Distortion of removal function based on the local asphericity of aspheric surface and the viscoelasticity of polishing tool in computer-controlled optical surfacing

Abstract

In the process of large aspheric optical surfaces fabrication, the distortion of the removal function is a big problem that affects the producing efficiency and accuracy, due to the misfit between the tool and the aspheric surface in the contact region. Consequently, this paper aims to find out the influence factors and the distortion rule of aspheric removal function in the computer-controlled optical surfacing. Firstly, based on the analysis of the sub-aperture polishing technology for the large aspheric optical surfaces, the local asphericity of aspheric surface and the viscoelasticity of polishing tool are supposed to be the main sources. After that, a method to calculate the local asphericity considering the misfit between the tool and the aspheric surface is proposed based on the least square method, and the viscoelasticity of the polishing tool is obtained through viscoelastic experiment. Subsequently, combining the results of the local asphericity of aspheric surface and the viscoelasticity of polishing tool, the prediction of the distortion rule of aspheric removal function is presented. Finally, the comparative experiment is carried out, and the removal function on different regions of the aspheric surface is obtained. The experimental result indicated that the distortion of the removal function is consistent with the theoretical result. Through this study, the distortion rule of aspheric removal function in the computer-controlled optical surfacing with pitch tool is finally mastered, which provides a theoretical guidance for the computer-controlled optical surfacing process optimization.

Keywords

Deterministic polishing removal function aspheric surface

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Spaeth

Manes

Widmayer

et al.

The national ignition facility wavefront requirements and optical architecture. UCRL-CONF-I55442 2004.

Semenov

Abdulkadyrov

Belousov

et al.

Technological features of the fabrication of the primary mirrors of telescopes. J Opt Technol 2013; 80: 207–213.

Martin

Allen

Burge

et al.

Fabrication and testing of the first 8.4 m off-axis segment for the Giant Magellan Telescope. Proc SPIE 2010; 7739: 77390A–77390A.

Walker

. Research on fabrication of mirror segments for E-ELT. Proc SPIE 2012; 8416: 841602–841602.

Glatzel

Ashworth

Bremer

et al.

Projection optics for extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUVL) micro-field exposure tools (METs) with a numerical aperture of 0.5. LLNL-PROC-641036 2013.

Pan

Zhang

Ding

et al.

Research on optimization of conformal polishing using continuous precession. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2014; 78: 63–71.

Kiontke

. Aspherical manufacturing in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and surface forms based on practical experiences. Proc SPIE 2008; 7102: 71020D–71020D.

Hinn

Pisarski

. Efficient grinding and polishing processes for asphere manufacturing. Proc SPIE 2013; 8884: 88840I–88840I.

Stach

. Deterministic polishing process for aspheric lenses in a production environment. Proc SPIE 2013; 8884: 88840G–88840G.

10.

Pollicove

Fess

Schoen

. Deterministic manufacturing processes for precision optical surfaces. Proc SPIE 2003; 5078: 90–96.

11.

Dumas

Hall

Hallock

et al.

Complete sub-aperture pre-polishing & finishing solution to improve speed and determinism in asphere manufacture. Proc SPIE 2007; 6671: 667111–667111.

12.

Zhang

Yang

Zhang

et al.

Effects analysis of processing factors on surface quality in optical grinding using ɛ–support vector regression. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 2015; 229: 3449–3458.

13.

Pan

Wang

Guo

et al.

Analysis of corrective characteristics of various polishing methods for mid-frequency errors. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 2014; 228: 525–534.

14.

Jones

Rupp

. Rapid optical fabrication with computer-controlled optical surfacing. Opt Eng 1991; 30: 1962–1968.

15.

Mehta

Hufnagel

. Pressure distribution under flexible polishing tools – 1 Conventional aspheric optics. Proc SPIE 1990; 1303: 178–188.

16.

Mehta

. Pressure distribution under flexible polishing tools – 2 Cylindrical (conical) optics. Proc SPIE 1990; 1303: 189–205.

17.

Kim

Park

et al.

Parametric smoothing model for visco-elastic polishing tools. Opt Express 2010; 18: 22515–22526.

18.

Kim

Burge

. Rigid conformal polishing tool using non-linear visco-elastic effect. Opt Express 2010; 18: 2242–2257.

19.

Burge

Anderson

Benjamin

et al.

Development of optimal grinding and polishing tools for aspheric surfaces. Proc SPIE 2001; 4451: 153–164.

20.

Birnbaum

Bernitzki

Falkenstörfer

et al.

Manufacturing of high-precision aspheres. Proc SPIE 2006; 6149: 61490H–1–61490H-7.

21.

Song

Walker

. Misfit of rigid tools and interferometer subapertures on off-axis aspheric mirror segments. Opt Eng 2011; 50: 073401–073407.

22.

Tatian

. Least-squares fitting of aspheric surfaces by a conicoid. Appl Opt 1989; 28: 4687–4696.

23.

Cardona-Nunez

Cornejo-Rodriguez

Diaz-Uribe

et al.

Conic that best fits an off-axis conic section. Appl Opt 1986; 25: 3585–3588.

24.

Lukacs G, Marshall AD, R. R. Martin. Faithful least-squares fitting of spheres, cylinders, conesand tori for reliable segmentation. In: Proceedings of 5th European conference on computer vision, Freiburg, Germany, 1998, pp.1–20.

25.

Chang

. Viscoelastic damping materials, Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2012.