Sheet elastocapillary energy ratio ($\eta =\gamma L^2/B$)

The sheet elastocapillary energy ratio compares capillary and bending energy scales for an elastic sheet:Here $L$ is a lateral size, $\gamma$ is surface tension, $B$ is plate bending stiffness and ${\ell }_{\mathrm{ec}}$ is the elastocapillary length. The ratio is a dimensionless quantity: $\gamma L^2$ and $B$ both have units of energy.

The estimate assumes bending through an angle of order one over size $L$. Then curvature scales as $1/L$ and integrating the bending energy density over area $L^2$ gives a scale $B$. A comparable change in interfacial area gives a surface energy scale $\gamma L^2$. The same balance underlies the capillary origami study's definition of elastocapillary length.^[ref]

For an original calculation, take $B=2\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$, $\gamma =0.05N/m$ and $L=1\mathrm{mm}$. Then $\eta =2.5$. Doubling $L$ alone raises it to 10. Halving thickness at fixed $L$, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio divides $B$ by eight and raises $\eta$ to 20.

Changing all dimensions gives another trend. Write $s=L/L_0$ and keep material properties and surface tension fixed. At fixed thickness, $\eta /{\eta }_0=s^2$; at fixed aspect ratio $h/L$, $B/B_0=s^3$ and $\eta /{\eta }_0=s^{-1}$. Thus halving $L$ alone gives one quarter of the initial ratio, while halving both $L$ and $h$ doubles it.

A larger ratio makes capillary energy more competitive with bending, but does not establish complete closure. Actual wetting, contact angle, droplet volume, contact-line pinning and accessible deformation paths also matter. The ratio compares scales rather than computing the full change in energy along a folding path.