$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The capability to adhere particles to rubber-like materials, such as silicone, provides advantages in both industry and research. However, it is well known that bonding to surfaces of materials with a low surface energy can be a challenge. In general, researchers whose experimental methods require a pattern or design on the surface of their specimens commonly use paint specially formulated for airbrushing such as those manufactured by Createx and Vallejo1,10. These applications using paint often require a primer and still fail to achieve the required durability of the patterns. On flexible substrates, the paint may smear or fall off in flakes as it cracks during mechanical testing. These marking adhesive failures then alter the data field captured by an optical tracking method like digital image correlation. Our method ensures long-lasting durability of the surface pattern. We currently have samples that are over 6 years old that we have attempted to smear aggressively and remove the surface pattern mechanically. All efforts to remove these markings have failed, demonstrating the robustness of the surface patterns.
In industry, it may also be necessary to apply designs, symbols, or words to the surface of rubber-like materials for safety and process instructions, such as the installation of a gasket. For example, in the auto industry, it is common to imprint words such as "THIS SIDE UP" or imprint an arrow on a rubber gasket to provide clear installation instructions. Traditionally, these markings are achieved by modifying the mold surface so that the words are either above or below the surface of the rest of the part. This method requires a new mold to be fabricated each time the markings need to be changed. Additionally, the final part will have a different thickness where the imprint is located, leading to potential failure sites during operation. Our method overcomes both issues by not altering the molds in any way and allowing the surface of the final material to remain a uniform thickness.
Mechanical testing has been performed to confirm that our patterning method does not impact the mechanical attributes of the material. We have repeatedly tested specimens in a variety of loading modes such as simple shear, uniaxial tension, compression, and even impact tests. Furthermore, this method is environmentally safe when compared to alternative paint application methods. We avoid the use of toxic, volatile paint solvents by utilizing alcohol in our solution when air brushing the mold. Finally, a noteworthy characteristic of our method is the ability to create multicolor, high-resolution patterns on the sample surface. The method is limited by the particle size and manufacturing precision of the stencil. The particle size must be sufficiently small to attain the desired fidelity and overcome the flow rate of the injection molding process. The specimen size and geometry are only constrained by the size of the mold and the material chosen. We have manufactured 2 inch cubes with success utilizing silicone with an approximately 20 min pot life at room temperature.
The stencil fabrication method will directly impact the feature size resolution and ones ability to create a high-fidelity design on the mold cavity during particle spray coating. Careful consideration of which stencil fabrication is an integral part of the patterning method. Here, we provide a simple set of stencil preparation techniques along with the minimum feature size that can be formed with each technique, lmin. First, hand-cutting with a craft knife: Precision tools like X-Acto knives or utility blades are best for detailed and intricate designs and work well with materials like plastic sheets, mylar, or cardstock (lmin ≥ 1 mm). Second, hand-cutting with scissors: Can be used for lightweight materials like paper or thin vinyl to produce simple shapes and less intricate designs (lmin ≥ 1 mm). Third, die-cutting machines like Cricut or Silhouette: Can cut complex designs with precision using materials like adhesive vinyl or cardstock (lmin ≥ 250 µm). Fourth, laser cutting: A high-tech option for complex patterns suitable for acrylic, wood, or thick plastic stencils (lmin ≥ 100 µm). Fifth, heat cutting tools: electric hot knives or soldering irons can melt through thermoplastic stencil materials like mylar or other extruded polymer films (lmin ≥ 1 mm). This method produces smooth edges. Sixth, punching: helpful for small, repetitive shapes and they work best on lightweight materials (lmin ≥ 100 µm). Finally, computer-controlled routers could be utilized for large or industrial-scale stencil projects (lmin varies).
In any new manufacturing protocol, certain steps in the process are critical to achieving the desired outcome. In our method, there are three steps that should be highlighted and given special attention. The first critical step is allowing the alcohol to evaporate completely from the airbrushed particle suspension, leaving only the particles adhered to the mold surface. If the alcohol does not completely evaporate, there is a strong chance that the design on the mold will smear and/or the alcohol will mix with the uncured material during the injection molding process. The size of the particles must be sufficiently small since these particles, which are suspended in the alcohol "paint" in the airbrush, adhere to the mold after the alcohol has fully evaporated. The size of the particles is an important limitation to note. If the particles are too large, Van der Waals forces will be insufficient to securely and permanently adhere the particles to the surface of the rubber-like material surface. However, suitably sized particles can be affordably and easily obtained from several commercial pigment suppliers.
The second critical step is the amount of adhesive, which temporarily holds the stencil on the mold. In our experience, the best way to execute this step is to use one quick pass of a spray adhesive. We recommend as little adhesive as possible while still ensuring the stencil has complete contact with the mold. By manually flattening the stencil on the mold with your finger or an appropriate instrument like a rubber spatula, conformal contact can be formed. If the openings of the stencil are not completely flat against the mold, the particle suspension will migrate under the edges of the stencil pattern during air brushing, significantly decreasing the sharpness of the surface design edges. If too much adhesive is used, removing the stencil will be challenging and may damage the newly applied design. Moreover, too much adhesive will lead to the specimen strongly adhering to the mold during the curing process, making the demolding process almost impossible without causing damage to the specimen.
The third critical step is the injection rate of the uncured silicone during the injection molding process. In our experience, we observed that sufficiently slow injection molding flow rate(s) did not overcome the Van der Waals forces adhering the fine particles to the mold, allowing the mold cavity to be filled without disturbing the patterned particles. Some empirical testing is required to determine an optimum injection rate that is slow enough to avoid smearing of the pattern yet fast enough to fill the mold cavity before the onset of curing of the silicone. Curing retardants can be added to the mix if larger volume parts are made. The material's viscosity and curing time will dictate the appropriate injection rate for each material's system.