0
Research Papers

On the Role of the Plaque Porous Structure in Mussel Adhesion: Implications for Adhesion Control Using Bulk Patterning

[+] Author and Article Information
Ahmed Ghareeb

Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
2119 Newmark Civil Engineering Lab,
205 N. Mathews Ave,
Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: ghareeb2@illinois.edu

Ahmed Elbanna

Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
2219 Newmark Civil Engineering Lab,
205 N. Mathews Ave,
Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: elbanna2@illinois.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received June 21, 2018; final manuscript received August 19, 2018; published online September 7, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Yong Zhu.

J. Appl. Mech 85(12), 121003 (Sep 07, 2018) (11 pages) Paper No: JAM-18-1357; doi: 10.1115/1.4041223 History: Received June 21, 2018; Revised August 19, 2018

Mussel adhesion is a problem of great interest to scientists and engineers. Recent microscopic imaging suggests that the mussel material is porous with patterned void distributions. In this paper, we study the effect of the pore distribution on the interfacial-to-the overall response of an elastic porous plate, inspired from mussel plaque, glued to a rigid substrate by a cohesive interface. We show using a semi-analytical approach that the existence of pores in the vicinity of the crack reduces the driving force for crack growth and increases the effective ductility and fracture toughness of the system. We also demonstrate how the failure mode may switch between edge crack propagation and inner crack nucleation depending on the geometric characteristics of the bulk in the vicinity of the interface. Numerically, we investigate using the finite element method two different void patterns; uniform and graded. Each case is analyzed under displacement-controlled loading. We show that by changing the void size, gradation, or volume fraction, we may control the peak pulling force, maximum elongation at failure, as well as the total energy dissipated at complete separation. We discuss the implications of our results on design of bulk heterogeneities for enhanced interfacial behavior.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Filippidi, E. , DeMartini, D. G. , De Molina, P. M. , Danner, E. W. , Kim, J. , Helgeson, M. E. , Waite, J. H. , and Valentine, M. T. , 2015, “The Microscopic Network Structure of Mussel (Mytilus) Adhesive Plaques,” J. R. Soc. Interface, 12(113), p. 20150827. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, B. P. , Messersmith, P. B. , Israelachvili, J. N. , and Waite, J. H. , 2011, “Mussel-Inspired Adhesives and Coatings,” Annu. Rev. Mater. Res., 41(1), pp. 99–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Waite, J. H. , 1987, “Nature's Underwater Adhesive Specialist,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., 7(1), pp. 9–14. [CrossRef]
Lee, H. , Scherer, N. F. , and Messersmith, P. B. , 2006, “Single-Molecule Mechanics of Mussel Adhesion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 103(35), pp. 12999–13003. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Petrone, L. , Kumar, A. , Sutanto, C. N. , Patil, N. J. , Kannan, S. , Palaniappan, A. , Amini, S. , Zappone, B. , Verma, C. , and Miserez, A. , 2015, “Mussel Adhesion is Dictated by Time-Regulated Secretion and Molecular Conformation of Mussel Adhesive Proteins,” Nat. Commun., 6(1), pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
Waite, J. H. , 2017, “Mussel Adhesion—Essential Footwork,” J. Exp. Biol., 220(Pt. 4), pp. 517–530. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Silverman, H. G. , and Roberto, F. F. , 2007, “Understanding Marine Mussel Adhesion,” Mar. Biotechnol., 9(6), pp. 661–681. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bell, E. C. , and Gosline, J. M. , 1996, “Mechanical Design of Mussel Byssus: Material Yield Enhances Attachment Strength,” J. Exp. Biol., 199, pp. 1005–1017. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/199/4/1005.short [PubMed]
Desmond, K. W. , Zacchia, N. A. , Waite, J. H. , and Valentine, M. T. , 2015, “Dynamics of Mussel Plaque Detachment,” Soft Matter, 11(34), pp. 6832–6839. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ahn, B. K. , 2017, “Perspectives on Mussel-Inspired Wet Adhesion,” J. Am. Chem. Soc., 139(30), pp. 10166–10171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Högberg, J. L. , Sørensen, B. F. , and Stigh, U. , 2007, “Constitutive Behaviour of Mixed Mode Loaded Adhesive Layer,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 44(25–26), pp. 8335–8354. [CrossRef]
Furgiuele, F. , Leonardi, A. , Maletta, C. , and Paulino, G. H. , 2007, “Fracture Analysis of Adhesive Joints Using Intrinsic Cohesive Zone Models,” Congress IGF19, Milan, Italy, July 2–4, pp. 77–84. https://paulino.ce.gatech.edu/conferences/papers/07alfano_IGF.pdf
Ha, K. , Baek, H. , and Park, K. , 2015, “Convergence of Fracture Process Zone Size in Cohesive Zone Modeling,” Appl. Math. Model., 39(19), pp. 5828–5836. [CrossRef]
Dassault Systèmes Simulia, 2013, Abaqus Analysis User's Manual, 6.13th ed., Dassault Systèmes Simulia, Providence, RI.
Turon, A. , Dávila, C. G. , Camanho, P. P. , and Costa, J. , 2007, “An Engineering Solution for Mesh Size Effects in the Simulation of Delamination Using Cohesive Zone Models,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 74(10), pp. 1665–1682. [CrossRef]
Yao, H. , and Gao, H. , 2010, “Gibson-Soil-Like Materials Achieve Flaw-Tolerant Adhesion,” J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci., 7(7), pp. 1299–1305. [CrossRef]
Daniel, R. , Meindlhumer, M. , Zalesak, J. , Sartory, B. , Zeilinger, A. , Mitterer, C. , and Keckes, J. , 2016, “Fracture Toughness Enhancement of Brittle Nanostructured Materials by Spatial Heterogeneity: A Micromechanical Proof for CrN/Cr and TiN/SiOx multilayers,” Mater. Des., 104, pp. 227–234. [CrossRef]
Srivastava, A. , Ponson, L. , Osovski, S. , Bouchaud, E. , Tvergaard, V. , and Needleman, A. , 2014, “Effect of Inclusion Density on Ductile Fracture Toughness and Roughness,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 63(1), pp. 62–79. [CrossRef]
Hossain, M. Z. , Hsueh, C. J. , Bourdin, B. , and Bhattacharya, K. , 2014, “Effective Toughness of Heterogeneous Media,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 71(1), pp. 15–32. [CrossRef]
Lee, H. , Lee, B. P. , and Messersmith, P. B. , 2007, “A Reversible Wet/Dry Adhesive Inspired by Mussels and Geckos,” Nature, 448(7151), pp. 338–341. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Suzuki, T. , Matsuzaki, R. , Todoroki, A. , and Mizutani, Y. , 2015, “Prediction of the Macroscopic Fracture Toughness of a Composite/Adhesive Interface With Periodic Surface Microstructures,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., 60, pp. 16–22. [CrossRef]
Kim, W. S. , Yun, I. H. , Lee, J. J. , and Jung, H. T. , 2010, “Evaluation of Mechanical Interlock Effect on Adhesion Strength of Polymer metal Interfaces Using Micro-Patterned Surface Topography,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., 30(6), pp. 408–417. [CrossRef]
Glassmaker, N. J. , Jagota, A. , Hui, C.-Y. , Noderer, W. L. , and Chaudhury, M. K. , 2007, “Biologically Inspired Crack Trapping for Enhanced Adhesion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 104(26), pp. 10786–10791. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gorumlu, S. , and Aksak, B. , 2017, “Sticking to Rough Surfaces Using Functionally Graded Bio-Inspired Microfibres,” R. Soc. Open Sci., 4(6), p. 161105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Childers, A. S. , Brodnik, N. R. , and Faber, K. T. , 2016, “Interfacial Frictional Stresses and Fracture Toughness of Biomorphic Graphite/Copper Interfaces,” Mater. Lett., 174, pp. 106–109. [CrossRef]
Del Campo, A. , Greiner, C. , and Arzt, E. , 2007, “Contact Shape Controls Adhesion of Bioinspired Fibrillar Surfaces,” Langmuir, 23(20), pp. 10235–10243. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Greiner, C. , Del Campo, A. , and Arzt, E. , 2007, “Adhesion of Bioinspired Micropatterned Surfaces: Effects of Pillar Radius, Aspect Ratio, and Preload,” Langmuir, 23(7), pp. 3495–3502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Khaderi, S. N. , Fleck, N. A. , Arzt, E. , and McMeeking, R. M. , 2015, “Detachment of an Adhered Micropillar From a Dissimilar Substrate,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 75, pp. 159–183. [CrossRef]
Fleck, N. A. , Khaderi, S. N. , McMeeking, R. M. , and Arzt, E. , 2017, “Cohesive Detachment of an Elastic Pillar From a Dissimilar Substrate,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 101, pp. 30–43. [CrossRef]
Balijepalli, R. G. , Fischer, S. C. L. , Hensel, R. , McMeeking, R. M. , and Arzt, E. , 2017, “Numerical Study of Adhesion Enhancement by Composite Fibrils With Soft Tip Layers,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 99, pp. 357–378. [CrossRef]
Launey, M. E. , and Ritchie, R. O. , 2009, “On the Fracture Toughness of Advanced Materials,” Adv. Mater., 21(20), pp. 2103–2110. [CrossRef]
Steenbrink, A. C. , Van Der Giessen, E. , and Wu, P. D. , 1997, “Void Growth in Glassy Polymers,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 45(3), pp. 405–437. [CrossRef]
Crosby, A. J. , Shull, K. R. , Lakrout, H. , and Creton, C. , 2000, “Deformation and Failure Modes of Adhesively Bonded Elastic Layers,” J. Appl. Phys., 88(5), pp. 2956–2966. [CrossRef]
Creton, C. , and Lakrout, H. , 2000, “Micromechanics of Flat-Probe Adhesion Tests of Soft Viscoelastic Polymer Films,” J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys., 38(7), pp. 965–979. [CrossRef]
Williams, J. G. , and Hadavinia, H. , 2002, “Analytical Solutions for Cohesive Zone Models,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 50(4), pp. 809–825. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Results from the approximate analytical model and finite element simulations: (a) force versus crack length from analytical and numerical solutions for th=5 mm, th/tv=1.0,W/th= 5.0 showing that the total force may continue to increase even though the crack is expanding, (b) force versus crack length for the analytical model for various values of the interfacial horizontal strip to vertical web thickness ratio th/tv and the same void width, (c) force versus crack length for the analytical model for the same interfacial horizontal to vertical strip thickness ratio th/tv and various values of void width, and (d) maximum force in the inner leg versus interfacial horizontal strip to vertical strip thickness ratio for two different values of W/tv from both the numerical and analytical solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Different cases of crack propagation under the elastic beam: (a) edge crack propagates under the void and (b) onset of local crack initiation under the inner leg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Setup of the analytical model for the pulling a porous pillar attached to a rigid substrate: (a) The geometry of the 2D pillar with three near-interface rectangular voids, the pillar is subjected to an upward displacement, (b) the geometry and dimensions of the part of the pillar near the crack tip where the thickness of the horizontal strip is th, the thickness of the vertical strip is tv, the void width is W, the void height is L, and the crack length a, (c) the simplified beam on elastic foundation model for the pillar with three rectangular voids, and (d) Dugdale's traction separation relation for the cohesive interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The adhesive system in mussels: (a) a mussel attached to substrate by threads ending in plaques, (b) stereo microscope image of a M. californianus plaque under SEM, and (c) a cross section microscopic image of the plaque shows the porous structure of the bulk material and the variance of void sizes and distribution (Reproduced with permission from Filippidi et al. [1], Copyright 2015 the Royal Society; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The geometry of the numerical model, which is composed of a porous plate attached to a rigid substrate, throws a zero-thickness layer of cohesive material

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Numerical results for plates with uniform voids for three different voids volume fraction 60, 45, and 30%. The numbers in the plot indicate the total area under the curve. The case of solid plate is added for reference.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of strain energy and external work versus separation length for plates with different void diameter to characteristic length ratios: (a) strain energy of the whole plate versus separation length along the interface, and (b) the total cumulative external work exerted on the plate versus separation length along the interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Energy components of the plate during the growth of the interfacial separation versus separation length along the interface for a plate with uniform distribution of voids with D/Lch=1.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effect of void size: (a) normalized nominal stress versus nominal strain curves for the different plates with uniform voids. The void diameter to characteristic length ratios are listed in the legend. The result for a solid plate with the same material volume and in-plane dimension (but reduced thickness, i.e., reduced contact area) is also added for reference, (b) Normalized stress distribution along the interface at different nominal strain levels: (top) case of uniform voids with D/Lch=1.8, and (bottom) Case of uniform voids with D/Lch=0.6, and (c) maximum stretch and total energy versus relative void size.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of void size to interfacial horizontal strip thickness ratio: (a) the maximum stretch and total energy versus void diameter to interfacial horizontal strip thickness ratio and (b) normalized stress distribution along the interface at different nominal strain levels for.D/th=6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of void pattern: (a) normalized nominal stress versus nominal strain curves for the two plates with graded voids, the plates geometries are shown in the legend, also the normalized nominal stress versus nominal strain for two plates with equal void sizes D/Lch=0.7, and D/Lch=1.2 are added for comparison, and (b) normalized stress distribution along the interface at nominal strain levels: (top) case of graded voids with larger voids (D/Lch=1.2) at the interface, and (bottom) case of graded voids with smaller voids (D/Lch=0.7) at the interface

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In