Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The $(2+\delta)$-dimensional theory of the electromechanics of lipid membranes: III. Constitutive models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pure volume-change energy, not a surface bending energy, reproduces lipid membrane mechanics.

desk verdict A faithful capstone to the (2+δ) series that closes the balance laws with explicit constitutive models, but the compact equations rest on an unverified ordering assumption the authors flag themselves; deserves refereeing with that condition front and center. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11612 v2 pith:DIZLCHHL submitted 2025-01-20 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Yannick A. D. Omar , Zachary G. Lipel , Kranthi K. Mandadapu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords lipidmembranes(2+δ)-dimensionaltheoryconstitutivemodelscurvatureelasticityelectromechanicsreactivestressessurfacetensiondimensionreduction
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 supplies the missing piece of the authors' $(2+\delta)$-dimensional membrane theory: three-dimensional constitutive models that turn the general balance laws from part 2 into equations of motion for lipid membranes. It proposes that the elastic resistance to in-plane stretch and out-of-plane bending comes entirely from a free-energy penalty on local volume changes, $w = k_c (J-1)^2 / J$, with a three-dimensional Newtonian fluid describing viscosity and reactive stresses enforcing mid-surface incompressibility. The result is a set of in-plane and shape equations whose viscous, tension, and area-dilation terms agree with strict two-dimensional surface theories, while the bending terms agree only in lower-order structure and differ in higher-order curvature combinations, as shown in Table 1. The payoff is that the finite thickness of the membrane—needed for transmembrane potentials, distinct surface charges, and Maxwell stresses—is retained in a surface-based theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-dimensional volumetric free energy $w = k_c (J-1)^2 / J$, which produces the isotropic elastic stress $\sigma_{el} = 2k_c(J-1)\mathbf{1}$ and, through the thickness-integrated kinematics, the surface stress and moment expressions in Eqs. (103)–(104). The argument is carried by the Chebyshev dimension reduction: fields are expanded in thickness polynomials, and the stress-vector expansion in Eqs. (59)–(60) produces the surface stresses $N^{\alpha\beta}$, moments $M^{\alpha\beta}$, and transverse shear $S^\alpha$. Newtonian viscosity supplies the effective surface viscous stress $\pi^{\alpha\beta}$ with $\zeta = \delta\mu$ and $\bar{\omega} = \delta\omega$, while reactive stresses enforcing $J_0 = 1$ yield the effective surface tension $\lambda$; viscous moments are set to zero following Eq. (117). These constitutive and reactive pieces convert the general balance laws of part 2 into the equations of motion of Section 5.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional finite-element or molecular simulation of a constrained lipid membrane patch in pure bending should compute the expansion coefficients $\sigma^{i3}_k$ of the transverse reactive stress; if the coefficients for $k \ge 2$ are not small compared with the $k=0,1$ coefficients, the ordering assumption in Eq. (92) fails and Eqs. (125)–(126) omit terms of comparable order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $(2+\delta)$-dimensional balance laws for thin bodies close into a working theory of lipid membranes when the elastic response is attributed exclusively to volumetric changes through the free energy $w = k_c (J-1)^2 / J$, with $J$ expressed by Eq. (98) in terms of the mid-surface area change $J_0$ and the mean and Gaussian curvatures of the current and reference configurations. Substituting the resulting Cauchy stress $\sigma_{el} = 2k_c(J-1)\mathbf{1}$, the Newtonian viscous stress, and the reactive stresses enforcing mid-surface incompressibility into the dimensionally reduced balance laws yields the compressible and incompressible equations of motion, Eqs. (125)–(126) and (128)–(129), together with traction boundary conditions. Relative to the standard Canham–Helfrich–Evans surface theory, the area-dilation, viscous, and effective-surface-tension contributions coincide, but the nonlinear bending contributions differ in higher-order curvature terms, exactly as catalogued in Table 1: the mean curvature $C$ and Gaussian curvature $G$ of the reference configuration enter the in-plane equation where the two-dimensional theory has no such terms. The article concludes with a complete set of equations for a charged lipid membrane in an electrolyte, Eqs. (139)–(156), combining electrostatics, incompressible membrane mechanics, and bulk Poisson–Nernst–Planck transport.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the transverse reactive stresses that enforce the thin-body kinematics are dominated by their zeroth- and first-order moments, so all higher-order reactive moments can be discarded; the paper states this ordering cannot be justified a priori for lipid membranes and its verification requires solving the constrained three-dimensional problem, and if the ordering fails the equations of motion may omit terms of the same order as those retained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The electromechanical theory is now closed: Eqs. (139)–(156) give a complete set for a charged membrane in an electrolyte, so electrodeformation and mechanically gated channel problems can be formulated without an ad hoc two-dimensional bending energy.
  • On the viscous and tension side, the $(2+\delta)$-dimensional equations reproduce strict surface theories, so prior results on membrane flow and surface tension inherit a thickness-resolved justification.
  • The bending terms in Table 1 differ from Canham–Helfrich–Evans only in higher-order curvature combinations, meaning observable discrepancies require sufficiently large curvatures or boundary data sensitive to the Gaussian-curvature terms.
  • The first-order traction boundary condition, Eq. (131), contains a viscous contribution not present in strict surface theories, so boundary layers in membrane flow could expose finite-thickness effects.
  • Mid-surface incompressibility emerges from reactive stresses as an effective surface tension $\lambda$, matching the scalar tension of standard surface theories and simplifying the equations to Eqs. (127)–(129).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the volume-change energy is the right elasticity, the Gaussian-curvature term in the shape equation is fixed rather than a free Gaussian rigidity; measuring vesicle shape fluctuations at small radii could therefore distinguish this theory from Canham–Helfrich–Evans without fitting extra moduli.
  • The same dimension-reduction closure could be reused with other three-dimensional constitutive laws—viscoelastic, active, or polar—yielding surface theories for other thin fluid shells, which the paper does not explore.
  • A natural quantitative check is to solve the full three-dimensional constrained problem for a benchmark deformation and compare the resulting transverse reactive stress coefficients with the ordering assumption in Eq. (92); the paper's own conclusion flags this as verification still required.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is the third part of a series developing a (2+δ)-dimensional surface theory for the electromechanics of lipid membranes. The authors propose specific three-dimensional constitutive models: a Helmholtz free energy w = kc (J-1)^2 / J that penalizes local volume changes, a Newtonian viscous stress, and reactive stresses that enforce mid-surface incompressibility. These constitutive laws are inserted into the dimensionally reduced balance laws from part 2, yielding compact in-plane and shape equations of motion, boundary conditions, and a specialized set of equations for a membrane in contact with an electrolyte. The paper's central claim is that this three-dimensional closure reproduces the known resistance to in-plane stretch and out-of-plane bending, while producing higher-order curvature terms that differ from the Canham-Helfrich-Evans theory; these differences are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The derivation is extensive and the supplementary material is used to carry much of the algebra.

Significance. If the constitutive closure is accepted, the paper provides a systematic, self-consistent route from three-dimensional constitutive assumptions to effective surface equations that retain thickness effects, which is valuable for electromechanical applications where surface theories fail. The explicit comparison with Canham-Helfrich-Evans theory in Tables 1 and 2 is a concrete and useful contribution, and the paper is transparent about the ordering assumptions on which the reduced equations rely. The derivation is not circular in the numerical-fitting sense: the bending terms in Table 1 disagree with the Canham-Helfrich-Evans benchmark, so the comparison is against an external standard. However, the compact equations are conditional on ordering assumptions that the authors themselves state cannot be justified a priori, and at least one constitutive relation appears to be a linearization presented as an exact result. These issues are fixable but need to be addressed before the closure claim is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eqs. (95)–(96)] Equation (96) does not follow exactly from Eq. (95). For W(J)=kc(J-1)^2/J, the hyperelastic Cauchy stress is W'(J) 1 = kc(1-J^{-2})1, which equals 2kc(J-1)1 only to first order in (J-1). Since Eqs. (103)–(104) and the equations of motion in Sec. 5 inherit Eq. (96), please either correct the stress expression or state explicitly that the constitutive model is linearized in (J-1), and check whether the neglected higher-order terms in (J-1) affect the orders retained in N_el and M_el.
  2. [§3, Eq. (92)] The ordering σ^{i3}_k = σ^{3i}_k ≫ σ^{i3}_l for k=0,1 and l≥2 is used to discard reactive moments and higher-order stress-vector contributions in the reduction leading to the compact equations of motion and boundary conditions, Eqs. (125)–(131). The manuscript states that this ordering 'cannot be justified a priori for lipid membranes' and requires solving the constrained three-dimensional problem. Because no dimensionless small parameter controls Eq. (92), the reduced equations are not presented as a quantified asymptotic branch; if the ordering fails, neglected terms can be of the same order as the retained ones. Please provide an a posteriori verification or an explicit estimate of the omitted terms, or present the full equations with those terms retained so the error can be assessed.
  3. [§3, Eq. (89)] The kinematic ordering (δ v_1^α / v_0^β)^2 ≪ 1 is explicitly acknowledged as 'not guaranteed to be satisfied' and is used in deriving the viscous stress in Eq. (112) and the reduced balance laws. The paper should quantify the regime in which this ordering holds, in terms of curvature, velocity gradients, and thickness, or state the resulting limitation on the domain of validity of Eqs. (125)–(129).
  4. [§4.2 and §5.3, Eqs. (116), (117), and (131)] Setting M_visc=0 in Eq. (117) while retaining the viscous boundary term (δ^2/8) b^α_γ π^{γβ} in Eq. (131) appears inconsistent under the same scaling. With π^{αβ} = O(δ μ D), the retained term is O(δ^3 μ b D), which is the same order as the w b terms in the expression for M_visc in Eq. (116). Please either retain M_visc consistently in the moment and boundary equations or justify a different ordering that separates these terms.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (131)] The right-hand side of Eq. (131) has a prefactor -δ^2/4, whereas Eq. (79) and the incompressible counterpart Eq. (133) have -δ^2/2; please verify which prefactor is correct.
  2. [§4.3] The assertion that odd coefficients λ_k vanish because the reactive stresses must be non-vanishing at the mid-surface would benefit from a more explicit argument; the constraint in Eq. (119) alone does not fix the parity of all λ_k.
  3. [§5.1] In the first paragraph of Sec. 5.1, 'confugurations' should be 'configurations'.
  4. [§5.3] In the first paragraph of Sec. 5.3, 'reminder' should be 'remainder'.
  5. [§4.1] The statement that the J0 prefactor in Eqs. (103), (104), (130), and (131) is negligible because J0 ≈ 1 for lipid membranes should be stated as an additional approximation, since it affects the comparison with Canham-Helfrich-Evans theory in Table 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constitutive closure is derived from a 3D volume-change free energy, Newtonian viscosity, and a reactive incompressibility constraint, then checked against the external Canham–Helfrich–Evans benchmark, with which the bending terms explicitly disagree.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The elastic stresses and moments in Eqs. (103)-(104) are obtained by substituting the free energy w = kc(J-1)^2/J into the reduced balance laws and expanding J under Kirchhoff-Love kinematics; the bending rigidity emerges from the thickness expansion, not from any assumption of a bending energy. The comparison to the Canham-Helfrich-Evans theory is an external benchmark, and Table 1 shows that the bending terms in Eqs. (125) and (126) differ from their 2D counterparts, so the result is not equivalent to its input by construction. The viscous stresses in Eq. (112) coincide with known surface-theory results, but this is a derived coincidence, not a fitted or renamed input. The reactive stresses enforcing mid-surface incompressibility lead to an effective surface tension lambda through a standard Lagrange-multiplier-like procedure, again without fitting. Self-citations to parts 1 and 2 supply the Chebyshev reduction and balance laws, but those are prior derivations of the general framework, not the constitutive target, and the present paper does not assume its own conclusion in invoking them. The unverified ordering assumption in Eq. (92) is explicitly acknowledged as not justifiable a priori for lipid membranes; this is a limitation and a robustness concern, not a circular step, because the retained and neglected terms are not defined in terms of the final equations of motion. Overall, the central claim is a forward derivation with independent content and external checks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 13 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the balance laws of Omar et al. parts 1 and 2 (self-cited), plus a set of kinematic, constitutive, and electrostatics assumptions. The paper fits no numbers to data: the compression modulus, viscosities, thickness, spontaneous curvatures, and effective surface tension are either symbolic material or geometric inputs, or an unknown Lagrange multiplier solved with the system. The most fragile entries are the ordering assumptions in Eqs. (89) and (92), which the authors themselves flag as requiring a posteriori verification. No new physical entities are introduced; the effective surface tension is a Lagrange multiplier and the Chebyshev coefficients are mathematical projections.

assumptions (13)
  • standard math Chebyshev polynomial expansion and orthogonality, Eqs. (23)-(25)
    Used to separate thickness from in-plane dependence when dimensionally reducing balance laws; a standard spectral projection.
  • standard math Standard surface differential geometry and stress-vector formalism, Eqs. (4)-(18), (45)
    Provides metric, curvature, Weingarten, and stress vectors used throughout the balance laws.
  • domain assumption Kirchhoff-Love kinematics: normals remain normal, thickness constant, Eq. (20)
    Reduces the velocity to v0 + theta3 v1 and eliminates through-thickness strain; it is the central kinematic restriction.
  • domain assumption Small curvature relative to thickness, Eqs. (83) and (100)
    Used to truncate metric and constitutive expansions; the authors advise a posteriori verification.
  • domain assumption In-plane length scales satisfy Eqs. (86)-(88)
    Used to drop derivative terms over thickness-scale distances; stated as mild.
  • ad hoc to paper Velocity ordering delta v1^alpha / v0^beta much less than 1, Eq. (89)
    The authors say this is not guaranteed and should be verified; it affects inertial and stress terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Reactive transverse stress ordering, Eq. (92)
    The authors say it cannot be justified a priori for lipid membranes; it is used to simplify the balance laws and neglect reactive moments.
  • ad hoc to paper Pure volumetric elastic free energy, Eq. (95)
    Chosen to enforce in-plane fluidity while producing bending resistance; no molecular derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Newtonian viscous stress, Eq. (110)
    A standard three-dimensional fluid model; it yields the same surface viscous stresses as two-dimensional membrane models.
  • domain assumption Mid-surface incompressibility with only even reactive coefficients, Eqs. (118)-(122)
    Justified by the measured 2-4% stretch of lipid membranes; odd reactive coefficients are set to zero.
  • domain assumption Linear dielectric electrostatics, no free charge in membrane, divergence-free Maxwell stress, Eqs. (46)-(50)
    Standard assumptions for membrane and bulk electrostatics; they couple mechanics only through traction boundary conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Viscous moments set to zero, Eq. (117)
    Dropped as customary; this affects first-order moment and boundary terms.
  • domain assumption First-order body force delta f1 approximately 0
    Stated as a non-essential simplification used to shorten the expression for P^alpha.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $(2+\delta)$-dimensional theory of the electromechanics of lipid membranes: III. Constitutive models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIZLCHHL

@misc{pith2026250111612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $(2+\delta)$-dimensional theory of the electromechanics of lipid membranes: III. Constitutive models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIZLCHHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11612}
}
abstract

This article concludes a three-part series developing a self-consistent theoretical framework of the electromechanics of lipid membranes at the continuum scale. Owing to their small thickness, lipid membranes are commonly modeled as two-dimensional surfaces. However, this approach breaks down when considering their electromechanical behavior as it requires accounting for their thickness. To address this, we developed a dimension reduction procedure in part 1 to derive effective surface theories explicitly capturing the thickness of lipid membranes. We applied this method to dimensionally reduce Gauss' law and the electromechanical balance laws and referred to the resulting theory as $(2+\delta)$-dimensional, where $\delta$ indicates the membrane thickness. However, the $(2+\delta)$-dimensional balance laws derived in part 2 are general, and specific material models are required to specialize them to lipid membranes. In this work, we devise appropriate three-dimensional constitutive models that capture the in-plane fluid and out-of-plane elastic behavior of lipid membranes. The viscous behavior is recovered by a three-dimensional Newtonian fluid model, leading to the same viscous stresses as strictly two-dimensional models. The elastic resistance to bending is recovered by imposing a free energy penalty on local volume changes. While this gives rise to the characteristic bending resistance of lipid membranes, it differs in its higher-order curvature terms from the Canham-Helfrich-Evans theory. Furthermore, motivated by the small mid-surface stretch of lipid membranes, we introduce reactive stresses that enforce mid-surface incompressibility, resulting in an effective surface tension. Finally, we use the constitutive and reactive stresses to derive the equations of motion describing the electromechanics of lipid membranes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11612 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the setup used for our deriva [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mechanical tractions acting on the top ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Three-slab model for the dielectric permittivity of a lipid bilayer

    cond-mat.soft 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A three-slab dielectric model with anisotropic head-group permittivity and intrinsic surface charge reproduces molecular-dynamics membrane electrostatics and resolves the ill-defined local out-of-plane permittivity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Lipel, Z

    Omar, Y. A., Lipel, Z. G. & Mandadapu, K. K. (2+δ)-dimensional theory of the electrome- chanics of lipid membranes: Electrostatics.Physical Review E109, 054401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    The $(2+\delta)$-dimensional theory of the electromechanics of lipid membranes: II. Balance laws

    Omar, Y. A., Lipel, Z. G. & Mandadapu, K. K. The(2 + δ)-dimensional theory of the elec- tromechanics of lipid membranes: II. Balance laws.arXiv:2309.03863 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Canham, P. B. The minimum energy of bending as a possible explanation of the biconcave shape of the human red blood cell.Journal of Theoretical Biology26, 61–81 (1970)

    work page 1970

  4. [4]

    Elastic properties of lipid bilayers: Theory and possible experiments.Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 28, 693–703 (1973)

    Helfrich, W. Elastic properties of lipid bilayers: Theory and possible experiments.Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 28, 693–703 (1973)

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    Evans, E. A. Bending resistance and chemically induced moments in membrane bilayers. Biophysical Journal 14, 923–931 (1974)

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    & Lennon, J

    Brochard, F. & Lennon, J. Frequency spectrum of the flicker phenomenon in erythrocytes. Journal de Physique 36, 1035–1047 (1975)

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    & Prost, J

    Derényi, I., Jülicher, F. & Prost, J. Formation and interaction of membrane tubes.Physical Review Letters 88, 238101 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    A., Duong, T

    Sauer, R. A., Duong, T. X., Mandadapu, K. K. & Steigmann, D. J. A stabilized finite element formulation for liquid shells and its application to lipid bilayers.Journal of Computational Physics 330, 436–466 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Gross, B. J. & Atzberger, P. J. Hydrodynamic flows on curved surfaces: Spectral numerical methods for radial manifold shapes.Journal of Computational Physics371, 663–689 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    & Arroyo, M

    Torres-Sánchez, A., Millán, D. & Arroyo, M. Modelling fluid deformable surfaces with an emphasis on biological interfaces.Journal of Fluid Mechanics872, 218–271 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    & Mandadapu, K

    Sahu, A., Glisman, A., Tchoufag, J. & Mandadapu, K. K. Geometry and dynamics of lipid membranes: The Scriven-Love number.Physical Review E101, 052401 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    A., Sauer, R

    Sahu, A., Omar, Y. A., Sauer, R. A. & Mandadapu, K. K. Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian finite element method for curved and deforming surfaces: I. General theory and application to fluid interfaces.Journal of Computational Physics407, 109253 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    & Dimitrov, D

    Angelova, M. & Dimitrov, D. S. A mechanism of liposome electroformation.Trends in Colloid and Interface Science II59–67 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    Riske, K. A. & Dimova, R. Electro-deformation and poration of giant vesicles viewed with high temporal resolution. Biophysical Journal 88, 1143–1155 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Giant vesicles in electric fields.Soft Matter 3, 817–827 (2007)

    Dimova, R.et al. Giant vesicles in electric fields.Soft Matter 3, 817–827 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Vlahovska, P. M. Electrohydrodynamics of drops and vesicles.Annual Review of Fluid Me- chanics 51, 305–330 (2019). 27

    2019

  9. [17]

    Fluid films with curvature elasticity

    Steigmann, D. Fluid films with curvature elasticity. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 150, 127–152 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    Vectors, tensors and the basic equations of fluid mechanics(Courier Corporation, 2012)

    Aris, R. Vectors, tensors and the basic equations of fluid mechanics(Courier Corporation, 2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    K., Oster, G

    Rangamani, P., Agrawal, A., Mandadapu, K. K., Oster, G. & Steigmann, D. J. Interaction between surface shape and intra-surface viscous flow on lipid membranes.Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology12, 833–845 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Sahu, A., Sauer, R. A. & Mandadapu, K. K. Irreversible thermodynamics of curved lipid membranes. Physical Review E96, 042409 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Tensor algebra and tensor analysis for engineers(Springer, 2019)

    Itskov, M.et al. Tensor algebra and tensor analysis for engineers(Springer, 2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Scriven, L. E. Dynamics of a fluid interface equation of motion for Newtonian surface fluids. Chemical Engineering Science12, 98–108 (1960)

    1960

  15. [23]

    E., Fried, E

    Gurtin, M. E., Fried, E. & Anand, L.The mechanics and thermodynamics of continua(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    R.Continuum electromechanics, vol

    Melcher, J. R.Continuum electromechanics, vol. 2 (MIT press Cambridge, 1981)

    1981

  17. [25]

    975 (Oxford University Press Oxford, 2000)

    Kovetz, A.Electromagnetic theory, vol. 975 (Oxford University Press Oxford, 2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    & Steigmann, D

    Edmiston, J. & Steigmann, D. Analysis of nonlinear electrostatic membranes. InMechanics and electrodynamics of magneto-and electro-elastic materials, 153–180 (Springer, 2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    D., Bergstrom, H

    Fong, K. D., Bergstrom, H. K., McCloskey, B. D. & Mandadapu, K. K. Transport phenomena in electrolyte solutions: Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. AIChE Journal 66, e17091 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Steigmann, D. J. On the formulation of balance laws for electromagnetic continua.Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids14, 390–402 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Coleman, B. D. & Noll, W. The thermodynamics of elastic materials with heat conduction and viscosity. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis13, 167–178 (1963)

    1963

  22. [30]

    The intrinsic theory of thin shells and plates: I

    Chien, W.-Z. The intrinsic theory of thin shells and plates: I. General theory.Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 1, 297–327 (1944)

    1944

  23. [31]

    & Zerna, W

    Green, A. & Zerna, W. The equilibrium of thin elastic shells. The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics3, 9–22 (1950)

    1950

  24. [32]

    Naghdi, P. M. Foundations of elastic shell theory. Tech. Rep., Institute of Engineering Research, University of California, Berkeley (1962)

    1962

  25. [33]

    Onaconsistentfinite-strainshelltheorybasedon3-Dnonlinearelasticity

    Song, Z.&Dai, H.-H. Onaconsistentfinite-strainshelltheorybasedon3-Dnonlinearelasticity. International Journal of Solids and Structures97, 137–149 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Evans, E. A. Bending resistance and chemically induced moments in membrane bilayers. Biophysical Journal 14, 923–931 (1974). 28

    1974

  27. [35]

    A., Waugh, R

    Evans, E. A., Waugh, R. & Melnik, L. Elastic area compressibility modulus of red cell mem- brane. Biophysical Journal 16, 585–595 (1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    & Hutter, O

    Nichol, J. & Hutter, O. Tensile strength and dilatational elasticity of giant sarcolemmal vesicles shed from rabbit muscle.The Journal of Physiology493, 187–198 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    E., Fried, E

    Carlson, D. E., Fried, E. & Tortorelli, D. A. Geometrically-based consequences of internal con- straints. The Rational Spirit in Modern Continuum Mechanics: Essays and Papers Dedicated to the Memory of Clifford Ambrose Truesdell III141–149 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    & Srinivasa, A

    Rajagopal, K. & Srinivasa, A. On the nature of constraints for continua undergoing dissipative processes. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 461, 2785–2795 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    & DeSimone, A

    Arroyo, M. & DeSimone, A. Relaxation dynamics of fluid membranes.Physical Review E79, 031915 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Alkadri, A. M. & Mandadapu, K. K. The irreversible thermodynamics of curved lipid mem- branes II: Permeability and osmosis (2024). arXiv:2412.19300

    2024

  33. [41]

    G., Su, Z

    Brohawn, S. G., Su, Z. & MacKinnon, R. Mechanosensitivity is mediated directly by the lipid membrane in TRAAK and TREK1 K+ channels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 3614–3619 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels.Science 330, 55–60 (2010)

    Coste, B.et al. Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels.Science 330, 55–60 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Cox, C. D. et al. Removal of the mechanoprotective influence of the cytoskeleton reveals PIEZO1 is gated by bilayer tension.Nature Communications 7, 10366 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    B., Mandadapu, K

    Row, H., Fernandes, J. B., Mandadapu, K. K. & Shekhar, K. Spatiotemporal dynamics of ionic reorganization near biological membrane interfaces.arXiv:2407.11947 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    & Helfrich, W

    Winterhalter, M. & Helfrich, W. Deformation of spherical vesicles by electric fields.Journal of Colloid and Interface Science122, 583–586 (1988)

    1988

  38. [46]

    & Helfrich, W

    Kummrow, M. & Helfrich, W. Deformation of giant lipid vesicles by electric fields.Physical Review A 44, 8356 (1991)

    1991

  39. [47]

    Vesicles in electric fields: Some novel aspects of membrane behavior.Soft Matter 5, 3201–3212 (2009)

    Dimova, R.et al. Vesicles in electric fields: Some novel aspects of membrane behavior.Soft Matter 5, 3201–3212 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Destabilizing giant vesicles with electric fields: An overview of current appli- cations

    Portet, T.et al. Destabilizing giant vesicles with electric fields: An overview of current appli- cations. The Journal of Membrane Biology245, 555–564 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    & Hochmuth, R

    Needham, D. & Hochmuth, R. Electro-mechanical permeabilization of lipid vesicles. Role of membrane tension and compressibility.Biophysical Journal 55, 1001–1009 (1989). 29

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.