Development of Biomimetic Squid-Inspired Suckers

doi:10.1016/S1672-6529(11)60144-3

Abstract

Abstract:

Biomechanical properties of squid suckers were studied to provide inspiration for the development of sucker artefacts for a robotic octopus. Mechanical support of the rings found inside squid suckers was studied by bending tests. Tensile tests were carried out to study the maximum possible sucking force produced by squid suckers based on the strength of sucker stalks, normalized by the sucking areas. The squid suckers were also directly tested to obtain sucking forces by a special testing arrangement. Inspired by the squid suckers, three types of sucker artefacts were developed for the arm skin of an octopus inspired robot. The first sucker artefact made of knitted nylon sheet reinforced silicone rubber has the same shape as the squid suckers. Like real squid suckers, this type of artefact also has a stalk that is connected to the arm skin and a ring to give radial support. The second design is a straight cylindrical structure with uniform wall thickness made of silicone rubber. One end of the cylinder is directly connected to the arm skin and the other end is open. The final design of the sucker has a cylindrical base and a concave meniscus top. The meniscus was formed naturally using the surface tension of silicone gel, which leads to a higher level of the liquid around the edge of a container. The wall thickness decreases towards the tip of the sucker opening. Sucking forces of all three types of sucker artefacts were measured. Advantages and disadvantages of each sucker type were discussed. The final design of suckers has been implemented to the arm skin prototypes.

Key words: biomimetics, squid sucker, sucking force, artificial sucker

Jinping Hou, Edward Wright, Richard H. C. Bonser, George Jeronimidis. Development of Biomimetic Squid-Inspired Suckers[J].J4, 2012, 9(4): 484-493.

References

[1] Kier W M, Stellas M P. The arrangement and function of octopus arm musculature and connective tissue. Journal of Morphology, 2007, 268, 831–843.

[2] Young J Z. The Anatomy of the Nervous System of Octopus Vulgaris, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1971.

[3] Smith K K, Kier W M. Trunks, tongues, and tentacles: Moving with skeletons of muscle. American Scientist, 1989, 77, 28–35.

[4] Gutfreund Y, Flash T, Yarom Y, Fiorito G, Segev I, Hochner B. Organization of octopus arm movements: A model system for studying the control of flexible arms. The Journal of Neuroscience, 1996, 16, 7297–7307.

[5] Sumbre G, Gutfreund Y, Fiorito G, Flash T, Hochner B. Control of octopus arm extension by a peripheral motor program. Science, 2001, 293, 1845–1848.

[6] Kier W M, Smith A M. The structure and adhesive mechanism of octopus suckers. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 2002, 42, 1146–1153.

[7] Yekutieli Y, Sumbre G, Flash T, Hochner B. How to move with no rigid skeleton? The octopus has the answers. Biologist, 2002, 49, 250–254.

[8] Sumbre G, Fiorito G, Flash T, Hochner B. Neurobiology motor control of flexible octopus arms. Nature, 2005, 433, 595–596.

[9] Gravagne I A, Walker I D. Uniform regulation for a multi-section continuum manipulator. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2002, 2, 1519–1524.

[10] McMahan W, Jones B, Walker I, Chitrakaran V, Seshadri A, Dawson D. Robotic manipulators inspired by cephalopod limbs. Proceedings of Inaugural CDEN Design Conference, Montreal, Canada, 2004, 1–10.

[11] Packard A. The skin of cephalopods (coleoids): General and special adaptations. In Trueman E R, Clarke M R eds, The Mollusca: Form and Function, Academic Press, San Diego, USA, 1988, 11, 37–67.

[12] Marks P. Robot octopus will go where no sub has gone before. The New Scientist, 2009, 201, 18.

[13] Hou J P, Bonser R H C, Jeronimidis G. Design of a biomimetic skin for an octopus-inspired robot – Part I: Characterising octopus skin. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2011, 8, 288–296.

[14] Hou J P, Bonser H C R, Jeronimidis G. Design of a biomimetic skin for an octopus-inspired robot – Part II: Development of the skin artefact. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2011, 8, 297–304.

[15] Cianchetti M, Arienti A, Follador M, Mazzolai B, Dario P, Laschi C. Design concept and validation of a robotic arm inspired by the octopus. Material Science and Engineering C, 2011, 31, 1230–1239.

[16] Smith A M. Negative pressure generated by octopus suckers: A study of the tensile strength of water in nature. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1991, 157, 257–271.

[17] Kier W M, Smith A M. The morphology and mechanics of octopus suckers. The Biological Bulletin, 1990, 178, 126–136.

[18] Nachtigall W. Biological Mechanisms of Attachment: The Comparative Morphology and Bioengineering of Organs for Linkage, Suction, and Adhesion, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, 1974.

[19] Smith A M. Cephalopod sucker design and the physical limits to negative pressure. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1996, 199, 949–958.

[20] Delgadillo J O V, Delorme, S, El-Ayoubi R, DiRaddo R, Hatzikiriakos S G. Effect of freezing on the passive mechanical properties of arterial samples. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 2010, 3, 645–652.

[21] Jung H J, Vangipuram G, Fisher M B, Yang G, Hsu S, Bianchi J, Ronholdt C, Woo, S L Y. The effects of multiple freeze–thaw cycles on the biomechanical properties of the human bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 2011, 29, 1193–1198.

[22] Foutz T L, Stone E A, Abrams C F. Effects of freezing on mechanical properties of rat skin. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 1992, 53, 788–792.

[23] Snedecor G W. Statistical Methods, The Iowa State University Press, USA, 1956.

Su Y W, Ji B H, Huang Y G, Hwang K. Concave biological surfaces for strong wet adhesion. Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, 2009, 22, 593–604.

Quick Search Adv. Search