The soft robotics field is moving toward increasingly complex and integrated systems, which will contain interfaces between soft components and other soft, compliant, and/or rigid components. Although many soft interfaces leverage adhesion, soft robot designers currently have limited information for selecting appropriate materials and fabrication techniques. Through experimental testing, this article characterizes how the substrate material and bonding process influence the performance of soft–soft silicone [i.e., polydimethylsiloxane-based interfaces], provides a framework for approaching this analysis, and contextualizes the data to provide initial insights into material selection for soft–soft interfaces by showing how the data could be used to guide design decisions. Specifically, this article characterizes five addition-curing silicone rubbers and five bonding processes, and it defines performance using quantitative metrics relating to desirable qualitative behaviors: toughness (adhesive fracture energy), flexibility (maximum localized strain during peeling), and strength (ratio of initial-to-average force and magnitude of initial peak peel force). Together, the substrate material and bonding method jointly determine the failure behavior of soft–soft silicone interfaces, influencing both the achievable performance (toughness, strength, flexibility) and characteristic failure modes (adhesive, cohesive, mixed-mode). Understanding characteristic failure modes can inform design strategies to mitigate interfacial failure, enabling higher-capability soft robots with improved operating loads and component lifetimes.
GallowayKC, BeckerKP, PhillipsB, et al.Soft robotic grippers for biological sampling on deep reefs. Soft Robot, 2016; 3(1):23–33; doi: 10.1089/soro.2015.0019
2.
RogatinskyJ, ReccoD, FeichtmeierJ, et al.A multifunctional soft robot for cardiac interventions. Sci Adv, 2023; 9(43):eadi5559; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adi5559
RosaliaL, OzturkC, Coll-FontJ, et al.A soft robotic sleeve mimicking the haemodynamics and biomechanics of left ventricular pressure overload and aortic stenosis. Nat Biomed Eng, 2022; 6(10):1134–1147; doi: 10.1038/s41551-022-00937-8
WalshC. Human-in-the-loop development of soft wearable robots. Nat Rev Mater, 2018; 3(6):78–80; doi: 10.1038/s41578-018-0011-1
7.
AbidiH, CianchettiM. On intrinsic safety of soft robots. Front Robot AI, 2017; 4; doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00005
8.
PuhlmannS, HarrisJ, BrockO. RBO hand 3: A platform for soft dexterous manipulation. IEEE Trans Robot, 2022; 38(6):3434–3449; doi: 10.1109/TRO.2022.3156806
9.
GallowayKC, PolygerinosP, WalshCJ, et al.Mechanically programmable bend radius for fiber-reinforced soft actuators. In: 2013 16th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR). IEEE: Montevideo, Uruguay; 2013; pp. 1–6; doi: 10.1109/ICAR.2013.6766586
10.
YirmibeşoğluOD, OshiroT, OlsonG, et al.Evaluation of 3D printed soft robots in radiation environments and comparison with molded counterparts. Front Robot AI, 2019; 6(40):40; doi: 10.3389/frobt.2019.00040
11.
ZhangY, LiP, QuanJ, et al.Progress, challenges, and prospects of soft robotics for space applications. Adv Intell Syst, 2022; 5(3):2200071; doi: 10.1002/aisy.202200071
12.
HuL, BonnemainJ, SaeedMY, et al.An implantable soft robotic ventilator augments inspiration in a pig model of respiratory insufficiency. Nat Biomed Eng, 2023; 7(2):110–123; doi: 10.1038/s41551-022-00971-6
13.
MosadeghB, PolygerinosP, KeplingerC, et al.Pneumatic networks for soft robotics that actuate rapidly. Adv Funct Materials, 2014; 24(15):2163–2170; doi: 10.1002/adfm.201303288
14.
KurumayaS, PhillipsBT, BeckerKP, et al.A modular soft robotic wrist for underwater manipulation. Soft Robot, 2018; 5(4):399–409; doi: 10.1089/soro.2017.0097
15.
GorissenB, MelanconD, VasiosN, et al.Inflatable soft jumper inspired by shell snapping. Sci Robot, 2020; 5(42):eabb1967; doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.abb1967
16.
MarcheseAD, KatzschmannRK, RusD. A recipe for soft fluidic elastomer robots. Soft Robot, 2015; 2(1):7–25; doi: 10.1089/soro.2014.0022
17.
DeimelR, BrockO. A compliant hand based on a novel pneumatic actuator. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE: Karlsruhe, Germany; 2013; pp. 2047–2053; doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630851
18.
Maeder-YorkP, ClitesT, BoggsE, et al.Biologically inspired soft robot for thumb rehabilitation. J Med Devices, 2014; 8(2):e020933; doi: 10.1115/1.4027031
19.
ParkC, SinghM, SaeedMY, et al.Biorobotic hybrid heart as a benchtop cardiac mitral valve simulator. Device, 2024; 2(1):100217; doi: 10.1016/j.device.2023.100217
20.
ParkS, MondalK, TreadwayRM, et al.Silicones for stretchable and durable soft devices: Beyond sylgard-184. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2018; 10(13):11261–11268; doi: 10.1021/acsami.7b18394
ZhangC, ZhuP, LinY, et al.Modular soft robotics: Modular units, connection mechanisms, and applications. Adv Intell Syst, 2020; 2(6):1900166; doi: 10.1002/aisy.201900166
23.
SunY, GuoJ, Miller-JacksonT, et al.Design and fabrication of a shape-morphing soft pneumatic actuator: Soft robotic pad. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE: Vancouver, BC; 2017; doi: 10.1109/IROS.2017.8206524
24.
PolygerinosP, WangZ, GallowayKC, et al.Soft robotic glove for combined assistance and at-home rehabilitation. Robot Auton Syst, 2015; 73:135–143; doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2014.08.014
25.
KladovasilakisN, SideridisP, TzetzisD, et al.Design and development of a multi-functional bioinspired soft robotic actuator via additive manufacturing. Biomimetics (Basel), 2022; 7(3):105; doi: 10.3390/biomimetics7030105
26.
TolleyMT, ShepherdRF, KarpelsonM, et al.An untethered jumping soft robot. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE: Chicago, IL; 2014; pp. 561–566; doi: 10.1109/IROS.2014.6942615
27.
NatividadR, Del RosarioM, ChenPCY, et al.A reconfigurable pneumatic bending actuator with replaceable inflation modules. Soft Robot, 2018; 5(3):304–317; doi: 10.1089/soro.2017.0064
28.
JiangY, ChenD, QueJ, et al.Soft robotic glove for hand rehabilitation based on a novel fabrication method. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE: Macau; 2017; pp. 817–822; doi: 10.1109/ROBIO.2017.8324518
29.
AmbroseJW, ChiangNZR, CheahDSY, et al.Compact multilayer extension actuators for reconfigurable soft robots. Soft Robot, 2023; 10(2):301–313; doi: 10.1089/soro.2022.0042
PreechayasomboonP, RombokasE. Negshell casting: 3D-printed structured and sacrificial cores for soft robot fabrication. PLoS One, 2020; 15(6):e0234354; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234354
32.
YuQ, CaoN, FolinusCM, et al.Low-volume cores for fabrication of compact, versatile, and intelligent soft systems. Adv Funct Materials, 2024; 34(46):2404317; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202404317
33.
BuchnerTJK, RoglerS, WeirichS, et al.Vision-controlled jetting for composite systems and robots. Nature, 2023; 623(7987):522–530; doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06684-3
34.
WallinTJ, PikulJ, ShepherdRF. 3D printing of soft robotic systems. Nat Rev Mater, 2018; 3(6):84–100; doi: 10.1038/s41578-018-0002-2
35.
KokkoniE, LiuZ, KarydisK. Development of a soft robotic wearable device to assist infant reaching. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther, 2020; 3(2):e021109; doi: 10.1115/1.4046397
36.
ShepherdRF, StokesAA, FreakeJ, et al.Using explosions to power a soft robot. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 2013; 52(10):2892–2896; doi: 10.1002/anie.201209540
37.
ZhangJ, JacksonA, MentzerN, et al.A modular, reconfigurable mold for a soft robotic gripper design activity. Front Robot AI, 2017; 4:46; doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00046
38.
LiangX, CheongH, SunY, et al.Design, characterization, and implementation of a two-DOF fabric-based soft robotic arm. IEEE Robot Autom Lett, 2018; 3(3):2702–2709; doi: 10.1109/LRA.2018.2831723
39.
YangHD, AsbeckAT. A new manufacturing process for soft robots and soft/rigid hybrid robots. In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE: Madrid; 2018; pp. 8039–8046; doi: 10.1109/IROS.2018.8593688
40.
OhN, RodrigueH. Toward the development of large-scale inflatable robotic arms using hot air welding. Soft Robot, 2023; 10(1):88–96; doi: 10.1089/soro.2021.0134
41.
BudynasRG, NisbettJK, NisberttJK. Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design, 8th ed. McGraw-Hill: New York City; 2015.
ObergE, JonesFD, HortonHL, et al.Machinery’s Handbook: A Reference Book for the Mechanical Engineer, Designer, Manufacturing Engineer, Draftsman, Toolmaker, and Machinist. 30th ed. Industrial Press: New York; 2016.
44.
AvelloneEA, BaumeisterT, SaundersH. Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers. McGraw-Hill: New York City, NY; 1993.; doi: 10.1115/1.2929486
45.
YapTF, KlinkaoJ, UrbinaS, et al.Understanding silicone elastomer curing and adhesion for stronger soft devices. Sci Adv, 2025; 11(29):eadv2681.
46.
XueN, LongR, DufresneER, et al.Elastomers fail from the edge. Phys Rev X, 2024; 14(1):e011054; doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.011054
47.
YinT, ZhangG, QuS, et al.Peel of elastomers of various thicknesses and widths. Extreme Mech Lett, 2021; 46:101325; doi: 10.1016/j.eml.2021.101325
48.
CaseJC, WhiteEL, KramerRK. Soft material characterization for robotic applications. Soft Robot, 2015; 2(2):80–87; doi: 10.1089/soro.2015.0002
49.
MarechalL, BallandP, LindenrothL, et al.Toward a common framework and database of materials for soft robotics. Soft Robot, 2021; 8(3):284–297; doi: 10.1089/soro.2019.0115
50.
PorteE, EristoffS, AgrawalaA, et al.Characterization of temperature and humidity dependence in soft elastomer behavior. Soft Robot, 2024; 11(1):118–130; doi: 10.1089/soro.2023.0004
51.
BorókA, LabodaK, BonyárA. PDMS bonding technologies for microfluidic applications: A review. Biosensors (Basel), 2021; 11(8):292; doi: 10.3390/bios11080292
52.
EddingsMA, JohnsonMA, GaleBK. Determining the optimal PDMS–PDMS bonding technique for microfluidic devices. J Micromech Microeng, 2008; 18(6):e067001; doi: 10.1088/0960-1317/18/6/067001
53.
JungK, KimDG, JungS. Adhesion of PDMS substrates assisted by plasma graft polymerization. Surface Interface Analysis, 2016; 48(7):597–600; doi: 10.1002/sia.5985
54.
ChenC. Characterization of fracture energy and toughness of air plasma PDMS–PDMS bonding by T-peel testing. J Adhes Sci Technol, 2018; 32(11):1239–1252; doi: 10.1080/01694243.2017.1406877
55.
KeciliS, TekinHC. Adhesive bonding strategies to fabricate high-strength and transparent 3D printed microfluidic device. Biomicrofluidics, 2020; 14(2):e024113; doi: 10.1063/5.0003302
56.
VarnerH, CohenT. Explaining the spread in measurement of PDMS elastic properties: Influence of test method and curing protocol. Soft Matter, 2024; 20(46):9174–9183; doi: 10.1039/D4SM00573B
57.
ZhouL, DaiC, FanL, et al.Injectable self‐healing natural biopolymer‐based hydrogel adhesive with thermoresponsive reversible adhesion for minimally invasive surgery. Adv Funct Materials, 2021; 31(14):2007457; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202007457
58.
WangJ, DaiT, WuH, et al.Tannic acid-Fe3+ activated rapid polymerization of ionic conductive hydrogels with high mechanical properties, self-healing, and self-adhesion for flexible wearable sensors. Compos Sci Technol, 2022; 221:109345; doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2022.109345
59.
LiY, LiL, ZhangZ, et al.An all-natural strategy for versatile interpenetrating network hydrogels with self-healing, super-adhesion and high sensitivity. Chem Eng J, 2021; 420:129736; doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.129736
60.
YangY, ShiK, YuK, et al.Degradable hydrogel adhesives with enhanced tissue adhesion, superior self‐healing, cytocompatibility, and antibacterial property. Adv Healthc Mater, 2022; 11(4):e2101504; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202101504
61.
YukH, ZhangT, LinS, et al.Tough bonding of hydrogels to diverse non-porous surfaces. Nat Mater, 2016; 15(2):190–196; doi: 10.1038/nmat4463
62.
FreedmanBR, Cintron CruzJA, KwonP, et al.Instant tough adhesion of polymer networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2024; 121(9):e2304643121; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2304643121
63.
LiuJ, LinS, LiuX, et al.Fatigue-resistant adhesion of hydrogels. Nat Commun, 2020; 11(1):1071; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14871-3
64.
KinlochAJ, WilliamsJG. The Mechanics of Peel Tests. In: Adhesion Science and Engineering. Elsevier Science: Amsterdam; 2002; pp. 273–301; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-51140-9.50035-4
65.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11339:2002: T-Peel Test for Flexible-to-Flexible Bonded Assemblies. ISO; 2022.
66.
ASTM International. ASTM D1876-08: Test Method for Peel Resistance of Adhesives (T-Peel Test). ASTM International; n.d.; doi: 10.1520/D1876-08R23
67.
ChenC.-F, WhartonK. Characterization and failure mode analyses of air plasma oxidized PDMS–PDMS bonding by peel testing. RSC Adv, 2017; 7(3):1286–1289; doi: 10.1039/C6RA25947B
68.
JosephVS, CalaisT, StalinT, et al.Silicone/epoxy hybrid resins with tunable mechanical and interfacial properties for additive manufacture of soft robots. Appl Mater Today, 2021; 22:100979; doi: 10.1016/j.apmt.2021.100979
69.
PozaryckiTA, HwangD, BarronEJ, et al.Tough bonding of liquid metal‐elastomer composites for multifunctional adhesives. Small, 2022; 18(41):e2203700; doi: 10.1002/smll.202203700
70.
BartlettMD, CaseSW, KinlochAJ, et al.Peel tests for quantifying adhesion and toughness: A review. Prog Mater Sci, 2023; 137:101086; doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2023.101086
71.
KinlochAJ, LauCC, WilliamsJG. The peeling of flexible laminates. Int J Fract, 1994; 66(1):45–70; doi: 10.1007/BF00012635
72.
TeepleCB, KoutrosTN, GrauleMA, et al.Multi-segment soft robotic fingers enable robust precision grasping. Int J Robot Res, 2020; 39(14):1647–1667; doi: 10.1177/0278364920910465
73.
SinatraNR, TeepleCB, VogtDM, et al.Ultragentle manipulation of delicate structures using a soft robotic gripper. Sci Robot, 2019; 4(33):eaax5425; doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.aax5425
74.
PackhamDE., (ed). Handbook of Adhesion, 2nd ed. John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ; 2005.
75.
TaylorJM, Perez‐TorallaK, AispuroR, et al.Covalent bonding of thermoplastics to rubbers for printable, reel‐to‐reel processing in soft robotics and microfluidics. Adv Mater, 2018; 30(7); doi: 10.1002/adma.201705333
76.
ASTM International. ASTM D412-16: Test methods for vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic elastomerstension. ASTM International; n.d.; doi: 10.1520/D0412-16R21
77.
GrantL, AdamsR, SilvaLFM. Experimental and numerical analysis of t-peel joints for the automotive industry. J Adhes Sci Technol, 2009; 23(2):317–338; doi: 10.1163/156856108X383529
78.
LiQ. Finite Deformations of Fiber-Reinforced Rubberlike Solids, and of Adhesively Bonded T-Peel Joints. Doctor of Philosophy. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2017.
79.
RusD, TolleyMT. Design, fabrication and control of soft robots. Nature, 2015; 521(7553):467–475; doi: 10.1038/nature14543
80.
Cervera-TorralbaJ, KangY, KhanEM, et al.Lost-core injection molding of fluidic elastomer actuators for the fabrication of a modular eel-inspired soft robot. In: 2024 IEEE 7th International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft). IEEE: San Diego, CA; 2024; pp. 971–976; doi: 10.1109/RoboSoft60065.2024.10522050
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.
