2017
Shultz, J. A.; Davies, M.; Suleski, T. J.
Simplified Tolerancing of Alignment Errors in Dynamic Freeform Optical Systems Conference
Freeform 2017 (Freeform, IODC, OFT), Optical Society of America, 2017.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: assembly, related
@conference{Suleski17_1,
title = {Simplified Tolerancing of Alignment Errors in Dynamic Freeform Optical Systems},
author = {J. A. Shultz and M. Davies and T. J. Suleski},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1364/FREEFORM.2017.JTh1C.3},
doi = {10.1364/FREEFORM.2017.JTh1C.3},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-07-13},
booktitle = {Freeform 2017 (Freeform, IODC, OFT)},
publisher = {Optical Society of America},
abstract = {We discuss and demonstrate approaches for analyzing and quantifying the sensitivity of dynamic freeform optical systems to positioning errors, and the resulting impacts on optical performance. Imaging and non-imaging examples are considered.},
keywords = {assembly, related},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
We discuss and demonstrate approaches for analyzing and quantifying the sensitivity of dynamic freeform optical systems to positioning errors, and the resulting impacts on optical performance. Imaging and non-imaging examples are considered.
Shultz, J. A.; Smilie, P. J.; Davies, M. A.; Suleski, T. J.
Optomechanical tolerancing of dynamic freeform optical systems Conference
Proceedings ASPE/ASPEN Spring Topical Meeting: Manufacture and Metrology of Structured and Freeform Surfaces for Functional Applications, ASPE/ASPEN, 2017, (Proceedings of ASPE/ASPEN Spring Topical Meeting).
BibTeX | Tags: assembly, related
@conference{Suleski17_4,
title = {Optomechanical tolerancing of dynamic freeform optical systems},
author = {J. A. Shultz and P. J. Smilie and M. A. Davies and T. J. Suleski},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-03-16},
booktitle = {Proceedings ASPE/ASPEN Spring Topical Meeting: Manufacture and Metrology of Structured and Freeform Surfaces for Functional Applications},
publisher = {ASPE/ASPEN},
note = {Proceedings of ASPE/ASPEN Spring Topical Meeting},
keywords = {assembly, related},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
2014
Thompson, K. P.; Rolland, J. P.
Cost-driven self-consistent fabrication and assembly tolerance classes Conference
Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 9633, no. 96330U, 2014.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: assembly, design, related
@conference{Thomsponoptifab15b,
title = {Cost-driven self-consistent fabrication and assembly tolerance classes},
author = {Thompson, K.P. and J.P. Rolland},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195783},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-10-11},
urldate = {2014-10-11},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the SPIE},
volume = {9633},
number = {96330U},
abstract = {At the 1994 International Optics Design Conference, a paper was presented by the author that proposed that optics costs are often driven by the fabrication and assembly tolerances. In addition, that these tolerances fall into groups (classes) that for any given shop are set typically by the capital investment in measurement equipment that the shop has access to. The premise is then that it is essential that the optical system tolerances on fabrication, e.g. radii, element thickness, wedge, surface figure, and surface finish and on assembly e.g. component tilt and decenter and spacer thickness and wedge that are assigned by the optical designer be self-consistent with the capabilities of the shops that are solicited to provide a quotation.
In the 1994 paper, five classes of optical fabricators were identified; catalog, regular, select, premium, and ultimate (lithography). For each of these classes, representative minimum tolerances were published along with estimates of the cost increment. An important concept is that if any one tolerance falls into a tighter class, then the optical system must be built in a shop capitalized to provide that one minimum tolerance and as a result all the other tolerances can typically be moved to the tighter class with little cost impact. The primary cost impact then is driven by the class of shop dictated by the minimum tolerance. In this talk, a primary purpose is to revisit the tolerances associated with a given class of shop and update the numbers to reflect advances in the intervening two decades.},
keywords = {assembly, design, related},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
At the 1994 International Optics Design Conference, a paper was presented by the author that proposed that optics costs are often driven by the fabrication and assembly tolerances. In addition, that these tolerances fall into groups (classes) that for any given shop are set typically by the capital investment in measurement equipment that the shop has access to. The premise is then that it is essential that the optical system tolerances on fabrication, e.g. radii, element thickness, wedge, surface figure, and surface finish and on assembly e.g. component tilt and decenter and spacer thickness and wedge that are assigned by the optical designer be self-consistent with the capabilities of the shops that are solicited to provide a quotation.
In the 1994 paper, five classes of optical fabricators were identified; catalog, regular, select, premium, and ultimate (lithography). For each of these classes, representative minimum tolerances were published along with estimates of the cost increment. An important concept is that if any one tolerance falls into a tighter class, then the optical system must be built in a shop capitalized to provide that one minimum tolerance and as a result all the other tolerances can typically be moved to the tighter class with little cost impact. The primary cost impact then is driven by the class of shop dictated by the minimum tolerance. In this talk, a primary purpose is to revisit the tolerances associated with a given class of shop and update the numbers to reflect advances in the intervening two decades.
In the 1994 paper, five classes of optical fabricators were identified; catalog, regular, select, premium, and ultimate (lithography). For each of these classes, representative minimum tolerances were published along with estimates of the cost increment. An important concept is that if any one tolerance falls into a tighter class, then the optical system must be built in a shop capitalized to provide that one minimum tolerance and as a result all the other tolerances can typically be moved to the tighter class with little cost impact. The primary cost impact then is driven by the class of shop dictated by the minimum tolerance. In this talk, a primary purpose is to revisit the tolerances associated with a given class of shop and update the numbers to reflect advances in the intervening two decades.