Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

The Soft-Membrane Surface Forces Apparatus

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compliant membrane replaces the calibrated spring of a surface forces apparatus, and a closed-form formula converts the measured dip into the applied electrostatic force.

desk verdict Promising new SFA variant with a clean theory, but the experimental validation leans on a single fitted parameter. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13806 v1 pith:RVOV2P6M submitted 2024-12-18 cond-mat.soft physics.class-phphysics.ins-det

Ilyes Jalisse , Aditya Jha , Lionel Buisson , Frédéric Nallet (CRPP , UB) , Yacine Amarouchene , Thomas Salez (LOMA) , Carlos Drummond This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.class-phphysics.ins-det
keywords surfaceforcesapparatuscompliantmembraneelectrostaticactuationdeflectionmatchedasymptoticexpansionpre-stressforcesensingmultiplebeaminterferometry
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 introduces a modified Surface Forces Apparatus in which one of the interacting surfaces is a thin, pre-stressed elastomeric membrane, and the membrane's own deformation is the force readout. The central result is a closed-form expression for the deflection at the membrane center under electrostatic loading by a spherical electrode, Eq. (32), which links voltage, gap distance, membrane tension, and geometry. If this formula holds, a single calibration fit extracts the membrane tension, and conversely a known tension turns the measured deflection into a direct, spring-free force measurement with nanonewton resolution. The authors validate the formula experimentally for small deflections and use the fit to extract the membrane tension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matched asymptotic solution of the membrane's linear elasticity equation in the pre-stress-dominated regime, where bending and strain-stiffening are dropped. In the small-gap limit $\epsilon = D/R_0 \ll 1$, the electrostatic pressure is computed from the undeformed parabolic gap profile, giving $P = 1/(1+R^2)^2$ in stretched coordinates; matching the inner solution to the outer clamped logarithmic solution yields the closed-form deflection law, Eq. (31). This identity carries the argument because it gives a direct, parameter-free link between measured deflection, applied voltage, and membrane tension, so one fit constant — the tension — accounts for all three gap distances.

What would settle it

Measure the full deflection profile $w(r)$ interferometrically and compare it with Eq. (31), or vary the gap $D$ and check that the tension $N_0$ extracted from the central-deflection fit stays constant; a drift of $N_0$ with $U$ or $D$, or a visible profile mismatch, would falsify the linear pre-stress model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the axisymmetric deflection of a pre-stressed membrane pulled by a spherical electrode is, in the weakly-deformed small-gap limit, given by $w(r) = \frac{\epsilon_0 U^2 R_0}{4 D \sigma_0 t_m} \ln\!\left(\frac{a^2}{2 D R_0 + r^2}\right)$, with the central value $w_0 = \frac{\epsilon_0 U^2 R_0}{4 D \sigma_0 t_m} \ln\!\left(\frac{a^2}{2 D R_0}\right)$. This formula is derived by matched asymptotic expansion of the membrane elasticity equations with the electrostatic pressure evaluated on the undeformed parabolic gap, and it is verified against measurements of the central deflection as a function of applied voltage at three gap distances. The same relation makes the membrane a quantitative force sensor: measuring $w_0$ yields either the membrane tension (if the force law is known) or the force (if the tension is known), with a detection limit estimated at roughly 4 nN. The paper argues this removes the need for the external cantilever spring used in classical SFA and improves force resolution by about an order of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The formula assumes the membrane deflection is small compared with the gap and that the membrane response is dominated by its pre-tension, so the electrostatic pressure is computed on the undeformed gap and strain-induced stiffening is ignored; when deflections grow, the linear relation and the log-form both break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Membrane tension can be extracted from a single $w_0$-versus-$U^2$ fit without a separate mechanical calibration of the membrane.
  • With tension known from the thermal vibration spectrum, the same equation converts any measured deflection into an electrostatic force, making the membrane a self-calibrating force sensor.
  • The absence of an external spring simplifies the SFA design and lowers the force-per-radius detection limit to about 1 $\mu$N/m.
  • Voltage modulation turns the device into a dynamic rheometer for membranes, since the time-resolved deflection reports the viscoelastic response.
  • The same soft-boundary geometry can be used to study coupled deformation and hydrodynamic forces in confined films.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The full logarithmic profile in Eq. (31) is a stronger prediction than the central deflection alone; an interferometric fit of $w(r)$ at many radii would test the model more severely than the reported $w_0$ data.
  • Since the leading-order formula contains no elastic modulus, the measurement is insensitive to bending stiffness at small deflections; sweeping the pre-stress systematically could map the boundary of the linear regime and separate pre-stress from modulus in the bulge-test fit.
  • The force resolution scales like $\epsilon_0 U^2 R_0/D$, so shrinking the gap or enlarging the probe radius should push sensitivity below the nanonewton range, at the cost of shrinking the range of validity of the small-deformation assumption.
  • The strain-softening hinted at by the asymmetric turn-on/turn-off response of the lower-temperature membrane is a testable rheological consequence: a protocol of small voltage steps could quantify softening at strains far below what conventional rheometers resolve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a modified Surface Forces Apparatus (Soft SFA) in which one of the interacting surfaces is a pre-stressed, silver-coated PDMS membrane, with white-light interferometry used to image the membrane shape. The authors derive a matched-asymptotic expression for the central deflection of a pre-stressed elastic membrane under electrostatic loading by a spherical electrode, Eq. (32), and use it to fit a membrane tension N0 = 1.67 N/m from deflection-voltage data at three gap distances. They also present bulge-test and resonance characterization of membranes, observe viscoelastic responses at different curing temperatures, and estimate the force resolution of the device.

Significance. If Eq. (32) is correct, it provides a closed-form, parameter-light relation between applied voltage, gap distance, membrane tension, and central deflection, allowing the membrane to act as its own force transducer without an external spring. The asymptotic derivation is internally consistent, and the collapse of the three-gap data in Fig. 10 is encouraging. However, the experimental validation is weakened because the only mechanical parameter N0 is fitted from the same central-deflection data that the formula is then said to represent, and because the fit extends to w0/D values where the undeformed-gap assumption used in the derivation is no longer quantitatively safe. The force-sensing claim therefore needs independent tension measurement or a stricter data cutoff, or it should be reframed as a calibration procedure.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.B.3, Fig. 10] The validation of Eq. (32) is a one-parameter fit of N0 from the same central-deflection data it is then claimed to represent. Because N0 multiplies the entire predicted deflection, the agreement is a consistency check rather than an independent test of the formula. The authors should report an independent determination of N0 for this specific membrane, for example from the resonance frequencies via Eq. (2), or explicitly present the fit as a calibration and validate the formula on a separate data set.
  2. [§III.B.2, Eqs. (10)–(11), and Fig. 10] The electrostatic pressure is computed on the undeformed gap profile h(r) = D + r^2/(2R0), which requires w0 << D. The fit includes data with w0 < 1 µm at D = 5.85 µm, so w0/D reaches approximately 0.17; the neglected deformation-induced correction to the pressure is O(w0/D) and can bias the fitted N0 by roughly that amount. The paper should either restrict the fit to w0/D << 1, show that the extracted N0 is stable under progressively stricter cutoffs, or include the leading deformation correction in the pressure.
  3. [§III.B.1 and §III.B.3] The linear, pre-stress-dominated membrane model underlying Eqs. (6) and (32) is assumed without a quantitative validation for the membrane used in Fig. 10. The authors argue that nonlinear p^{1/3} behavior is not observed, citing Ref. 51, but no residual analysis, linearity test in U^2, or comparison with a numerical FvK solution is shown. Adding strain-induced tension or bending would change the scaling and alter the extracted N0; a quantitative test of these neglected terms is needed to support the claim that pre-stress dominates.
  4. [§III.B.3 and Fig. 10] Only the central deflection w0 is compared with Eq. (32); the full deflection profile predicted by Eq. (31) is not compared with the measured membrane shape. Because the interferometric method measures the shape directly, full-profile comparisons would provide a much stronger test of the matched-asymptotic result and of the force-field reconstruction claimed in the introduction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 9 and §III.A] The force resolution estimate uses the rigid sphere-plate expression Eq. (3), while the experimental observable is the deflection of a deformable membrane. This is acceptable as an order-of-magnitude estimate, but the text should state that the conversion is approximate and not based on Eq. (31).
  2. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption states that N0 = 1.67 N/m is 'equal to the inverse of the slope of the linear fit,' but no fit uncertainty or goodness-of-fit measure is reported. A confidence interval for N0 and a statement about whether the fit is forced through the origin would allow the reader to judge the precision of the calibration.
  3. [§II.B.3 and Fig. 10] The reported resonance-based prestress range is 35–120 kPa for more than 20 membranes, whereas the fitted tension in Fig. 10 corresponds to σ0 ≈ 121 kPa for tm = 13.8 µm. An explicit statement on whether the Fig. 10 membrane was included in the resonance survey would help, as would a direct resonance measurement on that same membrane.
  4. [§II.B.2, Eq. (4)] The bending term is written as B d^4w/dr^4; for clarity, the authors should note that this is the axisymmetric form of B ∇^4 w, since the full FvK equation is otherwise commonly written with the biharmonic operator.
  5. [§III.A, Fig. 8b] The interpretation of the asymmetric turn-on/turn-off response as strain softening related to the Payne effect is speculative. The asymmetry could also arise from viscoelastic creep or nonlinearity in the measurement loop; a more cautious wording or additional controlled experiments would be appropriate.
  6. [General] There are occasional typographical and spacing issues, such as 'SF A' in the introduction and inconsistent spacing around 'Sylgard 184'; a careful proofreading pass would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One-parameter fit of N0 from the same data makes the absolute normalization of Eq. (32) a fit rather than a prediction; the D-collapse remains genuinely predictive.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III B 3, Fig. 10 caption and paragraph after Fig. 10]
    "The dashed black line is a fit of the data for w0 < 1 µm, with N0 = 1.67 N/m as the single fit parameter (equal to the inverse of the slope of the linear fit). ... As can be seen, Eq. (32) accurately represents the data at low membrane deflections (w0 < 1 µm), and can be used to extract the tension of the membrane N0 = 1.67 N/m."

    Equation (32) contains only one unknown membrane parameter, N0. The same Fig. 10 data are used to fix N0 by a linear fit, and then the agreement between Eq. (32) and the data is offered as validation. The absolute normalization is therefore not an independent test of the formula; it is a restatement of the fitted slope. What is not forced by the fit is the collapse of the three gap distances (D = 8600, 7708, 5850 nm) onto one line and the U^2 and logarithmic scalings, so the circularity is only partial. Additionally, N0 is not independently measured on this membrane, since the reported 35-120 kPa resonance pre-stress range comes from other membranes.

full rationale

The derivation of Eq. (32) is a self-contained matched-asymptotic calculation: the FvK equation is linearized to Eq. (6) under a pre-stress-dominated assumption; the Laplace equation is solved at leading order in epsilon = D/R0 using the undeformed gap profile, Eqs. (10)-(11); and inner/outer matching produces Eqs. (31)-(32). Each step follows from stated assumptions and external references; no central theoretical result is imported from the authors' prior work. The self-citations that appear are background experimental demonstrations and are not load-bearing. The only circularity-adjacent step is the experimental validation: N0 is the single free parameter of Eq. (32), and Fig. 10 obtains N0 = 1.67 N/m by fitting the very same w0-versus-U^2 data that Eq. (32) is then said to accurately represent. Thus the absolute normalization is not an independent test of the formula. What remains genuinely predictive is the scaling with U^2, the logarithmic factor, and especially the collapse of three different gap distances onto one line; a one-parameter fit cannot force that collapse. The fitted N0 is also not checked against an independent measurement on the same membrane, since the 35-120 kPa resonance range comes from other membranes. These are validation limitations rather than a derivation that reduces to its own inputs, so the overall circularity is moderate. The fit window also extends to w0/D roughly 0.17, where the w0 << D assumption starts to degrade; this is an accuracy concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory rests on standard membrane mechanics and electrostatics plus a set of small-deflection and small-gap assumptions. There are no invented particles, forces, or new degrees of freedom. The main contribution is the closed-form matched-asymptotic result, which is then used to fit the physically meaningful membrane tension N0.

free parameters (4)
  • N0 (membrane in-plane tension) = 1.67 N/m
    Single fit parameter in Fig. 10 used to match Eq. (32) to the central-deflection data. It is a physical material property but not independently measured for the same membrane.
  • sigma0 (pre-stress, bulge test membrane) = 54.8 kPa
    Fitted from bulge-test data using Eq. (1) for a membrane with tm = 15.4 µm. Not the same membrane as the electrostatic experiments.
  • E (Young's modulus, bulge test membrane) = 2.8 MPa
    Fitted simultaneously with sigma0 from bulge-test data. Depends on curing temperature and crosslinker ratio.
  • nu (Poisson's ratio) = 0.5
    Assumed for PDMS as an incompressible elastomer; used in Eq. (1) and the strain estimate sigma0 = E*epsilon/(1-nu).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The membrane deformation is governed by the linear pre-stress form of the FvK equation, with bending and strain-induced stretching neglected (Eq. 6).
    Justified by order-of-magnitude estimates comparing bending and stretching terms. If the membrane is not pre-stress dominated, Eq. (31) is invalid.
  • domain assumption The gap profile is approximated by its parabolic expansion h(r) = D + r^2/(2 R0) in the small-gap limit D/R0 << 1 (Eq. 11).
    Used throughout the asymptotic derivation; requires very small D relative to probe radius.
  • domain assumption The membrane deflection is small compared with the gap, w0 << D, so the electrostatic pressure is computed on the undeformed gap profile (Eq. 10).
    The paper restricts the fit to w0 < 1 µm with D between 5.85 and 9 µm, which is not extremely small in all cases, so this is a fragile assumption.
  • standard math The electrostatic potential satisfies the Laplace equation with conductor boundary conditions and no bulk charges (Eq. 9).
    Standard electrostatics assumption for the conducting silver-coated surfaces and air/vacuum gap.
  • domain assumption The membrane is clamped at its boundary r = a and the deformation is axisymmetric (Eqs. 7-8).
    The clamping condition w(a)=0 and symmetry dw/dr(0)=0 are used in the outer and inner solutions.
  • standard math Matched asymptotic expansions with a switchback logarithmic term provide a valid uniform approximation to the deflection field.
    Standard technique for singular perturbation problems; the matching condition Eq. (27) is imposed at leading order in epsilon.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Soft-Membrane Surface Forces Apparatus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVOV2P6M

@misc{pith2026241213806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Soft-Membrane Surface Forces Apparatus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVOV2P6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13806}
}
read the original abstract

Compliant walls are widespread in biological and engineering systems. Because of their singular nature, adapted tools are required to accurately study their rheological properties as well as the consequences of the latter within a given mechanical setting. Because of their slender nature, membranes can be considered as prototypical examples of highly compliant boundaries. In this study, we describe a modified Surface Forces Apparatus (SFA) developed to measure the forces acting on a compliant membrane by measuring its deformation field. We discuss how such a device can be used to characterize the rheology of suspended membranes and accurately measure the electrostatic interactions between a polarized membrane and a spherical electrode, without the need of an external measurement spring.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the Soft-Membrane Surface Forces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Preparation protocol of the PDMS membranes. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hydraulic bulge test. (a) Schematic of the setup. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of the Electronic Speckle Pattern [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Typical thermal spectrum of a free-standing PDMS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic showing the deflection w0 and the surface charges of the deformed (dashed line) freestanding PDMS membrane, when submitted to a DC voltage U with respect to the rigid hemisphere counterpart of the Soft SFA. can be simply adjusted by changing the curing temper…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Central deflection w0 of the membrane as a function of the applied electrostatic force F, calculated using Eq. (3). tm = 18 µm, membrane preparation temperature T = 100◦C. X = 1:5. B. Theoretical description In this section, we provide a theoretical description of the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measured central deflection w0 of the membrane, as a function of the squared voltage U 2 re-scaled according to Eq. (32), for different gap distances D, as indicated. The dashed black line is a fit of the data for w0 < 1 µm, with N0 = 1.67 N/m as the single fit parame…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tomlinson ,\ 10.1080/14786441008564646 journal journal Philosophical Magazine \ volume 6 ,\ pages 695 ( year 1928 ) NoStop

    author author G. Tomlinson ,\ 10.1080/14786441008564646 journal journal Philosophical Magazine \ volume 6 ,\ pages 695 ( year 1928 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1080/14786441008564646 1928

  2. [2]

    author author J. T. G. \ Overbeek \ and\ author M. J. \ Sparnaay ,\ 10.1039/df9541800012 journal journal Discussions of the Faraday Society \ volume 18 ,\ pages 12 ( year 1954 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1039/df9541800012 1954

  3. [3]

    author author Y. I. \ Rabinovich , author B. V. \ Derjaguin , \ and\ author N. V. \ Churaev ,\ 10.1016/0001-8686(82)85007-0 journal journal Advances in Colloid and Interface Science \ volume 16 ,\ pages 63 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/0001-8686(82)85007-0 1982

  4. [4]

    author author Tabor D \ and\ author Winterton RHS ,\ 10.1098/rspa.1969.0169 journal journal Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences \ volume 312 ,\ pages 435 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    arXiv 1969

  5. [5]

    author author J. N. \ Israelachvili \ and\ author D. Tabor ,\ 10.1038/physci236106a0 journal journal Nature Physical Science \ volume 236 ,\ pages 106 ( year 1972 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/physci236106a0 1972

  6. [6]

    \ Butt , author B

    author author H.-J. \ Butt , author B. Cappella , \ and\ author M. Kappl ,\ 10.1016/j.surfrep.2005.08.003 journal journal Surface Science Reports \ volume 59 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2005.08.003 2005

  7. [7]

    Heuberger , author G

    author author M. Heuberger , author G. Luengo , \ and\ author J. Israelachvili ,\ 10.1021/la960942a journal journal Langmuir \ volume 13 ,\ pages 3839 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/la960942a 1997

  8. [8]

    author author K. L. \ Johnson ,\ 10.1017/CBO9781139171731 title Contact Mechanics \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ address Cambridge ,\ year 1985 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171731 1985

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Attard \ and\ author J

    author author P. Attard \ and\ author J. L. \ Parker ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.46.7959 journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 46 ,\ pages 7959 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  2. [10]

    Barthel ,\ 10.1016/S0040-6090(98)00797-4 journal journal Thin Solid Films \ volume 330 ,\ pages 27 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    author author E. Barthel ,\ 10.1016/S0040-6090(98)00797-4 journal journal Thin Solid Films \ volume 330 ,\ pages 27 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998 doi

  3. [11]

    author author J. L. \ Parker \ and\ author P. Attard ,\ 10.1021/j100204a053 journal journal Journal of Physical Chemistry \ volume 96 ,\ pages 10398 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    Leroy , author A

    author author S. Leroy , author A. Steinberger , author C. Cottin-Bizonne , author F. Restagno , author L. L \'e ger , \ and\ author E. Charlaix ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 108 ,\ pages 264501 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  5. [13]

    Villey , author E

    author author R. Villey , author E. Martinot , author C. Cottin-Bizonne , author M. Phaner-Goutorbe , author L. L\'eger , author F. Restagno , \ and\ author E. Charlaix ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 111 ,\ pages 215701 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  6. [14]

    Wang , author C

    author author Y. Wang , author C. Dhong , \ and\ author J. Frechette ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 115 ,\ pages 248302 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  7. [15]

    Sekimoto \ and\ author L

    author author K. Sekimoto \ and\ author L. Leibler ,\ 10.1209/0295-5075/23/2/006 journal journal Europhysics Letters (EPL) \ volume 23 ,\ pages 113 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  8. [16]

    Beaucourt , author T

    author author J. Beaucourt , author T. Biben , \ and\ author C. Misbah ,\ @noop journal journal Europhys. Lett. \ volume 67 ,\ pages 676 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  9. [17]

    author author J. M. \ Skotheim \ and\ author L. Mahadevan ,\ 10.1063/1.1985467 journal journal Physics of Fluids \ volume 17 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2005 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/0412509 0412509 [cond-mat] NoStop

    2005

  10. [18]

    Bureau , author G

    author author L. Bureau , author G. Coupier , \ and\ author T. Salez ,\ @noop journal journal The European Physical Journal E \ volume 46 ,\ pages 111 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  11. [19]

    Rallabandi ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 56 ,\ pages 491 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    author author B. Rallabandi ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 56 ,\ pages 491 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  12. [20]

    Saintyves , author T

    author author B. Saintyves , author T. Jules , author T. Salez , \ and\ author L. Mahadevan ,\ 10.1073/pnas.1525462113 journal journal Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. \ volume 113 ,\ pages 5847 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    author author H. S. \ Davies , author D. Debarre , author N. El Amri , author C. Verdier , author R. P. \ Richter , \ and\ author L. Bureau ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 120 ,\ pages 198001 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  14. [22]

    Rallabandi , author N

    author author B. Rallabandi , author N. Oppenheimer , author M. Y. B. \ Zion , \ and\ author H. A. \ Stone ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Phys. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 1211 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  15. [23]

    Vialar , author P

    author author P. Vialar , author P. Merzeau , author S. Giasson , \ and\ author C. Drummond ,\ 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b02019 journal journal Langmuir \ volume 35 ,\ pages 15605 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Zhang , author V

    author author Z. Zhang , author V. Bertin , author M. Arshad , author E. Rapha \" e l , author T. Salez , \ and\ author A. Maali ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.054502 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 124 ,\ pages 54502 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.058...

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fares , author M

    author author N. Fares , author M. Lavaud , author Z. Zhang , author A. Jha , author Y. Amarouchene , \ and\ author T. Salez ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 121 ,\ pages e2411956121 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  18. [26]

    author author D. Y. \ Chan , author O. Manor , author J. N. \ Connor , \ and\ author R. G. \ Horn ,\ 10.1039/b712924f journal journal Soft Matter \ volume 4 ,\ pages 471 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Manica , author J

    author author R. Manica , author J. N. \ Connor , author R. R. \ Dagastine , author S. L. \ Carnie , author R. G. \ Horn , \ and\ author D. Y. \ Chan ,\ 10.1063/1.2839577 journal journal Physics of Fluids \ volume 20 ( year 2008 ),\ 10.1063/1.2839577 NoStop

    doi

  20. [28]

    Israelachvili ,\ 10.1016/0021-9797(73)90218-X journal journal Journal of Colloid and Interface Science \ volume 44 ,\ pages 259 ( year 1973 ) NoStop

    author author J. Israelachvili ,\ 10.1016/0021-9797(73)90218-X journal journal Journal of Colloid and Interface Science \ volume 44 ,\ pages 259 ( year 1973 ) NoStop

    1973 doi

  21. [29]

    Heuberger ,\ 10.1063/1.1347978 journal journal Review of Scientific Instruments \ volume 72 ,\ pages 1700 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    author author M. Heuberger ,\ 10.1063/1.1347978 journal journal Review of Scientific Instruments \ volume 72 ,\ pages 1700 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    Mazurek , author S

    author author P. Mazurek , author S. Vudayagiri , \ and\ author A. L. \ Skov ,\ 10.1039/c8cs00963e journal journal Chemical Society Reviews \ volume 48 ,\ pages 1448 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    author author M. K. \ Small \ and\ author W. D. \ Nix ,\ 10.1557/JMR.1992.1553 journal journal Journal of Materials Research \ volume 7 ,\ pages 1553 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992

  24. [32]

    Komaragiri , author M

    author author U. Komaragiri , author M. R. \ Begley , \ and\ author J. G. \ Simmonds ,\ 10.1115/1.1827246 journal journal Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME \ volume 72 ,\ pages 203 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    \ Wan , author S

    author author K.-T. \ Wan , author S. Guo , \ and\ author D. A. \ Dillard ,\ 10.1016/S0040-6090(02)01103-3 journal journal Thin Solid Films \ volume 425 ,\ pages 150 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    Pan , author P

    author author J. Pan , author P. Lin , author F. Maseeh , \ and\ author S. Senturia ,\ in\ 10.1109/SOLSEN.1990.109823 booktitle IEEE 4th Technical Digest on Solid-State Sensor and Actuator Workshop \ ( publisher IEEE ,\ year 1990 )\ pp.\ pages 70--73 NoStop

    1990

  27. [35]

    author author R. P. \ Vinci \ and\ author J. J. \ Vlassak ,\ 10.1146/annurev.ms.26.080196.002243 journal journal Annual Review of Materials Science \ volume 26 ,\ pages 431 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  28. [36]

    Wah ,\ 10.1121/1.1928110 journal journal The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America \ volume 34 ,\ pages 275 ( year 1962 ) NoStop

    author author T. Wah ,\ 10.1121/1.1928110 journal journal The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America \ volume 34 ,\ pages 275 ( year 1962 ) NoStop

    1962 doi

  29. [37]

    Wah ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division \ volume 89 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    author author T. Wah ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division \ volume 89 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    1963

  30. [38]

    Amabili ,\ @noop title Nonlinear vibrations and stability of shells and plates \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2008 ) NoStop

    author author M. Amabili ,\ @noop title Nonlinear vibrations and stability of shells and plates \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  31. [39]

    Howell , author G

    author author P. Howell , author G. Kozyreff , \ and\ author J. Ockendon ,\ @noop title Applied solid mechanics \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ address Cambridge ,\ year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  32. [40]

    author author M. A. \ Maden , author A. Jagota , author S. Mazur , \ and\ author R. J. \ Farris ,\ 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1994.tb05342.x journal journal Journal of the American Ceramic Society \ volume 77 ,\ pages 625 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994

  33. [41]

    author author T. R. \ Moore ,\ 10.1119/1.1778396 journal journal American Journal of Physics \ volume 72 ,\ pages 1380 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    Yang , author X

    author author L. Yang , author X. Xie , author L. Zhu , author S. Wu , \ and\ author Y. Wang ,\ 10.3901/CJME.2014.01.001 journal journal Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering \ volume 27 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    M \" u ller , author M

    author author A. M \" u ller , author M. C. \ Wapler , \ and\ author U. Wallrabe ,\ 10.1039/c8sm02105h journal journal Soft Matter \ volume 15 ,\ pages 779 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    author author A. R. \ Payne ,\ 10.1002/app.1962.070061906 journal journal Journal of Applied Polymer Science \ volume 6 ,\ pages 57 ( year 1962 ) NoStop

    1962

  37. [45]

    Crowley ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the Electrochemical Society of America Annual Meeting on Electrostatics \ ,\ pages Paper D1, pp 1 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    author author J. Crowley ,\ @noop journal journal Proceedings of the Electrochemical Society of America Annual Meeting on Electrostatics \ ,\ pages Paper D1, pp 1 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  38. [46]

    Lekner ,\ 10.1063/1.3702438 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 111 ,\ pages 2011 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    author author J. Lekner ,\ 10.1063/1.3702438 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 111 ,\ pages 2011 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    King , author R

    author author H. King , author R. D. \ Schroll , author B. Davidovitch , \ and\ author N. Menon ,\ 10.1073/pnas.1201201109 journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America \ volume 109 ,\ pages 9716 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    doi

  40. [48]

    Smith , author A

    author author K. Smith , author A. Retallick , author D. Melendrez , author A. Vijayaraghavan , \ and\ author M. Heil ,\ 10.1021/acsami.2c21096 journal journal ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces \ ( year 2022 ),\ 10.1021/acsami.2c21096 NoStop

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Jeffrey \ and\ author M

    author author D. Jeffrey \ and\ author M. Van Dyke ,\ @noop journal journal IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics \ volume 22 ,\ pages 337 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978

  42. [50]

    Jeffrey \ and\ author Y

    author author D. Jeffrey \ and\ author Y. Onishi ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General \ volume 13 ,\ pages 2847 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980

  43. [51]

    Campbell ,\ @noop journal journal The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics \ volume 9 ,\ pages 84 ( year 1956 ) NoStop

    author author J. Campbell ,\ @noop journal journal The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics \ volume 9 ,\ pages 84 ( year 1956 ) NoStop

    1956

  44. [52]

    Sheplak \ and\ author J

    author author M. Sheplak \ and\ author J. Dugundji ,\ 10.1115/1.2789012 journal journal Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME \ volume 65 ,\ pages 107 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.