The role of few-asperity contacts in adhesion.

The surface roughness of a few asperities and their influence on the work of adhesion is of scientific interest. Macroscale and nanoscale adhesion data have seemingly given inconsistent results. Despite the importance of bridging the gap between the two regimes, little experimental work has been done, presumably due to the difficulty of the experiment needed to determine how small amounts of surface roughness might influence adhesion data lying in between the two scales. To investigate the role of few-asperity contacts in adhesion, the pull-off force was measured between different sized atomic-force microscope (AFM) tips (with different roughnesses) and sample surfaces that had well-controlled material properties. There were seventeen tips of four different types, with radii from 200 nm to 60 microm. The samples were unpatterned single crystal silicon with a chemical silicon dioxide surface resulting from a standard silicon wafer clean. Some of the samples were treated with a few angstroms of vapor deposited diphenylsiloxane. We observed that the uncorrected (for surface roughness) pull-off force was independent of the radius of the AFM tip, which was contrary to all continuum-mechanics model predictions. To explain this behavior, we assumed that the interactions between the AFM tip and sample were additive, material properties were constant, and that the AFM tip, asperities, and sample surfaces were of uniform density. Based on these assumptions, we calculated a simple correction due to the measured root mean square (RMS) surface roughness of the AFM tips. The simple correction for the RMS surface roughness resulted in the expected dependence of the pull-off force on radius, but the magnitudes were higher than expected. Commercial and heat-treated AFM tips have minimal surface roughness and result in magnitudes that are more reliable. The relative uncertainty for the pull-off force was estimated to be 10%. In this paper, we derive how the cantilever and tip parameters contribute to the measured pull-off force and show how the corrected results compare with theory. Although much work is still needed, the work presented here should advance the understanding of adhesion between the macroscale and nanoscale regimes.

[1]  K. Kendall,et al.  Surface energy and the contact of elastic solids , 1971, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[2]  Jon R. Pratt,et al.  Progress toward Système International d’Unités traceable force metrology for nanomechanics , 2004 .

[3]  R. P. SHELDON,et al.  Adhesion and Adhesives , 1966, Nature.

[4]  Standard-deviation minimization for calibrating the radii of spheres attached to atomic force microscope cantilevers , 2004 .

[5]  B. V. Derjaguin,et al.  Effect of contact deformations on the adhesion of particles , 1994 .

[6]  Jon R. Pratt,et al.  Precision and accuracy of thermal calibration of atomic force microscopy cantilevers , 2006 .

[7]  B. Luan,et al.  The breakdown of continuum models for mechanical contacts , 2005, Nature.

[8]  John Hedley,et al.  Accurate analytical measurements in the atomic force microscope: a microfabricated spring constant standard potentially traceable to the SI , 2003, Nanotechnology.

[9]  B. Persson,et al.  Elastic contact between randomly rough surfaces: Comparison of theory with numerical results , 2002 .

[10]  G. Dietler,et al.  Force-distance curves by atomic force microscopy , 1999 .

[11]  D. Tabor,et al.  Direct measurement of van der Waals forces between solids in air , 1978 .

[12]  Hertz.  On the Contact of Elastic Solids , 1882 .

[13]  J. Villarrubia.  Morphological estimation of tip geometry for scanned probe microscopy , 1994 .

[14]  J. Israelachvili.  Intermolecular and surface forces , 1985 .

[15]  Hubert M. Pollock,et al.  Interpretation of force curves in force microscopy , 1993 .

[16]  H. Rydberg,et al.  DENSITY FUNCTIONALS AND VAN DER WAALS INTERACTIONS AT SURFACES , 1998 .

[17]  Mukul M. Sharma,et al.  The role of surface roughness and contact deformation on the hydrodynamic detachment of particles from surfaces , 1994 .

[18]  D. Tabor.  Surface Forces and Surface Interactions , 1977 .

[19]  F. Simon,et al.  Tailored colloidal AFM probes and their TEM investigation , 2002 .

[20]  T. R. Hsu,et al.  MEMS and Microsystems: Design and Manufacture , 2001 .

[21]  David Tabor,et al.  The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic solids , 1975, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[22]  G. Palasantzas,et al.  Self-affine roughness effects on the contact area between elastic bodies , 2003 .

[23]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion of elastic plates with application to biological systems , 2003 .

[24]  George G. Adams,et al.  Contact modeling — forces , 2000 .

[25]  I. L. Singer,et al.  Fundamentals of friction : macroscopic and microscopic processes , 1992 .

[26]  Singh,et al.  Adhesion between Nanoscale Rough Surfaces. , 2000, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[27]  Paul J. Mcwhorter,et al.  Materials issues in microelectromechanical devices: science, engineering, manufacturability and reliability , 2003 .

[28]  J. Hutter.  Comment on tilt of atomic force microscope cantilevers: effect on spring constant and adhesion measurements. , 2005, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[29]  Andrew N. Cleland,et al.  Foundations of Nanomechanics: From Solid-State Theory to Device Applications , 2005 .

[30]  Martyn C. Davies,et al.  Comparison of calibration methods for atomic-force microscopy cantilevers , 2002 .

[31]  Lakkapragada Suresh,et al.  Effect of Surface Roughness on the Interaction Energy between a Colloidal Sphere and a Flat Plate , 1996 .

[32]  Bharat Bhushan,et al.  Applied scanning probe methods , 2006 .

[33]  J. Barbera,et al.  Contact mechanics , 1999 .