Comparison of optical and stylus methods for measurement of surface texture

  • T. V. Vorburger
  • H.-G. Rhee
  • T. B. Renegar
  • J.-F. Song
  • A. Zheng
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Optical methods are increasingly used for measurement of surface texture, particularly for areal measurements where the optical methods are generally faster. A new Working Group under Technical Committee (TC) 213 in the International Organization for Standardization is addressing standardization issues for areal surface texture measurement and characterization and has formed a project team to address issues posed by the optical methods. In this paper, we review the different methods of measuring surface texture and describe a classification scheme for them. We highlight optical methods and describe some of their characteristics as well as compare surface-profiling results obtained from three optical methods with those obtained from stylus profiler instruments. For moderately rough surfaces (Ra ≈ 500 nm), roughness measurements obtained with white light interferometric (WLI) microscopy, confocal microscopy, and the stylus method seem to provide close agreement on the same roughness samples. For surface roughness measurements in the 50 to 300 nm range of Ra, discrepancies between WLI and the stylus method are observed. In some cases the discrepancy is as large as about 75% of the value obtained with the stylus method. By contrast, the results for phase shifting interferometry over its expected range of application are in moderately good agreement with those of the stylus method.

Keywords

Surface Metrology Stylus Interferometric Microscopy Confocal White light Optical 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vorburger TV, Dagata JA, Wilkening G, Iizuka K (1998) In: Czanderna et al (ed) Beam effects, surface topography, and depth profiling in surface analysis. Plenum, New York, pp 275–354Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vorburger TV, Orji NG, Sung LP, Rodriguez T (2003) Surface finish and sub-surface metrology. V-SEMETRA-Fifth Aerospace Metrology Seminar, São Jose dos Campos, Brazil, July 21–24Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Organization for Standardization Committee Draft 25178-6 (2007) Geometrical product specification (GPS)-Surface texture: areal - Part 6: classification of methods for measuring surface textureGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett JM, Tehrani MM, Jahanmir J, Podlesny JC, Balter TL (1995) Topographic measurements of supersmooth dielectric films made with a mechanical profiler and a scanning force microscope. Appl Opt 34:209–212Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Song JF, Vorburger TV (1991) Stylus profiling at high resolution and low force. Appl Opt 30:42–50Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Binnig G, Quate CF, Gerber CH (1986) Atomic force microscope. Phys Rev Lett 56:930–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Villarrubia JS (1997) Algorithms for scanned probe microscope image simulation, surface reconstruction, and tip estimation. J Res Natl Inst Stds Technol 102:425–454Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lonardo PM, Lucca DA, DeChiffre L (2002) Emerging trends in surface metrology. Ann CIRP 51(2):701–723Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rugar D, Hansma P (1990) Atomic force microscopy. Phys Today 23–30, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hocken RJ, Chakraborty N, Brown C (2005) Optical metrology of surfaces. Ann CIRP 54(2):705–719Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhushan B, Wyant JC, Koliopoulis CL (1985) Measurement of surface topography of magnetic tapes by Mirau interferometry. Appl Opt 24:1489–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greivenkamp JE, Bruning JH (1992) In: Malacara D (ed) Optical shop testing. Wiley, New York, pp 501–598Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deck L, deGroot P (1994) High-speed noncontact profiler based on scanning white-light interferometer. Appl Opt 33:7334–7388Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmit J, Olszak A (2002) High-precision shape measurement by white-light interferometry with real-time scanner correction. Appl Opt 41:5943–5950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmidt MA, Compton RD (1992) In: ASM handbook, vol 18. Blau PJ (ed) Friction, lubrication, and wear technology. ASM International, pp 357–361Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO 4287 (1997) Geometrical product specifications (GPS)-Surface texture: profile method-terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ASME B46.1-2002 (2003) Surface texture (surface roughness, waviness, and lay). Am Soc Mech Eng, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubert & Co Ltd http://www.rubert.co.uk/reference.php.htm, accessed 30 April 2005
  19. 19.
    Song JF (1988) In: Stout K, Vorburger TV (eds) Metrology and properties of engineering surfaces, Proceedings of the fourth international conference. Kogan Page, London, pp 29–40Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song JF, Vorburger TV, Rubert P (1992) Comparison between precision roughness master specimens and their electroformed replicas. Prec Eng 14:84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vorburger TV, Song JF, Giauque CHW, Renegar TB, Whitenton EP, Croarkin MC (1996) Stylus-laser surface calibration system. Prec Eng 19:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) (1995) International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harasaki A, Wyant JC (2000) Fringe modulation skewing effect in white-light vertical scanning interferometry. Appl Opt 39:2101–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harasaki A, Schmit J, Wyant JC (2000) Improved vertical-scanning interferometry. Appl Opt 39:2107–2115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rhee HG, Vorburger TV, Lee JW, Fu J (2005) Discrepancies between roughness measurements obtained with phase-shifting interferometry and white-light interferometry. Appl Opt 44:5919–5927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. V. Vorburger
    • 1
  • H.-G. Rhee
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. B. Renegar
    • 1
  • J.-F. Song
    • 1
  • A. Zheng
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Korea Research Institute of Standards and ScienceTaejonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations