Nonlinear vibration of rectangular atomic force microscope cantilevers by considering the Hertzian contact theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nonlinear flexural vibration for a rectangular atomic force microscope cantilever is investigated by using Timoshenko beam theory. In this paper, the normal and tangential tip–sample interaction forces are found from a Hertzian contact model and the effects of the contact position, normal and lateral contact stiffness, tip height, thickness of the beam, and the angle between the cantilever and the sample surface on the nonlinear frequency to linear frequency ratio are studied. The differential quadrature method is employed to solve the nonlinear differential equations of motion. The results show that softening behavior is seen for most cases and by increasing the normal contact stiffness, the frequency ratio increases for the first mode, but for the second mode, the situation is reversed. The nonlinear-frequency to linear-frequency ratio increases by increasing the Timoshenko beam parameter, but decreases by increasing the contact position for constant amplitude for the first and second modes. For the first mode, the frequency ratio decreases by increasing both of the lateral contact stiffness and the tip height, but increases by increasing the angle α between the cantilever and sample surface.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".