2011
DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2011.575317
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adhesion of Flat and Structured PDMS Samples to Spherical and Flat Probes: A Comparative Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
44
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
2
44
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The results for the rough substrates GS1 and GS3 and the smooth control are shown as double-logarithmic plots in Figure 3 A. Adhesion is seen to decrease strongly with increasing roughness, which is in agreement with earlier studies with unpatterned elastomeric specimens. [33][34][35] In addition, the pull-off stress for the smooth substrate was found to be preload independent in line with our earlier studies, [ 36 ] whereas a strong infl uence of preload was observed for the rough substrates. This fi nding is signifi cant and will be discussed in more detail in the next section.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The results for the rough substrates GS1 and GS3 and the smooth control are shown as double-logarithmic plots in Figure 3 A. Adhesion is seen to decrease strongly with increasing roughness, which is in agreement with earlier studies with unpatterned elastomeric specimens. [33][34][35] In addition, the pull-off stress for the smooth substrate was found to be preload independent in line with our earlier studies, [ 36 ] whereas a strong infl uence of preload was observed for the rough substrates. This fi nding is signifi cant and will be discussed in more detail in the next section.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Different sample alignments for type 2 adhesives with round edges failed to show a drastic adhesion response as a function of preload stress (see the electronic supplementary material, figure S6). The maxima in pull-off strength were lower in the 'misaligned' state, consistent with previous results [31].…”
Section: Point 4: Sample Alignmentsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…[20,21] In practice, however, these stresses are typically in the range of several hundreds of kilopascals or below. [22][23][24][25] The discrepancy is most likely caused by nonideal contact and detachment conditions: possible causes are, besides surface roughness, unequal load sharing, [26] or flaws and local stress concentrations. [27][28][29][30] Therefore, tailoring the stress distribution along the fibril-substrate interface by reducing such stress concentrations is a major objective in fabricating synthetic fibrillar dry adhesives with high pull-off stresses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%