Gradient Induced Droplet Motion Over Soft Solids

Aaron Bardall; Karen E. Daniels; Michael Shearer; Shih-Yuan Chen

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Gradient Induced Droplet Motion Over Soft Solids

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A surface-energy gradient in a soft substrate can generate enough contact-angle asymmetry to move a droplet, while a shear-modulus gradient cannot at experimentally feasible magnitudes.

desk verdict A careful modeling paper whose central infeasibility claim for modulus-gradient droplet motion rests on a single borrowed threshold and would flip if that threshold is lower. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09413 v1 pith:RJ5ZMMEX submitted 2019-08-26 cond-mat.soft

Aaron Bardall , Shih-Yuan Chen , Karen E. Daniels , Michael Shearer This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.soft MSC 34K3035K5735Q8092D25

keywords dropletmotionsoftsolidscontactangleasymmetrysurfaceenergygradientshearmodulusdurotaxiselastocapillarityviscoelasticdissipation

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

This paper tries to establish which kind of substrate nonuniformity can make a resting fluid droplet move on a soft solid without external forcing. Using a two-dimensional energy-minimization model, the authors show that a gradient in solid surface energy generates enough asymmetry in the left and right contact angles to exceed a measured 1.8° threshold for droplet motion, at magnitudes that laboratory surface treatments already produce. A gradient in shear modulus, by contrast, only reaches the threshold for very soft substrates with gradients sharper than current fabrication methods can make. From this they conclude that passive stiffness gradients are unlikely to drive cell durotaxis through elastocapillary droplet-type motion, while surface-energy gradients are a feasible passive mechanism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the wetting ridge: the localized deformation of the substrate at the triple line, whose size is set by the elastocapillary length $L_e = \gamma/E$. The model couples this ridge to spatially varying material properties through the stress boundary conditions, solves linear incompressible elasticity in Fourier space, and then minimizes the total energy $E_{\rm total} = E_{\rm elastic} + E_{\rm surface}$ over the two contact angles $\theta_l$ and $\theta_r$; the resulting asymmetry $\Delta\theta = \theta_r - \theta_l$ is the quantity compared with the 1.8° depinning benchmark. For dynamics, the static modulus is replaced by a viscoelastic complex modulus $g(\omega) = G(1 + (i\omega t_v)^n)$, and the droplet velocity is selected by balancing the rate of energy release with the solid dissipation rate. The gradient shapes are smooth sigmoids in $\gamma_s(x)$ or $G(x)$ with amplitude $a$ and length $L$.

What would settle it

Fabricate a soft substrate with a shear-modulus gradient of about 0.04 kPa/µm at a mean modulus near 1 kPa and place a droplet on it; if the droplet moves, the paper's infeasibility claim is false. Conversely, measure the actual depinning contact-angle difference for that liquid–solid pair and, if it is much below 1.8°, recompute the required stiffness gradient downward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a quantitative comparison of two passive driving mechanisms for a two-dimensional droplet on an incompressible soft substrate. When the solid surface energy $\gamma_s(x)$ varies across the substrate, the model predicts a contact-angle difference $\Delta\theta = \theta_r - \theta_l$ large enough to cross the benchmark depinning threshold $\Delta\theta \approx 1.8^\circ$ with experimentally accessible surface-energy gradients, such as those produced by vapor-deposited silane gradients. When the shear modulus $G(x)$ varies instead, the required gradient exceeds what existing gel-fabrication techniques can achieve unless the mean modulus is roughly 1 kPa or lower, which is at the edge of current capabilities. A dynamic viscoelastic calculation then predicts droplet velocities by equating the energy released during motion with solid dissipation, and the paper states that spontaneous droplet motion from an elastic-modulus gradient is currently infeasible, while surface-energy-gradient motion is feasible. The authors use this to argue that elastocapillary forces play an insignificant role in cellular durotaxis.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on the borrowed benchmark that a 1.8° contact-angle difference is enough to unpin a droplet: the load-bearing premise is that this threshold, measured for water on silicone gel, carries over to the 2D model and to other liquid–solid systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Surface-energy gradients are a feasible passive mechanism: gradients that create 6–8° of contact-angle asymmetry, which vapor-based surface treatments already produce, exceed the 1.8° threshold needed to move a droplet on a soft solid.
Stiffness gradients are currently infeasible for droplet motion: with mean moduli of tens of kPa and gradients of tens of percent over centimeters, the predicted contact-angle asymmetry stays below threshold.
If the model is right, elastocapillary droplet motion is not a plausible passive explanation for cell durotaxis; cells must use active stiffness sensing and cytoskeletal reorganization.
For surface-energy-gradient motion, the onset threshold depends on the mean surface energy, but the post-threshold droplet velocity is nearly independent of it; for stiffness-gradient motion, both threshold and velocity depend strongly on the mean modulus.
Lower mean values of the material property help both mechanisms: decreasing the mean surface energy reduces the surface-energy gradient needed, and decreasing the mean shear modulus reduces the stiffness gradient needed.

Reading between the lines

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

If the 1.8° threshold turns out to be system-dependent and substantially lower for some liquid–solid pairs, the stiffness-gradient route would become viable at currently achievable gradients, so measuring depinning thresholds across chemistries would directly test the generality of the conclusion.
The qualitative ranking—surface energy over stiffness—is likely robust to the 2D simplification, but the exact numerical gradients are not; a full 3D contact-line model could shift the feasibility boundary by a factor of order unity.
A testable design rule follows from the velocity universality: for a fixed substrate stiffness, droplet speed should be controlled only by the surface-energy gradient and not by the mean surface energy.
For durotaxis experiments, this passive result suggests that stiffness-gradient assays should separate active cell responses from passive elastocapillary forces, for example by using non-living droplets with engineered interfacial tensions on the same gradient gels used in cell assays.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. First, this is a serious modeling paper that does something new: it compares surface-energy and shear-modulus gradients for driving a sessile droplet on a soft solid, using the same elastic-energy minimization machinery, and it adds a viscoelastic dynamics for velocity. Second, the paper's headline conclusion—that modulus gradients are infeasible and therefore elastocapillarity doesn't matter for durotaxis—is less secure than it looks, because the entire feasibility boundary is set by a single experimental number, Δθ=1.8°, borrowed from a different liquid-solid system.

The static model is a natural extension of the authors' earlier work, and the perturbation treatment of the gradient is algebraically heavy but clearly presented. The dynamic section is a nice addition: using the Karpitschka-style power-law viscoelastic rheology, they solve a moving-droplet boundary value problem and predict droplet velocities. The velocity scalings (v ∝ gradient^1.5) are a useful output.

The soft spots are real but fixable. The threshold dependence is the big one. The model has no contact-angle hysteresis and assumes θY=90°, so it cannot determine the depinning threshold internally. The paper acknowledges the threshold may be system-dependent (Section 2), but then uses it as a hard cut-off in Fig. 2. Since the required gradient scales roughly linearly with Δθ, a plausible threshold of ~0.5° (still consistent with Style's data) would bring the required modulus gradient down by a factor of 3–4. That puts Moriyama's 0.04 kPa/µm gradient above the predicted limit, flipping the 'infeasible' conclusion to 'feasible.' That's not a corner case; it's the central claim.

Second, the perturbation expansion is run to 60% gradient amplitude while assuming small |a| relative to the mean. No O(a^2) check is reported. That puts an unquantified error in the same threshold curves. Third, the jump from passive droplets to cellular durotaxis is a stretch. The paper concludes elastocapillarity is insignificant for durotaxis based on a droplet model; cells actively sense and contract, so the inference is weaker than that.

I still think this deserves a serious referee. The modeling is careful, the comparison of gradients is genuinely new, and the flaws are addressable. A revision with a sensitivity analysis over Δθ and a higher-order check would make the infeasibility claim defensible. As is, I'd read the results as model predictions with a caveat, not as a closed verdict.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a two-dimensional model of a fluid droplet resting on a soft elastic substrate with either a surface-energy gradient or a shear-modulus gradient. Using linear incompressible elasticity, Fourier transforms, and perturbation expansions in the gradient amplitude, the authors compute the asymmetric substrate deformation and the resulting contact-angle difference Δθ. A total-energy minimization selects the equilibrium contact angles for given mean material properties and gradient amplitude. The model is then extended to a moving droplet by adopting a viscoelastic relaxation function and solving the quasi-static boundary value problem in the moving frame, leading to predictions of the droplet velocity by balancing the rate of energy release with solid dissipation. The principal conclusion is that surface-energy gradients can generate the benchmark contact-angle asymmetry (Δθ = 1.8°, taken from Style et al. 2013b) at experimentally feasible magnitudes, whereas shear-modulus gradients require gradients that exceed current experimental capabilities; the authors therefore argue that passive stiffness gradients are unlikely to drive cellular durotaxis. The dynamic results include power-law velocity-gradient scalings and a discussion of feasibility against existing experimental gradient fabrication methods.

Significance. If the quantitative conclusion is robust, the paper provides a useful quantitative screening criterion that distinguishes surface-energy-gradient droplet actuation from stiffness-gradient actuation, and it offers a concrete argument against purely passive elastocapillary durotaxis. The model is largely self-contained: it combines a semi-analytical elasticity solution with an energy minimization and a viscoelastic dissipation calculation, and it benchmarks the predictions against published experimental systems (Style 2013b; Chaudhury 1992; Moriyama 2019). The paper is transparent about several of its idealizations, including the 2D geometry and the external depinning threshold. The central numerical claim, however, depends on an externally borrowed threshold and on a perturbation expansion used beyond its nominal small-parameter range, so the quantitative feasibility boundary for stiffness gradients is not yet established to the precision that the 'infeasible' conclusion requires.

major comments (1)

[Section 3.2 and Eqs. (3.9)–(3.11)] The dissipation calculation uses viscoelastic parameters from Karpitschka (2015) (tv = 0.03 s, n = 2/3) without a stated uncertainty range or a sensitivity analysis for these parameters. Since the predicted droplet velocity is obtained by balancing energy release against solid dissipation, the velocity values in Fig. 3 could shift substantially with different relaxation exponents or viscous timescales. A brief parameter-sensitivity analysis would strengthen the dynamic predictions, though this comment is secondary to the threshold-dependence concern above.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Section 4] The phrase 'the threshold to initiate motion is achieved at lower mean values of the material properties' is vague; it should specify that lower mean shear modulus (or lower mean surface energy) reduces the required gradient, as clarified in Section 4.
[Eq. (2.8)] Missing punctuation between the expression for γs(x) and the definition of γ̃s(x); the two equations are run together visually.
[References] Several reference names contain typographical errors: 'Palchkesko' should be 'Palchesko' (also 'Feinber' for Feinberg), and 'Macromolecula' should be 'Macromolecular'.
[Section 3.3 and Fig. 3] The claim that the velocity curves for surface-energy gradients are 'largely universal as a function of the mean surface energy' is overstated; the curves collapse over the tested range but this is not shown to be a general result.
[Section 4] The Moriyama (2019) reference is described as though it produces a gradient 'close to our predicted limit of motion,' but that work is about cellular durotaxis, not droplet motion; the authors should clarify the distinction or the relevance to droplets.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption lists parameters with 'G = 1 kPa (left), γs = 40 mN/m (right)' but the ordering is confusing because the left panel is for surface-energy gradients and the right for modulus gradients; a clearer mapping to each panel would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model computes contact-angle asymmetry and velocities from an external experimental depinning threshold and literature rheology, without fitting its outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its own predictions. The contact-angle asymmetry is obtained by numerically minimizing the total energy (elastic plus surface) of a two-dimensional droplet on a soft substrate, with gradients of surface energy or shear modulus specified as inputs. The critical gradient for motion is read off at the intersection of these computed curves with the fixed benchmark Δθ = 1.8° taken from Style (2013b), an external experiment; the paper explicitly acknowledges that this threshold 'may be a function of the liquid-solid system' (Section 2), which is a sensitivity caveat rather than a circular reduction. The velocity predictions in Section 3 are obtained by equating the computed rate of energy release to the viscoelastic dissipation rate using the Karpitschka (2015) power-law rheology and dissipation expressions from Long (1996) and Shanahan (1995). No parameter is fitted to the predicted Δθ or velocity curves, and the model does not redefine the threshold in terms of its own output. The only self-citations are Bardall (2018) for the static deformation framework and the curvature parameter k2, and these are model-building inputs rather than load-bearing justifications of the feasibility conclusion. The paper's central claim therefore does not reduce by construction to its inputs; the main vulnerability is the quantitative dependence on the borrowed 1.8° threshold, which is a robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities; it uses standard elastocapillary concepts and a novel coupling to spatial gradients in substrate properties. The central claim rests on a set of simulation parameters chosen by hand or taken from prior fitted models, on standard soft-matter assumptions, and on a borrowed experimental depinning threshold.

free parameters (10)

Gradient amplitude a = up to 60% of mean (varied)
Perturbation amplitude for both γs(x) and G(x), varied in simulations; expansion assumes |a|≪ mean but figures go to |a|/mean = 0.6.
Gradient length scale L = 50 µm
Length over which surface energy or modulus transitions; chosen for simulations.
Substrate thickness h = 50 µm
Finite-thickness substrate in the model; chosen.
Droplet area A = 600π µm^2
Area of the 2D droplet in the model; chosen.
Liquid surface tension γ = 64 mN/m
Typical aqueous liquid surface tension; chosen.
Mean shear modulus Ḡ = 1 kPa (surface-energy-gradient case)
Mean shear modulus used when surface energy gradient is applied; chosen to represent soft gels.
Mean solid surface energy γ̄s = 40 mN/m (stiffness-gradient case)
Mean solid surface energy used when modulus gradient is applied; chosen.
Viscous timescale t_v = 0.03 s
Viscous relaxation time of the silicone gel, taken from Karpitschka (2015); originally fitted to experimental data.
Relaxation exponent n = 2/3
Power-law exponent in the relaxation function, taken from Karpitschka (2015); originally fitted to experiments.
Depinning threshold Δθ = 1.8°
Contact-angle difference required for droplet motion, taken from Style (2013b) experiments; used as the benchmark to define critical gradients.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Linear elasticity with incompressibility: τij = 2Gεij - p δij, ∂x u + ∂z w = 0 (Eq. 2.3-2.4).
Assumes small deformations and incompressible substrate (ν=1/2), standard for soft gels. Invoked throughout §2.
domain assumption Neumann's triangle at the contact line: ϒ_sg + ϒ_ls + γ = 0 (Eq. 2.2).
Assumes solid surface stress vectors balance the liquid surface tension at the contact line, following Style (2012, 2017). Used to derive boundary conditions (2.6).
domain assumption Solid surface stress equals solid surface energy: ϒ(x)=γs(x), neglecting strain dependence.
Justified by assuming small strain-dependence of surface stress; simplifies boundary conditions. Used in §2 formulations.
ad hoc to paper Young's angle θY = 90° for the surface-energy-gradient case.
Assumes a neutral wetting condition so that contact angle asymmetry arises purely from gradient effects, representative but restrictive.
ad hoc to paper Perturbation expansion in small a is valid, with |a|≪ mean.
Analysis uses O(a) corrections; however, results are shown for |a|/mean up to 60%, beyond the stated validity regime.
domain assumption Quasi-static force balance in the moving frame: ∂j τij = 0, with viscoelastic complex modulus g = G(1 + (iωt_v)^n).
Used in dynamic model §3, following Karpitschka (2015). Assumes inertia negligible and viscoelastic response as a power-law solid.
domain assumption Liquid-phase dissipation is negligible compared with solid dissipation.
Justified by viscoelastic braking experiments of Shanahan (1995); used to equate total energy release rate to solid dissipation alone.
domain assumption The depinning threshold Δθ=1.8° from Style (2013b) is transferable to the modeled systems.
Used as fixed benchmark for critical gradients; the paper acknowledges it may depend on liquid-solid system.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gradient Induced Droplet Motion Over Soft Solids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJ5ZMMEX

@misc{pith2026190809413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gradient Induced Droplet Motion Over Soft Solids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJ5ZMMEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09413}
}

read the original abstract

Fluid droplets can be induced to move over rigid or flexible surfaces under external or body forces. We describe the effect of variations in material properties of a flexible substrate as a mechanism for motion. In this paper, we consider a droplet placed on a substrate with either a stiffness or surface energy gradient, and consider its potential for motion via coupling to elastic deformations of the substrate. In order to clarify the role of contact angles and to obtain a tractable model, we consider a two-dimensional droplet. The gradients in substrate material properties give rise to asymmetric solid deformation and to unequal contact angles, thereby producing a force on the droplet. We then use a dynamic viscoelastic model to predict the resulting dynamics of droplets. Numerical results quantifying the effect of the gradients establish that it is more feasible to induce droplet motion with a gradient in surface energy. The results show that the magnitude of elastic modulus gradient needed to induce droplet motion exceeds experimentally feasible limits in the production of soft solids and is therefore unlikely as a passive mechanism for cell motion. In both cases, of surface energy or elastic modulus, the threshold to initiate motion is achieved at lower mean values of the material properties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

(2014) Modeling the Effects of Contact Angle Hysteresis on the Sliding of Droplets Down Inclined Surfaces

Ahmed, G., Mathieu, S., Jermy, M., Taylor, M. (2014) Modeling the Effects of Contact Angle Hysteresis on the Sliding of Droplets Down Inclined Surfaces. European Journal of Mechanics B/Fluids , 48, 218-230

work page 2014
[2]

E., Dufresne, E

Andreotti, B., B\"aumchen, O., Boulogne, F., Daniels, K. E., Dufresne, E. R., Perrin, H., Salez, T., Snoeijer, J. H., Style, R. W. (2016) Soft Capillarity: When and How Does Surface Tension Deform Soft Solids? Soft Matter , 12 2993-2996

work page 2016
[3]

Andreotti, B., Snoeijer, J. H. (2016) Soft Wetting and the Shuttleworth Effect, at the Crossroads Between Thermodynamics and Mechanics. Europhysics Letters , 113, 66001

work page 2016
[4]

E., Shearer, M

Bardall, A., Daniels, K. E., Shearer, M. (2018) Deformation of an Elastic Substrate Due to a Resting Sessile Droplet. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 29 (2), 281-300

work page 2018
[5]

(2018) Elastocapillarity: When Surface Tension Deforms Elastic Solids, Annual Reviews , 50, 629-659

Bico, J., Reyssat, \'E., Roman, B. (2018) Elastocapillarity: When Surface Tension Deforms Elastic Solids, Annual Reviews , 50, 629-659

work page 2018
[6]

B., Shearer, M., Daniels, K

Bostwick, J. B., Shearer, M., Daniels, K. E. (2014) Elastocapillary Deformations on Partially-Wetting Substrates: Rival Contact-Line Models. Soft Matter , 10, 7361-7369

work page 2014
[7]

(2017) Droplet Motion Driven by tensotaxis

Bueno, J., Bazilevs, Y., Juanes, R., Gomez, H. (2017) Droplet Motion Driven by tensotaxis. Extreme Mechanics Letters , 13, 10-16

work page 2017
[8]

(2018) Wettability Control of Droplet Durotaxis

Bueno, J., Bazilevs, Y., Juanes, R., Gomez, H. (2018) Wettability Control of Droplet Durotaxis. Soft Matter , 14, 1417-1426

work page 2018

Show all 48 references

[9]

K., Whitesides, G

Chaudhury, M. K., Whitesides, G. M. (1992) How to Make Water Run Uphill. Science , 256, 1539-1541

1992
[10]

A., Weiger, K

Crowe-Willoughby, J. A., Weiger, K. L., \"Ozcam, A. E., Genzer, J. (2010) Formation of Silicone Elastomer Networks Films with Gradients in Modulus. Polymer, 51 (3), 763-773

2010
[11]

(2015) Contact Lines on Soft Solids with Uniform Surface Tension: Analytical Solutions and Double Transition for Increasing Deformability

Dervaux, J., Limat, L. (2015) Contact Lines on Soft Solids with Uniform Surface Tension: Analytical Solutions and Double Transition for Increasing Deformability. Proceedings of the Royal Society A , 471, 2176

2015
[12]

Dhir, V., Gao, D., Morley, N. B. (2004) Understanding Magnetic Field Gradient Effect from a Liquid Metal Droplet Movement. Journal of Fluids Engineering , 126, 120-124

2004
[13]

(2013) Contact Line Dynamics on Heterogeneous Substrates

Herde, D. (2013) Contact Line Dynamics on Heterogeneous Substrates. (Doctoral dissertation), Georg-August University School of Science

2013
[14]

(2017) Role of Uncrosslinked Chains in Droplets Dynamics on Silicone Elastomers

Hourlier-Fargette, A., Anthowiak, A., Chateauminois, A., Neukirch, S. (2017) Role of Uncrosslinked Chains in Droplets Dynamics on Silicone Elastomers. Soft Matter , 13, 3484-3491

2017
[15]

(2018) Extraction of Silicone Uncrosslinked Chains at Air-Water-Poydimethylsiloxane Triple Lines

Hourlier-Fargette, A., Dervaux, J., Antkowiak, A., Neukirch, S. (2018) Extraction of Silicone Uncrosslinked Chains at Air-Water-Poydimethylsiloxane Triple Lines. Langmuir , 34 (41), 12244-12250

2018
[16]

Y., Jagota, A

Hui, C. Y., Jagota, A. (2014) Deformation Near a Liquid Contact Line on an Elastic Substrate. Proceedings of the Royal Society A , 470, 20140085

2014
[17]

R., Xu, Y., Wilen, L

Jerison, E. R., Xu, Y., Wilen, L. A., Dufresne, E. R. (2011) Deformation of an Elastic Substrate by a Three-Phase Contact Line. Physical Review Letters , 106, 186103

2011
[18]

Karpitschka, S., Das, S., van Gorcum, M., Perrin, H., Andreotti, B., Snoeijer, J. H. (2015) Droplets Move Over Viscoelastic Substrates by Surfing a Ridge. Nature Communications , 6, 7891

2015
[19]

Koursari, N., Ahmed, G., Starov, V. M. (2018) Equilibrium Droplets on Deformable Substrates: Equilibrium Conditions. Langmuir , 34 (19), 5672-5677

2018
[20]

(2008) Microelastic gradient gelatinous gels to induce cellular mechanotaxis

Kidoaki, S., Matsuda, T. (2008) Microelastic gradient gelatinous gels to induce cellular mechanotaxis. Journal of Biotechnology , 133 (2), 225-230

2008
[21]

(2012) Straight Contact Lines on a Soft, Incompressible Solid

Limat, L. (2012) Straight Contact Lines on a Soft, Incompressible Solid. European Phys. Journal E. , 35, 1-13

2012
[22]

(1996) Static and Dynamic Wetting Properties of Thin Rubber Films

Long, D., Ajdari, A., Leibler, L. (1996) Static and Dynamic Wetting Properties of Thin Rubber Films. Langmuir , 12 (21), 5221-5230

1996
[23]

H., Botto, L., Das, S

Lubbers, L., A., Weijs, J. H., Botto, L., Das, S. (2014) Drops on Soft Solids: Free Energy and Double Transition of Contact Angles. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 747

2014
[24]

(2019) Cellular Durotaxis Revisited: Initial-Position-Dependent Determination of the Threshold Stiffness Gradient to Induce Durotaxis

Moriyama, K., Kidoaki, S. (2019) Cellular Durotaxis Revisited: Initial-Position-Dependent Determination of the Threshold Stiffness Gradient to Induce Durotaxis. Langmuir , 35 (23), 7478-7486

2019
[25]

(2005) Droplet Motion with Phase Change in a Temperature Gradient

Onuki, A., Kanatani, K. (2005) Droplet Motion with Phase Change in a Temperature Gradient. Physical Review E , 72, 27844

2005
[26]

N., Zhang, L., Sun, Y., Feinber, A

Palchesko, R. N., Zhang, L., Sun, Y., Feinber, A. W. (2012) Development of Polydimethylsiloxane Substrates with Tunable Elastic Modulus to Study Cell Mechanobiology in Muscle and Nerve. PLoS ONE , 7 (12), e51499

2012
[27]

J., Weon, B

Park, S. J., Weon, B. M., Lee, J. S., Kim, J., Je, J. H. (2014) Visualization of Asymmetric Wetting Ridges on Soft Solids with X-ray Microscopy. Nature Communications , 5, 4369

2014
[28]

J., Bostwick, J

Park, S. J., Bostwick, J. B., De Andrade, V., Je, J. H. (2017) Self-spreading of the Wetting Ridge During Stick-slip on a Viscoelastic Surface. Soft Matter , 13, 8331-8336

2017
[29]

D., Trejo, M., Salez, T., Rapha\"el, E., Dalnoki-Veress, K

Schulman, R. D., Trejo, M., Salez, T., Rapha\"el, E., Dalnoki-Veress, K. (2018) Surface Energy of Strained Amorphous Solids. Nature Communications , 9, 982

2018
[30]

Shanahan, M. E. R., Carr\'e, A. (1995) Viscoelastic Dissipation in Wetting and Adhesion Phenomena. Langmuir , 11 (4), 1396-1402

1995
[31]

H., Andreotti, B

Snoeijer, J. H., Andreotti, B. (2013) Moving Contact Lines: Scales, Regimes, and Dynamical Transitions. Annual Reviews, 45, 269-292

2013
[32]

H., Rolley, E., Andreotti, B

Snoeijer, J. H., Rolley, E., Andreotti, B. (2018) Paradox of Contact Angle Selection on Stretched Soft Solids. Physical Review Letters , 121, 068003

2018
[33]

Soutas-Little, R. W. (1999) Elasticity. Dover Publications

1999
[34]

G., Machado, G., Chagnon, G., Favier, D., Chazeau, L., Ganachaud, F

Stricher, A., Rinaldi, R. G., Machado, G., Chagnon, G., Favier, D., Chazeau, L., Ganachaud, F. (2016) Light-induced Bulk Architecturation of PDMS Membranes. Macromolecula Materials and Engineering , 301 (10), 1151-1157

2016
[35]

W., Dufresne, E

Style, R. W., Dufresne, E. R. (2012) Static Wetting on Deformable Substrates, From Liquids to Soft Solids. Soft Matter , 8, 7177-7184

2012
[36]

W., Boltyanskiy, R., Che, Y., Wettlaufer, J

Style, R. W., Boltyanskiy, R., Che, Y., Wettlaufer, J. S., Wilen, L. A., Dufresne, E. R. (2013a) Universal Deformation of Soft Substrates Near a Contact Line and the Direct Measurement of Solid Surface Stresses. Physical Review Letters , 110, 066103

2013
[37]

W., Che, Y., Park, S

Style, R. W., Che, Y., Park, S. J., Weon, B. M., Je, J. H., Hyland, C., German, G. K., Power, M. P., Wilen, L. A., Wettlaufer, J. S., Dufresne, E. R. (2013b) Patterning Droplets with Durotaxis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110 (31), 12541-12544

2013
[38]

W., Hyland, C., Boltyanskiy, R., Wettlaufer, J

Style, R. W., Hyland, C., Boltyanskiy, R., Wettlaufer, J. S., Dufresne, E. R. (2013c) Surface Tension and Contact with Soft Elastic Solids. Nature Communications , 4, 2728

2013
[39]

W., Jagota, A., Hui, C., Dufresne, E.R

Style, R. W., Jagota, A., Hui, C., Dufresne, E.R. (2017) Elastocapillarity: Surface Tension and the Mechanics of Soft Solids. Annual Reviews , 8, 99-118

2017
[40]

W., Xu, Q

Style, R. W., Xu, Q. (2018) The Mechanical Equilibrium of Soft Solids with Surface Elasticity. Soft Matter , 14, 4569-4576

2018
[41]

(2019) Surface charge printing for programmed droplet transport

Sun, Q., Wang, D., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Ye, S., Cui, J., Chen, L., Wang, Z., Butt, H.-J., Vollmer, D., Xu , X. (2019) Surface charge printing for programmed droplet transport. Nature Materials , DOI: 10.1038.s41563-019-0440-2

2019
[42]

A., Milchev, A

Theodorakis, P.E., Egorov, S. A., Milchev, A. (2017) Stiffness-guided Motion of a Droplet on a Solid Substrate. Journal of Chemical Physics , 146, 244705

2017
[43]

Tschoegl, N. W. (2002) The Phenomenological Theory of Linear Viscoelastic Behavior , Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

2002
[44]

van Gorcum, M., Karpitschka, S., Andreotti, B., and Snoeijer, J. H. (2019) Spreading on viscoelastic solids: Are contact angles selected by Neumann's law? arXiv: 1907.08067v1

2019 arXiv
[45]

(2003) Dissipation and Moving Contact Lines on Non-rigid Substrates

Vou\'e, M., Rioboo, R., Bauthier, C., Conti, J., Carlot, M., De Coninck, J. (2003) Dissipation and Moving Contact Lines on Non-rigid Substrates. Journal of the European Ceramic Society , 23 (15), 2769-2775

2003
[46]

Y., Velasco, A., Rajagopalan, P., Pham, Q

Wong, J. Y., Velasco, A., Rajagopalan, P., Pham, Q. (2003) Directed Movement of Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells on Gradient-Compliant Hydrogels. Langmuir , 19 (5), 1908-1913

2003
[47]

W., Dufresne, E

Xu, Q., Style, R. W., Dufresne, E. R. (2018) Surface Elastic Constants of a Soft Solid. Soft Matter , 14, 916-920

2018
[48]

(2018) Geometrical Control of Dissipation During the Spreading of Liquids on Soft Solids

Zhao, M., Dervaux, J., Narita, T., Lequeux, F., Limat, L., Roch\'e, M. (2018) Geometrical Control of Dissipation During the Spreading of Liquids on Soft Solids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 (8), 1748-1753

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(2014) Modeling the Effects of Contact Angle Hysteresis on the Sliding of Droplets Down Inclined Surfaces

Ahmed, G., Mathieu, S., Jermy, M., Taylor, M. (2014) Modeling the Effects of Contact Angle Hysteresis on the Sliding of Droplets Down Inclined Surfaces. European Journal of Mechanics B/Fluids , 48, 218-230

work page 2014

[2] [2]

E., Dufresne, E

Andreotti, B., B\"aumchen, O., Boulogne, F., Daniels, K. E., Dufresne, E. R., Perrin, H., Salez, T., Snoeijer, J. H., Style, R. W. (2016) Soft Capillarity: When and How Does Surface Tension Deform Soft Solids? Soft Matter , 12 2993-2996

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Andreotti, B., Snoeijer, J. H. (2016) Soft Wetting and the Shuttleworth Effect, at the Crossroads Between Thermodynamics and Mechanics. Europhysics Letters , 113, 66001

work page 2016

[4] [4]

E., Shearer, M

Bardall, A., Daniels, K. E., Shearer, M. (2018) Deformation of an Elastic Substrate Due to a Resting Sessile Droplet. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 29 (2), 281-300

work page 2018

[5] [5]

(2018) Elastocapillarity: When Surface Tension Deforms Elastic Solids, Annual Reviews , 50, 629-659

Bico, J., Reyssat, \'E., Roman, B. (2018) Elastocapillarity: When Surface Tension Deforms Elastic Solids, Annual Reviews , 50, 629-659

work page 2018

[6] [6]

B., Shearer, M., Daniels, K

Bostwick, J. B., Shearer, M., Daniels, K. E. (2014) Elastocapillary Deformations on Partially-Wetting Substrates: Rival Contact-Line Models. Soft Matter , 10, 7361-7369

work page 2014

[7] [7]

(2017) Droplet Motion Driven by tensotaxis

Bueno, J., Bazilevs, Y., Juanes, R., Gomez, H. (2017) Droplet Motion Driven by tensotaxis. Extreme Mechanics Letters , 13, 10-16

work page 2017

[8] [8]

(2018) Wettability Control of Droplet Durotaxis

Bueno, J., Bazilevs, Y., Juanes, R., Gomez, H. (2018) Wettability Control of Droplet Durotaxis. Soft Matter , 14, 1417-1426

work page 2018