4.7 Article

Self-Similarity and Power-Law Spectra of Polymer Melts and Solutions

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 14, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym14193924

关键词

self-similarity; relaxation time spectrum; dimension analysis; linear viscoelasticity

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [2019R1I1A2A02063776]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2019R1I1A2A02063776] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relaxation spectrum of unentangled polymer solution is derived using the self-similarity approach, but this method does not work for entangled polymeric fluids. This paper confirms the universality of the exponent in the polymer melt spectrum by employing a new regression algorithm.
Both the Rouse and Doi-Edwards models can be expressed by the relaxation spectra, in the form of power-law functions. The concept of self-similarity has offered a simple solution to many problems in polymer physics. Since the solutions derived from self-similarity are power-law functions, it is essential to check whether the relaxation spectrum of polymeric fluids can be derived by self-similarity. In this study, the power-law spectrum of an unentangled polymer solution is derived by using the self-similarity approach, which does not work for entangled polymeric fluids. Although Baumgaertel et al. (Rheol. Acta 29, 400-408 (1990)) showed that the power-law spectrum can quantitatively describe the linear viscoelasticity of monodisperse polymer melts, regardless of molecular weight, they did not find the universality of the exponent of the spectrum because they found different exponents for different polymers. Under the consideration existing the universality of linear viscoelasticity of polymer melts, this paper deals with the universality of the exponent by employing a new regression algorithm and confirms that the exponent is independent of the type of polymer.

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

4.7
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