Research Papers

Microwedge Machining for the Manufacture of Directional Dry Adhesives

[+] Author and Article Information
Paul Day

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305;
Los Alamos National Labs,
Los Alamos, NM 87544
e-mail: pday@stanford.edu

Eric V. Eason

Department of Applied Physics,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
e-mail: easone@stanford.edu

Noe Esparza

e-mail: noe.esparza@stanford.edu

David Christensen

e-mail: davidc10@stanford.edu

Mark Cutkosky

e-mail: cutkosky@stanford.edu
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF Micro AND Nano-Manufacturing. Manuscript received April 1, 2012; final manuscript received July 18, 2012; published online March 22, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Stefan Dimov.

J. Micro Nano-Manuf 1(1), 011001 (Mar 22, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: JMNM-12-1022; doi: 10.1115/1.4023161 History: Received April 01, 2012; Revised July 18, 2012

Directional dry adhesives are inspired by animals such as geckos and are a particularly useful technology for climbing applications. Previously, they have generally been manufactured using photolithographic processes. This paper presents a micromachining process that involves making cuts in a soft material using a sharp, lubricated tool to create closely spaced negative cavities of a desired shape. The machined material becomes a mold into which an elastomer is cast to create the directional adhesive. The trajectory of the tool can be varied to avoid plastic flow of the mold material that may adversely affect adjacent cavities. The relationship between tool trajectory and resulting cavity shape is established through modeling and process characterization experiments. This micromachining process is much less expensive than previous photolithographic processes used to create similar features and allows greater flexibility with respect to the microscale feature geometry, mold size, and mold material. The micromachining process produces controllable, directional adhesives, where the normal adhesion increases with shear loading in a preferred direction. This is verified by multi-axis force testing on a flat glass substrate. Upon application of a post-treatment to decrease the roughness of the engaging surfaces of the features after casting, the adhesives significantly outperform comparable directional adhesives made from a photolithographic mold.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Fearing, R., 2012, “Gecko Adhesion Bibliography,” http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/ronf/Gecko/gecko-biblio.html
Murphy, M. P., and Sitti, M., 2007, “Waalbot: An Agile Small-Scale Wall-Climbing Robot Utilizing Dry Elastomer Adhesives,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech., 12(3), pp. 330–338. [CrossRef]
Kim, S., Spenko, M., Trujillo, S., Heyneman, B., Santos, D., and Cutkosky, M. R., 2008, “Smooth Vertical Surface Climbing With Directional Adhesion,” IEEE Trans. Robot., 24(1), pp. 65–74. [CrossRef]
Daltorio, K. A., Wei, T. E., Horchler, A. D., Southard, L., Wile, G. D., Quinn, R. D., Gorb, S. N., and Ritzmann, R. E., 2009, “Mini-Whegs TM Climbs Steep Surfaces Using Insect-Inspired Attachment Mechanisms,” Int. J. Robot. Res., 28(2), pp. 285–302. [CrossRef]
Krahn, J., Liu, Y., Sadeghi, A., and Menon, C., 2011, “A Tailless Timing Belt Climbing Platform Utilizing Dry Adhesives With Mushroom Caps,” Smart Mater. Struct., 20(11), p. 115021. [CrossRef]
Murphy, M. P., Kute, C., Mengüç, Y., and Sitti, M., 2011, “Waalbot II: Adhesion Recovery and Improved Performance of a Climbing Robot Using Fibrillar Adhesives,” Int. J. Robot. Res., 30(1), pp. 118–133. [CrossRef]
Hawkes, E. W., Eason, E. V., Asbeck, A. T., and Cutkosky, M. R., 2013, “The Gecko's Toe: Scaling Directional Adhesives for Climbing Applications,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech., 18(2), pp. 518–526. [CrossRef]
Li, Y., Ahmed, A., Sameoto, D., and Menon, C., 2012, “Abigaille II: Toward the Development of a Spider-Inspired Climbing Robot,” Robotica, 30(01), pp. 79–89. [CrossRef]
Northen, M. T., Greiner, C., Arzt, E., and Turner, K. L., 2008, “A Gecko-Inspired Reversible Adhesive,” Adv. Mater., 20(20), pp. 3905–3909. [CrossRef]
Jeong, H. E., Kwak, M. K., and Suh, K. Y., 2010, “Stretchable, Adhesion-Tunable Dry Adhesive by Surface Wrinkling,” Langmuir, 26(4), pp. 2223–2226. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sitti, M., and Fearing, R., 2003, “Synthetic Gecko Foot-Hair Micro/Nano-Structures as Dry Adhesives,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 17(8), pp. 1055–1073. [CrossRef]
Autumn, K., Dittmore, A., Santos, D., Spenko, M., and Cutkosky, M., 2006, “Frictional Adhesion: A New Angle on Gecko Attachment,” J. Exp. Biol., 209(18), pp. 3569–3579. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
del Campo, A., Greiner, C., and Arzt, E., 2007, “Contact Shape Controls Adhesion of Bioinspired Fibrillar Surfaces,” Langmuir, 23(20), pp. 10235–10243. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, J., Fearing, R. S., and Komvopoulos, K., 2008, “Directional Adhesion of Gecko-Inspired Angled Microfiber Arrays,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 93(19), p. 191910. [CrossRef]
Qu, L., Dai, L., Stone, M., Xia, Z., and Wang, Z. L., 2008, “Carbon Nanotube Arrays With Strong Shear Binding-On and Easy Normal Lifting-Off,” Science, 322(5899), pp. 238–242. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jeong, H. E., Lee, J.-K., Kim, H. N., Moon, S. H., and Suh, K. Y., 2009, “A Nontransferring Dry Adhesive With Hierarchical Polymer Nanohairs,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 106(14), pp. 5639–5644. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Murphy, M. P., Aksak, B., and Sitti, M., 2009, “Gecko-Inspired Directional and Controllable Adhesion,” Small, 5(2), pp. 170–175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Parness, A., Soto, D., Esparza, N., Gravish, N., Wilkinson, M., Autumn, K., and Cutkosky, M., 2009, “A Microfabricated Wedge-Shaped Adhesive Array Displaying Gecko-Like Dynamic Adhesion, Directionality and Long Lifetime,” J. R. Soc., Interface, 6(41), pp. 1223–1232. [CrossRef]
Sameoto, D., and Menon, C., 2009, “Direct Molding of Dry Adhesives With Anisotropic Peel Strength Using an Offset Lift-Off Photoresist Mold,” J. Micromech. Microeng., 19(11), p. 115026. [CrossRef]
Kwak, M. K., Jeong, H.-E., Kim, T.-i., Yoon, H., and Suh, K. Y., 2010, “Bio-Inspired Slanted Polymer Nanohairs for Anisotropic Wetting and Directional Dry Adhesion,” Soft Matter, 6(9), pp. 1849–1857. [CrossRef]
Sameoto, D., and Menon, C., 2010, “Recent Advances in the Fabrication and Adhesion Testing of Biomimetic Dry Adhesives,” Smart Mater. Struct., 19(10), p. 103001. [CrossRef]
Gillies, A. G., and Fearing, R. S., 2011, “Shear Adhesion Strength of Thermoplastic Gecko-Inspired Synthetic Adhesive Exceeds Material Limits,” Langmuir, 27(18), pp. 11278–11281. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yu, J., Chary, S., Das, S., Tamelier, J., Pesika, N. S., Turner, K. L., and Israelachvili, J. N., 2011, “Gecko-Inspired Dry Adhesive for Robotic Applications,” Adv. Funct. Mater., 21(16), pp. 3010–3018. [CrossRef]
Jin, K., Tian, Y., Erickson, J. S., Puthoff, J., Autumn, K., and Pesika, N. S., 2012, “Design and Fabrication of Gecko-Inspired Adhesives,” Langmuir, 28(13), pp. 5737–5742. [CrossRef]
Hawkes, E. W., Ulmen, J., Esparza, N., and Cutkosky, M. R., 2011, “Scaling Walls: Applying Dry Adhesives to the Real World,” Proceedings IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5100–5106.
Soto, D., Hill, G., Parness, A., Esparza, N., Cutkosky, M., and Kenny, T., 2010, “Effect of Fibril Shape on Adhesive Properties,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 97(5), p. 053701. [CrossRef]
Gong, J., Lipomi, D. J., Deng, J., Nie, Z., Chen, X., Randall, N. X., Nair, R., and Whitesides, G. M., 2010, “Micro- and Nanopatterning of Inorganic and Polymeric Substrates by Indentation Lithography,” Nano Lett., 10, pp. 2702–2708. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Autumn, K., Sitti, M., Liang, Y. A., Peattie, A. M., Hansen, W. R., Sponberg, S., Kenny, T. W., Fearing, R., Israelachvili, J. N., and Full, R. J., 2002, “Evidence for van der Waals Adhesion in Gecko Setae,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 99(19), pp. 12252–12256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hill, R., Lee, E. H., and Tupper, S. J., 1947, “The Theory of Wedge Indentation of Ductile Materials,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 188(1013), pp. 273–289. [CrossRef]
Hill, R., 1950, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, 1st ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Ernst, H., and Merchant, M. E., 1941, “Chip Formation, Friction and High Quality Machined Surfaces,” Surface Treatment of Metals, American Society for Metals, Cleveland, OH, pp. 299–378.
Merchant, M. E., 1945, “Mechanics of the Metal Cutting Process. I. Orthogonal Cutting and a Type 2 Chip,” J. Appl. Phys., 16(5), pp. 267–275. [CrossRef]
Merchant, M. E., 1945, “Mechanics of the Metal Cutting Process. II. Plasticity Conditions in Orthogonal Cutting,” J. Appl. Phys., 16(6), pp. 318–324. [CrossRef]
Johnson, W., Sowerby, R., and Venter, R. D., 1982, Plane-Strain Slip-Line Fields for Metal-Deformation Processes, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Bodsworth, C., Halling, J., and Barton, J. W., 1957, “The Use of Paraffin Wax as a Model Material to Simulate the Plastic Deformation of Metals,” J. Iron Steel Inst., London185, pp. 375–383.
Bitans, K., and Brown, R. H., 1965, “An Investigation of the Deformation in Orthogonal Cutting,” Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res., 5(3), pp. 155–165. [CrossRef]
Meguid, S. A., and Collins, I. F., 1977, “On the Mechanics of the Oblique Cutting of Metal Strips With Knife-Edged Tools,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 19(6), pp. 361–371. [CrossRef]
Hill, R., and Lee, E. H., 1946, “The Theory of Wedge Penetration at Oblique Incidence and Its Application to the Calculation of Forces on a Yawed Shot Impacting on Armour Plate at Any Angle,” Theoretical Research Report No. 1/46, UK Ministry of Supply Armament Research Department.
Li, X., Yu, H., Xu, J., Liu, A., and Lv, H., 2009, “Model of Micro-Cutting and Analysis of Micro Cutting Force,” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, pp. 1541–1545.
Johnson, W., and Mellor, P. B., 1973, Engineering Plasticity, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., London.
Childs, T. H. C., and Rowe, G. W., 1973, “Physics in Metal Cutting,” Rep. Prog. Phys., 36(3), pp. 223–288. [CrossRef]
Molinari, A., and Moufki, A., 2008, “The Merchant's Model of Orthogonal Cutting Revisited: A New Insight Into the Modeling of Chip Formation,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 50(2), pp. 124–131. [CrossRef]
Hirst, W., and Howse, M. G. J. W., 1969, “The Indentation of Materials by Wedges,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 311(1506), pp. 429–444. [CrossRef]
Marinello, F., Bariani, P., Savio, E., Horsewell, A., and De Chiffre, L., 2008, “Critical Factors in SEM 3D Stereo Microscopy,” Meas. Sci. Technol., 19(6), p. 065705. [CrossRef]
Bhushan, B., 1999, Principles and Applications of Tribology, Wiley, New York.
Bhushan, B., ed., 2010, Springer Handbook of Nanotechnology, 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin.
Santos, D., Spenko, M., Parness, A., Kim, S., and Cutkosky, M., 2007, “Directional Adhesion for Climbing: Theoretical and Practical Considerations,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 21(12–13), pp. 1317–1341. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

SEM micrographs of PDMS directional adhesive features: (a) unloaded microwedges from a photolithographic mold, (b) microwedges under shear loading, and (c) microwedges from a micromachined mold.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A diagram illustrating the geometry and the parameters of the micromachining process for a single cavity. “Traj.” is the tool trajectory; “S.P.” is the shear plane.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Surface comparison of PDMS microwedges cast from micromachined wax molds, using (a) no lubricant, (b) liquid soap lubricant, and (c) liquid soap lubricant and “inking” post-treatment. A broken wedge, illustrating the wedges' tapered profile, can be seen on the right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Diagram illustrating the steps of the post-treatment process (see text for details)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Cross-section of microtome blade used in the micromachining process, showing its three different beveled sections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Micrograph of a single mold cavity created in cutting force tests (θ = 50 deg, t = 100 μm) showing triangular built-up region. (b) Measured shear stress at the shear plane fs/A versus θ, with values of shear yield stress k for comparison. T, S, and C correspond to trajectories parallel to the tertiary bevel, secondary bevel, and centerline of the tool. The estimated measurement uncertainties of θ and fs/A are 0.6 deg and 0.8 MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Micrographs showing the effect of trajectory angle on mold cavity shape. For some trajectories (a) and (b), a continuous chip of built-up material is formed after the final cavity. The chip disappears for θ≥56 deg (c) and (d).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Geometric data taken from characterization experiment micrographs (Fig. 7). Feature height is measured normal to the mold surface from the tip of the cavity to its upper edge.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Diagram of the adhesive testing apparatus, showing the normal and shear directions. (b) Diagram illustrating the movement of the positioning stage during load-pull tests.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the limit curves for macroscopic arrays of adhesive microwedges produced with micromachined molds and photolithographic molds. The measurement uncertainty of the data is estimated to be 2 kPa in normal and 1 kPa in shear.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In