Acidic magnetorheological finishing of infrared polycrystalline materials

S. Salzman; H. J. Romanofsky; G. West; K. L. Marshall; S. D. Jacobs; J. C. Lambropoulos

doi:10.1364/AO.55.008448

Applied Optics
Vol. 55,
Issue 30,
pp. 8448-8456
(2016)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.55.008448

Acidic magnetorheological finishing of infrared polycrystalline materials

S. Salzman, H. J. Romanofsky, G. West, K. L. Marshall, S. D. Jacobs, and J. C. Lambropoulos

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
S. Salzman, H. J. Romanofsky, G. West, K. L. Marshall, S. D. Jacobs, and J. C. Lambropoulos, "Acidic magnetorheological finishing of infrared polycrystalline materials," Appl. Opt. 55, 8448-8456 (2016)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Related Topics
Table of Contents Category
- Optics at Surfaces
Optics & Photonics Topics
?

The topics in this list come from the Optics and Photonics Topics applied to this article.

About this Article
History
- Original Manuscript: July 20, 2016
- Revised Manuscript: September 16, 2016
- Manuscript Accepted: September 19, 2016
- Published: October 12, 2016

Accepted Manuscript
Download Accepted Manuscript
Access to this article is made available via and is subject to OSA Publishing Terms of Use.

Abstract

Chemical-vapor-deposited (CVD) ZnS is an example of a polycrystalline material that is difficult to polish smoothly via the magnetorheological finishing (MRF) technique. When MRF-polished, the internal infrastructure of the material tends to manifest on the surface as millimeter-sized “pebbles,” and the surface roughness observed is considerably high. The fluid’s parameters important to developing a magnetorheological (MR) fluid that is capable of polishing CVD ZnS smoothly were previously discussed and presented. These parameters were acidic pH ( $\sim 4.5$ ) and low viscosity ( $\sim 47 cP$ ). MRF with such a unique MR fluid was shown to reduce surface artifacts in the form of pebbles; however, surface microroughness was still relatively high because of the absence of a polishing abrasive in the formulation. In this study, we examine the effect of two polishing abrasives—alumina and nanodiamond—on the surface finish of several CVD ZnS substrates, and on other important IR polycrystalline materials that were finished with acidic MR fluids containing these two polishing abrasives. Surface microroughness results obtained were as low as $\sim 28 nm$ peak-to-valley and $\sim 6$ -nm root mean square.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Magnetorheological finishing of chemical-vapor deposited zinc sulfide via chemically and mechanically modified fluids

Sivan Salzman, Henry J. Romanofsky, Lucca J. Giannechini, Stephen D. Jacobs, and John C. Lambropoulos
Appl. Opt. 55(6) 1481-1489 (2016)

Minimizing artifact formation in magnetorheological finishing of chemical vapor deposition ZnS flats

Irina A. Kozhinova, Henry J. Romanofsky, Alexander Maltsev, Stephen D. Jacobs, William I. Kordonski, and Sergei R. Gorodkin
Appl. Opt. 44(22) 4671-4677 (2005)

Removal rate model for magnetorheological finishing of glass

Jessica E. DeGroote, Anne E. Marino, John P. Wilson, Amy L. Bishop, John C. Lambropoulos, and Stephen D. Jacobs
Appl. Opt. 46(32) 7927-7941 (2007)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (8)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (9)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Sample ID	Sample Type	Crystal Structure	$H_{V}$ (GPa)^a (Ref. [28])	Grain Size (μm)
ZnS A	polycrystalline; CVD; FLIR	cubic	$1.86 \pm 0.02$	$1.18 \pm 0.34$ ^b
ZnS B	polycrystalline; CVD; FLIR	cubic	$1.72 \pm 0.02$	$2.03 \pm 0.64$ ^b
ZnS C	polycrystalline; CVD; FLIR	cubic	$1.61 \pm 0.14$	—
ZnS D	polycrystalline; CVD; elemental	cubic	$2.00 \pm 0.03$	$1.94 \pm 0.46$ ^b
HIP ZnS	polycrystalline; CVD; HIP	cubic	$1.33 \pm 0.05$	75 to 150 (Ref. [22])
ZnSe	polycrystalline; CVD	cubic	$0.90 \pm 0.06$	$43 \pm 9.00$ (Ref. [30])
${MgF}_{2}$	polycrystalline	tetragonal	$2.29 \pm 0.05$	$\sim 0.45$ ^c (Ref. [31])

Component	Form of Supply	Vol. % in MR Fluid
Advanced Zirconia-coated CI Particles	powder	27.97
DI (de-ionized) Water	liquid	49.3
Polyethylene-Imine	50 wt. % in water	20.71
Acetic Acid	$\sim 16$ -molar (M) solution	2.02

Polishing Abrasive	Source	Form of Supply	Particle Size^a (nm)
Alumina (alpha)	NanoTek	dry powder	$d_{15} = 19; d_{50} = 52; d_{80} = 169$
DIANAN nanodiamond	Straus Chemical Corporation	dry powder	$d_{15} = 13; d_{50} = 28; d_{80} = 143$

CVD ZnS Sample ID	Surface Waviness (nm) Collected Using the NewView 100 Equipped with a $5 \times$ Objective and a “Low-Pass” Filter
	Acidic MR Fluid with Alumina Abrasive			Acidic MR Fluid with Nanodiamond Abrasive
	DDP (μm); Removal Rate (μm/min)	p-v	rms	DDP (μm); Removal Rate (μm/min)	p-v	rms
Sample A	0.76; 0.051	$62.26 \pm 33.02$	$7.06 \pm 1.76$	0.95; 0.063	$64.51 \pm 1.31$	$9.24 \pm 0.86$
Sample B	0.77; 0.051	$54.83 \pm 13.33$	$7.22 \pm 1.34$	0.84; 0.056	$47.29 \pm 0.48$	$5.51 \pm 0.22$
Sample C	0.69; 0.046	$194.67 \pm 42.24$	$24.14 \pm 0.82$	1.10; 0.073	$55.47 \pm 14.91$	$7.35 \pm 1.76$
Sample D	0.79; 0.053	$147.85 \pm 1.91$	$16.43 \pm 072$	0.94; 0.063	$71.46 \pm 12.43$	$7.81 \pm 2.34$

CVD ZnS Sample ID	Surface Microroughness (nm) Collected Using the NewView 100 Equipped with a $20 \times$ Objective
	Acidic MR Fluid with Alumina Abrasive				Acidic MR Fluid with Nanodiamond Abrasive
	Areal		Lineouts		Areal		Lineouts
	p–v	rms	p–v	rms	p–v	rms	p–v	rms
Sample A	$694.23 \pm 8.10$	$18.53 \pm 1.58$	$75.70 \pm 7.88$	$14.22 \pm 1.35$	$1361.11 \pm 147.15$	$14.33 \pm 1.01$	$28.46 \pm 4.54$	$6.10 \pm 1.24$
Sample B	$694.68 \pm 25.87$	$20.38 \pm 1.79$	$79.39 \pm 15.19$	$15.58 \pm 2.75$	$775.50 \pm 285.04$	$10.32 \pm 2.54$	$27.66 \pm 4.38$	$5.93 \pm 0.76$
Sample C	$903.72 \pm 110.06$	$39.48 \pm 1.80$	$111.67 \pm 52.06$	$29.83 \pm 4.47$	$1364.06 \pm 53.33$	$26.94 \pm 1.70$	$32.87 \pm 7.58$	$7.79 \pm 1.98$
Sample D	$1160.39 \pm 343.47$	$36.08 \pm 4.74$	$136.03 \pm 20.64$	$28.39 \pm 4.32$	$1215.28 \pm 138.67$	$18.35 \pm 2.91$	$30.08 \pm 4.26$	$6.94 \pm 0.85$

CVD ZnS Sample ID	Surface Roughness (nm) Collected Using the NewView 100 Equipped with a $5 \times$ Objective
	Acidic MR Fluid with Alumina Abrasive				Acidic MR Fluid with Nanodiamond Abrasive
	Areal		Lineouts		Areal		Lineouts
	p-v	rms	p-v	rms	p-v	rms	p-v	rms
Sample A	$287.56 \pm 180.42$	$13.42 \pm 2.00$	$72.93 \pm 12.18$	$12.56 \pm 1.16$	$525.96 \pm 177.97$	$12.53 \pm 0.91$	$55.78 \pm 12.35$	$10.64 \pm 2.53$
Sample B	$737.48 \pm 486.54$	$15.12 \pm 2.32$	$76.91 \pm 13.84$	$13.60 \pm 1.46$	$360.24 \pm 10.53$	$8.21 \pm 0.45$	$36.27 \pm 7.01$	$7.08 \pm 0.94$
Sample C	$1292.91 \pm 1241.49$	$29.37 \pm 0.94$	$146.63 \pm 19.77$	$26.98 \pm 2.10$	$379.23 \pm 27.48$	$10.46 \pm 2.13$	$39.90 \pm 5.40$	$7.99 \pm 1.08$
Sample D	$918.48 \pm 599.05$	$36.52 \pm 0.76$	$184.47 \pm 27.50$	$32.05 \pm 5.13$	$529.31 \pm 155.43$	$11.85 \pm 3.54$	$50.42 \pm 9.49$	$9.19 \pm 1.74$

Sample	Surface Roughness (nm) Collected Using the NewView 100 Equipped with a $5 \times$ Objective
	Acidic MR Fluid with Alumina Abrasive				Acidic MR Fluid with Nanodiamond Abrasive
	Areal		Lineouts		Areal		Lineouts
	p-v	rms	p-v	rms	p-v	rms	p-v	rms
HIP ZnS	$1254.13 \pm 641.289$	$72.67 \pm 14.5$	$290.56 \pm 60.1$	$65.26 \pm 18.1$	$868.02 \pm 47.76$	$71.7 \pm 2.95$	$262.4 \pm 53.54$	$62.9 \pm 10.4$
ZnSe	$1528.77 \pm 784.674$	$74.25 \pm 1.96$	$308.96 \pm 43.77$	$68.19 \pm 10.9$	$1714.7 \pm 0.7623$	$46.7 \pm 5.98$	$178.9 \pm 31.38$	$36.0 \pm 7.02$
${MgF}_{2}$	$237.102 \pm 1.55$	$8.329 \pm 1.55$	$46.061 \pm 8.35$	$7.805 \pm 1.31$	$37.89 \pm 4.85$	$2.16 \pm 0.15$	$7.19 \pm 1.59$	$1.22 \pm 0.29$

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (8)

Tables (9)

Applied Optics