Some problems with the calibration of surface roughness reference specimens

Rubert, Paul

doi:10.1016/0890-6955(94)p2385-s

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…35 Hence, a precise modeling of the topography measurement process of sinusoidal surfaces is of particular interest. For CSI and CM, a sinusoidal standard (Rubert 543 45 ) with period length L x ¼ 2.5 μm and peak-to-valley (PV) height h ¼ 120 nm is measured, and results are reproduced by simulation. FVM simulation results are validated using the Rubert 525 sinusoidal standard 45 with L x ¼ 135 μm and h ¼ 19 μm, since longer periods and surface heights are generally required for reliable FVM measurements.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For CSI and CM, a sinusoidal standard (Rubert 543 45 ) with period length L x ¼ 2.5 μm and peak-to-valley (PV) height h ¼ 120 nm is measured, and results are reproduced by simulation. FVM simulation results are validated using the Rubert 525 sinusoidal standard 45 with L x ¼ 135 μm and h ¼ 19 μm, since longer periods and surface heights are generally required for reliable FVM measurements. For comparison, the profiles are measured by an atomic force microscope (AFM) with tip radius of 10 nm (Tap190Al-G probe tip 46 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Slight deviations can be explained with the deviation of the real profile from an ideal sinusoid, which is verified by a comparison of both reference profiles. In addition, the microroughness of the Rubert standard 45 appears in the AFM as well as the envelope result, whereas the phase result is smoothed in Fig. 4(d).…”

Section: Coherence Scanning Interferometrymentioning

confidence: 95%

“…is assumed. Since the axial resolution of focus variation microscopes is in the range of micrometers, a Rubert 525 sinusoidal standard 45 is examined. It should be noted that usually rough surfaces are required to achieve reliable FVM results.…”

Section: Focus Variation Microscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Electromagnetic modeling of interference, confocal, and focus variation microscopy

Pahl,

Rosenthal,

Breidenbach

et al. 2024

Adv. Photon. Nexus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

.We present a unified electromagnetic modeling of coherence scanning interferometry, confocal microscopy, and focus variation microscopy as the most common techniques for surface topography inspection with micro- and nanometer resolution. The model aims at analyzing the instrument response and predicting systematic deviations. Since the main focus lies on the modeling of the microscopes, the light–surface interaction is considered, based on the Kirchhoff approximation extended to vectorial imaging theory. However, it can be replaced by rigorous methods without changing the microscope model. We demonstrate that all of the measuring instruments mentioned above can be modeled using the same theory with some adaption to the respective instrument. For validation, simulated results are confirmed by comparison with measurement results.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coherence Scanning Interferometrymentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Focus Variation Microscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Electromagnetic modeling of interference, confocal, and focus variation microscopy

Pahl,

Rosenthal,

Breidenbach

et al. 2024

Adv. Photon. Nexus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, measurement results obtained from a sinusoidal surface are compared. For this purpose the sinusoidal standard 531 from Rubert & Co. Ltd [35] comprising a peak-tovalley (PV) amplitude of 1 µm and a period length of 100 µm is used. Again, multiple measurements are performed with the ICDS using different scan velocities v s compared to a reference measurement performed by the tactile stylus instrument GD26.…”

Section: Sinusoidal Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Miniaturized interferometric confocal distance sensor for surface profiling with data rates at ultrasonic frequencies

Hagemeier

Bittner²,

Lehmann

2023

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Point-wise measuring proﬁlometers like the tactile stylus instruments or optical sensors are established measurement tools in science and industry to measure and characterize surface textures. We present a ﬁber-coupled laser interferometric confocal distance sensor for surface proﬁling. The sensor is characterized by small geometric dimensions and by its high lateral scanning speed. The ability to measure specularly reﬂecting and rough surface textures are demonstrated by performing several measurements on a sinusoidal standard as well as two roughness standards speciﬁed by diﬀerent degree of roughness using various lateral scan velocities up to 75 mm/s. These measurement results are compared to those obtained by a tactile stylus instrument used in the identical measurement environment as the introduced optical sensor. Finally, the ability for full-ﬁeld measurements is presented.

show abstract

Some problems with the calibration of surface roughness reference specimens

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Electromagnetic modeling of interference, confocal, and focus variation microscopy

Electromagnetic modeling of interference, confocal, and focus variation microscopy

Miniaturized interferometric confocal distance sensor for surface profiling with data rates at ultrasonic frequencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About