Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2026

Quantitative Hardness Measurement by Instrumented AFM-indentation
Published on: November 22, 2016
Quantitative comparison of two independent lateral force calibration techniques for the atomic force microscope
Sarice S Barkley1, Zhao Deng, Richard S Gates
1Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA.
The diamagnetic lateral force calibrator (D-LFC) and hammerhead (HH) techniques for atomic force microscope (AFM) lateral-force calibration agree within 5%. D-LFC is preferred due to fewer uncertainties, especially when used in constant force mode with low loads.
Area of Science:
- Metrology
- Surface Science
- Nanotechnology
Background:
- Accurate lateral-force calibration is crucial for atomic force microscopy (AFM) applications.
- Existing methods like the hammerhead (HH) technique and diamagnetic lateral force calibrator (D-LFC) offer independent approaches to traceable accuracy.
- Understanding the limitations and optimal implementation of these calibration methods is essential for reliable AFM measurements.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically compare the hammerhead (HH) technique and the diamagnetic lateral force calibrator (D-LFC) for AFM lateral-force calibration.
- To investigate the limitations and sources of uncertainty associated with each calibration method.
- To determine the preferred method and optimal experimental conditions for accurate lateral-force calibration.
Main Methods:
- Comparison of HH and D-LFC calibration methods using four different tee-shaped HH reference probes.
- Investigation of D-LFC performance under varying AFM feedback control modes (constant height and constant force).
- Analysis of the impact of normal load and cantilever stiffness on D-LFC calibration accuracy.
Main Results:
- HH and D-LFC methods agree within 5% but with a precision limited to approximately 15%.
- Inconsistent D-LFC values were observed with stiff cantilevers at high normal loads.
- Calibration in constant height mode introduced up to 14% error in D-LFC; constant force mode yielded better agreement with HH.
- A systematic error of ~4% per μN was noted in constant force mode for loads ≤ 1 μN with stiff cantilevers.
Conclusions:
- The D-LFC method is preferred over the HH method due to fewer associated uncertainties.
- Optimal D-LFC calibration requires using constant force mode and minimizing applied normal loads.
- Careful consideration of cantilever stiffness relative to the D-LFC setup is necessary to avoid errors from excessive loads.
More Related Videos
08:58Atomic Force Microscopy Cantilever-Based Nanoindentation: Mechanical Property Measurements at the Nanoscale in Air and Fluid
Published on: December 2, 2022
11:18Use of Atomic Force Microscopy to Measure Mechanical Properties and Turgor Pressure of Plant Cells and Plant Tissues
Published on: July 15, 2019