## Analyze Aspheric Lenses with OmniSurf or OmniSurf3D

Have you taken any good selfies lately? If you have, then you can thank an aspheric lens.  In fact, you can probably thank several of them.

An aspheric lens has a complex surface that departs from a basic spherical shape. A single asphere can replace a complex, multi-lens system, resulting in a smaller, lighter optical system.

Apart from cell phones, aspheres are also responsible for advances in eyeglasses, contact lenses, telescopes, cameras and optical instrumentation.  We even find them in grocery store price scanners and the backup camera on your car.

## But how do we analyze aspheric surfaces?

Because of their complexity, analyzing aspheres has long been the domain of expensive metrology software. But we are pleased to report that you can also analyze aspheric measurement data using OmniSurf or OmniSurf3D—in fact, it is a standard feature in both software pacakages!

The image below shows the setup screen for an aspheric surface in OmniSurf3D software:

Both OmniSurf and OmniSurf3D include this intuitive interface for configuring the aspheric reference geometry. We included a number of tools to make the process quick, including the ability to cut and paste the asphere’s coefficients and scale the live preview. Since it’s easy to make a typo when entering the coefficients, the Equation Test provides a handy way to validate the equation on-the-fly, at any radius position.

Once you have defined the reference shape you can then view the “residual” surface (the difference between the measured data and the reference).

The image below shows a measured aspheric surface in OmniSurf3D:

Here is the residual surface, with the reference subtracted:

In the residual data you can clearly see the fine machining marks left by the turning process. An engineer can use this information to fine-tune the manufacturing process.

For aspheres, a significant contributor to the residual form error can be due to an error in the base radius.  This can sometimes result from tooling wear. In these cases, the actual base radius is of interest.  To determine the actual base radius, the operator has to manually adjust the nominal radius and re-analyze the data until the residuals look acceptable.  This is a slow and difficult process.

Both OmniSurf and OmniSurf3D include a powerful, one-click “radius optimization” tool to automatically determine the aspheric radius based on the measured data. Here is a residual surface, calculated using the design radius:

Here is the same residual with the automatically optimized radius:

The flatter overall shape is indicative of a much better radius fit. This can be a major time-saver in a production or process development environment.

## Export and filtering

OmniSurf and OmniSurf3D also make it easy to filter the data to analyze the roughness and form. In OmniSurf3D, the Zernike polynomial terms can be exported for further analysis and modelling.

## Fast, affordable asphere analysis

Aspheric calculation is one of many advanced analyses that are included as part of our basic software. Check out all of the features and analyses on the OmniSurf or OmniSurf3D pages, or contact Digital Metrology to learn more.

## 3D printing your surface data directly from OmniSurf3D

Digital Metrology has always been committed to helping you see, explore and understand your surfaces.  With the latest release of OmniSurf3D you can now use your sense of touch as well! OmniSurf3D now includes the ability to export a 3D solid STL model of your surface for 3D printing:

Use OmniSurf3D STL Maker to scale your surface.  The interactive plot shows you exactly what will print.

Just like that, you have a model ready for 3D printing.

Better yet, in the latest Windows 10, you can simply right click on the file and get your surface printed online.

For more information on seeing, feeling and better understanding your surfaces, contact Digital Metrology today!

## Advanced Wear Analysis with OmniSurf and OmniSurf3D

How much has this surface worn? The answer can be more complicated than it seems…

Accurate wear analysis is critical for designing surfaces in contact. Unfortunately, mistakes are common when it comes to assessing the actual wear depth for an interface. The attributes that we measure and report are often not actually related to the amount of wear.

## Macro vs micro wear

Let’s start by considering two types of wear. “Micro” wear occurs at depths similar in scale to that of the overall roughness. It is often due to the ongoing wear typical of a system operating within designed parameters, such as in well-lubricated engine components.

“Macro” wear is typically comprised of a worn region that is deeper than the original surface texture. You will often find macro wear as the result of many tribological tests (e.g., pin-on-disc, ball-on-disc, etc.) in which we attempt to simulate wear at a vastly accelerated pace. This typically results in making a macro wear scar, as the testing conditions are amplified to shorten test times and reduce testing costs.

In many cases, understanding the subtle changes in micro-wear generated within the actual operating parameters is preferable. The good news is that, with modern analysis tools such as OmniSurf and OmniSurf3D, we can analyze both macro and micro wear accurately in order to explore the effects of design options and decisions.

## Macro wear analysis

The general rule we will follow is this: once you have wear areas deeper than the surrounding texture, you need to use macro wear analysis. Comparing roughness in virgin material with the roughness at the bottom of a wear scar offers no information as to the depth of the scar. It’s like digging a hole in your yard, then comparing the height of the grass at the top to the size of the rocks at the bottom, in order to estimate the depth of the hole!

For “macro” wear analysis we need to consider the overall volume of material removed (or the area of material removed, in profile measurements).

As the OmniSurf3D image below shows, we can fit a reference geometry through the unworn areas to bridge across the worn area. On the right side, we see a red reference line that was created based on a 4th order polynomial. This reference was chosen based on the curved nature of the virgin surface areas, but it could be of any form (line, arc, polynomial, etc.). The wear depth and cross-sectional area are reported based on the shaded, blue region on the right side of the graphic above.

## micro wear analysis…parameters can lie!

All too often, people will measure a roughness parameter before and after some period of wear, and then use the reduction in the roughness parameter as a measure of the amount of wear. For example, they may simply look at the change in average roughness (Ra) and call that the wear amount.

Consider the two surfaces we showed earlier (and again in Figure 4 below). The unworn surface has an Ra value of 0.61 µm. The worn surface has an Ra value of 0.16 µm. This could lead one to assume that the surface experienced 0.45 µm of wear.

This would be a very wrong assumption!

The problem with most traditional parameters like Ra, Rz, Rpm, etc. is that they are based on the surface’s meanline. And, when a surface wears, the meanline moves as well. Thus, there is a new reference line and results are not comparable. If we plot the worn profile on top of the unworn profile, we get the graph below:

Looking closely at the above figure reveals a problem: the bottoms of the valleys appear to have moved up after testing. In the physical world, the valley bottoms should have remained the same while the peaks moved downward. The wear of the surface should look more like the figure below:

Here we have adjusted the unworn and worn profiles to match up the nominal valley structures. In doing, so we have a very powerful graphic. We can clearly see the worn surface has peaks sitting much lower than the original peaks. In fact, we could look at these superimposed profiles and get an estimate of the wear depth of 2.2 µm—very different than the (wrongly) estimated value based on the 0.45 µm change in Ra!