Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byPeter Payne Modified over 9 years ago
1
Chen-Yang Liu, Roland Keunings, Christian Bailly UCL, Louvain la Neuve, Belgium Dynamics of complex fluids: 10 years on, Cambridge, October 2-5 2006 Old New Ideas Questions …about viscosity, plateau modulus and Rouse chains
2
Objectives - outline Some old and recent results suggest there are still significant inconsistencies/questions about the LVE predictions of tube models Three examples : –Why is Z-dependence of the plateau modulus is less than predicted ? –Is the 3.4 power law fully understood after all ? –Is Rouse really Rouse ?
3
Plateau modulus and zero shear viscosity : questions about constraint release and fluctuations
4
G expl determination Ferry (1980) Minimum G’ method
5
Low polydispersity model polymers ( anionic polymerization) -Polybutadiene -Polyisoprene -Polystyrene Systems analysed Raju VR; Menezes EV; Marin G; Graessley WW; Fetters LJ. Macromolecules 1981 1668 Struglinski MJ; Graessley WW. Macromolecules 1985 2630 Colby RH; Fetters LJ; Graessley WW. Macromolecules 1987 2226 Rubinstein M; Colby RH. J. Chem. Phys. 1988 5291 Baumgaertel M; Derosa ME; Machado J; Masse M; Winter HH. Rheol. Acta 1992 75 Wang SF; Wang SQ; Halasa A; Hsu WL. Macromolecules 2003 5355 Getro JT; Graessley WW. Macromolecules 1984 2767 Santangelo PG; Roland CM. Macromolecules 1998 3715 Watanabe et al. Macromolecules 2004 1937; and 2000 499 Abdel-Goad M; Pyckhout-Hintzen W; Kahle S; Allgaier J; Richter D; Fetters LJ. Macromolecules 2004 8135 Onogi S; Masuda T; Kitagawa K. Macromolecules 1970 109 Graessley WW; Roovers J Macromolecules 1979 959 Schausberger A; Schindlauer G; Janeschitz-Kriegl H. Rheol. Acta 1985 220 Lomellini P. Polymer 1992 1255 Liu, He, Keunings, Bailly Polymer (2006)
6
2.1 Dependence of G N 0 on Z e Dependence of G expl on Z Reduced G exp
7
LM Theory : Exact CLF treatment + CR Likhtman and McLeish Macromolecules (2002) MW dependence of plateau modulus less than predicted by advanced tube models: Liu et al. Macromolecules (2006) Dependence of G expl on Z Normalized G epxtl
8
2.2 Comparison experimental data with predictions Excellent accuracy for the terminal relaxation time Significant stress deviations for low Mw samples Relaxation time-modulus contradiction Experimental data vs. predictions of LM theory Inconsistency for the value of
9
Non-permanent entanglements Fluctuations 3.4 0 MW 3.4 D MW -2.3 Experimental scaling: 00 MW Zero shear viscosity
10
CLF of Probe chains Unaffected (?) Tube Motion suppressed Separate contributions of tube motion from CLF Idea goes back to Ferry and coworkers (1974-81) Put a small amount of short chains in a very high MW matrix Probe rheology
11
CLF of Probe chains unaffected Tube Motion suppressed Separate contributions of tube motion from CLF Key question : is there a MW dependence of the retardation factor ? Probe rheology
12
CLF of Probe chains unaffected Tube Motion suppressed Separate contributions of tube motion from CLF If yes, there should be a contribution of tube motions to the non reptation scaling of viscosity ! Probe rheology
13
10% Probe in Matrix
14
Probe Rheology ▪ G’ 2 and G’’ ▪ G’ and G’’ cross-point close to G’’ max
15
Retardation Factors as a function of Z
16
dd d /Z 3 Probe rheology
17
CR parameter: C v = 1 or 0: with or without CR Doi (1981, 1983) Milner and McLeish (1998) Likhtman and McLeish (2002) d /Z 3 Probe rheology
18
Probe Rheology vs Tracer Diffusion Lodge (1999) Wang (2003) Two entangled environments: in Self-melt or in High Mw Matrix DM 2
19
Rouse region : Longitudinal modes and « is it Rouse ? »
20
PBD 1.2M Master Curve peak ~ a few multiples of e
21
PBD 1.2M –80 o C
22
G’’ - (A. 0.71 )
23
Relaxation strength ~ 1/4 G N 0 PBD 1.2M Master Curve Linear-Log
24
Longitudinal Modes Shape of relaxation peak ~ Maxwell
25
Slippage of a polymer chain through entanglement links. Likhtman-McLeish Macromolecules 2002Lin Macromolecules 1984 peak = 3 e LM prediction vs Maxwell Redistribution of monomers along the tube
26
Conclusions - Questions ▪ There seem to be inconsistencies of tube model predictions for time/stress and CR/CLF balance ▪ Probably some of the inconsistencies come from the non- universality of real chains. ▪ Several possible reasons : a chain hits entangled constraint before reaching Rouse behavior local stiffness effects interchain correlations ▪ Moreover: the assumption that fluctuations are unaffected in bimodal blends can be wrong if fluctuations depend on the environment
27
Ferry (1980) Published methods for G expl determination G” Integral method in the terminal region (Kramer-Kronig principle)
28
Raju et al. Macromolecules (1981) If the shape is universal, G app must be proportional to the maximum of the terminal G” peak Maximum G” method Published methods for G expl determination
29
G’’ max vs. Z : data vs. predictions Too strong Z dependence G” max / G expl
30
PBD 99K in 1.2M Matrix ee ▪ Probe in Matrix vs. Probe Self-melt ▪ Probe in Matrix vs. Matrix
31
Probe Rheology vs. LM Model without CR ▪ Same horizontal shift factors for ALL: 5.2 10 6 Vertical shift factor: (1 – matrix 2 ) G N 0 ▪ Horizontal shift factors: 5.2 10 6 ; 4 10 6 ; 2 10 6 Data from: Likhtman and McLeish (2002) Z = 63, 24, 9; Constraint release parameter c v = 0
32
Graessley (1980) Evaluation of the d ▪ Narrow G’’ peak ▪ Retardation of the d Suppression of tube motions Two Key Results for Probe Chain
33
CLF for Well-entangled case ▪ Excellent agreement with model w/o CR Likhtman and McLeish (2002) Vertical shift: (1 – matrix 2 ) G N 0
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.