4.2 Capture interface concept
4.2.4 Electroadhesion
Electroadhesion was developed for robotic manipulation during clothing manufacturing in 1989 by Monkman [162]; electrostatic latching has been proposed for the creation of modular robotic systems and electro- static chucks have been studied for a variety of micro-fabrication processes, such as lithography, ion implantation, plasma etch, film deposition, and inspection [163]. In the last decades electroadhesion has become one of the most interesting technologies in the field of wall-climbing robots [159] [160] [161]: thanks to the generation of electrostatic forces, these robots are able to climb a wide variety of sur- faces, conductive but even non-concuctive, such as wood, concrete, glass. Examples are shown in the first three pictures in Figure 4.10. This characteristic makes electroadhesion particularly attractive for a great variety of applications, including robot grippers; some demonstrative concepts have already been developedby SRI International, and are shown in Figure 4.10 [164].
Chapter 4
4.2. Capture interface concept
Working principle
The basic principle of electroadhesion is to induce the generation of electrostatic forces between two contact surfaces to allow them to adhere and maintain the contact. A scheme of a typical electroadhesive layer is shown in Figure 4.11. Specifically, an electroadhesive layer is made depositing a pair of inde- pendent electrodes (red and black in the figure), on an insulating material, usually a polymer (light blue in the figure). As we previously said, the electroadhesive interface can get in contact with conductive surfaces, as well as insulating ones (green substrate in the figure). In the first case, and in general for safety reasons, the electrodes are covered with a very thin layer of insulating material to avoid any direct contact with the conductive surface and to reduce the risk of possible spikes. The electrodes result then embedded in the insulator. A high voltage, between 1kV and 5kV (although higher voltages can be applied according to the charactristics of the device), is applied to the electrodes: this let an electric field to arise betwen the electrodes. The effect is similar to the capacitor working principle, with the difference that in this case, the electrodes lie on the sample plane instead of being parallel. When a second surface is moved towards the electroadhesive interface and gets in contact with it, the electric field changes its shape and the charges on the electrodes induce an opposite charge on the object surface, generating attractive electrostatic forces through the insulating layer.
Figure 4.11: Scheme of an electroadhesive interface.
Several works [159] [160] [161] [165] have investigated the performances of such technology and it has ben demonstrated that the adhesion force achievable through electroadhesion depends on several factors, such as:
• the applied voltage:
• the thickness of the insulator and the material is made of;
• the nature and the roughness of the object surface: if it conductive or not, smoth or rough; • the geometry of the electrodes.
Increasing the applied voltage, the intensity of the electric field increases and then, the level of elec- troastatic force achievable. It exists anyway a maximum voltage above which the system saturate and no significant increase of the adhesion force is observed as the voltage is further increased [166]. This happen because after a certain voltage level, the HV/DC power supply could start to supply non-zero current (as in a capacitor, no current flows in the system during its functioning). When current begins to flow, the ideal electrostatic model is no longer valid, and leakage and corona discharge phenomenons arise, determining the saturation of the device. The influence of the insulator thickness and material has been well demonstrated in several researches [160]: as the thickness increases, the adhesion force level achievable decreases. This could be in part foreseen: as in a capacitor, the intensity of the electric field, and then the attraction force between the plates, decreases as the electrodes gap becomes higher. Furthermore, in this case, the insulating material acts as dielectric, and it is known that the force be- tween the plates depends on the dielectric properties of the material placed between them. In our specific application, an important role is also played by the surface of the object to be captured [158]. If the
Chapter 4
4.2. Capture interface concept
surface is conductive, the mechanism of force generation can be derived from the basic electrostatic the- ory. In case of an insulating surface, the pricnciples of force generation are different and related to the two major types of electrical polarization: permanent polarization, due to molecule’s permanent dipole moment, and induced polarization, which is the result of an applied electric field. In a very simple way, when the surface is conductive, the free electrones reorganise themselves in order to balance the charge induced by the electric field between the electrodes; if the material is insulating, there are no free elec- trons, so the only way to re-organise according to the electric field is by turning the molecules in a way that allow to neutralise the build up charge. In a solid, the molecules are usually rigidly bounded, and rotation and displacements are very limited. The basic equations can be derived by the main principles of polarization. In our work, only conductive surfaces were considered, so the latter case was not further investigated. The surface roughness has a direct effect on the adhesive force, at a microscopic level: it has been demonstrated that the adhesion on rough surfaces is less effective than on smooth surfaces [165]. Adhesion forces on drywall, tile or cedar, that are samples of different materials and roughness, can vary of several percentage, for the same electrodes geometry: the better performances are on a tile, 20% and 40% lower on drywall and cedar respectively for a square spiral configuration. Several works have also highlighted that the geometry of the electrodes could significantly influence the adhesion force achievable: a basic interdigitated configuration, shown in Figure 4.12(a) appears to be one of the simplest and most effective geometries [160] [161], compared to a two rectangular electrodes configuration of the same total area. It was demonstrated as configuration with alternate electrodes works better than with two single electrodes. The interdigitated geometry has been the most used configuration up to now in the realization of the adhesive devices of climbing robots (see Figure 4.12(c)). Some recent studies investigated other geometries [165] [167], shown in Figure 4.13: it emerged that a concentric circles pattern could allow the best performances; the width of the electrodes can be also optimized in each configurations, creating geometries with variable width, improving the adhesion performances. It can be also performed the gap between the electrodes with respect to the width of the electrodes.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4.12: Example of interdigitated electrodes geometry (a) and equivalent rectangular electrodes configuration (b). In (c) it is represented the typical electroadhesive layer employed in climbing robots, with the interdigitated configuration.
Approximation of the adhesion force
A first approximation of the intensity of this force was provided by Monkman [158] in 1999, consid- ering the parallel plane capacitor model; the attraction force between two parallel plates of a capacitor is expressed as: FEA = 1 2Aelε0E 2 (4.3) where Ael is the area of a plane electrode, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, E is the electric field
generated across the the electrodes. The electric field E depends on the voltage V applied and the distance d between the plates:
Chapter 4
4.2. Capture interface concept
Figure 4.13: Simulation models of electrodes patterns used in [167] to optimize electrostatic adhesive geometries.
E = V d
(4.4) and the equation 4.3 can be written as:
FEA= 1 2Aelε0 V d 2 (4.5) This expression is for a simple plane capacitor with no insulator between the plates. Furthermore, in this expression does not appear any information relative to the geometry and the configuration of the electrodes for which, on the contrary, it has been demonstrated that they could have a significant influent on the intensity of the adhesion force.
A more accurate relation can be found in [163]:
FEA= 1 2Aelε0 V2 g +2dε r 2 (4.6)
This expression is referred to an electrostatic latch where d is the thickness of the insulator and g is the gap between the electrodes and εr is the dielectric constant of the nsulator. In this case the gap is
considered in vacuum.
In case of an electroadhesive interface, the system can be schematically rapresented as shown in Figure 4.14. When the electrodes are embedded in the insulator, the gap is filled with the same material, so it has to be considered the correspondent dielectric constant εr; the dielectric thickness is counted twice
since the total distance between the electrodes is 2d. In our analysis, Equation 4.6 was then modified in the following way:
FEA= 1 2Aelε0 V2 g εr + 2d εr 2 (4.7)
Considering the interdigitated configuration, the total force generated is given by the product of the previous equation with the number of pairs of electrodes; the final approximated expression is then:
Chapter 4
4.2. Capture interface concept
FEA,tot= Npairs∗ 1 2Aelε0 V2 g εr + 2d εr 2 (4.8)Figure 4.14: Example of interdigitated electrodes geometry (a) and equivalent rectangular electrodes configuration (b).
Equation 4.8 is otained starting from the capacitor theory. The influence of the insulator and of the electrodes geometry can be identified in the parameters εr and d, Ael and g. It has to underlined that
it is only an approximation of the achievable force. As previously said, the adhesion force depends on several parameters that do not appear in the equation, such as the surface roughness. Furthermore it can be applied only when the electroadhesive interface is put in contact with a conductive surface. For more complex geomtries, FEM analysis could be required to obtaine more accurate models. Electroadhesion theory lacks of knowledge as concerns the force modelling, so no many references were available to compare the results obtained with analtycal expressions. A recent study proposed a more detailed modelling of the theoretical force that takes into account several factors, such the geometry of the electrodes and the gap between them, not considered in previous works [168]. The study is limited to the interdigitated configuration. Without describing all the theory developed, it is reported only the final expression of the normal adhesion force and normal adhesion pressure obtained by the authors:
FEA,Kho= 0.5ε0εinswlV2 g2 + 0.265ε0εinsw0.5lV2 g1.5 (4.9) PEA,Kho= ε0εinsV2 0.25wd−2+ 0.135w0.5d−1.5 w + d ; (4.10)
The normal adhesion pressure is obtained from Equation 4.9 considering the area (2w + 2d)*l, that is the total area on which the electrostatic froce is spread, shown in Figure 4.15. w is the width of the electrodes, l is the length of each arm of the electrodes; the other parameters are the same defined above. The difference between the adhesion pressure estimated through the capacitor theory (Equation 4.7) and the model developed by Koh in [168] (Equation 4.10) is shown in Figure 4.16, for w = 0.5mm, d = 0.5mm, l = 4.5mm, εr = 5 that is the dielectric constant of the silicone employed to realise the
electroadhesive interface. As it emerges from the plot, the modified capacitor theory and the theory obtaind through the three dimensional model developed by Koh [168] are similar, of the same order of amgnitude. In the model developed by Kho does not appear the dielectric thickness and the adhesion pressure is slightly above the line obtained with the capacitor theory. With the second theory it has to be considered a reducing factor due to the presence of the insulator between the electrodes and the surface of the object. Anyway, both models allow to determine an approximation of the achievable adhesion force, once the geometry is known. Unfortunately, the are no references where normale tests were performed:
Chapter 4
4.2. Capture interface concept
all the data that can be found in literature refer to shear adhesion test, which are influenced by the friction coefficient; most of the times, no precise values of such parameter are reported, so it was difficult to validate the models with experimental data. Some prelminary considerations will be reported at the end of the tests section.
Figure 4.15: Interdigitated configuration considered to determine the adhesion performances in [168].
Figure 4.16: Comparison between the normal adhesion pressure evaluated with the capacitor theory and with the model developed by Koh in [168].
Concerning the shear adhesion pressure, previous studies demonstrated that it can range form few kPa to few tens of kPa, depending on the substrate: in Figure 4.17 some measured clamping pressures obtained on several materials with a 1 cm2 sample are reported to give an idea of the force achievable
[159].
Some other studies reported similar results: as it can be seen, the substrate on which the adhesion performances are tested has a significant influence. The normal adhesion pressures estimated by Praha- lad [159] and the values that can be extrapolated form other studies, from the shear tests, are greater than the adhesion pressures predictied with the models presented above. This highlights that there are other paramters that cannot be included in an analytical model, but whose influence affect the overall perofrmances of an electroadhesive interface. It wil be observed that when silicones and similiar poly- mers are used for the insulator, adhesion effects arise due to the natural adhesion that these maerials can present. For more details, it is suggested to investigate the theory of rubber friction. In this work, the main nterest was to investigate how shape memory polymers and electroadhesion could be combined for a space gripper. The prototypes developed will be usefull for further future investigations.
Chapter 4
4.2. Capture interface concept
Figure 4.17: Shear adhesion pressures measured on different materials [159].
Origin of the adhesion force
Some tests performed on the developed interface revealed that the insulating silicone layer, when placed on a surface, was able to adhere, and a small force was required to detach it from the object in normal direction. The phenomenon was amplified in shear direction. It was found that this effect could be related to the theory of rubber friction: a clarifying interpretation of the adhesion effect can be found in [169]. Without going inside the details, we explain te main prnciple useful to understand the results obtained by tests. As reported in ”On the theory of rubber friction” by Persson, ”For elastically hard materials, ad- hesion usually does not manifest itself on a macroscopic scale. The area of real contact consists of nearly randomly distributed contact areas (junctions), where surface asperities of the two surfaces ”touch”. The surface asperities are elastically deformed and since they have different sizes and shapes, the junctions will ”pop”, one after another, as the block is removed. The situation is drastically different for rubber and other elastically soft solids. In these cases, even a weak adhesive junction, e.g. resulting from Wan der Waals interaction between the surfaces, may be elongated before breaking by a distance which is larger than the ”height” of the surface asperities. As emerged from the paper [169], the adhesion between two contact surfaces is influenced by the nature of the surfaces themselves, and it is characterised by the combination of two phenomenon: the contact between the surface asperities and the generation of Wan der Waals interaction at the contact interface.
When both materials are elastically hard solid, the adhesion is mainly related to the contact between the asperities and to the real area of contact; it manifests only in shear direction and it is governed by the common friction theory; the friction coefficient is always less than 1 and in presence of smooth surfaces, the adhesion can be very low due to the low number of asperities. It is not usually observed any adhesion in normal direction.
The latter prevails when one of the two contact surfaces is an elastically soft solid, like polymers and silicones: in this case the adhesion is mainly related to the generation of Wan der Waals force between the two surfaces. In this case, the adhesion could be observed not only in shear direction, but also in normal direction. In shear direction, high loads could be required to cause the detachment between the surfaces, also when negliglible force are applied in normal direction (it could happen that if the material is placed on a vertical surface without any kind of support, it could remain attached, without sliding down). The interesting effect is that in this case, some adhesion can be observed also in normal direction. The friction coefficient µ, for such kind of materials, can be also greater than 1, reaching values around 10 or more, depending on the material. It was also observed that, because of the molecular adhesion, µ −→ ∞ when L −→ 0, and it decreases with increasing load, becoming constant at high enough load. This second kind of adhesion is better known as dry adhesion and it is the main working principle of bioinspired systems [155] [156] [157] [170]. In these systems, proper surface geometries, like mushrooms cups or pillars, are employed to increase the contact surface area, enhancing the generation of Wan der Waals forces. It was
Chapter 4
4.3. Prototypes realization and testing
demonstrated that the adhesion increases respect to planar surfaces. The interesting effect is that the adhesion can be significantly increased by electroadhesion: the electrostatic attraction forces the surfaces to get in contact, promoting the Wan der Waals interactions. This effect can be assimilated to a kind of electrostatic pre-load. The overall adhesion force is a combination between the electrostatic attraction, the pre-loading effect and the resulting Wan der Waals interactions at the contact interface. These ele- ments will be evident in the analysis performed after tests.
This is the guide principle for the development of the gripping interface. A planar surface will be selected: even though the dry-adhesion performances are expected to be lower than more complex micro-geometries, like mushrooms cups or pillars, the latters could be sensible to normal loads and deformations caused by macroscopic irregularities, decreasing the nominal adhesion capabilities. The lanar surface was assumed to be a good starting point for the preliminary study of the morphing-adhesive iterface.