0
Research Papers

Adhesion Asymmetry in Peeling of Thin Films With Homogeneous Material Properties: A Geometry-Inspired Design Paradigm

[+] Author and Article Information
Ahmed Ghareeb

Department of 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

Department of 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 January 28, 2019; final manuscript received March 24, 2019; published online April 12, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Haleh Ardebili.

J. Appl. Mech 86(7), 071005 (Apr 12, 2019) (8 pages) Paper No: JAM-19-1047; doi: 10.1115/1.4043286 History: Received January 28, 2019; Accepted March 24, 2019

Peeling of thin films is a problem of great interest to scientists and engineers. Here, we study the peeling response of thin films with nonuniform thickness profile attached to a rigid substrate through a planar homogeneous interface. We show both analytically and using finite element analysis that patterning the film thickness may lead to direction-dependent adhesion such that the force required to peel the film in one direction is different from the force required in the other direction, without any change to the film material, the substrate interfacial geometry, or the adhesive material properties. Furthermore, we show that this asymmetry is tunable through modifying the geometric characteristics of the thin film to obtain higher asymmetry ratios than reported previously in the literature. We discuss our findings in the broader context of enhancing interfacial response by modulating the bulk geometric or compositional properties.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Lee, C. H., Kim, D. R., Cho, I. S., William, N., Wang, Q., and Zheng, X., 2012, “Peel-and-Stick: Fabricating Thin Film Solar Cell on Universal Substrates,” Sci. Rep., 2, p. 1000. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gao, P., and Zhang, Q., 2014, “Encapsulate-and-Peel: Fabricating Carbon Nanotube CMOS Integrated Circuits in a Flexible Ultra-Thin Plastic Film,” Nanotechnology, 25(6), pp. 65301. [CrossRef]
Lee, C. H., Kim, J. H., Zou, C., Cho, I. S., Weisse, J. M., Nemeth, W., Wang, Q., Van Duin, A. C. T., Kim, T. S., and Zheng, X., 2013, “Peel-and-Stick: Mechanism Study for Efficient Fabrication of Flexible/Transparent Thin-Film Electronics,” Sci. Rep. 3, pp. 2917. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kovalchick, C., Molinari, A., and Ravichandran, G., 2013, “Rate Dependent Adhesion Energy and Nonsteady Peeling of Inextensible Tapes,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 81(4), p. 041016. [CrossRef]
Singer, I. L., Kohl, J. G., and Patterson, M., 2000, “Mechanical Aspects of Silicone Coatings for Hard Foulant Control,” Biofouling, 16(2–4), pp. 301–309. [CrossRef]
Laulicht, B., Langer, R., and Karp, J. M., 2012, “Quick-Release Medical Tape,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A, 109(46), pp. 18803–18808. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rivlin, R. S., 1944, “The Effective Work of Adhesion Experiments With Adhesive Tape,” Paint Technol., IX(106), pp. 2611–2614.
Kim, S., Wu, J., Carlson, A., Jin, S. H., Kovalsky, A., Glass, P., Liu, Z., Ahmed, N., Elgan, S. L., Chen, W., Ferreira, P. M., Sitti, M., Huang, Y., and Rogers, J. A., 2010, “Microstructured Elastomeric Surfaces With Reversible Adhesion and Examples of Their Use in Deterministic Assembly by Transfer Printing,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A, 107(40), pp. 17095–17100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kendall, K., 1975, “Thin-Film Peeling—The Elastic Term,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 8(13), pp. 1449–1452. [CrossRef]
Evans, A. G., and Hutchinson, J. W., 1989, “Effects of Non-Planarity on the Mixed Mode Fracture Resistance of Bimaterial Interfaces,” Acta Metall., 37(3), pp. 909–916. [CrossRef]
Guduru, P. R., and Bull, C., 2007, “Detachment of a Rigid Solid From an Elastic Wavy Surface: Experiments,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 55(3), pp. 473–488. [CrossRef]
Li, Q., and Kim, K. S., 2009, “Micromechanics of Rough Surface Adhesion: A Homogenized Projection Method,” Acta Mech. Solida Sin., 22(5), pp. 377–390. [CrossRef]
Brely, L., Bosia, F., and Pugno, N. M., 2018, “The Influence of Substrate Roughness, Patterning, Curvature, and Compliance in Peeling Problems,” Bioinspir. Biomim., 13(2), p. 026004. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kendall, K., 1975, “Control of Cracks by Interfaces in Composites,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 341(1627), pp. 409–428. [CrossRef]
Ghatak, A., Mahadevan, L., Chung, J. Y., Chaudhury, M. K., and Shenoy, V., 2004, “Peeling From a Biomimetically Patterned Thin Elastic Film,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 460(2049), pp. 2725–2735. [CrossRef]
Xia, S. M., 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]
Xia, S., Ponson, L., Ravichandran, G., and Bhattacharya, K., 2012, “Toughening and Asymmetry in Peeling of Heterogeneous Adhesives,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 108(19), pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
Xia, S. M., Ponson, L., Ravichandran, G., and Bhattacharya, K., 2015, “Adhesion of Heterogeneous Thin Films II: Adhesive Heterogeneity,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 83, pp. 88–103. [CrossRef]
Reedy, J. D., 2008, “Effects of Patterned Nanoscale Interfacial Roughness on Interfacial Toughness: A Finite Element Analysis,” J. Mater. Res., 23(11), pp. 3056–3065. [CrossRef]
Zhao, H.-P., Wang, Y., Li, B.-W., and Feng, X.-Q., 2013, “Improvement of the Peeling Strength of Thin Films By a Bioinspired Hierarchical Interface,” Int. J. Appl. Mech., 5(2), p. 1350012. [CrossRef]
Hwang, D. G., Trent, K., and Bartlett, M. D., 2018, “Kirigami-Inspired Structures for Smart Adhesion,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 10(7), pp. 6747–6754. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hsueh, C.-J., and Bhattacharya, K., 2018, “Optimizing Microstructure for Toughness: The Model Problem of Peeling.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim, 58(3), pp. 1067–1080. [CrossRef]
Santos, D., Spenko, M., Parness, A., Kim, S., and Cutkosky, M., 2007, “Directional Adhesion for Climbing: Theoretical and Practical Considerations,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 21(12–13), pp. 1317–1341. [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]
Autumn, K., 2007, “Gecko Adhesion: Structure, Function, and Applications Kellar,” MRS Bull. 32(6), pp. 473–478. [CrossRef]
Chung, J. Y., and Chaudhury, M. K., 2013, “Bio-Inspired Duplex Attachment Pad With Asymmetric Adhesion,” Biological and Biomimetic Adhesives: Challenges and Opportunities, The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 72–85.
Seo, J., Eisenhaure, J., and Kim, S., 2016, “Micro-Wedge Array Surface of a Shape Memory Polymer as a Reversible Dry Adhesive,” Extrem. Mech. Lett. 9, pp. 207–214. [CrossRef]
Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., 2013, Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual, 6.13th ed., Providence, RI.
Williams, J. G., and Hadavinia, H., 2002, “Analytical Solutions for Cohesive Zone Models,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 50(4), pp. 809–825. [CrossRef]
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]
Carlsson, L. A., Adams, D. F., and Pipes, R. B., 2003, Experimental Characterization of Advanced Composite Materials, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Qiao, P., Wang, J., and Davalos, J. F., 2003, “Tapered Beam on Elastic Foundation Model for Compliance Rate Change of TDCB Specimen,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 70(2), pp. 339–353. [CrossRef]
Avellar, L., Reese, T., Bhattacharya, K., and Ravichandran, G., 2018, “Effect of Cohesive Zone Size on Peeling of Heterogeneous Adhesive Tape,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 85(12), p. 121005. [CrossRef]
Eisenhaure, J. D., Xie, T., Varghese, S., and Kim, S., 2013, “Microstructured Shape Memory Polymer Surfaces With Reversible Dry Adhesion,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 5(16), pp. 7714–7717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Geissler, M., and Xia, Y., 2004, “Patterning: Principles and Some New Developments,” Adv. Mater., 16(15 Spec. Iss.), pp. 1249–1269. [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]
Chen, Q., and Elbanna, A., 2017, “Emergent Wave Phenomena in Coupled Elastic Bars: From Extreme Attenuation to Realization of Elastodynamic Switches,” Sci. Rep. 7, pp. 16204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Taylor, M., Francesconi, L., Gerendás, M., Shanian, A., Carson, C., and Bertoldi, K., 2014, “Low Porosity Metallic Periodic Structures With Negative Poisson’s Ratio,” Adv. Mater., 26(15), pp. 2365–2370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ghareeb, A., and Elbanna, A., 2018, “On the Role of the Plaque Porous Structure in Mussel Adhesion: Implications for Adhesion Control Using Bulk Patterning,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 85(12), p. 121003. [CrossRef]
Ghareeb, A., and Elbanna, A., 2019, “Extreme Enhancement of Interfacial Adhesion by Bulk Patterning of Sacrificial Cuts Ahmed Ghareeb,” Extrem. Mech. Lett., 28, pp. 22–30. [CrossRef]
Trainiti, G., and Ruzzene, M., 2016, “Non-Reciprocal Wave Propagation in Spatiotemporal Periodic Structures,” New J. Phys., 18, p. 083047. [CrossRef]
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]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Peeling of a thin strip with patterned thickness from a rigid substrate: (a) idealized longitudinal profile of the strip modeled as an Euler–Bernoulli beam, and (b) the thin strip profile showing the actual thickness of the strip, and (c) representation of the strip profile based on the effective thickness concept allowing for a gradual redistribution of the bending stresses over a transition length at locations of step change in thickness. The forward and backward peeling directions are also highlighted.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison between the theoretical models and finite element results: (a), (b) the normalized forces versus normalized peel front position for forward and backward peeling directions, tl/th = 0.5, p/λ = 3.33. (c), (d) the normalized forces versus normalized vertical peel displacement for forward and backward peeling directions, tl/th = 0.5, p/λ = 3.33. The hatched areas represent the energy dissipated due to the snap-back instability. (e), (f) the normalized peak forces versus p/λ for forward and backward peeling and tl/th = 0.50.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Dependence of peeling force and adhesion asymmetry on different model parameters: (a), (b) effect of the ratio of minimum to maximum thicknesses of the strip on the normalized peak forces and the asymmetry ratio for different values of period length for both peeling directions. The asymmetry ratio increases as the thickness ratio decreases and the period length increases. (c), (d) Effect of the ratio of period to the length scale of the bending on the normalized peak forces and the asymmetry ratio for two values of thickness ratio and both peeling directions. The peak force for peeling in the forward direction monotonically increases as the normalized period increases. The peak force for peeling in the backward direction shows a nonmonotonic dependence on the normalized period. The asymmetry ratio increases with the increase in the normalized period. (e), (f) Effect of the ratio of cohesive law characteristic length to the length scale of the bending on the normalized peak forces and the asymmetry ratio for tl/th = 0.125, p/λ = 5 for both peeling directions. The normalized peak force significantly decreases in forward peeling direction as the cohesive length scale increases relative to the length scale of bending. The asymmetry ratio increases and approaches its theoretical limit as the cohesive length scale decreases relative to the length scale of the bending. The results in this figure are obtained using the finite element model unless otherwise mentioned.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Change in strain energy at steady-state peeling: the normalized strain energy of the strip versus the normalized peel front location for both forward and backward peeling, tl/th = 0.25, and p/λ = 3.33. The results in this figure are obtained using the finite element model.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Model setup for the finite element analysis. A homogenous thin film with sawtooth thickness profile is peeled from a rigid substrate. The peeling angle is θp.

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