Doi‐Edwards theory evaluation in double‐step strain flows

D. C. Venerus, H. Kahvand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

50 Scopus citations

Abstract

It is widely accepted that for reversing double‐step strain deformations, predictions based on the Doi‐Edwards (DE) molecular theory without the independent alignment approximation (IAA) are superior to predictions obtained with the IAA, or equivalently, the Kaye‐Bernstein‐Kearsley‐Zapas (K‐BKZ) theory. This summation, however, is based on data obtained over limited ranges of strain and time: the time both between the step strains (t1) and following the second step strain (t–t1). In this study, a thorough evaluation of the DE theory is carried out using a comprehensive double‐step strain flow data set. The results of this study indicate that the DE theory is an improvement over the K‐BKZ theory in flows with strain reversal but only for cases when the criteria t1, t–t1 ≫ τk is satisfied. The constant τk, defined as the time beyond which the stress relaxation modulus is factorable: G(γ, t) = h(γ)G(t), is believed to represent the end of the chain retraction process in the DE theory. It appears that the dynamics of chain retraction have an important influence on double‐step strain behavior and, therefore, should be accounted for in molecular‐based theories devised to have general validity in this important deformation history. © 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1531-1542
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics
Volume32
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1994
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Physical and Theoretical Chemistry
  • Polymers and Plastics
  • Materials Chemistry

Keywords

  • Doi‐Edwards theory
  • constitutive equations
  • double‐step strain flow

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Doi‐Edwards theory evaluation in double‐step strain flows'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this