Geometry-controlled adhesion: revisiting the contact splitting hypothesis

Following studies of biological attachment systems, the principle of contact splitting, according to which splitting up the contact into finer subcontacts increases adhesion, was introduced. However, numerous attempts at employing this principle in producing dry adhesives were unsuccessful, prompting us to test its validity. Here, we show that in addition to the increase in number of subcontacts, the contact splitting model also implies a built-in increase in contact area. Thus, based on this model, it is impossible to say which parameter leads to increase in adhesion, the increasing number of subcontacts, as accepted to think, or just an increase in contact area, which is a trivial result. To clarify this point, we show experimentally what happens if we keep the contact area constant, while increasing the number of subcontacts in the “equal load sharing” mode, which was never done before. In contrast to the contact splitting principle, our measurements clearly demonstrate that, in flat-punch-patterned conformal contact, the pull-off force remains the same even when the number of subcontacts increases by two orders of magnitude. Our finding suggests that the contact splitting idea can only work in thin-film-based contacts, which are indeed employed in most biological temporary attachment systems.

[1]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  Biological Micro- and Nanotribology: Nature’s Solutions , 2010 .

[2]  Ronald S. Fearing,et al.  Synthetic gecko foot-hair micro/nano-structures as dry adhesives , 2003 .

[3]  Chung-Yuen Hui,et al.  Biologically inspired crack trapping for enhanced adhesion , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  S. Gorb,et al.  Biomimetic mushroom-shaped fibrillar adhesive microstructure , 2007, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[5]  Bioinspired adhesion systems ‐ competing with the gecko , 2009 .

[6]  Eduard Arzt,et al.  Contact shape controls adhesion of bioinspired fibrillar surfaces. , 2007, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[7]  S. Gorb,et al.  WHEN LESS IS MORE: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR TENACITY ENHANCEMENT BY DIVISION OF CONTACT AREA , 2004 .

[8]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  Advanced testing of adhesion and friction with a microtribometer , 2006 .

[9]  M. Sitti,et al.  Gecko-inspired directional and controllable adhesion. , 2008, Small.

[10]  S. Gorb,et al.  From micro to nano contacts in biological attachment devices , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Metin Sitti,et al.  Adhesion of biologically inspired vertical and angled polymer microfiber arrays. , 2007, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[12]  Liangti Qu,et al.  Carbon Nanotube Arrays with Strong Shear Binding-On and Easy Normal Lifting-Off , 2008, Science.

[13]  Eduard Arzt,et al.  Biological and artificial attachment devices: Lessons for materials scientists from flies and geckos , 2006 .

[14]  R. Full,et al.  Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair , 2000, Nature.

[15]  K. Autumn,et al.  Evidence for self-cleaning in gecko setae. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  R. Full,et al.  Evidence for van der Waals adhesion in gecko setae , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  A. Geim,et al.  Microfabricated adhesive mimicking gecko foot-hair , 2003, Nature materials.

[18]  W. Barnes Functional Morphology and Design Constraints of Smooth Adhesive Pads , 2007 .

[19]  Eduard Arzt,et al.  Adhesion of bioinspired micropatterned surfaces: effects of pillar radius, aspect ratio, and preload. , 2007, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[20]  A. Jagota,et al.  Design of biomimetic fibrillar interfaces: 2. Mechanics of enhanced adhesion , 2004, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[21]  Nicola Pugno,et al.  Spatulate structures in biological fibrillar adhesion , 2010 .

[22]  Metin Sitti,et al.  Biologically inspired polymer microfibers with spatulate tips as repeatable fibrillar adhesives , 2006 .

[23]  K. Kendall,et al.  Surface energy and the contact of elastic solids , 1971, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[24]  A. Jagota,et al.  Design of biomimetic fibrillar interfaces: 1. Making contact , 2004, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[25]  Nigel E. Stork,et al.  Experimental Analysis of Adhesion of Chrysolina Polita (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) on a Variety of Surfaces , 1980 .

[26]  K. Kendall Thin-film peeling-the elastic term , 1975 .

[27]  Ralph Spolenak,et al.  Evidence for capillarity contributions to gecko adhesion from single spatula nanomechanical measurements. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  S. Gorb,et al.  Hexagonal Surface Micropattern for Dry and Wet Friction , 2009 .

[29]  Alfred J. Crosby,et al.  Designing Model Systems for Enhanced Adhesion , 2007 .

[30]  Stanislav N. Gorb,et al.  Effect of real contact geometry on adhesion , 2006 .

[31]  Eduard Arzt,et al.  Hierarchical Gecko‐Like Adhesives , 2009 .