Invited Paper

NIRCam Filter Wheel Optic Mount Design

Béla I. Privári, Craig Hom and Mike Jacoby

Lockheed Martin, Space Systems Company, 3251 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, CA 94304
bela.i.privari@lmco.com, PH: 650.424.2800, craig.hom@lmco.com , PH 650.424.2978
michael.s.jacoby@lmco.com , PH 650.354.5516

ABSTRACT

The mechanical design of any optic mount requires an understanding of the sensitivities of the optical
design. The design of the filter optic mounts used on the James Webb Space Telescope - NIRCam filter
wheel assemblies have been designed to support the optics in a manner that does not compromise optical
performance, while coping with several environmental conditions. We will review the design of the
NIRCam filter optic assemblies and confirm the merits of the approach chosen to mount the optics,
considering thermal, vibration and stress effects.

Keywords: NIRCam, filter wheel, optic mount, stress

1. INTRODUCTION

The NIRCam instrument is an integral part of the Infra-Red imaging that will be performed by the James
Webb Space Telescope. The NIRCam instrument has two cameras that will image both long and short
wavelength light, in the near infrared spectrum, in search of distant galaxies. Moreover, the instrument has
an entire redundant set of optics and mechanisms in the event of a critical failure of a camera system. In
addition to imaging stars, the NIRCam instrument will perform an alignment function for the primary
mirror of the telescope. The primary mirror is comprised of an array of hexagonal mirror segments that are
deployed once the telescope reaches its’ final orbit location at the second LaGrange point, approximately
1.7 million kilometers from earth. Elements located on the pupil wheel will provide feedback to enable
proper phasing of the primary mirror segments.

Each camera of the NIRCam instrument has an associated Filter Wheel Assembly (FWA). Each FWA is
comprised of a filter wheel and pupil wheel to aid both the imaging and telescope alignment functionality.
The short wavelength filter elements, mounted on the filter wheel, are circular plane parallel plates of fused
silica that are coated to form narrow pass band filters. There are twelve positions on the filter wheel that
are moved into the imaged beam independently of the pupil wheel elements, of which there are also twelve
positions. The filters are positioned in the beam in nearly collimated light.

The filter elements used for the long wavelengths are similar in geometry, but made from IR grade silicon,
and coated to provide a variety of different imaging filters. Both short and long wavelength filters are
mounted on their respective wheels with a four degree tilt with respect to the optic axis to minimize any
ghost images caused by internal reflections in the filter optics.

Astronomical and Space Optical Systems, edited by Penny G. Warren, Cheryl J. Marshall,
Robert K. Tyson, Michael Lloyd-Hart, James B. Heaney, E. Todd Kvamme, Proc. of SPIE
Vol. 7439, 74391E · © 2009 SPIE · CCC code: 0277-786X/09/$18 · doi: 10.1117/12.826533

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-1

 Figure 1, NIRCam Instrument

The NIRCam instrument shown in Figure 1 is a simplified view that omits cable harnesses and the
structural members that connect it to the vehicle. Most of the imaging optics are not shown, but are
contained within the light baffles, shown in brown. The filter wheel assemblies are shown in orange. Two
FWA’s are used in the primary system and two more are used in the redundant, mirror image instrument.
The primary and redundant instruments are mounted on benches that are connected “back-to-back”.

2. DESIGN DESCRIPTION

The basic optic mount architecture is shown in figure 2, below. It represents the baseline design of the
NIRCam filter mounts. Each optic is secured by two axial springs and two radial flexure blades that
provide radial seating against two locating bosses. The locating bosses are integral features of the titanium
mount chassis. The axial interface points of the optic include polymeric pads that fit between the metal of
both the chassis and spring and the optic. The original radial interface points were designed to be metal to
glass.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-2

 Figure 2, Filter and Mount Components in Exploded View

The basic assumption for the radial contact points was that line contact is formed by the compliant flexure
blades and careful dimensional control of the locating bosses. The axial boundary condition is planar
contact between optic and mount and (seven) point contact between the spring and optic.

Figure 3, Filter Partially Assembled in Mount

3. ANALYSIS

The basic analysis that follows investigates the stresses experienced by the filter optics. The relevant
material properties and allowables that were used for the analysis of the FWA mount are shown in Table 1.
Tensile strengths for the optical materials are based on data published by Harris [2]. The ultimate

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-3

compressive strengths are based on a design rule of thumb of Yoder [3] and thermal contraction data was
obtained from an internal LM memo.

Material Elastic Poisson’s Density Thermal Ultimate Ultimate

Modulus ratio (kg/m3) Expansion from Strength Strength
(GPa) RT to 40ºK Compression Tension (MPa)
(ΔL/L) (MPa)

Ti6Al4V 114 0.34 4430 -0.2076% N/A N/A

Fused 73.2 0.17 2220 +0.002% 345 60
Silica
Silicon 131 0.28 2330 -0.025% 345 120

Table 1: Material properties and allowables for the constituent FWA element mounts and optics

3.1 Launch Acceleration Loads

Launch load accelerations and orientations determine the reaction forces at the locations where the optic
contact the mounts ears. Figure shows a free body diagram of those forces as applied to the optic in the
absence of friction. The optic’s mass is 0.020 Kg (0.044 lbm) for Fused Silica, and 0.021 Kg (0.047 lbm)
for Silicon. The Lockheed Martin NIRCam instrument specification specifies a 54G static equivalent
launch load based on the smallest mass on the mass acceleration curve (MAC). The force, FG, exerted on
the optic by the 54G launch accelerations is 2.34 lbf and 2.46 lbf Fused Silica and Silicon, respectively.

Figure 4: Free body diagram for the FWA optic. F1 and F2 denote the reaction forces at the ears due to the force FG
generated by the 53G launch forces.

The restoring force of flexures can be ignored if the flexure stiffness is small compared to the stiffness of
the contact glass-to-metal contact. This conservatively assumes that the load transmits solely through the
contact interface, and upper bounds the reaction forces. With that assumption, the free body diagram yields
a convenient, statically determinate set of force balance equations,

( ) ( )
F1 cos 60 o + F2 cos 60 o = FG cos θ (1)
and
F1 sin (60 o ) − F2 sin (60 o ) = FG sin θ . (2)

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-4

These equations readily determine F1 and F2 for different angles. Figure plots the resultant forces for the
two mount ears for a fused silica optic. The model shows that a peak reaction force occurs when θ = ±30º.
At that those angles, the acceleration load is tangent to the contact plane of one ear. The other ear must
fully react the load, but its reaction and the acceleration vector do not align. The maximum reaction force
is:

FG
Fmax =
( )
cos 30 o
(3)

The maximum reaction force is 12.0 N (2.70 lbf) and 12.6 N (2.84 lbf) for a fused silica and silicon optic
respectively. Figure 5 depicts two loading zones. When the acceleration load is directed away from the
flexures, the reaction forces are positive and the preloaded interface experiences more compression. When
the acceleration load is directed towards from the flexures, the reaction forces are negative and the
preloaded interface begins to unload.

Figure 5: Reaction forces at the ears due to launch accelerations as a function of load orientation for a Fused Silica
optic. Positive reaction forces indicate increased compression of the interface, while negative reaction forces indicate
unloading of the interface

3.2 Preload

Two tapered blade flexures preload the optic in the mount. The mount positions the blades 22.17 mm from
the center of the optic. The positioning creates an offset with the outer diameter of the optic designed to set
the level of preload. For a 48 mm diameter optic, a 1.83 mm nominal offset exists. Per print tolerance, that
offset can vary by ±0.1 mm. This does not include the tolerance of the outer diameter of the optic.
Using the solution for a cantilevered beam [1], the stiffness of the flexure is

3 ETi I B
K flex = (4)
L3

ETi, IB and L denote the elastic modulus of Ti6Al4V, the beam’s bending moment of inertia, and the beam’s
span. The mean width of the taped beam was used for computation of the moment of inertia. L was 15.5

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-5

mm. The 0.51 mm thick blade flexure Kflex is 3804 N/m (21.7 lbf/in). From an LM internal investigation,
finite element analysis predicted an individual blade stiffness of 3335 N/m (19.0 lbf/in).
Given that two blades hold the optic in place, the preload force, P, is defined by

P = 2 K flex Δ (5)

Where Δ denotes the offset. For the nominal offset of 1.83 mm, P equals 13.9 N (3.12 lbf). For the ±0.1
mm tolerance in offset, P can vary from 13.2 to 14.7 N (2.96 to 3.30 lbs). Results indicate barely adequate
preload if the offset meets the lower end of the tolerance band.

3.3 Radial Contact Analysis

The radial contact stresses for the optic against the ears of the mount were computed using the closed form
solution of a cylinder pressed against a flat surface as shown in Figure 6. The cylinder represents the fused
silica or silicon optic, while the flat surface represents the mount’s Ti6Al4V ear. This approximation
assumes that line contact exits and the load is distributed along the thickness of the optic. The sum of the
preload and the peak reaction to the acceleration load (P + Fmax) represents the worst case load on the
interface. For the fused silica optic, the interface load is 26.7 N (6.0 lbs). For the silicon optic, the
interface load is 27.3 N (6.14 lbs).

Figure 6: Analytical model of a cylinder pressed against a flat surface that approximates optic to mount contact

From [2], the width, b, of the contact zone is

b = 1 .6 ρ D C E , (6)

where D denotes the diameter of the optic (48 mm), and CE is defined by
2
1 − ν optic2
1 − ν mount
CE = + (7)
Eoptic E mount

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-6

Eoptic and νoptic represent the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the optic, while Emount and νmount
represent the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the mount. The peak compressive stress is

P
σ c = 0.591 (8)
t D CE
t denotes the thickness of the optic, in this case 5 mm. The peak shear stress is one third of the peak
compressive stress, and occurs at a depth of 0.4 b below the surface of the plane.

Contact Zone Size

Using equation (6), a contact zone width, b, was computed of 0.12 mm (4.7 mils) for fused silica against
titanium alloy and 0.10 mm (4.0 mils) for silicon against titanium alloy. The peak shear stress occurs at a
depth of 0.048 mm (1.9 mils) for fused silica or 0.04 mm (1.6 mils) for silicon. These results demonstrate
the size of the contact zone is relatively small compared to the dimensions of the ear and the optic.

Stress Margins for the Optic

Using equation (6), the compressive stresses in the optic due to contact are 58.1 MPa (8.4 ksi) and 70.0
MPa (10.1 ksi) for fused silica and silicon, respectively. Corresponding ultimate margins of safety were
computed based on the allowables listed in

Table 1.

For a fused silica optic, the ultimate margin of safety is

345 MPa
MS u = − 1 = +0.979 . (9)
(3.0)(58.1 MPa )
This computation used a factor of safety of 3.0 based on the NASA standard for unpressurized glass
verified by proto-flight testing (ref [4] section 5.1.4). For a silicon optic, the ultimate margin of safety is

345 MPa
MS u = − 1 = +0.643 . (10)
(3.0)(70.0 MPa )
The maximum shear stress that occurs in the optic is one third the compressive stress. For fused silica and
silicon, this yields peak shear stresses of 19.4 MPa (2.8 ksi) and 23.4 MPa, (3.4 ksi), respectively. In order
to compare this with a tensile allowable, the shear stress was converted to a tensile stress via Mohr’s circle.
For a pure shear state, the maximum principle stress is a tensile stress that equals the shear stress. The
principle directions are orientated 45º to the direction of shear. Ultimate margins of safety for shear stress
and a fused silica optic are

60 MPa
MS u = − 1 = +0.031 . (11)
(3.0)(19.4 MPa )
Ultimate margins of safety for shear stress and a silicon optic are

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-7

 120 MPa
MS u = − 1 = +0.709 . (12)
(3.0)(23.4 MPa )
3.4 Axial Force Analysis

To analyze the effect of preloads on the underlying optics, it is first necessary to determine the effective
radius of the preload spring at the points of contact. This has been done by approximating the spring as a
series of circular arcs, as shown in Figure 7.

h/2

s/2

Figure 7. Spring Geometry Approximation

In Figure 7, the quantity s is the arc length between two successive high points (or low points) in the spring.
The quantity h is the free or working height of the spring. From Figure 7, the radius r of the equivalent
circles can be estimated from

1 ⎛ 2 s2 ⎞
r= ⎜ h + ⎟⎟ (13)
4h ⎜⎝ 4⎠

Using the nominal spring free height of 2.06 mm, the radius r is estimated to be 12.93 mm. Once the
equivalent contact is determined, the optic stresses are estimated using a method that examines the
compression in the compliant layer between a rigid cylinder (spring) and rigid plane (optic). From
equilibrium, the compressive stresses in the optic are estimated from the compression in the compliant
layer, and the critical sub-surface shear stresses in the optic follow. Using this method in the current case
should be conservative; as the spring compresses, the radius-of-curvature of the spring at the contact site
will increase, the contact zone area will increase, and the associated compressive stress in the compliant
layer will decrease. Therefore, in the current analysis, the minimum radius-of-curvature of the spring at the
contact site will be used, and assumed constant.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-8

The following are the salient parameters for the analysis:
E = 1.5e6 mN/mm2 = modulus of the compliant layer,
ν = 0.4 = Poisson’s ratio of the compliant material,
t = 0.25 mm = thickness of the compliant material,
r = 12.93 mm = radius of spring,
Fmax = 60000 mN = maximum total preload,
N =7 = number of spring contacts with optics,
F = 8600 mN = preload per axial contact ( = Fmax / N )

With the parameters listed above, the maximum compressive stress in the compliant layer (and underlying
optic) is estimated to be 7.6 Mpa, and the maximum subsurface shear stress is estimated to be 2.55 Mpa.
This assumes a line contact between the spring and the compliant layer. Following from Lockheed
specifications, the tensile allowable is 60 Mpa for fused silica. The margin-of-safety for the optic is 60 / 3
x 2.55 – 1 = +6.8.

3.5 Thermal Contraction and Radial Clearance

After the optic is assembled in the mount, it is subjected to thermal cool-down to 40ºK. The mount
experiences more thermal contraction than the optic, so the two bosses shown in Figure will shrink
towards the optic reducing the 10 mil nominal clearance. The change is computed from,

⎡⎛ ΔL ⎞ ⎛ ΔL ⎞ ⎤
δ clearance = D ⎢⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎥. (14)
⎢⎣⎝ L ⎠ mount ⎝ L ⎠ optic ⎥⎦

Using the thermal contraction data listed in

Table 1, the reduction in clearance is 0.100 mm (3.95 mils) for a fused silica optic and 0.088 mm (3.44
mils) for a silicon optic. This change in clearance was evaluated against the worst case minimum gap
clearance based on a LM internal design tolerance stack up. The results indicate that a worst case of 0.053
mm (2 mils) interference could result.

Ears

Bosses

Figure 8: Mount design with bosses

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-9

The 4 mil contraction of the titanium alloy mount around the optic will increase the preload of the blade
flexure during cool-down to 40ºK. Using equation (5), a preload increase of 0.77 N (0.17 lbf) was
computed for that contraction. That increased load due to thermal cycling is smaller than the 12.0 N (2.70
lbf) interface force due to launch loads, so the launch load case envelopes the thermal load case.

3.6 Kapton Tape Additions

While not required to produce positive stress margins, 50 um (2 mils) of Kapton tape should be added to
the mounting ears and the tip of the blade flexures to eliminate metal-to-glass contact. This would also
promote line contact between the two components. The depth of the peak shear stress is quite shallow
based on the results of Section 3.3. As such only a 0.05 mm (2 mil) layer is required to reap benefits from
the compliant layer.

The Kapton tape will reduce the clearance between the mount’s bosses and the optic by a further 0.05 mm
(2 mils). For the worst tolerance stack up case, the mount boss will interfere with the optic by 0.103 mm (4
mils) at ambient conditions, and 0.200 mm at cryogenic environments. Measurement of the gap during
optic installation will ensure the minimum 0.100 gap at ambient environment.

The addition of the Kapton tape will also increase the offset deflection for the blade flexures by 0.100 mm
(4 mils). 0.05 mm (2 mils) of that addition results from a shift of the optic towards the blade by the
addition of the tape on the mount ears. The other 0.05 mm (2 mils) is due to the Kapton tape added to the
blade. The new worst case offset is 2.03 mm, which results in a 15.4 N (3.46 lbf) increase in preload. For
the fused silica and silicon optics, this represents a 2.7% and 2.6% increase in the combined launch and
preload interface force, respectively. Inspection of the margins stated in equations (9) through (12), that
positive stress margins will still result even without accounting for the added benefits of the compliant
layer.

3.7 Transmitted WFE Measurements

Preliminary tests of the transmitted wave-front error have been performed on several surrogate filter
elements. The preliminary data for these tests is promising with root-mean-squared values of less than 12
nanometers (with some measurements as low as 8 nm) across the clear aperture. The data comparison
between room temperature measurements and cryogenic temperature measurements appears to on the order
of two or three nanometers difference. Some surface deformation is evident from the cryogenic
measurements, but the magnitude of disturbance is reasonable. Typically, the two locating ears contract in
a way to squeeze the optic at cold temperatures, resulting in a trefoil deformation pattern on the surface of
the element. The squeeze effect is not at a level that compromises the optical design and meets program
requirements.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The NIRCam filter element mount design appears to be a promising approach. The analyses and
preliminary test data show that the design is capable of maintaining the optics in a minimally perturbed
state given the launch loads that must be survived. Preliminary vibration testing has shown that optics can
survive the launch loads. Cryogenic tests of the optics also demonstrate that the mount design does not
impart much stress on the filter elements. The fundamental mount design provides adequate protection of
the optics, by securing the optics with spring and flexure constraints, for survival of both vibration loads
and cryogenic loads.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-10

 5. REFERENCES
1. R.J Rourke and W.C. Young, “Formulas for Stress and Strain”, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, 1975
2. D.C. Harris, “Materials for Infrared Windows and Domes, Properties and Performance, SPIE
Press, Bellingham, 1999
3. P.R. Yoder, “Mounting Optics in Optical Instruments”, SPIE Press, Bellingham, 2002
4. NASA-STD-5001, “Structural Design and Test Factors of Safety for Spaceflight Hardware”,
06/21/1996

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7439 74391E-11