Gecko-Inspired Braking System

ROB599: Bio-Inspiration
Gecko Project Report

Ahmed Alkatheeri1
Irena Gershkovich2
Graham Sell3
Nathaly Villacis4

The University of Michigan

1
ahmedak@umich.edu
2
igershko@umich.edu
3
gmsell@umich.edu
4
carlanvn@umich.edu

February 28, 2020

Abstract
Inspired by the Tokey Gecko’s remarkable ability to easily attach to and efficiently disengage from a variety of
surfaces, we have developed a novel, lightweight, silent, non-toxic dry adhesive brake pad that will revolutionize
the way you think about stopping. We anticipate that these brake pads will be incorporated into a wide variety
of devices such as bicycles, recreational vehicles, automobiles, and medical mobility aids. After manufacturing the
synthetic adhesive pads and characterizing their attachment performance, we were able to construct and successfully
demonstrate a functional trial design of a braking system. See it in action here! We will share our experiences in
characterizing the adhesive pads, the testing protocols we used, and the results we achieved. We will also describe
our trial design and discuss future plans for evaluating and developing it.

1. Part A
1.1 Testing Procedure
The gecko adhesive was created out of PDMS. Using a rigid mold, the two liquid components of PDMS were mixed
and subsequently poured into the mold. Before the mold was completely filled, a thin, perforated sheet of plastic
was placed on top to give structure to the PDMS. This piece of plastic was then covered in more of the PDMS
mix, which was finally covered with the top of the mold, which contained several slits to allow the PDMS to form
lamellae. The PDMS was then allowed to harden for about 10 minutes. During this initial session, three PDMS
gecko adhesive pads were made and the following procedure was used to test their performance. The lamellae of the
adhesive were cleaned by brushing the surface with packing tape. A glass panel was then suspended in such a way as
to allow movement from the vertical to horizontal planes, and its surface was cleaned using isopropyl alcohol (70%
solution). Next, a metallic mass was hooked to each adhesive pad. The adhesive was then pressed on the fixture’s
surface while ensuring the lamellae were all bending in the same direction. The glass pane was then rotated such
that angle between the glass and the ground increased until the adhesive pad detached and fell. The last angle before
detachment was recorded and used for analyzing the properties of the adhesive. The mass was changed from 1.2
grams to 4 grams and its effect was observed on the measured angles. Between subsequent trials, the glass surface
was cleaned with isopropyl alcohol and the adhesive was cleaned using packing tape.

1.2 Collected Measurements and Discussion

The collected measurements are all displayed in Table 1.1. The following equations were used along with the
information in Table 1.1 to calculate the perpendicular and shear forces of the synthetic adhesive. Table 1.1 contains
the resulting adhesive forces.
Fk = mg ∗ cos(α) F⊥ = mg ∗ sin(α)

Mass (g) angle 1 (◦ ) angle 2 (◦ ) angle 3 (◦ ) mean angle (rad) Fk (N) F⊥ (N)
1.2 18 22 25 0.2909 0.0113 0.0034
1.2 20 20 22 0.3782 0.0109 0.0043
1.2 23 12 15 0.3607 0.0110 0.0042
2 18 30 25 0.2502 0.0190 0.0049
2 13 15 15 0.3432 0.0185 0.0066
2 18 23 18 0.4247 0.0179 0.0081
2.8 25 28 24 0.4480 0.0247 0.0119
3.2 15 20 13 0.2793 0.0301 0.0086
4 17 13 17 0.2734 0.0377 0.0106

Table 1.1: Measured detachment angles with different load masses and calculated shear and perpendicular forces.

1
To get the force per surface area of the adhesive pad, the surface area of a single lamella was measured, with a
resulting approximate value of 8.35 mm2 . This was done by taking a high definition picture of the lamella and
counting the number of pixels representing the edge, then converting it to mm. Considering that 10 lamella were
present in each adhesive, the maximum force a single lamella produced was 0.0012 N. Resulting in a force per surface
area of 0.014 N/cm2 (0.0014 atm).
Figure 1.1 shows the linear relationship between the two forces. Considering Equation 1.1, which resulted from
solving for the perpendicular force with respect to the shear force in the previous equations, we can deduce that the
constant slope of the plot is tan(α). This means that angle α is constant at around 18 degrees.

Figure 1.1: Perpendicular force vs shear force of gecko adhesive. A trend line was added to show the linearity.

F⊥ = Fk ∗ tan(α) (1.1)

This equation is very similar to the friction equation where the shear force is friction, perpendicular force is the
normal force and 1/tan(α) is the friction coefficient. This allows the conclusion that the adhesive force in this
product is that of friction, not Van der Waals. This means that this product is closer to structural bio-mimicry than
it is of actual bio-inspiration.

2. Part B: Gecko-inspired braking system

We decided to make the most of the frictional properties of synthetic lamella from our gecko-inspired adhesives by creating a
braking system. We modeled and 3D printed a motor-driven platform with a moving axle, two wheels, two supports, and a
central mechanism that pushed the brakes towards the wheels to stop them, as seen in Figures 2.1 and 2.6. Two brake models
were designed: side brakes and drum brakes, as shown in Figure 2.2. Side brakes consist of sliding discs with circular gecko
adhesives attached to their surface, as presented in Figure 2.2-b. Drum brakes adapt to the curvature of wheels, like Figure
2.2-d displays. Figure 2.2 indicates the working principle of the pushing mechanism. This mechanism includes a spring, guides,
and four rigid bars with two pins that transform vertical movement into horizontal movement for the side brakes. The same
central mechanism is connected to a rigid arm fixed to the pusher and drum brakes, which transmits the vertical movement
to the curved brakes. The design considerations of the system are shown in Table 2.1.
To experimentally test our 3D printed model, one side of the wheels was connected to a motorized rubber wheel, as shown
in Figure 2.6, and a person pushed the central cylinder at any given time to stop the system. The motor did not detach
from the driving wheel when the brakes were applied. We only tested the side brakes for the stopping mechanism due to
time constraints. We performed three experiments, all of which worked! However, we observed that the whole lamellae (not
only the tips) needed to fully contact the wheels to stop them, which is not the best representation of the lamellae working
principle. The reason behind this might be that the collective lamellae shear force was not enough to stop the wheels. Several
ways to improve the design for future implementation will be discussed in Part C.

2
 Analogy
Design Solution Design Problem
check
Gecko-inspired adhesive Gecko-inspired braking system
Behaviors (What does system or organism do?) Behaviors (What do you want system to do?)
Adhesive force Similar Adhesive force
Rapid attach/detach Similar Rapid attach/detach
Structural Components (Structure/organization of
Structural components (What can structure be?)
system?)
PDMS Similar PDMS
Horizontally and radially oriented lamellae (Figures 2.2 and
Horizontally oriented lamellae Uncertain 2.5). Shear forces coming from the moving wheels are
perpendicular to lamellae
10 lamellae for drum brakes and 20 lamellae for side brakes -
10 lamellae Uncertain
Figures 2.3
Flat surface for side brakes, curved for drum brakes (Figure
Flat surface Uncertain
2.2)
Operating environment (Where?) Operating environment (Where?)
Glass - smooth surface Different ABS - semi coarse 3D printed surface (Figure 2.4)
Static surface Different Rotating surface with frictional heat
Size (What is size?) Size (What is size?)
Lamella height ∼ 5 mm Similar Lamella height ∼ 5 mm
Lamella spacing ∼ 4 mm for drum brakes variable (max 6.2
Lamella spacing ∼ 4 mm Different
mm) for side brakes (Figure 2.3)
Contact length 15 mm for drum brakes, 9.5 mm for side
Contact length ∼ 20 mm Different
brakes (Figure 2.3)
Functional Mechanisms (How does system work?) Functional Mechanisms (How does system work?)
Friction Similar Friction
Orientation dependent Similar Orientation dependent
Direct contact without preload (Figure 2.5). Brake geometry
Preload Different
allows all lamellae to contact wheels
Characteristics and Specifications (Which are Characteristics and Specifications (What are your
distinguishing?) specifications?)
Dry adhesion, no glue, interlocking or suction needed Similar Dry adhesion, no glue, interlocking or suction needed
Release at critical angle Different Release perpendicular to surface
Flexible lamellae Similar Flexible lamellae
Performance Criteria (How well does the system Performance Criteria (How well must the system
work?) work?)
Force dependent on driving motor and lamella orientation
∼ 0.014 N/cm2 force per lamella (horizontally disposed) Different
(side vs drum brakes)
Constraints (What compromises system?) Constraints (Can compromises be removed?)
Material - PDMS Similar Material is the same
Geometry - horizontal array Uncertain Horizontal and radial arrays (Figure 2.3)
End geometry smooth Similar End geometry smooth

Table 2.1: Analogy table for Gecko-inspired braking system

3
 (a)

(b)

Figure 2.1: Modeled and 3D printed braking system platforms. a) Isometric view of the modeled platform with both side
and drum brakes implemented; b) 3D printed version of the braking system platform, featuring the side brakes

4
 (a) (b)

(c)
(d)

Figure 2.2: Two different braking systems, model and real-life versions: a) Side brakes – discs that slide in the axis towards
the wheels and have gecko-adhesive in their surface. The central cylinder pushes vertically the four rigid bars, which allow
for the movement to become horizontal; b) 3D printed version of the side brakes with gecko-adhesive in their surface; c)
Drum brakes – curved surface that supports a gecko adhesive and is pushed towards the wheels from above with a rigid arm
connected to the central cylinder; d) 3D printed version of the drum brakes with gecko-adhesive in their surface.

5
 (a) (b)

Figure 2.3: Geometry of adhesives for side and drum brakes. a) Adhesives for side brakes have 25 lamellae radially oriented,
whose length is 9.5 mm (equal to the contact length). The lamella spacing is variable, ranging from 3.2 (internal diameter) to
6.2 mm (outermost diameter); b) Adhesives for curved drum brakes have 10 lamellae disposed horizontally, with a spacing of
∼ 4 mm. The length of each lamella is 20 mm, but the contact length is equal to the thickness of each wheel, 15 mm.

Figure 2.4: Surface finish of wheels is semi-coarse because they were 3D printed with an FDM printer.

(a) (b)

Figure 2.5: Adaptability of adhesives to wheel surface. a) Tangential forces from moving wheel are always perpendicular to
radially disposed lamellae, correctly orienting the lamellae with respect to the forces and guaranteeing full contact; b) Curved
drum brake surface ensures that lamellae are correctly oriented and in full contact with respect to the wheel surface.

6
Figure 2.6: Driving motor with wheel next to braking platform.

7
3. Part C
We look forward to collaborating with scientists, engineers and designers from all over the world to further develop, characterize
and improve upon our trial design. This will inevitably be a multi-disciplinary, iterative process of creating and updating
hypotheses, modeling, exploration, testing and evaluation. We will most likely begin by reaching out to our colleagues at
the University of Colorado, Boulder and then seek to expand our collaboration to maximize the diversity of our talent pool.
Pushing our trial design past the prototype stage will be an exciting challenge and opportunity. Our next steps in evaluating
and characterizing the design will focus on the following:

1. Developing rigorous metrics and methods for measuring and evaluating performance. For example, we will
want to measure the maximum torque that the brake system is able to counteract. We will need to build appropriate test
fixtures and design testing protocols to extract key information about system structure, parameters and performance.
We will need to model how all results scale with factors such as brake pad area and the mass of the object that we want
to stop.
2. Characterizing and measuring the attachment/release process within the braking application. The rota-
tional component motion may pose a challenge that we will need to overcome. We will also need to know the optimal
lamella deflection and how to constrain the design such that it keeps the adhesive pad’s surface structure optimally
aligned.
3. Characterizing and comparing the performance of different designs: drum brakes, disk brakes and
possible variations. We will evaluate the performance of each design, along with possible alternatives, under different
testing and environmental conditions. This will aid us in fully understanding and optimizing the adhesive braking
process. By doing this, we may discover new considerations that will cause us to revise our model and design.
4. Defining and quantifying the environment in which we expect the design to operate and recreating
this environment in the lab. We will need to perform all tests defined in the previous steps for each environment.
Additionally we will need to perform field tests which may reveal surprising behaviours and obstacles to overcome.
5. Better characterizing and standardizing the adhesive manufacturing process. This will likely involve working
with experts in materials science and manufacturing. Determining the durability and lifetime of the pads is critical to
assessing the design’s viability. We will also need a way of quantifying and monitoring wear and tear.
6. Identifying and improving upon the design’s limitations. For example, we would like to know how fast, reliable
and safe the brake is as a function of the design parameters. Demonstrating safety and reliability will be an important
challenge to overcome.
7. Evaluating design integrity as function of lamella density and material choices. Adding more lamella strips
would be a good way to test if gecko-inspired brakes are a good alternative to conventional brakes. We will also scale
the model and test it with realistic material choices, such as metal shafts and rubber tires, to determine if the design
structure needs to be adjusted. A new analogy table should be created to fully explore the implications.

These steps will yield the critical information needed to evaluate how to move forward with the design in a systematic and
pragmatic way. Beyond the technical challenges, we will likely face regulatory and systemic challenges such as the costs
associated with moving towards an entirely new braking system. With the help of our collaborators and feedback from the
broader community, we hope to take this design as far as it can go.