Theoretical and experimental comparisons of the smoothing effects for different multi-layer polishing tools during computer-controlled optical surfacing
Abstract
Optical smoothing is a very effective method to restrict mid-to-high spatial frequency errors generated by computer-controlled sub-aperture polishing technologies. According to Preston's equation, pressure distribution is the key factor in describing the smoothing effect of a tool. Although the classic bridging model can solve pressure distribution during the smoothing process, it is only suitable for a tool that consists of a rigid base, compliant interlayer, thin metal plate, and pitch polishing layer. In this paper, a mathematical model applicable for any multi-layer polishing tool is proposed, which helps to calculate the pressure distribution dependent on the thickness of the layer, mid-spatial frequency errors at different periods, and the structures of polishing tools. Based on the model, the pressure distributions and smoothing rates of a rigid tool and a semi-flexible tool are deduced and compared in detail. Validity and improvement in accuracy are verified by comparison with the finite element model. In addition, three groups of experiments using a rigid tool and a semi-flexible tool for smoothing 4 mm and 8 mm period errors generated by magnetorheological finishing are carried out to validate the model. The simulation result of the smoothing rates of the errors after every smoothing process matches well with the experiment results.
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?
The general approach to minimizing MSF errors in the final workpiece during fabrication is to develop processes that minimize the creation of MSF errors during surface figure correction and/or to reduce MSF errors post surface figure correction using a smoothing polishing process.
“The general approach to minimizing MRF errors in the final workpiece during fabrication is to: 1) develop processes that minimize the creation of MSF errors during surface figure correction (such as optimized rastering patterns[12-14], tool size selection, and tool process parameters[15, 16]); and/or 2) reduce MSF errors post surface figure correction using a smoothing polishing process[17-20].”
From Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing (2023) · cites this paper as [18]
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 [18]
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
- Li, X., Wei, C., Zhang, S., Xu, W., & Shao, J.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Xuyu
- Wei, Chaoyang
- Zhang, Simin
- Xu, Wendong
- Shao, Jianda
- Venue
- Applied Optics
- Publisher
- Optica Publishing Group
- Published
- 2019-05-29
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 4406
- ISSN
- 0003-6935 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-128X
- 2155-3165
- OpenAlex
- W2947378160
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Optics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1831211)
- Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Adaptive optics and wavefront sensing
- Keywords
- computer controlled optical surfacing, mid-spatial frequency error, bridging model, magnetorheological finishing, sub-aperture polishing
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
