4.6 Article

Primitive-path statistics of entangled polymers: mapping multi-chain simulations onto single-chain mean-field models

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/1/015027

关键词

-

资金

  1. Army Research Office [W911NF-08-2-0058, W911NF-09-1-0071]
  2. Research Programme of the Dutch Polymer Institute (DPI), Eindhoven, The Netherlands [744]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a method to map the full equilibrium distribution of the primitivepath (PP) length, obtained from multi-chain simulations of polymer melts, onto a single-chain mean-field 'target' model. Most previous works used the Doi-Edwards tube model as a target. However, the average number of monomers per PP segment, obtained from multi-chain PP networks, has consistently shown a discrepancy of a factor of two with respect to tube-model estimates. Part of the problem is that the tube model neglects fluctuations in the lengths of PP segments, the number of entanglements per chain and the distribution of monomers among PP segments, while all these fluctuations are observed in multi-chain simulations. Here we use a recently proposed slip-link model, which includes fluctuations in all these variables as well as in the spatial positions of the entanglements. This turns out to be essential to obtain qualitative and quantitative agreement with the equilibrium PP-length distribution obtained from multi-chain simulations. By fitting this distribution, we are able to determine two of the three parameters of the model, which govern its equilibrium properties. This mapping is executed for four different linear polymers and for different molecular weights. The two parameters are found to depend on chemistry, but not on molecular weight. The model predicts a constant plateau modulus minus a correction inversely proportional to molecular weight. The value for wellentangled chains, with the parameters determined ab initio, lies in the range of experimental data for the materials investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据