Error quantification in calibration of AFM probes due to non-uniform cantilevers

Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

For more than two decades, the Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) has provided valuable insights in nanoscale phenomena, and it is now widely employed by scientists from various disciplines. AFMs use a cantilever beam with a sharp tip to scan the surface of a sample both to image it and to perform mechanical testing. The AFM measures the deflection of the probe beam so one must first find the spring constant of the cantilever in order to estimate the force between the sample and the probe tip. Commonly applied calibration methods regard the probe as a uniform cantilever, neglecting the tip mass and any nonuniformity in the thickness along the length of the beam. This work explores these issues, recognizing that dynamic calibration boils down to finding the modal parameters of a dynamic model for a cantilever from experimental measurements and then using those parameters to estimate the static stiffness of a probe; if the modes of the cantilever are not what was expected, for example because the non-uniformity was neglected, then the calibration will be in error. This work explores the influence of variation in the thickness of a cantilever probe along its length on its static stiffness as well as its dynamics, seeking to determine when the uniform beam model that is traditionally employed is not valid and how one can ascertain whether the model is valid from measurable quantities. The results show that the Sader method is quite robust to non-uniformity so long as only the first dynamic mode is used in the calibration. The thermal method gives significant errors for the non-uniform probe studied here.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Binnig, C. F. Quate, and C. Gerber. Atomic force microscope. Physical Review Letters, 56:930– 933, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Gross, F. Mohn, N. Moll, P. Liljeroth, and G. Meyer. The chemical structure of a molecule resolved by atomic force microscopy. Science, 325:1110–1114, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Sugimoto, P. Pou, O. Custance, P. Jelinek, M. Abe, R. Perez, and S. Morita. Complex patterning by vertical interchange atom manipulation using atomic force microscopy. Science, 322:413–417, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Touhami, M. H. Jericho, and T. J. Beveridge. Atomic force microscopy of cell growth and division in staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Bacteriology, 186:3286–3295, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. F. Dufrene. Towards nanomicrobiology using atomic force microscopy. Nature Review Microbiology, 6:674–680, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Cross, Y. S. Jin, and J. Rao andf J. K. Gimzewski. Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. Nature Nanotechnology, 2:780–783, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. E. Sader and L. White. Theoretical analysis of the static deflection of plates for atomic force microscope applications. Journal of Applied Physics, 74:1–5, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. E. Sader, I. Larson, P. Mulvaney, and L. White. Method for the calibration of atomic force microscope cantilevers. Review of Scientific Instruments, 66:3789–3798, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. S. Allen, H. Sumali, and P. C. Penegor. Experimental/analytical evaluation of the effect of tip mass on atomic force microscope calibration. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Accepted, April 2009, DOI:  10.1115/1.4000160.
  10. 10.
    J. L. Hutter and J. Bechhoefer. Calibration of atomic force microscope tips. Review of Scientific Instruments, 64:1868–1873, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. A. Burnham, X. Chen, C. S. Hodges, G. A. Matei, E. J. Thoreson, C. J Roberts, M. C. Davies, and S. J. B. Tendler. Comparison of calibration methods for atomic force microscopy cantilevers. Nanotechnology, 14:1–6, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. M. Cook, T. E. Schaeffer, K. M. Chynoweth, M. Wigton, R. W. Simmonds, and K. M. Lang. Practical implementation of dynamic methods for measuring atomic force microscpoe cantilever spring constants. Nanotechnology, 17:2135–2145, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. H. Ginsberg. Mechanical and Structural Vibrations: Theory and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. E. Sader, J. W. M. Chon, and P. Mulvaney. Calibration of rectangular atomic force microscope cantilevers. Review of Scientific Instruments, 70:3967–3969, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. K. Ghatkesara, E. Rakhmatullinab, H. P. Langa, C. Gerbera, M. Hegnera, and T. Brauna. Multiparameter microcantilever sensor for comprehensive characterization of newtonian fluids. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 135:133–138, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. E. Sader. Frequency response of cantilever beams immersed in viscous fluids with applications to the atomic force microscope. Journal of Applied Physics, 84:64–76, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. S. Allen, H. Sumali, and P.C. Penegor. Effect of tip mass on atomic force microscope calibration by thermal method. In 27th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, Florida, 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Businees Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied and Experimental Mechanics (IAM)Universität Stuttgart, GermanyStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations