Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:32:38.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Model of Interfacial Permeability for Soft Seals in Marine-Organism, Suction-Based Adhesion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2016

Michael Beckert ,
Brooke E. Flammang  and
Jason H. Nadler
Michael Beckert*
Affiliation:
Georgia Tech Research Institute Advanced Concepts Laboratory Atlanta, GA 30318, U.S.A.
Brooke E. Flammang
Affiliation:
New Jersey Institute of Technology Department of Biological Sciences, Newark, NJ, 07102, U.S.A.
Jason H. Nadler
Affiliation:
Georgia Tech Research Institute Advanced Concepts Laboratory Atlanta, GA 30318, U.S.A.
*
*(Email: [email protected])
Get access

Abstract

Reversible, suction based adhesion employed by many marine organisms may provide unique, adaptable technologies for biologically inspired grasping devices that function in difficult submerged environments. Here a theoretical framework based on measurable structural, material, and topological properties is developed to better understand a critical aspect of suction based attachment strategies: the leakage rate. The utility of the approach is demonstrated on an experimental apparatus designed to mimic the flow conditions experienced by a suction-based attachment device. Furthermore, the sealing effectiveness of a remora fish on sharkskin is investigated as a biological example.

Keywords

viscoelasticitybiologicaladhesion
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 1 , Issue 36: Soft Materials and Biomaterials , 2016 , pp. 2531 - 2543
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Czernik, D.E., Internal Combustion Engine Gaskets, in Gaskets and Gasketed Joints, Bickford, J.H., Editor. 1997, Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY.Google Scholar
Fisher, E.W., Packing and Seals, in Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, Avallone, E.A. and , T.B. III, Editors. 1987, McGraw-Hill Inc.: New York, NY.Google Scholar
Wainwright, D.K., et al. , Stick tight: suction adhesion on irregular surfaces in the northern clingfish. Biology Letters, 2013. 9(3).Google Scholar
Ditsche, P., Wainwright, D.K., and Summers, A.P., Attachment to challenging substrates – fouling, roughness and limits of adhesion in the northern clingfish (Gobiesox maeandricus). The Journal of Experimental Biology, 2014. 217(14): p. 2548–2554.Google Scholar
Byern, J.v. and Grunwald, I., Biological Adhesive Systems. 2010, New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
Smith, A.M., Cephalopod sucker design and the physical limits to negative pressure. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1996. 199(4): p. 949–958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulcher, B.A. and Motta, P.J., Suction disk performance of echeneid fishes. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie, 2006. 84(1): p. 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, J. and Thorsteinsson, V., Sucker Action in the Lumpsucker Cyclopterus-Lumpus L. Sarsia, 1990. 75(1): p. 33–42.Google Scholar
Gibson, R.N., Powers of adhesion in Liparis montagui (Donovan) and other shore fish. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 1969. 3(2): p. 179–190.Google Scholar
De Meyer, J. and Geerinckx, T., Using the Whole Body as a Sucker: Combining Respiration and Feeding with an Attached Lifestyle in Hill Stream Loaches (Balitoridae, Cypriniformes). Journal of Morphology, 2014. 275(9): p. 1066–1079.Google Scholar
Persson, B.N.J., et al. , On the nature of surface roughness with application to contact mechanics, sealing, rubber friction and adhesion. Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter, 2005. 17(1): p. R1-R62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persson, B.N.J. and Yang, C., Theory of the leak-rate of seals. Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter, 2008. 20(31).Google Scholar
Strasburg, D.W., Some Aspects of the Feeding Behavior of Remora remora. Pacific Science, 1962. 16(2): p. 202–206.Google Scholar
Ritter, E.K., Analysis of sharksucker, Echeneis naucrates, induced behavior patterns in the blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 2002. 65(1): p. 111–115.Google Scholar
Ritter, E.K. and Brunnschweiler, J.M., Do Sharksuckers, Echeneis naucrates, Induce Jump Behaviour in Blacktip Sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus? Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 2003. 36(2): p. 111–113.Google Scholar
Williams, E.H. Jr, et al. , Echeneid–sirenian associations, with information on sharksucker diet. Journal of Fish Biology, 2003. 63(5): p. 1176–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sazima, I. and Grossman, A., Turtle riders: remoras on marine turtles in Southwest Atlantic. Neotropical Ichthyology, 2006. 4(1): p. 123–126.Google Scholar
Weihs, D., Fish, F.E., and Nicastro, A.J., Mechanics of Remora Removal by Dolphin Spinning. Marine Mammal Science, 2007. 23(3): p. 707–714.Google Scholar
Silva-Jr, J.M. and Sazima, I., Whalesuckers and a spinner dolphin bonded for weeks: does host fidelity pay off? Biota Neotropica, 2003. 3(2): p. 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressey, R.F. and Lachner, E.A., The parasitic copepod diet and life history of diskfishes (Echeneidae). Copeia, 1970. 1970(2): p. 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culler, M., Ledford, K.A., and Nadler, J.H.. The role of topology and tissue mechanics in remora attachment. in MRS Fall Meeting 2013. 2013. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Nadler, J.H., et al. Structures and Function of Remora Adhesion. in MRS Spring Meeting 2013. 2013. San Fransisco, CA.Google Scholar
Kier, W.M. and Smith, A.M., The structure and adhesive mechanism of octopus suckers. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 2002. 42(6): p. 1146–1153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persson, B.N.J., et al. , Contact area between a viscoelastic solid and a hard, randomly rough, substrate. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2004. 120(18): p. 8779–8793.Google Scholar
Chen, P.Y., McKittrick, J., and Meyers, M.A., Biological materials: Functional adaptations and bioinspired designs. Progress in Materials Science, 2012. 57(8): p. 1492–1704.Google Scholar
Beckert, M., Flammang, B.E., and Nadler, J.H., Theoretical and computational fluid dynamics of an attached remora (Echeneis naucrates). 2014.Google Scholar
Beckert, M., Flammang, B.E., and Nadler, J.H., Remora fish suction pad attachment is enhanced by spinule friction. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2015. 218(22): p. 3551–3558.Google Scholar
Vorburger, T.V., Methods for Characterizing Surface Topology. Tutorials in Optics: Osa Annual Meeting, Rochester NY, ed. Moore, D.T.. 1992, Washington DC: Optical Society of America.Google Scholar
Fung, Y.C., Biomechanics Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues. 1993: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
Lakes, R.S., Viscoelastic Solids. 1999, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Krouskop, T.A., et al. , Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrasonic Imaging, 1998. 20(4): p. 260–274.Google Scholar
Guarnieri, F.A. and Cardona, A., 3D Solid Incompressible Viscoelastic Finite Element in Large Strains for the Cornea. Mechanica Computacional, 1997. 18: p. 799–808.Google Scholar
Liu, Z. and Bilston, L., On the viscoelastic character of liver tissue: experiments and modelling of the linear behaviour. Biorheology, 2000. 37(3): p. 191–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Kiss, M.Z., Varghese, T., and Hall, T.J., Viscoelastic characterization of in vitro canine tissue. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2004. 49(18): p. 4207–4218.Google Scholar
Haghpanahi, M. and Naeeni, H.A.. Investigation of Viscoelastic Properties of Human Liver Tissue Using MR Elastography and FE Modeling. in Proceedings of the 17th Iranian Conference of Biomedical Engineering. 2010.Google Scholar
Chatelin, S., et al. , In vivo liver tissue mechanical properties by transient elastography: Comparison with dynamic mechanical analysis. Biorheology, 2011. 48(2): p. 75–88.Google Scholar
Cowin, S.C. and Doty, S.B., Tissue Mechanics. 2007: Springer Science.Google Scholar
Biot, M.A., General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics, 1941. 12(2): p. 155–164.Google Scholar
Mei, C.C. and Vernescu, B., Homogenization Methods for Multiscale Mechanics. 2010, 27 Warren St, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601: World Scientific Publishing Co.Pte.Ltd.Google Scholar
Dullen, F.A.L., Porous Media Fluid Transport and Pore Structure. 2nd ed. 1992, Sandiago, CA: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Hallquist, J.O., Goudreau, G.L., and Benson, D.J., Sliding interfaces with contact-impact in large-scale Lagrangian computations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1985. 51(1–3): p. 107–137.Google Scholar
Belytschko, T., Liu, W.K., and Moran, B., Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures. 2000: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hyun, S., et al. , Finite-element analysis of contact between elastic self-affine surfaces. Physical Review E, 2004. 70(2).Google Scholar
Anderson, E.J., McGillis, W.R., and Grosenbaugh, M.A., The boundary layer of swimming fish. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2001. 204(1): p. 81–102.Google Scholar
ASTM, Standard Practice for Stress Relaxation Testing of Raw Rubber, Unvulcanized Rubber Compounds, and Thermoplastic Elastomers. 2012, ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA.Google Scholar
Mix, A.W. and Giacomin, A.J., Standardized Polymer Durometry. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 2011. 39(4): p. 696–705.Google Scholar
Sewell, R.B.S., The adhesive apparatus of the “ sucking-fish ”. Nature, 1925. 115: p. 48–49.Google Scholar
Shephard, K.L., Functions for Fish Mucus. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 1994. 4(4): p. 401–429.Google Scholar
Roberts, S.D. and Powell, M.D., The viscosity and glycoprotein biochemistry of salmonid mucus varies with species, salinity and the presence of amoebic gill disease (vol 175, pg 1, 2004). Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology, 2005. 175(3): p. 219–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar