applied
sciences
Article
A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of High-Frequency
Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted Sculpturing of
Optical Microstructures
Canbin Zhang 1, * , Chi-Fai Cheung 1, * , Xiaoliang Liang 1 and Benjamin Bulla 2
Citation: Zhang, C.; Cheung, C.-F.;
Liang, X.; Bulla, B. A Theoretical and
Experimental Investigation of
High-Frequency Ultrasonic
Vibration-Assisted Sculpturing of
Optical Microstructures. Appl. Sci.
2022, 12, 10937. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app122110937
Academic Editor: Theodore
E. Matikas
Received: 27 September 2022
Accepted: 26 October 2022
Published: 28 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122110937
1 State key Laboratory of Ultra-Precision Machining Technology, Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
2 Son-x Gmbh, 52078 Aachen, Germany
* Correspondence: canbin.zhang@connect.polyu.hk (C.Z.); benny.cheung@polyu.edu.hk (C.-F.C.);
Tel.: +852-5623-2030 (C.Z.); +852-2766-7905 (C.-F.C.)
Featured Application: The outcome of the study provides an efficient machining way to fabricate
optical microstructure mold made of difficult-to-machine materials which could be used for mass
production of optical functional components.
Abstract: Ultrasonic vibration-assisted cutting (UVAC) has been regarded as a promising technology
to machine difficult-to-machine materials. It allows for a sub-micrometer form accuracy and surface
roughness in the nanometer range. In this paper, high-frequency vibration-assisted sculpturing is
used to efficiently fabricate quadrilateral microlens array with sharp edges, instead of using slow-
slide-servo diamond turning with vibration. The machining principle of diamond sculpturing, the
cutting dynamics of ultrasonic vibration, and the tool edge on the theoretical form error between
the designed structure and the machined structure were investigated for this technique. Then, the
quadrilateral microlens array was machined by means of conventional sculpturing (CS) and high-
frequency ultrasonic vibration-assisted sculpturing (HFUVAS), respectively, followed by a study of
the cutting performances including form accuracy, the surface morphology of the machined structure,
and the tool wear. Results showed that conventional sculpturing fabricated microlens array with
poor form accuracy and surface finish due to couple effect of material adhesion and tool wear, while
the high-frequency ultrasonic vibration-assisted sculpturing achieved optical application level with
sub-micrometer form accuracy and surface roughness of nanometer due to reduction of material
adhesion and tool wear resulted from high-frequency intermittent cutting.
Keywords: high frequency; ultrasonic vibration-assisted sculpturing; difficult-to-machine material;
optical microstructured steel mold; ultra-precision machining
1. Introduction
The demand for ultraprecision machining of micro-structured functional surfaces,
such as microlens array, pyramid array, retroreflective array, and diffraction grating, has
been increasing in many advanced optical products and devices. Ultra-precision machining
technology, including slow slide servo [1], fast tool servo [2], and ultra-precision milling [3]
is applicable to the machining of these functional structures with complex geometry. To en-
hance the widespread use of these structured surfaces, high temperature forming processes
such as injection molding or compression molding is considered as an effective and efficient
method. The premise of this technology is to fabricate a mold with difficult-to-machine
materials such as steel. However, direct diamond machining of steel with the super finish
is not amenable due to extreme chemical tool wear [4]. As a result, UVAC has been applied
due to reduced tool wear [5,6] and better surface finish [7,8].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 2 of 14

There are several UVAC methods to fabricate complex structured surfaces on difficult-
to-machine materials. Suzuki and Zhang developed a novel structure sculpturing method
by modifying vibration amplitude according to workpiece geometry in an ultrasonic
elliptical vibration cutting process so complex micro/nanostructures were successfully
machined on hardened steel without moving the Z-axis slide towards and backward the
workpiece [9,10]. To enhance geometric complexity as well as improve machining efficiency,
a fast tool servo was integrated with ultrasonic vibration-assisted cutting. Consequently,
the double-frequency vibration cutting method has been proposed, in which the system
consists of one-dimension (1D) low-frequency vibration used to generate the complex tool
path for the workpiece geometry acting as a fast tool servo, and a high-frequency vibration
responsible for improving the machinability of the workpiece materials [11,12]. Kurniawan
et al. [13] added ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting to a low-frequency setup for texturing
micro-dimple patterns on steel. Regarding slow-slide-servo machining, a few scholars
applied the state-of-art and high-frequency ultrasonic tooling system (UTS2) to machine
structures with smooth tool paths such as sinusoidal grids on hard-to-machine materials
including steel [14] and high entropy alloy [15], achieving sub-micrometer form accuracy
and surface finish with nanometer roughness.
Slow-slide-servo based machining in which the Z-axis slide moves out and in accord-
ing to the workpiece geometry to generate the structured surface is a more convenient pro-
cessing method compared with the structure sculpturing method or the double-frequency
vibration cutting method, with no need for extra signal control operation or fast tool servo
equipment. However, as the Z-axis slide has a large volume and inertia, the tool path is
expected to be smooth enough to avoid overshoot and vibration induced by the quick
acceleration of the Z-axis slide. Unfortunately, it is hard or impossible to ensure a smooth
tool path for slow-slide-servo diamond turning of complex structures with sharp edges
such as quadrilateral microlens array since the tool path is generated randomly along a
spiral line. Mukaida et al. [16] proposed a slow-slide-servo segment turning method to
cut hexagonal microlens arrays by multiple groups so that a smooth approaching zone for
each lenslet could be established to avoid the sudden change in direction of the tool path.
However, it requires reconduction of the 3D structure to add the smooth approaching zone
and it is time-consuming due to the need for multiple times of machining. In contrast, in
diamond sculpturing, the cutting tool moves linearly to machine the lenslets by one tool
path instead of multiple tool paths enveloping the lenslets as diamond turning. As a result,
the target profile is simpler and more regular so that a smooth tool path can be generated
by data processing to avoid overshoot or vibration of the cutting tool. More importantly,
the machining time can be reduced considerably to improve machining efficiency.
A few studies have been made on machinable material via conventional diamond
sculpturing. Yuan et al. [17] conducted a series of sculpturing experiments and found
that the slope angle of the tool path played a key role in the determination of the material
spring back and the burr formation, then proposed a theory to explain the tool indentation
effect in diamond cutting of optical micro-structured surfaces. Li et al. [18] conducted the
sculpturing of a microlens array on an intrinsic silicon substrate. Although the surface
roughness of the machined structure was in the nanometer range, form accuracy was
poor, which suggested that it might be difficult for conventional sculpturing to accurately
machine hard materials. Currently, little research has been found to provide new insight
into the diamond sculpturing of microlens arrays with sharp edges on steel materials.
Reduced tool wear [19], optimal surface finish [20] and fine form accuracy are the concerns
in the machining process. To improve machinability and reduce tool wear in the machining
of microlens array on steel, the high-frequency ultrasonic vibration-assisted sculpturing
was applied. As a result, the purpose of this research is to conduct a theoretical and
experimental investigation of high-frequency ultrasonic vibration-assisted sculpturing
of optical microstructures on steel workpieces. The machining principle of diamond
sculpturing, as well as the cutting dynamics of ultrasonic vibration on the theoretical form
error in diamond sculpturing, was analyzed and determined. Form accuracy, the surface
 turing, as well as the cutting dynamics of ultrasonic vibration on the theoretical form er
in diamond sculpturing, was analyzed and determined. Form accuracy, the surface m
phology of the machined structures, and the tool wear were measured and analyzed. F
thermore, conventional sculpturing was also conducted for comparison.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 3 of 14

2. Principle and Theoretical Form Error of Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted Sculpturin

of Quadrilateral
morphology of Microlens
the machinedArray
structures, and the tool wear were measured and analyzed.
Furthermore, conventional
Quadrilateral microlens sculpturing
array canwas
bealso conducted
described byforEquation
comparison.
(1):
2. Principle and Theoretical Form[𝑥Error − 0.5)]2 +
− 𝑝1of(𝑖Ultrasonic [𝑦 − 𝑝2 (𝑗 − 0.5)]
Vibration-Assisted 2
Sculpturing
(𝑥, 𝑦) = Array
of Quadrilateral𝑧Microlens
𝑟+ −be
√𝑟can 2
[𝑥described
− 𝑝1 (𝑖 −by
0.5)] − [𝑦(1): 2
− 𝑝2 (𝑗 − 0.5)] 2
Quadrilateral microlens array Equation
where 𝑖 and 𝑗 are the sequence number of the lenslet in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 direction, 𝑟 is
[ x − p1 (i − 0.5)]2 + [y − p2 ( j − 0.5)]2
microlens radius.z(𝑝x,1y)and = 𝑝 qare pitches
2 of the lenslet in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 direction, (1) wh
r + r2 − [ x − p1 (i − 0.5)]2 − [y − p2 ( j − 0.5)]2
were set as the same value in this work.
Figure
where 1 presents
i and j are thethe configuration
sequence number ofof thethe cutting
lenslet system
in the x and and tool path
y direction, r is in
theslow-sli
servo diamond
microlens turning
radius. p1 andand diamond
p2 are pitches ofsculpturing
the lenslet in of
themicrolens array.which
x and y direction, In slow-slide-se
were
set as the same value in this work.
diamond turning as shown in Figure 1a, C-axis, X-axis, and Z-axis are configurated a
Figure 1 presents the configuration of the cutting system and tool path in slow-slide-
the tool path is generated along a spiral line. This tool path generation strategy could
servo diamond turning and diamond sculpturing of microlens array. In slow-slide-servo
counter difficulties
diamond turning in the machining
as shown in Figure 1a,of C-axis,
those structures with sharp
X-axis, and Z-axis edges, including
are configurated and lin
interpolation
the tool pathdeviation
is generatedof tool
alongpath sampling,
a spiral line. Thisovershoot, and vibration
tool path generation of machine
strategy could mot
encounter
response difficulties
at sharp in the
edges. By machining
contrast, of those structuressculpturing,
in diamond with sharp edges,
as including
shown in linear
Figure 1b
interpolation deviation of tool path sampling, overshoot, and vibration of machine motion
axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis are configurated and the tool path is generated along the symm
response at sharp edges. By contrast, in diamond sculpturing, as shown in Figure 1b, X-axis,
ric line of the
Y-axis, and lenslets.
Z-axis are In this technique,
configurated and theatool round
path tool is usedalong
is generated to machine lenslets by
the symmetric
tool line
pathofinstead of multiple
the lenslets. tool paths
In this technique, a roundenveloping
tool is usedthe structure
to machine profile
lenslets as diamond
by one tool tu
ing. The tool path generation strategy becomes simple, and it could ensure that the sa
path instead of multiple tool paths enveloping the structure profile as diamond turning.
plingThe tool path
points generation
of the strategy
tool path becomes
appear simple,
at the and edge
sharp it could ensure
and that thecutting
segment samplingcan be p
points of the tool path appear at the sharp edge and segment cutting can be performed
formed to avoid overshoot and vibration of machine motion at the sharp edge caused
to avoid overshoot and vibration of machine motion at the sharp edge caused by a quick
a quick acceleration
acceleration of theslide.
of the Z-axis Z-axis slide.

Figure
Figure 1. Configurationof
1. Configuration of the
the cutting
cuttingsystems andand
systems tool paths of microlens
tool paths array for: array
of microlens (a) diamond
for: (a) diam
turning and (b) diamond sculpturing.
turning and (b) diamond sculpturing.

2.1. Theoretical Form Error Induced by Overcut of Vibration in HFUVAS

The target line is the theoretical tool path to cut the microlens array without cons
eration of the smoothing tool path in HFUVAS, which can be described by Equation (
 [𝑦 − 𝑝2 (𝑛 − 0.5)]2
𝑧0 (𝑦) = (2)
𝑟 + √𝑟 2 − [𝑦 − 𝑝2 (𝑛 − 0.5)]2
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 4 of 14
where 𝑛 is the sequence number of the lenslet in the 𝑦 direction, 𝑟 is the lenslet radius.
𝑝2 is the lenslet pitch in the 𝑦 direction. During the HFUVAS process, the diamond tool
is moved along the2.1. Theoretical
target Form The
profile. Error tool
Induced
tipbywithout
Overcut ofconsidering
Vibration in HFUV ASvibration is deter-
tool
mined by Equation (3):The target line is the theoretical tool path to cut the microlens array without considera-
tion of the smoothing tool path in HFUVAS, which can be described by Equation (2):
𝑦1 (𝑡) = 𝑣𝑐 𝑡
{ [y − p (n − 0.5)]2 (3)
𝑧z10((𝑡y)) = q 1 (𝑡 ))2
= 𝑧0 (𝑦 (2)
2
r+ r2 − [y − p2 (n − 0.5)]
where 𝑡 is the cutting time, 𝑣𝑐 is the nominal cutting speed. In addition, the tool tip vi-
where n is the sequence number of the lenslet in the y direction, r is the lenslet radius. p2 is
brates at a high-frequency vibration, which is assumed to be linear, and it can be deter-
the lenslet pitch in the y direction. During the HFUVAS process, the diamond tool is moved
mined by Equation (4):the target profile. The tool tip without considering tool vibration is determined by
along
Equation (3): 
1 ( t ) =) vc t
𝑦2 (𝑡) = 𝐴 𝑐𝑜𝑠(y2𝜋𝑓𝑡 (4)
(3)
z1 (t) = z0 (y1 (t))
where 𝑓 is vibration
wherefrequency
t is the cutting 𝐴 is
andtime, vc vibration amplitude.
is the nominal Then,
cutting speed. the tool
In addition, the tip
tooltrajectory
tip vibrates
considering tool vibration can be determined
at a high-frequency vibration, whichbyisEquation
assumed to(5):
be linear, and it can be determined by
Equation (4):
𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑦1y(2𝑡()t)+= 𝑦A2cos
(𝑡)(2π f t) (4)
{ (5)
where f
( ) ( )
𝑧 𝑡 = 𝑧1 vibration
is vibration frequency and A is
𝑡 amplitude. Then, the tool tip trajectory
When the toolconsidering tool vibration
decomposition speed canin
bethe
determined by Equationis
y-axis direction (5):
zero,
the front-cut limit
and back-cut limit of the tool track appear in each

vibration
y(t) = y1 (t) + y2 (cycle.
t) As a result, they can be
(5)
determined by solving Equation (6) as follows: z(t) = z1 (t)
𝑦 ′ (𝑡)speed
When the tool decomposition = 0 in the y-axis direction is zero, the front-cut limit
(6)
and back-cut limit of the tool track appear in each vibration cycle. As a result, they can be
Based on determined
Equations by solving
(2)–(6), theEquation (6) as follows:
tool trajectory with the front-cut limit and back-cut
limit in HFUVAS of a certain target profile can beyobtained. 0
(t) = 0 Figure 2a presents the simu- (6)
lated cutting results in HFUVAS of the target profile of microlens array. The vibration
frequency and vibration Based on Equations
amplitudes are (2)–(6), the tool
104 kHz and trajectory
0.75 μm. withThe
the front-cut
radius and limitpitch
and back-cut
of the
limit in HFUVAS of a certain target profile can be obtained. Figure 2a presents the simulated
lenslet are 1 mm and 199.75
cutting resultsμm, with aoflenslet
in HFUVAS the targetdepth
profileof 5 μm. The
of microlens back
array. The limit
vibrationof frequency
the tool
track forms a back-cut line toamplitudes
and vibration be left onare the104workpiece
kHz and 0.75in a downhill
µm. line.
The radius and Byofcontrast,
pitch the lensletthe
are
1 mm and 199.75 µm, with a lenslet depth of 5 µm. The back limit
front limit connects as a front-cut line to leave the workpiece in an uphill line. As a result, of the tool track forms
a back-cut line to be left on the workpiece in a downhill line. By contrast, the front limit
the cut line deviates from the target line, leading to a theoretical form error. It should be
connects as a front-cut line to leave the workpiece in an uphill line. As a result, the cut line
noted that as the slope angle
deviates fromofthethe target
target line, profile
leading toalong the cutting
a theoretical direction
form error. increases,
It should the
be noted that
theoretical form error also increases. For the target profile of the microlens array, the max-
as the slope angle of the target profile along the cutting direction increases, the theoretical
form error
imum form error arises also edge
at the increases. For the two
between targetadjacent
profile of the microlens
lenslets, asarray,
shown the maximum
in Figureform 2b.
error arises at the edge between two adjacent lenslets, as shown in Figure 2b.

(a) HFUVAS
Figure 2. in
Figure 2. (a) Tool trajectory Tool trajectory
ofinthe
HFUVAS
targetofline
the target line of microlens
of microlens array,array,
(b) a(b) a comparisonof
comparison of the
the
target line and cut line, with r of 1 mm and p2 of 199.75 µm.
target line and cut line, with 𝑟 of 1 mm and 𝑝2 of 199.75 μm.

2.2. Theoretical Form Error Caused by Overcut of Tool Edge in HFUVAS

In diamond sculpturing of a microlens array, there exists a theoretical form error be-
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 5 of 14

2.2. Theoretical Form Error Caused by Overcut of Tool Edge in HFUVAS

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 1
In diamond sculpturing of a microlens array, there exists a theoretical form error
between the designed microlens array and the machined microlens array induced by
overcutting of the tool edge. Take sculpturing of a single lenslet with an aperture of
AC 1 EC2 as shown
curvature radius inof Figure 3. When
the lenslet the diamond
contour tool moves
perpendicular to thealong the direction
cutting target lineincreases
of t
ABCDE, the curvature radius of the lenslet contour perpendicular to the cutting
the largest at point C and then decreases. Since the tool radius keeps constant which i direction
increases
equal totothe thelargest
largest at point C and
curvature then at
radius decreases.
point C,Since
the the
tooltool radius
edge willkeeps constant
overcut the materia
which is equal to the largest curvature radius at point C, the tool edge will overcut the
when the tool moves along line ABCDE except at the point of C. To be specific, at th
material when the tool moves along line ABCDE except at the point of C. To be specific,
atposition of point
the position C, the
of point lenslet
C, the contour
lenslet contourperpendicular
perpendicularto tothe
the cutting directionisisline
cutting direction line C1CC
Cwhose curvature radius is equal to the tool radius. While at point D, the curvature radiu
1 CC2 , whose curvature radius is equal to the tool radius. While at point D, the curvature
of theoflenslet
radius contour,
the lenslet namely
contour, namelythethe radius
radius ofofline
lineD1DDD
1DD 2 as
2 as depicted
depicted onblue
on the thecircle
blue circle i
issmaller
smallerthan the tool
than the toolradius,
radius,resulting
resulting in the
in the tooltool
edgeedge overcutting
overcutting the
the line D1line
DD2 D 1DD2. As
. As
aresult,
result, overcut
overcut of the tool edge in HFUVAS leads to a deviation between
of the tool edge in HFUVAS leads to a deviation between the designe the designed
structure
structureandand thethe
machined
machined structure.
structure.

Figure3.3.AA
Figure schematic diagram
schematic of diamond
diagram sculpturing
of diamond of microlens
sculpturing array. array.
of microlens

It is essential to generate the machined structured surface and identity the theoretical
It is essential to generate the machined structured surface and identity the theoretica
form error between the designed microlens array and the microlens array generated by
form
tool edgeerror between in
sculpturing theorder
designed microlens
to evaluate array andaccuracy
the machining the microlens
for this array generated b
machining
tool edge sculpturing in order to evaluate the machining accuracy for this
technique. In this process, two coordinate systems, namely the local tool coordinate system machining tech
nique.
(O t xt yt ztIn thisthe
) and process, twocoordinate
workpiece coordinate systems,
system (Ow xnamely thedefined
w yw zw ) are local tool coordinate
as depicted in system
◦ , tool edge in the local tool coordinate
(𝑂𝑡 𝑥𝑡 𝑦𝑡 𝑧𝑡 ) and the workpiece coordinate system (𝑂𝑤 𝑥𝑤 𝑦𝑤 𝑧𝑤 ) are defined as depicted i
Figure 4a. Considering the tool rake angle is 0
system
Figureis4a. determined by Equation
Considering the tool(7) [21]:angle is 0°, tool edge in the local tool coordinate sys
rake
tem is determined by Equation
 (7) [21]:
 xt = Rcosθt
yt𝑥=
𝑡 =
0 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
, θt ∈
𝑡 [ θmin , θmax ] (7)
𝑦𝑡 =t 0
zt ={ − Rsinθ , 𝜃𝑡 ∈ [𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 ] (7

𝑧𝑡 = −𝑅𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃𝑡
where R is the tool nose radius. θt represents the angular position of the point on the cutting
where
edge, θmin𝑅 and
is the
θmaxtool nose
are the minimum 𝜃𝑡 represents
radius. and maximum anglethe angular position
of the effective toolof the point on th
edge.
cutting edge, 𝜃the
To generate 𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝜃
machined are the
structure
𝑚𝑎𝑥 minimum
by tool and maximum
sculpturing, the angle
coordinates of
(x t yt , zeffective
, the t ) of too
all points with a certain sampling on the tool edge should be transformed as (xtw , ytw , ztw )
edge.
in the workpiece coordinate system. The tool edge center is expected to be transformed to
the original point Ow of the workpiece coordinate system. The relationship between the
workpiece coordinate and the local coordinate for the tool edge is given by Equation (8):
    
xtw 1000 xt
 ytw   0 1 0 0  yt 
 =    (8)
 ztw   0 0 1 R  zt 
1 0000 1
 𝑧𝑡 = −𝑅𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃𝑡
where 𝑅 is the tool nose radius. 𝜃𝑡 represents the angular position o
cutting edge, 𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 are the minimum and maximum angle o
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 6 of 14
edge.

Figure
Figure 4. 4. Definition
Definition of coordinate
of coordinate system of
system for sculpturing for sculpturing
microlens array: (a) of microlens
view in the yw Ow zarray:
w (a
plane, (b) view in the xw Ow y plane.
plane, (b) view in the 𝑥𝑤 𝑂𝑤 𝑦 plane.
Coordinates of all the points on the tool edge in the workpiece coordinate system can
be calculated by taking into account of the tool path, which is given by Equation (9):
To generate the machined structure by tool sculpturing, the coord
all points with a certain
 sampling
xw = xtw + p1on the
1/2tool edge should be transform

(k n − )
yw = ytw + vc t (9)
zw = ztw + z( p1 (k n − 1/2), vc t)


where p1 is the pitch of lenslet in the feed distance, or the distance between two target
lines, k n is the number of the target line (k1 = 1, k2 = 2, k3 = 3 as shown in Figure 4b).
vc and t represent the tool’s normal cutting velocity and moving time at each target line.
z( p1 (k n − 1/2), vc t) is the z coordinate value of the cutting point (p1 (k n − 1/2), vc t) in the
workpiece coordinate system. By determining all the tool points with respect to target lines,
surface generation of the microlens array machined by HFUVAS can be simulated and
analyzed. Then, the theoretical form error between the designed microlens array and the
machined microlens array can be obtained by subtracting the geometry of the designed
microlens array from the geometry of the simulated microlens array.

3. Methods
3.1. Machining Parameters
Microlens array with 10 × 10 lenslets was machined. r and p were 1 mm and 199.75 µm,
resulting in a lenslet depth d of 5 µm and a maximum cutting depth of 10 µm of the
microlens array. Table 1 shows the machining parameters of the cutting experiments. To
avoid tool interference with the workpiece, the tool radius must not be larger than the
workpiece contour in the feed direction and the tool clearance angle must be larger than
the maximum slope angle in the cutting direction in consideration of the fact that the tool
rake angle is 0◦ so the rake face would not interfere with the workpiece. In this research,
the tool radius is equal to the workpiece contour. The maximum slope angle of the target
profile of the microlens array is 5.7◦ . As a result, a diamond tool with a rake angle of 0◦ ,
clearance angle of 15◦ , nose radius of 1 mm, tool edge radius of 50 nm, and arc waviness
of fewer than 0.25 µm provided by Contour Fine tooling Ltd. was used in the experiment.
Mirrax 40 steel was used as the workpiece material in this study. It is a remelted stainless
steel pre-hardened to 40 HRC with excellent ductility, machinability, polishability, and
toughness, which makes it appropriate for injection molds, flow molds and extrusion dies.
The chemical composition of Mirrax 40 steel includes (wt.%): C: 0.21, Si: 0.9, Mn: 0.45, Cr:
13.5, Mo: 0.2, Ni: 0.6, V: 0.25.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 7 of 14

Table 1. The machining parameters of the cutting experiments.

Machining Parameters CS HFUVAS

1 mm tool nose radius, rake angle, 15◦ clearance
0◦
Diamond tool angle, 50 nm tool edge radius, less than 0.25 µm arc
waviness
Workpiece material Mirrax 40 steel
Depth of cut (µm) 5, 3, 2, 1
Nominal cutting speed (mm/min) 100
Tool path generation Segment cutting with smooth tool path
Lubricant Coolant (Clairsol 330/odourless kerosene, MQL)
Vibration frequency (kHz) No 104
Vibration amplitude (µm) No 0.75

Before the cutting experiment, it is necessary to analyze the theoretical form error of the
microlens array to evaluate the machining feasibility. Figure 5a shows the theoretical form
error induced by overcutting of vibration in HFUVAS of microlens array with 3 lenslets.
The maximum form error arose at the edge of two adjacent lenslets and it is within 0.1 um.
Figure 5b,c shows the form error induced by overcutting of tool edge in HFUVAS of
microlens array with 3 × 3 lenslets. The maximum form error arose at the intersection cusp
of four adjacent lenslets and it is only 0.025 um. These two form errors are relatively small
and insignificant so the microlens array is machinable theoretically. It should be noted
that the theoretical form error between the designed microlens array and the machined
microlens array by HFUVAS could increase to an intolerable value for ultraprecision
machining with increasing lenslet depth and decreasing lenslet radius. In the cutting
experiment, the cutting depth was 1 µm larger than the structure depth to ensure the
successful fabrication of the structure, which leads to a total cutting depth of 11 µm. To
protect the cutting tool from damage and achieve a good surface finish, the microlens
array was cut with four depth layers of 5 µm, 3 µm, 2 µm, and 1µm, respectively. It is
important to note that to avoid overshoot and vibration of machine motion caused by a
quick acceleration of the Z-axis slide arising at the sharp edge between lenslet, segment
cutting was conducted, and each layer was machined by two steps for both CS and HFUVAS,
as shown in Figure 5d. This tool path smoothing process would not affect the analyzing
results of theoretical form error based on target lines as mentioned before because the cut
lines left on the workpiece between the target line and the smoothed tool path are the
same. After a list of lenslet was fabricated, the cutting tool was moved by a distance of
p1 in the x-axis to fabricate another list of lenslets. The coolant was clairsol 330/odorless
kerosene and minimal quantity lubrication (MQL) method use applied. Quadrilateral
microlens array was fabricated by means of conventional sculpturing and high-frequency
vibration-assisted sculpturing, respectively, under the same tool path.

3.2. Experimental Setup

Figure 6 shows the experimental setup to conduct the HFUVAS and CS experiment
of the quadrilateral microlens array. On the Moore Nanotech 350 FG machine from Nano-
technology Inc. USA, an ultrasonic tooling system with an operating frequency of 104 kHz
from Son-X GmbH Germany [22] was set up. The input current of UTS2, which was
proportional to the vibration amplitude, was set as 30 mA with a corresponding amplitude
of about 0.75 µm in the cutting direction. The workpiece material was Mirrax 40, which
is remelted stainless steel used for precision injection molding and press molding. The
workpiece was mounted on a fixture and then vacuumed on the spindle. A nominal cutting
speed of 100 mm/min was used when the microlens array was manufactured, followed by
a programmed position code. A sampling rate of 2.5 µm along the cutting direction was
used to create the position code with respect to the target line. Using a white interferometer
from Nexview, Zygo Ltd., the machined structures’ geometry form and surface roughness
were assessed. The point data of the 3D structure was exported from the measured software
 quick acceleration of the Z-axis slide arising at the sharp edge between lenslet, segme
cutting was conducted, and each layer was machined by two steps for both CS a
HFUVAS, as shown in Figure 5d. This tool path smoothing process would not affect t
analyzing results of theoretical form error based on target lines as mentioned before b
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 cause the cut lines left on the workpiece between the target line and the 8smoothed of 14 to
path are the same. After a list of lenslet was fabricated, the cutting tool was moved by
distance of 𝑝1 in the 𝑥-axis to fabricate another list of lenslets. The coolant was clair
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
330/odorless kerosene
and then reconstructed and
on the minimal
Matlab quantity
software for formlubrication (MQL)
accuracy analysis. Themethod use applie
morphology
and element analysis
Quadrilateral of thearray
microlens machined
wasstructure andby
fabricated themeans
cuttingoftool was measured
conventional by a
sculpturing a
scanning electron microscope (SEM, TESCAN VEGA3) equipped with energy dispersive
high-frequency vibration-assisted sculpturing, respectively, under the same tool path.
3.2. Experimental
spectroscopy (EDS). Setup
Figure 6 shows the experimental setup to conduct the HFUVAS and CS exp
of the quadrilateral microlens array. On the Moore Nanotech 350 FG machine from
technology Inc. USA, an ultrasonic tooling system with an operating frequency of
from Son-X GmbH Germany [22] was set up. The input current of UTS2, which w
portional to the vibration amplitude, was set as 30 mA with a corresponding am
of about 0.75 μm in the cutting direction. The workpiece material was Mirrax 40, w
remelted stainless steel used for precision injection molding and press molding. Th
piece was mounted on a fixture and then vacuumed on the spindle. A nominal
speed of 100 mm/min was used when the microlens array was manufactured, f
by a programmed position code. A sampling rate of 2.5 μm along the cutting d
was used to create the position code with respect to the target line. Using a white
ometer from Nexview, Zygo Ltd., the machined structures’ geometry form and
roughness were assessed. The point data of the 3D structure was exported from th
ured software and then reconstructed on the Matlab software for form accuracy a
The morphology and element analysis of the machined structure and the cutting t
measured by a scanning electron microscope (SEM, TESCAN VEGA3) equipped w
Figure 5. Theoretical form error in HFUVAS of microlens array induced: (a) by overcut of vibration,
ergy dispersive
Figure 5. Theoreticalspectroscopy (EDS). of microlens array induced: (a) by overcut of vibrati
form error in HFUVAS
(b,c) by overcut of tool edge, (d) smooth tool path generation of the target line.
(b,c) by overcut of tool edge, (d) smooth tool path generation of the target line.

Figure (a)(a)
Figure6. 6. A photo of the
A photo ofexperimental setup, (b)setup,
the experimental a schematic
(b) aof tool motionofintool
schematic HFUVAS.
motion in HFUVAS
4. Results and Discussions
4. Results
4.1. and Discussions
Form Accuracy Analysis of the Machined Microlens array
4.1. Figure 7a shows aAnalysis
Form Accuracy figure of the microlens
of the arrayMicrolens
Machined machined by CS and HFUVAS. It can
array
be seen that CS produced the microlens array with a poor and blurry structure surface
while Figure
HFUVAS 7aachieved
shows aa figure
smoothof themirror
and microlens
surfacearray
finish.machined
Figure 7b,cby CS and
presents HFUVA
the
be seen that
measured CS produced
3D structure the microlens
of the machined arrayThe
microlens array. with
2D a pooracross
profiles and blurry structure
the centers
while HFUVAS achieved a smooth and mirror surface finish. Figure 7b,c pres
measured 3D structure of the machined microlens array. The 2D profiles across the
of lenslets along the feed direction (P1) and the cutting direction (P2) were measu
analyzed for further study.
 4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Form Accuracy Analysis of the Machined Microlens array
Figure 7a shows a figure of the microlens array machined by CS and HFUVAS. It c
be seen that CS produced the microlens array with a poor and blurry structure surfa
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 9 of 14
while HFUVAS achieved a smooth and mirror surface finish. Figure 7b,c presents t
measured 3D structure of the machined microlens array. The 2D profiles across the cente
of lenslets along the feed direction (P1) and the cutting direction (P2) were measured a
of lenslets along the feed direction (P1) and the cutting direction (P2) were measured and
analyzed for further study.
analyzed for further study.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 7. (a) A photo of the microlens array machined by CS and HFUVAS, (b,c
structure of the machined microlens array.

Figure 8 shows the results of the form deviation between the design
the measured
Figure 7. (a) A photoprofile for thearray
of the microlens microlens
machined array machined
by CS and by measured
HFUVAS, (b,c) CS and3DHFUVA
structure of the machined microlens array.
show that the measured profile of the microlens array machined by CS had
tionFigure
from8 shows
the corresponding designed
the results of the form deviation profile.
between the The measured
designed profiles
profile and the we
measured profile for the microlens array machined by CS and HFUVAS. The results show
with surface variation as compared with the designed one. In contrast, for
that the measured profile of the microlens array machined by CS had a large deviation from
ation
the between designed
corresponding the target profile
profile. and the profiles
The measured measured profile
were not smoothofwith
the surface
microlens ar
by HFUVAS,
variation the with
as compared measured profiles
the designed one. Inwere smoother
contrast, as deviation
for the form compared with those
between
the target profile and the measured profile of the microlens array machined by HFUVAS,
CS, and the form deviation between the measured profile and the designed
the measured profiles were smoother as compared with those machined by CS, and the
nificantly
form reduced.
deviation between the As measured
a result,profile
it is found
and the that HFUVAS
designed profile iscan improve surf
significantly
reduce As
reduced. form deviation
a result, it is foundasthat
compared
HFUVAS can with CS. surface finish and reduce form
improve
deviation as compared with CS.

Figure 8. Form deviation analysis (Blue: designed profile; red: measured profile): (a) P1, (b) P2, for
Figure 8. Form deviation analysis (Blue: designed profile; red: measured profile):
(a
the microlens array machined by CS, (c) P1, (d) P2 for the microlens array machined by HFUVAS.
the microlens array machined by CS, (c) P1, (d) P2 for the microlens array machined
To further identify the form error of the machined profile. Figure 9 shows the form
error between the designed profile and the measured profile for the microlens array ma-
To further identify the form error of the machined profile. Figure 9 sh
chined by CS and HFUVAS. The form error included two parts: namely E1 and E2. E1
error between
represents the formthe designed
error induced byprofile and the
the machining measured
of the profile
profile apart from the forsharp
the microl
chined by CS and HFUVAS. The form error included two parts: namely
edge between the lenslets, and E2 represents the form error induced by the machining of
the sharp edge between the lenslets (as marked with a red box). For form error of microlens
represents the form error induced by the machining of the profile apart f
array machined by CS, as shown in Figure 9a. E1 and E2 reached 0.5 µm and 0.3 µm,
edge between
respectively, making thethelenslets,
total formand
error E2 represents
of the the form
machined microlens error
array induced
intolerable for by the
the sharp edge
ultraprecision between
applications. For the
formlenslets (as marked
error of microlens array with
machineda red box). For
by HFUVAS as form e
presented in Figure 9b. E1 and E2 were close to 0.2 µm and 0.2 µm, respectively. The
lens array machined by CS, as shown in Figure 9a. E1 and E2 reached 0.5 μ
total form error of the machined microlens array was about 0.4 µm, which was reduced
respectively,
significantly making
compared with the totalofform
the result error of
CS. It seemed thatthe
themachined microlens
form error induced by the array
ultraprecision applications. For form error of microlens array machined
machining of the sharp edge between lenslets occupied quite a portion of the total form b
error and it could be associated with generation burrs or plastic deformation which will be
presented in Figure 9b. E1 and E2 were close to 0.2 μm and 0.2 μm, respecti
analyzed in the SEM image of the machined microlens array surface morphology.
form error of the machined microlens array was about 0.4 μm, which was r
icantly compared with the result of CS. It seemed that the form error induc
chining of the sharp edge between lenslets occupied quite a portion of the to
and it could be associated with generation burrs or plastic deformation wh
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2022,
2022,12,
12,x10937
FOR PEER REVIEW 1010ofof14
14

Figure 9. Form error between the designed profile and the measured profile: (a) P1, P2 for the mi-
Formerror
Figure9.9.Form
Figure errorbetween
between the designed
the profile
andand
thethe measured profile: (a) P2
P1,for
P2the
formi-
the
crolens array machined by CS, (b)designed profile
P1, P2 for the microlens measured profile:
array machined by(a) P1,
HFUVAS.
microlens array machined by CS, (b) P1, P2 for the microlens array machined by
crolens array machined by CS, (b) P1, P2 for the microlens array machined by HFUVAS. HFUVAS.

4.2. Surface
4.2. Surface Morphology
Morphology Analysis
Analysisofofthe theMachined
MachinedMicrolens
MicrolensArray Array
4.2. Surface Morphology Analysis of the Machined Microlens Array
Figure 10
Figure 10 shows
shows thethe scanning
scanning electron
electron microscopy
microscopy (SEM) (SEM) image
image of the surface surface mor-
Figure
phology for10 shows
the the scanning
microlens electron microscopy
array machined
machined by CS
CS and (SEM) image
and HFUVAS.
HFUVAS. Intheof CS,
the the surface mor-
themachined
machined
phology for the microlens array by In CS, the
phology
surfacewas for the
wasfilled microlens
filledwith array
withscratching machined
scratchingand and by CS
micro-tearingand HFUVAS.
morphology, In the
whichCS, the
is the machined
explana-
surface micro-tearing morphology, which is the explanation
surface
tionthe
for forwas
the filled
surfacesurface with
variationscratching
variation
of theof the and micro-tearing
measured
measured profile.
profile. It morphology,
It is
is interesting
interesting which
totonote is that
note the
thatexplana-
eventhe
even the
tion
firstfor
first the surface
lenslet
lenslet atthe
at variation of
the beginning
beginning of the
of measured
machining
machining profile.such
exhibited
exhibited It is interesting
such to note that
surface morphology,
surface morphology, even the
suggesting
suggesting
first
thatlenslet
that toolwear
tool at the
wear wasbeginning
was not the
not the mainof machining
main reason for
reason exhibited
for such poor
such poorsuch surface
surface
surface morphology,
quality.
quality. Workpiece
Workpiece suggesting
material
material
that tool
adhered
adheredto wear
tothe was not
thediamond the
diamondtool main
tooland reason
andthen for
thenrowed such
rowedand poor
andplowed surface
plowedthe quality.
theworkpiece Workpiece
surfacematerial
workpiecesurface could
couldbebe
adhered
the
thereason
reasonto for
the diamond
forthis tool anddue
this morphology
morphology then
due torowed
to material
materialand plowed
affinity
affinity the workpiece
between
between carbon
carbon from surface
from thecould
the diamond
diamondbe
the
toolreason
tool and for this
and steel
steel frommorphology
from the
theworkpiece. due toBesides,
workpiece. materialbecause
Besides, affinity of
because between
of material
materialcarbon from the
adhesion,
adhesion, thediamond
the diamond
diamond
tool
tool and
tool could steel
could become from the
become blunt workpiece.
blunt so so the
the edge Besides,
edge between because
between lenslets of
lenslets was material
was not adhesion,
not sharp
sharp andand was the
was not diamond
not distin-
distin-
tool could
guishable, become blunt so the edge between lenslets was not
guishable, resulting in a large form deviation at this edge. In view of the HFUVAS, the
resulting in a large form deviation at this edge. In sharp
view and
of thewas not
HFUVAS, distin-
the
guishable,
machined
machinedsurfaceresulting
surfacewas in smooth
was a smooth
large with
form
with deviation
apparent
apparent atsharp
sharp this edge.
edges Inbetween
between
edges view of the
lenslets. HFUVAS,
However,
lenslets. the
there
However,
machined
existed
there existed surface
small smallwas
burrs on
burrssmooth
the thewith
sharp
on sharpapparent
edge, which sharp
could
edge, which be edges
caused
could between bylenslets.
by plastic
be caused deformation
plastic However,
of the
deformation
there existed
workpiece
of the workpiece small
material burrs on
and it is
material the
and sharp
oneit of
is theedge,
one majorwhich
of the sourcescould be caused
of the form
major sources by
of theerrorplastic
formfor deformation
the for
error microlens
the mi-
of the being
array
crolens workpiece
array material
machined
being and itbyisHFUVAS.
by HFUVAS.
machined one of the major sources of the form error for the mi-
crolens array being machined by HFUVAS.

Figure 10. SEM of the surface morphology for the microlens array machined by: (a) CS, (b) HFUVAS.
 Figure 10. SEM of the surface morphology for the microlens array machined
HFUVAS.

To validate the material adhesion conjecture for an explanation of th

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 11 of 14
phology of the machined structures, cutting tools after CS and HFUVAS of
array were observed for analyzing the tool conditions. Figure 11a–d shows t
andTothe energy
validate dispersive
the material spectrometer
adhesion conjecture for(EDS) analysis
an explanation of the
of the cutting
surface mor- tool
microlens
phology of thearray.
machinedTool edge exhibited
structures, cutting toolsplenty
after CSof material
and HFUVASadhesion of Cr and
of the microlens
array were observed for analyzing the tool conditions. Figure 11a–d
a considerable tool wear width. This indicated that during CS of the microl shows the SEM image
and the energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) analysis of the cutting tool after CS of the
terial from
microlens array.the
Toolworkpiece
edge exhibitedadhered to theadhesion
plenty of material cuttingoftool
Cr and and worsen
Fe and existed the
a mac
quality. With
considerable increasing
tool wear width. Thiscutting
indicateddistance,
that during tool
CS of wears increased
the microlens and then en
array, material
from
rial the workpiecethereby
adhesion, adhered to the cutting
further tool and worsen
deteriorating thesurface
the machinedquality.
surface quality.
For the cu
With increasing cutting distance, tool wears increased and then enhanced material adhesion,
HFUVAS
thereby furtherofdeteriorating
the microlens arrayquality.
the surface as shown
For thein Figure
cutting tool11e,f, the cutting
after HFUVAS of the tool d
apparent
microlens material
array as shownadhesion and
in Figure 11e,f, thetool wear.
cutting Thisnotleads
tool does toapparent
exhibit the conclusion
material that
adhesion and tool wear. This leads to the conclusion that the improved
surface quality of the microlens array machined by HFUVAS resulted from surface quality of
the microlens array machined by HFUVAS resulted from the reduction of tool wear and
of tooladhesion
material wear and due material adhesionintermittent
to the high-frequency due to the high-frequency intermittent
cutting.

Figure
Figure (a,b):
11.11. SEM of
(a,b): SEMthe cutting
of thetool after CStool
cutting of theafter
microlens
CS ofarray,
the(c,d): EDS analysis
microlens results
array, of
(c,d): EDS
(b,e,f): SEM of the cutting tool after HFUVAS of the microlens array.
of (b,e,f): SEM of the cutting tool after HFUVAS of the microlens array.
4.3. Technical Feasibility Analysis on HFUVAS of Quadrilateral Microlens Array
4.3.ATechnical
high-quality Feasibility Analysis
machined structure withonsub-micrometer
HFUVAS ofform Quadrilateral
accuracy and Microlens
nanometer- Array
scale surface roughness is the premise of optical application. Obtaining the error map of
A high-quality
the designed structure is machined
a reasonable structure with sub-micrometer
method to evaluate the form accuracyform accuracy
of a 3D
ter-scaleTo
structure. surface roughness
investigate is the
the technical premise
feasibility of optical
of HFUVAS application.
in the machining ofObtaining
the
quadrilateral
of the designed structure is a reasonable method to evaluate the the
microlens array. Figures 12 and 13 present the measured 3D structure, form acc
surface morphology of a single lenslet after removing the structure form, the iterative
structure.
closest point To(ICP)investigate the technical
matching result, and the obtainedfeasibility of HFUVAS
error map from matching in the machinin
for the
3rilateral microlens
× 3 lenslets machined by array.
CS andFigures
HFUVAS, 12respectively.
and 13 present The form the measured
accuracy 3D structu
and surface
finish of the machined microlens array were significantly improved for
morphology of a single lenslet after removing the structure form, the iterativ HFUVAS compared
with CS. Single lenslet machined by HFUVAS achieved an optical application level with a
(ICP) finish
surface matching
of 4 nmresult,
Sa and aand
formthe
errorobtained
Sz within 0.13 error
µm, map from
compared matching
with 37 nm and for the
machined
1.2 µm obtained bybyCSCS and HFUVAS,The
correspondingly. respectively.
form error of 3The form accuracy
× 3 lenslets and surfac
was much larger
than that of the single lenslet, which could be more accurate
machined microlens array were significantly improved for HFUVAS and reliable to evaluate the comp
form accuracy of a 3D structure. The form error of 3 × 3 lenslets machined by HFUVAS
Single
and lenslet
CS were machined
within 0.6 µm andby 1.5HFUVAS achieved
µm, respectively. an optical
The surface application
roughness and form level
finish of
accuracy of 4the
nm 𝑆𝑎 and
microlens a form
array machinederror 𝑆𝑧 within
by HFUVAS can 0.13 μm,
meet the compared
requirement with 37 n
of the
optical application. This indicates that HFUVAS is a technically
obtained by CS correspondingly. The form error of 3 × 3 lenslets was mu feasible method to fabricate
3D structures with a sharp edge on steel materials for molding of optical products.
that of the single lenslet, which could be more accurate and reliable to eva
accuracy of a 3D structure. The form error of 3 × 3 lenslets machined by HF
were within 0.6 μm and 1.5 μm, respectively. The surface roughness and
of the microlens array machined by HFUVAS can meet the requirement of
plication. This indicates that HFUVAS is a technically feasible method t
structures with a sharp edge on steel materials for molding of optical prod
ppl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 12 of 14

Figure 12. An analysis of surface quality and form accuracy of the microlens array
(a) Measured
Figure 3D of
12. An analysis structure, (b)and
surface quality surface morphology
form accuracy of a single
of the microlens lensletbyafter
array machined CS: remo
(c) ICP match
(a) Measured result of
3D structure, (b) the measured
surface structure
morphology and the
of a single lenslet afterdesigned structure;
removing the 3D form, (d) er
from
(c) ICPthe ICP
match result.
result of the measured structure and the designed structure; (d) error map obtained
from the ICP result.

Figure 13. An analysis of surface quality and form accuracy of the microlens array machined by
Figure
HFUVAS:13. An analysis
(a) measured of surface
3D structure, quality
(b) surface and ofform
morphology accuracy
a single ofremoving
lenslet after the microlens
the a
HFUVAS: (a)match
3D form, (c) ICP measured
result of3D structure,
the measured (b) surface
structure morphology
and the designed structure;of(d)a error
single
maplenslet a
3D form, (c) ICP match result of the measured structure and the designed struct
obtained from the ICP result.
obtained from the ICP result.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents the investigation of a novel machining principle for high-frequency
5. Conclusions
ultrasonic vibration-assisted sculpturing of the microlens array and then derives the theo-

This paper presents the investigation of a novel machining princi

quency ultrasonic vibration-assisted sculpturing of the microlens array a
the theoretical form error between the designed microlens array and the m
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 13 of 14

retical form error between the designed microlens array and the machined microlens array.
Following this, CS and HFUVAS of quadrilateral microlens array on steel were conducted
for comparison. Then, the form accuracy and surface morphology of the machined struc-
ture as well as the tool wear were measured and then analyzed. Some findings are drawn
as follows:
1. There is a theoretical form error between the designed microlens array and the ma-
chined microlens array in HFUVAS of microlens array due to overcutting the vibration
and tool edge, which could increase with increasing lenslet depth or decreasing lenslet
radius. As a result, this theoretical form error should be derived before machining to
make sure that it is tolerable for ultraprecision machining.
2. CS-produced microlens array with poor form accuracy and surface finish caused by
the coupling effect of material adhesion and tool wear. HFUVAS could significantly
improve the form accuracy and surface quality compared with CS, achieving sub-
micrometer form accuracy and surface roughness in the nanometer range due to
the reduction of material adhesion and tool wear. This makes HFUVAS technically
feasible in the effective fabrication of quadrilateral microlens arrays with sharp edges
on steel for optical mold application.
Compared with segment diamond turning, the form error and surface roughness in
diamond sculpturing could be increased to some extent. The generation of a small burr
on the sharp edge in HFUVAS of the microlens array is one of the major sources of the
form error. However, in our research, the surface roughness and form accuracy of the
microlens array machined by HFUVAS could still meet the requirement of the optical
application. Most importantly, the machining time can be reduced remarkably to improve
machining efficiency.

Author Contributions: C.-F.C. and C.Z. conceived and designed the methodology and experiments;
C.-F.C. and B.B. contributed to the materials and machining tools; C.Z. and X.L. performed the
experiments; C.Z. analyzed the measurement data and wrote the draft on the technical content of the
manuscript; C.-F.C. and X.L. reviewed and helped revise the content of the manuscript. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere thanks for the financial sup-
port from the Research Office (project code: RK2Z) from The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Special thanks are also due to the contract research project between the State Key Laboratory of
Ultraprecision Machining Technology of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Son-X, Gmbh,
Aachen, Germany.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fang, F.Z.; Zhang, X.D.; Hu, X.T. Cylindrical coordinate machining of optical freeform surfaces. Opt. Express 2008, 16, 7323–7329.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Zhu, Z.; To, S. Adaptive tool servo diamond turning for enhancing machining efficiency and surface quality of freeform optics.
Opt. Express 2015, 23, 20234–20248. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Kong, L.B.; Cheung, C.F.; To, S.; Lee, W.B. An investigation into surface generation in ultra-precision raster milling. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 4178–4185. [CrossRef]
4. Paul, E.; Evans Chris, J.; Mangamelli, A.; McGlauflin, M.L.; Polvani, R.S. Chemical aspects of tool wear in single point diamond
turning. Precis. Eng. 1996, 18, 4–19. [CrossRef]
5. Shamoto, E.; Moriwaki, T. Ultaprecision Diamond Cutting of Hardened Steel by Applying Elliptical Vibration Cutting. CIRP Ann.
Manuf. Technol. 1999, 48, 441–444. [CrossRef]
6. Suzuki, N.; Haritani, M.; Yang, J.; Hino, R.; Shamoto, E. Elliptical Vibration Cutting of Tungsten Alloy Molds for Optical Glass
Parts. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2007, 56, 127–130. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10937 14 of 14

7. Zhang, X.; Senthil Kumar, A.; Rahman, M.; Nath, C.; Liu, K. Experimental study on ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting of
hardened steel using PCD tools. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2011, 211, 1701–1709. [CrossRef]
8. Moriwaki, T.; Shamoto, E. Ultraprecision Diamond Turning of Stainless Steel by Applying Ultrasonic Vibration. CIRP Ann-Manuf.
Technol. 1991, 40, 559–562. [CrossRef]
9. Suzuki, N.; Yokoi, H.; Shamoto, E. Micro/nano sculpturing of hardened steel by controlling vibration amplitude in elliptical
vibration cutting. Precis. Eng. 2011, 35, 44–50. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, J.; Suzuki, N.; Wang, Y.; Shamoto, E. Ultra-precision nano-structure fabrication by amplitude control sculpturing method
in elliptical vibration cutting. Precis. Eng. 2015, 39, 86–99. [CrossRef]
11. Zhou, X.; Zuo, C.; Liu, Q.; Lin, J. Surface generation of freeform surfaces in diamond turning by applying double-frequency
elliptical vibration cutting. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2016, 104, 45–57. [CrossRef]
12. Yuan, Y.; Zhang, D.; Jing, X.; Ehmann, K.F. Freeform surface fabrication on hardened steel by double frequency vibration cutting.
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2020, 275, 116369. [CrossRef]
13. Kurniawan, R.; Kiswanto, G.; Ko, T.J. Surface roughness of two-frequency elliptical vibration texturing (TFEVT) method for
micro-dimple pattern process. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2017, 116, 77–95. [CrossRef]
14. Xing, Y.; Li, C.; Liu, Y.; Yang, C.; Xue, C. Fabrication of high-precision freeform surface on die steel by ultrasonic-assisted slow
tool servo. Opt. Express 2021, 29, 3708–3723. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Zhang, L.; Hashimoto, T.; Yan, J. Machinability exploration for high-entropy alloy FeCrCoMnNi by ultrasonic vibration-assisted
diamond turning. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 70, 37–40. [CrossRef]
16. Mukaida, M.; Yan, J. Fabrication of Hexagonal Microlens Arrays on Single-Crystal Silicon Using the Tool-Servo Driven Segment
Turning Method. Micromachines 2017, 8, 323. [CrossRef]
17. Yuan, W.; Cheung, C.F. Theoretical and experimental investigation of the tool indentation effect in ultra-precision tool- servo-based
diamond cutting of optical microstructured surfaces. Opt. Express 2021, 29, 39284–39303. [CrossRef]
18. Li, L.; Yang, G.; Lee, W.B.; Ng, M.C.; Chan, K.L. Carbide-bonded graphene-based Joule heating for embossing fine microstructures
on optical glass. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 500, 144004. [CrossRef]
19. Chi, Y.; Dai, W.; Lu, Z.; Wang, M.; Zhao, Y. Real-Time Estimation for Cutting Tool Wear Based on Modal Analysis of Monitored
Signals. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 708. [CrossRef]
20. Lin, Y.-C.; Wu, K.-D.; Shih, W.-C.; Hsu, P.-K.; Hung, J.-P. Prediction of Surface Roughness Based on Cutting Parameters and
Machining Vibration in End Milling Using Regression Method and Artificial Neural Network. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3941. [CrossRef]
21. Zhu, W.-L.; Duan, F.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Ju, B.-F. A new diamond machining approach for extendable fabrication of micro-freeform
lens array. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2018, 124, 134–148. [CrossRef]
22. Gaidys, R.; Dambon, O.; Ostasevicius, V.; Dicke, C.; Narijauskaite, B. Ultrasonic tooling system design and development for
single point diamond turning (SPDT) of ferrous metals. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 93, 2841–2854. [CrossRef]