This work studies the effect of a cavity with inner pressure on the adhesion of circular pillars with a flat tip in contact with a rigid smooth surface. The inner cavity of pillars is pressurized positively before the contact. The effect of the cavity on the adhesion is examined for different cavity diameters and different membrane thicknesses over the cavity. The shape of the tip of the pillars is changed in accordance with the cavity dimension and the positive cavity pressure, which allows the change of an adhesive contact type from a flat-punch adhesive contact to a spherical adhesive contact that results in tunable adhesion strength of circular pillars. The results demonstrate that having an inner cavity reduces the adhesion, where the cavity diameter is more effective than the membrane thickness over the cavity on the reduction of the adhesive force. Applying pressure to the inner cavity of the pillars changes the sphericity, which alters the adhesive force accordingly. The sphericity 0.1 almost has no effect on the tunable adhesion strength, where the higher sphericity results in the reduction of the adhesive force from high adhesive force to low adhesive force linearly with a tunable efficiency between 95% and 98%.
CrollABHosseiniNBartlettMD. Switchable adhesives for multifunctional interfaces. Adv Mater Technol2019; 4: 1–20.
2.
GravishNWilkinsonMAutumnK. Frictional and elastic energy in gecko adhesive detachment. J R Soc Interface2008; 5: 339–348.
3.
AutumnKGravishN. Gecko adhesion: evolutionary nanotechnology. Philos Trans R Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci2008; 366: 1575–1590.
4.
AutumnKHsiehSDudekD, et al. Dynamics of geckos running vertically. J Exp Biol2006; 209: 260–272.
5.
TangTHuiCYGlassmakerNJ. Can a fibrillar interface be stronger and tougher than a non-fibrillar one?J R Soc Interface2005; 2: 505–516.
6.
EtsionI. Improving tribological performance of mechanical components by laser surface texturing. Tribol Lett2004; 17: 733–737.
7.
HeBChenWJane WangQ. Surface texture effect on friction of a microtextured poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS). Tribol Lett2008; 31: 187–197.
8.
Mohd NasirFFGhaniJAZamriWFHW, et al. State-of-the-art surface texturing and methods for tribological performance. World Rev Sci, Technol Sustain Dev2019; 15: 330–357.
9.
KampermanMKronerEdel CampoA, et al. Functional adhesive surfaces with gecko effect: The concept of contact splitting. Adv Eng Mater2010; 12: 335–348.
10.
GreinerCdel CampoAArztE, et al. Adhesion of bioinspired micropatterned surfaces: effects of pillar radius, aspect ratio, and preload. Langmuir2007; 23: 3495–3502.
11.
MiccichéMArztEKronerE. Single macroscopic pillars as model system for bioinspired adhesives: Influence of tip dimension, aspect ratio, and tilt angle. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2014; 6: 7076–7083.
12.
Del CampoAGreinerCArztE. Contact shape controls adhesion of bioinspired fibrillar surfaces. Langmuir2007; 23: 10235–10243.
13.
FrensemeierMKaiserJSFrickCP, et al. Temperature-induced switchable adhesion using nickel-titanium-polydimethylsiloxane hybrid surfaces. Adv Funct Mater2015; 25: 3013–3021.
14.
TanDWangXLiuQ, et al. Switchable adhesion of micropillar adhesive on rough surfaces. Small2019; 15: 1–8.
15.
TatariMMohammadi NasabATurnerKT, et al. Dynamically tunable dry adhesion via subsurface stiffness modulation. Adv Mater Interfaces2018; 5: 1–7.
16.
GilliesAGKwakJFearingRS. Controllable particle adhesion with a magnetically actuated synthetic gecko adhesive. Adv Funct Mater2013; 23: 3256–3261.
17.
LiXPengZYangY, et al. Tunable adhesion of a bio-inspired micropillar arrayed surface actuated by a magnetic field. J Appl Mech2019; 86: 011007.
18.
ParetkarDKampermanMSchneiderAS, et al. Bioinspired pressure actuated adhesive system. Mater Sci Eng: C2011; 31: 1152–1159.
19.
PurtovJFrensemeierMKronerE. Switchable adhesion in vacuum using bio-inspired dry adhesives. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2015; 7: 24127–24135.
20.
WangYTianHShaoJ, et al. Switchable dry adhesion with step-like micropillars and controllable interfacial contact. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2016; 8: 10029–10037.
21.
MajumderAGhatakASharmaA. Microfluidic adhesion induced by subsurface microstructures. Science2007; 318: 258–261.
22.
MajumderASharmaAGhatakA. A bioinspired wet/dry microfluidic adhesive for aqueous environments. Langmuir2010; 26: 521–525.
23.
ArulEPGhatakA. Adhesives with patterned sub-surface microstructures. J Mater Sci2011; 46: 832–838.
24.
CarlsonAWangSElvikisP, et al. Active, programmable elastomeric surfaces with tunable adhesion for deterministic assembly by transfer printing. Adv Funct Mater2012; 22: 4476–4484.
25.
ArulEPGhatakA. Control of adhesion via internally pressurized subsurface microchannels. Langmuir2012; 28: 4339–4345.
26.
DeningKHeepeLAfferranteL, et al. Adhesion control by inflation: implications from biology to artificial attachment device. Appl Phys A2014; 116: 567–573.
27.
Prieto-LópezLOWilliamsJA. Using microfluidics to control soft adhesion. J Adhes Sci Technol2016; 30: 1555–1573.
28.
Prieto-LópezLOWilliamsJA. Switchable adhesion surfaces with enhanced performance against rough counterfaces. Biomimetics2016; 1: 1–8.
29.
SongSDrotlefDMMajidiC, et al. Controllable load sharing for soft adhesive interfaces on three-dimensional surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2017; 114: E4344–E4353.
30.
Mohammadi NasabALuoASharifiS, et al. Switchable adhesion via subsurface pressure modulation. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2020; 12: 27717–27725.
31.
LinghuCWangCCenN, et al. Rapidly tunable and highly reversible bio-inspired dry adhesion for transfer printing in air and a vacuum. Soft Matter2019; 15: 30–37.
32.
TestaPChappuisBKistlerS, et al. Switchable adhesion of soft composites induced by a magnetic field. Soft Matter2020; 16: 5806–5811.
33.
PangHPeiLXuJ, et al. Magnetically tunable adhesion of composite pads with magnetorheological polymer gel cores. Compos Sci Technol2020; 92: 108115.
34.
ErayTKoçIMSümerB. Investigation of adhesion and friction of an isotropic composite pillar. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part J: J Eng Tribol2019; 233: 520–531.
35.
KoçIMErayT. Modeling frictional dynamics of a visco-elastic pillar rubbed on a smooth surface. Tribol Int2018; 127: 187–199.
36.
CarboneGPierroE. Sticky bio-inspired micropillars: finding the best shape. Small2012; 8: 1449–1454.
37.
AksakBSahinKSittiM. The optimal shape of elastomer mushroom-like fibers for high and robust adhesion. Beilstein J Nanotechnol2014; 5: 630–638.
38.
MinskyHKTurnerKT. Achieving enhanced and tunable adhesion via composite posts. Appl Phys Lett2015; 106: 201604.
39.
KimYYangCKimY, et al. Designing an adhesive pillar shape with deep learning-based optimization. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2020; 12: 24458–24465.
40.
PengBFengXQLiQ. Decohesion of a rigid flat punch from an elastic layer of finite thickness. J Mech Phys Solids2020; 139: 103937.
41.
AksakBHuiCYSittiM. The effect of aspect ratio on adhesion and stiffness for soft elastic fibres. J R Soc Interface2011; 8: 1166–1175.
42.
BalijepalliRBegleyMFleckN, et al. Numerical simulation of the edge stress singularity and the adhesion strength for compliant mushroom fibrils adhered to rigid substrates. Int J Solids Struct2016; 85: 160–171.
43.
TangTHuiCY. Decohesion of a rigid punch from an elastic layer: Transition from “flaw sensitive” to “flaw insensitive” regime. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys2005; 43: 3628–3637.
44.
MaugisD. Contact, adhesion and rupture of elastic solids, vol. 130. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
45.
NaseJRamosOCretonC, et al. Debonding energy of PDMS. Eur Phys J E2013; 36: 1–10.
46.
SongSSittiM. Soft grippers using micro-fibrillar adhesives for transfer printing. Adv Mater2014; 26: 4901–4906.
47.
JohnsonKLGreenwoodJA. An approximate JKR theory for elliptical contacts. J Phys D: Appl Phys2005; 38: 1042–1046.
48.
LiQPopovVL. A numerical study of jkr-type adhesive contact of ellipsoids. J Phys D: Appl Phys2020; 53: 335303.
49.
TianHLiXShaoJ, et al. Gecko-effect inspired soft gripper with high and switchable adhesion for rough surfaces. Adv Mater Interfaces2019; 6: 1900875.
50.
LuoHWangCLinghuC, et al. Laser-driven programmable non-contact transfer printing of objects onto arbitrary receivers via an active elastomeric microstructured stamp. Natl Sci Rev2020; 7: 296–304.
51.
JohnstonIMcCluskeyDTanC, et al. Mechanical characterization of bulk Sylgard 184 for microfluidics and microengineering. J Micromech Microeng2014; 24: 035017.
52.
MataAFleischmanAJRoyS. Characterization of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) properties for biomedical micro/nanosystems. Biomed Microdevices2005; 7: 281–293.
53.
KimSSpenkoMTrujilloS, et al. Smooth vertical surface climbing with directional adhesion. IEEE Trans Robot2008; 24: 65–74.
54.
MengüçYYangSYKimS, et al. Gecko-inspired controllable adhesive structures applied to micromanipulation. Adv Funct Mater2012; 22: 1246–1254.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
