IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

1

Improved Control Strategies for Intermittent
Contact Mode Atomic Force Microscopes

arXiv:1609.05245v1 [cs.SY] 16 Sep 2016

Marco Coraggio, Martin Homer, Oliver D. Payton, Mario di Bernardo

Abstract—Atomic force microscopes have proved to be fundamental research tools in many situations where a gentle imaging
process is required, and in a variety of environmental conditions,
such as the study of biological samples. Among the possible modes
of operation, intermittent contact mode is one that causes less
wear to both the sample and the instrument; therefore, it is ideal
when imaging soft samples. However, intermittent contact mode is
not particularly fast when compared to other imaging strategies.
In this paper, we introduce three enhanced control approaches,
applied at both the dither and z-axis piezos, to address the
limitations of existing control schemes. Our proposed strategies
are able to eliminate different image artefacts, automatically
adapt scan speed to the sample being scanned and predict its
features in real time. The result is that both the image quality
and the scan time are improved.
Index Terms—Atomic force microscope, AFM, intermittent
contact mode, IC-AFM, tapping mode, dynamic PID, hybrid PID,
scan speed regulator, predictive controller.

(a)

(b)

Af

(c)
Ar

A
b

b

σ

b

Fig. 1. Operation of an intermittent contact mode AFM. (a) Initially, the
flexible cantilever (black curved line) oscillates away from the sample (green),
with the free oscillation amplitude Af . (b) When the distance between the
sample surface and the cantilever is reduced, amplitude decreases to a certain
value A < Af . (c) Then, a feedback controller regulates the height b of the
base of the cantilever so as the oscillation amplitude A reaches the reference
value Ar ; this way the cantilever is able to perceive the surface, but impacts
very gently once every oscillation period.

obtained subtracting A from b. At the same time, the sample is
moved horizontally under the cantilever, generally in a raster
pattern, so as to trace the three-dimensional topography of
the sample. The oscillation amplitude A(t) is extracted in real
I. I NTRODUCTION
HE atomic force microscope (AFM) is a device with time from the tip position signal, typically measured using
remarkable precision, used to image hard and soft samples the optical beam deflection method [3], in a process called
at the nanoscale [1], belonging to the family of scanning probe demodulation, operated by a device known as demodulator.
However, although the IC-AFM minimizes damage to the
microscopes. The popularity of the instrument comes from the
fact that it can scan samples under ambient temperature and samples while imaging them with great accuracy, the process
pressure, with a vertical resolution in the order of a hundredth is hindered by its low speed. In this paper we present new
of a nanometre and a lateral resolution in the order of a tenth control schemes to help address this issue. Specifically, these
of a nanometre [2]. The microscope senses sample surfaces by strategies allow us to improve image quality by detecting
means of a flexible cantilever with an atomically-sharp tip at and managing more kinds of image artefacts with respect to
the end. When operated in intermittent contact mode (IC-AFM, established solutions and by predicting features of the samples,
also known as tapping mode) [2], the cantilever’s tip oscillates exploiting knowledge of those parts which have already been
vertically over the sample surface, driven by a dither piezo. scanned. Therefore, it is possible to increase scan speed, without
From the way the atomic interaction forces affect the oscillation, worsening image quality. Furthermore, we propose to adapt
it is possible to infer the distance between the sample surface scan speed dynamically, depending on the characteristics of the
and the tip equilibrium point. The latter is the position where sample, allowing for faster scans, with no effect on imaging
the tip would be, when at rest; it is also termed the “cantilever accuracy.
The rest of the paper is outlined as follows. In Section II
base height”, because it corresponds to the height of the fixed
we
give a detailed explanation of how the IC-AFM works,
end of the cantilever, which is maneuvered by the z-axis piezo.
along
with a mathematical formulation. Then, existing control
As shown in Figure 1 (see also Figure 2), when far away from
approaches
and their disadvantages are discussed in Section
the sample, the cantilever oscillates at its maximum (or free)
III.
After
that,
in Section IV original solutions are presented
oscillation amplitude Af . When the oscillating cantilever comes
to
improve
the
performance and the scanning speed of the
close to the sample surface, the interaction forces cause the
microscope.
The
novel regulators are validated in Section V on
oscillation amplitude A to decrease; then, a feedback controller,
a
set
of
test
samples.
Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section
generally a proportional integral derivative (PID) regulator,
VI.
adjusts the height b(t) of the base of the cantilever so as to
attempt to maintain the current oscillation amplitude A(t) at a
II. AFM: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
constant reference value Ar < Af . The reference amplitude Ar
A.
Cantilever
model
is chosen to balance the need to maximise image quality, while
minimising the damage to the AFM tip and sample resulting
The cantilever tip is the core of an atomic force microscope,
from impacts. The height of the sample surface can then be it can be modeled as a mechanical point mass impact oscillator

T

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

[4]. Specifically, the model can be given as the system

ẋ1 = x2
ωn
2
x2 + u + F (b + x1 − σ)
ẋ2 = −ωn x1 −
Q

Current position

(1)
(2)

b

x1 (t+ ) = x1 (t− ) = σ(t) − b(t)
(4)
that models the impact between the cantilever tip and the sample
surface (in terms of a change in state in the infinitesimally
short time before and after an impact, at times t− and t+
respectively). In the above equations (see Figure 2):
• x1 is the vertical position [m] of the tip with respect to b;
• x2 is its
p vertical velocity [m/s];
• ωn =
k/m is the natural (or resonant) frequency [rad/s]
of the first flexural mode of the cantilever, with m and k
being the mass [kg] and the stiffness coefficient [N/m] of
the cantilever, respectively;
• Q = mωn /c is its quality factor [dimensionless], with c
being the damping coefficient [kg/s] of the cantilever;
• u represents the action of the dither piezo, with D being
its driving amplitude [m/s2 ] and ωd its driving frequency
[rad/s];
2
• F are the interaction forces normalized to mass [m/s ]
depending on the distance l [m] between the tip and the
sample, which is exactly l = b + x1 − σ (see subsection
II-B);
• b is the height [m] of the base of the cantilever;
• σ is the height [m] of the sample surface to be measured;
• r is the restitution coefficient [dimensionless].
If the cantilever were infinitely far from the the sample,
i.e. assuming F = 0 and neglecting (4), at steady state the
cantilever tip would oscillate in a sinusoidal motion, with
(5)

x1 (t) = Af sin(ωd t + ϕ),

where ϕ is a phase shift and the free oscillation amplitude Af
can be computed as
Af =

D

,

ωn
ωn2 − ωd2 + iωd
Q

(6)

√
where i = −1. In reality, the distance between the cantilever
and the sample is finite, therefore F 6= 0 and in ideal
operation the reset law (4) triggers once every oscillation period,
when the tip impacts the sample surface. As a result, under
normal working conditions, with only low velocity impacts,
the evolution of tip position in time follows a quasi-sinusoidal
motion and can be approximated as
x1 (t) ≈ A(t) sin(ωd t + ϕ(t)),

(7)

with A(t) ≈ b(t) − σ(t) and A(t) ≤ Af . Note that this
approximation corresponds to the assumption that, since the
forcing generated by the dither piezo is close to the fundamental

Contact
position

A
Sample
z-axis piezo

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the cantilever tip close to the sample
surface.

Interaction forces (DMT model)
1

50
Force F [nN]

x2 (t+ ) = −rx2 (t− ),

Dither
piezo

σ

when the tip is away from the sample, together with the reset
law

Equilibrium
position

x1

l

(3)

u = D sin(ωd t),

2

40
30

0

20
-1

10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0
0

0.5
1
1.5
Tip-sample distance l [nm]

2

Fig. 3. Interaction forces according to Derjaguin-Muller-Toporov model, with
coefficient values in Table I. The inset shows the detail of the repulsive forces.

frequency of the cantilever, the amplitude of the fundamental
mode is much larger than those of the higher modes, which
can be neglected, even though impacts tend to activate all
harmonics [5].
B. Interaction forces
There are at least two alternative ways to model the
interaction forces F in (2). The so-called Lennard-Jones (LJ)
model [7–9] leads to highly stiff force characteristics for small
values of the distance l between the tip and the sample, and is
therefore discarded here. Instead we make the approximation
that the tip can be modeled as a spherical surface coming in
contact with a locally flat sample surface and use the DerjaguinMuller-Toporov (DMT) model [4, 10, 11], where the interaction
forces F are given by

Hr


− t ,
l > lm

2


q
 6l
3
F (l) =
,
(8)
rt (lm − l)
Hrt 4


− 2 +
,
l
≤
l
m


6lm
3 1 − Vt2 1 − Vs2



+
Et
Et
with:
• l being the tip-sample distance [m];
• H the Hamaker constant [J];
• rt the tip radius [m];
• lm the intermolecular distance [m];
• Et and Es the elastic moduli [Pa] of the tip and the
sample, respectively;

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)
Sample surface height σ

TABLE I
PARAMETERS USED FOR THE AFM MODEL [4], [6].
+

Group

Parameter

Value

Cantilever

ωn

2.85 · 105 · 2π rad/s

Q

100

r

0.9

k

42 N/m

m = k/ωn2

1.3098 · 10−11 kg

c = mωn /Q

2.3455 · 10−7 kg/s

H

1.4 · 10−19 J

rt

2 nm

lm

0.42 nm

Et , Es

1.65 · 1011 Pa

Interaction forces

z-axis piezo

Vt , V s

0.27

ωzp

1.5 · 106 · 2π rad/s

Qzp

18

Kzp

1/ωzp

Af

variable

Ar

0.9Af

KP , K D

0

KI

10000

vx

1 mm/s

Q control

Q0

30

Dynamic/Hybrid PID

Ks

15

Feedback controller

Scan speed regulator

Predictive controller

∆QPL , ∆QRL

25

A+
t

0.95Ar

A−
t

0.94Ar

At,RL

0.5Ar

αt

−400Af

τv

0.12 ms

Vx,0

variable

Vx,m

0.1Vx,0

Vx,M

Vx,0

bM,a

KI (Ar − At,RL )

bM,d

KI (Ar − A+
t )

bL,a

0.9bM,a

bL,d

0.9bM,d

br,a

0.8bM,a

br,d

0.8bM,d

MPC

3

Eσ

0.1Af · Ix

NW

0.01Ix

3

Reference −
Af

Feedback
Controller

−

+

z-axis piezo

Cantilever
base height b

Oscillation
amplitude A

+

Cantilever &
dither piezo
Tip position x 1

−

Demodulator

Estimation of sample surface height σ̂

Fig. 4. Block diagram representing the intermittent contact mode atomic
force microscope.

repulsive force becomes larger as l decreases [12].
C. Estimation of the sample surface
For correct operation, the oscillation amplitude A must attain
a certain constant reference value Ar , i.e.
lim A(t) = Ar .

t→∞

(9)

This regulation is fundamental, because, if A becomes too
small, the interaction forces will damage the sample; on the
other hand, if it becomes too large, the oscillating cantilever
tip might lose contact with the sample, causing a phenomenon
described in detail in Section III, known as probe loss or
parachuting, in which the measurement is incorrect. Normally,
Ar is chosen approximately equal to 0.9Af , with the aim of
reducing the magnitudepof the interaction forces, whose mean
value is proportional to A2f − A2r [2]. In turn, it is common to
choose Af as the smallest value that satisfies Af ≥ σmax −σmin ,
where σmax and σmin are the largest and the smallest values of
the sample surface height σ on the same scan line (e.g. [4, 13]).
However, since σmax and σmin are unknown before the scan
is performed, Af has to be selected conservatively, considering
the nature of the sample to be imaged.
To ensure (9), a feedback controller is used to adjust b, so
that an estimate of surface height σ can be computed as
σ̂ = b − A.

(10)

Moreover, at the same time, the sample is moved in a raster
pattern on the horizontal x-y plane, so that the whole specimen
is imaged, with the scan lines being parallel to the x-axis. A
schematic diagram showing the key components needed for
estimating the sample surface height is depicted in Figure 4.
III. E XISTING CONTROL APPROACHES

Vt and Vs the Poisson ratios [dimensionless] of the tip
and the sample, respectively.
Figure 3 shows the interaction forces as a function of the
tip-sample distance l with the parameter values set as in Table
I. When the tip and the sample are not too close, there is a
small residual attraction between them, due to van der Waals
force. However, when the tip-sample distance is reduced below
the intermolecular distance lm (lm ≈ 0.42 nm in Figure 3),
van der Waals force begins to turn repulsive, repulsive Pauli
and ionic exclusion forces become prominent and the overall
•

The problem of controlling b is not straightforward in the
framework of control theory. In fact, it presents a series of
complications:
1) The AFM is a hybrid system because of the reset law
(4) due to impacts.
2) The main control input, b, affects the behavior of the
system through the impact law and also by influencing
the interaction forces.
3) While regulating A to Ar , the controller has to reject the
unknown disturbance due to the sample height σ.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

4) Generally, in the implementation, the relation between
A and state vector [x1 x2 ]T is non-instantaneous. For
example, the simplest sample-and-hold demodulators
require, at the very least, half an oscillation period to
update the value of A [2], thus introducing a delay (see
also [14]).
All of these issues make it very complicated to engineer a
controller for b and to prove its validity analytically. Because
of this, a relatively simple scheme such as a PID is a wellestablished solution to the problem [1]. Specifically,
b(t) = PID(eA ),

(11)

where eA (t) = Ar − A(t) is the error on the oscillation
amplitude and and the PID control action is defined as
Z t
dξ(t)
PID(ξ(t)) = KP ξ(t) + KI
ξ(τ ) dτ + KD
, (12)
dt
0

4

Thus, given a desired Q0 , the gain of the Q control law must
be chosen as


1
1
−
KQ = ωn
.
(15)
Q0
Q
Furthermore, since Af depends on Q (see (6)), to avoid
changing Af , a new value D0 must be set as
D0 (Q0 ) = Af ωn2 +

ωn
iωd + (iωd )2 .
Q0

(16)

Note that Q control requires the velocity signal x2 to be
measurable, which is true if the position signal is measured via
a laser Doppler vibrometer [17]. If this is not the case, a good
estimate of velocity is available applying a phase shift and
a normalization to the position signal or using the so-called
resonant controller, as described in [2]. For a more recent
implementation see [18].

with KP , KI and KD being constant gains. Nevertheless, since
the imaging accuracy given by the PID is not exceptionally B. Dynamic PID
good, scan speed cannot be too high.
The aim of the dynamic PID control is the same as that of
Moreover, this simple regulator does not implement any Q control, i.e. reducing the negative effect of probe losses, but
mechanism to correctly deal with probe losses, occurring the way it achieves this goal is different; so much so that the
when the sample surface decreases rapidly and the oscillating two schemes can (and often are) used together [2]. Dynamic
cantilever loses contact with the sample. While there is no PID addresses the problem of the error eA saturating to the
contact between the tip and the sample, the measurement value Ar − Af . To overcome this issue, the control law (11)
is incorrect; therefore this condition is highly undesirable. is modified as explained below. Specifically, occurrence of a
Normally, it takes a while to re-establish the contact, because probe loss is inferred by inspecting the oscillation amplitude A:
the error on the oscillation amplitude, eA — that is the input if it exceeds a threshold At > Ar , this means that the cantilever
to the feedback controller regulating b — eventually saturates oscillation amplitude is not being limited by proximity with
to the negative value Ar − Af .
the sample surface and thus a probe loss has occurred. When
Two regulators, Q control [15] and dynamic PID [16] have this happens, part of the error is multiplied by a gain Ks :
(
been described in the literature to mitigate the effect of probe
PID(Ar − A),
A ≤ At
losses. Even if both manage to increase the accuracy of the
b=
,
(17)
PID[(Ar − At ) + Ks (At − A)], A > At
scans, they do not account for other imaging artefacts that are
instead addressed by the improved controllers we propose in
and the PID control action is defined as in (12). Note that,
Section IV. For the sake of completeness, we explain both of
when in probe loss, only the part of the error exceeding Ar −At
them briefly below.
is multiplied by the gain, so that the output b of the regulator
remains a continuous signal.
A. Q control
Normally, as soon as a probe loss occurs, the cantilever
is oscillating away from the sample with amplitude A ≈ Ar ,
therefore eA ≈ 0. The faster the error increases in absolute
value, the faster the feedback controller regulating b can act
to recover from probe loss. The cascade of the cantilever
oscillating in free air and the demodulator can be seen as
a first order system, in which the input is the dither piezo
driving amplitude D, and the state and output is the cantilever
oscillation amplitude A [2]. This system has time constant
τA = 2Q/ωn . Therefore, the cantilever can be made more
reactive by reducing the effective quality factor Q, which, in
turn, may be achieved by changing the input from the dither
piezo in (3) to
u(t) = D sin(ωd t) − KQ x2 .
In so doing, the new effective Q, called Q0 , becomes

−1
ωn
ωn
KQ
0
+ KQ = 0 ⇒ Q = Q +
.
Q
Q
ωn

(13)

(14)

C. Open problems and imaging artefacts
While probe loss is extensively studied in the literature
(e.g., [1]), there exist two other subtler image artefacts that
can equally deteriorate image quality but are less investigated:
we shall term them as recoil and recovery. Both are illustrated
in Figure 5, which shows the result of a numerical simulation
that includes both Q control and dynamic PID.
Recoil happens when the sample to be imaged presents a
steep upward step (see Figure 5, t ≈ 0.6 ms). In that case, the
cantilever-sample separation b − σ suddenly decreases and the
interaction forces increase; as a consequence, the oscillation
amplitude A decreases quickly to a value smaller than b − σ
and the oscillating cantilever loses contact with the sample.
During this time, the feedback controller is ineffective, because
the value of A is not representative of the actual distance
between the cantilever and the sample. When the undershoot
of A is finished, A returns to depend solely on the current
cantilever-sample distance b − σ and recoil is completed. The

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

Tip dynamics

60

q=1

Regular

5

g1,2

80
40

[nm]

60

g4,1

g4,4

40

20

Recoil

20
0
-20
0

-26
-28
0.22 0.26 0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [ms]

q=2

Tip dynamics
1.5
1

g1,4

g3,1

q=4

g2,3

g3,3

Recovery

q=3

0
0.6
0.8

Fig. 7. Hybrid PID scheme. The arrow starting from a black dot represents
the initial state. Guards gi,j are described in Table II.

0.65
1

Fig. 5. Scan of an ideal calibration grid, made up of a downward and an
upward step, both 28 nm tall, using dynamic PID and Q control; Af = 50 nm.
The orange line is the absolute tip position x1 + b; the red line on the top
represents A + b; the blue line in the middle is the cantilever base height b;
the green line on the bottom is the sample surface height σ. The inset on the
left shows recovery in detail, while the one on the right illustrates recoil. The
result of these phenomena is that the white space between the orange envelope
and the green line is erroneously considered part of the sample surface in the
measurement process.

[nm]

ProbeLoss
g2,1

TABLE II
G UARDS FOR THE TRANSITIONS IN HYBRID PID. B RACES CONTAIN
ACTIONS PERFORMED DURING THE TRANSITIONS .

Name

Condition, {action}
A+
t
A−
t

Type
threshold

g1,2

A≥

g2,1

A≤

g2,3

Ȧ < αt , {ρ → false; t0 = t}

impact

g3,3

Ȧ > 0 ∧ ρ = false, {ρ → true}

wait

threshold

g3,1

(Ȧ < 0 ∧ ρ = true) ∨ (t − t0 ≥ Kτ τA )

impact or timeout

1

g1,4

A ≤ At,RL , {ρ → false; t0 = t}

threshold

0

g4,4

Ȧ > 0 ∧ ρ = false, {ρ → true}

wait

g4,1

(Ȧ < αt ∧ ρ = true) ∨ (t − t0 ≥ Kτ τA )

impact or timeout

0.6 0.608

0.5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

t [ms]
Fig. 6. Scan of an ideal calibration grid with 0.448 nm tall steps, using
dynamic PID and Q control; Af = 0.8 nm. The inset shows that reset law
(4) is never triggered; despite this both recovery and recoil phenomena can be
seen.

recovery and recoil, allowing for higher image quality. Secondly,
a scan speed regulator automatically adapts the scan velocity
to the features of the sample, resulting in smaller scan time
and greater accuracy. Lastly, a predictive controller achieves
the same result by forecasting the features of the specimen
exploiting information deriving from already scanned portions.
A. Hybrid PID
To address the problems caused by probe losses, recoveries
and recoils, we propose a hybrid PID strategy which combines
the use of the z-axis piezo — which varies b — with the
dither piezo — which causes the oscillation of the cantilever.
As Figure 7 shows, the controller has 4 possible modes, of
which only one is active at any time; the discrete variable
q ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} identifies the current mode. In all modes, the
z-axis piezo output is determined by the control law
(
PID(Ar − A),
A ≤ A+
t
b=
+
+ , (18)
q
PID[(Ar − A+
t ) + Ks (At − A)], A > At

effect of a recoil on surface estimation is an image artefact
shaped like a bump, because σ̂ = b−A is larger if A is smaller,
during the undershoot.
Recovery occurs after dynamic PID has brought back the
cantilever close to the surface, following a probe loss. In this
situation there is a very short time in which the regulator
keeps decreasing b, even if the cantilever is close to the sample
surface; this delay is caused by the finite bandwidth of the
feedback controller and the demodulator. As a result (similarly
to recoil) the interaction forces cause the oscillation amplitude
to decrease to a value smaller than b − σ, and the cantilever while the dither piezo output is chosen as
q
detaches from the sample surface until the undershoot on
u = Dq sin(ωd t) − KQ
x2 ,
(19)
A finishes. The phenomenon is observable in Figure 5 for
q
q
q
t ≈ 0.25 ms, and the artefact it generates is a false bump, just where variables Ks , D and KQ depend on the current mode.
As depicted in Figure 7, normally — i.e. in absence of probe
as for recoil.
Note that neither event is caused by the presence of the reset loss, recovery and recoil — Regular (q = 1) is the active mode.
law (4). In fact, as Figure 6 shows, the phenomena can happen If, at a certain point, a probe loss (with subsequent recovery)
even when Af is so small that the reset law is never triggered. or a recoil are detected, the controller switches to a different
mode and the behaviors of the piezos change accordingly.
Specifically,
IV. I MPROVED AFM CONTROLLERS
(
1,
q = 1, 3, 4
q
In this section, three new proposed control schemes are
Ks =
;
(20)
Ks , q = 2
illustrated. Firstly, a hybrid PID strategy is used to deal with

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

which simply means that Regular, Recovery and Recoil modes
(q = 1, 3, 4, respectively) use a regular PID, while ProbeLoss
mode (q = 2) employs a dynamic PID. Also, the modeq
dependent control parameters Dq and KQ
are defined to be
 0
q = 1, 2

D ,





Af ωn2 + ωn iωd + (iωd )2 , q = 3
q
QPL (A)
, (21)
D =




ωn

2
2


Af ωn + QRL (A)iωd + (iωd ) , q = 4

KQ ,
q = 1, 2







1
1

−
, q=3
ωn
q
KQ
=
,
(22)
QPL (A) Q





1
1


−
, q=4
ωn
QRL (A) Q
with the probe loss (PL) and recoil (RL) Q values


Ar − A
QPL (A) = Q0 − ∆QPL min
,1 ,
A − Af
 r

Ar − A
0
QRL (A) = Q − ∆QRL min
,1 ,
Ar − 0
∆QPL , ∆QRL > 0.

(23)
(24)
(25)

That is to say, Regular and ProbeLoss mode utilize a regular Q
control, whereas Recovery and Recoil modes employ a dynamic
damping mechanism, where the further A is from its reference
value Ar , the more the cantilever is damped. This is to rapidly
extinguish the phenomenon of the undershoot of the oscillation
amplitude that happens during recoveries and recoils.
The guards that govern the transitions from one mode to
another are reported in Table II and Figure 7), and may be
divided into four categories:
• Threshold conditions are used to detect probe losses (g1,2 :
A(t) > A+
t ) and recoils (g1,4 : A(t) < At,RL ), and to
exit ProbeLoss mode (g2,1 : A(t) < A−
t ) if a recovery is
not detected immediately after probe loss. While probe
loss is associated with an excessively large oscillation
amplitude, the beginning of recoil is detected when an
unusually small amplitude is achieved; therefore A+
t > Ar
and At,RL < Ar . Moreover, in order to obtain a controller
which is less subject to noise on A, A−
t must be selected
+
so that A−
<
A
,
creating
a
sort
of
hysteresis
between
t
t
Regular and ProbeLoss modes.
• Impact conditions are of the kind dA/dt = Ȧ < 0, and
are employed to detect the beginning and end of recovery
and the end of recoil. In fact, recovery begins after probe
loss when the oscillating cantilever impacts the sample
surface (g2,3 ), then the cantilever briefly detaches from the
sample and the phenomenon ends after a second impact
with the surface (g3,1 ). Similarly, recoil terminates when
the cantilever oscillating in free air impacts the sample
surface (g4,1 ). A threshold αt is included in g2,3 and g4,1
to account for signal noise on dA/dt, whereas it is absent
in g3,1 , where the impact is expected to happen gently
and dA/dt is monotone;

•

•

6

Wait conditions are used in Recovery (g3,3 ) and Recoil
(g4,4 ) modes with the purpose of waiting for a change in
the sign of dA/dt, in order to allow for a correct detection
of impacts; the completion of such event is signalled by
the Boolean variable ρ;
Timeout conditions are set along with the impact conditions in g3,1 and g4,1 for those cases where impacts are
not detected.

B. Scan speed regulator
We present next an additional control scheme aimed at
reducing scan time, which can be achieved by employing
at all times the largest scan speed that allows for a correct
imaging. Ideally, the best way to accomplish this would be to
adjust the scan speed vx dynamically, according to the rate
of change of the sample surface, |dσ/dt|, so that when the
latter is large (small), the former is small (large). However,
|dσ/dt| is not easily measurable, therefore we propose that vx
may be varied depending on the time-derivative db/dt of the
z-axis piezo input generated by the PID controller, since, if
|db/dt| is large (small), |dσ/dt| is likely to be large (small)
as well. Furthermore, |dσ/dt| is actually a function of vx , in
the sense that if vx → 0, the surface height σ does not change
under the cantilever and |dσ/dt| → 0 too. Thus, vx must be
set so that |dσ/dt| (i.e. |db/dt|) is kept within some acceptable
ranges. These ranges can be chosen considering that, adopting
a hybrid PID strategy, the most critical values of db/dt are
bM,a = KI (Ar −At,RL ) and bM,d = KI (Ar −A+
t ). The former,
bM,a (“maximum ascending”), is the positive value of db/dt
that, when reached, causes the hybrid PID to switch to Recoil
mode, whereas the latter, bM,d (“maximum descending”), is the
negative value of db/dt that causes the switch to ProbeLoss
mode. Both should be avoided, in order not to trigger recoil
or probe loss. In light of this, a set of four parameters, bL,a ,
br,a , bL,d br,d , have to be selected. Specifically:
•

•

•

•

bL,a < bM,a (“limit ascending”) is the positive upper
bound for db/dt. The scan speed regulator is set so that
db/dt is kept below bL,a , in order to ensure db/dt < bM,a
at all times;
br,a < bL,a (“reference ascending”) is the positive
reference value for db/dt attained by the regulator when
db/dt > 0;
bL,a > bM,a (“limit descending”) is the negative lower
bound for db/dt, with the purpose of guaranteeing
db/dt > bM,d ;
br,d > bL,d (“reference descending”) is the negative
reference value for db/dt when db/dt < 0.

The result is that the parameters are ordered as follows:

bM,d < bL,d < br,d < 0 < br,a < bL,a < bM,a .

(26)

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

z

P

i y (P)

3
σ(i x, i k+
y )

y

2
σ(i x, i k+
y )
1
σ(i x, i k+
y )

7

We suggest to extend the PID controller by adding a term to
the standard PID regulator (11) of the form
b(ix , iky ) = PID(Ar − A) +

M
PC
X

Kσ,j σ̂ 0 (ix , ik−j
).
y

(30)

j=1

σ(i x, i ky )

Here, MPC is the number of previous lines used, i.e. the
memory horizon of the predictive controller, σ̂ 0 (ix , ik−j
) is a
y
filtered version of the estimation of the (k − j)-th line and
Ix
0 i x (P)
Kσ,j are adaptive gains. Converting information derived from
Fig. 8. Representation of scan lines in the three-dimensional space.
scanned lines into a feedforward action for b is straightforward,
because, in a proper scan, b is just a reproduction of σ, with
the oscillation amplitude A acting like a cushion to give the
We propose to set scan velocity vx adaptively as the solution feedback controller the necessary time to adjust b to σ. Thus, in
of the following first order piecewise-smooth adaptation law: this scheme, after the first M lines, the role of the PID is not
PC
 "
!#
to estimate σ on a line, but just to compensate the differences

db
1
db


the past MPC lines and the current one. In Equation
−vx + Vx,M − Kv,a
− br,a
,
>between
br,a



τ
dt
dt (30), the sample surface estimation σ̂ 0 has the “prime” symbol
v




1
db because it is actually a window-filtered version of the original,
v̇x =
≤ br,a
[−vx + Vx,M ] ,
br,d ≤

τv "
dt i.e.
Z ix +NW


!#

1
0
k


σ̂ (ix , iy ) =
σ̂(ξ, iky ) dξ.
(31)
1
db
db


2NW ix −NW
< br,d
,

 τv −vx + Vx,M − Kv,d dt − br,d
dt
(27) where it is assumed that σ̂(ξ, iky ) = σ̂(0, iky ), ξ ∈ [−NW , 0)
Vx,M
Vx,M
and σ̂(ξ, iky ) = σ̂(Ix , iky ), ξ ∈ (Ix , Ix + NW ]. This filtering is
,
Kv,d =
.
(28)
Kv,a =
necessary because only the general shape of the scan lines is
|bL,a − br,a |
|bL,d − br,d |
likely to recur in the following ones. In addition, the adaptive
Here, Vx,M is the (arbitrary or physical) maximum speed of gains are given by
the piezo maneuvering the x-axis and τv is a time constant
(
)

that must be compatible with the time response of the piezo.
1
Eσ − eσ,j



,0 ,
j ∈ [1, MPC − 1]

The difference between the three cases in (27) is the input: it
 2j max
Eσ
(
)
drives vx to the maximum value Vx,M if db/dt is between its Kσ,j =
,

1
E
−
e

σ
σ,j
reference values br,d and br,a ; otherwise, it reduces vx all the


, 0 , j = MPC
 2(j − 1) max
Eσ
way down to zero as db/dt approaches bL,a or bL,d . However,
(32)
since for practical reasons it is better not to arrest the piezo
completely, a limit is set on minimum velocity as well, so that, where
Z Ix
at any time,
(33)
eσ,j ≡
σ̂ 0 (ix , ik−j
) − σ̂ 0 (ix , iyk−j−1 ) dix .
y
Vx,m ≤ vx ≤ Vx,M .
(29)
x

0

The initial value of the scan speed, Vx,0 , may be set either
close to Vx,m , if there is a desire to act more conservatively and
privilege image accuracy, or close to Vx,M , if a fast scan is the
priority. Among the advantages of this control technique is the
use of different scan speeds for the ascending and descending
parts of the samples, since only the latter threaten probe loss
and thus require greater care.
C. Predictive controller
In the framework of the raster scan pattern, we propose to
use a predictive controller to exploit information acquired from
previous lines in the scan of the current one. As shown in
Figure 8, let
•
•
•
•

ix (P ) be the x coordinate [m] of a point P on the sample
surface;
iy (P ) its y coordinate [m];
Ix the length [m] of a scan line;
Iy the length [m] of the sample along the y-axis.

Note that the gains Kσ,j are normalized by the factors 1/2j and
1/2(j−1), so that their sum is, at the most, unity. Moreover, the
more recent a line (smaller j), the higher the coefficient. The
results of the “max” operations span from 0 to 1. In particular,
when eσ,j , which represents how much a line is different from
the previous one, is equal to or greater than a threshold Eσ , the
result is 0. Hence, the line is too different from the previous
one to be used as a predictive tool. Conversely, if eσ,j is small,
the result of the “max” operation is close to 1, indicating that
the line is adequate for a predictive use.
V. N UMERICAL VALIDATION
A. Settings and Samples
To validate the new control strategies, we make the following
assumptions regarding the AFM:
• The dynamics of the dither piezo are much faster than
that of the system, i.e. the largest time constant of the
former is significantly smaller than 1/ωn ;

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

TABLE III
R ESULTS OF SCANS OF A 10- PERIOD - LONG IDEAL CALIBRATION GRID .
eσ [nm] IS THE ESTIMATION ERROR ; vi [mm/s] IS THE IMPACT VELOCITY,
I . E . WHEN (4) TRIGGERS ; eRV
σ,max [nm] IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUMP IN A
RECOVERY. RMS IS THE ROOT MEAN SQUARE VALUE AND SD IS THE
STANDARD DEVIATION .

Tip dynamics
80

[nm]

60
40
20
0
-20
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Case

Variable

1. Dynamic PID

1

t [ms]
Fig. 10.

8

2. Hybrid PID w/o Recoil mode

Scan of the ideal calibration grid with hybrid PID; Af = 50 nm.

The z-axis piezo can be modeled as a second order system
[6], with gain Kzp , natural frequency ωzp and quality
factor Qzp (see Table I).
• Q control is always employed and tip velocity x2 is
assumed measurable.
Validation will be performed on five samples: two ideal, purely
numerical ones, and three real ones, previously acquired with
another AFM. These are:
• An ideal calibration grid, with 28 nm tall steps and a
spatial period of 1 µm, with each period having one
downward and one upward step;
• A real titanium disulfide sample (see Figure 9a);
• An ideal quasi-sinusoidal sample, which is the sum of a
sine having a spatial period of 4 µm and an amplitude of
80 nm and a triangular waveform having amplitude and
period each a tenth of those of the sine;
• A real calibration grid sample (see Figure 9b);
• A real uranium oxide sample (see Figure 9c).
All simulations were run in Matlab Simulink [19], using
Stateflow toolbox that uses an event-driven solver to simulate
the reset law (4) correctly. This is coupled with a variablestep Dormand-Prince (ode45) solver, with maximum step size
10–7 , minimum step size 10–13 and relative tolerance 10–4 . In
addition, all parameters which are not expressed explicitly are
taken from Table I, unless stated otherwise.

3. Hybrid PID

•

B. Validation of hybrid PID
Figure 10 represents the scan of the ideal calibration grid,
performed with a hybrid PID. Compare it with Figure 5, where
the classical dynamic PID is used on the same sample: in the
former, the bump at time t ≈ 0.25 ms, associated with the
recovery phenomenon, has practically disappeared; also, recoil
decays much faster when employing the hybrid PID. Table
III reports the results of four different cases of scans of a
10-periods-long ideal calibration grid. In the table, the variable
eRV
σ,max indicates the maximum height of the bump observed
during a recovery. The comparison between the third rows in
the first two sub-tables shows that the hybrid PID reduces the
root mean square value of eRV
σ,max by 58.9%. Furthermore, the
fact that the impact velocity vi — i.e. the value of x2 when
the reset law is triggered — does not increase points out that
the new controller achieves this result without increasing the

4. Hybrid PID with noise

RMS

SD

Max

eσ

8.27

8.61

28.09

vi

−74.40

11.78

10.12

eRV
σ,max

2.04

0.77

3.33

eσ

8.26

8.64

28.08

vi

−74.34

11.60

9.94

eRV
σ,max

0.84

0.48

1.69

eσ

7.72

8.21

28.09

vi

−74.48

11.38

9.68

eRV
σ,max

1.33

0.65

2.12

eσ

7.88

7.96

28.18

vi

10.07

8.69

−74.33

0.92

0.30

1.35

eRV
σ,max

TABLE IV
R ESULTS OF SCANS OF THE TITANIUM DISULFIDE SAMPLE .

Case

Variable

RMS

SD

1. Dynamic PID

eσ

0.22

0.22

0.98

vi

0.76

0.24

−1.10

eσ

0.18

0.19

0.86

vi

0.76

0.24

−1.09

2. Hybrid PID

Max

effect of the interaction forces. The third case shows that a
hybrid PID that uses Recoil mode gives an error 6.5% smaller
than that of an hypothetical hybrid PID that does not employ it.
However, if the error is computed only during recoils, where
the mode is active, the error reduction is about 20%. Finally, a
similar result is represented in the fourth case, with noise on
the position signal x1 , having a magnitude that is 1% that of Af
and αt = −600Af (while in absence of noise αt = −400Af ).
Figures 11a and 11b report the surface estimations of the
titanium disulfide sample on the scan line corresponding to
iy = 1.3 µm when using the dynamic PID and the hybrid PID,
respectively. Table IV reports quantitative findings, showing
that the root mean square error decreases by 18.2%, when
using the new scheme.
C. Validation of scan speed regulator
When scanning the ideal quasi-sinusoidal sample with
constant scan speed vx = 1 mm/s and using the hybrid
PID, the AFM is not able to image the sample properly
and probe losses happen during the descending part of the
surface, as shown in Figure 12a. Instead, a nearly perfect
scan is achieved when adding the scan speed regulator, with
Vx,M = Vx,0 = 1 mm/s and Vx,m = Vx,0 /10, as depicted in
Figure 12b. The comparison between the sub-tables in Table

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

嬀
밃洀崀

㈀

㐀

㄀⸀

㄀⸀
㌀

⸀
㔀

㈀

嬀
渀洀崀
ሢ⸀
㜀㔀

㐀

㈀ ㈀⸀
㤀㄀㔀

嬀
밃洀崀 ㄀

㄀⸀
㔀㈀

嬀
渀洀崀
ሢ㔀
ሢ㄀

㈀

ሢ㄀㔀
ሢ㈀

㈀⸀
㤀㄀㔀

㐀⸀
㘀
㄀㈀
㔀

㈀

嬀
渀洀崀

㌀

ሢ㔀

㐀⸀
㘀

ሢ㄀㈀㄀

(b)

(c)

Surface estimation (scan time: 3.998 ms)

Surface estimation (scan time: 4 ms)

100

1.5

50

1

[nm]

[nm]

㌀

(a) Sample of titanium disulfide; (b) calibration grid; (c) sample of uranium oxide. All the images are AFM scans of real samples.

2

0.5

0
-50

0
-0.5

-100
0

1

2
ix [μm]

3

4

0

1

(a)

2
ix [μm]

3

4

(a)

Surface estimation (scan time: 3.998 ms)

2

Surface estimation (scan time: 8.5934 ms)

100

1.5

50

1

[nm]

[nm]

㈀

⸀
㐀㘀
㄀

㔀

(a)
Fig. 9.

嬀
밃洀崀㄀

㄀㈀㈀
㄀

㄀

9

0.5

0
-50

0
-0.5

-100
0

1

2
ix [μm]

3

4

0

1

2
ix [μm]

3

4

(b)

(b)

Fig. 11. Surface estimations of the titanium disulfide sample with (a) dynamic
PID and (b) hybrid PID; scan line iy = 1.3 µm, Af = 2 nm. The green
solid line is the real sample surface height σ and the orange dotted line is the
estimated sample surface height σ̂.

Fig. 12. Surface estimations of the sinusoidal sample with (a) hybrid PID
(vx = 1 mm/s) and with (b) hybrid PID and scan speed regulator; Af =
50 nm.

V shows that, when using the scan speed regulator, the root
mean square error decreases by 86%. To obtain the same level
of accuracy without the scan speed regulator, it would be
necessary to reduce the scan speed to vx = 0.421 mm/s, as
in case 3, having however the scan time increased by 10.6%
with respect to case 2. For the sake of completeness, Figure
13 shows the evolution of vx and db/dt with and without scan
speed regulator, corresponding to the scans shown in Figure
12.
To further validate these findings, compare the results of a
scan of the first line (iy = 0 µm) of the real calibration grid
without the scan speed regulator, reported in Figure 14a, with
a scan performed while employing it, depicted in Figure 14b;
quantitative results are in Table VI. In particular, when using

the scan speed regulator the error decreases by 47% and the
scan time by 3%.
D. Validation of predictive controller
The predictive controller has been tested together with the
scan speed regulator on the uranium oxide sample; Figure 15
depicts a scan of the whole surface, which may be compared
with the original in Figure 9c. In addition, the results of a
series of comparative tests are reported in Table VII. In these
simulations the first 100 lines of the sample are scanned (iy =
0 µm to iy = 0, 46 µm), in four different configurations, given
by the possible combinations of the predictive controller and
the scan speed regulator. In a scenario where the scan speed
regulator is not used, adding the predictive controller reduces
the error by 39.4% (cases 1 and 2). In contrast, when using

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

Scan speed

Surface estimation (scan time: 2.915 ms)

100
0
[nm]

vx [mm/s]

1

10

0.5

-100
-200
-300

0
0

1

2
ix [μm]

3

0

4

0.5

1

Integral action
200
-30
150

3

0

-50
1.5

0

2.5

Surface estimation (scan time: 2.8269 ms)

100

100
50

2

(a)

[nm]

db/dt [7m/s]

(a)

1.5
ix [μm]

2

2.5

-100
-200

-50

-300
0

1

2
ix [μm]

3

0

4

0.5

1

1.5
ix [μm]

2

2.5

3

(b)

(b)

Fig. 13. (a) Scan speed vx relative to the scan in Figure 12b. The blue line is
vx , the red line on the top is Vx,M and the green line on the bottom is Vx,m .
(b) Integral action db/dt relative to the scans in Figures 12a and 12b. The
three lines on the top in shades of red are bM,a , bL,a and br,a , recalling that
bM,a > bL,a > br,a . The three lines on the bottom in shades of green are
bM,d , bL,d and br,d , with bM,d < bL,d < br,d . The dashed orange line is the
integral action relative the scan in Figure 12a (w/o speed regulator), whereas
the blue solid line is the integral action relative to the scan in Figure 12b (w/
speed regulator). The inset shows a detail corresponding to the descending
part of the sample.

Fig. 14. Surface estimations of the real calibration grid using (a) the hybrid
PID (vx = 1 mm/s) and (b) the hybrid PID and the scan speed regulator
(Vx,0 = 2 mm/s.); scan line iy = 0 µm, Af = 300 nm.

TABLE V
R ESULTS OF SCANS OF THE SINUSOIDAL SAMPLE . Ts [ms] IS THE SCAN
TIME .

TABLE VI
R ESULTS OF SCANS OF THE REAL CALIBRATION GRID .

Case

Variable

RMS

SD

1. Hybrid PID (vx = 1 mm/s)

eσ

5.43

5.76

3.26

vi

29.66

13.86

−107.49

2. Hybrid PID and speed
Case
1. Hybrid PID (vx = 1 mm/s)

2. Hybrid PID and speed regulator

3. Hybrid PID (vx = 0.421 mm/s)

Variable

RMS

SD

Max

eσ

1.66

1.66

8.24

vi

5.88

2.88

−19.77

Ts

3.998

-

eσ

0.23

0.25

2.01

vi

4.09

2.02

−19.77

regulator (Vx,0 = 2 mm/s)

Max

Ts

2.915

-

eσ

2.88

2.98

15.05

vi

29.98

14.75

−91.30

-

-

Ts

2.827

-

-

Ts

8.591

-

eσ

0.24

0.25

1.79

-

vi

4.25

1.91

−16.84

Ts

9.501

-

-

an AFM which implements the speed regulator, the predictive
controller reduces the error by 18.6% and the scan time by
19.9% (cases 3 and 4). In conclusion, comparing the results
given by the four configurations, the best solution is to employ
the predictive controller together with the scan speed regulator,
in order to have the best accuracy, reduced scan time and

self-selection of scan speed.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have introduced three original controllers
that achieve two fundamental goals: improving the accuracy
and reducing the scan time of the intermittent contact mode
atomic force microscope. Firstly, a hybrid PID scheme was
introduced which is able to deal with image artefacts such
as recoils and recoveries. Secondly, an adaptive scan speed
regulator is proposed to set scan speed dynamically, depending
on the characteristics of the sample surface. As a result, scan
time decreases, accuracy being equal. Finally, a predictive
controller is used to improve both the image quality and the
scan time, exploiting information deriving from already scanned
lines in the imaging of the current one.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, VOL. X, NO. X, SEPTEMBER 2016 (SUBMITTED)

11

Federico II (Italian Ministerial Decree 976, 29/12/2014 – Art.
I) for supporting his visit at the Department of Engineering
Mathematics of the University of Bristol from 16/01/2016 to
20/02/2016. MH wishes to acknowledge funding from Rete
di Eccellenza MASTRI that supported his visit to Naples in
2015, and helped initiate this collaboration.
R EFERENCES

Fig. 15. Surface estimation of the uranium oxide sample with hybrid PID,
scan speed regulator and predictive controller; Af = 200 nm.
TABLE VII
R ESULTS OF SCANS OF URANIUM OXIDE . Ts [ms] IS THE SCAN TIME OF A
SINGLE LINE AND Ts,tot [ms] IS THE TOTAL SCAN TIME .

Case

Variable

1. w/o predictive controller,
w/o speed regulator

Mean

Max

RMS(eσ )

5.82

7.79

SD(eσ )

5.06

6.87

Kσ

0.000

0.000

Ts

4.600

4.600

460.000

-

RMS(eσ )

3.53

5.83

SD(eσ )

2.83

5.01

Kσ

0.886

0.927

Ts

4.600

4.600

Ts,tot
2. w/ predictive controller,
w/o speed regulator

460.000

-

4.06

5.58

STD(eσ )

3.56

4.95

Kσ

0.000

0.000

6.248

6.810

Ts,tot
3. w/o predictive controller,
w speed regulator

RMS(eσ )

Ts

624.770

-

3.31

4.50

STD(eσ )

2.71

3.96

Kσ

0.888

0.927

Ts

5.004

6.455

Ts,tot
4. w/ predictive controller,
w speed regulator

RMS(eσ )

Ts,tot

500.359

-

Further research will focus on obtaining analytical results
from the modelling of the IC-AFM together with the novel
proposed controllers, in presence of simple sample surfaces
such as sinusoidal or square waves, and with a piecewise linear
model for the interaction forces.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr Davide Fiore at the University
of Naples Federico II for the insightful comments and discussions. MC wishes to acknowledge the University of Naples

[1] T. Ando, T. Uchihashi, N. Kodera, D. Yamamoto, A. Miyagi,
M. Taniguchi, and H. Yamashita, “High-speed AFM and nanovisualization of biomolecular processes,” Pflügers Archiv-European
Journal of Physiology, vol. 456, no. 1, pp. 211–225, 2008.
[2] M. W. Fairbairn and R. S. O. Moheimani, “Control techniques for
increasing the scan speed and minimizing image artifacts in tapping-mode
atomic force microscopy,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, December
14, pp. 46–67, December 2013.
[3] G. Meyer and N. M. Amer, “Optical-beam-deflection atomic force
microscopy: The NaCl (001) surface,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 56,
no. 21, pp. 2100–2101, 1990.
[4] O. Payton, A. R. Champneys, M. E. Homer, L. Picco, and M. J. Miles,
“Feedback-induced instability in tapping mode atomic force microscopy:
theory and experiment,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 467, no. 2130,
pp. 1801–1822, 2011.
[5] A. Raman, J. Melcher, and R. Tung, “Cantilever dynamics in atomic
force microscopy,” Nano Today, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 20–27, 2008.
[6] N. Kodera, H. Yamashita, , and T. Ando, “Active damping of the scanner
for high-speed atomic force microscopy,” Review of Scientific Instruments,
vol. 76, no. 5, 2005.
[7] Y. Fang, M. Feemster, D. Dawson, and N. M. Jalili, “Nonlinear control
techniques for an atomic force microscope system,” Journal of Control
Theory and Applications, vol. 1, pp. 85–92, 2005.
[8] M. Basso and G. Bagni, “Controller synthesis for stabilizing oscillations
in tapping-mode atomic force microscopes,” in 2004 IEEE International
Symposium on Computer Aided Control Systems Design. Taipei, Taiwan:
IEEE, 2004.
[9] J. E. Sader and S. P. Jarvis, “Accurate formulas for interaction force and
energy in frequency modulation force spectroscopy,” Applied Physics
Letters, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 1801–1803, 2004.
[10] S. Misra, H. Dankowicz, and M. R. Paul, “Degenerate discontinuityinduced bifurcations in tapping-mode atomic-force microscopy,” Physica
D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 239, no. 1, pp. 33–43, 2010.
[11] R. W. Stark, “Bistability, higher harmonics, and chaos in AFM,” Materials
Today, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 24–32, 2010.
[12] H. Dankowicz, X. Zhao, and S. Misra, “Near-grazing dynamics in tappingmode atomic-force microscopy,” International Journal of Non-linear
Mechanics, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 697–709, 2007.
[13] M. Basso, P. Paoletti, B. Tiribilli, and M. Vassalli, “AFM imaging via
nonlinear control of self-driven cantilever oscillations,” IEEE Transactions
on Nanotechnology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 560–565, May 2011.
[14] D. Y. Abramovitch, “Low latency demodulation for atomic force
microscopes, part I. efficient real-time integration,” in 2011 American
Control Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011.
[15] T. Sulchek, R. Hsieh, J. D. Adams, G. G. Yaralioglu, S. C. Minne, C. F.,
J. P. Cleveland, A. Atalar, and D. M. Adderton, “High-speed tapping mode
imaging with active Q control for atomic force microscopy,” Applied
Physics Letters, vol. 76, no. 11, pp. 1473–1475, 2000.
[16] N. Kodera, M. Sakashita, and T. Ando, “Dynamic proportional-integraldifferential controller for high-speed atomic force microscopy,” Review
of Scientific Instruments, vol. 77, no. 8, 2006.
[17] O. D. Payton, L. Picco, D. Robert, A. Raman, M. E. Homer, A. R.
Champneys, and M. J. Miles, “High-speed atomic force microscopy in
slow motion—understanding cantilever behaviour at high scan velocities,”
Nanotechnology, vol. 23, no. 20, p. 205704, 2012.
[18] M. G. Ruppert and S. O. R. Moheimani, “Multimode Q control in
tapping-mode AFM: Enabling imaging on higher flexural eigenmodes,”
IEEE Transactions on Control System Technology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp.
1149–1159, July 2016.
[19] MATLAB, “Version 8.5.0.197613 (r2015a),” Natick, Massachusetts, 2015.

