Journal of Bionic Engineering

, Volume 5, Supplement 1, pp 152–157 | Cite as

Nanomechanical Behaviours of Cuticle of Three Kinds of Beetle

  • Ji-yu SunEmail author
  • Jin Tong
  • Yun-hai Ma


The surface materials and structures of insect cuticle can provide useful information for designing anti-adhesion components material. Quantitative measurement of mechanical properties of insect cuticle will help to develop biomimetic materials suitable for industrial products. In this work, the mechanical properties, such as the reduced modulus and hardness in nano-scale, of the cuticle of beetle Geotrupes stercorarius Linnaeus, Copris ochus Motschulsky and Holotrichia sichotana Brenske, were investigated by using a nanoindenter. It was found that the reduce modulus and hardness of these three beetles are different. The main cause of the difference of the mechanical properties is probably due to their different living circumstance, lifestyle and different functions of segments.


insect cuticle bionic materials mechanical properties nanoindentation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    George M, Mehmet S. Rigid biological composite materials: Structural examples for biomimetic design. Experimental Mechanics, 2002, 42, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Wegst U G K, Ashby M F. The mechanical efficiency of natural materials. Philosophical Magazine, 2004, 84, 2167–2181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Scherge M, Gorb S S. Biological Micro- and Nanotribology: Nature’s Solutions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, German, 2002, 131–132.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Vincent J F V, Wegst U G K. Design and mechanical properties of insect cuticle. Arthropod Structure and Development, 2004, 33, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Vincent J F V. Arthropod cuticle: A natural composite shell system. Composites A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2002, 33, 1311–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    John D C. Bones: Structures and Mechanics, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 2002, 13–14.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Peng X H, Fan J H, Chen B. Microstructure of natural biocomposites and research of biomimetic composites. Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica, 2000, 17, 59–62. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chen B, Peng X, Wang W, Zhang J, Zhang R. Research on the microstructure of insect cuticle and the strength of a biomimetic preformed hole composite. Micron, 2002, 33, 571–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Haque F. Application of nanoindentation to development of biomedical materials. Surface Engineering, 2003, 19, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sarikaya M, Fong H, Sopp J M, Katti K S, Mayer G. Biomimetics: Nanomechanical design of materials through biology. The 15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, New York, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Rho J Y, Mishra S R, Chung K, Bai J, Pharr G M. Relationship between ultrastructure and the nanoindentation properties of intramuscular herring bones. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2001, 29, 1082–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Fan Z, Swadener J G, Rho J Y, Roy M E, Pharr G M. Anisotropic properties of human tibial cortical bone as measured by nanoindentation. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 2002, 20, 806–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Jamsa T, Rho J Y, Fan Z, MacKay C A, Marks S C, Tuukkanen J. Mechanical properties in long bones of rat osteopetrotic mutations. Journal of Biomechanics, 2002, 35, 161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Habelitz S, Marshall S J, Marshall G W Jr, Baloosh M. Mechanical properties of human dental enamel on the nanometer scale. Archives of Oral Biology, 2001, 46, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Habelitz S, Marshall G W, Balooch M, Marshall S J. Nanoindentation and storage of teeth. Journal of Biomechanics, 2002, 35, 995–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Marshall S J, Balooch M, Habelitz D, Balooch G, Gallagher R, Marshall G W. The dentin–enamel junction — A natural, multilevel interface. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 2003, 23, 2897–2904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Arzt E, Enders S, Gorb S. Towards a micromechanical understanding of biological surface devices. Zeitschrift für Metallkunde, 2002, 93, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Enders S, Barbakadse N, Gorb S N, Arzt E. Exploring biological surfaces by nanoindentation. Journal of Materials Research, 2004, 19, 880–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Kohane M, Daugela A, Kutomi H, Charlson L, Wyrobek A, Wyrobek J. Nanoscale in vivo evaluation of the stiffness of Drosophila melanogaster integument during development. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research A, 2003, 66, 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Tong J, Ma Y H, Ren L Q. Naturally biological materials and their tribology: A review. Tribology, 2001, 21, 235–240. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Oliver W C, Pharr G M. Measurement of hardness and elastic modulus by instrumented indentation: Advances in understanding and refinements to methodology. Journal of Materials Research, 2004, 19, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Hay J L, Pharr G M. Instrumented indentation testing. In: Kuhn H, Medlin D (eds), ASM Handbook, volume 8: Mechanical Testing and Evaluation, International Materials Park, Ohio, USA, 2000, 232–242.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Fischer-Cripps A C. Introduction to Contact Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Ngan A H W, Tang B. Viscoelastic effects during unloading in depth-sensing indentation. Journal of Materials Research, 2002, 17, 2604–2610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Miyajima T, Nagata F, Kanematsu W, Yokogawa Y, Sakai M. Elastic/plastic surface deformation of porous composites subjected to spherical nanoindentation. Key Engineering Materials, 2003, 240–242, 927–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Tong J, Sun J Y, Chen D H, Zhang S J. Factors impacting nanoindentation testing results of the cuticle of dung beetle Copris ochus Motschulsky. Journal of Bionics Engineering, 2004, 1, 221–230.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Halffter G, Edmonds W D. The Nesting Behavior of Dung Beetles(Scarabaeinae). An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach, Instituto De Ecologia, Mexico D F, 1982, 18–19.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Hanski I, Cambefort Y, Hanski I, Cambefort Y. Dung Beetle Ecology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Liu G R, Zhang Y W, Wang R. Illustrated Color Handbook of the Common Dung Beetle on the North of China, China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, China, 1997. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Villalba S, Lobo J M, Martín-Piera F, Zardoya R. Phylogenetic relationships of iberian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Journal of Molecular Evolution, 2002, 55, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Schofield R M S, Nesson M H, Richardson K A. Wyeth P. Zinc is incorporated into cuticular “tools” after ecdysis: The time course of the zinc distribution in “tools” and whole bodies of an ant and a scorpion. Journal of Insect Physiology, 2003, 49, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Edwards A J, Fawke J D, McClements J G, Smith S A, Wyeth P. Correlation of zinc distribution and enhanced hardness in the mandibular cuticle of the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens rubropilosa. Cell Biology International, 1993, 17, 697–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Fawke J D, McClements J G, Wyeth P. Cuticular metalsquantification and mapping by complementary techniques. Cell Biology International, 1997, 21, 675–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jilin University 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Terrain-Machine Bionics Engineering (Ministry of Education, China)Jilin UniversityChangchunP. R. China

Personalised recommendations