First published online January 3, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 260-272 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01980
Dynamics of geckos running vertically
K. Autumn1,
S. T. Hsieh2,*,
D. M. Dudek2,
J. Chen2,
C. Chitaphan2 and
R. J. Full2,
1 Department of Biology, Lewis & Clark College, Portland, OR 97219-7899,
USA
2 Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA
94720-3140, USA

View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Theoretical comparison of dynamics of running on level ground (A)
vs climbing using two different models. In the first model (B), legs
produce deceleratory foreaft forces, Fx, as
an unavoidable consequence of foot attachment. Thus larger acceleratory
forces, F+x, are required to counteract the combined
deceleration of the legs and gravity g. In the second model
(C), legs do not produce deceleratory forces. Thus, acceleratory forces are
reduced since only gravity decelerates the animal, and total mechanical energy
(Etot) required to climb approaches potential energy
(EP).
|
|

View larger version (60K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. (A) Force platform used to measure dynamics of climbing geckos
Hemidactylus garnotii. (B) Axis conventions used in this study.
Positive foreaft forces (+x; blue) correspond to wall reaction
forces that would accelerate a mass upwards. The force of gravity acts in the
x direction. Positive normal forces (+y; red)
correspond to wall reaction forces that would accelerate a mass away from the
force plate, whereas negative normal forces (y) correspond to
wall reaction forces that would accelerate a mass towards the force plate. The
z axis was the lateral dimension and corresponds to forces directed
to the animals right or left. Positive lateral forces (+z; green)
correspond to wall reaction forces that would accelerate a mass to the
animal's right, whereas negative lateral forces (z) correspond
to wall reaction forces that would accelerate a mass to the animal's left.
|
|

View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Gait, force, velocity and energy of the COM vs time during one
stride of a 3.6 g (0.035 N) gecko Hemidactylus garnotii climbing
vertically at 0.44 m s-1. (A) Tracing of gecko climbing. Yellow
circles represent foot contact. (B) Gait pattern and timing of attachment and
release for each foot. The initial striped portion of each box represents the
time required for the toe pads to attach to the force plate. The filled
portion indicates when toe pads were in contact with the force plate, and the
second striped portion represents the time for the toes to detach before the
foot was lifted from the force plate. (C) Foreaft, normal and lateral
forces of the COM. The horizontal broken line represents weight (35 mN). Force
production decreased nearly to zero at mid-stride, despite the fact that all
four feet were in contact with the force plate. (D) Foreaft velocity
calculated by integration of the force recording minus gravity. Velocity
attained a minimum at the beginning of each step as forces decreased to zero,
indicative of a period of ballistic movement. (E) Foreaft kinetic,
normal kinetic, lateral kinetic energy (EK) and
gravitational potential energy (EP) fluctuations of the
COM. (F) Total mechanical energy of the COM obtained by summation of the
foreaft kinetic, normal kinetic, lateral kinetic and gravitational
potential energy components.
|
|

View larger version (12K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Whole body peak GRF magnitudes and phases. Values are means ± 1
s.e.m. One phase is equal to one complete stride or two steps. (A) Normal
force showed two maxima, but was highly variable, representing the
cancellation of individual leg forces. (B) Foreaft force peaked once
per step with magnitudes of approximately twice body weight (broken line). (C)
Lateral force accelerated the COM to the left followed by an acceleration to
the right. Two maxima per step were observed.
|
|

View larger version (14K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Mass-specific mechanical power vs velocity in Hemidactylus
garnotii climbing vertically and running on the level. Solid line
(circles) is the linear least-squares regression (Power=0.9+9.9v,
where v is velocity in m s-1; r2=0.83)
for climbing. The broken line represents the product of gravity and velocity,
the minimum mechanical power production possible. The solid line (triangles)
represents the least-squares linear regression (Power=0.3+1.9v;
r2=0.48) of geckos running on level ground
(Chen et al., 2006 ).
|
|

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6. Mean peak GRFs of single legs in geckos climbing (DF) and running on
level ground (AC). (A) On a level, normal GRFs were always positive.
(B) Geckos running over level ground used the forelegs to produce only
deceleratory forces, while hindlegs first produced deceleratory forces during
the first part of each step, and then produce acceleratory forces during the
second part of each step. (C) All four legs pushed laterally away from the
midline of the body such that the left legs produced forces that pushed the
gecko to the right, while the right legs produced forces that pushed the gecko
to the left. (D) In climbing geckos, forelegs produced forces that pushed the
gecko away from the vertical surface, while hindlegs produced forces that
pulled the gecko toward the vertical surface. (E) Climbing geckos produced
positive foreaft forces that propelled the gecko upwards. (F) During
climbing, all four legs pulled laterally towards the midline of the body such
that the left legs produced forces that pulled the gecko to the left, while
the right legs produced forces that pulled the gecko to the right. The
directions of lateral GRFs during climbing were opposite to those produced
during level running.
|
|

View larger version (39K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8. (A) MechoGecko and (B) BullGecko, small (4 cm long), climbing robots
designed by iRobot Corp. The designs of the feet and treads of the robots were
inspired biologically by the toe-peeling mechanism of gecko toes. MechoGecko
used pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) feet. The spherical foot shape promoted
peeling to reduce pull-off force. MechoGecko's trispoke legs caused
significant velocity fluctuations during climbing. BullGecko used PSA tracks
to peel as it climbed. The track design allowed BullGecko to exert a constant
foreaft force on the COM.
|
|
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2006