Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-q6bj7 Total loading time: 0.252 Render date: 2022-12-03T14:04:20.362Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

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*
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.
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.

Type
Articles
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).CrossRefGoogle 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. 25482554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byern, J.v. and Grunwald, I., Biological Adhesive Systems. 2010, New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.M., Cephalopod sucker design and the physical limits to negative pressure. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1996. 199(4): p. 949958.Google Scholar
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. 4250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, J. and Thorsteinsson, V., Sucker Action in the Lumpsucker Cyclopterus-Lumpus L. Sarsia, 1990. 75(1): p. 3342.CrossRefGoogle 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. 179190.CrossRefGoogle 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. 10661079.CrossRefGoogle 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strasburg, D.W., Some Aspects of the Feeding Behavior of Remora remora. Pacific Science, 1962. 16(2): p. 202206.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. 111115.CrossRefGoogle 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. 111113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E.H. Jr, et al. , Echeneid–sirenian associations, with information on sharksucker diet. Journal of Fish Biology, 2003. 63(5): p. 11761183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sazima, I. and Grossman, A., Turtle riders: remoras on marine turtles in Southwest Atlantic. Neotropical Ichthyology, 2006. 4(1): p. 123126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weihs, D., Fish, F.E., and Nicastro, A.J., Mechanics of Remora Removal by Dolphin Spinning. Marine Mammal Science, 2007. 23(3): p. 707714.CrossRefGoogle 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. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressey, R.F. and Lachner, E.A., The parasitic copepod diet and life history of diskfishes (Echeneidae). Copeia, 1970. 1970(2): p. 310318.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. 11461153.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. 87798793.CrossRefGoogle 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. 14921704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckert, M., Flammang, B.E., and Nadler, J.H., Theoretical and computational fluid dynamics of an attached remora (Echeneis naucrates). 2014.
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. 35513558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 260274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guarnieri, F.A. and Cardona, A., 3D Solid Incompressible Viscoelastic Finite Element in Large Strains for the Cornea. Mechanica Computacional, 1997. 18: p. 799808.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. 191201.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. 42074218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.
Chatelin, S., et al. , In vivo liver tissue mechanical properties by transient elastography: Comparison with dynamic mechanical analysis. Biorheology, 2011. 48(2): p. 7588.Google ScholarPubMed
Cowin, S.C. and Doty, S.B., Tissue Mechanics. 2007: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biot, M.A., General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics, 1941. 12(2): p. 155164.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 107137.CrossRefGoogle 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).CrossRefGoogle 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. 81102.Google Scholar
ASTM, Standard Practice for Stress Relaxation Testing of Raw Rubber, Unvulcanized Rubber Compounds, and Thermoplastic Elastomers. 2012, ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA.
Mix, A.W. and Giacomin, A.J., Standardized Polymer Durometry. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 2011. 39(4): p. 696705.Google Scholar
Sewell, R.B.S., The adhesive apparatus of the “ sucking-fish ”. Nature, 1925. 115: p. 4849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shephard, K.L., Functions for Fish Mucus. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 1994. 4(4): p. 401429.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

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

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *