Assessing surface imperfections of

freeforms using a robotic light

scattering sensor

Tobias Herffurth
Marcus Trost
Matthias Beier
Ralf Steinkopf
Nils Heidler
Tom Pertermann
Sven Schröder

Tobias Herffurth, Marcus Trost, Matthias Beier, Ralf Steinkopf, Nils Heidler, Tom Pertermann,
Sven Schröder, “Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor,” Opt.
Eng. 58(9), 092609 (2019), doi: 10.1117/1.OE.58.9.092609.

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Optical Engineering 58(9), 092609 (September 2019)

Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms

using a robotic light scattering sensor
Tobias Herffurth,* Marcus Trost, Matthias Beier, Ralf Steinkopf, Nils Heidler, Tom Pertermann, and Sven Schröder
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Optics and Precision Engineering, Jena, Germany

Abstract. Light scattering-based characterization techniques are fast, sensitive, and robust, which can be
exploited for roughness measurements or homogeneity and defect assessment. However, only compact
scattering instruments enable even large freeform surfaces to be inspected close to fabrication or even within
fabrication processes. The combination of a light scattering sensor with an industrial robot, as well as its appli-
cation for full surface evaluation of aspheriscal and freeform surfaces, is addressed. In addition to the technical
considerations regarding the sensor, the robotic handling system, or the sample curvature, examples of appli-
cation to different optical components fabricated at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Optics and Precision
Engineering using state-of-the-art techniques are presented. The results include the discussion of anisotropic
surface structures induced by diamond turning or polishing as well as the analysis of the influence of a protection
layer. © 2019 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) [DOI: 10.1117/1.OE.58.9.092609]
Keywords: optical inspection; roughness; defects; scattering; assessment; freeforms and aspheres.
Paper 190156SS received Feb. 1, 2019; accepted for publication Apr. 5, 2019; published online Apr. 30, 2019.

1 Introduction instrumentation and results presented in this paper contribute

The increasing capabilities to fabricate extended aspherical
or freeform optical components1–6 place challenging de-
mands on the corresponding characterization techniques.
In addition to the characterization of the form, this is particu-
larly the case for surface quality assessment regarding rough-
ness, homogeneity, and defects.
Light scattering-based techniques have demonstrated
their potential for this challenging task since they are highly
sensitive, noncontact, and robust regarding vibrations.7–9
In addition, they provide a direct measure of the scattering
that is caused by surface imperfections and, therefore, pro-
vide valuable information on the disturbing influence of the
imperfections,7,10–18 which could also be exploited in stray-
light modeling. Conversely, there is still a lack of noncom-
plex and easy-to-use scattering instruments and measurement
approaches for the fast characterization of extended aspheri-
cal or freeform surfaces with complex shapes.
In addition to the sophisticated and flexible but complex
laboratory instruments,8–10 compact CMOS-matrix-based
sensor approaches7,19 have been developed at Fraunhofer
Institute for Applied Optics and Precision Engineering
(Fraunhofer IOF). These sensors are used for the characteri-
zation of optical components or even biological objects.7,20–22
to bridging the gap between the application of light scattering
techniques in the laboratory and its use in the production
environment.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sec. 2 relevant def-
initions and the theoretical background are briefly summa-
rized. The robotic light scattering sensor is described in
detail in Sec. 3, which is followed by three examples of its
applications in Sec. 4.
2 Definitions and Theoretical Background
Light scattering distributions can be described by the angle-
resolved scattering (ARS), which is defined as the power,
ΔPs , scattered into the solid angle, ΔΩs , normalized to the
incident light power, Pi . In addition to a cosine factor, ARS
is identical to the bidirectional reflectance distribution func-
tion (BRDF) for surfaces.
For optically smooth surfaces with a root mean square
(rms) roughness much smaller than the illumination wave-
length, σ ≪ λ, the ARS is directly connected to the power
spectral density (PSD) function of the surface roughness
by the first-order perturbation scattering theory8,26–29
ΔPs ðθi ; θs ; φs Þ
ARSðθi ; θs ; φs Þ ¼
ΔΩPi
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e001;326;250

In addition, the compactness and robustness of these sensors

enable their combination with other instruments, for example
a white-light interferometer (WLI) in Ref. 7 or with handling
systems such as the scanning stage in Ref. 23.
In this paper, further developments of the sensor, its
measurement modes, and its combination with an industrial
robot that enables the characterization of extended optical
freeform surfaces are addressed. The characterized samples
in this paper were fabricated and designed at Fraunhofer
IOF using approaches such as additive manufacturing, light-
weight design, or subaperture polishing.3,24,25 Therefore, the
*Address all correspondence to Tobias Herffurth, E-mail: tobias.herffurth@
iof.fraunhofer.de
16π 2
¼ Q cos θi cos2 θs PSDðf x ; f y Þ: (1)
λ4
Here, Q is an optical factor, which includes the conditions of
illumination and detection, such as polarization, incidence
angle θi , polar and azimuthal scattering angles (θs ; φs ), as
well as the dielectric function of the ideal interface.26 The
definitions of the scattering angles and the scattering relevant
quantities are summarized in Fig. 1.
For metallic surfaces and scattering angles close to the
specular direction, it is a good approximation to replace
0091-3286/2019/$28.00 © 2019 SPIE

Optical Engineering 092609-1 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor

Incident (a)
beam
ΔΩs Specular reflected beam
+ scaered light
θs
θi
ϕs

Fig. 1 Basic geometry for the definitions of specular and scattering

quantities.

Q by the reflectance of the sample.26 This also holds for (b)

some specific cases of multilayer surfaces with highly corre-
lated surface roughness10 for which otherwise multilayer scat-
tering models30,31 would have to be applied (see Sec. 4.2).
In Eq. (1), the roughness information is included as PSD
function, which represents the relative strength of roughness
component as a function of the spatial frequencies f x and
f y . The PSD is defined as the squared modulus of the
Fourier transform of a three-dimensional surface profile.
Integrating the PSD over a certain spatial frequency range
yields the bandwidth limited rms roughness:26,32
Z 2π Z f
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e002;63;481

max
σ ¼
2
PSDðfÞfdfdφ
0 f min
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Fig. 2 (a) Robotic light scattering sensor with (b) a scheme of the
with φ ¼ arctanðf y ∕f x Þ and f¼ f 2x þ f 2y : (2) optical setup: sample (1)/(7), sensor head (2), robot (3), laser source
(λ ¼ 650 nm) and optical fiber (4), spatial filter (5), polarizer (6),
sample (7), CMOS matrix detector (8).
Thereby also an azimuthally averaged PSD2Diso can be
defined, which enables comparison of PSD results in two-
dimensional diagrams. a clean beam on the sample; and a mirror, which images
In the context of scattering, spatial frequencies and scat- the pinhole of the spatial frequency filter onto the CMOS-
tering angles are linked by the grating equations: detector matrix. Thereby the angle of incidence onto the
sample is 18 deg. Calibrated ARS results are obtained with
sin θs cos φs − sin θi sin θs sin φs this setup using a white reflectance standard (Spectralon®) to
fx ¼ and fy ¼ : (3)
λ λ determine a signal proportional to the incident laser power.
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e003;63;358

The instrument signatures, represented by measurements

Hence, the spatial frequency limits of a scattering measure- of a superpolished silicon wafer, are shown for different
ment are defined by the illumination wavelength and the designs of the beam preparation system in Fig. 3, to empha-
accessible scattering angles. On the other hand, a PSD deter- size the challenges in designing (compact) scattering instru-
mined from scattering data provides averaged roughness ments. These measurements, which have to be analyzed over
information over the entire illumination spot, which is typ- several decades below the level of the specular reflected
ically 0.5 to 3 mm in diameter. beam, are the primary benchmark to assess the performance
of a scatterometer. The setups (a) and (b) are based on a plane-
3 Instrumentation convex lens, a low-cost laser diode module, and a 150-μm
pinhole, whereas setup (c) features a mirror as final imaging
3.1 Light Scattering Sensor element in the beam preparation system. In addition, the bet-
The main principle of the scattering sensor approach is based ter beam quality of the fiber-coupled laser diode module in
on a combination of a laser source, an illumination system, (c) enables a smaller pinhole of only 80 μm to be applied.
and a CMOS-detector matrix. Consequently, wavelengths Zemax was used to optimize the spot diagram on the
from about 370 to 950 nm could be used, depending on the detector and in combination with light scattering models
sensitivity of CMOS pixels. to identify contributions to the instrument signature caused
Figure 2(a) shows the current implementation of the light by component scattering or system internal reflections.
scattering sensor concept, presented in Refs. 7 and 19, as a These contributions are indicated in the figure. For configu-
compact sensor head in combination with an industrial ration (b), the plano-convex lens was tilted to reduce the con-
robot during the characterization of the hyperbolic mirror, tributions of back reflections between lens and pinhole to the
which will be discussed in Sec. 4.1. In part (b) of the figure, signature. Conversely, the increasing aberrations induced by
a scheme is given to introduce the primary sensor compo- this measure drastically increased the near-angular limit of
nents, which are a fiber-coupled laser diode module with the signature and, therefore, the capability for the roughness
a wavelength of 660 nm; a spatial frequency filter to obtain assessment at low spatial frequencies. However, setups (a)

Optical Engineering 092609-2 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor

Fig. 3 Instrument signatures obtained by measuring a silicon wafer for (a) lens-based, (b) a tilted lens-
based, and (c) a mirror-based setup of the beam preparation module. Zemax and light scattering models
of the imaging elements were applied to generate the spot diagrams and to identify the different
contributions to the instrument signature: pinhole re-reflex of the plane (1) or convex (2) lens side, bulk
scattering and internal reflexes of the lens (3), aberrations (4), scattering of the silicon waver (5), and
scattering from the mirror as final imaging element (6).

and (b) could be implemented with commercial optomechan-
ical components. A compact implementation of setup (c)
with a low incidence angle of 3 deg onto the mirror for dif-
fraction-limited imaging of the pinhole onto the detector
required the development of a customized x − y-stage for
pinhole alignment.
The final instrument signature of the scattering sensor (c)
reveals a sensitivity level of below 10−4 sr−1 and an angular
range that covers a cone angle of ±8 deg around the specular
reflected beam in the center. In combination with the near
angular limit of 0.3 deg, the grating equations yield a spatial
frequency range from 0.008 to 0.3 μm−1 for roughness and
PSD determination, which is similar to a WLI with a 10×
objective. The corresponding rms roughness of the signature
is about 0.3 nm.
Because of the large number and high density of
CMOS-pixels (2080 × 2080), the angular resolution is about
Δθs ¼ 0.008 deg and Δφ ¼ 0.025 deg. However, these val-
ues are slightly changing over the area of the CMOS-matrix.
In a future version of the scattering sensor, a piezo-driven
stage that moves the pinhole and the optics in front of the
pinhole will be implemented into the beam preparation sys-
tem. This is required to compensate the widening of the
specular reflex by the sample curvature, which would other-
wise result in misleading roughness results or a loss of
accessible spatial frequencies at the low bandwidth edge.
Exemplary measurement results with a test setup using a
piezo in the beam preparation system are shown in Fig. 4.
The sample was a diamond-turned aspherical aluminum sur-
face with a curvature radius of 100 mm at the vertex.
Even if the defocus induced by the sample is not compen-
sated, the PSD function obtained with the scattering sensor
demonstrates a good agreement to that from topography
data, which also demonstrate the robustness of the scattering

Optical Engineering 092609-3 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor
(a) With refocus (b) Without refocus
(c)
Fig. 4 Demonstration of the defocus and its compensation using a
piezo stage for scattering and PSD measurement results on a curved
aluminum sample. (a) and (b) Scattering distributions with and without
defocus compensation. The angular scaling of the scattering distribu-
tions is 1 deg for θs and 5 deg for φs . (c) Comparison of 2Diso-PSD
results.
approach. However, the near-angular limit and, therefore, the
lowest spatial frequency with reasonable data, is reduced
to about 0.05 μm−1 . Compensating this defocus extends the
low spatial frequency limit to 0.008 μm−1 —as it is for sam-
ples without curvature. After refocus, the diffraction peaks,
caused by the diamond turning structure, become more
defined and exhibit an excellent agreement to PSD from
topography data as well.
3.2 Robotic Handling Systems and Path Generation
For the results presented in this paper, the scattering sensor is
moved using a collaborative six-axis UR10 robot (Fig. 2),
produced by “Universal Robots A/S,” with a working radius
of 1300 mm and maximum handling mass of 10 kg. Owing
to collaborative properties, the required robot-specific safety
measures are reduced and it is possible to guide the scatter-
ing sensor by hand to representative positons on samples.
The referencing effort for samples and for the sensor’s illu-
mination point on the sample—which corresponds to the
tool center position (TCP)—is also reduced by the hand
guidance.
The key feature for the generation of automated measure-
ment paths is the parallel orientation of the light scattering
sensor to the local sample normal in the correct working dis-
tance of 13 mm. This path generation is achieved using func-
tions provided by the software RobotDK33 and its python
interface. Therefore, regular grids are projected onto a highly
resolved stl-file of the sample and the intersection points and
the local surface normals are calculated. Thereafter, a list of
robot poses is generated that is used by the sensor software to
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
move the sensor to the measurement positions on the sample.
Thus far, RoboDK is also used for referencing the TCP as
well as the samples with respect to the base coordinate sys-
tem of the robot, which is the base to link the stl-model of
the sample to real-world coordinates.
One of the major concerns before the combination of
robot and sensor was related to the positioning uncertainty
of the robot, in particular, regarding sensor sample orienta-
tion. Whereas the TCP position of industrial robots was
highly reproducible with uncertainties of only ±0.1 mm, the
information given by robot suppliers regarding absolute
positioning accuracy as well as orientation accuracy was
very limited. However, in experiments as those discussed
in Sec. 4, no reasonable deviations of the generated sensor
paths were observed. Possible deviations of sensor and
sample orientation remained below 0.5 deg.
3.3 Measurement Procedure, Accuracy, Speed, and
Spatial Resolution
At each measurement position in an area-covering surface
mapping, an image of the ARS is recorded from which the
local surface roughness is calculated. Areas influenced by
the specular reflex and parts of the instrument signature close
to specular reflex are excluded from the roughness calcula-
tion. While moving the sensor, the position of the specular
reflected beam on the CMOS matrix is continuously tracked
to adapt the position of the excluded angular range and to
compensate for minor deviations of the measurement dis-
tance or the angular orientation of the robot. The width of
the excluded angular range stays constant to guarantee a con-
stant low spatial frequency limit for the comparability of the
roughness results.
Modeling of the entire measurement process using Monte
Carlo methods according to the “guide to the expression of
uncertainty in measurement”34,35—in particular regarding
this compensation and geometrical uncertainties—are sum-
marized in Fig. 5. The figure shows the different contribu-
tions to the ARS, which are shown as function of the position
on the CMOS matrix for a measurement (high accuracy
mode) of an ideal mirror with a sensor-relevant roughness
of 1 nm. For the sample orientation deviation in this estima-
tion, Gaussian distributions with mean deviations of 2 mm
and of 0.5 deg for the working distance and for the polar
orientation, respectively, in combination with an equal dis-
tribution for the azimuthal orientation are assumed for the
sample as well as for the calibration sample orientation.
In addition to the CMOS noise, the highest contributions to
the relative ARS uncertainty are caused by deviations of the
sensor-sample distance and the angular orientation of the
sensor. However, the contributions are significantly reduced
by tracking the specular reflex, recalculating the respective
scattering coordinate system, and excluding the correct
section of the specular reflected beam.
Regarding the uncertainty of the roughness results
obtained from this modeling [Fig. 5(b)]: for an ideal sen-
sor-sample orientation, the uncertainty induced by laser and
detector noise is approximately 1.7% (k ¼ 2), whereas, it
only increases to about 4.8% by taking into account the geo-
metrical contributions to the overall uncertainty. These con-
tributions are deviations of the working distance as well as
of the angular orientation of the sensor to the local surface
normal.
092609-4 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor
Fig. 5 (a) Summary of different contributions to the relative uncertain-
ties of the ARS as a function of the position on the CMOS matrix
obtained from Monte Carlo modelling. In the upper rows the contribu-
tions of sensor-sample misalignment are shown for application with
and without reflex tracking (please note the different color scaling).
(b) Corresponding histogram for rms roughness obtained from the
modeled ARS distributions.
To provide fast overview or detailed results of the sample
scattering or its roughness, the sensor can be operated in
two modes: a fast measurement mode and a high accuracy
mode. The first is applied for the majority of raster scans
of surfaces, whereas the latter is applied for the single
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
measurement positions as well as for the instrument signa-
ture measurement.
The high accuracy mode consists of an image series with
multiple integration times, which is combined to form a sin-
gle calibrated scattering image for further evaluation. In this
mode, a dynamic range of about 5.5 decades can be covered.
However, recording and analyzing the data can take up to 2 s.
In the fast measurement mode, only a single image with
a fixed time and a dynamic range of only about 2.3 decades
(8-bit image including dark signal) is recorded and analyzed,
which provides enough information to assess roughness,
homogeneity, and defects. Only a single a-priori informa-
tion—a measurement at a clean position—is required to
identify the optimal exposure time for the measurement.
The fast measurement mode, only limited by the speed
of the camera, also enables an advanced regime with mea-
surements while the robot is continuously moving over the
surface. In this configuration, the local resolution in one
dimension is given by the density of the adjacent paths,
whereas the resolution in the other dimension is determined
by the ratio of current measurement rate and path velocity.
For example, for a speed of 10 mm/s and a frame rate of
20 Hz, the resolution or sampling distance would be 0.5 mm.
This mode enables measurement rates which are not limited
by the necessity to accelerate or decelerate the robot with the
frame rate of the CMOS sensor which is up to 24 Hz in full
resolution and even more than 60 Hz using a 2 × 2 hardware
binning. However, to exploit these fast acquisition rates,
parallelization of data record, transfer, and analysis and
smart measurement and analysis routines are currently under
development.
Results obtained from both movement approaches are
compared in Fig. 6. The resolution of both mappings is
about 0.5 × 0.5 mm with 165,000 single measurement points.
In the start–stop regime, the measurement did take 11 h,
whereas it was only 5¾ h for the continuous movements.
(The measurement rate was limited to about 8 Hz, as data rec-
ord and analysis is not yet parallelized.) To enable the continu-
ous mode, a ring-buffer software interface was implemented;
otherwise, the robot would not have been able to process the
number of target points (>2000) of a path without start–stop
movement.
3.4 Summary of Systems Parameters
A summary of the primary sensor and system parameters is
given in Table 1.
4 Application to Metallic Mirrors
4.1 Large Freeform Mirror
The characterization of a hyperbolic primary mirror with a
diameter of 600 mm for a Ritchey–Chrétien–Cassegrain
telescope is discussed in this section. The mirror form was
fabricated by diamond turning in aluminum.36 Thereafter, an
electroless nickel (NiP) coating was added and the mirror
was polished to remove the turning structure. The mapping
comprised about 94,000 single measurement positions and
was recorded in about 4 h in the continuous movement
mode with a resolution of ∼2 × 2 mm2 . In the mapping, the
two concentric rings of increased roughness were the most
prominent features, beside local defects and a slight increase
in the lower left.
092609-5 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor

Table 1 Summary of primary sensor parameters.

Comment

Angle of incidence 18 deg

Illumination wavelength 660 nm

Sensitivity <1 × 10−4 sr−1

Dynamic range 5.5 decades High accuracy

mode (image series)

Solid angle per pixel 2.1 × 10−8 sr Average

Angular range 8 deg Around reflex

Near-angular limit 0.3 deg

Signature corresponding 0.3 nm

roughness

Spatial frequency range 0.008 to 0.3 μm−1

ARS acquisition rate 0.5 per second High accuracy

mode (image series)

Up to 24 per Single shot

second measurement

the mapping. The corresponding scattering images (e.g., X4)

reveal a significantly different structure to those of the posi-
tions dominated by roughness. In addition to the increased
scattering, the fine speckle pattern of pure roughness is
superimposed by coarse scattering structures that exhibit
several minima and maxima.
These minima are also present for a fine scratch in the
image X3. Analyzing the angular distance of the minima
and the periodicity7,15 reveals an angular distance of the min-
ima of about 1 deg and, therefore, a width of the scratch of
about 106 μm.

Fig. 6 Comparison of mapping results obtained in (a) start–stop
movement and (b) continuous movement.
The raw scattering images from different positions, shown
in Fig. 7 as X1 to X4, are extracted from a screen capture
of the CMOS-sensor image while the robot is moving
(Video 1). They reveal different levels of residual turning
marks that change their orientation in correspondence to the
local orientation of the turning structure (X1, X2). The angu-
lar distance of the diffraction peaks to the specular reflex is
about 4 deg and corresponds to a turning frequency of f ¼
0.1 μm−1 or a period of 10 μm. The increased scattering
between the turning marks and perpendicular to the turning
direction is induced by the jitter of the turning process.
In addition to the scattering from turning marks, two com-
ponents of increased scattering with constant orientations
from the top right to the bottom left in the scattering images
as well as perpendicular to this direction can be observed.
The corresponding roughness structure on the surface is a
result of the polishing process.
A chip that is carried over the surface during turning
caused the two concentric rings of increased roughness in
4.2 Printed and Polished Metallic Surfaces with
Protective Coating
To achieve highly resolved roughness information over the
entire surface of a lightweight convex mirror,25 a raster scan
with a local resolution of 0.5 mm was performed (Fig. 9). At
each measurement position, an image of the ARS was
recorded (start–stop mode, single exposure time) from which
the local surface roughness was calculated. Thereby, the spa-
tial frequency range, which was reduced by the widening of
the specular reflex due to the sample curvature, was about
f ¼ 0.03 to 0.3 μm−1 .
The mirror base body is designed using optimized cell-
like internal support structures to realize a lightweight and
stiff design as well as a mass reduction of ∼65%. The
fabrication of this design is solely possible using additive
manufacturing.24 The base material is a powder of aluminum
silicon material with 40 weight % silicon (AlSi40) that is
processed with selective laser melting.3 The successive
processing steps include diamond turning, plating with elec-
troless nickel, polishing processes, and a final coating using
protected silver.25
Although the surface is coated with a 110 nm Al2 O3 pro-
tection layer, the roughness calculations are performed using

Optical Engineering 092609-6 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor
Fig. 7 Roughness mapping (a) of a hyperbolic mirror with scattering
images (X1 to X4) that are obtained from a video with continuous sen-
sor movement (Video 1). Figure 2 shows a photograph of this sample
taken during the characterization. The angular scaling in the pictures
(X1 to X4) is 2 deg for θs and 10 deg for φs . (Owing to the limitations
of the computer memory and the early state of software development
in this measurement, a direct correlation of sample position and scat-
tering image is not yet possible for this sample. Therefore, the position
labeled as X1 to X4 in the mapping are rough estimations. On the
other hand, the correlation of roughness value and position in the
mapping is valid.) (Video 1, .mp4, 10.5 MB [URL: https://doi.org/10
.1117/1.OE.58.9.092609.1]).
a single surface approximation of the protective coating.10
Figure 8 shows a comparison of the optical factor Q follow-
ing Rayleigh–Rice for single surfaces [Eq. (1)] and the
reflectivity of pure silver37 as well as the optical factor30,31
and the reflectivity31 for the protection layer. For the latter,
a perfect roughness replication and, therefore, full roughness
correlation are required for the relevant spatial frequency
range, which is typically fulfilled for thin coatings with low
intrinsic roughness.30,38
The curves reveal that, for the roughness calculation, the
optical factor can be approximated by the reflectivity of the
protected surface while the additionally induced relative
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
1.010
F prot. Ag Q Ag
1.005
R prot. Ag R Ag
optical factor / reflectance
1.000 AOI scattering sensor angular limits
0.995
0.990
0.985
0.980
0.975
0.970
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
scattering angle / angle of incidence in °
Fig. 8 Comparison of the optical factors Q and F for single surface
and multilayer scattering theory, respectively, as a function of the
scattering angle. In addition, the corresponding reflectivity curves of
silver and protected silver are given as function of the incidence
angle together with the incidence angle and the angular limits of the
scattering sensor (s-polarization for all curves).
deviation is below 0.5%. Even if the reflectivity of a pure
silver surface had been applied, the deviation would be
below 1%.
The mapping result in Fig. 9 reveals an increasing rough-
ness from the lower left, with an average roughness of about
0.5 nm, to the top right, with an average of about 1 nm. (The
large number of singular increased roughness values corre-
sponds to particles, since the measurements are not per-
formed in a clean room environment.)
Exemplary scattering distributions are shown in the lower
part of Fig. 9 as well. The measurement positions X1 to X3
reveal that the increase of the scattering level is not caused by
contamination or defects, since the changing vertical and
nonisotropic scattering component shows the typical fine
granular speckle structure of the roughness. This is typically
not the case for localized particles or defects like that at posi-
tion X4.
The roughness-induced anisotropic scattering, which is
increasing from X1 to X3, corresponds to a stochastic but
partially parallel structure on the surface. This structure
might be induced by the MRF polishing process, as, for
example, discussed in Ref. 20. In addition, the ARS meas-
urement at position X3 reveals a very weak residual turning
structure on the surface, indicated as minor diffraction peaks
in red circles, that is not removed by the polishing process.
Moreover, a scattering component which should correspond
to a parallel structure at low spatial frequencies is visible
close to the specular beam (labeled by green ellipses).
These effects additionally demonstrate that the roughness
in this spatial frequency region is dominated by roughness
components that are replicated from the substrate and, there-
fore, additionally justify the high level of roughness corre-
lation required for the application of the single surface
approximation.
To identify the relevant surface structure and for a cross-
check, WLI topography data are recorded within the regions
close to the positions labeled in Fig. 9. The results of X1 and
X3 are shown in Fig. 10 together with 2Diso -PSD functions
determined from topography and scattering results.
First, the curves reveal an excellent agreement in the over-
lapping regions. In addition, the topography data verify the
092609-7 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor
Fig. 9 Light scattering-based roughness analysis of a lightweight con-
vex aspherical mirror. (a) Roughness mapping obtained from light
scattering, together with a photograph of the sample. (X1) to (X4): light
scattering distribution recorded at four different positions on the
sample.
change of roughness over the surface, in particular, at higher
spatial frequencies (50× objective) as well as the parallel
grove structure visible in the scattering distributions close
to the specular reflex (10× objective). On the other hand, the
structure with a period of about 5 μm, corresponding to the
scattering feature at position X3 (red label) is, however, not
visible in the WLI images.
4.3 Mirrors with Lowest Roughness
The M2M4 assembly is fabricated as a component with two
mirrors on a single lightweight carrier structure to be used
within an afocal anamorphic imaging telescope for VIS appli-
cations. M2 and M4 are biconic aspheres with higher-order
correction terms and deviations from a rotational symmetry of
about a few millimeters each. Details on the fabrication proc-
ess and the optical design can be found in Ref. 2.
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
(a)
(b) 1E+9
WLI Sensor
X1
X1
1E+8
X2
X2
X3
4
X3
PSD in nm
1E+7
1E+6
1E+5
1E+4
0.01 0.1 1
spatial frequency f in µm-1
Fig. 10 (a) Topography data of position X1 and X3 from WLI with
objectives 10× and 50× with measurement areas of 698 × 523 μm2
and 140 × 105 μm2 , respectively. Comparison of 2Diso-PSD func-
tions obtained by WLI with 50× objective and scattering sensor for
the measurement positions X1 to X3.
The scatter map results of both mirrors, which are
recorded in a single run (start–stop regime, single exposure),
are summarized in Fig. 11. The different polishing processes
applied to the optical mirror surfaces result in an rms rough-
ness of only 0.4 nm (WLI 50X), which is below the sensi-
tivity limit of the scattering sensor and leads to a significant
influence of the instrument signature to the single ARS dis-
tributions. Nevertheless, the results demonstrate that the
roughness, within the spatial frequency range of the sensor,
is below 0.35 nm on both surfaces. On the other hand, the
ARS distributions at some positions, for example position
M4 X3, reveal a residual roughness structure close to the
specular direction which corresponds to the incomplete
removal of turning marks in the polishing process. Therefore,
even for surfaces with lowest roughness, valuable informa-
tion on defects, disturbing roughness components or fulfil-
ment of roughness limits can be assessed.
5 Summary and Outlook
The results presented in this paper demonstrate the enormous
potential of the surface assessment of freeform optics using
the robotic light scattering sensor. This is demonstrated for
single opaque surfaces as well as for a protected silver coat-
ing using a robot-guided sensor setup. Regarding roughness,
the comparability of the results to those of a WLI is demon-
strated and the influence of a protective layer is discussed.
In addition to the pure scattering information and single
092609-8 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor
Fig. 11 Roughness analysis of two mirrors on the same carrier structure. (a) Photography of the
sensor and the sample, (b) roughness mapping, and (X1 to X3) ARS distributions of three different
positions.
roughness numbers, valuable information on the different
roughness components of anisotropic surfaces is assessable.
In particular, the footprints of the different processes can be
identified and analyzed.
With the sensor setup, measurement frequencies of up
20 Hz and sensitivities down to 0.5 nm in a spatial frequency
range from 0.008 to 0.3 μm−1 can be achieved. Moreover,
the light scattering-based approach is robust and fast enough
that even measurements with a moving sensor system are
enabled.
In future developments, the implementation of a piezo
stage into the robotic light scattering sensor, as well as its
automation, is envisaged. The positive influence on the low
spatial frequency limit of the sensor, which is discussed in
this paper, would thus be available for samples with higher
variability of curvature compared to those presented in this
work. A further speed-up of the measurement rates should be
achievable by parallelization of movement, measurement,
and result calculation within the software as well as by using
the binning mode of the camera to reduce the amount of
transferred scattering data.
Another topic is the development of software modules
for the improved analysis of the scattering images regarding
specific features of the different processes (diamond turning,
MRF polishing, conventional polishing). Moreover, the de-
velopment of software modules to automatically detect and
classify defects is investigated.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Luisa Coriand, Sebastian
Korten, and Nadja Felde for their helpful discussions.
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
References
1. M. Beier et al., “Fabrication of high precision metallic freeform mirrors
with magnetorheological finishing (MRF),” Proc. SPIE 8884, 88840S
(2013).
2. M. Beier et al., “Large aperture freeform VIS telescope with smart align-
ment approach,” Proc. SPIE 9912, 99120Y (2016).
3. N. Heidler et al., “Additive manufacturing of metal mirrors for TMA
telescope,” Proc. SPIE 10692, 106920C (2018).
4. S. Risse, M. Beier, and J. Hartung, “Aspherical and freeform mirrors
based on ultra-precise manufacturing for telescopes in the VIS spectral
range,” Proc. SPIE 10562, 105625T (2017).
5. F. Z. Fang et al., “Manufacturing and measurement of freeform optics,”
CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 62(2), 823–846 (2013).
6. P. Dumas et al., “Complete sub-aperture pre-polishing and finishing sol-
ution to improve speed and determinism in asphere manufacture,” Proc.
SPIE 6671, 66711 (2007).
7. T. Herffurth et al., “Comprehensive nanostructure and defect analysis
using a simple 3D light-scatter sensor,” Appl. Opt. 52(14), 3279–3287
(2013).
8. S. Schröder et al., “Angle-resolved scattering: an effective method for
characterizing thin-film coatings,” Appl. Opt. 50(9), C164–C171
(2011).
9. A. V. Finck et al., “Characterization of optical coatings using a multi-
source table–top scatterometer,” Appl. Opt. 53(4), A259–A269
(2014).
10. S. Schröder et al., “Spectral angle resolved scattering of thin film coat-
ings,” Appl. Opt. 53(4), A35–A41 (2014).
11. M. Trost et al., “Structured Mo/Si multilayers for IR-suppression in
laser-produced EUV light sources,” Opt. Express 21(23), 27852–27864
(2013).
12. S. Schröder et al., “Bulk scattering properties of synthetic fused silica
at 193 nm,” Opt. Express 14(22), 10537–10549 (2006).
13. M. Trost et al., “Evaluation of subsurface damage by light scattering
techniques,” Appl. Opt. 52(26), 6579–6588 (2013).
14. T. A. Germer and C. C. Asmail, “Polarization of light scattered by
microrough surfaces and subsurface defects,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16(6),
1326–1332 (1999).
15. S. Maure, G. Albrand, and C. Amra, “Low-level scattering and localized
defects.” Appl. Opt. 35(28), 5573–5582 (1996).
16. Z.-H. Gu and J. M. Bennett, “Enhanced backscattering from very
smooth metal surfaces,” Proc. SPIE 2541, 45–53 (1995).
17. J. E. Harvey, “Scattering effects in x-ray imaging systems,” Proc. SPIE
2515, 264–272 (1995).
092609-9 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)
 Herffurth et al.: Assessing surface imperfections of freeforms using a robotic light scattering sensor
18. J. E. Harvey et al., “Calculating BRDFs from surface PSDs for mod-
erately rough optical surfaces,” Proc. SPIE 7426, 74260I (2009).
19. S. Schröder et al., “Device and method for angularly resolved scattered
light measurement,” Patent WO 002, 010, 127, 872 (2010).
20. M. Trost et al., “In situ and ex situ characterization of optical surfaces by
light scattering techniques,” Opt. Eng. 53(9), 092013 (2014).
21. A.-S. Munser, “Streulichtbasierte Detektion pathogener Keime,” in
DGaO Annual Meeting, Dresden (2017).
22. A.-S. Munser et al., “Towards label-free characterization of biological
samples using angle-resolved light scattering: from single cells to cell
aggregates” submitted to Biomedical Optics Express (2019)
23. S. Schröder et al., “Origins of light scattering from thin film coatings,”
Thin Solid Films 592, 248–255 (2015).
24. E. Hilpert et al., “Precision manufacturing of a lightweight mirror body
made by selective laser melting,” Precis. Eng. 53, 310–317 (2018).
25. E. Hilpert et al., “Design, additive manufacturing, processing, and char-
acterization of metal mirror made of aluminum silicon alloy for space
applications” Opt. Eng. 58(9) (2019).
26. J. C. Stover, Optical Scattering: Measurement and Analysis, 3rd ed.,
SPIE, Bellingham, Washington (2012).
27. A. Duparré, “Scattering from surfaces and thin films,” in Encyclopedia
of Modern Optics, B. D. Guenther, D. G. Steel, and L. Bayvel, Eds.,
Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004).
28. E. L. Church, H. A. Jenkinson, and J. M. Zavada, “Relationship
between surface scattering and microtopographic features,” Opt. Eng.
18(2), 125–136 (1979).
29. J. M. Bennett and L. Mattsson, Introduction to Surface Roughness and
Scattering, 2nd ed., Optical Society of America, Washington D.C
(1999).
30. P. Bousquet, F. Flory, and P. Roche, “Scattering from multilayer thin
films: theory and experiment,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 71(9), 1115–1123
(1981).
31. P. Bussemer, K. Hehl, and S. Kassam, “Theory of light scattering from
rough surfaces and interfaces and from volume inhomogeneities in an
optical layer stack,” Waves Random Media 1(4), 207–221 (1991).
32. A. Duparré et al., “Surface characterization techniques for determining
the root-mean-square roughness and power spectral densities of optical
components,” Appl. Opt. 41(1), 154–171 (2002).
33. Software RoboDK, by RoboDK inc., https://robodk.com/index
(Accessed 14 Dec 2018)
34. Working Group 1, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM/
WG 1), Uncertainty of measurement - part 3: Guide to the expression of
uncertainty in measurement,” (GUM:1995, ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008)
(2008).
35. T. Herffurth, “Light scattering and roughness analysis of optical surfaces
and thin films,” PhD Thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena (2008)
36. R. Steinkopf et al., “Metal mirrors with excellent figure and roughness,”
Proc. SPIE 7102, 71020C (2008).
37. M. N. Polyanskiy, “Refractive index database,” https://refractiveindex
.info/ (Accessed 14 Dec 2018).
38. M. Trost et al., “Scattering reduction through oblique multilayer dep-
osition,” Appl. Opt. 53(4), A197–204 (2014).
Tobias Herffurth graduated in physics in 2008 and received his PhD
from Friedrich–Schiller-University, Jena, in 2015. Since 2006, he has
been with the surface and thin film characterization group at the
Optical Engineering
Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering on 09 May 2019
Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Optics and Precision Engineering
(IOF) in Jena, Germany, working on methods and applications for light
scattering-based surface, defect, and thin film characterization.
Marcus Trost graduated in physics in 2009 and received his PhD
from the Friedrich–Schiller-University, Jena, in 2015. Since 2008,
he has been with the surface and thin film characterization group
at the Fraunhofer IOF Jena. His interests are directed to the study
of optical surfaces, thin film coatings as well as optical systems with
particular focus on nanostructures and microstructures, subsurface
damage, and light scattering, as well as to the development of new
measurement and modeling techniques.
Matthias Beier works as a scientist in the Precision Engineering
Department at Fraunhofer IOF. He received his diploma (Dipl.-Ing.)
in precision engineering from the Technical University of Dresden
in 2012 and his PhD in applied physics (Dr.-Ing.) from Friedrich-
Schiller-University of Jena in 2017. Currently, he is leading the
ultra-precision manufacturing research group at Fraunhofer IOF with
a focus on the fabrication and metrology of freeform optical compo-
nents and systems.
Ralf Steinkopf is a graduate engineer and works at the precision
engineering department of the Fraunhofer IOF, Jena. His field of work
and his current research is centered on developing technologies for
the manufacturing of metal optics. In particular, freeform optics and
structured surfaces are his fields of work.
Nils Heidler graduated in precision engineering in 2008 and received
his PhD in mechanical engineering from the Technische Universität
Ilmenau in 2015 under the supervision of Professor René Theska. His
current research interests include additive manufacturing for optical
applications and precision mechanical systems.
Tom Pertermann studied physics at the Friedrich Schiller University
(FSU), Jena, and graduated in 2017. Currently, he is a PhD student
at the Precision Engineering Department at Fraunhofer IOF. His
research focus lies in the evaluation of surface errors of diamond-
turned freeform mirrors, with the aim to reduce the surface waviness.
Sven Schröder is the head of the surface and thin film characteriza-
tion group in the optical systems department of Fraunhofer IOF in
Jena. He graduated in physics from FSU in Jena, in 2004 and
received his PhD (Dr. rer. nat.) from the FSU in 2008. Since 2001,
he has been with the surface and thin film characterization group at
the Fraunhofer IOF. In 2010, he spent one year at the University of
Central Florida/CREOL in Orlando, Florida, to work on surface rough-
ness and scattering models. His interests are directed to the study
of roughness, light scattering, and functional properties of surfaces
and thin film coatings.
092609-10 September 2019 • Vol. 58(9)