Design of Track-Type Climbing

Robots Using Dry Adhesives and

Wesley Demirjian
Mem. ASME Compliant Suspension for
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Tennessee Technological University,
115 West, 10th Street,
Scalable Payloads
Cookeville, TN 38505
Climbing robots offer advanced motion capabilities to perform inspection, manufacturing,

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020

e-mail: wademirjia42@students.tntech.edu
Matthew Powelson
Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Tennessee Technological University,
115 West, 10th Street,
Cookeville, TN 38505
e-mail: mwpowelson42@students.tntech.edu
Stephen Canfield
Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Tennessee Technological University,
115 West, 10th Street,
Cookeville, TN 38505
e-mail: scanfield@tntech.edu
or rescue tasks. Climbing requires the robot to generate adhering forces with the climbing
surface. Dry adhesives present a category of adhesion that could be advantageous for
climbing a variety of surfaces. Current literature shows climbing robots using dry adhesives
typically exhibit minimal payloads and are considered useful for tasks involving lightweight
sensors, such as surveillance. However, dry adhesives routinely demonstrate adhering pres-
sures in the range of 20–50 kPa, suggesting that a small robot (3 × 30 cm footprint, for
example) could theoretically have a significant payload (in the order of 18–45 kg). Existing
designs demonstrate small payloads primarily because they fail to distribute the adhesion
forces over the entire adhering region available to these robots. Further, existing design
methods do not demonstrate scalability of payload-to-vehicle size but, in fact, indicate
such robots are not scalable (Gorb et al., 2007, “Insects Did It First: A Micropatterned
Adhesive Tape for Robotic Applications,” Bioinspir. Biomim., 2(4), pp. 117–125.). This
paper presents a design procedure for track-type climbing robots that use dry adhesives
to generate tractive forces and a passive suspension that distributes the climbing loads
over the track in a preferred manner. This procedure simultaneously considers the behavior
of both the adhesive material at the track-surface interface and the distribution of the adhe-
sive forces over the full contact surface. The paper will demonstrate that dry-adhesive-
based climbing robots can be designed to achieve high payloads and are scalable, thus
enabling them to be used in applications previously thought to be impossible with dry adhe-
sives. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4045672]

Keywords: manufacturing, mobile robots, robot design, dry adhesives

1 Introduction adhesives with magnets to climb glass substrates at high angles,

as well as fully vertical ferrous substrates [2]. However, dry adhe-
There are a variety of means to generate adhering forces needed
sives generate much lower adhering pressures when compared
for climbing, which include magnetic, suction, micro-gripping,
with other adhering mechanisms. Therefore, they are considered
electrostatic, and adhesive. Magnetic adhesion provides a widely
to be useful only in applications requiring low payload, with unpat-
available adhering mechanism but is not suitable for climbing on
terned elastomers generally providing adhesion less than 30 kPa
nonferrous materials [1,2]. Microspines have been implemented
[12] and patterned elastomers providing adhesion up to 100 kPa
in robotics both for climbing robots [3] and for perching of aerial
[13]. For example, the range of payloads presented in the examples
robots [4,5]. While these have been shown to be a reliable source
above the range from 0.1 kg [7] to 0.5 kg [11] for robots with
of very high adhesive forces [6], they are ineffective for smooth sur-
nominal surface area ranging from 250 mm2 to 4500 mm2.
faces [3]. Dry adhesives provide an alternative adhering strategy
Further, the existing literature does not suggest or demonstrate the
and have been successfully used in a variety of climbing robots.
scalability of payload-to-vehicle size. In fact, some conventional
Waalbot is an example that uses a set of three-footed wheels
wisdom indicates that climbing robots with dry adhesives should
coated in a dry-adhesive material to climb on both smooth and
be as small as possible since mass scales with volume while adhe-
rough surfaces [7], while Orion uses a pair of four-footed wheels
sion scales with area [14]. This paper presents a design approach for
to navigate vertical walls [8]. Unver uses a climbing gate similar
climbing vehicles that are scalable and can deliver relatively large
to a gecko and climbs using a set of adhesive footpads with
payloads using the low-pressure adhering method of dry adhesives.
active peeling mechanisms [9]. The RiSE platform demonstrates
Increasing the adhesion surface area is the primary method for
the ability to climb using both microspines and dry adhesives [3],
achieving higher payloads using dry adhesives. In this regard,
while AnyClimb demonstrates the ability to climb on surfaces of
tracked vehicles are ideal for use with dry adhesives. Tracked vehi-
varying curvature using dry adhesives and a linkage-based leg
cles create a contact patch from which the robot derives relative
design [10]. Track-based designs, while less common, have also
motion. This contact patch is formed and removed in a continuous
proven to be effective at utilizing dry adhesives. Tankbot demon-
fashion and offers the ability to provide preloading or shearing
strates the ability to climb rough and smooth surfaces while travers-
motions as required by the dry adhesive. In addition to increasing
ing obstacles but requires the use of a tail to maintain adhesion [11].
surface area, the adhering loads need to be distributed across the
MaTBot utilizes a belt system combining patterned elastomer dry
contact patch to avoid the concentrated loadings as shown in
Ref. [15]. This can be accomplished with a suspension system to
connect the track with the chassis and transfer forces from the
Contributed by the Mechanisms and Robotics Committee of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF MECHANISMS AND ROBOTICS. Manuscript received April 22, 2019; final
track contact patch to the robot frame. Such a suspension has
manuscript received December 6, 2019; published online December 11, 2019. Assoc. been demonstrated [1,16] for use with magnetic adhering
Editor: Pinhas Ben-Tzvi. members and an initial investigation for dry adhesive elements

Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics Copyright © 2020 by ASME JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031017-1
[17]. Due to the larger contact area, tracked vehicles are able to
carry increased payloads [11], making them more readily scalable.
While several tracked vehicles for climbing have been previously
studied [1,2,11,18,19], the literature shows no models that integrate
properties unique to dry adhesives with models for track design that
evenly distribute the climbing load. This paper will present an
approach to integrate dry-adhesive models and track suspension
systems into a complete model that can be used to design general
dry-adhesive-based, track-type climbing robot systems.
2 Model for Robot, Suspension, and Adhering
Members
such as acrylics, metals, and glass. It is inexpensive, durable, and
capable of normal adhesion pressures up to 80 kPa. To be useful
in a model-based design process, an adhesive model is required
that relates the maximum adhesion capability of the adhesive
to the preloading pressure for a given climbing configuration.
This adhesion model for dry-adhesive materials, specifically
Regabond-S, can be formulated by combining elements from a
suction cup model and an elastomeric model, as shown by Powel-
son [12]. The suction cup model makes use of the fact that foam-like
materials are comprised of microscopic pockets of air which
produce suction forces when deformed. As the material is pressed
onto a surface, the small voids, approximated as spheroids,
change volume, and assuming the adhesive behaves linearly elasti-

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020

cally, that change in volume directly correlates to the resultant
2.1 Overview of Design Procedure. An overview of the robot suction force as
design procedure is now presented. First, the design considerations
specific to dry adhesives are discussed and presented as a model for

2 σ load
the dry adhesive. Next, a model for the suspension is presented and V = πR3 1 + (3)
3 Eeffective
shown to prescribe a specific distribution of climbing forces at the
interface of the robot track and the climbing surface. The paper where V represents the volume of the air pocket after compressed by
then integrates the models for the dry adhesive and the suspension pressure σload, R is the radius of the spheroid, and Eeffective is the
into a complete model applicable for climbing robots. A set of modulus of elasticity of the material. After enforcing ideal gas
design guidelines are created to demonstrate the key aspects of approximations at a constant temperature to relate the initial and
the track and suspension parameters. Finally, a physical prototype final volumes of the voids, the suction cup model predicts an adhe-
of the climbing robot is designed using the proposed strategy, fab- sion pressure σsuction of
ricated, and tested to evaluate operational performance.
⎡
⎤
σ preload
1−
2.2 Dry-Adhesive Considerations. Dry adhesives are thought ⎢ Eeffective ⎥
σ suction = 1 atm * ⎢
⎣1 −
⎥ * πR2 D (4)
to achieve their adhesive properties primarily through intermolecu- σ load ⎦
lar forces, such as van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonding [15]. 1+
Eeffective
They attain a high degree of contact by conforming to surface asper-
ities either through micropatterning or through the elasticity of the where σpreload is the residual pressure on the material after the com-
adhesive. Dry adhesives exhibit unique characteristics that must be pressive load has been removed, and D is the density of the voids in
considered when using them in climbing applications. Most signif- the material (voids/m2).
icantly is their loading-specific nature. While some adhesives have The elastomeric model exploits contact mechanics between the
been developed such that increased shear loads, τ, allow for higher elastomer and the climbing surface, and Gorb [14] showed that
normal loads to be applied [20,21], the most common dependence is the adhesion force Fadhesion acting over the contact area A, when
that of the maximum normal adhesion pressure σadhesion to the the preload is less than the saturation force of the adhesive can be
normal preloading pressure σpreload (i.e., the relationship between described as
the magnitudes of the negative pressure that can be sustained
before adhesion failure occurs and the positive pressure with
2/3
r6
which the dry adhesive is attached to the surface). Furthermore, Fadhesion = K6 A = πK6 * F preload (5)
this relation is often nonlinear, as the adhesion is typically driven K6
by material deformation at the microscopic level. At that scale,
adhesive geometry and surface asperities produce a nonlinear rela- where K6 is constant. Building upon this theory, Powelson [12]
tionship between applied force and contact area achieved. Addition- found that, over the entire preload region of the adhesive, including
ally, as the conformity to the climbing surface generally depends on forces below the saturation force, the elastomeric adhesion pressure
the asperity size, the maximum adhesion is dependent upon the most closely resembles a logarithmic curve modeled as
surface roughness R [15,22]. Finally, dry adhesives exhibit time-
σ 
preload
dependent responses, such as a dependency on the preloading σ elastomeric = G * log10 +K (6)
time tP [15]. As such, the maximum adhesion pressure that a dry 1 kPa
adhesive can sustain can be expressed as an equation of the where G and K are constants that describe the path of the adhesion
general form curve. Combining Eqs. (4) and (6) produces the general adhesion
σ adhesion = f (σ preload , τ, tP , R) (1) equation that describes the adhesion profile for Regabond-S
⎡
⎤
It can then be assumed that if the robot is traveling over a small σ preload
1−
range of velocities, the time variability can be neglected. Further, on ⎢ Eeffective ⎥
σ adhesion = 1 atm * ⎢
⎣ 1 −
⎥* πR2 D
a uniform surface, RMS roughness can be approximated as being σ load ⎦
constant. Since the shear loading would be constant in kinetostatic 1+
Eeffective
equilibrium, the maximum adhesion is therefore considered to be a
σ 
known function of the preloading condition only
σ adhesion ≈ f (σ preload ) (2)
A commercially available dry adhesive known as Regabond-S
(Inventables.com, Part #20543) is proposed for the remaining
portion of this study in climbing robot design. This adhesive tape
is an acrylic foam patterned with microscopic voids that allow a
combination of van der Waals forces, as well as suction forces, to
generate adhesion on surfaces with minimal surface roughness,

preload
+ G * log10 +K (7)
1 kPa
where R, D, and Eeffective can be measured from the material and G
and K are constants derived from experimentation. Adhesive failure
occurs when σadhesion < σload, and this point can be calculated in
closed form, as demonstrated in Ref. [23]. Figure 1 shows
Eqs. (4), (6), and (7) compared to experimental test data for
Regabond-S, validating Eq. (7). This combined model is used as
the adhesion model in this study.

031017-2 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 1 Regabond-S model and experimental test data [12]
2.3 Suspension for Track-Type Climbing Robots. A sus-
pension for track-type climbing robots having driven, endless
tracks with the dry adhesive forming the outer surface of the track
is presented. The suspension contains a series of springs and links
that connect the track with adhesive to the robot chassis. Figures
2(a) and 2(b) show a representative example of a practical imple-
mentation of the suspension while Fig. 3(a) shows a high-level
schematic of the suspension.
The suspension is connected to the track through prismatic joints
in a way that allows the orthogonal forces from the track—i.e., the
(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Elements of (a, left) a tracked climbing robot with (b, right) suspension [16]
Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics
positive and negative adhesive pressures—to be transferred onto the
chassis. The track is composed of links that form prismatic kine-
matic pairs with the suspension links to allow sliding of the track
along the longitudinal length of the suspension while transferring
forces normal to the suspension links. The suspension links and
springs form the design parameters for the suspension and can be
prescribed to create a particular pressure profile on the adhesive
at the boundary between the robot and the climbing surface. This
is performed using an appropriate suspension model, described in
the following section.
2.4 Suspension Model. A finite element model using the
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020
matrix stiffness method is used to analyze the suspension system.
This model represents the system as a planar mechanism lying in
a plane orthogonal to the climbing surface. Figure 3(a) shows a
schematic of the suspension while Fig. 3(b) shows a representation
of this suspension using four finite element types: axial elements,
beam elements, frame elements, and moment-free rotational
joints. The chassis is represented with a set of high-stiffness,
three-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) frame elements with nodes at all
spring locations, as well as where all external robot loads are
applied to the chassis. Each suspension spring is represented
using a 1-DOF) axial member. The suspension links are represented
as a series of Euler–Bernoulli beam elements whose stiffness repre-
sents the physical design. The joints that connect the suspension
links to each other and to the chassis are represented as rotational
elements with high translational stiffness. The adhesive elements
are represented as a collection of parallel axial members that have
one end constrained to the ground and the other connected to the
suspension links. Finally, the mass of the entire robot system is
lumped into the chassis and is modeled as a single point at a dis-
tance d away from the climbing surface. The primary external
JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031017-3
 (a)
Fig. 3 Schematic of (a, left) physical and (b, right) finite element suspension model
Fig. 4 Schematic model of climbing robot with pressure regions
defined and pressure profile shown
load on the system is the force from gravity acting at the center of
mass of the robot chassis. Since the robot is assumed to be climbing
in a vertical orientation, this gravitational force is directed parallel to
the climbing surface and track (Fig. 4).
The properties of each element are characterized using appropri-
ate stiffness matrices formulated as traditional 1-DOF axial
members, 2-DOF beams and 3-DOF frame members [24], with
stiffness matrices derived in local element frames as kelement,i. The
adhesives and springs are represented as axial members, and bound-
ary conditions are applied at the climbing-surface-side of the adhe-
sive, fixing the nodal translation at the climbing surface boundary.
Note that this set of boundary conditions assumes that the external
forces do not exceed the available adhesive holding pressure. The
model requires this check to be made to ensure the boundary con-
dition assumptions are met. The elemental matrices are assembled
to develop a complete stiffness matrix for the suspension system.
For this assembly, the local matrices must be transformed into the
global frame {Q}. This is done for the chassis, springs, joints,
and links as
kQ T
element,i = T i * kelement,i * T i (8)
where kQ element,i and kelement,i are the stiffness matrices of the element
i in the global and local frames, respectively, and Ti is the transfor-
mation matrix for the element i. These local to global transforma-
tions account for orientation of the link and suspension members
as shown in Fig. 3 and can also account for a variable geometry
if the suspension is expected to adapt to a non-planar climbing
surface (e.g., climbing on a cylindrical surface). After these
031017-4 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020
(b)
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020
transformations are performed, the finite element problem can be
solved as
Kn U = F (9)
where Kn is the matrix of nodal stiffnesses, U is the vector of nodal
deformations, and F is the vector of nodal forces. To solve for
the displacements of the unknown nodes, Eq. (9) can be parti-
tioned into subsets corresponding to known and unknown displace-
ments as
    
K 11 K 12 U k Fk
= (10)
K 21 K 22 U u Fu
where Uk and Uu are vectors of known and unknown nodal dis-
placements, respectively, Fk and Fu are vectors of forces at the
locations of the known and unknown nodal displacements, respec-
tively, and K11, K12, K21, and K22 are the partitioned components of
Kn. Solving Eq. (10) for the unknown displacements gives
U u = K −1
22 (Fu − K 21 U k ) (11)
while solving for the force vector corresponding to the known dis-
placement locations gives
Fk = K 11 U k + K 12 U u (12)
Equation (12) solves the forces at the stationary nodes which rep-
resent the adhering members. These forces are collected in the
 
vector f s = fs,1 fs,2 · · · fs,n for the n spring elements repre-
senting the adhesive material and represent the forces acting on the
adhesive. The outcome of this model predicts the forces acting
across the suspension and represents the distribution of loading
on the adhesive at the interface of the track and the climbing
surface.
Using this model, the suspension can be designed to achieve
specific pressure profiles under an expected robot loading condi-
tion and operation in a climbing configuration. A design procedure
consisting of a numerical search of the suspension spring and link
parameters is implemented to lead to the desired suspension. For
this work, a desired suspension will provide a compressive force
on the adhesive for a small portion of the leading end of the
track to ensure the adhesive is fully bonded with the surface. It
will then provide a large, distributed region of tension (pull) on
the adhesive to carry the robot payload. Finally, the trailing end
of the suspension will provide sufficient tension on the adhesive
to remove it from the surface. This desired pressure profile is
shown in Fig. 4. The remainder of this paper will assume a sus-
pension designed to give the adhesion pressure profile closely
approximating the one depicted in Fig. 4, and this pressure distri-
bution will be assumed for the design of the adhesive material
requirements.
Transactions of the ASME
 2.5 Integrated Adhesion–Suspension Model. As the robot forces on the robot
climbs, the suspension interacts with the adhesive material to ⎡ ⎤
create a pressure profile at the climbing surface consisting of four bl′1 −bl′2 bl′ −bl′4



3 

distinct regions, as illustrated in Fig. 4. In Region 1, the track ⎣ l1 l2 l3 l4 ⎦
makes contact with the surface and generates compressive forces −bl′1 + l2 + l3 + l4 bl′2 + l3 + l4 −bl′3 + l4 bl′4
2 2 2 2
to attach the adhesive members. In Region 2, the suspension ⎡ ⎤
w1
pulls on the track (consequently pulling the chassis toward the ⎢w ⎥  0 
climbing surface), resulting in negative pressure, or tensile forces, ⎢ 2⎥
⎢ ⎥= (15)
on the adhesive members. This region provides the primary load- ⎣ w3 ⎦ mgd
carrying capability for the robot. In Region 3, the suspension
w4
pushes on the track to maintain equilibrium, resulting in compres-
sive forces on the adhesive members. Finally, in Region 4, the sus- An additional constraint can be imposed on w2 to be the
pension pulls on the adhesive members, resulting in negative maximum allowable pulloff pressure divided by a factor of safety

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020

pressure that exceeds the available adhesion and peels them off (FoS) for climbing
the climbing surface. This behavior is described through an inte-
grated adhesion/suspension model. The model assumes a general- w4
w2 = (16)
ized form of the pressure profile consisting of the four regions of FoS
uniform pressure, wi with i = 1:4, over corresponding regions of After normalizing Eq. (15) with respect to the track width b,
the track, such that Eqs. (15) and (16) combine to yield an underdetermined system
of equations dependent only on the robot’s configuration

4 ⎡ ⎤
L= li (13) l′1 −l′2 l′3 −l′4
⎢ ′ l1




i=1
⎢ −l l2 l3 l4 ⎥ ⎥
⎢ 1 2 + l2 + l3 + l4 l′2 + l3 + l4 −l′3 + l4 l′4
⎢ 2 2 2 ⎥ ⎥
where L is the entire length of the track that is adhered to the ⎣ 1 ⎦
surface and li is the length of each pressure region. In cases 0 1 0 −
⎡ ⎤ FoS
where the adhesive material does not continuously cover the w1 ⎡ ⎤
0
length li but consists of smaller elements separated by gaps, it ⎢w ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ mgd ⎥
can be assumed that the actual length covered by the adhesive is ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ = ⎦ (17)
l′i , such that ⎣ w3 ⎦ b
0
w4
l′i = ηli (14)
Solving for the adhesion pressures and eliminating w2 and w3,
this suspension model can be reduced to a single equation for the
where η represents a constant between 0 and 1 that defines the magnitude of Region 4’s pressure w4 sus , as a linear function of w1
effective length of each adhesion region. It is further assumed for a given FoS and geometric track parameters
that the adhering elements are uniformly distributed along the  
track such that the adhesive for each pressure region is centered l′1 (l1 + 2l2 + l3 )
w4 sus = ′ w1
at l2i . The pressure regions wi are shown in Fig. 4, with b defining l2 (l2 + l3 ) − FoS * l′4 (l3 + l4 )
(18)
the width of the track. Thus, the total adhesive force on each region 2mgd * FoS
is wi l′i b acting at l2i . + ′
b[l2 (l2 + l3 ) − FoS * l′4 (l3 + l4 )]
Equations of kinetostatic equilibrium for the climbing robot are
constructed to solve for the distributed load terms w1 through w4. As shown in Eq. (18), the maximum adhesive pressure is a linear
Because of the linear representation of suspension forces given in function of the preload pressure σpreload = w1. Further, Eq. (18)
Fig. 4, a summation of forces and moments about the lowest shows that changing the suspension parameters will affect the
point of contact of the track to the climbing surface yields the fol- slope of the suspension curve (Fig. 5(a)) while altering parameters
lowing linear relationship between track loading and external such as the payload, track width, or center of mass distance will

Fig. 5 Intersection of adhesion model with robot model for design and how the solution points shift when (a, left) the suspension
variables or (b, right) robot parameters change

Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031017-5

affect the curve’s y-intercept (Fig. 5(b)). A similar approach can be
used on the adhesion model. Substituting σ adhesion = σ load = w4 adh at
the pulloff condition, the pulloff pressure from the adhesion model
w4 adh can be calculated in the form
 1/2
w4 adh = ± [C1 ln(w1 )2 + C2 ln(w1 ) + C3 w1 + C4 ]
 (19)
+ C5 ln(w1 ) + C6 ]/C7
with the coefficients of Eq. (19) defined in Ref. [12] and shown in
the Appendix. The adhesive’s effective modulus of elasticity
(Eeffective) and void density (D), the surface roughness of the climb-
ing surface (R), and two other parameters that characterize the beha-
vior between the adhesive and the climbing surface (G, K ) are used
to calculate the coefficients in Eq. (19). The values in Appendix A
have been calculated for Regabond-S adhering to acrylic.
3 Design Guidelines
Equations (15)–(19) define the robot climbing state that satisfies
both the adhesion and suspension model requirements. In particular,
Eqs. (17) and (18) show the coupling of pressure regions in the sus-
pension with a linear relationship between preload and force
required to remove adhering members, while Eq. (19) shows the
tight, nonlinear coupling that exists between the preload and
maximum adhesion due to the adhesive behavior. For the purpose
of design, those two equations are held separate to create a graphical
representation of the climbing condition. Valid climbing conditions
exist when Eq. (18) intersects Eq. (19), as illustrated in Fig. 5, where
the maximum pulloff pressure of the adhesive w4 adh corresponds to
the necessary pressure to achieve kinetostatic equilibrium w4 sus for
a given preload w1. From a design standpoint, increasing the sus-
pension stiffness of Region 2 leads to an increase in preload pres-
sure, thus decreasing the slope for a given adhesion force (Eqs.
(16), (18), and Fig. 5(a)). Suspension stiffness w2 can be increased
by decreasing the factor of safety (FoS) in Eq. (16), resulting in a
decreased slope (Eq. (18)), yielding an equilibrium between the sus-
pension and adhesion models with higher preload and adhesion
force (Fig. 5(a)). Meanwhile, decreasing the payload decreases
the y-intercept in Eq. (18) yielding an equilibrium between the sus-
pension and adhesion model, again with higher preload and adhe-
sion force (Eq. (18) and Fig. 5(b)). Similarly, increasing L and b
results in a decrease in the y-intercept (Eq. (18)).
Next, the effect of the suspension design parameters on overall
system performance is considered. In this case, the suspension
design parameters are assumed to be the relative lengths of the pres-
sure regions l1 through l4 (Fig. 4), and these determine the distribu-
tion of track pressures, w1 through w4. For effective climbing, it is
assumed that a dry adhesive will have a preferred preload, w1. For
example, in Regabond-S, higher preload regions increase maximum
pulloff pressure, but it should not be loaded so heavily that the adhe-
sive is compressed to the point of permanent damage. This region is
approximately between 20 and 70 kPa (Fig. 1) but could be much
lower for adhesives that primarily rely on shearing forces and
require normal preloading only to insure sufficient contact. This
preload is dictated by selecting the pressure region lengths. Consid-
ering the pressure profile shown in Fig. 4, the lengths of the pressure
regions are related to the overall length L by the proportionality con-
stants r1 through r4. These constants are defined such that
li = L * ri (20)
where i = 1:4. This relationship naturally leads to the physical
system constraint

4 using a suspension with dry adhesives. The procedure assumes that
ri = 1 (21)
i=1
Furthermore, the pulloff region associated with r4 is a function of
the track element size and elasticity of the adhesive and is, therefore,
also considered a constant. With these two constraints, two of the
031017-6 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020
Fig. 6 Suspension design chart—adhesive preload pressure
versus r2 ratio
four regions can be manipulated to adjust the preload pressure
response w1. This is shown to illustrate the influence of combina-
1
tions of r1 and r2 in Fig. 6, where r4 is chosen to be 16 and r3 is
found with Eq. (21). The horizontal lines indicate the preferred
range of preload pressures and suggest bounds on the suspension
region when considering the specific conditions of Fig. 6.
The load-carrying capability of a climbing robot with suspension
and dry adhesive can be characterized by rewriting Eq. (18) to
expose the load as
md
wlcf =
bL2

2  
η r2 r3 r2
= w4 + − r3 r4 − r42 − w1 (r12 + 2r1 r2 + r1 r3 )
2g FoS FoS
(22)
where wlcf is the “load-carrying factor” and is a function of the
pulloff adhesive pressure w4 and suspension parameters, r1
through r4, which determine the distribution of track pressures.
The load-carrying factor is written in terms of load-carrying mass
and moment created by that mass (m, d ) and the available width
and length squared of the track contact area (b, L 2). Assuming a
specified selection of the suspension parameters (i.e., specified
wlcf), Eq. (22) shows that the available payload mass varies linearly
with robot track width b and increases with the square of the track
length. This result is generalized to a variety of dry-adhesive mate-
rials and shown in Fig. 7. The figure demonstrates the load-carrying
factor for different dry adhesives commonly used in robotics, as
demonstrated in the literature, based on η = 90%, FoS = 1, and
[r1:r4] = [2, 11, 2, 1]/16. Each adhesive is shown to encompass a
range of values representing a minimum and maximum preload as
defined in Fig. 6. These load-carrying factors can be used to esti-
mate a theoretical payload from a robot with a given length and
adhesive contact area, demonstrating the significant payloads that
can be achieved with a tracked vehicle and various dry adhesives
using a suspension designed in the manner shown in this paper.
4 Design Procedure
This section will provide a design procedure for track-type robots
m, d, FoS and w1 are chosen and will guide the selection of track
and suspension variables L, b and r1 − r4. Choosing m, d and FoS
are based on an expected payload and climbing stability margin,
while the choice of w1 is based on a preferred rate of preload for
the dry adhesive as discussed in Sec. 3. Finally, the effective track
Transactions of the ASME
 payload to the final desired value while ensuring that the
proper pressures are maintained.
Step 6: The suspension is now designed based on the suspension
region lengths l1–l4 and track pressures w1–w4 using the sus-
pension model described in Sec. 2.4. (Note that a higher
number of springs provides a better resolution to match the
suspension region lengths and pressures.)

5 Experimental Verification
5.1 Prototype Design. The design process laid out in Sec. 4 is
now demonstrated experimentally with the creation of a tracked
robot using the dry-adhesive Regabond-S to climb acrylic. Using
a payload of 20 kg as the driving factor behind the design, the

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020

steps described in Sec. 4 were followed, and the resulting robot
parameters are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 7 Load-carrying factor for Vytaflex 10A [12] and silicone A prototype mobile robot was designed according to the above-
10A [12] unpatterned elastomer, mushroom [25], and micro- mentioned design procedure. The robot was fabricated with a rigid
wedge [20] patterned elastomer, Regabond-S [12], and the chassis and other components such that it would satisfy the param-
footpad of a Tokay Gecko [26] eters defined in the theoretical design. The mass of the robot prior to
additional payload is 7 kg with overall dimensions of 0.914 m ×
length η and the pulloff region r4 will be determined by the practical 0.133 m × 0.159 m, but it only attaches with an adhesive area of
details of selecting either a continuous track or one made of discrete 0.031 m2 (24 discrete track elements, each 2.54 cm × 5.08 cm).
elements and are assumed fixed choices. Generally speaking, the The prototype, with its suspension, is shown at the top of Fig. 8.
design procedure assumes that the robot payload is primarily a func- The suspension consists of 24 rigid links pinned together and a cor-
tion of the track area parameters (L and b), while the suspension responding number of springs which allow the transmission of the
design parameters (r1 − r4) optimize the track pressure distribution adhesive forces from the tracks, through the suspension, and into
around a specific adhesive to meet the necessary preload or pulloff the chassis. The link in the first track region (responsible for apply-
requirements. Therefore, this approach considers these as indepen- ing the preload) is altered slightly to apply the required compression
dent design parameters. However, as seen in Eqs. (17), (18), and on the leading edge of the track. Regions 2 and 4 employ the sus-
(22), some correlation exists between the two, so iteration can pension springs in tension. The prototype uses caster wheels along-
refine the design parameters. The method proceeds as follows: side the suspension in Region 3 so the compressive loads in Region
3 primarily travel through the casters instead of the adhesive.
Step 1: After selecting the desired payload mass m estimate d, b,
and L, and FoS based on other factors in robot design (e.g.,
physical or geometric constraints or considerations on 5.2 Model Validation. The model is validated by direct mea-
skid-steer performance, since increasing width and decreas- surement of the adhering pressure between the robot track and
ing length tends to lower turning torques [27]). Once these climbing surface. The pressure distribution over the entire track is
parameters have been established, calculate the estimated determined by measuring the adhering pressure for one small
load-carrying factor wlcf and then using Fig. 7, select an region of the track as it travels the entire length of the suspension
appropriate dry adhesive. at a constant velocity (the measured section of the track remains sta-
Step 2: Select the track length ratios, r1 − r4 that optimize track tionary on the climbing surface and moves relative to the suspen-
pressure distribution around the specific adhesive. First, sion). A calibrated load cell is embedded into the climbing
select r4 as the size of a single track element. Next, use surface, and these measurements are coordinated with the robot
Fig. 6 to decide on appropriate values for r1 and r2 that position to determine the complete pressure profile. The pressure
meet the payload requirement and lie in the acceptable w1 profile measured from the robot prototype is shown in Fig. 8
range (between 20 kPa and 70 kPa). Finally, use Eq. (21) to (solid curve) to provide a reasonable agreement with the desired
i=4 pressure profile from Fig. 4.
solve for r3. If i=1 ri > 1, the selected group of track Figure 8 clearly shows the four distinct pressure regions in the
length ratios is invalid. Repeat Step 2 and modify the ratios experimental protype as predicted by the model. As the robot
until the condition is met. With the suspension ratios now
moves forward, the rigid slider spanning two track elements
selected, the preload pressure w1 is now considered to be
fixed—a constant that can be implemented in the mechanical
design. Table 1 Theoretical robot parameters from design process
Step 3: Solve for the track pressures w4 and w2 with Eqs. (19) and
(16), respectively. In order to use Eq. (17) to solve for w3, the Description Symbol Value Units
lengths of the suspension regions, l1–l4, must first be
Design payload m 20 kg
determined. Track length L 60.96 cm
Step 4: Use Eq. (22) to finalize a specific track length L and width b Track width B 5.08 cm
for the design payload based on the confirmed suspension Distance from Surface to center of mass D 12 cm
parameters. If the necessary track dimensions are vastly different Factor of safety FoS 5 –
from the original estimations from Step 1, the robot design might Number of adhered elements N 24 –
need to be reconsidered. Reevaluate the initial predictions and Effective track length η 0.8 –
begin the design process again. Track length ratio 1 r1 2/24 –
Step 5: With the total track length decided, substitute the track Track length ratio 2 r2 20/24 –
length ratios from Step 2 into Eq. (20) to calculate the indi- Track length ratio 3 r3 1/24 –
Track length ratio 4 r4 1/24 –
vidual suspension region lengths l1–l4. Now, Eq. (17) can Region 1 pressure w1 40 kPa
be used to solve for the final track pressure w3. Because of Region 2 pressure w2 12 kPa
the tight coupling of the pressures, w2, w3, and w4 are now Region 3 pressure w3 175 kPa
also treated as fixed. This allows the proportionality of Region 4 pressure w4 60 kPa
robot payload to bL 2 to be exploited in order to scale the

Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031017-7


Fig. 8 Example robot shown with the actual pressure profile from climbing over an embedded load cell and the the-
oretical pressure profile from the model
creates an area of compression (Region 1). After the adhesive has
been preloaded, the suspension system uses constant force springs
to apply tension to the subsequent 20 track elements, “pulling”
the robot into the climbing surface (Region 2). After this, the adhe-
sive is re-compressed as it passes by the caster wheels due to the
nature of the force balance (Region 3). As the very last track
element is pulled from the surface at the end of the adhered
length of track, it also creates a tensile force (Region 4).
The robot was designed to match the pressures predicted by the
design procedure: w1 ≈ 40 kPa, w2 ≈ 12 kPa, w3 ≈ 175 kPa, and
w4 ≈ 60 kPa (dashed curve in Fig. 8). Figure 8 shows an acceptable
agreement between the actual and desired suspension pressure pro-
files for Region 1’s preload pressure and Region 2’s load-
distributing pressure. However, the magnitude of the pressures in
Regions 3 and 4 produced by the robot is smaller than predicted.
In particular, it is believed that the magnitude of Region 4’s pressure
is reduced because of a combination of pulling and twisting that is
applied to the track as it leaves the end of the suspension and travels
around the rear sprocket. Some deviations between the measured
and desired model are also noted. The measured pressure profile
departs from the ideal model during regions of transition from com-
pression to tension on the adhesive members. This is in part due to
clearances in the prismatic or sliding suspension elements. The full
potential pressure is only fully realized once the track element is
completely engaged in the suspension. Additionally, a prototype
suspension is sensitive to tolerances between track elements, as
offsets between subsequent elements can cause concentrated load-
ings. This is seen most prominently in Region 2 where the pressure
profile oscillates about the nominal pressure.
5.3 Climbing Performance. A climbing wall was constructed
from 19-mm thick clear acrylic to test the robot climbing perfor-
mance. Initially, the prototype robot was tested independently of
additional payload to ensure the suspension and adhesive were func-
tioning according to the model. Next, an additional mass was added
to the robot’s chassis until the total robot’s mass (called payload)
equaled the 20-kg design payload, and additional climbing tests
were performed. Again, the robot was able to successfully climb
the entire height of the wall, where it remained until it was purpose-
fully removed. Successful climbing was further ensured by observ-
ing that, as new adhering members enter the suspension, they
become fully adhered to the climbing wall. Finally, the upper
031017-8 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020
limits of the prototype were assessed. After each successful climbing
test, additional payload was added to the robot. Eventually, the
robot’s total mass equaled 40 kg. At this mass, the robot was still
able to climb the entire height of the wall and remain there until it
was purposefully removed. Figure 9 shows three different views
of the 40-kg prototype robot scaling the climbing wall. The robot
outperforming the design expectations can most likely be contrib-
uted to the conservative estimates chosen for FoS and η. It should
be noted that there is a relationship between the tension in the sus-
pension springs and the overall payload. As mass is added to the
robot, the suspension springs are tightened to maintain the desired
preload. The relationship between the mass, tension in suspension
springs, and mass are demonstrated in Fig. 5.
6 Discussion
The integration of load-distributing suspension and dry adhesives
are shown to offer high theoretical performance for climbing vehi-
cles. The desired adhesive loading profile chosen for this work was
reduced to a model consisting of four regions of constant pressure
applied to the adhesive. This modeling, fabrication, and testing of
the prototype robot, with results shown in Fig. 8, demonstrates
the ability in a practical design to reasonably achieve this desired
loading profile. The simplified loading profile allows the designer
to develop intuition about the complex relationships between the
design parameters that would not be possible if a more complex
model was used throughout. As a prime example, the load-carrying
factor (Eq. (22)) shows that the available payload is proportional to
a robot length dimension cubed—the square of the robot’s track
length multiplied by the track width (bL 2)—which is dimensionally
equivalent to volume. This implies that climbing robot load capacity
is not necessarily limited by scale as reported in Refs. [14,28].
Rather, such a climbing machine can be designed to perform at
higher payloads. This significant departure from the current litera-
ture in the design of climbing robots is further highlighted by com-
paring the reported load-carrying capacities of 25 other climbing
robots. For comparison, Fig. 10 shows payload plotted against the
adhered area for the proposed prototype as well as other
dry-adhesive climbing robots found in the literature. Especially
notable is the performance of other track-based systems. It should
also be noted that, although the proposed prototype demonstrates
a payload that is an order of magnitude higher than other dry-
Transactions of the ASME
 Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020
Fig. 9 40 kg example robot scaling a wall

adhesive climbing robots in the literature, not all of the robots in the
literature were trying to maximize the payload.
One advantage of track-based systems is that they tend to offer
more surface area than legged systems. However, previous robots
in the literature do not realize the payload increase that should
result from using an increased adhesive area with corresponding
load-distribution suspension. By using a force distributing suspen-
sion to utilize the entire adhered area, this work demonstrates pay-
loads an order of magnitude higher than previous designs. This
allows robots of this type to be used for tasks other than
inspection—for example, manufacturing, maintenance, and rescue-
type jobs. Further, this work has detailed a design procedure for
such systems. Due to the tight coupling of the adhesive pressures,
wherein dry adhesives require a preloading in order to achieve adhe-
sion, the process of designing these suspensions requires simulta-
neous modeling of the adhesive.
Some additional guidelines for the design for maximum payload
capability are provided. For maximum payload, the r2 region should
be as large as possible with r1 tuned such that the adhesive is pre-
loaded as strongly as possible without damaging the adhesive.

Fig. 10 Payload plotted against adhesion area for several dry-adhesive climbing
robots

Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031017-9

The r3 region may be considered waste and should ideally be sup- i = indexing counter used in suspension model FEA
ported by an external caster so as to avoid re-preloading the adhe- m = robot payload—total robot mass (kg)
sive just prior to removal. Likewise, robots such as this could n = number of adhering members
benefit from a peeling mechanism on r4 to minimize adverse p = fixed distance between discrete track elements (m)
torque from adhesive removal. r = constant associated with Regabond-S adhesion model
presented in Ref. [12] (m)
D = constant associated with Regabond-S adhesion model
7 Conclusions presented in Ref. [12] (m−2)
This paper has demonstrated a design for track-type climbing F = vector of nodal forces in suspension model FEA (N)
robots based on dry adhesives with integrated load-distributing sus- G = constant associated with Regabond-S adhesion model
pension. The paper demonstrated an integrated model that com- presented in Ref. [12] (kPa)
bined suspension and adhesive properties, and a set of design K = constant associated with Regabond-S adhesion model
guidelines were presented based on this model. A prototype robot presented in Ref. [12] (kPa)

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020

was developed and fabricated that demonstrated both the model L = total length of track in contact with the climbing
behavior and large payload capability. The proposed model demon- surface (m)
strated that climbing robots using dry adhesives can achieve large R = surface roughness (m)
payloads relative to their size. For example, based on Fig. 7, a U = vector of nodal deformations in suspension model
robot using 0.01 m2 of Regabond-S could have a theoretical FEA (m)
payload between 4 and 12 kg. A prototype robot was designed fi = force of the suspension on the ith adhering member in
and fabricated using the strategy demonstrated in the paper. The suspension model (N)
prototype robot was tested and demonstrated to provide stable fs = force vector of the suspension all adhering members in
climbing with the design payload of 20 kg. The robot was tested suspension model (N)
at higher payloads and demonstrated a payload of 40 kg with suc- kelement = stiffness matrix of individual element in suspension
cessful sustained climbing up a vertical wall. The robot was able model FEA (N m−1)
to carry greater than the design payload by reducing the factor of li = length of the ith pressure region (m)
safety parameter that is built into the proposed design strategy. tP = amount of time the adhesive is preloaded prior to the
The most significant result of this paper is the demonstration of a application of removal forces (s)
suspension and design procedure to enable dry-adhesive climbing wi = the magnitude of the pressure acting on the adhesive in
robots to achieve high payloads. The payload capability yielded the ith pressure region (Pa)
by this approach is found to be 25 times greater than any previous wlcf = “load-carrying factor” shows payload varies linearly
climbing robots demonstrated in the literature. This is due to the with track width and the square of track length
ability to distribute the forces in a more uniform fashion over the Ci = constants associated with the closed form
entire area of the dry adhesive, while providing a mechanism to solution for the Regabond-S adhesion
reattach adhesives during the climbing processes. The paper model (i = 1:7)
further demonstrated that robots based on dry adhesives can be Eeffective = constant associated with Regabond-S adhesion model
scaled to larger sizes since the model provides a load-carrying presented in Ref. [12] (kPa)
factor as a proportionality between payload mass and adhered Fs = force associated with a suspension spring (N)
dimension cubed. This work suggests that climbing robots based Kn = matrix of nodal stiffnesses in suspension model FEA
on dry adhesives could be designed for a large range of practical (N m−1)
uses in inspection, manufacturing, maintenance, and rescue. Ti = transformation matrix for element i in suspension
model FEA
l′i = effective length of the ith pressure region (m)
Acknowledgment FoS = factor of safety used for design to define the second
This work was supported in part through National Science Foun- pressure region (>1)
dation Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (NSF IIP), η = constant that defines the effective length of each
Award No. 1548009. pressure region (0–1)
σadhesion = max adhesion pressure that can be sustained by the
adhesive for a given loading condition (kPa)
Nomenclature σload = external tensile load applied to the dry
b = track width (m) adhesive (kPa)
d = distance from the robot’s center of gravity to the σpreload = compressive load applied to the dry adhesive prior to
climbing surface (m) the application of tensile loads (kPa)

Appendix
1/2
{[C1 ln(w1 )2 + C2 ln(w1 ) + C3 w1 + C4 ] + C5 ln(w1 ) + C6 }
w4 = ± (A1)
C7

2
• C1 = G2 = 1.6216 * 103 kPa
• C2 = 2EG ln(10) + 2GK ln(10) + 2πDGR2 atm ln(10) = 1.3290 * 105 kPa2
• C3 = 4πDR2 atm ln (10)2 = 1.5652 * 103 kPa
• C4 = E 2 ln (10)2 + K 2 ln(10)2 + 2EK ln(10)2 + D2 R4 atm2 π 2 ln (10)2 − 2πDER2 atm ln(10)2 + 2πDKR2 atm ln(10)2 = 1.6928 * 106 kPa2
• C5 = G = 40.269 kPa
• C6 = K ln(10) − E ln(10) + πDR2 atm ln(10) = −1.5493 * 103 kPa
• C7 = 2 ln(10) = 4.6052

031017-10 / Vol. 12, JUNE 2020 Transactions of the ASME

References
[1] Kumar, P., Hill, T. W., Bryant, D. A., and Canfield, S. L., 2011,
“Modeling and Design of a Linkage-Based Suspension for Tracked-Type
Climbing Mobile Robotic Systems,” Proceedings of the IDETC/CIE,
Washington, DC, Aug. 28–31, 2011, pp. 827–834, ASME DETC2011-
48555.
[2] Fremerey, M., Gorb, S., Heepe, L., Kasper, D., and Witte, H., 2011, “MaTBot: A
Magneto-Adhesive Track Robot for the Inspection of Artificial Smooth
Substrates,” International Symposium on Adaptive Motion of Animals and
Machines, Awaji, Japan, Oct.11–14, 2011, pp. 19–20.
[3] Asbeck, A. T., Kim, S., Cutkosky, M. R., Provancher, W. R., and Lanzetta, M.,
2006, “Scaling Hard Vertical Surfaces With Compliant Microspine Arrays,”
Int. J. Rob. Res., 25(12), pp. 1165–1179.
[4] Desbiens, A. L., and Cutkosky, M. R., 2009, “Landing and Perching on Vertical
Surfaces With Microspines for Small Unmanned Air Vehicles,” J. Intell. Rob.
Syst., 57(1–4), pp. 313–327.
[5] Pope, M. T., Kimes, C. W., Jiang, H., Hawkes, E. W., Kerst, C. F., Estrada, M. A.,
Roderick, W. R. T., Han, A. K., Christensen, D. L., and Cutkosky, M. R., 2017,
“A Multimodal Robot for Perching and Climbing on Vertical Outdoor Surfaces,”
IEEE Trans. Rob., 33(1), pp. 38–48.
[6] Parness, A., Frost, M., Thatte, N., and King, J. P., 2012, “Gravity-Independent
Mobility and Drilling on Natural Rock Using Microspines,” IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, Saint Paul, MN, May 14–18, 2012,
pp. 3437–3442, IEEE 12836310.
[7] 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. Rob. Res., 30(1), pp. 118–133.
[8] Dharmawan, A., Xavier, P., Hariri, H., Soh, G., Baji, A., Bouffanais, R., Foong,
S., Low, H., and Wood, K., 2019, “Design, Modeling, and Experimentation of a
Bio-Inspired Miniature Climbing Robot With Bilayer Dry Adhesives,” ASME
J. Mech. Rob., 11(2), p. 020902
[9] Unver, O., Uneri, A., Aydemir, A., and Sitti, M., 2006, “Geckobot: A Gecko
Inspired Climbing Robot Using Elastomer Adhesives,” IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, FL, May 15–19, 2006,
pp. 2329–2335.
[10] Liu, Y., Kim, H. G., and Seo, T. W., 2016, “AnyClimb: A New Wall-Climbing
Robotic Platform for Various Curvatures,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech., 21(4),
pp. 1812–1821.
[11] Unver, O., and Sitti, M., 2010, “Tankbot: A Palm-Size, Tank-Like Climbing
Robot Using Soft Elastomer Adhesive Treads,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 29(14),
pp. 1761–1777.
[12] Powelson, M. W., 2018, “Innovative Manufacturing, Modeling, and Design of
Dry Adhesives for Mobile Climbing Robots,” M.S. Thesis, Tennessee
Technological University, Cookeville, TN.
[13] Li, Y., Krahn, J., and Menon, C., 2016, “Bioinspired Dry Adhesive Materials
and Their Application in Robotics: A Review,” J. Bionic Eng., 13(2),
pp. 181–199.
[14] Gorb, S., Sinha, M., Peressadko, A., Daltorio, K. A., and Quinn, R. D., 2007,
“Insects Did It First: A Micropatterned Adhesive Tape for Robotic
Applications,” Bioinspir. Biomim., 2(4), pp. 117–125.
[15] Unver, O., and Sitti, M., 2010, “Flat Dry Elastomer Adhesives as Attachment
Materials for Climbing Robots,” IEEE Trans. Rob., 26(1), pp. 131–141.
[16] Canfield, S., and Beard, J. (2010). “Tracked Climbing Machine With Compliant
Suspension Apparatus,” United States of America Patent US 8567536 B1,
Jan. 29.
[17] Powelson, M. W., and Canfield, S., 2017, “Design of Track-Based Climbing
Robots Using Dry Adhesives,” Proceedings of the IDETC/CIE, Cleveland, OH,
Aug. 6–9, DETC2017-67999.
[18] Krahn, J., Liu, Y., Sadeghi, A., and Menon, C., 2011, “A Tailless Timing Belt
Climbing Platform Utilizing Dry Adhesives With Mushroomcaps,” Smart
Mater. Struct., 20(11), p. 11021.
[19] Greuter, M., Shah, G., Caprari, G., Tache, F., Siegwart, R., and Sitti, M.,
2005, “Toward Micro Wall-Climbing Robots Using Biomimetic Fibrillar
Adhesives,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Autonomous
Minirobots for Research and Edutainment (AMiRE), Fukui, Japan, Sept. 20–
22, pp. 39–46.
Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics
[20] Day, P., Eason, E. V., Esparza, N., Christensen, D., and Cutkosky, M., 2013,
“Microwedge Machining for the Manufacture of Directional Dry Adhesives,”
ASME J. Micro. Nano-Manuf., 1(1), p. 011001.
[21] Hawkes, E. W., Christensen, D. L., and Cutkosky, M. R., 2015, “Vertical Dry
Adhesive Climbing With a 100× Bodyweight Payload,” IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seattle, WA, May 26–30, 2015,
pp. 3762–3769, IEEE 15286095.
[22] Fuller, K. N. G., and Tabor, D., 1975, “The Effect of Surface Roughness on the
Adhesion of Elastic Solids,” Proc. R. Soc. London, A, 345(1642), pp. 327–342.
[23] Powelson, M. W., and Canfield, S., 2018, “Experimental Investigation on
Attachment Properties of Dry Adhesives Used in Climbing Robots,”
Int. J. Mech. Rob. Syst., 4(3), pp. 192–213.
[24] Logan, D. L., 2012, A First Course in the Finite Element Method 5th Edition,
Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT.
[25] Murphy, M. P., Kim, S., and Sitti, M., 2009, “Enhanced Adhesion by
Gecko-Inspired Hierarchical Fibrillar Adhesives,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces,
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanismsrobotics/article-pdf/12/3/031017/6484784/jmr_12_3_031017.pdf by Jilin University user on 08 March 2020
1(4), pp. 849–855.
[26] Autumn, K., Liang, Y. A., Hsieh, S. T., Zesch, W., Chan, W. P., Kenny, T. W.,
Fearing, R., and Full, R. J., 2000, “Adhesive Force of a Single Gecko Foot-Hair,”
Nature, 405(6787), pp. 681–685.
[27] Canfield, S., Hill, T. W., and Zuccaro, S. G., 2018, “Prediction and Experimental
Validation of Power Consumption of Skid-Steer Mobile Robots in Manufacturing
Environment,” J. Intell. Rob. Syst., 94(3–4), pp. 825–839.
[28] Hawkes, E. W., Ulmen, J., Esparza, N., and Cutkosky, M. R., 2011, “Scaling
Walls: Applying Dry Adhesives to the Real World,” IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA, Sept. 25–
30, 2011, pp. 5100–5106.
[29] 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.
[30] He, B., Wang, Z., Li, M., Wang, K., Shen, R., and Hu, S., 2014, “Wet
Adhesion Inspired Bionic Climbing Robot,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech., 19(1),
pp. 312–320.
[31] Hariri, H. H., Yung, D., Lim, H. C., Dharmawan, A. G., Nguyen, V. D., Soh, G.
S., Foong, S., Bouffanais, R., Low, H. Y., and Wood, K. L., 2018, “ORION-II: A
Miniature Climbing Robot With Bilayer Compliant Tape for Autonomous
Intelligent Surveillance and Reconnaissance,” 15th International Conference on
Control, Automation, Robotics, and Vision, Singapore, Nov. 18–21, pp. 1621–
1626.
[32] Henrey, M., Krahn, J., Ahmed, A., Wormnes, K., and Menon, C., 2013, Climbing
With Structured Dry Adhesives: Sticky Robots for Scaling Smooth Vertical
Surfaces, Semantic Scholar, Stanford, CA.
[33] Liu, Y., and Seo, T. W., 2018, “AnyClimb-II: Dry-Adhesive Linkage-Type
Climbing Robot for Uneven Vertical Surfaces,” Mech. Mach. Theory,
124(June), pp. 197–210.
[34] Yu, Z., Shi, Y., Xie, J., Yang, S., and Dai, Z., 2018, “Design and Analysis of a
Bionic Adhesive Foot for Gecko Robot Climbing the Ceiling,” Int. J. Rob.
Autom., 33(4), pp. 445–454.
[35] Kalouche, S., Wiltsie, N., Su, H. J., and Parness, A., 2014, “Inchworm Style
Gecko Adhesive Climbing Robot,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems, Chicago, IL, Sept. 14–18, pp. 2319–2324,
IEEE 14718279.
[36] Kim, S., Spenko, M., Trujillo, S., Heyneman, B., Santos, D., and Cutosky, M. R.,
2008, “Smooth Vertical Surface Climbing With Directional Adhesion,” IEEE
Trans. Rob., 24(1), pp. 65–74.
[37] Unver, O., and Sitti, M., 2009, “A Miniature Ceiling Walking Robot With Flat
Tacky Elastomeric Footpads,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, Kobe, Japan, May 12–17, 2009, pp. 2276–2281.
[38] Unver, O., and Sitti, M., 2009, “Tankbot: A Miniature, Peeling Based Climber on
Rough and Smooth Surfaces,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, Kobe, Japan, May 12–17, 2009, pp. 2282–2287.
[39] Seo, T. W., and Sitti, M., 2013, “Tank-Like Module-Based Climbing Robot
Using Passive Compliant Joints,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mech., 18(1), pp. 397–408.
[40] Menon, C., Murphy, M., and Sitti, M., 2004, “Gecko Inspired Surface Climbing
Robots,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics,
Shenyang, China, Aug. 22–26, 2004, pp. 431–436, IEEE 8732542.
JUNE 2020, Vol. 12 / 031017-11