Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Evaluation of material surface profiling methods: contact versus non-contact|
|Publisher:||Brunel University London|
|Abstract:||Accurate determination of surface texture is essential for the manufacturing of mechanical components within design specifications in engineering and materials science disciplines. It is also required for any subsequent modifications to physical properties and functional aspects of the object. A number of methods are available to characterize any surface through the measurement of roughness parameters that can then be used to describe surface texture. These methods may be divided into those in that direct contact is made with the surface and those where such contact is not required. This report describes two methods approach for the surface profiling of a quartz glass substrate for step height, and tungsten substrate for roughness measure. A stylus profilometer (contact method) and vertical scanning interferometer, (VSI) or (non-contact optical method) were used for step height and roughness parameter measurements. A comparison was made with nominal values assigned to the studied surface, and conclusions drawn about the relative merits of the two methods. Those merits were found to differ, depending on the parameters under consideration. The stylus method gave better agreement of step height values for dimensions greater than a micron. Both methods showed excellent accuracy at smaller dimensions. Both methods also provided accurate average roughness values, although the VSI data significantly overestimated 35% above the peak-to-valley parameter. Likely sources and nature of such differences are discussed based on the results presented, as well as on the previous comparison studies reported in the literature. Because of such method-specific differences, the multi-technique approach used in this work for accurate surface profiling appears to be a more rational option than reliance upon a single method. Both contact and non-contact approaches have problems with specific roughness parameters, but a hybrid approach offers the possibility of combining the strengths of both methods and eliminating their individual weaknesses.|
|Description:||This thesis was submitted for the award of Master of Philosophy and was awarded by Brunel University London|
|Appears in Collections:||Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering|
Dept of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering Theses
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.