Skip to main content

Comparison of optical and stylus methods for measurement of surface texture


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  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 275–354

    Google Scholar 

  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 21–24

  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 texture

  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 34:209–212

    Google Scholar 

  5. Song JF, Vorburger TV (1991) Stylus profiling at high resolution and low force. Appl Opt 30:42–50

    Google Scholar 

  6. Binnig G, Quate CF, Gerber CH (1986) Atomic force microscope. Phys Rev Lett 56:930–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Villarrubia JS (1997) Algorithms for scanned probe microscope image simulation, surface reconstruction, and tip estimation. J Res Natl Inst Stds Technol 102:425–454

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lonardo PM, Lucca DA, DeChiffre L (2002) Emerging trends in surface metrology. Ann CIRP 51(2):701–723

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rugar D, Hansma P (1990) Atomic force microscopy. Phys Today 23–30, October

  10. Hocken RJ, Chakraborty N, Brown C (2005) Optical metrology of surfaces. Ann CIRP 54(2):705–719

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bhushan B, Wyant JC, Koliopoulis CL (1985) Measurement of surface topography of magnetic tapes by Mirau interferometry. Appl Opt 24:1489–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Greivenkamp JE, Bruning JH (1992) In: Malacara D (ed) Optical shop testing. Wiley, New York, pp 501–598

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deck L, deGroot P (1994) High-speed noncontact profiler based on scanning white-light interferometer. Appl Opt 33:7334–7388

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schmit J, Olszak A (2002) High-precision shape measurement by white-light interferometry with real-time scanner correction. Appl Opt 41:5943–5950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schmidt MA, Compton RD (1992) In: ASM handbook, vol 18. Blau PJ (ed) Friction, lubrication, and wear technology. ASM International, pp 357–361

  16. ISO 4287 (1997) Geometrical product specifications (GPS)-Surface texture: profile method-terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  17. ASME B46.1-2002 (2003) Surface texture (surface roughness, waviness, and lay). Am Soc Mech Eng, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rubert & Co Ltd, accessed 30 April 2005

  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 29–40

  20. Song JF, Vorburger TV, Rubert P (1992) Comparison between precision roughness master specimens and their electroformed replicas. Prec Eng 14:84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vorburger TV, Song JF, Giauque CHW, Renegar TB, Whitenton EP, Croarkin MC (1996) Stylus-laser surface calibration system. Prec Eng 19:157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) (1995) International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

  23. Harasaki A, Wyant JC (2000) Fringe modulation skewing effect in white-light vertical scanning interferometry. Appl Opt 39:2101–2106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harasaki A, Schmit J, Wyant JC (2000) Improved vertical-scanning interferometry. Appl Opt 39:2107–2115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 44:5919–5927

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. V. Vorburger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vorburger, T.V., Rhee, HG., Renegar, T.B. et al. Comparison of optical and stylus methods for measurement of surface texture. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33, 110–118 (2007).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: