Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:41:48.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spectral Analysis of Irregular Roughness Artifacts Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy and Laser Scanning Microscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2014

Yuhang Chen ,
Tingting Luo ,
Chengfu Ma ,
Wenhao Huang  and
Sitian Gao
Yuhang Chen*
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery and Precision Instrumentation, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
Tingting Luo
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery and Precision Instrumentation, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
Chengfu Ma
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery and Precision Instrumentation, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
Wenhao Huang
Affiliation:
Department of Precision Machinery and Precision Instrumentation, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People’s Republic of China
Sitian Gao
Affiliation:
Division of Metrology in Length and Precision Engineering, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing 100013, People’s Republic of China
*
*Corresponding author. chenyh@ustc.edu.cn
Get access

Abstract

Atomic force microscopy (AFM) and laser scanning microscopy (LSM) measurements on a series of specially designed roughness artifacts were performed and the results characterized by spectral analysis. As demonstrated by comparisons, both AFM and LSM can image the complex structures with high resolution and fidelity. When the surface autocorrelation length increases from 200 to 500 nm, the cumulative power spectral density spectra of the design, AFM and LSM data reach a better agreement with each other. The critical wavelength of AFM characterization is smaller than that of LSM, and the gap between the measured and designed critical wavelengths is reduced with an increase in the surface autocorrelation length. Topography measurements of surfaces with a near zero or negatively skewed height distribution were determined to be accurate. However, obvious discrepancies were found for surfaces with a positive skewness owing to more severe dilations of either the solid tip of the AFM or the laser tip of the LSM. Further surface parameter evaluation and template matching analysis verified that the main distortions in AFM measurements are tip dilations while those in LSM are generally larger and more complex.

Keywords

atomic force microscopylaser scanning microscopysurface areal roughnessspectral analysisirregular roughness artifact
Type
Materials Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 1682 - 1691
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2014 

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

Bakolas, V. (2003). Numerical generation of arbitrarily oriented non-Gaussian three-dimensional rough surfaces. Wear 254, 546–554.Google Scholar
Baršić, G., Mahović, S. & Zorc, H. (2012). Development of nano-roughness calibration standards. Meas Sci Technol 23, 035009–1–035009–9.Google Scholar
Bonetto, R.D., Ladaga, J.L. & Ponz, E. (2006). Measuring surface topography by scanning electron microscopy. II. Analysis of three estimators of surface roughness in second dimension and third dimension. Microsc Microanal 12, 178–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botta, A.C., Duarte, S. Jr., Paulin Filho, P.I. & Gheno, S.M. (2008). Effect of dental finishing instruments on the surface roughness of composite resins as elucidated by atomic force microscopy. Microsc Microanal 14, 380–386.Google Scholar
Brissonneau, V., Escoubas, L., Flory, F., Berginc, G., Maire, G. & Giovannini, H. (2012). Laser assited fabrication of random rough surfaces for optoelectronics. Appl Surf Sci 258, 9171–9174.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. & Huang, W. (2004). Numerical simulation of the geometrical factors affecting surface roughness measurements by AFM. Meas Sci Technol 15, 2005–2010.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. & Huang, W. (2009). Influences of geometrical factors on quantitative surface roughness evaluations by atomic force microscopy. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 9, 893–896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y., Luo, T. & Huang, W. (2014). Focused ion beam fabrication and atomic force microscopy characterization of micro/nanoroughness artifacts with specified statistic quantities. IEEE Trans Nanotechnol 13, 563–573.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Zhang, X., Luo, T., Liu, X. & Huang, W. (2013). Fabrication and characterization of areal roughness specimens for applications in scanning probe microscopy. Meas Sci Technol 24, 055402–1–055402–9.Google Scholar
Da Silva, M.A.B., Fardin, A.B., De Vasconcellos, R.C.C., Santos, L.M., Tonholo, J., Da Silva Júnior, J.G. & Dos Reis, J.I.L. (2011). Analysis of roughness and surface hardness of a dental composite using atomic force microscopy and microhardness testing. Microsc Microanal 17, 446–451.Google Scholar
Fujita, D., Itoh, H., Ichimura, S. & Kurosawa, T. (2007). Global standardization of scanning probe microscopy. Nanotechnology 18, 084002–1–084002–7.Google Scholar
Gao, F., Leach, R.K., Petzing, J. & Coupland, J.M. (2008). Surface measurement errors using commercial scanning white light interferometers. Meas Sci Technol 19, 015303–1–015303–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Martínez, J.F., Nieto-Carvajal, I., Abad, J. & Colchero, J. (2012). Nanoscale measurement of the power spectral density of surface roughness: How to solve a difficult experimental challenge. Nanoscale Res Lett 7, 174–1–174–11.Google Scholar
Hanlon, D.N., Todd, I., Peekstok, E., Rainforth, W.M. & van Der Zwaag, S. (2001). The application of laser scanning confocal microscopy to tribological research. Wear 251, 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, X., Zhang, X. & Scott, P.J. (2010). Template matching of freeform surfaces based on orthogonal distance fitting for precision metrology. Meas Sci Technol 21, 045101–1–045101–10.Google Scholar
Jung, Y.C. & Bhushan, B. (2006). Contact angle, adhesion and friction properties of micro- and nanopatterned polymers for superhydrophobicity. Nanotechnology 17, 4970–4980.Google Scholar
Kang, K.W., Pereda, M.D., Canafoglia, M.E., Bilmes, P., Llorente, C. & Bonetto, R. (2012). Uncertainty studies of topographical measurements on steel surface corrosion by 3D scanning electron microscopy. Micron 43, 387–395.Google Scholar
Leach, R. & Haitjema, H. (2010). Bandwidth characteristics and comparisons of surface texture measuring instruments. Meas Sci Technol 21, 032001–1–032001–9.Google Scholar
Lee, D.H. & Cho, N.G. (2012). Assessment of surface profile data acquired by a stylus profilometer. Meas Sci Technol 23, 105601–1–105601–12.Google Scholar
Liu, K. & Jiang, L. (2011). Bio-inspired design of multiscale structures for function integration. Nano Today 6, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X., Luo, T., Chen, Y., Huang, W. & Piaszenski, G. (2012). Optimal design and fabrication of three-dimensional calibration specimens for scanning probe microscopy. Rev Sci Instrum 83, 053708–1–053708–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, T., Liu, X., Chen, Y., Huang, W. & Liu, Z. (2013). Design and laser fabrication of controllable non-Gaussian roughness surfaces at microscale. Appl Surf Sci 276, 95–100.Google Scholar
Nečas, D. & Klapetek, P. (2012). Gwyddion: An open-source software for SPM data analysis. Cent Eur J Phys 101, 181–188.Google Scholar
Nemoto, K., Yanagi, K., Aketagawa, M., Yoshida, I., Uchidate, M., Miyaguchi, T. & Maruyama, H. (2009). Development of a roughness measurement standard with irregular surface topography for improving 3D surface texture measurement. Meas Sci Technol 20, 084023–1–084023–7.Google Scholar
Ong, D.C., Solanki, S., Liang, X. & Xu, X. (2012). Analysis of laser speckle severity, granularity, and anisotropy using the power spectral density in polar-coordinate representation. Opt Eng 51, 054301–1–054301–7.Google Scholar
Persson, B.N.J., Albohr, O., Tartaglino, U., Volokitin, A.I. & Tosatti, E. (2005). On the nature of surface roughness with application to contact mechanics, sealing, rubber friction and adhesion. J Phys Condens Matter 17, R1–R62.Google Scholar
Santos, R.P., Arruda, T.T.P., Carvalho, C.B.M., Carneiro, V.A., Braga, L.Q.V., Teixeira, E.H., Arruda, F.V.S., Cavada, B.S., Havt, A., De Oliveira, T.M., Bezerra, G.A. & Freire, V.N. (2008). Correlation between Enterococcus faecalis biofilms development stage and quantitative surface roughness using atomic force microscopy. Microsc Microanal 14, 150–158.Google Scholar
Seah, M.P. (2013). Nanoscale roughness and bias in step height measurements by atomic force microscopy. Meas Sci Technol 24, 035004–1–035004–12.Google Scholar
Uchidate, M., Yanagi, K., Yoshida, I., Shimizu, T. & Iwabuchi, A. (2011). Generation of 3D random topography datasets with periodic boundaries for surface metrology algorithms and measurement standards. Wear 271, 565–570.Google Scholar
Wu, J.J. (2000). Simulation of rough surfaces with FFT. Tribol Int 33, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J.J. (2002). Spectral analysis for the effects of stylus tip curvature on measuring isotropic rough surfaces. Meas Sci Technol 13, 720–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamazoe, S., Kohori, A., Sakurai, H., Kitanaka, Y., Noguchi, Y., Miyayama, M. & Wada, T. (2012). Laser beam scanning microscope and piezoresponse force microscope studies on domain structured in 001-, 110-, and 111-oriented NaNbO3 films. J Appl Phys 112, 052007–1–052007–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar