Parametric smoothing model for visco-elastic polishing tools
Open accessAbstract
A parametric smoothing model is developed to quantitatively describe the smoothing action of polishing tools that use visco-elastic materials. These materials flow to conform to the aspheric shape of the workpieces, yet behave as a rigid solid for short duration caused by tool motion over surface irregularities. The smoothing effect naturally corrects the mid-to-high frequency errors on the workpiece while a large polishing lap still removes large scale errors effectively in a short time. Quantifying the smoothing effect allows improvements in efficiency for finishing large precision optics. We define normalized smoothing factor SF which can be described with two parameters. A series of experiments using a conventional pitch tool and the rigid conformal (RC) lap was performed and compared to verify the parametric smoothing model. The linear trend of the SF function was clearly verified. Also, the limiting minimum ripple magnitude PVmin from the smoothing actions and SF function slope change due to the total compressive stiffness of the whole tool were measured. These data were successfully fit using the parametric smoothing model.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 [17]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredVarious 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 [17]
The Introduction describes a visco-elastic polishing tool, supporting the cited tool category. But it specifies that the RC lap uses a non-Newtonian fluid, not a Newtonian fluid as the citing sentence suggests. The other tool categories have separate citations in the citing sentence and are not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- [2]R. E. Wagner and R. R. Shannon, “Fabrication of aspherics using a mathematical model for material removal,” Appl. Opt. 13(7), 1683–1689 (1974). Crossref
- [3]D. D. Walker, D. Brooks, A. King, R. Freeman, R. Morton, G. McCavana, and S. W. Kim, “The ‘Precessions’ tooling for polishing and figuring flat, spherical and aspheric surfaces,” Opt. Express 11(8), 958–964 (2003). Crossref
- [4]H. M. Pollicove, E. M. Fess, and J. M. Schoen, “Deterministic manufacturing processes for precision optical surfaces,” in Window and Dome Technologies VIII, R. W. Tustison, eds., Proc. SPIE 5078, 90–96 (2003).
- [5]J. H. Burge, S. Benjamin, D. Caywood, C. Noble, M. Novak, C. Oh, R. Parks, B. Smith, P. Su, M. Valente, and C. Zhao, “Fabrication and testing of 1.4-m convex off-axis aspheric optical surfaces,” in Optical Manufacturing and Testing VIII, J. H. Burge; O. W. Fähnle and R. Williamson, eds., Proc. SPIE 7426, 74260L1–12 (2009).
- [6]D. W. Kim, S. W. Kim, and J. H. Burge, “Non-sequential optimization technique for a computer controlled optical surfacing process using multiple tool influence functions,” Opt. Express 17(24), 21850–21866 (2009). Crossref
- [8]N. J. Brown, and R. E. Parks, “The polishing-to-figuring transition in turned optics,” SPIE’s 25th Annual International Technical Symposium, (SPIE, 1981)
- [9]P. K. Mehta, and P. B. Reid, “A mathematical model for optical smoothing prediction of high-spatial frequency surface errors,” in Optomechanical Engineering and Vibration Control, E. A. Derby, C. G. Gordon, D. Vukobratovich, P. R. Yoder Jr., and C. H. Zweben, eds., Proc. SPIE 3786, 447 (1999).
- [10]M. T. Tuell, J. H. Burge, and B. Anderson, “Aspheric optics: smoothing the ripples with semi-flexible tools,” Opt. Eng. 41(7), 1473–1474 (2002). Crossref
- [11]M. T. Tuell, “Novel tooling for production of aspheric surfaces,” M.S. Thesis (2002).
- [12]M. Johns, “The Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT),” in Extremely Large Telescopes: Which Wavelengths? T. E. Andersen, eds., Proc. SPIE 6986, 698603 1–12 (2008).
- [13]J. Nelson, and G. H. Sanders, “The status of the Thirty Meter Telescope project,” in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes II, L. M. Stepp and R. Gilmozzi, eds., Proc. SPIE 7012, 70121A1–18 (2008).
- [14]A. Ardeberg, T. Andersen, J. Beckers, M. Browne, A. Enmark, P. Knutsson, and M. Owner-Petersen, “From Euro50 towards a European ELT,” in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes, L. M. Stepp, eds., Proc. SPIE 6267, 626725 1–10 (2006).
- [16]R. E. Parks, “Specifications: Figure and Finish are not enough,” in An optical Believe It or Not: Key Lessons Learned, M. A. Kahan, eds., Proc. SPIE 7071, 70710B1–9 (2008).
- [17]J. M. Hill, “Optical Design, Error Budget and Specifications for the Columbus Project Telescope,” in Advanced Technology Optical Telescopes IV, L. D. Barr, eds., Proc. SPIE 1236, 86–107 (1990).
- [18]D. W. Kim and J. H. Burge, “Rigid conformal polishing tool using non-linear visco-elastic effect,” Opt. Express 18(3), 2242–2257 (2010). Crossref
- [19]H. M. Martin, R. G. Allen, J. H. Burge, D. W. Kim, J. S. Kingsley, M. T. Tuell, S. C. West, C. Zhao, and T. Zobrist, “Fabrication and testing of the first 8.4 m off-axis segment for the Giant Magellan Telescope,” in Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation, E. Atad-Ettedgui and D. Lemke, eds., Proc. SPIE 7739, 77390A (2010).
- [20]M. J. Valente, D. W. Kim, M. J. Novak, C. J. Oh, and J. H. Burge, “Fabrication of 4-meter class astronomical optics,” in Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentation, E. Atad-Ettedgui and D. Lemke, eds., Proc. SPIE 7739, 77392D (2010).
- [21]R. P. Chhabra, and J. F. Richardson, Non-Newtonian Flow and Applied Rheology (2nd edition) (Elsevier Ltd, 2008), Chap. 1.
- [22]D. W. Kim, W. H. Park, S. W. Kim, and J. H. Burge, “Parametric modeling of edge effects for polishing tool influence functions,” Opt. Express 17(7), 5656–5665 (2009). Crossref
- [23]M. A. Meyers, and K. K. Chawla, Mechanical Behavior of Materials (2nd edition) (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 124–125.
- [24]A. C. Fischer-Cripps, “Multiple-frequency dynamic nanoindentation testing,” J. Mater. Res. 19(10), 2981–2988 (2004). Crossref
- [27]N. J. Brown, “Optical polishing pitch,” in Optical Fabrication and Testing, Optical Society of America Workshop (Optical Society of America, 1977).
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
- Kim, D. W., Park, W. H., An, H. K., & Burge, J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Venue
- Optics Express
- Publisher
- Optica Publishing Group
- Published
- 2010-10-08
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 22515
- ISSN
- 1094-4087 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064056676
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Optics Express (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Arizona
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Advanced machining processes and optimization
- Keywords
- polishing tools, smoothing factor, precision optics, surface roughness, compressive stiffness, surface error correction
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Aluminum, Elasticity, Materials Testing, Oscillometry, Physics, Surface Properties, Time Factors, Viscosity, Models, Statistical, Optics and Photonics
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
