Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Pull-off strength of mushroom-shaped fibrils adhered to rigid substrates

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A mushroom-shaped fibril's pull-off strength is set by one adhesion parameter and cap geometry; a wide, thin cap keeps it near the theoretical maximum over a huge size range, until a central defect takes over.

desk verdict A careful and useful extension of mushroom-fibril cohesive-zone modeling, with a closed-form defect scaling that deserves referee time despite a few addressable gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20745 v1 pith:QYYUIAE4 submitted 2025-06-25 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-scics.CEphysics.app-phphysics.bio-ph

C. Betegón , C. Rodríguez , E. Martínez-Pañeda , R.M. McMeeking This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-scics.CEphysics.app-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords mushroom-shapedfibrilsbio-inspiredadhesionpull-offstrengthDugdalecohesivezonedimensionlessparameterchidefectsfiniteelementsimulationdesignmaps
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper uses finite element simulations with a Dugdale cohesive zone to work out when and how mushroom-shaped adhesive fibrils detach from a rigid substrate. It claims that, for defect-free fibrils, the pull-off strength depends only on a single dimensionless adhesion parameter $\chi$ together with the cap geometry, and that detachment is always unstable under load control once the interface separation reaches a critical value, whether that happens at the edge or at the center. A wide, thin cap (flange-to-stalk ratio $\beta = 1.25$, thickness ratio $\xi = 0.01$) keeps the pull-off strength at or above $0.78\,\sigma_0$ for $\chi$ up to about 8000, a regime no cylindrical punch reaches. The paper also claims that a central adhesion defect can severely reduce that strength, especially at large $\chi$, and that this reduction follows linear elastic fracture mechanics predictions once $\chi$ is high.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Dugdale cohesive zone model, in which the interface carries the constant stress $\sigma_0$ until its separation reaches the critical value $\delta_C$, combined with the dimensionless parameter $\chi = \sigma_0^2 D_f (1-\nu^2)/(2\pi E W_{\mathrm{adh}})$ that measures the fibril diameter against the cohesive zone length. To capture unstable pull-off, the authors assemble each load-extension curve from hundreds of separate finite element solutions, each with a fixed partially detached region (a central circle or an edge annulus of radius $c$) and with $\delta_C$ evaluated at the edge of that region. For central defects, a small-crack LEFM formula supplies the asymptotic strength at high $\chi$ and provides the comparison that validates the numerical results.

What would settle it

Measure the pull-off strength of a $\beta = 1.25$, $\xi = 0.01$ PDMS fibril with tip diameter 6.52 mm and a central defect 3.26 $\mu$m in diameter: the paper predicts a drop from 0.78 MPa to 0.27 MPa, and a substantial deviation would overturn the LEFM-based defect predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the detachment behavior of these fibrils collapses onto a family of design curves: the normalized pull-off strength $\sigma_C/\sigma_0$ is a function only of $\chi$, $h/D_f$, $D_f/D$, $R/D_f$ and, for a central defect, $2c/D_f$. In every geometry studied, pull-off occurs exactly when the maximum interface separation first reaches $\delta_C$, and the ensuing separation is unstable under load control regardless of whether it initiates at the edge or at the center. Mushroom geometries with wide, thin caps suppress the edge stress concentration and move the initiation site to the center, which keeps the strength high over an enormous range of $\chi$; however, edge initiation remains possible in every geometry under some conditions, while central initiation is not. When a central adhesion defect is present, it acts as a penny-shaped crack, and at high $\chi$ the numerical strength curves converge to the paper's closed-form linear-elastic-fracture-mechanics expression (Eq. 8), validating the crack analogy.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that varying $\sigma_0$ and $\delta_C$ separately is unnecessary and that only the combined parameter $\chi$ plus shape ratios control pull-off strength; this was checked for only two defect-free geometries and never for the central-defect calculations, so if that dimensional reduction fails in the defective regime the design curves lose generality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the strength-versus-$\chi$ curves constitute a design map: for a given material, the fibril tip diameter can be chosen so that $\chi$ stays below $\chi_{c1}$ (flaw-insensitive, strength equal to $\sigma_0$) or below $\chi_{c2}$ (central detachment, strength at least $0.78\,\sigma_0$).
  • The wide-thin-cap geometry $\beta = 1.25$, $\xi = 0.01$ permits tip diameters orders of magnitude larger than a punch for the same retained strength: about 6.5 mm for the PDMS example and about 1.7 mm for keratin.
  • Because detachment is unstable under load control, arrays of these fibrils should show abrupt, defect-triggered failure events rather than gradual softening.
  • Central defects of even a few micrometers can cut the pull-off strength of an otherwise optimal large fibril by 65% or more at high $\chi$, so defect size, not just geometry, must enter sizing rules.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the LEFM asymptote implies that at large $\chi$, for a fixed relative defect size $2c/D_f$, the pull-off strength falls roughly as $\chi^{-1/2}$, so increasing the allowed fibril size for a fixed absolute defect costs more than a linear penalty in strength.
  • Editorial inference: the strength-versus-defect-size curves in Figures 7-9 are exactly the input a statistical array model needs, so combining them with a measured defect-size distribution would predict array-level adhesion and its scatter without new mechanics.
  • Editorial inference: the no-slip, rigid-substrate idealization likely makes these predictions upper bounds; a compliant substrate or sliding interface would relieve edge stress concentrations and could shift the edge-versus-center competition.
  • Editorial inference: because the paper verifies the single-parameter $\chi$ reduction for only two defect-free geometries, extending the central-defect curves to other $\beta$ and $\xi$ would first require checking the same reduction in the defected regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses finite-element simulations with a Dugdale cohesive zone model to compute pull-off curves and strengths for mushroom-shaped fibrils adhered to a rigid substrate. The central claim is that, for defect-free fibrils, the normalized pull-off strength σC/σ0 depends only on the dimensionless parameter χ and the geometric ratios β = Df/D, ξ = h/Df, and R/Df (Eqs. 2–3), and that for fibrils with a central adhesion defect it additionally depends on 2c/Df (Eq. 10). The authors present full load-extension curves for representative geometries, a systematic map of pull-off strength versus χ (Fig. 3), traction and separation profiles at pull-off (Figs. 4–6), and defect-sensitivity curves with a parameter-free LEFM prediction (Eq. 8) that matches the numerics at high χ (Figs. 7–9). The results indicate that wide, thin caps promote central detachment and maintain high strength up to very large χ, but that central defects cause severe degradation at high χ. The paper concludes with design guidance, including an application to experimental PDMS fibrils and to statistical array models.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides practically useful design maps for bio-inspired fibrillar adhesives and a direct input for statistical strength models of fibril arrays, since Eq. (8) gives a closed-form, parameter-free LEFM prediction for the defect-dominated regime. The work's strengths include a detailed description of the finite-element protocol, explicit statements of the modeling assumptions, and direct checks of the pull-off strength's independence from σ0 and δC separately (performed for two defect-free geometries). The comparison with the LEFM prediction is a concrete, falsifiable test that the numerics pass in the small-scale-yielding tail. However, the claimed universality of the defect-case functional form (Eq. 10) is not directly verified, and the procedure for assembling unstable trajectories from separate equilibrium solutions is an assumption that should be validated. These issues are local and fixable, which is why I recommend major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [§ Pull-off strength of fibrils with an initial adhesion defect, Eq. (10)] The functional form (10) extends the Tang et al. dimensional reduction to fibrils with central defects, but the invariance with respect to σ0 and δC beyond the combination χ is tested only for the defect-free (c = 0) envelopes of two geometries in the section 'Results for fibril detachment'. All c > 0 states that determine the defect strength curves in Figs. 7–9 are computed at a single value σ0 = 0.1 MPa. If the reduction fails once a traction-free crack is present, Eq. (10) and the defect design curves lose their claimed generality. I request a repeat of at least one defect case (for example β = 1.25, ξ = 0.01, 2c/Df = 0.005) with σ0 = 0.05 MPa and σ0 = 0.2 MPa, with the normalized pull-off curves compared.
  2. [§ Detachment process and Fig. 2] The full pull-off curves are assembled from equilibrium states obtained on separate meshes with different pre-crack sizes c, unified by having equal δC. The manuscript states that this is 'a convenient one for obtaining accurate and reliable results for the unstable pull-off process' but does not validate that the quasi-static assembly reproduces the actual unstable detachment trajectory. Since the pull-off strength is read as the maximum of this assembled curve, this assumption is load-bearing. I recommend verifying the procedure for at least one representative case by a direct transient or path-following calculation, or by demonstrating that the ascending and descending branches form a single equilibrium manifold with a limit point at the claimed pull-off state.
  3. [Appendix A, mesh resolution and convergence] The mesh resolution criterion in Appendix A uses the strip-yield estimate (A3) and requires 'at least 5 finite elements' along the Dugdale zone, but this rule is heuristic, and the reported refinement study is localized to 'a representative case'. All quantitative claims, including the extended plateau in Fig. 3 and the LEFM comparisons in Figs. 7–9, depend on the accuracy of the cohesive-zone resolution. I ask for a quantitative convergence test for at least one edge-detachment case and one central-detachment case at high χ (e.g., χ ≈ 103), comparing pull-off strength between the present mesh and a mesh with half the interface element size.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§ Results for fibril detachment, Fig. 2 caption] The caption for Fig. 2 does not explain the meaning of the black triangle, the colored triangles, or the lines of circles and dashes; a concise legend or a sentence identifying these elements would improve readability.
  2. [§ Discussion, paragraph on Khaderi et al.] The text contains a typographical error: 'Following Khaderi et al al [37]' should read 'Following Khaderi et al. [37]'.
  3. [§ Abstract] The abstract contains the LaTeX artifact '\c{hi}'; this should be typeset as the Greek letter χ.
  4. [§ Introduction and references] The reference to Aksak et al. as [21] for the optimal mushroom shape and as [24] for the fitting formula should be checked; the text appears to attribute the fit to a different study than the one cited, and the numbering should be made consistent.
  5. [§ Results for fibril detachment, text near Fig. 2(a)] The phrase 'at the bottom of the line of circles and dashes having the same color' is unclear; specifying that the color-coded circles and dashes correspond to the post-peak equilibrium branch for a given χ would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FE pull-off results and the parameter-free LEFM defect prediction are self-contained; the unverified c>0 dimensional reduction is a generality gap, not a circular fit.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is not circular. The pull-off strengths are obtained from original finite element simulations of a Dugdale cohesive interface, and the central-defect results are compared against the parameter-free closed-form LEFM prediction in Eq. (8), which is derived from the Kassir-Bregman stress intensity factor and the work of adhesion rather than fitted to the numerical data. The authors explicitly decline to fit strength curves in the Discussion, stating 'we have not attempted to provide fits to the curves there, whether according to Eq. (9), or involving any other elementary functions.' The dimensional reduction in Eqs. (2)-(3) is imported from Tang et al. [22], not from the present authors, and its use is checked for two defect-free geometries by repeating calculations at sigma0 = 0.05, 0.1 and 0.2 MPa, with the paper reporting that 'the resulting normalized pull-off curves are identical.' Self-references to Balijepalli et al. [28] for the fibril geometry, Fleck et al. [26] for the punch baseline, and Booth et al. [31] for array statistics are inputs or external benchmarks, not results derived by circular reasoning. The reader's skepticism about the defect regime is legitimate as a correctness concern: the sigma0-independence check was not repeated for the c>0 snapshot family used in Figs. 7-9, so the universality of Eq. (10) is extrapolated rather than fully verified. But that is an unproven assumption or a limitation, not a case where a prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data: geometry ratios and material constants are specified inputs from prior literature or deliberately chosen design points, and χ is an interface-property ratio. The central claim rests on standard cohesive-zone and elasticity assumptions plus the paper-specific c-sweep reconstruction method. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dugdale cohesive law: the interface carries constant traction σ0 until separation reaches δC, then zero traction; W_adh = σ0δC.
    Used throughout as the adhesion model; standard in prior Tang and Fleck work, but it is a constitutive assumption rather than a derived law.
  • domain assumption The fibril is linear isotropic elastic with infinitesimal strains; ν = 0.499, E = 2 MPa.
    Invoked in the Detachment process section; large deformation, viscoelasticity, and substrate compliance are excluded.
  • domain assumption Radial displacements of all points on the fibril bottom surface are zero (no-slip to the rigid substrate), including in traction-free regions.
    Invoked in the Detachment process section; this suppresses interface slip and alters the near-edge stress state, and it is also used in the Fleck punch baseline.
  • domain assumption Tang et al. dimensional analysis guarantees that pull-off strength depends only on χ, β, ξ, R/Df and, for defects, 2c/Df, not on σ0/E and Df/δC separately.
    The paper relies on this to avoid independent variation of σ0 and δC; it is verified for two defect-free geometries but not for the defect cases.
  • ad hoc to paper Assembling equilibrium states from separate meshes with different pre-crack sizes c, unified by equal δC, reconstructs the unstable pull-off trajectory.
    This is the paper's own reconstruction method for unstable branches and is not independently validated against a dynamic or arc-length-controlled simulation.
  • domain assumption Kassir-Bregman Mode I stress intensity factor for a small penny-shaped interface crack, with no-slip and rigid substrate, governs the high-χ defect limit.
    Used to derive Eq. (8); assumes the defect is small compared with the fibril diameter and that the no-slip condition keeps the crack effectively Mode I.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pull-off strength of mushroom-shaped fibrils adhered to rigid substrates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYYUIAE4

@misc{pith2026250620745,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pull-off strength of mushroom-shaped fibrils adhered to rigid substrates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYYUIAE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20745}
}
read the original abstract

The exceptional adhesion properties of biological fibrillar structures -- such as those found in geckos -- have inspired the development of synthetic adhesive surfaces. Among these, mushroom-shaped fibrils have demonstrated superior pull-off strength compared to other geometries. In this study, we employ a computational approach based on a Dugdale cohesive zone model to analyze the detachment behavior of these fibrils when adhered to a rigid substrate. The results provide complete pull-off curves, revealing that the separation process is inherently unstable under load control, regardless of whether detachment initiates at the fibril edge or center. Our findings show that fibrils with a wide, thin mushroom cap effectively reduce stress concentrations and promote central detachment, leading to enhanced adhesion. However, detachment from the center is not observed in all geometries, whereas edge detachment can occur under certain conditions in all cases. Additionally, we investigate the impact of adhesion defects at the fibril center, showing that they can significantly reduce pull-off strength, particularly at high values of the dimensionless parameter \c{hi}. These insights contribute to the optimization of bio-inspired adhesives and microstructured surfaces for various engineering applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20745 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Deformation process for an initially stress free fibril. (a) Geometry of the fibrils; (b) initial deformation state; (c) gradual compression of the mushroom end and development of the Dugdale zone at the center of the fibril-substrate interface and (d) at the perimeter of the fibril mushroom tip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Load-extension behavior for two mushroom fibril geometries under load control: (a) 𝛽 = 1.25 and 𝜉 = 0.01, where detachment initiated at the center; (b) 𝛽 = 1.05 and 𝜉 = 0.05, where detachment initiated at the edge. Each coloured triangle denotes the pull-off point for a given value of χ. These curves illustrate the unstable nature of the detachment process and help identify the geometries capable of achieving high p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalized pull-off strength versus χ for different mushroom fibril geometries. Each curve corresponds to a ratio of flange to stalk diameter (𝛽), and each symbol type corresponds to a specific flange thickness (𝜉). The dashed line represents the performance of a punch…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normal traction and interface separation along the fibril [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normal traction and interface separation along the fibril [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normal traction and interface separation along the fibril [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of a central adhesion defect on the pull [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalized pull-off strength as a function of 𝜒 for a mushroom fibril with 𝛽 = 1.2 and 𝜉 = 0.01 with central adhesion defects having various diameters, 2𝑐. The transition from defect-insensitive to defect-sensitive regimes is observed with increasing χ and defect size.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized pull-off strength as a function of 𝜒 for a mushroom fibril with 𝛽 = 1.15 and 𝜉 = 0.01 with central adhesion defects having various diameters, 2𝑐. The transition from defect-insensitive to defect-sensitive regimes is observed with increasing χ and defect size…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Deformation process for an initially stress free fibril. (a) Geometry of the fibrils; (b) initial deformation state; (c) gradual compression of the mushroom end and development of the Dugdale zone at the center of the fibril-substrate interface and (d) at the perimeter…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Load-extension behavior for two mushroom fibril geometries under load control: (a) 𝛽 = 1.25 and 𝜉 = 0.01, where detachment initiated at the center; (b) 𝛽 = 1.05 and 𝜉 = 0.05, where detachment initiated at the edge. Each colored triangle denotes the pull-off point for a…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normal traction and interface separation along the fibril [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normal traction and interface separation along the fibril [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normal traction and interface separation along the fibril [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of a central adhesion defect on the pull [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N.; Varenberg, M.; Peressadko, A.; Tuma, J

    Gorb, S. N.; Varenberg, M.; Peressadko, A.; Tuma, J. Biomimetic Mushroom-Shaped Fibrillar Adhesive Microstructure. J. R. Soc. Interface 2007, 4, 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0164

    work page arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    J.; Jagota, A.; Hui, C

    Glassmaker, N. J.; Jagota, A.; Hui, C. -Y.; Noderer, W. L.; Chaudhury, M. K. Biologically Inspired Crack Trapping for Enhanced Adhesion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2007, 104 (26), 10786–1079. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703762104

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0703762104 2007

  3. [3]

    P.; Kim, S.; Sitti, M

    Murphy, M. P.; Kim, S.; Sitti, M. Enhanced Adhesion by Gecko-Inspired Hierarchical Fibrillar Adhesives. ACS Applied Mater. Interfaces 2009, 1 (4), 849 –855. https://doi.org/10.1021/am8002439

    work page doi:10.1021/am8002439 2009

  4. [4]

    -Y.; Glassmaker, N

    Hui, C. -Y.; Glassmaker, N. J.; Tang, T.; Jagota, A. Design of Biomimetic Fibrillar Interfaces: 2. Mechanics of Enhanced Adhesion. J. R. Soc. Interface 2004, 1 (1), 35 –

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Sitti, M.; Liang, Y

    Autumn, K. ; Sitti, M.; Liang, Y. A.; Peattie, A. M.; Hansen, W. R.; Sponberg, S.; Kenny, T. W.; Fearing, R.; Israelachvili, J. N.; Full, R. J. Evidence for van Der Waals Adhesion in Gecko Setae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002, 99 (19), 12252– 12256. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.192252799

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.192252799 2002

  6. [6]

    Liang, Y

    Autumn, K. ; Liang, Y. A.; Hsleh, S. T.; Zesch, W.; Chan, W. P.; Kenny, T. W.; Fearing, R.; Full, R. J. Adhesive Force of a Single Gecko Foot-Hair. R. J. Nat. 2000 2000, 405 (50), 681–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/35015073

    work page doi:10.1038/35015073

  7. [7]

    Mantz, H.; Spolenak, R.; Mecke, K.; Jacobs, K.; Gorb, S

    Huber, G. ; Mantz, H.; Spolenak, R.; Mecke, K.; Jacobs, K.; Gorb, S. N.; Arzt, E. Evidence for Capillarity Contributions to Gecko Adhesion from Single Spatula Nanomechanical Measurements. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2005, 102 (45), 16293–16296. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506328102

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0506328102 2005

  8. [8]

    Bennison, S

    Jagota, A. ; Bennison, S. J. Mechanics of Adhesion Through a Fibrillar Microstructure 1. Integr. Comp. Biol 2002, 42, 1140–1145. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/42.6.1140

    work page doi:10.1093/icb/42.6.1140 2002

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    J.; Jagota, A.; Hui, C

    Glassmaker, N. J.; Jagota, A.; Hui, C. -Y.; Kim, J. Design of Biomimetic Fibrillar Interfaces: 1. Making Contact. J. R. Soc. Interface 2004, 1 (1), 23 –33. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2004.0004. 28

    2004

  2. [10]

    Wang, X.; Yao, H.; Gorb, S

    Gao, H. ; Wang, X.; Yao, H.; Gorb, S. N.; Arzt, E. Mechanics of Hierarchical Adhesion Structures of Geckos. Mech. Mater. 2005, 37 (2-3 SPEC. ISS.), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2004.03.008

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Gao, H

    Yao, H. ; Gao, H. Mechanics of Robust and Releasable Adhesion in Biology: Bottom- up Designed Hierarchical Structures of Gecko. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2006, 54 (6), 1120–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2006.01.002

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    Gorb, S

    Arzt, E. ; Gorb, S. N.; Spolenak, R. From Micro to Nano Contacts in Biological Attachment Devices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2003, 100 (19), 10603 –10606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1534701100

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Yao, H

    Gao, H. ; Yao, H. Shape Insensitive Optimal Adhesion of Nanoscale Fibrillar Structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2004, 101 (21), 7851–7856. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400757101

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    Greiner, C.; Arzt, E

    Del Campo, A. ; Greiner, C.; Arzt, E. Contact Shape Controls Adhesion of Bioinspired Fibrillar Surfaces. Langmuir 2007, 23 (20), 10235–10243. https://doi.org/10.1021/la7010502

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    N.; Varenberg, M

    Gorb, S. N.; Varenberg, M. Mushroom -Shaped Geometry of Contact Elements in Biological Adhesive Systems. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2007, 21 (12 –13), 1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856107782328317

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Gao, H

    Yao, H. ; Gao, H. Mechanical Principles of Robust and Releasable Adhesion of Gecko. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2007, 21 (12–13), 1185–1212. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856107782328326

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    V.; McMeeking, R

    Spuskanyuk, A. V.; McMeeking, R. M.; Deshpande, V. S.; Arzt, E. The Effect of Shape on the Adhesion of Fibrillar Surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2008, 4 (6), 1669–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2008.05.026

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Gorb, S

    Heepe, L. ; Gorb, S. N. Biologically Inspired Mushroom -Shaped Adhesive Microstructures. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2014, 44 (1), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-062910-100458

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Kroner, E.; Del Campo, A.; McMeeking, R

    Kamperman, M. ; Kroner, E.; Del Campo, A.; McMeeking, R. M.; Arzt, E. Functional Adhesive Surfaces with “Gecko” Effect: The Concept of Contact Splitting. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2010, 12 (5), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201000104

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Pierro, E.; Gorb, S

    Carbone, G. ; Pierro, E.; Gorb, S. N. Origin of the Superior Adhesive Performance of Mushroom-Shaped Microstructured Surfaces. Soft Matter 2011, 7 (12), 5545 –5552. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0sm01482f. 29

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Sahin, K.; Sitti, M

    Aksak, B. ; Sahin, K.; Sitti, M. The Optimal Shape of Elastomer Mushroom-like Fibers for High and Robust Adhesion. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2014, 5, 630–638. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.5.74

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Hui, C

    Tang, T. ; Hui, C. Y.; Glassmaker, N. J. Can a Fibrillar Interface Be Stronger and Tougher than a Non -Fibrillar One? J. R. Soc. Interface 2005, 2 (5), 505 –516. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2005.0070

    2005

  15. [23]

    Soh, A

    Chen, S. ; Soh, A. K. Tuning the Geometrical Parameters of Biomimetic Fibrillar Structures to Enhance Adhesion. J. R. Soc. Interface 2008, 5, 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2007.1121

    2008

  16. [24]

    Hui, C

    Aksak, B. ; Hui, C. Y.; Sitti, M. The Effect of Aspect Ratio on Adhesion and Stiffness for Soft Elastic Fibres. J. R. Soc. Interface 2011, 8 (61), 1166–1175. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0582

    2011

  17. [25]

    Chen, S

    Peng, Z. ; Chen, S. The Effect of Geometry on the Adhesive Behavior of Bio -Inspired Fibrils. Soft Mater. 2012, 8 (1), 9864 –9869. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143- 7496(94)90015-9

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    A.; Khaderi, S

    Fleck, N. A.; Khaderi, S. N.; McMeeking, R. M.; Arzt, E. Cohesive Detachment of an Elastic Pillar from a Dissimilar Substrate. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2017, 101, 30 –43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.01.001

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Dugdale, D. S. Yielding of Steel Sheets Containing Slits. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1960, 8, 100–104

    1960

  20. [28]

    G.; Begley, M

    Balijepalli, R. G.; Begley, M. R.; Fleck, N. A.; McMeeking, R. M.; Arzt, E. Numerical Simulation of the Edge Stress Singularity and the Adhesion Strength for Compliant Mushroom Fibrils Adhered to Rigid Substrates. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2016, 85–86, 160–

    2016

  21. [29]

    Kovalev, A

    Heepe, L. ; Kovalev, A. E.; Filippov, A. E.; Gorb, S. N. Adhesion Failure at 180000 Frames per Second: Direct Observation of the Detachment Process of a Mushroom- Shaped Adhesive. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 111, 104301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.104301

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Hernández L.; Fischer S.C.L.; Arzt E.; Bennewitz R.; Hensel R

    Tinnemann V. ; Hernández L.; Fischer S.C.L.; Arzt E.; Bennewitz R.; Hensel R. In Situ Observation Reveals Local Detachment Mechanisms and Suction Effects in 30 Micropatterned Adhesives. Adv Funct Mater. 2019, 29(14), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201807713

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    McMeeking R.M.; Foster K.; Tinnemann V.; Hensel R.; Arzt E

    Booth J. ; McMeeking R.M.; Foster K.; Tinnemann V.; Hensel R.; Arzt E. Statistical properties of defect-dependent detachment strength in bioinspired dry adhesives. J. R. Soc. Interface 2019, 16(156) 20190239. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0239

    2019

  24. [32]

    Abaqus 6. 14. Abaqus 6.14 Documentation; Dassaults System Simulia Corporation: Providence, RI, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    K.; Bregman, A.M

    Kassir, M. K.; Bregman, A.M. The stress intensity factor for a penny -shaped crack between two dissimilar materials. J. App. Mech. 1972, 39(1), 308-310. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3422648

    1972 doi

  26. [34]

    Del Campo, A.; Arzt, E

    Greiner, C. ; Del Campo, A.; Arzt, E. Adhesion of Bioinspired Micropatterned Surfaces: Effects of Pillar Radius, Aspect Ratio, and Preload. Langmuir 2007, 23(7), 3495-3502. https://doi.org/10.1021/la0633987

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Popov, V

    Schargott, M. ; Popov, V. L.; Gorb, S. N. Spring Model of Biological Attachment Pads. J. Theor. Biol. 2006, 243 (1), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.05.023

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Long, R.; Hui, C. -Y. The Effect of Preload on the Pull -off Force in Indentation Tests of Microfibre Arrays. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2009, 465 (2103), 961 –

    2009

  29. [37]

    , McMeeking, R.M

    Khaderi, S, Fleck, N. , McMeeking, R.M. Detachment of an adhered micropillar from a dissimilar substrate. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2015, 75, 159-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2014.11.0014. Appendix A To accurately capture all aspects of the adhesion and detachment processes...

    2015 doi

  30. [48]

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2004.0005

    2004

  31. [171]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2016.02.018

    2016 doi

  32. [981]

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2008.0362

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.