Shear-controlled attachment of biomimetic wall-shaped adhesive microstructure [1]

Jae-Kang Kim, Michael Varenberg

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

INTRODUCTION: Thin-film-ended hairy adhesive structures have evolved independently in insects, arachnids and reptiles to secure their locomotion on substrates of arbitrary orientation, geometry and chemical composition [2]. After it was revealed that terminal thin-film elements operate using intermolecular and capillary forces, which allowed to replicate these structures with engineering materials, much effort has been put in the development of biomimetic adhesive surfaces [3, 4]. Consequently, this led to the introduction of mushroom-shaped microstructures and these microstructures remain the most thoroughly studied to date, due to the well-established manufacture procedures [5, 6]. Besides the mushroom-shaped terminal elements, the second type of adhesive hairs, which is based on spatulate geometry, is characteristic of all hairy attachment pads regardless of the animal group. The spatula-shaped adhesive hairs are known for their ability to be actuated by contact shearing and to be easily released by peeling, which can make them useful in applications requiring dynamic short-term attachment [7]. To date, a handful of different designs inspired by spatula-shaped adhesive hairs have been suggested based on wedge and flap geometry of contact elements [8-10]. These adhesive surface designs had been studied [8-11] but an experimental verification of the very basic concept of the pulling angle effect [7, 12] has not yet been reported. To bridge this gap, here we use wall-shaped adhesive microstructures [11] of three different flap heights to systematically study the effect of pulling angle on the normal and tangential components of the pull-off force tested at different preliminary tangential displacements.

METHODS:  Micro-structured surfaces were fabricated by using polyvinylsiloxane (PVS; Coltène Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland; Young’s modulus of about 3 MPa [13]) from a tungsten sheet of 0.15 mm in thickness prepared by laser micro-machining (Oxford Lasers, Shirley, MA). Three different heights of 140, 100 or 70 μm (high, medium and low flaps) were obtained by varying waiting time prior to pouring PVS on the template, and then the mold was gently released from the template. A glass slide of 30×5×1 mm in size was used as a counter surface. Tested surfaces were imaged in a Quanta 250 environmental scanning electron microscope (SEM; FEI, Brno, Czech Republic). The tests were conducted in a custom-built tribometer [14] that can also operate inside the SEM. A monochrome digital camera DMK 23UP1300 (Imaging Source, Charlotte, NC) mounted on a high-magnification optical lens Zoom-12X (Navitar, Rochester, NY) was used to capture images of the real contact area. After mounting a structured sample on the tribometer in perpendicular direction to the sliding/pulling, the glass slide was moved in perpendicular to the contact plane until a normal load of 10 mN was achieved. Then, the glass slide was moved in parallel to the contact plane under the same normal load and at a speed of 100 μm/s for a designated preliminary distance of 0 ~ 500 μm. Next, the glass slide was withdrawn from the contact at the speed of 100 μm/s and at a designated pulling angle of 10˚ ~ 170˚ at intervals of 10˚. The test stopped at a complete detachment of the glass slide from the structured sample. The temperature and relative humidity in the laboratory were 25-27 °C and 54-55 %, respectively.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION:  Several examples of normal and tangential forces recorded during the tests are shown in Fig. 1 as a function of tangential displacement. The curves that split from the normal and tangential force envelops correspond to the forces measured during the withdrawal stage after three characteristic preliminary displacements in Fig. 1a and after three characteristic

pulling angles in Fig. 1b. The curves have different appearances depending on the preliminary displacement and pulling angle, which allows identification of several contact modes. The maximum tangential force, pull-off force and tangential force at pull-off point in the curves in Fig. 1 were extracted to analyze the effect of preliminary displacements and pulling angle on pull-off force.


Figure 1 - Example curves of normal and tangential forces measured in the tests. (a) Preliminary displacement of 50, 200, 500 µm at pulling angle of 30˚. (b) Preliminary displacement of 200 µm at pulling angle of 10˚, 70˚, 130˚

The normal (pull-off) force showed maximum values at about half of the preliminary displacement needed to start sliding. At smaller preliminary displacement, the wall-shaped projections are not yet properly aligned after initial contact and random buckling. At larger preliminary displacement, the inception of sliding prevents the wall-shaped projections from working properly due to stick-slip motion. Based on the two competing processes (sliding and peeling), the optimum pulling angles that determine the maximum pull-off force ranged within 60˚-90˚. Furthermore, the adhesive could still detach at zero force when the pulling angle reaches 140˚-160˚. Although the critical attachment/detachment pulling angles differ from the natural spatulate structures due to differences in the geometries, the wall-shaped structure showed similar behavior to natural adhesives such as gecko feet. For the effect of flap heights on pull-off force, the difference in the optimum performance of the wall-shaped projections of different heights was not very significant, although the pull-off force, the preliminary displacement, and the pulling angles tend to decrease as height decreases.           The normal and tangential force of three different height flaps at pull-off point were plotted to see whether our data are better described using the Kendall model of thin-film peeling [12], or by using the Autumn model  stipulating the constant ratio of the normal over the tangential force as an attachment limit [7]. It was found that our data are consistent with the Kendall model. The observed discrepancy from the Autumn model may be related to a large difference between the high elastic modulus of the keratinous setae used to devise the Autumn model and the low elastic moduli of the silicon-based elastomers employed in current bio-inspired adhesives.

REFERENCES:  1. J.-K. Kim, J. R. Soc. Interface (2017), 2. M. Scherge, Biological micro-and nanotribology (2001), 3. M. Zhou, Friction (2013), 4. R. O’Rorke, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. (2016), 5. M.P. Murphy, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. (2007), 6. A. Del Campo, Langmuir (2007), 7. K. Autumn, J. Exp. Biol. (2006), 8. A. Parness, J. R. Soc. Interface (2009), 9. S. Chary, Smart Mater. Struct. (2013), 10. J. Yu, Adv. Funct. Mater. (2011), 11. H. Kasem, Soft matter (2015), 12. K. Kendall, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. (1975), 13. A. Peressadko J Adhes. (2004), 14. B. Murarash, Tribol. Lett. (2011)