position and orientation related data.
Imaging sensors’ video signals and position sensors’ data are processed and integrated
using an EO system built in computer command and control software packages. Advanced
solutions for image enhancement, image stabilization and sensor data fusion may be
optionally added.
The basic purpose of an optical protective window in a complex electro-optical system
is to provide a clear optical aperture and to keep the optical sensor enclosed and separated
from outside environmental influences. The window should be designed to provide
minimal degradation of the optical sensor performance and to protect sensitive parts
from harsh environmental impact. This means that the window will be exposed to all
environmental influences, and because of that, window design and sealing methods applied
should be rigid enough to minimize mechanical and thermal distortions.
The desirable characteristics of an optical window are listed below.
o Low absorption of transmitted light
o Low reflection of light incident on the surfaces of the window
o Low refraction (or bending) of the transmitted light rays
o Low scattering to minimize stray light influence and contrast degradation
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 25

o Low absorption of transmitted light

Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 o Low reflection of light incident on the surfaces of the window 4 of 24
o Low refraction (or bending) of the transmitted light rays
o Low scattering to minimize stray light influence and contrast degradation
o Minimumdistortion
Minimum distortionofofthe
the transmitted
transmitted beambeam duedue to imperfections
to imperfections in optical
in the the optical
ma-
material
terial or surface
or the the surface finish,
finish, keeping
keeping wave wave
frontfront undisturbed
undisturbed and and
imageimage sharpness
sharpness un-
unchanged
changed
o
o Durableand
Durable andnot
notsusceptible
susceptibletotodamage,
damage, having
having anan ability
ability to withstand
to withstand degrada-
degradation
from environmental causes. This may include strength, resistance to waterwater
tion from environmental causes. This may include strength, resistance to or tem-or
temperature, etc.
perature, etc.
With the
With the use
useofofaaprotective
protectivewindow
window inin
thethe
system,
system, weweintroduce a new
introduce optical
a new element
optical ele-
which will influence the imaging sensor’s overall optical performance. The
ment which will influence the imaging sensor’s overall optical performance. The insertion insertion of
an optical protective window on the image optical path may introduce several
of an optical protective window on the image optical path may introduce several potential potential
problems, including
problems, including
(a) reduced
(a) reducedtransmission
transmission resulting
resulting from
from the
the reflection,
reflection, absorption,
absorption, and
and scattering
scattering of
of the
the
window material, causing reduction of the operational range of the
window material, causing reduction of the operational range of the sensors [17], sensors [17],
(b) contrast
(b) contrastreduction
reductioncaused
causedby bylack
lack of
of control
control ofof the
the reflected
reflected and
and scattered
scattered energy
energy in in
the window material,
the window material,
(c) aa further
(c) further increase
increase inin scatter
scatter or
or reduction
reduction of of transmission
transmission by by environmental
environmental effects
effects
such as erosion, or accumulated dust and dirt on the window
such as erosion, or accumulated dust and dirt on the window surface, surface,
(d)
(d) ananincrease
increaseininthe
thewave
wavefront
frontaberrations
aberrations duedue toto the
the window
window shape,
shape, the
the window
window clear
clear
opticalopening,
optical opening,andand the
the positioning
positioning ofof the
the associated
associated imaging
imaging system,
system,
(e) further aberrations induced in the window, caused by the mechanical and thermal
(e) further aberrations induced in the window, caused by the mechanical and thermal
effects during exploitation.
effects during exploitation.
The typical
The typical protective
protective window
window application
application andand key
key parameters’
parameters’ definitions
definitionsare
areillus-
illus-
trated in Figure 2, wherein a circular plan parallel window is shown, together with key
trated in Figure 2, wherein a circular plan parallel window is shown, together with the the
design parameters listed below.
key design parameters listed below.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 2.2.Optical
Opticalprotective window
protective application
window in multi-sensor
application surveillance
in multi-sensor system:
surveillance (a) optical
system: (a) win-
opti-
dow and imaging channel initial parameters’ definition; (b) Optical protective window design pa-
cal window and imaging channel initial parameters’ definition; (b) Optical protective window
rameters.
design parameters.

T
TW —window thickness [mm]
W —window thickness [mm]
D W—window diameter [mm]
DW —window diameter [mm]
D
DSA —lens input aperture [mm]
SA —lens input aperture [mm]
D OW—window optically clear area [mm]
DOW —window optically clear area [mm]
W
WM —window mounting area width [mm]
M —window mounting area width [mm]
Z
ZW —window–lens distance [mm]
W —window–lens distance [mm]
Ѳ
ΘFOV—imaging
FOV —imagingsensor
sensormaximal
maximalfield
fieldofofview
view[degrees]
[degrees]
Ѳ —window tilt angle [degrees]
Θtilt —window tilt angle [degrees]
tilt

In the case of the plane parallel plate, there are several key design parameters that
should be defined during the design process:
(a) Window material and coatings;
(b) Window thickness;
 then should be included as an integral part of the lens design analyses. All influences and
processes, as illustrated in Figure 3, should be addressed and analyzed. The most common
window shape is a single flat sheet of transmitting material. If perfectly flat and perfectly
optically homogeneous, it adds no aberrations to subsequent imaging of an object at in-
finity, but it may limit the field of view. For close objects, a focal shift and other aberrations
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 may be added to subsequent imagery. 5 of 24
Accelerations, pressure differentials, other mechanical forces and thermal perturba-
tions will affect both surface flatness and optical homogeneity.
Thermalposition
(c) Window effects can
and generate the optical
tilt to sensor following simultaneous
axes; and effects on the protective
window
(d) optical
Window properties:
shape and sealing (a) technique.
temperature dependence of the optical window material
optical properties, (b) non-uniform
In critical applications, the window temperature distribution
impact will over window
require more opening,
precise study, and
which
(c) thermally induced shape changes.
then should be included as an integral part of the lens design analyses. All influences and
Excellent
processes, thermalinoptical
as illustrated Figureperformances of the optical
3, should be addressed window are
and analyzed. The fundamental
most commonto
window shape is a single flat sheet of transmitting material. If perfectly flat and the
guarantee that the imaging system will operate normally. In order to decrease poten-
perfectly
tial influence
optically of the deformation
homogeneous, it adds no of the window
aberrations surface caused
to subsequent by thermal
imaging stress,
of an object atan ather-
infinity,
malit design
but to decrease
may limit the field the thermal
of view. Forstress of optical
close objects, window
a focal shiftisand
an additional requirement
other aberrations may
of the selected window
be added to subsequent imagery. mounting and sealing method.

Figure3.3.Effects
Figure Effectsthat
thathave
haveinfluence
influenceononoptical
opticalprotective
protectivewindow
windowperformances.
performances.

Derivation of pressure
Accelerations, the optical protective window
differentials, requirements
other mechanical and
forces definition
and thermal of the pro-
perturba-
tions willwindow
tective affect both
keysurface flatness
design and optical
requirements homogeneity.
should be carried out after an integrated
Thermal effects can generate the following simultaneous effects on the protective
window optical properties: (a) temperature dependence of the optical window material
optical properties, (b) non-uniform temperature distribution over window opening, and
(c) thermally induced shape changes.
Excellent thermal optical performances of the optical window are fundamental to
guarantee that the imaging system will operate normally. In order to decrease the potential
influence of the deformation of the window surface caused by thermal stress, an athermal
design to decrease the thermal stress of optical window is an additional requirement of the
selected window mounting and sealing method.
Derivation of the optical protective window requirements and definition of the pro-
tective window key design requirements should be carried out after an integrated mul-
tidisciplinary analysis [18–20] which has been adapted to the anticipated multi-sensor’s
real application environment. While the influencing effects (as shown in Figure 3) are
numerous, for most applications, some of these influences may be neglected and simplified
analysis can be performed.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 6 of 24

2.1. Optical Effects

Optical phenomena in the window material [21] are extremely important in the case
of window application in laser systems. In any case of application of the protective
window, we expect highly transparent window materials, meaning a window material
should transmit light without noticeable effect on either the light beam or the window
itself. We are basically concerned with the fundamental optical phenomena of absorption,
refraction, and scattering in window materials, such basic properties as the index of
refraction, the temperature derivative of the refractive index, dn/dT, and such window
material mechanical properties as elasticity and hardness.
Additionally, we should be concerned with additional optical effects induced by
external thermal and mechanical stress influencing the optical beam; thermally induced
aberrations due to index of refraction temperature dependence and non-uniform heating;
thermally induced birefringence in windows; and elasto-optic effects and material surface
shape change due to mechanical stress, etc. In addition, we should be concerned with
material mechanical properties’ ability to provide rigidity of design.
Protective optical window material properties are carefully reviewed [22–26], and
should be used as a starting point in the window requirement derivation process. A short re-
view of the selected optical material basic properties is presented in Table A1 in Appendix A.
The specificities of the optical window, such as the optical component [13,27], should be
considered during analysis of its influence in the optical part of the imaging channel.
The surface quality of an optical window is determined by evaluation of surface im-
perfections that may be caused during manufacturing or handling. These defects typically
cause small reductions in throughput and small increases in scattered light, which have
little to no adverse effect on the overall system performance in most imaging or light
gathering applications. However, some surfaces are more sensitive to these defects, such as
surfaces at image planes, because surface defects are in focus. Windows used with high
power level lasers are also sensitive to surface defects because they can cause increased
absorption of energy and damage the window.
Surface quality is often described by the scratch-dig specification in the U.S. Standard
MIL-PRF-13830B [28]. The scratch designation is determined by comparing the scratches on
a surface to a set of standard scratches under controlled lighting conditions. Additionally,
the window surface regularity (e.g., roughness) and surface parallelism are also important
and should be defined because they could introduce additional aberration and wave front
deformation, which could be important in the case of long-range surveillance systems.

2.1.1. Spectral Sensitivity Range

Imaging sensor spectral sensitivity defines basic window optical material selection.
Electro-optical and infrared imagers are designed for limited spectral sensitivity related to
particular spectral regions, as illustrated in Figure 4. These spectral regions are well suited
to the so-called atmospheric transmission windows. E/O and IR imagers usually use a
single spectral band, but in some cases, they are sensitive in two or more spectral bands
(multi spectral imagers), or several imagers may share the same window.
The imager’s spectral sensitivity band is a starting point for optical protective window
spectral transmission band definition and window optical material initial selection.

2.1.2. Transmission, Reflection and Scattering

The interaction of optical radiation with the optical protective window, as illustrated
in Figure 5, involves several basic processes: reflection from window boundary surfaces,
absorption of radiation in the window material and scattering of radiation. All these
processes affect transmission of the radiation (transmission losses), but also can affect the
generated image quality. The most critical is surface reflection contributing to stray light
distribution and ghost image generation.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 7 of 24
Figure 4. Atmospheric transmission windows and EO/IR sensor spectral sensitivity bands.
Figure 4. Atmospheric transmission windows and EO/IR sensor spectral sensitivity bands.
The imager’s spectral sensitivity band is a starting point for optical protective win-
dow spectral transmission band definition and window optical material initial selection.

2.1.2. Transmission, Reflection and Scattering

The interaction of optical radiation with the optical protective window, as illustrated
in Figure 5, involves several basic processes: reflection from window boundary surfaces,
absorption of radiation in the window material and scattering of radiation. All these pro-
cesses affect transmission of the radiation (transmission losses), but also can affect the
generated image quality. The most critical is surface reflection contributing to stray light
distribution and ghost image generation.
Radiation scattering and absorption in the window material contributes to a reduc-
tion in the imager’s sensitivity (transmission losses) and image contrast reduction. These
Figure 4.
effects Atmospheric
can transmission
be minimized using windows and(optical
high-quality EO/IR sensor
grade)spectral
base sensitivity bands.
The imager’s spectral sensitivity band is a starting pointmaterial.
for optical protective
window spectral transmission band definition and window optical material initial
selection.

2.1.2. Transmission, Reflection and Scattering

The interaction of optical radiation with the optical protective window, as illustrated
in Figure 5, involves several basic processes: reflection from window boundary surfaces,
absorption of radiation in the window material and scattering of radiation. All these
processes affect transmission of the radiation (transmission losses), but also can affect the
generated image quality. The most critical is surface reflection contributing to stray light
distribution and ghost image generation.
Radiation scattering and absorption in the window material contributes to a
reduction in the imager’s sensitivity (transmission losses) and image contrast reduction.
These effects can be minimized using high-quality (optical grade) base material.

Optical processes
Figure 5. Optical
Figure processes related to protective window application.

Radiationsurface
Window scattering and absorption
reflection in the window
could contribute to the material contributes
stray light spreadingtothrough
a reduction
the
in the imager’s sensitivity (transmission losses) and image contrast reduction. These
imager’s lens system, causing ghost images formation and/or image contrast reduction. effects
can be
The minimized
reflection, using
r, from high-quality
the (optical grade)
window boundary surfacebase material.
(Fresnel reflection losses), depends
Window surface reflection could
on optical material index of refraction, n:contribute to the stray light spreading through the
imager’s lens system, causing ghost images formation and/or image contrast reduction.
The reflection, r, from the window boundary surface (Fresnel reflection losses), depends (1) on
r=
optical material index of refraction, n:
Surface reflection is very high for materials with
2 a high index of refraction. In order
−

n
to reduce surface reflection, various techniques 1
are applied to modify component surface
r= (1)
+1
[29] using different approaches. The simplestn technique is to use a coating of material with
Surface reflection is very high for materials with a high index of refraction. In order to
reduce surface reflection, various techniques are applied to modify component surface [29]
using different approaches. The simplest technique is to use a coating of material with
lower index of refraction and to define the thickness of coating which will provide optical
path (phase) difference sufficient for destructive interference between radiation reflected
from the coating to air boundary and from the coating to surface boundary. The spectral
reflection band and reflection value optimization is achieved using multilayer thin film
coatings. Engineered surface structures (Moth’s eye) have turned out to be an effective
alternative to thin-film anti-reflective (AR) coatings in many infrared and visible-band
applications in which durability, radiation resistance, wide viewing angle, or broad band
performance are critical.
Anti-reflective coatings (ARCs) have evolved into highly effective reflectance and glare
reducing components for various optical materials with wide application in industry. The
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 8 of 24

ARCs for infrared (IR) optical substrates [30] are more demanding because IR materials usually
have high index of refraction values, and IR systems require wide spectral transmission wave
band, even dual wave band [31]. The key disadvantage of the antireflection coatings is that
coating materials are usually soft with low durability. This problem is solved by development
of the hard coatings (HC) and diamond-like coatings (DLC) [32,33] suitable for surface
protection but with minimal degradation of AR coating properties [34].

2.1.3. Veiling Glares and Ghost Images

Veiling glare is unwanted light in an image arising from reflections and scattering
within the system. Such reflections occur from component surfaces, component edges and
mounts, sides of barrels, stops and diaphragms, and scattering occurs from component
surface defects and contaminants, bulk defects and diffusely reflecting surfaces [35]. Light
that is partially reflected from optical boundary window surfaces causes the formation of
ghost images. In imaging applications, ghost images may cause contrast reduction, and
may veil parts of the image of the nominal scene (veiling glare). Various optical design
methods can be applied for ghost light influence minimization [36]. The intensity of a ghost
image is proportional to the product of the reflection coefficients of the coatings of the
involved refractive interfaces. The reflection coefficients of optical coatings are limited by
the currently available technology and can vary depending on the wavelength bandwidth,
from 1% or 2% for a simple monolayer coating to about 0.1% for multilayer coatings. The
optical protective window is the key optical interface to outer source, so it is important to
have high quality antireflection coatings. In addition, the lens input surface should have
reflectance that is as low as possible. The potential optical protective window surfaces that
can contribute to ghost image formation are illustrated in Figure 5.
In visible light systems, double-reflection ghosts are caused by double-reflection ghost
of the sunlight or other dominant illumination source. In an infrared system, a cryogenically
cooled detector, having low radiance, acts somewhat like sunlight but generates a dark (low
temperature) area in the image. This effect is called the narcissus phenomenon [37,38] and
happens due to cold signal being retro-reflected from the lens surface. Actually, this effect
is a kind of stray radiation in the IR imager. IR stray light can be minimized using proper
design solutions [39]. In addition to image degradation, unwanted IR stray radiation causes
changes in background radiation [40] which degrade thermal contrast and increase image
noise level. The most effective measure against this is to keep reflection as low as possible
on both window surfaces. This goal is not completely achievable because DLC coating,
whilst providing high surface durability, has increased reflection.

2.2. Physical Effects

Optical protection windows are directly exposed to all environmentally generated
influences. Because of this, it is important to examine how the physically generated effects
affect overall window performance. Temperature-related effects and mechanical effects
could cause optical protective window performance degradation. Aero-optical effects
are the best example of how severe physical influences combined with optical window
properties may be. Although aero-optical effects could not be found in the common
surveillance systems applications, we review them in the Appendix B and refer to the most
relevant papers that can be used in the case that more detailed analysis is necessary.

2.2.1. Temperature-Related Effects

Ambient temperature can have influence on window heating, leading to window
thermal expansion and change of index of refraction. Window thermal expansion can
be easily compensated through proper window mounting design (using an unclamped,
simply supported design with O-ring sealing connection to the equipment housing. In the
case of a clamped design without lateral translation, window expansion could produce
window bending, causing window optical properties to change due to sagittal bending or
causing excess stress that leads to a window crash. This case requires additional design
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 9 of 24

analysis and calculation of induced stress that will lead to selection of window materials or
redefinition of window thickness.
In IR imaging systems, temperature can cause some additional effects. A window’s
high temperature can cause elevated background temperature, thereby increasing the noise
level in the image sensor. In addition, non-uniformly heated window material causes
complicated optical and mechanical effects at the same time [41–43]. Most IR optical
materials exhibit a strong index of refraction temperature dependence which can affect
the AR coating’s effectivity. IR material emissivity [44,45] can have high value, causing
a higher level of background radiation. Low reflection AR coatings have low emissivity,
helping to resolve this issue.
Alongside the optical window’s basic function to protect the imager inside housing
and act as the so-called “sacrificial element”, the window coupling to equipment housing
should allow for easy window replacement; therefore, window mounting and sealing using
an O-ring is the best solution. At the same time, this design solution provides the best
thermal expansion effects compensation.
In the case of MWIR and LWIR sensors, window heating can have two effects:
o homogenous high temperature has influence on the sensor background signal, lower-
ing the imager contrast; it is important to use low-emissivity material and coatings to
compensate for this influence.
o non-homogenous window heating and/or window materials with an index of re-
fraction high-temperature dependence lead to a non-homogenous index of refraction
through optical opening, thereby generating disturbance in the incoming optical
imaging wave front. Non-homogenous heating effects require more sophisticated
analysis using optical design software and a sensor lens with a detailed layout.
In stationary surveillance systems, excess heating is not expected on one hand, and
stationery slow changing ambient temperature will not cause non-homogenous heating on
the other hand. That means that optical window temperature effects can be compensated
for through related design solutions. In many cases, the application of the solar radiation
shield is sufficient to protect window from extreme thermal effects.

2.2.2. Mechanical Effects

In the application environment of the optical protective window, the appearance of
external stress is a common source of influence on the optical window. Optical material
basic properties such as elasticity, strength (fracture resistivity) and hardness [23–25] have
influence on a window’s durability against environmental influences. External stress
causes internal strain in materials, causing material deformation. In the elastic deformation
region (the linear relation between strain and stress), there is the possibility of temporal
shape change that can have influence on the window’s optical properties. In the plastic
deformation region, there are much complex influences that could cause window fracture.
The strength of an optical material is governed by the random distribution of the
size, orientation, and location of the surface flaws or inner material flaws in relation to the
regions under stress [46]. Surface flaws are commonly created during the grinding and
finishing operations of the optical substrate. In some cases, window processing should
be done extremely carefully [47,48]. Due to the scatter in the flaw size, the strength of
optical material is a function of the size of the window. Hence, there is no deterministic
strength for brittle materials (unless the flaws are extremely uniform). These flaws or cracks
propagate under tensile loads to a critical value, and then experience uncontrolled crack
growth until the part physically fractures. The optical material fracture mechanism could
be developed under three conditions: (a) the existence of initial defects or cracks in the
material, caused during material elaboration and machining or created under the effect
of an external stress system; (b) the presence of a fracture temperature that is below the
critical fragility temperature of material; (c) the presence of internal stress generated during
the fabrication process. The initial cracks act as stress concentrators.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 10 of 24

In addition, stress propagation inside a material depends on the window mounting

condition [48], so a proper mounting design is required in critical applications.
In optical protective windows in surveillance systems, stress causing fractures is rare,
but optical distortion caused by external stress is the most common case. There are different
definitions of the distortion influences and different methods for their evaluation [49]. The
most common definition of distortion is based on tracking rays of light that pass through
the window. The second definition describes distortion in terms of local curvature changes,
resulting in local focusing or defocusing of light passing through the window. The third
definition of distortion is based on a fundamental window attribute, namely changes in the
window’s optical path length.
Optical protective windows intended for application in surveillance systems are
sensitive to surface damage caused by mechanical effects (scratches) related to the optical
material, or coating hardness or durability.

3. Optical Protective Window Requirements Definition

Long-range observation systems are designed to operate under harsh environmental
conditions while demanding outstanding detection, recognition and identification (DRI)
range capabilities, superb image quality, and accurate line-of-sight (LOS). EO/IR windows
design is a significant challenge for the long range surveillance system designer who must
specify it for high EO performance, durability, producibility and affordable initial and
life cycle costs. This is particularly true in the LWIR band, at which window materials
and coating choices are limited by the system’s design requirements. The requirements
also drive the optimization of numerous mechanical, optical, materials, and electrical
parameters. EO/IR imaging system window design is a challenge, as illustrated in Table 1,
which presents the interrelationship of the optical, mechanical, and system design processes
and their effect on protective window design features.

Table 1. Optical protective window requirements’ definitions, sources and solutions.

Imager Functional Imager Related Window Protective Window Design

Requirements Requirements Features
Spatial-sensitivity & resolution Sensitivity Window substrate material
• MRTD, MRC • Transmission (TV, laser, thermal imager) • Spectral transmission band
• DRI range (target detection, recognition, • Emission (window radiance) • Mechanical properties
identification) Resolution Optical quality
• Resolution
• Tracking accuracy • Window shape deformation • Thermal properties
• Thermal gradients Optical coatings
Installation/Environment • Vibrations
• Operational envelope • Pressure difference • Antireflection (AR)
• Structural requirements • Aberration level • Erosion resistant (ER)
• Rain and dust exposure Boresight error Position definition
• Window cleaning requirements
• Maintainability • Optical distortion • Tilt definition
• Mission importance and cost Durability • Distance from imager
Size and Shape Definition
• Rain, sand and dust erosion
• Chemical agents • Surface finish quality
• Window frame design
• Attachment techniques

3.1. Optical Requirements

Optical specifications and requirements cover a wide range of needs [50]. Functional
specifications related to the image quality or other optical characteristics are required for
the satisfactory operation of a protective window, serving as the goal for the design and
construction. In addition, these specifications are a basis for tolerances related to protective
window design. This may include requirements such as optical materials, a dimensional
accuracy spectral range, surface properties, protective and anti-reflective coatings, and so
on. Assembly specifications and detailed specifications of optical protective windows can
be based upon functional specifications.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 11 of 24

There are two types of specifications that must be applied to an optical protective
window: mechanical tolerances of the shape that indirectly affect the optical quality, and
specialized descriptions related to materials that directly affect the image quality.

3.1.1. Optical Material Selection

The specification of a material requires identification of the material type, and data on
the homogeneity class, birefringence, and so on. The method of specifying optical material
varies with the material type and manufacturer [50,51]. It is useful to refer to a current
catalog or use well-defined standard descriptions to ensure that the correct material quality
specification is being used. A condensed review of the optical window material spectral
application range is presented in Figure 6. A more detailed review of the physical and
optical properties for selected optical materials suitable for protective window design
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of is25
presented in Appendix A.

Figure6.6.Optical
Figure Opticalwindow
windowmaterial
materialspectral
spectralapplication
applicationrange.
range.

Theoptical
The opticalmaterial
materialindex
selected for opticaland
of refraction protective windows
Abbe number, can bewith
together described as op-
the spectral
tical grade material,
transmission meaning
band, define that material
the material properties
basic optical should be suitable for high-preci-
properties.
sionThe
components, having low for
general requirements tolerance
opticalmargins
materialsforare
allasselected
follows:material parameters.
• In the design of
Requirements foroptical protective
refractive windows,
index and one must
dispersion take care of the following basic
coefficient
•material optical properties listed
Requirements for optical uniformity below, although material mechanical and temperature
•properties are equally important
Requirements regarding birefringenceconsiderations.
• The most important
Requirements properties
regarding of optical windows are as follows:
light absorption
•• Requirements
Transmittanceregarding
(externalstripes, bubbles and striae.
and internal);
• In Surface reflection;
birefringence, the and
refractive index depends on the direction from which the light
•
enters the crystal,
Index and on the light’s polarization. This phenomenon characterizes some
of refraction.
crystalline
Windowand total
plastic optical materials.
transmission Tw is:
Striae are frozen regions of refractive index non-uniformity which cause lines of
refractive index inhomogeneity withinTthe=bulk t ∙ tmaterial.
∙e , Their effect on precision optics (2)
is
similar
where to the aberrations.
t1 and t2 are surfaceWhen present inμaistransmissive
transmission, the materialoptical element,
absorption striae can
coefficient, cause
and tW is
awindow
phase shift of the
thickness. light that passes through it.
Cracks and inclusions are breaks in the uniformity and continuity of the glass. They
cause scattering sites and also interrupt the t =phase
t = 1of−ther, light that passes through the glass.
(3)
Additionally, they may serve as a seed for material crack under stress. All of these flaws
where r is surface reflection depending on the material index of refraction, n (see Equation
should be minimized during the fabrication of precise optical elements, and they should be
(1)).
evaluated during quality assurance testing.
A lower index of refraction means lower surface reflection and higher window over-
The optical material selected for optical protective windows can be described as optical
all transmittance.
grade material, meaning that material properties should be suitable for high-precision
For normal application of a protective optical window, a key requirement is a suitable
components, having low tolerance margins for all selected material parameters.
spectral transmission range. The applicable spectral range of selected materials suitable
for optical protective windows is illustrated in Figure 6. Additionally, it is important to
have as low as possible surface reflectance in order to increase window transmittance and
lower internal multiple reflections of stray light that can lower a scene’s apparent contrast.
The solution to this is application of antireflection coating.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 12 of 24

In the design of optical protective windows, one must take care of the following basic
material optical properties listed below, although material mechanical and temperature
properties are equally important considerations.
The most important properties of optical windows are as follows:
• Transmittance (external and internal);
• Surface reflection; and
• Index of refraction.
Window total transmission Tw is:

Tw = t1 ·t2 ·e−µtw (2)

where t1 and t2 are surface transmission, µ is the material absorption coefficient, and tW is
window thickness.
t1 = t2 = 1 − r (3)
where r is surface reflection depending on the material index of refraction, n (see
Equation (1)).
A lower index of refraction means lower surface reflection and higher window
overall transmittance.
For normal application of a protective optical window, a key requirement is a suitable
spectral transmission range. The applicable spectral range of selected materials suitable for
optical protective windows is illustrated in Figure 6. Additionally, it is important to have
as low as possible surface reflectance in order to increase window transmittance and lower
internal multiple reflections of stray light that can lower a scene’s apparent contrast. The
solution to this is application of antireflection coating.

3.1.2. Surface Quality

The surface specifications of optical windows affect their optical performance and
must be considered when selecting or specifying a window. It is important to make sure
your optical window has the appropriate specifications with respect to tightness to meet
your application requirements, but over-tolerancing the window will unnecessarily increase
the cost.
Surface quality is usually described using surface flatness and irregularity definition,
parallelism (wedge) tolerance and cosmetic scratch and dig properties. Surface roughness
can be measured absolutely and defined using mean roughness amplitude and maximal
peak-to-valley amplitude. Surface flatness is commonly tested by comparing the inter-
ference pattern generated when the tested surface is compared with perfectly flat test
surface interference. In this case, the analysis of the interference fringe shape and curvature
provides enough data to measure the surface accurately. The surface flatness description
and definition criteria are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Surface flatness description and definition criteria.

Surface Flatness Description

Commonly used for commercial grade applications and in cases in which
≥1 λ surface flatness is not critical. ≥1 λ surface flatness is the most
cost-effective window option.
Used for precision applications in which surface quality is important.
λ/4 This is a common specification for low-to-medium-powered laser
systems and high magnification imager windows.
≤λ/10 Used for high-power laser systems and highly precise imaging systems.

Due to the different roles of optical protective windows in surveillance systems,

requirements for optical material quality could vary widely, but design requirements
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 13 of 24

derived from image quality requirements are similar. Selected tolerances that can be
applied for optical protective windows are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Some general tolerances that can be applied for optical protective windows.

Tolerance Guide for Optical Elements

Parameter
Baseline Precision High Precision
Diameter 0.1 mm 0.025 mm 0.01 mm
Thickness 0.2 mm 0.05 mm 0.01 mm
Parallelism 5 arc min 1 arc min 15 arc s
Surface irregularity λ λ/4 λ/20
Surface finish 5 nm rms 2 nm rms 0.5 nm rms
Scratch/dig 80/50 60/40 20/10
Clear aperture 80% 90% 90%

Scratches and digs are optical protective window surface or coating flaws that can
greatly affect the optical performance of a coating. Scratches are lines that are cut along the
outer surface of a precision optical element, and digs are tiny pits in the surface. Both can
cause scattering sites that limit the transmission through and optical quality of a surface.

3.1.3. Antireflection and Protective Coatings

The thin film coatings (protective and antireflective) that are applied to the optical
protective window surfaces require careful consideration. In general, the spectral character-
istics, such as passband and maximum reflectivity, need to be specified for an antireflection
(AR) coating. Examples of typical AR coating spectral reflection curves for several spectral
bands are presented in Figure 7, and typical values for selected standard AR coatings
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW that
14 of 25
can be used on optical protective windows in surveillance systems are presented in Table 4.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Typical
Typicalspectral reflection
spectral ForFor
reflection ARAR
coatings: (a) VIS
coatings: (a) and
VIS NIR
and bands, (b) MWIR
NIR bands, & LWIR
(b) MWIR &
bands.
LWIR bands.

TableRequirements
4. A short review
forofenvironmental
the antireflective coatings’
stability expected
also reflection
need to values. with reference to
be described,
tests for film adhesion and durability. Generally, the optical coatings’ durability specifica-
Coating Description (Definition) Expected Reflection Values
tion is the most important and the most difficult task. The coating supplier will have a set
Rmin < 1.35%, @ λ = 550 nm
of “in-house”
VIS-Single specifications
layer—λ/4 MgF2that will guarantee a specific result that can be used as the basis
for the coatings’ specification. In accordance with Ravg
the< importance
1.7%, @ 400–700 nm
of the optical coatings,
nowadays, there are standards [52–57] defining the < 0.2%,
Rminoptical @ λ = 500
coatings andnmmaking specifica-
VIS—multi layer—400–700 nm
tion process consistent and understandable for any Ravg < 0.5%, US
supplier. @ 400–700
militarynm
standards [56,57]
are still applicable, although they are outdated. Ravg < 1.00%, @ 400–700 nm
IS-NIR—Broad band—400–1000 nm
Ravg < 0.85%, @ 800–1000 nm
Rmin < 1.35%, @ λ = 3 μm
MWIR (3–5 μm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (3–5 μm)
Rmin < 1.5%, @ λ = 10 μm
LWIR (8–12 μm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (8–12 μm)
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 14 of 24

During the optical coating manufacturing process, it is common practice to produce a

so-called test (witness) piece or sample.

Table 4. A short review of the antireflective coatings’ expected reflection values.

Coating Description (Definition) Expected Reflection Values

Rmin < 1.35%, @ λ = 550 nm
VIS-Single layer—λ/4 MgF2
Ravg < 1.7%, @ 400–700 nm
Rmin < 0.2%, @ λ = 500 nm
VIS—multi layer—400–700 nm
Ravg < 0.5%, @ 400–700 nm
Ravg < 1.00%, @ 400–700 nm
IS-NIR—Broad band—400–1000 nm
Ravg < 0.85%, @ 800–1000 nm
Rmin < 1.35%, @ λ = 3 µm
MWIR (3–5 µm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (3–5 µm)
Rmin < 1.5%, @ λ = 10 µm
LWIR (8–12 µm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (8–12 µm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (3–5 µm)
MWIR + LWIR—Broad band—BB (3–12 µm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (8–12 µm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (3–5 µm)
MWIR + LWIR—Dual band—DB (3–12 µm)
Ravg < 3.00%, @ (8–12 µm)
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25

Witness samples are typically flat, 1”-diameter windows that are made of the same
material, undergo similar processing, and have identical coatings to the optical protective
3.2. Physical Requirements
window. They are created to represent the optical properties of the optical protective
Basedthereby
window, on the fracture
ensuring mechanics analysis, quality
optical window the thickness of (spectral
control the opticaltransmission
window should and
be determined to ensure the window design
reflection) and durability of the applied coating. is reasonable and reliable.
Considering the complex environment, steady-state temperature fields should be de-
termined andRequirements
3.2. Physical temperature load included in overall force load. The expected deformation
of theBased
optical window under
on the fracture the structure–thermal
mechanics couplingofcondition
analysis, the thickness the opticalshould
window be should
calcu-
lated. In the case that expected deformations are higher
be determined to ensure the window design is reasonable and reliable. than selected critical values, de-
tailedConsidering
optical analysis
the complex environment, steady-state temperature fields shouldthe
should be conducted to predict the impact of the deformation of be
optical window
determined andon the opticalload
temperature performance
included in ofoverall
the multi-spectral camera.
force load. The In most
expected cases of
deformation
optical protective
of the optical windowwindows’
under application in surveillance,
the structure–thermal couplingthecondition
impact ofshould
the optical protec-
be calculated.
tive window’s
In the case thatdeformation on the imaging
expected deformations arequality
higherof the selected
than optical system
criticalisvalues,
negligible.
detailed
optical analysis should be conducted to predict the impact of the deformation of the
3.2.1. Mechanical
optical window on Properties
the optical performance of the multi-spectral camera. In most cases of
optical
Theprotective
mechanical windows’
strengthapplication in surveillance,
of the optical the impact
protective window of the on
depends optical protective
the window’s
window’soptical
thickness, deformation
materialonstrength
the imaging qualitywindow
and optical of the optical system
mounting is negligible.
options. The most com-
mon mounting options are presented in Figure 8.
3.2.1.Modulus
Mechanical Properties
of Rupture, frequently abbreviated to MOR (and sometimes referred to as
bending strength), is astrength
The mechanical measureofofthe optical protective
a specimen’s strength window
before depends
rupture. It oncan
thebe
window’s
used to
thickness, aoptical
determine materialmaterial
sample’s strength
overalland optical(unlike
strength window the mounting
modulus of options. Thewhich
elasticity, most
common mounting
measures options
the material’s are presented
deflection, but notinitsFigure 8. strength).
ultimate

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure8.8.Optical
Opticalwindow
windowmounting
mountingoptions:
options:(a)
(a)Clamped/fixed,
Clamped/fixed,and
and(b)
(b)Unclamped.
Unclamped.

In the case that the optical window is used for separation between two media with
different pressures, the minimal window thickness can be calculated [58], using Equation
(4) for circular windows and (5) for rectangular windows:
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 15 of 24

Modulus of Rupture, frequently abbreviated to MOR (and sometimes referred to as

bending strength), is a measure of a specimen’s strength before rupture. It can be used
to determine a material sample’s overall strength (unlike the modulus of elasticity, which
measures the material’s deflection, but not its ultimate strength).
In the case that the optical window is used for separation between two media with
different pressures, the minimal window thickness can be calculated [58], using Equation
(4) for circular windows and (5) for rectangular windows:
s
KW · fS · ∆PW
tW = 0.5·AW · (4)
SF
v
u K · f · ∆P
tW = 0.709·LW · t W  S W
(5)
u 
2
SF · 1 + R

where
tW - window thickness [mm]
AW - unsupported window area diameter [mm]
LW , WW - window length and width
R - ratio LW /WW
- support-related empirical coefficient (from 0.75 for a clamped window to 1.25 for
KW
an unclamped window)
fS - safety factor (usually 4 to 6)
SF - modulus of rupture, expressed in [psi]
∆PW - pressure difference, expressed in [psi]

NOTE: psi—pound per square inch = 7 kPa = 0.007 MPa; 1 atm = 14.7
psi = 101.324 kPa,
Deflection through a circular window due to pressure difference could have some
influence on the window’s optical power, introducing degradation to optical sensor per-
formances. The maximal deflection for a circular window can be calculated [58] using
Equation (6).
 4
∆PW · A2w
ym = K1 · [mm] (6)
E·tW 3
where
tW - window thickness [mm]
AW - unsupported window area diameter [mm]
- empirical coefficient (from 1.71 for a clamped window to 0.696 for
K1
an unclamped window)
E - Young’s modulus of elasticity (mpa)
∆PW - pressure difference (mpa)

Once the window thickness is determined according to the selected clamping and
sealing design, it is useful to check window deflection for design conditions. Usually, the
deflection value is negligible so the calculated minimal thickness can be used as design
thickness; otherwise, we need to increase the thickness until the deflection achieves a
satisfactory value. In the worst-case scenario, we need to carry out a detailed optical
analysis to optimize the window shape.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 16 of 24

3.2.2. Influence of Temperature

Optical protective windows in the stationary surveillance systems are not exposed
to aerodynamic heating; usually only solar thermal radiation and ambient temperature
contribute to window temperature. Elevated window temperature contributes to additional
background noise in infrared thermal imaging channels.
The temperature of optical protective windows should be considered during mounting
design selection to avoid additional stress due to different material temperature expan-
sion coefficients. In the case that thermal expansion could cause issues, the un-clamped
mounting design is more suitable.

3.3. Mechanical Requirements

In the case of a circular optical protective window, one can calculate window size.
Using the notations of Figure 2, the minimal diameter of an optical protective window that
will provide a proper optical field of view is
 
θFOV
DW = DSA + ZSW · tan + WM (7)
2
 
θ
DOW = DSA + ZSW · tan FOV (8)
2
Once the optical protective window is defined (by optical material and coatings, shape,
size and thickness) proper mechanical drawing should be produced according to standards
applicable to optical components [59,60].
In the case that plastics materials are used, one needs to take care of their specific
properties [61].

3.4. Optical Protective Window Design Methodology

The design process for optical protective window for application in surveillance
systems is illustrated in Figure 9. The starting point is the EO/IR imager’s mission analysis
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25
(of environmental stress, pressure difference, temperature profile), followed by surveillance
system architecture analysis and a basic performance review of the imaging channel.

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Optical
Optical protective
protective window
window design
designprocess
process(for
(forEO/IR
EO/IRsystem
systemmission
missionanalysis seesee
analysis Figure
Figure 3).
3).
Optical protective window design is iterative process that should determine the
Optical
following protective window design is iterative process that should determine the fol-
factors.
lowing factors.
Window material and coatings: The imager spectral sensitivity range should be used
for initial optical material selection. Final optical material selection should follow window
mechanical strength limitations.
Window thickness: Optical protective window thickness should be determined using
 Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 17 of 24

Window material and coatings: The imager spectral sensitivity range should be used
for initial optical material selection. Final optical material selection should follow window
mechanical strength limitations.
Window thickness: Optical protective window thickness should be determined using
Equation (4) or (5), and refined after window deflection is checked (Equation (6)).
Window position and tilt to sensor optical axes should follow the available space in
the mechanical envelope and stray light influence analysis.
Window shape and sealing technique should be determined according to application
requirements, mechanical envelope and cost.
The design process of an optical protective window should provide proper function-
ing for application within a surveillance system and allow for easy replacement in case
of damage.

4. Experimental Results
Practical issues that appeared in our surveillance system application triggered our
interest about protective window design and related AR coating application. An example
of these issues is the appearance of ghost images when protective window glass without
AR coating was applied (shown in Figure 10). Our long-range surveillance systems have
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW built-in window cleaning systems so it was important to have AR coating with 18 proper
of 25
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 25
durability to water soluble cleaning agent.

Figure 10.10.
Optical protective
Optical window
protective without
window ARAR
without coating (ghost images
coating areare
visible).
FigureFigure
10. Optical protective window without AR coating (ghost(ghost images
images visible).
are visible).

In In
Figure 11,11,
Figure a damaged
a damaged optical protective
optical window
protective window is shown;
is shown; this damage
this damage appeared
appeared
In Figure 11, a damaged optical protective window is shown; this damage appeared
after
after thethe sample
sample was
was exposed
exposed to water.
to water. TheThe resulting
resulting damage
damage was was severe
severe forfor
twotwo reasons:
reasons:
after the sample was exposed to water. The resulting damage was severe for two reasons:
(a)(a)
thethe durability
durability requirements
requirements of of
thethe window
window were
were underestimated,
underestimated, andand
(b)(b)
thethe exposure
exposure
(a) the durability requirements of the window were underestimated, and (b) the exposure
time
time to to reagent
reagent was
was tootoo long.
long. TheThe problem
problem waswas solved
solved using
using a stronger
a stronger definition
definition of of
thethe
time to reagent was too long. The problem was solved using a stronger definition of the
window’s
window’s water
water solubility
solubility requirement.
requirement.
window’s water solubility requirement.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Optical protective window AR coating damage: (a) in transmitted light; (b) in reflected
Figure 11. Optical
Figure protective
11. Optical window window
protective AR coating
ARdamage:
coating(a) in transmitted
damage: (a) in light; (b) in reflected
transmitted light; (b) in
light.
light. reflected light.

The second group of experimental results is related to experimental evaluation of the

The second group of experimental results is related to experimental evaluation of the
optical protective window’s influence on the imaging system’s performance.
optical protective window’s influence on the imaging system’s performance.
In Figure 12, USAF 1951 test chart images projected by the visible image channel are
In Figure 12, USAF 1951 test chart images projected by the visible image channel are
presented for the same sensor using a protective window with proper AR coatings and
presented for the same sensor using a protective window with proper AR coatings and
without a protective window. There is no visible loss of system resolution.
without a protective window. There is no visible loss of system resolution.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 (a) (b) 18 of 24
Figure 11. Optical protective window AR coating damage: (a) in transmitted light; (b) in reflected
light.

The second group of experimental results is related to experimental evaluation of the

The second group of experimental results is related to experimental evaluation of the
optical protective window’s influence on the imaging system’s performance.
optical protective window’s influence on the imaging system’s performance.
In Figure12,12,
In Figure USAF
USAF 1951
1951 testtest chart
chart images
images projected
projected by the by the image
visible visiblechannel
image are
channel are
presented for the same sensor using a protective window with proper
presented for the same sensor using a protective window with proper AR coatings and AR coatings and
without a protective window. There is no visible loss of system resolution.
without a protective window. There is no visible loss of system resolution.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure12.
12.Visible imaging
Visible channel
imaging projected
channel USAF1951
projected test charttest
USAF1951 images:
chart(a)images:
without window; (b) window;
(a) without
with protective window.
(b) with protective window.
In Figure 13, we present images of the projected USAF 1951 test chart and related
In Figure 13, we present images of the projected USAF 1951 test chart and related MTF
MTF curves for the thermal imaging channel using protective window, and these are com-
curves
Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW for the thermal imaging channel using protective window, and these19are compared
of 25
pared with those of the imager without an IR protective window. It is visible that the
with those of the imager without an IR protective window. It is visible that the
image with a protective window is blurred, causing resolution loss. The protective IR image with
a protective window is blurred, causing resolution loss. The protective IR window used
in this experiment
window used in thishad an AR layer
experiment had anandARDLClayer coating
and DLCtocoating
provide to proper
provide environmental
proper
protection.
environmentalTheprotection.
thermal imager alsoimager
The thermal had a also
DLChadprotective layer onlayer
a DLC protective the on
lenstheouter
lens surface.
outer layers
DLC surface.have
DLChigher
layers have higher so
reflection, reflection, so theaction
the mutual mutualofaction
a pair of of
a pair
DLCoflayers
DLC causes
layers causes
image image
blurring. In blurring.
the case In
in the casewe
which in which
use anweIRuse an IR protective
protective window window
with awith
DLCa layer, it
DLC layer, it is not possible to use an IR camera with a DLC protective layer on
is not possible to use an IR camera with a DLC protective layer on the lens outer surface. the lens
outer surface.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Thermal imaging channel MTF and USAF1951 test chart: (a) without window; (b) with
Figure 13. Thermal imaging channel MTF and USAF1951 test chart: (a) without window; (b) with
protective window.
protective window.
The third group of experimental results is related to simulated experiments in labor-
atoryThe third group
environment of experimental
to demonstrate results is window
how protective related tocansimulated experiments
influence image. In thesein labora-
tory environment
experiments, we used to demonstrate how protective
a protective window with an ARwindow
layer only canininfluence
the centralimage.
part of In these
experiments,
the window, as we used a protective
illustrated window with an AR layer only in the central part of the
in Figure 14a.
window, as illustrated
Experiment in Figure
1 is designed 14a.setup shown in Figure 14a where a visible camera
per the
Experiment
is placed 1 is designed
in an enclosure with theper the setup shown
aforementioned in Figure
protective window.14a The
where a visible
selected test camera
ispattern
placed is in
imaged in the presence
an enclosure with theof aaforementioned
strong light source outside the
protective camera’s
window. Thefield of
selected test
view. The
pattern related image
is imaged in thesnapshot
presenceisofpresented
a strong in Figure
light 14b,outside
source showingthe thecamera’s
effects offield
the of view.
optical
The protective
related image window’s
snapshot presence and thein
is presented influence
Figure of the showing
14b, protectivethewindow’s
effectsreflec-
of the optical
tance.
protective window’s presence and the influence of the protective window’s reflectance.
Experiment 2 is designed per the setup shown in Figure 15a. The test pattern is placed
on the bottom of the tube which is covered with a structured optical protective window
on the other end. The test pattern is illuminated using an outer wide ceiling light and
photographed using a cell phone camera. The related images are presented in Figure 15b.
In these images, there are different areas visible. One can clearly distinguish a visible area of
reflected ceiling light and a disturbed test pattern image on the part of the optical protective
 protective window.

The third group of experimental results is related to simulated experiments in labor-

atory environment to demonstrate how protective window can influence image. In these
experiments, we used a protective window with an AR layer only in the central part of
the window, as illustrated in Figure 14a.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 19 of 24
Experiment 1 is designed per the setup shown in Figure 14a where a visible camera
is placed in an enclosure with the aforementioned protective window. The selected test
pattern is imaged in the presence of a strong light source outside the camera’s field of
window
view. not covered
The related with an is
image snapshot AR layer; this
presented is not visible
in Figure on thethe
14b, showing part covered
effects of thewith an AR
optical
layer.protective window’s
Additionally, the presence and thelight
area of ceiling influence of the protective
disturbed by the cellwindow’s
phone bodyreflec-
(i.e., the cell
tance.
phone shadow) is visible. In that area, there is no disturbance of the test pattern image. The
presence of the AR coating has influence on the image’s color appearance.

Sensors 2023, 23, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 25

Experiment 2 is designed per the setup shown in Figure 15a. The test pattern is placed
on the bottom of the tube which is covered with a structured optical protective window
on the other end. The test pattern is illuminated using an outer wide ceiling light and
photographed
(a) using a cell phone camera. The related images (b) are presented in Figure 15b.
In these images, there are different areas visible. One can clearly distinguish a visible area
Figure 14. Experiment 1 (a) set up (b) image snapshots. The top image is an empty scene in which
of reflected
Figure ceiling 1light
14. Experiment andup
(a) set a disturbed
(b) image test pattern The
snapshots. imagetopon the part
image ofempty
is an the optical
scenepro-
in which
the slightly brighter circle {1} is visible due to an AR layer. The bottom image shows the object in
the tective window
slightly brighter not covered
circle {1} is with an
visible AR
due to layer;
an AR this is not
layer. The visible
bottom onimage
the part covered
shows the with in the
object
the scene (i.e., the hand); the parasitic reflectance of the outer source {2} is clearly visible and disturbs
thescenean(i.e.,
scene AR the
image. layer. Additionally,
hand); the parasiticthereflectance
area of ceiling
of thelight
outerdisturbed
source {2}byis the cell visible
clearly phone and
bodydisturbs
(i.e., the
the cell phone shadow) is visible. In that area, there is no disturbance of the test pattern
scene image.
image. The presence of the AR coating has influence on the image’s color appearance.

(a) (b)
Figure 15. Experiment 2: (a) set up; (b) image snapshot.
Figure 15. Experiment 2: (a) set up; (b) image snapshot.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
Experimental results showed that optical protective windows can cause issues and
Experimental results showed that optical protective windows can cause issues and
degrade images; images may also be damaged because of their unsuitable design, empha-
degrade images; images may also be damaged because of their unsuitable design, empha-
sizing the importance of their proper design.
sizing theTheimportance of their
selected results proper
of the design.
evaluation of the multi-sensor imaging systems using an
optical protective window show that opticalof
The selected results of the evaluation the multi-sensor
protective windows canimaging systems
be designed andusing
ap- an
optical
pliedprotective windowdegradation
without noticeable show that ofoptical protective
images; however, windows can be
they can cause designed and
degradation,
applied
even without
when well noticeable
designed,degradation
when they areofnot
images; however,
properly selectedthey can cause with
in accordance degradation,
the
even when properties.
imager’s well designed, when they are not properly selected in accordance with the
imager’sThe results of these specially designed experiments show some of the effects that op-
properties.
tical
The results ofwindows
protective can have designed
these specially on the imaging chain, influencing
experiments show some image
of quality and that
the effects
content.
optical protective windows can have on the imaging chain, influencing image quality
and content.
6. Conclusions
The wide application of multi-sensor electro-optical surveillance systems is sup-
6. Conclusions
ported by the successful development and mass production of the focal plane array, or
The wide application of multi-sensor electro-optical surveillance systems is supported
FPA, image sensors. In the majority of applications, key attention was paid to multi-sensor
by the successful development and mass production of the focal plane array, or FPA, image
system integration and advanced image processing issues. During this time, more appli-
sensors.
cationsInwere
the in
majority
a harsh of applications,
environment, key attention
requiring applicationwas paid
of an to multi-sensor
optical system
protective win-
dow to isolate imagers from environmental influences. Nowadays, the application of op-
tical protective windows is common in the most deployed systems.
The design and application of optical protective windows in surveillance systems
seems to be a relatively easy task, but in real applications it can cause failures that require
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 20 of 24

integration and advanced image processing issues. During this time, more applications
were in a harsh environment, requiring application of an optical protective window to
isolate imagers from environmental influences. Nowadays, the application of optical
protective windows is common in the most deployed systems.
The design and application of optical protective windows in surveillance systems
seems to be a relatively easy task, but in real applications it can cause failures that require a
great effort to be corrected. These failures show that real solutions need a more rigorous
approach that uses multidisciplinary analysis and application of rigid evaluation techniques
in the design phase. At the same time, experience and development results from the area of
protective aerodynamic domes in missile systems, in which more harsh effects exist, have
generated a knowledge base which will aid in better understanding of the effectiveness
that an optical protective window can have in delivering proper solutions.
We analyzed the most important processes and influences that could be caused by
applying optical protective windows to imaging systems. Using the results of this analysis,
we derived a simplified methodology for optical protective window design that can deliver
initial window designs. At the same time, we have shown that a rigorous multidisciplinary
approach is necessary for full evaluation of optical windows’ performance.
The application of the multidisciplinary knowledge and scientific methodologies in
engineering is always necessary for delivering proper design solutions. Good understand-
ing of the processes involved leads to proper selection of technical requirements and easier
troubleshooting in the case of failure.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.P., B.L. and D.D.; Methodology, B.L. and D.D.; Valida-
tion, S.V., B.L. and M.R.; Formal analysis, B.L.; Investigation, D.P.; Resources, S.V., D.P. and M.R.;
Data curation, D.P. and B.L.; Writing—original draft, B.L.; Writing—review and editing, S.V., D.P.,
M.R. and D.D.; Visualization, S.V. and M.R.; Supervision, S.V. and D.D. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Vlatacom Institute for their equipment and
support, which enabled continuous work and improvements in the field of electro-optics. The authors
are grateful to the department’s technical staff for their professional support during laboratory
measurements. This work was undertaken within the Vlatacom Institute project P157.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Selected Useful Data

Table A1. A review of the properties of selected optical window material.

Selected Optical Window Materials

Material
Properties Soda Lime Fused Si Al2 O3 Ge
BK7 Glass ZnSe
Glass Silica Silicon Sapphire Germanium
VIS, VIS, VIS, VIS SWIR
MWIR
Spectral Range NIR, NIR, NIR, MWIR SWIR MWIR
LWIR
SWIR SWIR SWIR MWIR LWIR
Index of refraction 1.50731 1.44963 3.42 1.73769 4.006 2.40
1.5
(At λ [µm]) (1.014) (1.014) (5.0) (2.0) (10.00) (10.00)
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 21 of 24

Table A1. Cont.

Selected Optical Window Materials

Material
Properties Soda Lime Fused Si Al2 O3 Ge
BK7 Glass ZnSe
Glass Silica Silicon Sapphire Germanium
VIS, VIS, VIS, VIS SWIR
MWIR
Spectral Range NIR, NIR, NIR, MWIR SWIR MWIR
LWIR
SWIR SWIR SWIR MWIR LWIR
Density ρ [g/cm3 ] 2.51 2.2 2.2 2.33 3.98 5.323 5.27
Young’s modulus
82 70 72 131 370 102.6 67.2
E, [GPa]
Poisson’s ratio, υ 0.206 0.23 0.17 0.266 0.27 0.278 0.28
Knoop hardness
610 570 590 1100 1370 692 112
[kg/mm2 ]
Mohs hardness 5.5–6.0 5.5–6.5 - 9 - -
Modulus of
rupture, MOR, 63.5 41 62 79.92 276 72.4 55.2
[MPa] *
Modulus of
rupture, MOR, 9210 5300 7980 11,500 45,000 10,500 8000
[psi] *
Thermal expansion
coefficient, α, 7.1 8.8–9.0 0.55 2.6 5.6 5.7 7.6
[ppm/K]
Specific heat,
700 720–800 740 750 753 322 334.9
Cp, [J/kgK]
Thermal
conductivity, k 1.1 1.0–1.1 1.54 163.3 35.1 58.61 27.2
[W/mK]
Index of refraction
Temperature
1.1 × 10−6 - 8.1 × 10−6 (39–47) × 10−6 13.1 × 10−6 396 × 10−6 61 × 10−6
change
dn/dT [1/K]
Melting point [◦ C] 557 724 1683 1690 2303 1210 1520
NOTE (*): Selected Unit Conversion Factors
Pressure and Force:
Heat (Energy):
1 atm = 14.7 psi = 101.324 kPa = 0.101324 MPa = 760 mm Hg
1 J = 0.94787 × 10−3 Btu = 0.23885 cal
1 psi = 0.068 atm = 0.006892789 MPa = 6.892789 kPa ≈ 7000 Pa
1 cal = 4.1868 J
1 MPa = 9.86933 atm = 145.079152 psi
1 cal/gK = 4.1868 × 103 J/kgK
1 Pa = 1 N/m2
1 dyne = 10–5 N
Angle:
1 lb = 4.4482 N ≈ 4.5 N = 0.453592 kg
1 radian = 57.296◦
1 kg = 9.8066 N= 2.2046 lb
1 mrad (10−3 radian) = 2.438 arc-min
Length:
1 µrad (10−6 radian) = 0.206 arc-second
1 inch [“] = 25.4 mm = 0.0254 m
1 arc-minute = 291 µrad
1 mm = 0.03937”
1 arc-second = 4.848 µrad ≈ 5 µrad
1 Micron (µm) = 10−6 m ≈ 40 µin (39.37 × 10−6 in)

Appendix B. Aero-Optical Effects

Aero-optical effects are not directly related to optical protective window design in
surveillance systems, but it is useful to shortly review them and refer to related literature,
because that knowledge can be used in detailed analysis of design requirements.
Optical protective windows (domes) used in EO/IR seekers on projectile at high veloc-
ity in the lower air often suffer from degradation in performance due to aero-thermodynamic
effects. The kind and rate of the degradation depend on the geometric design (shape) and
location of the optical window [62–64].
The key structural degradation effects are [65,66]:
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 22 of 24

• Thermal shock: High acceleration during the boost phase and/or the sudden exposure
of the dome to the surrounding air-stream causes a high amount of heat transfer from
the extremely up-heated air of the boundary layer to the missile’s bulk material.
Since the bulk’s thermal reaction is much more sluggish than that of air, especially
during the first moments after launch, only the bulk’s outer surface, facing the air, is
heated up. Therefore, not only is a high temperature gradient perpendicular to the
material’s surface generated, but high stresses are imposed within the material due to
the different thermal expansion of the individual bulk layers. Usually, the thermally
induced stresses in the normal direction of the surface are then much higher than those
in the direction parallel to the surface. Depending on the acceleration profile and the
material properties, the inherent stress limit of the material can easily be exceeded.
This may be followed by material failure, i.e., a crack or a break, causing a severe
hazard.
• Exceed of critical temperature: During a longer exposure time at a certain velocity
level (sustain phase), the bulk material will gradually heat up. The maximum tempera-
ture at infinite exposure time is given by the local radiation adiabatic wall temperature,
which indicates the equilibrium when the heat transfer from the boundary layer to the
bulk material (or vice versa) has finally subsided. While heating up, the temperature
level within the bulk may exceed the material’s critical temperature, above which the
properties of the material will begin to change significantly. In general, they tend to
become worse in a unacceptable way.
Elevated-temperature gas surrounding optical windows in hypersonic flight creates
high aerodynamic convective heat transfer and contributes significant infrared radiation to
the sensor. The rapidly heating window distorts, changes its refractive index, and begins
to emit radiation. Geometric and refractive index changes in the window typically cause
optical distortions greater than those of the hypersonic flow alone. Radiation from the flow
gas and the heated window contribute significant radiative heat transfer to interior sensor
components and greatly raise the background radiance seen by infrared sensors [67].
In addition to structural effects, there are additional optical influences [41,43]:
• Aero-optical effects [64–67], (turbulence effects existing in the non-uniformly com-
pressed air layer in front of moving window) have a strong effect on image blurring.
• Optical effects of non-uniformly heated optical windows on IR imagers; these intro-
duces additional aberration in the optical system, causing image blur [41,68].
• Increased background noise in the IR imager due to a high background temperature
increasing sensor NETD, and accordingly, lowering sensor sensitivity [69,70].
Analysis of the window heating effect’s influences on IR sensor response [71] can be
successfully used to predict protective window heating effects in surveillance systems,
although the cause of heating might be different (e.g., solar radiation heating). Aero-
optical effects’ physics and numeral methods for analysis and computation [71,72] are
applicable to any window if window heating is caused by imaging sensor performance
degradation. The experience of carrying out the opto-mechanical design of windows
dedicated to experimental evaluation of the aero-optical effect [20] can be used in protective
window flange design.

References
1. Javidi, B. (Ed.) Optical Imaging Sensors and Systems for Homeland Security Applications; Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.:
New York, NY, USA, 2006.
2. Qian, H.; Xu, Y.; Wu, X. Intelligent Surveillance Systems; Springer Science + Business Media B.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2011.
3. Ma, Y.; Qian, G. (Eds.) Intelligent Video Surveillance: Systems and Technology; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2009.
4. Regazzoni, C.S.; Fabri, G.; Vernazza, G. (Eds.) Advanced Video-Based Surveillance Systems; Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer
Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
5. Dufour, J.-Y. (Ed.) Intelligent Video Surveillance Systems; ISTE Ltd.: London, UK; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 23 of 24

6. Harris, D.C. Materials for Infrared Windows and Domes: Properties and Performance; SPIE-The Interactional Society for Optical
Engineering: Bellingham, WA, USA, 1999.
7. Yoder, P., Jr. Vukobratovich, D. Opto-Mechanical Systems Design: Volume 1—Design and Analysis of Opto-Mechanical Assemblies, 4th ed.;
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
8. Kasunic, K.J. Opto-Mechanical Systems Engineering; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
9. Ahmad, A. (Ed.) Opto-Mechanical Engineering Handbook; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999.
10. Hargraves, C.H., Jr.; Martin, J.M. Infrared sensor and window system issues. Proc. SPIE 1992, 1760, 329–337.
11. Barnes, W.P., Jr. Optical windows. Proc. SPIE 1992, 10265, 232–253.
12. Zhou, F.; Li, Y.; Tang, T.J. The research of optical windows used in aircraft sensor systems. Chin. Phys. B 2012, 21,
064201-1–064201-5. [CrossRef]
13. Tedjojuwono, K.K.; Clark, N.; Humphreys, W.M., Jr. Optical Characterization of Window Materials for Aerospace Applications.
Proc. SPIE 2013, 8884, 360–370.
14. Park, K.-W.; Park, S.-Y.; Kim, Y.-S.; Kim, K.-H.; Choi, Y.-S. Dual Band Optical Window (DBW) for Use on an EO/IR Airborne
Camera. J. Opt. Soc. Korea 2012, 16, 63–69. [CrossRef]
15. Gearhart, S. Image Degradations of an Aerodynamically Shaped Optical Window. John Hopkins APL Tech. Digest 1991, 12, 81–85.
16. Perić, D.; Vujić, S.; Livada, B. Multi-Sensor System Operator’s Console: Towards Structural and Functional Optimization. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Scientific Conference (OTEH 2016), Belgrade, Serbia, 6–7 October 2016.
17. Perić, D.; Livada, B.; Perić, M.; Vujić, S. Thermal Imager Range: Predictions, Expectations, and Reality. Sensors 2019, 19, 3313.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Bendow, B. Fundamental Optical Phenomena in Infrared Window Materials. Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1977, 7, 23–53. [CrossRef]
19. Doyle; Keith, B.; Genberg, V.L.; Michels, G.J. Integrated Optomechanical Analysis, 2nd ed.; SPIE Tutorial v. TT 58; SPIE—The
International Society for Optical Engineering Bellingham: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
20. Wang, G.M.; Dong, D.; Zhou, W.; Ming, X.; Zhang, Y. Opto-mechanical design of optical window for aero-optics effect simulation
instruments. Proc. SPIE 2016, 10154, 321–327.
21. Zhang, C.; Cao, G.; Yuan, S.; Liu, X. Integrated Optomechanical-Thermal Analysis of Aeronautic Camera Window. IOP Conf. Ser.
Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 237, 032037. [CrossRef]
22. Tropf, W.J.; Thomas, M.E.; Harris, T.J. Properties of Crystals and Glasses, Chapter 33. In Handbook of Optics, 2nd ed.; Bass, M., Ed.;
McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1995; Volume 2.
23. Weber, M.J. Handbook of Optical Materials; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003.
24. Klocek, P. (Ed.) Handbook of Infrared Optical Materials; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
25. Wakaki, M.; Kudo, K.; Shibuya, T. Physical Properties and Data of Optical Materials; Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2007.
26. Singh, J. (Ed.) Optical Properties of Materials and Their Applications; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
27. Rubin, M.; von Rottkay, K.; Powles, R. Window Optics. Sol. Energy 1998, 62, 149–161. [CrossRef]
28. MIL-PRF-13830B; Optical Components for Fire Control Instruments: General Specification Governing the Manufacture, Assembly,
and Inspection. US Department of the Army: Arlington County, VA, USA, 1997.
29. Raut, H.K.; Ganesh, V.A.; Nair, A.S.; Ramakrishna, S. Anti-reflective coatings: A critical, in-depth review. Energy Environ. Sci.
2011, 4, 3779–3804. [CrossRef]
30. Hobbs, D.S.; MacLeod, B.D. Design, Fabrication, and Measured Performance of Anti-Reflecting Surface Textures in Infrared
Transmitting Materials. Proc. SPIE 2005, 5786, 349–364.
31. Rahmlow, T.D., Jr.; Lazo-Wasem, J.E.; Wilkinson, S.; Tinker, F. Dual band antireflection coatings for the infrared. Proc. SPIE 2008,
6940, 270–277.
32. Swec, D.M.; Mirtich, M.J. Diamondlike Carbon Protective Coatings for Optical Windows; NASA Technical Memorandum 102111;
NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
33. Gilo, M.; Azran, A. Low Reflectance DLC Coatings on Various IR Substrates. Proc. SPIE 2012, 8353, 712–719.
34. Pellicori, S. Tutorial on Testing and Analysis of Optical Coatings. Coat. Mater. News 2007, 17, 1–4.
35. El-Maksoud, R.H.A.; Hillenbrand, M.; Sinzinger, S.; Sasian, J. Optical performance of coherent and incoherent imaging systems in
the presence of ghost images. Appl. Opt. 2012, 51, 7134–7143. [CrossRef]
36. Grabarnik, S. Optical design method for minimization of ghost stray light intensity. Appl. Opt. 2015, 54, 3083–3089. [CrossRef]
37. Akram, M.N. Simulation and control of narcissus phenomenon using nonsequential ray tracing. II. Line-scan camera in 7–11 µm
waveband. Appl. Opt. 2010, 49, 1186–1196.
38. Akram, M.N. Simulation and control of narcissus phenomenon using nonsequential ray tracing. I. Line-scan camera in 3–5 µm
waveband. Appl. Opt. 2010, 49, 1186–1196.
39. Holzlöhner, R.; Kosmalski, J.; Guisard, S. Stray light and thermal self-emission minimization at the ELT. Proc. SPIE 2018, 10700,
146–160.
40. Biberman, L.M. Background Consideration in Infrared System Design. Appl. Opt. 1965, 4, 343–345. [CrossRef]
41. Li, X.; Cen, Z.; Liu, Q. Analysis of infrared radiation from optical window with graded temperature distribution. Proc. SPIE 2007,
6834, 349–356.
Sensors 2023, 23, 2784 24 of 24

42. Zhang, L.; Liu, M.; Li, D.; Zhao, Z.; Zhong, L. Thermal optics property study and athermal design on optical window of IR aiming
device reliability testing system. Optik 2017, 136, 586–594.
43. Duncan, D.D.; Baldwin, K.C.; Blodgett, D.W.; Elko, M.J.; Joseph, R.I.; Mayr, M.J.; Prendergast, D.T.; Terry, D.H.; Thomas, M.E.;
Walts, S.C. Experimental and Theoretical Assessment of Mechanical and Optical Effects in Nonuniformly Heated IR Windows.
Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Digest 2001, 22, 394–408.
44. Hatch, S.E. Emittance Measurements on Infrared Windows Exhibiting Wavelength Dependent Diffuse Transmittance. Appl. Opt.
1962, 1, 595–601. [CrossRef]
45. Zhang, Y.F.; Dai, J.M.; Zhang, L.; Pan, W.D. Spectral emissivity and transmissivity measurement for zinc sulphide infrared
window based on integrating-sphere reflectometry. Opt. Eng. 2013, 52, 087107-1–087107-5. [CrossRef]
46. Doyle, K.B.; Kahan, M.A. Design strength of optical glass. Proc. SPIE 2003, 5176, 14–25.
47. Miska, H.A. Finishing and proof testing of windows for manned space craft. Proc. SPIE 1993, 1993, 23–31.
48. Ihracska, B.; Crookes, R.J.; Montalvão, D.; Herfatmanesh, M.R.; Peng, Z.; Imran, S.; Korakianitis, T. Opto-mechanical design for
sight windows under high loads. Mater. Des. 2016, 117, 430–444. [CrossRef]
49. Youngquist, R.C.; Nurge, M.A.; Skow, M. A Comparison of Three Methods for Measuring Distortion in Optical Windows; NASA
Technical Memorandum 218822; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
50. Shannon, R.R. Optical Specifications, Chapter 35. In Handbook of Optics, 2nd ed.; Bass, M., Ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA,
1995; Volume 1.
51. Grujicic, M.; Bell, W.; Pandurangan, B. Design and material selection guidelines and strategies for transparent armor systems.
Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 808–819. [CrossRef]
52. ISO 9211-1; Optics and Photonics—Optical Coatings—Part 1: Definitions, Second Edition 2010-03-15. ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2010.
53. ISO 9211-3; Optics and Photonics—Optical Coatings—Part 3: Environmental durability, Second Edition 2008-07-01. ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2008.
54. ISO 9211-4; Optics and Photonics—Optical Coatings—Part 4: Specific test methods, Second Edition 2006-07-01. ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2006.
55. ISO 9211-7; Optics and Photonics—Environmental test Methods—Part 7: Resistance to Drip or Rain, Second Edition 2005-11-15.
ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
56. MIL-C-675C; Coating of Glass Optical Elements (Anti Reflection). Military and Government Specs & Standards (Naval Publications
and Form Center) (NPFC): Englewood, CO, USA, 1980.
57. MIL-C-48497A; Coating, Single or Multilayer, Interference: Durability Requirements for. Military and Government Specs &
Standards (Naval Publications and Form Center) (NPFC): Englewood, CO, USA, 1980.
58. Yoder, P.R., Jr. Opto-Mechanical Systems Design, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006.
59. ISO 10110-1; Optics and Photonics—Preparation of Drawings for Optical Elements and Systems—Part 1: General, Second Edition
2006-07-01. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
60. ISO 10110-10; Optics and Photonics—Preparation of Drawings for Optical Elements and Systems—Part 10: Table Representing
Data of Optical Elements and Cemented Assemblies, Second Edition 2004-02-15. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
61. ASTM D 1003; Standard Test Method for Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastics. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2000.
62. Gilbert, K.G.; Otten, L.J. (Eds.) Aero-Optical Phenomena; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.: Reston, VA,
USA, 1982; Volume 80.
63. Ding, H.; Yi, S.; Zhao, X.; Xu, Y. Experimental investigation on aero-optical effects of a hypersonic optical dome under different
exposure times. Appl. Opt. 2020, 59, 3842–3850. [CrossRef]
64. Jumper, E.J.; Fitzgerald, E.J. Recent advances in aero-optics. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2001, 37, 299–339. [CrossRef]
65. Lin, J.S.; Weckesser, L.B. Thermal Shock Capabilities of Infrared dome Materials. Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Digest 1992, 3, 379–385.
66. Klein, C.A. Infrared missile domes: Heat flux and thermal shock. Proc. SPIE 1993, 1997, 150–169.
67. Jumper, E.J.; Gordeyev, S. Physics and Measurement of Aero-Optical Effects: Past and Present. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2017, 49,
419–441. [CrossRef]
68. Hui, W.; Chen, S.; Zhang, W.; Dang, F.; Ju, L.; Xu, X.; Fan, Z. Evaluating imaging quality of optical dome affected by aero-optical
transmission effect and aero-thermal radiation effect. Opt. Express 2020, 28, 6172. [CrossRef]
69. Klein, C.A. How infrared missile windows degrade the noise-equivalent irradiance of infrared seeker systems. Proc. SPIE 1994,
2286, 458–470.
70. Cross, E.F. Analytical method to calculate window heating effects on IR seeker performance. Proc. SPIE 1994, 2286, 493–499.
71. Tian, R.Z.; Xu, H.Y.; Dong, Q.L.; Ye, Z.Y. Numerical investigation of aero-optical effects of flow past a flat-windowed cylindrical
turret. Phys. Fluids 2020, 32, 056103.
72. Wang, M.; Mani, A.; Gordeyev, S. Physics and Computation of Aero-Optics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2012, 44, 299–321. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.