Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Hydroelastic scattering and trapping of microswimmers

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Near a deformable boundary, pusher microswimmers are scattered away by the boundary's own deformation, while pullers are trapped — the reverse of swimming next to a rigid wall.

desk verdict A careful perturbation calculation of microswimmers near deformable boundaries with a plausible scattering/trapping mechanism, but the headline trapping phase may sit outside the regime where the expansion is controlled. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02462 v1 pith:RDTO3FE7 submitted 2025-02-04 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Sagnik Garai , Ursy Makanga , Akhil Varma , Christina Kurzthaler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords microswimmerhydroelasticinteractiondeformableboundarypusherandpullerswimmersFöppl-vonKármánnumberLorentzreciprocaltheoremlow-Reynolds-numberhydrodynamicstrappingscatteringstates
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

Swimming microbes near rigid walls behave in a familiar way: pushers like E. coli align parallel to the wall and swim in circles, while pullers are pushed away. This paper asks what happens when the boundary is soft enough to be deformed by the swimmer's own flow, and shows that the answer flips. Using a perturbation theory valid for small deformations of a sheet with bending rigidity and surface tension, they compute the leading correction to the swimmer's velocity and orientation. Pushers are scattered away from the boundary for moderate membrane stiffness, yet for very floppy, bending-dominated membranes (small Föppl-von Kármán number $\Gamma$), they are instead trapped, rotating nose-first into the surface. Pullers, by contrast, become strongly trapped regardless of initial orientation. The origin is not the lift force known from passive spheres but a hydroelastic reorientation: the deformation produced by the swimmer feeds back on its orientation, and this single mechanism organizes the whole phase diagram.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a small-deformation perturbation in the elasto-viscous number $\epsilon = \mu a^2 U_{\mathrm{free}}/(\kappa+\Sigma a^2)$, which measures the swimmer's hydrodynamic stress against the boundary's elastic resistance. At zeroth order the swimmer moves near a planar wall with a known field (force dipole plus torque dipole). The first-order boundary deformation solves $(\kappa\nabla_\parallel^4 - \Sigma\nabla_\parallel^2)\delta^{(1)} = -p^{(0)}|_{z=0}$ in Fourier-Hankel space. Its effect on the swimmer enters through an effective slip velocity $\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{SM}} = \partial_t\delta^{(1)}\mathbf{e}_z - \delta^{(1)}\partial_z\mathbf{u}^{(0)}|_{z=0} - \mathbf{U}^{(0)}_\parallel\cdot\nabla_\parallel\delta^{(1)}\mathbf{e}_z$; the Lorentz reciprocal theorem with a passive auxiliary problem then yields the leading velocity corrections $\mathbf{U}^{(1)}$, $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{(1)}$. The central organizing quantity is the Föppl-von Kármán number $\Gamma = \Sigma a^2/\kappa$, which controls whether the deformation is surface-tension-dominated ($\Gamma \gtrsim 1$, scattering) or bending-dominated ($\Gamma \lesssim 0.1$, trapping), for fixed $\epsilon = 0.1$.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to track E. coli (or a pusher-like active colloid) near a lipid vesicle or supported membrane while varying membrane tension: if the theory is right, swimmers should be scattered away for $\Gamma \gtrsim 0.1$ and trapped, nose-into-surface, for $\Gamma \lesssim 0.1$ at $\epsilon \approx 0.1$ — the opposite of the planar-wall trajectory. Quantitatively, a boundary-integral or full nonlinear hydroelastic simulation at $\epsilon = 0.1$, $\Gamma = 0.05$ would settle whether the perturbation's trapping phase survives when $\epsilon\delta^{(1)}$ is no longer small; if the trap disappears there, the divergence in $\delta^{(1)}$ marks the limit of the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a compliant boundary qualitatively rewrites the near-surface dynamics of microswimmers through a hydroelastic reorientation mechanism. Working at small elasto-viscous number $\epsilon$, the deformation is computed to first order as the response of the plate equation $(\kappa\nabla_\parallel^4 - \Sigma\nabla_\parallel^2)\delta = -p^{(0)}|_{z=0}$ to the pressure field of the swimmer near a planar wall; this deformation enters the swimming kinematics through an effective slip velocity, and the Lorentz reciprocal theorem converts it into first-order translational and angular velocities. For an E. coli-like pusher modeled as a force-torque dipole, the angular correction can rotate the swimming direction away from the boundary, producing scattering where a rigid wall would produce wall-parallel circular motion; at small Föppl-von Kármán number $\Gamma \lesssim 0.1$ (bending-dominated, surface-tension-weak membranes), the same reorientation instead rotates the pusher toward the surface until it is trapped at $\vartheta^* = -\pi/2$. Pullers, which scatter off rigid walls, are trapped near the deformable boundary, pulling the membrane up into a hill. The stable fixed points of the orientation dynamics $d\vartheta/dt$ at the closest wall approach reproduce the phase boundaries, showing that reorientation, not deformation-induced lift, is the single organizing principle.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume the deformation stays small enough that the first-order correction $\epsilon\delta^{(1)}$ remains the whole story; near the trapping regime the leading-order deformation grows logarithmically, so the quantitative position of the trapping boundary depends on an unstated bound on $\epsilon\delta^{(1)}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pushers near a deformable boundary with $\Gamma \gtrsim 0.1$ are scattered away, so the circular wall-hugging motion seen near rigid glass or plastic surfaces should not be expected near soft membranes.
  • For flaccid, bending-dominated membranes ($\Gamma \lesssim 0.1$), pushers can be trapped with their orientation perpendicular to the boundary — a 'digging its own trap' state that planar-wall hydrodynamics cannot produce.
  • Pullers are trapped more effectively near deformable boundaries than near rigid walls, where they are typically repelled; the trapped state deforms the membrane into a hill pulled toward the swimmer.
  • The scattering-to-trapping boundary is set by the stable and unstable fixed points of the orientational dynamics at the closest approach distance, giving a one-parameter ($\Gamma$) bifurcation-like description of the transition.
  • At very small elasto-viscous numbers ($\epsilon \approx 0.01$) the deformation is too weak and the planar-wall behavior is recovered, so the new effects require a substantial hydroelastic coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If reorientation rather than lift is the mechanism, then varying the torque-dipole strength $\alpha_{\mathrm{RD}}$ (or adding chirality) should shift the scattering–trapping boundary in a predictable way; the paper fixes $\alpha_{\mathrm{RD}}$ from E. coli simulations but does not scan it, leaving a direct test of the mechanism.
  • The logarithmic divergence of $\delta^{(1)}(0)$ at $\Gamma \to 0$ signals where the perturbation theory itself begins to fail; the SI notes that a confining potential would regularize it. A natural next step is to repeat the calculation with a regularization and check whether the $\Gamma \lesssim 0.1$ trapping region survives quantitatively, not just qualitatively.
  • The single-swimmer orientational fixed points suggest a collective consequence the paper only gestures at: a population of pushers near a flaccid membrane should either be depleted (scattered away at high $\Gamma$) or accumulate at the surface (trapped at low $\Gamma$), offering a membrane-tension-dependent mechanism for biofilm or colony formation.
  • Because the scattered and trapped states depend on swimmer type and membrane tension, soft boundaries could serve as passive sorters for bacteria or active colloids — a design idea implicit in the results but not explored in the paper.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a perturbation theory, based on the Lorentz reciprocal theorem, for the leading-order correction to the swimming velocity and angular velocity of a force- and torque-dipole microswimmer near a deformable boundary with bending rigidity and surface tension. The deformation is treated as small in the elasto-viscous number, with the planar-wall problem as the zeroth-order solution. The main physical claims are that pushers can be hydroelastically scattered away from the boundary or trapped at the boundary depending on the Föppl-von Kármán number, that pullers show enhanced trapping, and that these effects arise from a hydroelastic reorientation mechanism rather than from the deformation-induced lift known for passive spheres. The analytical results are validated in the SI by an independent numerical evaluation of the reciprocal-theorem integrals.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper addresses a genuinely open problem: how soft boundaries alter microswimmer reorientation and steady-state behavior compared with rigid walls. The reciprocal-theorem formalism is clean, the derivation is largely analytic, and the use of measured or simulated dipole strengths avoids fitting to the target predictions. The distinction between hydroelastic reorientation and passive lift is conceptually important. However, the central novel prediction — hydroelastic trapping of pushers at low FvK numbers — rests on a parameter regime where the small-deformation assumption appears to break down, so the quantitative status of that prediction is the key issue for the paper's significance.

major comments (1)
  1. [SI Sec. V A, Fig. 3; main text, 'Hydroelastic trapping of pushers'] The validity problem becomes more severe when ε is reduced. For ε=0.05, the SI shows trapping at Γ≲0.01, where ln(h√Γ) is even larger in magnitude than at Γ≈0.088. The product εδ^(1) therefore does not necessarily improve with decreasing ε, because the boundary of the trapping phase moves to smaller Γ. The paper should either provide a quantitative validity condition that is satisfied across the plotted phase diagrams, restrict the trapping claim to parameter regions where εδ^(1) is demonstrably small, or supply a fully nonlinear numerical validation for the low-Γ trapping cases. Without one of these, the paper's most novel result is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, 'Small-deformation limit'] The text states that the theory is valid for ε≪1, but the actual small parameter is εδ^(1); this distinction should be stated explicitly to avoid misleading readers about the range of Γ covered by the expansion.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (4)] The time-derivative term ∂_t δ^(1) is dropped by assuming instantaneous deformation, but no quantitative separation of timescales is provided. A brief estimate of the deformation relaxation time relative to a/U_free would strengthen the justification.
  3. [Main text, Abstract and model section] The name 'Föppl-von Kármán' appears with corrupted umlauts and accents in the main text and in the SI; this should be corrected throughout.
  4. [Main text, 'Model' paragraph] The abbreviation 'FvK' is used before the full term is introduced; please define it at first use and keep the notation consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central phase diagram is a genuine output of a perturbative hydroelastic calculation with externally measured dipole strengths.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The paper starts from the zeroth-order planar-wall flow of a force/torque dipole, whose strengths are taken from prior experimental and simulation work (Drescher et al. and Hu et al.), not from the target scattering/trapping results. The leading-order deformation is then obtained from the membrane stress balance using the zeroth-order wall pressure, and the deformation-induced translational and angular velocities are computed via the Lorentz reciprocal theorem with an auxiliary Stokeslet/rotlet problem. No parameter is fitted to the scattering or trapping phase boundaries; those boundaries are computed outputs. The only self-citations (Kurzthaler & Stone on corrugated surfaces and effective-slip resemblance, plus general soft-matter/tumbling articles) are comparative or methodological and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The SI explicitly notes the logarithmic divergence of the deformation at small FvK number and states that parameters are chosen to remain in the perturbation regime; this is a quantitative validity caveat about the low-FvK trapping regime, not a circular step. If that assumption fails, the trapping prediction may be quantitatively uncontrolled, but that is a correctness risk, not an equivalence between the prediction and the model inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Stokes flow, a one-sided thin elastic sheet without in-plane deformation, a small-deformation expansion, an instantaneous deformation approximation, and a far-field dipole model with an added short-range repulsion. No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced; the only hand-chosen numbers are the repulsion parameters A and B.

free parameters (3)
  • A_repulsive = 100
    Amplitude of the short-ranged repulsive force in Eq. (38); chosen by hand so that the force is short-ranged and does not affect dynamics far from the wall.
  • B_repulsive_pusher = 2.8
    Range parameter in the repulsive force for pushers, chosen to set the closest approach h* approximately 1.5a.
  • B_repulsive_puller = 2.5
    Range parameter in the repulsive force for pullers, chosen to set the closest approach h* approximately 1.5a.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Low-Reynolds-number quasi-steady Stokes equations govern the fluid flow.
    Standard for microswimmers; invoked in the model section and SI Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The boundary is an infinitesimally thin elastic sheet with no in-plane deformation and fluid only on one side.
    Stated in the model section and used in the stress balance Eq. (1).
  • ad hoc to paper Small elasto-viscous number epsilon justifies the perturbation expansion and small deformations.
    Central to the expansion, but the logarithmic divergence at low Gamma indicates the assumption is not quantitatively controlled in the trapping region.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary deformation is instantaneous compared with the swimming time scale, so the time-derivative term in the effective slip is dropped.
    Invoked before the trajectory simulations; no membrane relaxation time versus swim time comparison is given.
  • domain assumption Far-field force and torque dipole representation remains valid at closest approach h*=1.5a.
    Used to compute the zeroth-order flow and orientation dynamics near the wall, citing far-field approximations from prior work.
  • domain assumption A short-ranged repulsive potential mimics near-field and steric interactions with the boundary.
    Introduced in the SI with parameters A and B; variation of B shows qualitative robustness but the potential is not derived from detailed near-field hydrodynamics.
  • standard math The auxiliary Stokes problem and the Lorentz reciprocal theorem provide the deformation-induced velocities.
    Standard reciprocal theorem machinery, used in Eq. (3) and the SI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydroelastic scattering and trapping of microswimmers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDTO3FE7

@misc{pith2026250202462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydroelastic scattering and trapping of microswimmers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDTO3FE7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02462}
}
read the original abstract

Deformable boundaries are omnipresent in the habitats of swimming microorganisms, leading to intricate hydroelastic couplings. Employing a perturbation theory, valid for small deformations, we study the swimming dynamics of pushers and pullers near instantaneously deforming boundaries, endowed with a bending rigidity and surface tension. Our results reveal that pushers can both reorient away from the boundary, leading to overall hydroelastic scattering, or become trapped by the boundary, akin to the enhanced trapping found for pullers. These findings demonstrate that the complex hydroelastic interactions can generate behaviors that are in striking contrast to swimming near planar walls.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) Chronophotographies of a pusher-type mi￾croswimmer moving near a deformable boundary in the xz−plane. (A i) Hydroelastic scattering event with param￾eters ϑ(0) = −0.23π and Γ = 1.13. (A ii) Hydroelastic trap￾ping event with parameters ϑ(0) = −0.43π and Γ = 0.088. The trajectories are color-coded by time, where τ = a/Ufree denotes the characteristic swimming time scale. The swim￾mer’s orientation and the boundary… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A) Chronophotographies of a puller-type mi￾croswimmer moving near a deformable boundary: a hydroe￾lastic trapping event. The parameters are ϑ(0) = 0.02π and Γ = 0.13. The trajectories are color-coded by time, where τ = a/Ufree denotes the characteristic swimming time scale. The swimmer’s orientation and the boundary deformation are shown at selected times. (B) Phase diagram for a puller as a function of its initial… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Model set-up of a swimming microorganism near a deformable boundary ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (A) Sum of the image-induced and the first-order velocity along the (i) x− (ii) y− and (iii) z− direction respectively, and (B) deformation induced angular velocity (Ωi) along the (i) x−, (ii) y−, and (iii) z−direction respectively, for a pusher and different values of…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Phase diagram for a pusher (parameters as described in the main text) as a function of the initial orientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase diagram for a pusher (parameters as described in the main text) as a function of the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase diagram for a pusher (parameters as described in the main text) as a function of the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Computation of the velocities 9

    work page

  2. [2]

    Hydroelastic scattering and trapping of microswimmers

    Numerical validation 12 IV. Additional mathematical details 13 V. Additional results 14 A. Variation of the elasto-viscous number 14 B. Variation of the repulsive force 14 C. Variation of the initial height 15 References 15 I. Problem set-up Here, we present an extended version of our model description. For convenience,˜(·) represent dimensional quantitie...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    +O (l2 a2 ) . (34) Thus, the corresponding solutions to the velocity and pressure fields, u′ FD = Fl/ (8πµUfreea2)GFD and p′ FD = Fl/ (8πµUfreea2)PFD, respectively, are obtained from the directional derivative of the point-force Green’s function: GFD(R′;e,e) =−(e· ∇R′)GF(R′;e) and PFD(R′;e,e) =−(e· ∇R′)PF(R′;e). Similarly, the solution for the point torqu...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Computation of the velocities Using the first-order deformation δ(1) as input, we compute the first-order correction to the swimming velocities, U (1) and Ω(1), via Eq. (30). We consider as auxiliary problem, the flow field due to a point force (or Stokeslet) and 10 point torque of magnitude ˆFi(ˆLi) = 8π along theith-direction, near a rigid-wall with no-...

    work page

  5. [5]

    fUiF+wZb4orcWg9Hjxx3ygZOGSY=

    Numerical validation To validate our velocities obtained by the method of Hankel transforms, we evaluate Eq. (56a) in real space by computing the deformation δ(1) numerically using Eq. (45). It is important to note that a direct numerical evaluation 13 is much more costly, yet to assure our analytical calculations are correct we compare them for a selecte...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Kim and S

    S. Kim and S. Karrila, Microhydrodynamics: Principles and Selected Applications, Butterworth - Heinemann Series in Chemical Engineering (Dover Publications, 2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Happel and H

    J. Happel and H. Brenner, Low Reynolds number hydrodynamics: with special applications to particulate media, Mechan- ics of fluids and transport processes, Vol. 1 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1983)

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    L. G. Leal, Advanced Transport Phenomena: Fluid Mechanics and Convective Transport Processes, Vol. 7 (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Lighthill, On the squirming motion of nearly spherical deformable bodies through liquids at very small Reynolds numbers, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 5, 109–118 (1952)

    1952

  2. [10]

    Lauga, The Fluid Dynamics of Cell Motility, 1st ed

    E. Lauga, The Fluid Dynamics of Cell Motility, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2020). 16

    2020

  3. [11]

    Golestanian, T

    R. Golestanian, T. B. Liverpool, and A. Ajdari, Propulsion of a molecular machine by asymmetric distribution of reaction products, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 220801 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    M. N. Popescu, W. E. Uspal, and S. Dietrich, Self-diffusiophoresis of chemically active colloids, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. 225, 2189–2206 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Golestanian, Phoretic active matter (2019), arXiv:1909.03747 [cond-mat.soft]

    R. Golestanian, Phoretic active matter (2019), arXiv:1909.03747 [cond-mat.soft]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Michelin, Self-propulsion of chemically active droplets, Annu

    S. Michelin, Self-propulsion of chemically active droplets, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 55, 77–101 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Deserno, Fluid lipid membranes: From differential geometry to curvature stresses, Chem

    M. Deserno, Fluid lipid membranes: From differential geometry to curvature stresses, Chem. Phys. Lipids. 185, 11–45 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Helfrich, Elastic properties of lipid bilayers: Theory and possible experiments, Z

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

    1973

  9. [17]

    Rallabandi, N

    B. Rallabandi, N. Oppenheimer, M. Y. B. Zion, and H. A. Stone, Membrane-induced hydroelastic migration of a particle surfing its own wave, Nat. Phys. 14, 1211 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    S. H. Lee, R. S. Chadwick, and L. G. Leal, Motion of a sphere in the presence of a plane interface. Part 1. An approximate solution by generalization of the method of Lorentz, J. Fluid Mech. 93, 705–726 (1979)

    1979

  11. [19]

    Kamrin, M

    K. Kamrin, M. Z. Bazant, and H. A. Stone, Effective slip boundary conditions for arbitrary periodic surfaces: The surface mobility tensor, J. Fluid Mech. 658, 409 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    S. E. Spagnolie and E. Lauga, Hydrodynamics of self-propulsion near a boundary: predictions and accuracy of far-field approximations, J. Fluid Mech. 700, 105 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Poddar, A

    A. Poddar, A. Bandopadhyay, and S. Chakraborty, Near-wall hydrodynamic slip triggers swimming state transition of micro-organisms, J. Fluid Mech. 894, A11 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Lorentz, A general theorem concerning the motion of a viscous fluid and a few consequences derived from it, Versl

    H. Lorentz, A general theorem concerning the motion of a viscous fluid and a few consequences derived from it, Versl. Kon. Acad. Wet. Amst. 5, 168 (1897)

  15. [23]

    Masoud and H

    H. Masoud and H. A. Stone, The reciprocal theorem in fluid dynamics and transport phenomena, J. Fluid Mech. 879, P1 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    A. T. Chwang and T. Y.-T. Wu, Hydromechanics of low-Reynolds-number flow. Part 2. Singularity method for stokes flows, J. Fluid Mech. 67, 787–815 (1975)

    1975

  17. [25]

    Kurzthaler and H

    C. Kurzthaler and H. A. Stone, Microswimmers near corrugated, periodic surfaces, Soft Matter 17, 3322 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    J. R. Blake, A note on the image system for a stokeslet in a no-slip boundary, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 70, 303–310 (1971)

    1971

  19. [27]

    Bateman and B

    H. Bateman and B. M. Project, Tables of Integral Transforms (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1954) funding by Office of Naval Research

    1954

  20. [28]

    Aderogba and J

    K. Aderogba and J. R. Blake, Action of a force near the planar surface between two semi-infinite immiscible liquids at very low reynolds numbers, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 18, 345–356 (1978)

    1978

  21. [29]

    Berdan and L

    C. Berdan and L. Leal, Motion of a sphere in the presence of a deformable interface: I. Perturbation of the interface from flat: the effects on drag and torque, J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 87, 62 (1982)

    1982

  22. [30]

    V. A. Shaik and A. M. Ardekani, Motion of a model swimmer near a weakly deforming interface, J. Fluid Mech. 824, 42–73 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Abramowitz, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, (Dover Publi- cations, Inc., USA, 1974)

    M. Abramowitz, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, (Dover Publi- cations, Inc., USA, 1974)

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.