Composite pillar structures

Abstract

Composite pillar structures, in particular for adhesion to soft and rough surfaces, include in the longitudinal direction at least one region with lower elasticity modulus and at least one region with higher elasticity modulus. The region with lower elasticity modulus preferably includes an end face, wherein the two regions adjoin one another.

Claims

1. A structured surface of a solid body, wherein the surface has a structuring which comprises a plurality of projections which each projection having at least one stem with an end face pointing away from the surface, wherein the at least one stem in the longitudinal direction comprises at least two regions with different elasticity modulus, wherein at least two of the regions adjoin one another and form a phase boundary, and wherein the plurality of projections each comprise epoxy and/or silicone-based elastomers, polyurethane (meth)acrylates, polyurethanes, silicones, silicone resins, rubber, or mixtures thereof.

2. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the phase boundary is not parallel to the end face of the respective projection.

3. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the phase boundary has a curvature.

4. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the projections have an aspect ratio of at least 3.

5. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the projections are connected by a film.

6. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the projections have broadened end faces.

7. A method for the production of a structured surface of a solid body as claimed in claim 1, comprising the following steps: a) providing a template for the structured surface; b) producing a composition comprising the material for the end faces; c) introducing the composition into the template; d) optionally completely or partially curing the composition; e) introducing another composition for further regions of the stems and for a backing layer into the template; f) curing the last composition introduced and/or all previously-introduced compositions; and g) detaching the structured surface from the template.

8. A combination of two bodies, wherein the interface has a structured surface as claimed in claim 1.

9. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least two regions comprise a first region with a first elasticity modulus and a second region having a second elasticity modulus higher than the first elasticity modulus.

10. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least two regions comprise a first region and a second region that is greater in size than the first region.

11. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein for each projection a ratio of a minimum vertical thickness of a region comprising the end face relative to a height of the projection is less than 0.5.

12. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein for each projection a volume of a region comprising the end face comprises 2% to 40% of the volume of the projection.

13. The structured surface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least two regions comprise a first region comprising polydimethylsiloxane and a second region comprising polyurethane.

14. The structured surface as claimed in claim 3, wherein the curvature is convex in a direction of the end face.

15. A solid body having a structured surface, comprising: a solid body with a surface having a structuring comprising a number of projections, each projection comprising at least one stem with an end face pointing away from the surface, wherein the at least one stem in the longitudinal direction comprises at least two regions with different elasticity modulus, wherein at least two of the regions adjoin one another and form a phase boundary, and wherein the number of projections each comprise epoxy and/or silicone-based elastomers, polyurethane (meth)acrylates, polyurethanes, silicones, silicone resins, rubber, or mixtures thereof.

16. A method for producing a solid body according to claim 15, comprising: providing a template for a structured surface; producing a composition comprising a material for the end faces; introducing the composition into the template; optionally completely or partially curing the composition; introducing another composition for further regions of the stems and for a backing layer into the template; curing the last composition introduced and/or all previously-introduced compositions; and detaching the structured surface from the template.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 Embodiment of the invention;

(2) FIG. 2 Further embodiments of the invention;

(3) FIG. 3 Schematic representation of various embodiments of projections;

(4) FIG. 4 Schematic representation of a projection with various geometries of the phase boundaries in contact with a surface; composite pillars with planar interface (on left), and curved interface (R=D; middle and R=D/2 on right). R is the radius of the columnar pillar; D stands for the diameter; L is the total height, L.sub.1 and L.sub.2 are the heights of the more rigid region (#1) and the softer region (#2); the composite pillars adhere with their end faces on a rigid substrate and a tensile force .sub.A acts on the free end; the vertical stress (tensile stress) along the contact area of the composite pillar and the substrate during pulling off is calculated;

(5) FIG. 5 Normal stress .sub.22 along the projection/substrate interface, normalized to the tensile force .sub.A;

(6) FIG. 6 Analysis of a composite pillar with planar interface (a) tensile stress .sub.22 along the composite pillar/substrate contact area for different combinations of elasticity modulus ratios E.sub.1/E.sub.2 of the harder/upper and softer/lower part of the composite pillar, and constant ratio of L.sub.2/L=0.05; (b) tensile stress .sub.22 along the composite pillar/substrate contact area for different combinations of the thickness of the softer region L.sub.2 normalized to the total height L and a constant ratio E.sub.1/E.sub.2=1000000; (c) calibration coefficient of composite pillars for various combinations of ratio of the height L.sub.2/L and elasticity modulus ratio E.sub.1/E.sub.2; the dashed line stands for the results for reference sample (straight punch);

(7) FIG. 7 Tensile stress .sub.22 along the composite pillar/substrate contact area for composite pillars with different interface geometries, E.sub.1/E.sub.2=1000 and L.sub.2/L ratios of a) 0.25 and b) 0.05; the dashed line shows the reference sample (straight punch);

(8) FIG. 8 Influence of the ratio of the elasticity moduli on the normalized adhesion strength of composite pillars with a) planar interface; curved with radius R equal to b) diameter D (R=D); c) half of the diameter D (R=D/2); the dashed line shows the reference sample; the different ratios of the elasticity moduli are E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2 (circles); E.sub.1/E.sub.2=10 (triangles); E.sub.1/E.sub.2=100 (squares); E.sub.1/E.sub.2=1000 (rhombi); E.sub.1/E.sub.2=1000000 (stars);

(9) FIG. 9 Comparison of the adhesion strength (S.sup.I/S.sup.punch) of experimental and numerical results for composite pillars with a) planar interface and c) curved interface with elasticity modulus ratios E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2 and 350. The FEM results are represented with lines; reference sample (dashed); composite pillars with E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2 (dash-dot); composite pillars with E.sub.1/E.sub.2=350 (continuous line); the experimental results are designated with the symbols; E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2 (circles); E.sub.1/E.sub.2=350 (stars; wherein the filled and empty stars respectively represent the pull-off forces and the forces at the start of detachment); arrows indicate when the two forces markedly deviate from one another);

(10) FIG. 10 Schematic representation of the production of a structured surface;

(11) FIG. 11 Schematic representation of the production of embodiments of the invention;

(12) FIG. 12 Schematic representation of an alternative method for the production of projections according to the invention;

(13) FIG. 13 Pictures of the projections produced after the first molding (above) and pictures of the interface in projections according to the invention;

(14) FIG. 14 Representation of a stress-strain curve during adhesion measurement;

(15) FIG. 15 Adhesion measurement of various projections against a flat glass substrate;

(16) FIG. 16 Adhesion measurement of a reference sample with projections of polyurethane on smooth (filled symbols) and rough substrate (unfilled symbols); variation of the holding time from 0 to 120 s;

(17) FIG. 17 Adhesion measurement with composite projections with varying thickness of the upper region L.sub.2 and various geometries of the phase boundaries a) and c) planar; and b) and d) hemispherically curved; on a) and b) smooth substrate and c) and d) rough substrate; composite pillars with E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2 (circles; composite pillars with E.sub.1/E.sub.2=350 (stars); contact force 50 mN (continuous line) and 150 mN (dashed);

(18) FIG. 18 Optical micrographs of detachment patterns (crack pattern), measured with speed 2 m/s; a) projections with very thick soft tip; b) projections with curved interface and thin tip; c) projections with planar interface and thin tip;

(19) FIG. 19 Normalized adhesion parameters for composite projections with E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2 in comparison with PU reference on smooth (on left) and rough (on right) surface; (a) adhesion stress (.sub.adh; (b) maximum stress .sub.max and (c) adhesion energy W.sub.adh; the values were determined for a contact time of 0 and 120 s;

(20) FIG. 20 Schematic representation of a small detachment, starting from the edge of the contact area between substrate (lower semicircle) and projection (above).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

(21) FIG. 1 shows a cross-section through a projection 100 according to the invention. This projection comprises a region with lower elasticity modulus 130, which comprises the end face 120, and a region with higher elasticity modulus 150. The two regions adjoin one another at the phase boundary 140, which in this embodiment has a curvature. The projection is positioned on a surface 160. These surfaces on which the projections are positioned can also be designated as backing layer or back layer.

(22) FIG. 2 shows further embodiments of the invention as a cross-section through projections 100. Each of the projections comprises a region with lower elasticity modulus 130, which comprises the end face 120, and a region with higher elasticity modulus 150. The two regions adjoin on another at the phase boundary 140, which in this embodiment has a curvature. All projections are positioned on a surface 160. The embodiments differ in the curvature of the phase boundary and the ratio of the two regions to one another. In the two right-hand embodiments the region 150 is markedly greater than the region 130. As a result, the projections themselves are markedly more rigid, but because of the region 130 retain their good adhesion properties.

(23) FIG. 3 shows a schematic representation of embodiments of a projection. A projection 500 comprises an end face 502 and a base area 504. The end face 502 and base area 504 are shown in side view (on left) and plan view (on right). The black area 506 shows the overlap region of a vertical projection of the end face 502 onto the base area 504. It can be identical with the areas (a)) or in the case of a broadened end face (b) and c)) lie within the end face 502. The body 508 bounded by the projection of the overlap region 506 onto the end face is shown by a dashed line. With all projections, it lies within the projection, whereby in case a) it is identical with the projection itself. Within therefore also includes shared outer areas.

(24) FIG. 4 shows a schematic representation of the projection, which was simulated with various geometries of the phase boundary. The projection is shown as a cross-section and is circular symmetrical. It has a diameter D and a height L. The axis of symmetry is shown by a dashed line. The phase boundary 140 is planar (on left) or spherically curved, wherein it has a maximum in the longitudinal direction of the projection. The radius of curvature of the phase boundary is D (middle) or D/2 (on right). The height L.sub.1 designates the vertical height from the foot of the projection up to the maximum of the phase boundary, the height L.sub.2 the vertical height up to the end face of the projection measured from the maximum of the phase boundary. The end face 120 of the projection is in contact with a substrate surface 170. In the region of the height L.sub.1 a hard material is positioned, and in the region of the height L.sub.2 a soft material. In the simulation, the surface 170 is simulated as hard.

(25) In the simulation, a tensile force .sub.A was applied on the free end of the projection. The distribution of the tensile stress within the projection changes greatly when L.sub.1 and L.sub.2 are varied. A singular stress field develops close to the edge of the projection and the rigid surface 170. The resulting edge singularity has the form H.sub.nr.sup..sup.n.sup.1, wherein H and 1 are the tensile intensity and the order of the stress singularity. n=1, 2 correspond to projection and surface. r is the distance from the edge.

(26) The stress distribution was simulated for various ratios of L.sub.1 and L.sub.2, during which the height L=L.sub.1+L.sub.2 remained constant. The ratio L/D was 2. As the simulation software, Abaqus (Simulia) was used. For the region with the higher elasticity modulus, 1.3 GPa were selected and for the region with lower elasticity modulus 2 MPa were selected. The resulting normal stress .sub.22 normalized to the tensile force .sub.A is shown in FIG. 5. Composite is the stress distribution for L.sub.2/L equals 0.05. The reference is a linear projection consisting of a material with planar end face without curvature.

(27) The simulations show the stress distribution along the end faces/surfaces interface. With large heights L.sub.2 the stress at the outer edge of the projection is very high. This favors crack formation at the outer edge of the projection during the detachment process. With decreasing heights L.sub.2 the stress at the outer edge of the projection decreases and the stress in the center simultaneously increases. With very small heights L.sub.2 the stresses at the edge and in the center are of almost equal magnitude, which favors crack formation in the center. These results indicate that the adhesion stress increases with decreasing layer thickness L.sub.2.

(28) FIGS. 6 to 9 show further simulations and experimental results. In these, composite pillars corresponding to the description of FIGS. 12 and 13 were used. In the descriptions for the figures, the notation from FIG. 12 was correspondingly used.

(29) For the simulations, a columnar projection with a diameter D and a length L on a rigid substrate without defects along the contact area was assumed. The projection is assumed to be isotropically elastic and as an incompressible solid body. A tensile stress .sub.A acts on the free end, which results in a stress singularity at the projection/substrate interface. The corner singularity method was taken and adapted from Akisanya, A. R., Fleck, N. A., 1997. Interfacial cracking from the free edge of a long bi-material strip. International Journal of Solids and Structures 34, 1645-1665; and Khaderi, S. N., Fleck, N. A., Arzt, E., McMeeking, R. M., 2015. Detachment of an adhered micropillar from a dissimilar substrate. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 75, 159-183. The singularity conditions for the asymptotic normal stress .sub.22 and the shear stress (.sub.12) are shown in the equations (1) and (2):
.sub.22=H.sub.1r.sup.0.406(1)
.sub.12=0.505H.sub.1r.sup.0.406(2)
wherein r is the distance from the edge of the projection. The directions X.sub.1 and X.sub.2 are stated in FIG. 4. Here the expression H.sub.1 is dependent on the diameter D, the tensile stress .sub.A and the calibration coefficients and can be written as follows:
H.sub.1=.sub.AD.sup.0.406(3)

(30) The calibration coefficients for a linear projection (straight punch) is a.sub.1=0.278 for a 3-dimensional axially symmetrical elongation (Khaderi, S. N., Fleck, N. A., Arzt, E., McMeeking, R. M., 2015. Detachment of an adhered micropillar from a dissimilar substrate. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 75. 159-183). The solutions for the normalized asymptotic normal and shear stresses are therefore

(31) $\log \left({}_{22}/{}_A\right)=-0.556-0.406\log \left(r/D\right)$$\mathrm{and}$$\log \left(\frac{{}_{12}}{{}_A}\right)=-0.853-0.406\log \left(\frac{r}{D}\right)$

(32) In order to predict the adhesion strength of a pillar, a crack (detachment) of length l was assumed at the edge of the contact area (FIG. 20), where the corner singularity determines the detachment behavior. The stress distributions at the crack tip (crack) can be described by

(33) $\begin{array}{cc}{}_{22}=\frac{K_I}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{and}{}_{12}=\frac{K_{\mathrm{II}}}{\sqrt{2}}& \left(4\right)\end{array}$
wherein is the distance from the crack tip or the edge of the detachment. A schematic representation is shown in FIG. 20 with a detachment beginning at the edge and the length l. The mode I and mode II stress intensity factors, K.sub.I and K.sub.II, are given as
K.sub.I=2.6H.sub.1l.sup.0.094=2.6.sub.AD.sup.0.406l.sup.0.094(5)
and
K.sub.II=0.8H.sub.1l.sup.0.094=0.8.sub.AD.sup.0.406l.sup.0.094(6)
The energy release rate during the detachment is

(34) $\begin{array}{cc}G=\frac{1-v^2}{2E}\left(K_I^2+K_{\mathrm{II}}^2\right)=\frac{3}{8E}\left(K_I^2+K_{\mathrm{II}}^2\right)=\frac{2.8{}_A^2{D}^{0.81}{l}^{0.19}{\tilde{a}}^2}{E_1},& \left(7\right)\end{array}$
wherein E the elasticity modulus and the transverse extension number (Poisson's ratio), is equal to 0.5, which corresponds to incompressibility. For detachment to occur, the energy release rate must be equal to the adhesion energy, W. The adhesion energy of a composite pillar S.sup.I can be expressed as:

(35) $\begin{array}{cc}{S}^I=\frac{0.6\sqrt{\mathrm{EW}}}{D^{0.406}{l}^{0.094}\tilde{a}}& \left(8\right)\end{array}$

(36) The adhesion strength can be normalized by dividing the adhesion strength by the adhesion strength of a linear projection (straight punch) S.sup.punch assuming the same initial detachment length (crack length, l):

(37) $\begin{array}{cc}\frac{S^I}{S^{\mathrm{punch}}}=\frac{a_1}{\tilde{a}}& \left(9\right)\end{array}$

(38) The adhesion strength was calculated with equation 9.

(39) In order to study the influence of the geometry of the interface, various interface geometries (FIG. 4) and uniform projections were studied. The calculations were performed three dimensionally axially symmetrically. For each interface geometry, six different ratios of the two regions (L.sub.2/L=0.25, 0.20, 0.15, 0.10, 0.05 and 0.005) and five ratios of the elasticity moduli (E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2, 10, 10.sup.2, 10.sup.3 and 10.sup.6) were studied.

(40) In order to be able to compare the calculated results, composite pillars of PEGdma (350 MPa)/PU (900 kPa) and PDMS (2 MPa)/PU (900 kPa) and only of PU (straight punch reference sample) were produced analogously to the experiments described later. According to the method, projections corresponding to FIG. 12 with a diameter of 2 mm and a height of about 4 mm with varying thickness of the upper region were produced. The projections could have a planar phase boundary or a spherically curved (R=D/2) phase boundary.

(41) The adhesion experiments were performed with a speed of 5 m/s with a glass substrate as the surface. After contacting with the surface, the samples were moved vertically towards the surface until attainment of a preload and then moved away again from the surface until complete detachment (FIG. 14). The pull-off force necessary for this is the force which is needed for complete detachment. However, a certain force is also necessary in order to obtain a first detachment of the contact area. The force necessary for this was also studied.

(42) For each sample, the preload was increased in steps from 40 to 150 mN and all pull-off forces obtained averaged over all preloads. The adhesion measurements were performed on two positions of the substrate.

(43) The results of the calculations with composite pillars with planar phase boundary, i.e. parallel to the contact area and perpendicular to the central axis of the composite pillar, are shown in FIG. 6. Here FIG. 6 a) shows the influence of the ratios of the elasticity moduli at a constant thickness of the upper region (L.sub.2/L=0.05). The normal stress along the composite pillar/substrate interface, normalized with the tensile stress (.sub.22/.sub.A), is plotted against the normalized distance to the edge (r/D). It is seen that an increase in E.sub.1/E.sub.2 from 1 to 10.sup.6 leads to a decrease in the normal stress at the edge, while at the same time the stress value in the center of the pillar increases for some L.sub.2/L ratios and finally reaches a maximum value of ca. 0.3. Beyond a ratio of 1000 (E.sub.1/E.sub.2) the stress behavior for composite pillars with a ratio L.sub.2/L from 0.25 to 0.05 changes, but the stress at the edges decreases still further for a composite pillar with a ratio E.sub.1/E.sub.2=10.sup.6 and L.sub.2/L=0.005. In comparison to the solution for a conventional projection (shown as dashed line), all composite pillars show a lower stress at the edge, at the expense of a higher stress in the center. FIG. 6 b) shows the influence of the thickness L.sub.2 of the soft material for a constant ratio E.sub.1/E.sub.2=10.sup.6. It is seen that the thickness L.sub.2 has a major influence on the calculated stress distribution. A lower thickness reduces the stress at the edges more markedly and the stress in the center increases, until a value of about 0.3 is reached. The results from FIGS. 6 a) and b) were fitted against the asymptotic stress solution from equation 3 in order to find the calibration coefficients for various combinations of E.sub.1/E.sub.2 and L.sub.2/L. The results are shown in FIG. 6 c).

(44) For composite pillars with a curved interface (R=D and R=D/2), FIG. 7 shows the results for a ratio E.sub.1/E.sub.2=1000 with L.sub.2/L=0.25 and L.sub.2/L=0.05. It is found that for a ratio of L.sub.2/L=0.25 the influence of the phase boundary is scarcely detectable (FIG. 7 a)). For L.sub.2/L=0.05, i.e. for a thinner tip, the geometry of the phase boundary very markedly influences the form and height of the stress distribution along the interface (FIG. 7 b)). If the radius of the spherically curved interface is increased, the stress in the center is increased. While the slope of all curves up to the edge is the same, they rise towards the center markedly differently. The stress at the edge is the lowest for the planar phase boundary, on account of which the larger adhesion stresses were determined for here in comparison to the curved phase boundaries.

(45) The adhesion stress S.sup.I of the composite pillars can be calculated by means of equation 8 and normalized by means of equation 9 to the adhesion stress of the reference. The results for various composite pillars are shown in FIG. 9.

(46) The stress distribution along the contact area is not directly experimentally accessible, however the adhesion stress can be calculated from the pull-off force divided by contact area. In order to supplement the simulations, the adhesion of the previously described projections (reference sample and composite pillars with planar and curved (R=D/2) phase boundary and in each case two ratios E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2, and 350 respectively), was studied.

(47) These values are shown together with the calculations in FIG. 9. The pull-off forces of the composite pillars were as a rule greater than for the reference samples. For the two different geometries of the phase boundaries, the adhesion stress measured increased with decreasing L.sub.2/L ratio (L.sub.2/L>0.06 for E.sub.1/E.sub.2=350 and L.sub.2/L>0.03 for E.sub.1/E.sub.2=2). With these ratios, the adhesion of the composite pillars with planar phase boundary was higher than for composite pillars with hemispherically curved phase boundary. For these ratios, the detachment of the contact area always began at the edge and caused a rapid complete detachment (FIG. 18). Hence no differences could be detected in the force for the start of detachment and the force for complete detachment. For thinner tips with a smaller L.sub.2/L ratio, a different mechanism of detachment was observed, which depends in particular on the geometry of the interface. For planar interfaces (FIG. 18 c)) below a certain ratio, which depends on the ratio of the elasticity moduli, a decrease in the adhesion force was observed. In this case, instead of a single detachment at the edge, several detachments now form simultaneously at the edge, which propagate rapidly inwards like fingers. For composite pillars with curved interfaces and small L.sub.2/L ratio (FIG. 18 b)), a further mechanism of detachment was observed. Here, the detachment begins in the center of the contact area and increases only slowly, up to a critical diameter of about 0.6 D. Only then does complete detachment occur. Hence as shown by the arrows in FIG. 9 b), for these composite pillars higher pull-off forces could be observed in comparison to the forces necessary for the start of the detachment.

(48) Irrespective of the mechanism, composite pillars show a steady increase in adhesion with decreasing L.sub.2/L ratio, unlike composite pillars with planar interface. The results show good agreement with the simulations, except with very thin tips, probably because the mathematical model used assumes start of the detachment at the edge.

(49) Starting from the results, it can be assumed from these that a ratio of the elasticity moduli of over 1000 does not bring about any further increase in the adhesion. A decrease in the L.sub.2/L ratios as a rule leads to an increase in the adhesion, just like an increase in the ratio of the elasticity moduli (E.sub.1/E.sub.2).

(50) FIG. 10 shows a schematic representation of a method for the production of a structured surface according to the invention. The sequence A shows the production of a prepared template which contains a composition for the region for the end faces. The sequence B shows the fabrication of the structured surface.

(51) Firstly a template 300 for molding the structured surface is provided. Preferably the template has an inertized, preferably fluorinated or perfluorinated surface. Thus this can for example consist of perfluorinated polyether (PFPE). The template can be obtained by molding corresponding silicon master structures.

(52) A composition 310 comprising the material for the region with low elasticity modulus or composition comprising a precursor thereof is filled into the openings of the template. In order to fill a consistent volume, it can be advantageous to fill the openings completely and then strip off the excess composition with a stripper or a doctor blade 320. The composition preferably comprises at least one solvent, which is removed in a next step, preferably by evaporation, for example under vacuum. Since the composition is liquid, a meniscus forms, and thus a curvature of the surface of the composition in the opening of the template.

(53) The composition can for example be a solution of monomers, such as precursors for silicones. It can also be a solution of a crosslinkable polyurethane, such as a polyurethane (meth)acrylate. As the solvent, volatile organic solvents are in particular possible, such as lower alcohols, ethers, esters or alkanes.

(54) Optionally, the composition can also be further cured. Through the decrease in volume of the introduced composition due to removal of the solvent and/or curing, a dried/cured composition 330 is obtained on the floor of the openings in the template.

(55) Depending on the composition used, the curing can take place by heating and/or irradiation.

(56) The template thus treated serves only as a receptacle for the molding of the structured surface, wherein the composition already present in the receptacle binds with the other compositions for the other regions. For this, a composition 340 comprising the material for formation of the region with the higher elasticity modulus or a precursor thereof is applied onto a counterpart 350 to the template and then contacted with the template for the molding. After this, the composition is cured. This can also include the curing of the other regions. Several curing steps can also be performed. A cured composition with higher elasticity modulus is obtained. In the diagram, the backing layer, on which the projections are positioned, is also simultaneously formed by the same material. After removal from the template, a structured surface 370 according to the invention is obtained.

(57) FIG. 11 shows a method for the production of embodiments of the invention. In sequence A, the production of broadened end faces is shown. Sequence B shows the production of projections bridged by a film.

(58) For the production of broadened end faces, a film of a composition of a material for the broadened end faces 400 is applied onto a surface 430. The end faces of the structured surface are dipped into this liquid film and lifted away again. As a result, drops 410 of the composition are formed on the surface of the end faces. For the production of the broadened end faces, these drops are pressed against a further surface 460. Thereby, a broadening of the drops takes place. The drops thus deformed are cured. A structured surface with broadened end faces 420 is obtained. According to the invention, the material for the broadened end faces has an equal or lower elasticity modulus than the material of the end faces.

(59) For the production of bridged projections, a curable film 450 is applied onto a surface 460. The structured template 370 is dipped with the end faces into this film, and the film cured. As a result, formation of a film and bonding of the film with the structured surface take place. After detachment from the surface, a structured surface is obtained the projections whereof are bridged with a film.

(60) Adhesion Measurements

(61) The adhesion measurements were performed with an apparatus according to Kroner, E.; Blau, J.; Arzt E. An adhesion measurement setup for bioinspired fibrillar surfaces using flat probes. Review of Scientific Instruments 2012, 83. In this, the composite pillar sample was applied onto a glass substrate and mounted in a sample holder movable and tiltable with high precision. The forces were recorded with a 3 N load cell (Tedea-Huntleigh 1004, Vishay Precision Group, Basingstoke, UK). The load cell was equipped with a smooth, flat and aligned glass test body (substrate). Before each measurement, the substrate was cleaned with ethanol. With the aid of a prism, the contact of the sample with the surface was observed and the sample aligned. For the measurement, the sample was moved onto the substrate with a speed of 5 m/s. FIG. 14 shows the usual course of the force measurement. After contact, a predefined (positive) preloading (preload stress) was set and this force maintained for a defined time (holding time). After this, the sample was moved away from the substrate again. During this, the (negative) pull-off stress was measured. The lowest stress measured is the adhesion stress. All measurements were monitored with an optical camera.

(62) After the measurement, the samples were cut through lengthways and the thickness of the individual region measured with an optical microscope (precision +/30 m).

(63) FIG. 12 shows the production of macroscopic projections (pillars). The diameter of all structures is 2 mm and the height about 4 mm, so that an aspect ratio of 2 is present. All projections have a circular cross-section. The axis of symmetry is indicated with the dashed line.

(64) Firstly, the pillar stem was cast from PDMS (a). In the second step b), the tip is filled with another material. For the flat (601) and curved (602) pillars (radius 1 mm) corresponding molds (621, 622) of aluminum were made with a flat or round drill. (The molds were coated, in order to enable simpler removal of the structures from the cavities.) The molds were filled with the first prepolymer 610 (here PDMS Sylgard 184, E modulus ca. 2 MPa) and degassed. Then the excess polymer was scraped off with a razor blade in order to enable a flat back layer with constant thickness, before the samples were cross-linked at 100 C. on a hotplate for 30 mins (630).

(65) In the next step b), the previously produced structures were activated for 2 mins in oxygen plasma in order to enable the chemical attachment of a second polymer layer. For the application of the soft, upper layer, aluminum molds with a through hole with high matching precision were used (641, 642). The flat or rounded PDMS stems could thus be pressed into the molds and secured from the back with a little pressure. Different thicknesses of the upper layer can be set with aluminum molds of different depth. In these preliminary experiments, washers (650, shown in black in the middle picture) were also used to set the thickness. The prepolymer 660 for the region with lower elasticity modulus was poured into the mold after mixing, and degassed for 1 min. Next the excess polymer was scraped off with a razor blade 670 and the structure covered with a Teflon substrate 680. A two-hour crosslinking 690 was effected at 75 C. before the finished pillars 691 and 692 could be carefully removed. The pillars/projections have a region with high elasticity modulus 697 and a region with lower elasticity modulus 695, which adjoin one another and have a corresponding phase boundary 696. This can, as in the case of projection 692, be curved. FIG. 13 shows photographs of the projections produced and the interfaces.

(66) FIG. 15 shows the adhesion forces measured with the projections produced against a flat glass substrate. As the reference, a projection of pure PDMS was used. Projections with a region with lower elasticity modulus of 250 kPa (P1, P2, P3) and 900 kPa (P3, P4, P5) were produced. The region with the high elasticity modulus was always PDMS (2 MPa). As the material for the regions with the low elasticity modulus appropriate polyurethanes were used. The samples P3 and P5 have a phase boundary of the two regions parallel to the end face. The samples P1 and P2, and P3 and P4 respectively differ in the thickness of the regions with low elasticity modulus. It is found that the projections with lower thickness have improved adhesion. Apparently with these the positive effect of the curved phase boundary on the adhesion is stronger.

(67) For samples with smooth or rough surface, a glass substrate with two regions was used, a region with low roughness (R.sub.a=0.006 m and R.sub.z=0.041 m) and a region with higher roughness (R.sub.a=0.271 m and R.sub.z=2.174 m). In the comparative measurements, these regions are designated respectively as smooth or rough surface. Before each measurement, the substrate was cleaned with ethanol.

(68) For the samples for the measurements of FIGS. 9, and 17 to 19, the following materials were used:

(69) Polyguss 74-41 (PU, PolyConForm GmbH, Duesseldorf, Germany) is a two-component polyurethane which is produced from two components A and B which are added in equal quantity. The prepolymer solution is mixed under vacuum for 2 minutes at 2000 rpm in a SpeedMixer (DAC600.2 VAC-P, Hauschild Engineering, Hamm, Germany). The polymer obtained has an elasticity modulus of about 900 kPa.

(70) Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS, Sylgard 184, Dow Corning, Midland, Mich., USA) was used in a mixing ratio of 10 parts (weight) base solution and 1 part crosslinker. The prepolymer solution was degassed under vacuum for 5 minutes at 2000 rpm in a SpeedMixer. The PDMS has an elasticity modulus of about 2 MPa.

(71) Poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (PEGdma) with an average molecular weight of 200 g/mol (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo., USA) was mixed with the photoinitiator 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-propiophenone (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo., USA). To this was added 2-aminoethyl methacrylate hydrochloride (1 wt. %, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo., USA), in order to increase the bonding between PU and PEGdma. The polymer obtained has an elasticity modulus of about 350 MPa.

(72) The microstructures were produced according to the method according to FIG. 12. In the first step, the stems of the composite pillars were produced in two prefabricated aluminum molds. The stems produced have a circular diameter of 2 mm, a height of 4 mm and a 1 mm thick base layer. The projections have either a flat end face or a spherically curved end face with a radius of 1 mm.

(73) Depending on the second material of the projections, the production process was slightly varied. In the case of PDMS the prepolymer was filled into the mold, degassed for 10 minutes and cured at 125 C. for 20 minutes on a hotplate. PEG prepolymer was filled into the mold, treated with nitrogen for 20 minutes and then cured with UV light for 300 s (Omnicure S1500, Excelitas Technologies, Waltham, Mass., USA).

(74) In the second step, the structures produced were introduced into an aluminum mold with cylindrical holes with a radius of 2 mm and a depth of 4 mm. In order to obtain different thicknesses of the second region, or of the tip, spacers with a thickness of 100 m, 300 m, and 500 m respectively were inserted on the underside of the mold. These thus lie between the base layer and the aluminum mold. As a result, the upper region of the composite pillar lengthens correspondingly. The PU prepolymer was applied onto the projections in the mold and degassed for 2 minutes. After this, the projecting polymer was removed with a razor blade. A glass plate with a Teflon film was applied onto the top side of the mold. After this, the structures were cured at room temperature for at least 16 hours and the composite pillars removed from the mold.

(75) For PDMS, before the second step the surface of the projections was activated for 2 minutes with oxygen plasma (60% power; PICO plasma system, Diener electronic, Ebhausen, Germany). This allows the covalent bonding of the PDMS with the PU of the stems.

(76) For the measurements of FIGS. 9, and 17 to 19, the following analogous protocol was used. During the measurement, samples with the projections and substrate were moved onto one another until a maximal force, the preload (preload stress; preload force) was reached. This position (displacement) was maintained for a defined time (holding time). After this, the sample was moved away from the surface again, until the projections detach from the surface. For each sample, the preload was increased in about 5 steps from 40 to 180 mN. The measurement was moreover performed at two different regions of the sample (smooth and rough). The speed of the movement varied from 2 to 10 m/s and the holding time varied from 0 to 120 seconds.

(77) For the measurements on the smooth and rough surface, the adhesion stresses of the samples were determined for a preload of 50 and 150 mN, since the pull-off forces are connected with the preload.

(78) In order to be able to compare the strain increase (strain rate) of different samples with the PU comparison sample, different speeds were compared, depending on the ratio of the elasticity moduli of the stem and the tip. For PDMS/PU composite pillars and also pure PU pillars, the experiments were performed at 10 m/s, while for PEGdma/PU composite pillars 2 m/s was selected. These speeds lead to a similar rise in the strain with time during the measurement.

(79) From the recorded force/displacement data, the force for detachment of the sample (the pull-off force F.sub.adh) was calculated. With use of the contact area of the projections A and the thickness of the tip h.sub.0, the recorded diagram can be converted into a stress-strain curve by means of the following equation.

(80) $\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{.Math.}=\frac{d-d_0}{h_0}& \left(1\right)\\ \mathrm{and}& \\ =\frac{F}{A},& \left(2\right)\end{array}$
wherein is the elongation in the center of the soft region, d is the displacement, d.sub.0 is the displacement on the relaxation curve at which the force is 0, and the stress in the middle. Since the material of the stem is much more rigid than the material of the tip, it is assumed for simplicity that the deformation of the projections takes place only in the softer tip. Apart from this, the maximal elongation .sub.max and the maximal stress .sub.max were calculated. Finally, from these data the adhesion energy was calculated:
W.sub.adh=h.sub.0*.sub.0.sup..sup.max()d. (3)

(81) An example of a measurement together with the analyzed parameters is shown in FIG. 14. The stress and elongation for complete detachment .sub.max and .sub.max and the area of the curve W.sub.adh were analyzed and compared between the samples.

(82) FIG. 16 shows measurements of a reference sample of polyurethane under different conditions (preload; roughness of the surface and holding time). The diagram shows the pull-off forces as a function of the preload under different measurement conditions. The PEGdma/PU and PDMS/PU composites have a ratio of the elasticity moduli of 350 and 2 respectively. The interface between the regions was either planar or curved (radius of curvature ca. 1 mm), while the thickness of the tip (the softer region) lay between 30 and 500 m. Structures of pure PU were produced and used as reference. During the crosslinking, a slight decrease in the area occurred through shrinkage, with this being comparable for all samples. The influence of substrate, preload and holding time for PU comparison samples is shown in FIG. 16. The measurements were performed with a constant speed of 10 m/s, with the holding time being varied between 0 and 120 s.

(83) In general, the adhesion on smooth surfaces is higher and less dependent on the preload. On rough surfaces, there is a strong dependence on the preload. On smooth surfaces, the holding time has only a slight influence on the pull-off force. On rough surfaces, a longer holding time leads to higher pull-off forces.

(84) FIG. 17 shows adhesion measurements with composite projections with planar and curved interfaces with varying thickness of the upper region (tip). Various combinations of material for the tip and stem of the projections were studied: step of PDMS and tip of PU (PDMS/PU); stem of PEGdma with tip of PU (PEGdma/PU), and projections of pure PU as reference. All measurements were performed with 0 s holding time and a speed of 10 m/s (PU reference and PDMS/PU), or 2 m/s (PEGdma/PU) respectively. The horizontal lines show the average adhesion of the reference sample. The contact force varies in each case between 50 mN (solid line) and 150 mN (dashed line). Here a) and b) show the measurements on a smooth surface and c) and d) on a rough surface. It is found that for composite pillars with planar phase boundary, on a smooth surface the pull-off force rises to a maximum with increasingly thin tip and then falls again (FIG. 17 a)). On rough surfaces, the composite pillars with planar phase boundary show a marked improvement in the pull-off force as a function of the thickness of the upper region (FIG. 20 c)). For composite pillars with curved phase boundary, it is found that on a smooth surface the adhesion stress rises with increasingly thin tip (FIG. 17 b)). On rough surfaces, the composite pillars with curved phase boundary show a marked improvement in the pull-off force as a function of the thickness of the upper region (FIG. 20 d)). On rough surfaces, the adhesion stress is more strongly increased by increasing the preload than on smooth surfaces. Composite pillars with curved phase boundary exhibit a central first detachment (center crack) with projections with a very thin upper region. On a smooth surface, the necessary pull-off force increases steadily with decreasing thickness of the upper region. A greater ratio of the two elasticity moduli also increases the necessary pull-off force. With the lowest thicknesses, a tripling of the pull-off force could be measured in comparison to the PU reference. On a rough surface, large layer thicknesses show a slightly improved adhesion. With decreasing thickness, the pull-off force increases. With the thinnest sample measured, a five-fold increase in the pull-off force could be measured. A smaller ratio of the elasticity moduli leads to better results.

(85) FIG. 18 shows optical micrographs of detachment patterns (crack patterns), measured with a speed of 2 m/s. The figures show the contact area of the end faces of the projections on the surface, and from left to right the development of the detachment of the projection from the surface. The detached regions are bordered with lines. Here the first image in each series in each case shows the end face with complete contact. The second image shows the start of detachment (crack initiation), which progresses in the third picture (crack propagation) up to complete detachment (full detachment) in the fourth picture. From the start of the series, in each case the structure of the projection is shown diagrammatically. The time statement gives the time to complete detachment. With projections with thicker upper region (tip) (shown in a)) with curved and planar interface a start of the detachment occurs at the edge of the contact area (edge crack). The detachment takes place on the scale of seconds with a low critical detachment area (critical crack size). In contrast to this, projections with curved interface and thin upper region (shown in b)) show a start of the detachment in the center of the contact area. Here it takes ca. 10 seconds to complete detachment.

(86) With projections with planar interface and thin tip (shown in c)) the detachment starts with the formation of finger-shaped detached regions at several places simultaneously. There also the detachment takes ca. 10 seconds.

(87) Overall, three different detachment mechanisms could be observed. Irrespective of the shape of the interface, projections with a thicker upper region or PU reference samples show the start of the detachment at the edge of the contact area (edge crack). Here a detachment forms at the edge of the contact area, and grows in the direction of the center and then leads to spontaneous complete detachment. For projections with a thinner upper region, the mechanism depends on the geometry of the interface. With a curved interface, detachment firstly occurs in the middle of the contact area. The circular detachment forms spontaneously and then with increasing elongation grows slowly in the direction of the edge. At a critical size of the detachment, sudden detachment then occurs. The detached area can be greater than the area still in contact, before the detachment occurs. In contrast to this, with projections with a flat interface geometry and low thickness of the tip, simultaneous formation of several finger-shaped detached areas occurs, which expand radially inwards before complete detachment occurs.

(88) FIG. 19 shows characteristic parameters, such as the adhesion stress, .sub.max, the maximal elongation of the projections until detachment, .sub.max, and the adhesion energy, W.sub.adh, for the description of the adhesion behavior of composite pillars with thick and thin tip and planar and curved phase boundary in comparison to the PU reference on smooth and rough surface. The values were determined for 0 and 120 s holding time. It is found that projections according to the invention above all with thin tips are markedly better than the PU reference for all parameters. In particular, the adhesion on rough surfaces and smooth surfaces is comparable. As is already clear from the measurements shown above, the adhesion energy W.sub.adh and also the adhesion stress .sub.max of the samples are much higher than for PU reference samples on both substrates. Moreover, the adhesion stress is comparably high on both substrates, while it decreases by about half for PU reference samples (FIG. 19 top). The trend is also similar for the adhesion energy. The composite pillar is markedly better than the PU reference and the adhesion energy is even somewhat higher on a rough surface than on a smooth surface (FIG. 19 middle). The maximal elongation .sub.max is also markedly higher on both substrates. This shows that the composite pillars exhibit good bonding onto the surface and are markedly more strongly deformable before detachment occurs, although the effective elasticity modulus is much higher owing to the markedly more rigid stem of the projections.

REFERENCE SYMBOLS

(89) 100 Projection 120 End face 130 Region with lower elasticity modulus 140 Phase boundary 150 Region with higher elasticity modulus 160 Surface/backing layer/back layer 170 Surface for the adhesion 300 Template for the structured surface 310 Composition for region with lower elasticity modulus 320 Stripper/doctor blade 330 Dried/cured composition 340 Composition for region with higher elasticity modulus 350 Counterpart to the template 360 Cured composition 370 Structured surface 400 Film of a composition for the broadened end faces 410 Drops 420 Structured surface with broadened end faces 430 Surface 440 Surface 450 Curable film 460 Surface 470 Structured surface with projections bridged by a film 500 Projection 502 End face 504 Base face 506 Overlap region 601 Projection with flat end face 602 Projection with curved end face 610 Crosslinkable composition 621 Mold for projection with flat end face 622 Mold for projection with curved end face 630 Crosslinking 641 Mold with through hole 642 Mold with through hole 650 Washer (thickness ca. 500 m) 660 Crosslinkable composition 670 Razor blade/doctor knife 680 Teflon substrate 690 Crosslinking 691 Projection with two regions and planar phase boundary 692 Projection with two regions and curved phase boundary 695 Region with low elasticity modulus 696 Phase boundary 697 Region with high elasticity modulus

LITERATURE CITED

(90) Bae, W. G., Kim, D., Kwak, M. K., Ha, L., Kang, S. M. & Suh, K. Y. (2013a). Enhanced skin adhesive patch with modulus-tunable composite micropillars. Adv. Healthc. Mater., 2, 109-113 Kroner, E.; Blau, J.; Arzt E. An adhesion measurement setup for bioinspired fibrillar surfaces using flat probes. Review of Scientific Instruments 2012, 83 Akisanya, A. R., Fleck, N. A., 1997. Interfacial cracking from the free edge of a long bi-material strip. International Journal of Solids and Structures 34, 1645-1665 Khaderi, S. N., Fleck, N. A., Arzt, E., McMeeking, R. M., 2015. Detachment of an adhered micropillar from a dissimilar substrate. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 75, 159-183