Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:03:51.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progress toward Système International d'Unités traceable force metrology for nanomechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

Jon R. Pratt ,
Douglas T. Smith ,
David B. Newell ,
John A. Kramar  and
Eric Whitenton
Jon R. Pratt
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
Douglas T. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
David B. Newell
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
John A. Kramar
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
Eric Whitenton
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
Get access

Abstract

Recent experiments with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Electrostatic Force Balance (EFB) have achieved agreement between an electrostatic force and a gravitational force of 10−5 N to within a few hundred pN/μN. This result suggests that a force derived from measurements of length, capacitance, and voltage provides a viable small force standard consistent with the Système International d’Unités. In this paper, we have measured the force sensitivity of a piezoresistive microcantilever by directly probing the NIST EFB. These measurements were linear and repeatable at a relative standard uncertainty of 0.8%. We then used the calibrated cantilever as a secondary force standard to transfer the unit of force to an optical lever–based sensor mounted in an atomic force microscope. This experiment was perhaps the first ever force calibration of an atomic force microscope to preserve an unbroken traceability chain to appropriate national standards. We estimate the relative standard uncertainty of the force sensitivity at 5%, but caution that a simple model of the contact mechanics suggests errors may arise due to friction.

Keywords

Scanning probe microscopy (SPM)Nanoindentation
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 366 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res. 7 1564 (1992).Google Scholar
2.Wu, T.W.Shull, A.L. and Berriche, R.Surf. Coat. Technol 47 696 (1991).Google Scholar
3.Kriese, M.D., Boismier, D.A., Moody, N.R. and Gerberich, W.W., Eng. Fract. Mech. 61 1 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Umemura, S., Hirono, S., Yasuko, A. and Kaneko, R., IEICE Trans. Electron. E81–C 337 (1998).Google Scholar
5.Grandbois, M., Beyer, M., Rief, M., Clausen-Schaumann, H. and Gaub, H., Science, 283 1727 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. ISO group TC 164/SC 3/WG 1 and ASTM E28.06.11, Metallic Materials—Instrumented Indentation Test for Hardness and Materials Parameters, ISO 14577-1, 2, and 3 (International Organization for Standardization, 2002).Google Scholar
7.Lawall, J. and Kessler, E., Rev. Sci. Inst. 71 2669 (2000).Google Scholar
8.Jabbour, Z.J. and Yaniv, S.L., Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 106 25 (2001).Google Scholar
9.Williams, E.R., Steiner, R.L., Newell, D.B. and Olsen, P.T., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 2404 (1998).Google Scholar
10.Funck, T. and Sienknecht, V., IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 40 158 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Newell, D.B., Kramar, J.A., Pratt, J.R., Smith, D.T. and Williams, E.R., IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 52 508 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Kramar, J.A., Newell, D.B., Pratt, J.R. in Proceedings of the Joint International Conference IMEKO TC3/TC5/TC20, VDI-Berichte 1685, (VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf, Germany) pp. 71–76.Google Scholar
13.Pratt, J.R., Newell, D.B. and Kramar, J.A. in Proceedings of the joint international conference IMEKO TC3/TC5/TC20, VDI-Berichte 1685, (VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf, Germany) pp. 77–82.Google Scholar
14.Sneden, T.J. and Ducker, W.A., Langmuir 10 1003 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Gibson, C.T., Watson, G.S. and Myhra, S., Nanotechnology 7 259 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Tortonese, M. and Kirk, M.Characterization of Application Specific Probes for SPMs, SPIE 3009 (Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Bellingham, WA, 1997), p. 53.Google Scholar
17.Hoffman, W., Loheide, S., Kleine-Besten, T., Brand, U. and Schlachetzki, A.2000, Methods of Characterizing Micro Mechanical Beams and Its Calibration for the Application in Micro Force Measurement Systems, Proc. EXPO World Microtech congress (MICRO.tec 2000), 2, Hannover, Germany, VDE, pp. 819–823.Google Scholar
18.Sarid, D.Scanning Force Microscopy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
19.Holbery, J.D., Eden, V.L., Sarikaya, M. and Fischer, R.M., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 71 3769 (2000).Google Scholar
20.Howard, L.P. and Fu, J.Accurate Force Measurements for Miniature Mechanical Systems: A Review of Progress, SPIE 3225 (Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Bellingham, WA, 1997) pp. 2–11.Google Scholar
21.Tortonese, M., Barrett, R.C. and Quate, C.F., Appl. Phys. Lett. 62 834 (1993).Google Scholar
22.Harley, J. 2000, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA (2000).Google Scholar
23.Smith, C., Phys. Rev. 94 42 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Du, B., VanLandingham, M.R., Zhang, Q. and Tianbai, H., J. Mater. Res. 16 1487 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Gibson, C.T., Watson, G.S. and Myhra, S., Scanning 19 564 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar