4.6 Article

Debonding of a soft adhesive fibril in contact with an elastomeric pillar

期刊

SOFT MATTER
卷 18, 期 31, 页码 5857-5866

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2sm00532h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-17-CE08-0008]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-17-CE08-0008] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents an experimental study on the debonding criterion of fibrils of soft adhesive materials. Power laws for the maximum force and critical elongation of the fibril at debonding as a function of the diameter of the cylindrical pillar are uncovered. Viscoelastic digitation at the triple debonding line is observed during detachment for large pillar diameters.
The debonding criterion of fibrils of soft adhesive materials is a key element regarding the quantitative modelisation of pressure sensitive adhesive tapes' peeling energy. We present in this article an experimental study of the detachment of a commercial acrylic adhesive tape from the top surface of a single micrometric pillar of PDMS elastomer. During an experiment, the pillar and the adhesive, after being put in contact, are separated at a constant displacement rate, resulting in the formation, the elongation and the final detachment of a fibril of adhesive material. A systematic study allows us to uncover power laws for the maximum force and the critical elongation of the fibril at debonding as a function of the diameter of the cylindrical pillar which controls the diameter of the fibril. The scaling law evidenced for the critical elongation appears as a first step toward the understanding of the debonding criterion of fibrils of soft adhesive materials. In addition, viscoelastic digitation at the triple debonding line is observed during detachment for large pillar diameters. The wavelength and penetration length of the fingers that we report appear to be consistent with existing models based on pure elastic mechanical response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据