0
Research Papers

Effect of Cohesive Zone Size on Peeling of Heterogeneous Adhesive Tape

[+] Author and Article Information
L. Avellar, T. Reese, K. Bhattacharya, G. Ravichandran

Division of Engineering and Applied Science,
California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA 91125

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received June 28, 2018; final manuscript received August 16, 2018; published online September 12, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Yihui Zhang.

J. Appl. Mech 85(12), 121005 (Sep 12, 2018) (7 pages) Paper No: JAM-18-1374; doi: 10.1115/1.4041224 History: Received June 28, 2018; Revised August 16, 2018

The interaction between the cohesive zone and the elastic stiffness heterogeneity in the peeling of an adhesive tape from a rigid substrate is examined experimentally and with finite element simulations. It is established in the literature that elastic stiffness heterogeneities can greatly enhance the force required to peel a tape without changing the properties of the interface. However, much of these concern brittle materials where the cohesive zone is limited in size. This paper reports the results of peeling experiments performed on pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes with both an elastic stiffness heterogeneity and a substantial cohesive zone. These experiments show muted enhancement in the peeling force and suggest that the cohesive zone acts to smooth out the effect of the discontinuity at the edge of the elastic stiffness heterogeneities, suppressing their effect on peel force enhancement. This mechanism is examined through numerical simulation which confirms that the peel force enhancement depends on the strength of the adhesive and the size of the cohesive zone.

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

References

Zak, A. , and Williams, M. , 1963, “ Crack Point Stress Singularities at a Bi-Material Interface,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 30(1), pp. 142–143. [CrossRef]
Leguillon, D. , and Martin, E. , 2013, Crack Nucleation at Stress Concentration Points in Composite Materials - Application to the Crack Deflection by an Interface, World Scientific, Singapore.
He, M. Y. , and Hutchinson, J. W. , 1989, “ Crack Deflection at an Interface Between Dissimilar Elastic-Materials,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 25(9), pp. 1053–1067. [CrossRef]
Kendall, K. , 1975, “ Control of Cracks by Interfaces in Composites,” Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. A, Math. Phys. Sci., 341(1627), pp. 409–428. [CrossRef]
Ghatak, A. , 2010, “ Peeling Off an Adhesive Layer With Spatially Varying Modulus,” Phys. Rev. E, 81(2), p. 021603. [CrossRef]
Xia, S. , Ponson, L. , Ravichandran, G. , and Bhattacharya, K. , 2012, “ Toughening and Asymmetry in Peeling of Heterogeneous Adhesives,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 108(19), p. 196101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Xia, S. , Ponson, L. , Ravichandran, G. , and Bhattacharya, K. , 2013, “ Adhesion of Heterogeneous Thin Films. I: Elastic Heterogeneity,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 61(3), pp. 838–851. [CrossRef]
Gao, H. , 1991, “ Fracture Analysis of Nonhomogeneous Materials Via a Moduli-Perturbation Approach,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 27(13), pp. 1663–1682. [CrossRef]
Tan, L. , and Bhattacharya, K. , 2016, “ Length Scales and Pinning of Interfaces,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A, 374(2066), p. 20150167. [CrossRef]
Kovalchick, C. , Molinari, A. , and Ravichandran, G. , 2014, “ Rate Dependent Adhesion Energy and Nonsteady Peeling of Inextensible Tapes,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 81(4), p. 041016. [CrossRef]
Avellar, L. , 2018, “ Observations of Failure Phenomena in Periodic Media,” Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Peng, Z. L. , Chen, S. H. , and Soh, A. K. , 2010, “ Peeling Behavior of a Bio-Inspired Nano-Film on a Substrate,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 47(14–15), pp. 1952–1960. [CrossRef]
Rivlin, R. S. , 1944, “ The Effective Work of Adhesion,” J. Paint Technol., 9(106), pp. 1–4.
Simulia, 2018, Abaqus Standard, Dassault Systemes, Waltham, MA, accessed Sept. 3, 2018, https://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/products/abaqus/abaqusstandard/

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Results for peeling Scotch tape with heterogeneities from a glass substrate: (a) 1-layer, (b) 2-layer, and (c) 3-layer heterogeneities (see inset). Heterogeneities are 6 mm wide spaced 2 mm apart.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Tape peeling experimental configuration and (b) close up view of the heterogeneities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Results of peeling Scotch tape with heterogeneities from various substrates: (a) 1200 grit sandpaper (2 layers, 5 mm long spaced 4 mm apart), (b) Teflon (3 layers, 6 mm long spaced 3 mm apart), and (c) sand-blasted acrylic (2 layers, 5 mm long spaced 2 mm apart, 0.025 mm/s peel velocity)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Various stages of peeling a 3M 810 Scotch tape with one-layer heterogeneity from a glass substrate and (b) normalized peel force plotted as a function of vertical (end) displacement. The inset shows three cycles.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Peeling adhesive tape with 2-layer short heterogeneities from a glass substrate. Peel force versus vertical displacement is plotted. The images A-F show various stages of peeling and the cohesive zone. Note that the heterogeneity deadheres from the base tape.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Geometry of the tape and (b) cohesive law used in the simulation of heterogeneous adhesive tape peeling from a rigid substrate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Snapshots of a simulation during various stages of peeling with the colors indicating the von Mises stress (A-L). The normalized peel force and cohesive zone size are plotted as a function of vertical peel displacement. Parametric values: G = 50 N/m, δf = 0.1 mm, and heterogeneity length = 7 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized peel force and cohesive zone size are plotted as functions of vertical peel displacement for G = 25 N/m: (a)–(c) δf = 0.025, 0.05, and 0.10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normalized peel force and cohesive zone size are plotted as a function of vertical peel displacement for δf = 0.05: (a)–(d) G = 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 N/m, (e) initial cohesive zone increase (onset of penetration into the heterogeneous region) versus the lower cohesive zone size, and (f) versus normalized peak force

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Normalized peak load versus normalized cohesive zone size

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Normalized valley load versus normalized cohesive zone size

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