Adhesion: role of bulk viscoelasticity and surface roughness.

We study the adhesion between smooth polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) rubber balls and smooth and rough poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) surfaces, and between smooth silicon nitride balls and smooth PDMS surfaces. From the measured viscoelastic modulus of the PDMS rubber we calculate the viscoelastic contribution to the crack-opening propagation energy γeff(v,T) for a wide range of crack tip velocities v and for several temperatures T. The Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR) contact mechanics theory is used to analyze the ball pull-off force data, and γeff(v,T) is obtained for smooth and rough surfaces. We conclude that γeff(v,T) has contributions of similar magnitude from both the bulk viscoelastic energy dissipation close to the crack tip, and from the bond-breaking process at the crack tip. The pull-off force on the rough surfaces is strongly reduced compared to that of the flat surface, which we attribute mainly to the decrease in the area of contact on the rough surfaces.

Rubber friction: comparison of theory with experiment.

We have measured the friction force acting on a rubber block slid on a concrete surface. We used both unfilled and filled (with carbon black) styrene butadiene (SB) rubber and have varied the temperature from -10 °C to 100 °C and the sliding velocity from 1 µm/s to 1000 µm/s. We find that the experimental data at different temperatures can be shifted into a smooth master-curve, using the temperature-frequency shifting factors obtained from measurements of the bulk viscoelastic modulus. The experimental data has been analyzed using a theory which takes into account the contributions to the friction from both the substrate asperity-induced viscoelastic deformations of the rubber, and from shearing the area of real contact. For filled SB rubber the frictional shear stress σ(f) in the area of real contact results mainly from the energy dissipation at the opening crack on the exit side of the rubber-asperity contact regions. For unfilled rubber we instead attribute σ(f) to shearing of a thin rubber smear film, which is deposited on the concrete surface during run in. We observe very different rubber wear processes for filled and unfilled SB rubber, which is consistent with the different frictional processes. Thus, the wear of filled SB rubber results in micrometer-sized rubber particles which accumulate as dry dust, which is easily removed by blowing air on the concrete surface. This wear process seams to occur at a steady rate. For unfilled rubber a smear film forms on the concrete surface, which cannot be removed even using a high-pressure air stream. In this case the wear rate appears to slow down after some run in time period.