Generalized numerical pressure distribution model for smoothing polishing of irregular midspatial frequency errors
Abstract
The smoothing effect of the rigid lap plays an important role in controlling midspatial frequency errors (MSFRs). At present, the pressure distribution between the polishing pad and processed surface is mainly calculated by Mehta's bridging model. However, this classic model does not work for the irregular MSFR. In this paper, a generalized numerical model based on the finite element method (FEM) is proposed to solve this problem. First, the smoothing polishing (SP) process is transformed to a 3D elastic structural FEM model, and the governing matrix equation is gained. By virtue of the boundary conditions applied to the governing matrix equation, the nodal displacement vector and nodal force vector of the pad can be attained, from which the pressure distribution can be extracted. In the partial contact condition, the iterative method is needed. The algorithmic routine is shown, and the applicability of the generalized numerical model is discussed. The detailed simulation is given when the lap is in contact with the irregular surface of different morphologies. A well-designed SP experiment is conducted in our lab to verify the model. A small difference between the experimental data and simulated result shows that the model is totally practicable. The generalized numerical model is applied on a Φ500 mm parabolic surface. The calculated result and measured data after the SP process have been compared, which indicates that the model established in this paper is an effective meth…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Various tool types have been developed including multilayer elastic tools, viscoelastic tools (like Newtonian fluids), semi-flexible tools (e.g. thin metal layer), viscoplastic (pitch) tools, and mechanically driven tools.
“Various tool types have been developed including multilayer elastic tools, viscoelastic tools (like Newtonian fluids) [18, 30, 31], semi-flexible tools (e.g. thin metal layer) [17, 19, 20], viscoplastic (pitch) tools [19, 27, 28, 32], and mechanically driven tools[33].”
From Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
Existing models on the removal of MSF ripples are based on concepts similar to the workpiece-tool mismatch mechanism described above.
“Existing models on the removal of MSF ripples are based on concepts similar to the workpiece-tool mismatch mechanism described above [26-29].”
From Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing
Suratwala, T., Tham, G., Steele, R., Wong, L., Menapace, J., Ray, N., & Bauman, B. (2023) · Applied Optics · doi:10.1364/ao.482739 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nie, X., Li, S., Shi, F., & Hu, H.
- Affiliations
- National University of Defense Technology (CN)
- Venue
- Applied Optics
- Publisher
- Optica Publishing Group
- Published
- 2014-02-12
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1020
- ISSN
- 0003-6935 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-128X
- 2155-3165
- OpenAlex
- W2028047351
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Optics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced optical system design
- Keywords
- pressure distribution, polishing pad, partial contact, parabolic surfaces
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review