Coarse-Grained Simulation Model for Crystalline Polymer Solids by using Breakable Bonds

Takashi Uneyama

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Coarse-Grained Simulation Model for Crystalline Polymer Solids by using Breakable Bonds

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A highly coarse-grained model with breakable bonds reproduces the yield behavior of crystalline polymer solids.

desk verdict A genuinely new mesoscale model with plausible structural outputs; the yield claim holds up, but the Eyring rate dependence needs a check against the Voigt averaging assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13752 v1 pith:A5HSSR3Y submitted 2024-11-20 cond-mat.soft

Takashi Uneyama This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.soft

keywords crystallinepolymercoarse-grainedsimulationyieldbehaviorlamellarstructurebreakablebondsuniaxialelongationnon-affinedeformationclusterunit

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

What this paper tries to establish: macroscopic yield in a crystalline polymer solid can be explained and reproduced without tracking individual polymer chains, by treating the solid as a network of particles as large as a crystalline layer and letting the hard bonds inside crystal regions break irreversibly when they are overstretched. The author argues that because lamellar structure controls mechanical response, a highly coarse-grained model is the right tool for low-strain-rate, long-time simulations that ordinary molecular dynamics cannot reach. Uniaxial elongation simulations of this model show crystalline layers buckling, tearing, and fragmenting into pieces that then move collectively, while the average stress-strain curve exhibits a yield point and the yield stress grows logarithmically with strain rate. If this picture is right, yield is a mesoscale fragmentation event rather than a chain-level one, and a simple particle model can serve as a practical tool for studying polymer solids.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the B-bond: a hard, brittle bond connecting crystalline particles, built from a shifted harmonic stretching potential plus tilt and bending potentials that use a particle director so the crystalline layer behaves like an elastic plate. A B-bond is removed irreversibly from the simulation when its combined energy exceeds $E_{\rm crit}=0.5$, and that removal is the microscopic event that triggers yield. The rest of the architecture lets broken pieces persist as a solid: soft-sphere contact repulsion keeps particles from overlapping, harmonic D-bonds form a soft ductile network that cannot break, and the director-based tilt and bending terms make crystalline layers resist buckling until the critical deformation is reached.

What would settle it

Measure in situ small-angle X-ray scattering during a slow tensile test on a polyethylene sample: the model predicts that lamellar fragmentation and non-affine layer motion begin at the bond-break onset strain and that the yield point follows soon after, so observing yield before any lamellar fragmentation signal appears, or a yield stress that does not rise logarithmically with strain rate in the low-rate regime, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a crystalline polymer solid can be represented by two kinds of coarse-grained particles, crystalline and amorphous, connected by a network of ductile bonds, with the crystalline particles additionally linked by hard, brittle bonds that break once their potential energy exceeds a threshold $E_{\rm crit}$. In this model, small strains deform the lamellae nearly affinely and no bonds break; beyond a strain around $\varepsilon'_b=0.19$ the brittle bonds start to fail, layers buckle or tear, and broken fragments rearrange non-affinely while remaining tethered through the ductile network. The angle-averaged stress-strain curve has a clear yield point at $\varepsilon_y=0.29$ with yield stress $\sigma_y=0.42$ in the model's dimensionless units, and the yield stress follows the activation-volume scaling typical of polymer yield experiments. The author takes this as support for the lamellar-cluster picture of yield, in which only a small fraction of crystalline material must break to create collectively moving units.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that macroscopic yield is governed by the breakage of crystalline lamellae into small moving blocks known as lamellar cluster units, so a model without explicit chain-level dynamics can still capture yield; if crystal slip or chain unfolding dominated, the model would miss the essential mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Below a characteristic strain of about $\varepsilon'_b=0.19$, deformation is nearly affine and reversible; above it, breakage accumulates and structural response becomes non-affine.
The average stress-strain curve has a yield point at $\varepsilon_y=0.29$, and the yield stress depends logarithmically on strain rate with an activation volume $v_a/T_{\rm eff}=37.7$ in the low-rate regime, matching the form seen in experiments.
Only about ten percent of the brittle bonds are broken even at $\varepsilon=4$, so yield is a fragmentation process in which surviving lamellar parts move together, rather than a full destruction and recrystallization of the crystal.
The model predicts that a macroscopic homogeneous specimen would be constitutively unstable after the yield point and should form a neck with coexisting strains $\varepsilon_u=0.16$ and $\varepsilon_n=2.77$ at a constant necking stress obtained from the standard equal-area construction.
Because the chain-level details are discarded, the same two-phase brittle/ductile network can be retuned for other systems, such as glassy/rubbery block copolymer lamellae.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves implicit that the critical bond energy $E_{\rm crit}$ is the natural bridge to a measurable lamellar fracture toughness; calibrating it against experiment would turn the model from qualitative to predictive.
Because voids and cavities are not represented, the model is expected to underpredict failure where cavitation competes with buckling; adding a cavitation criterion is a direct extension the paper notes it does not include.
The equal-area construction's necking prediction is directly testable: a long-gauge tensile test should show a flat propagation plateau at the predicted stress while the two end regions stay near the two predicted strains.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plainly: this paper gives the field a genuinely new, cheap mesoscale model for semicrystalline polymer deformation. The yield claim is mostly defensible, but the Eyring rate-dependence claim needs a robustness check against the chosen orientation averaging before I'd trust it quantitatively.

What is new: particles sized at the lamellar thickness scale, D-bonds for the rubbery network, B-bonds with directors for brittle crystalline layers, and a simple energy threshold for breaking. That combination is not in the cited MD or CG literature. The model is specified in enough detail to re-implement, and the parameter estimates in Appendix C are a genuine attempt to connect to real moduli. The structural outputs—buckling, tearing, rotation, collective motion of broken pieces, and the SAXS-like patterns—are emergent and not obviously forced by the bond-breaking rule. The comparison to the lamellar cluster picture is reasonable.

Soft spots, in order. First, there are no replicate runs or error bars anywhere, and no code or data. For a model paper that's a real gap; the stress-strain curves are single trajectories. Second, yield is partly by construction: B-bonds have a critical energy and break, so seeing a stress maximum is not a surprise. What is not by construction is the shape of the curves, the orientation dependence, the two-peak behavior at intermediate angles, and the rate dependence. Third, the stress-test concern about the Voigt average: it is right that Appendix D assumes affine deformation and ignores mechanical balance, and the author admits this. But the concern as stated overreaches—Fig. 10(a) shows that each orientation already yields on its own, so the average is not manufacturing a yield peak from non-yielding constituents. The weaker and more accurate version of the concern is that the Eyring fit is made to the averaged curve, and the averaging rule can distort the rate dependence. The author should test a Reuss/Sachs or self-consistent average before attaching physical meaning to the activation volume. This is a fixable robustness test, not a fatal flaw.

Bottom line: this is a useful tool paper for people who simulate semicrystalline polymers or lamellar block copolymers and want mesoscale, long-time behavior. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it out, with a request for replicates/error bars, data/code availability, and the averaging robustness check.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a highly coarse-grained particle model for semicrystalline polymer solids. Particles represent crystalline and amorphous layers; a soft harmonic D-bond network provides ductility, while stiff B-bonds with tilt and bending terms mimic brittle crystalline layers and break irreversibly when their energy exceeds a threshold E_crit. Initial lamellar structures are prepared by an artificial crystallinity field rather than by cooling. Uniaxial elongation simulations are run for seven lamellar orientations and several strain rates; orientation-averaged (Voigt-type) stress-strain curves show a yield peak, and the yield stress is reported to follow an Eyring-type relation. Structural analysis reveals buckling, tearing, non-affine displacement spectra with strain-rate-dependent peak wavenumbers, and SAXS-like scattering patterns. The authors conclude that the model reproduces yield behaviors of crystalline polymer solids and supports the lamellar cluster model.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the model offers a computationally inexpensive mesoscale tool for studying the deformation of semicrystalline polymers, complementing atomistic MD simulations. The structural outcomes (buckling, tearing, collective motion of broken lamellar pieces, non-affine displacement spectra) are emergent outputs, not directly encoded in the interaction rules, and they are interesting in their own right. The paper is transparent and well documented: all potentials, Langevin equations, the virtual-work stress expression, parameter estimates in Appendix C, and the orientation-averaging procedure in Appendix D are specified in enough detail to re-implement the model. However, the quantitative evidence for the headline claims (yield and Eyring behavior) rests on a Voigt-type average that neglects mechanical balance, on a narrow and arbitrary fit window, and on single stochastic runs; these issues need to be addressed before the central claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)

[§4.3, Appendix D, Figs. 10–12] The average stress-strain curve and the derived yield stress are obtained by a Voigt/Taylor average over lamellar orientations: Appendix D assumes all mesoscopic regions deform affinely (Eq. (70)), and §4.3 acknowledges that mechanical balance between different mesoscopic regions is ignored. The orientation-resolved curves in Fig. 10(a) differ strongly, with yield stress varying by roughly a factor of three and yield strain from about 0.2 to 0.9. The Voigt average is an upper bound on composite stress and can produce a yield peak and apparent rate sensitivity even when individual orientations show less pronounced behavior. Because the Eyring-type fit in Fig. 12(a) is applied to these averaged yield stresses, the central claim that the model reproduces Eyring behavior may be an artifact of the mixing rule. I request a constant-stress (Reuss/Sachs) or self-consistent average as a check, or at least a clear demonstration that the qualitative and quantitative conclusions are robust to the averaging scheme. The Maxwell construction in Fig. 14 inherits the same concern.
[§3.1, §4.3, Figs. 10–11] No replicate runs or statistical uncertainties are reported; the stress-strain curves and derived Eyring parameters appear to come from single stochastic simulations. The model contains randomness in the initial particle positions, bond formation, and thermal noise, and the breakage rule is stochastic in effect because bond configurations fluctuate. To support quantitative claims such as E = 2.09, σy = 0.42, va/Teff = 37.7, and the power-spectrum peak positions in Fig. 6, the manuscript should provide ensemble averages over several independent initial structures (or at least confidence intervals) and state clearly whether the displayed curves are single trajectories.
[Fig. 12(a), §4.3] The Eyring fit is restricted to strain rates ε̇ ≤ 0.002 with no stated criterion, excluding three of the eight data points shown. With only five data points spanning one decade, and with the scatter visible at the lowest rates, the evidence for 'yield stress obeys the Eyring type relation' is not yet convincing. Please fit the full data range or justify the cutoff, and report the fit residuals and the sensitivity of the fitted parameters to the cutoff choice.
[§5.2] The claim that the simulation results 'support the lamellar cluster model' goes beyond what the model can establish. The model has no chain-level degrees of freedom and cannot distinguish lamellar cluster formation from crystalline slip or chain unfolding; it can only be said to be consistent with the lamellar cluster picture. The concluding sentences of §5.2 also acknowledge that the model cannot be directly analyzed in terms of tie molecules. Please rephrase the support claim as consistency rather than confirmation.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix D, Eq. (69)] The second cosine in Eq. (69) should be cos((θ_i + θ_{i+1})/2) rather than cos((θ_{i+1} − θ_i)/2). The numerical weights reported are consistent with the corrected expression, so this appears to be a typographical error rather than a computational one.
[§5.5] The phrase 'These modes will grow faster than the large wavenumber mode' appears to have a word-order error; presumably 'the low-wavenumber (characteristic) mode' is meant.
[References, ref. [5]] 'Collid Polym. Sci.' should read 'Colloid Polym. Sci.'
[§3.1] The statement that potential parameters are 'tuned so that the model mimics realistic crystalline polymers' is stronger than the order-of-magnitude estimates in Appendix C support; consider rewording to 'chosen based on the rough estimates in Appendix C.'
[§2.3] The virtual-work derivation treats B-bonds as unbroken during the deformation, which is appropriate for the instantaneous stress; it may be worth stating explicitly that the stress is the elastic stress of the current bond network, since broken bonds no longer contribute.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the yield and Eyring-type behaviors are emergent outputs of a breakable-bond model, not restatements of its fitting inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The model inputs are the interaction potentials (Eqs. 1-5), the breakage rule (EB,alpha > Ecrit, Eq. 14), and the parameter values set in Sec. 3.1. Appendix C estimates the potential parameters from elastic constants of crystalline and amorphous phases, not from the yield stress or yield strain reported later. The yield point in Fig. 10(b) and the Eyring-type rate dependence in Fig. 12(a) are not imposed by these inputs: no target yield stress, yield strain, or Eyring activation volume is used in the model construction. The B-bond breakage threshold is a physical mechanism chosen to represent brittle crystalline layers, but the stress-strain peak, its strain value, the buckling and tearing modes, the non-affine displacement spectra, and the measured sigma_y versus ln(epsilon_dot) relation are all simulation outputs rather than fit targets. The self-citations [28,29] (transient potential model) motivate the breakable-bond idea but are not load-bearing for the central claim; that claim is supported by the simulation results and by comparison with experimental stress-strain behavior (Appendix A). The Voigt-type average over lamellar orientations (Appendix D) is an acknowledged approximation and a possible source of quantitative error, but it is not circular because it does not insert the yield behavior into the model. The paper's own limitations (ignoring mechanical balance between mesoscopic regions, the underestimated neck strain epsilon_n, and the inability to capture crystalline slip) are openly stated and affect correctness, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 19 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model's central output (yield via B-bond breakage) is largely encoded by the choice of breakable bonds, tuned potential parameters, and the artificial initial lamellae. The qualitative structural patterns and rate dependence emerge from the dynamics, but no independent quantitative handles are given for the model elements or parameters.

free parameters (19)

kB-bond = 10
B-bond stretch spring constant; estimated from crystalline Young's modulus in Appendix C (eq 62) and then tuned in Sec 3.1.
kD-bond = 0.01
D-bond spring constant; estimated in Appendix C (eq 63, with z0 ~ 1) and tuned.
ktilt = 1
Tilt potential strength; Appendix C estimates 0.63-0.80, rounded and tuned.
kbend = 1
Bending potential strength; Appendix C estimates 0.63-0.80, rounded and tuned.
Ecrit = 0.5
Critical B-bond energy for breakage; chosen so bonds break under large deformation, no derivation.
Teff = 0.01
Dimensionless temperature; Appendix C estimates a range of 10^-5 to 10^-3, but 0.01 is used.
exp(-muD) = 0.1
Controls D-bond formation probability in eq (22); chosen to make a connected network.
exp(-muB) = 100
Controls B-bond formation probability in eq (25); large value enhances B-bond formation.
rD,cut = 2.5
Cutoff distance for D-bond formation.
rB,cut = 1.5
Cutoff distance for B-bond formation.
r'B,cut = 0.5
Director alignment cutoff for B-bond formation.
D (long period) = 1.6
Lamellar spacing in the artificial crystallinity field (eq 23).
chi_bar = 0.5
Average crystallinity in the artificial field.
xi = 0.05
Crystal-amorphous interface thickness in the field.
Eyring activation volume va = 0.377 (va/Teff = 37.7)
Fitted to yield stress vs strain rate data for rates <= 0.002 (Sec 4.3).
Eyring rate constant eps_dot_0 = 6.7e-10
Fitted to the same Eyring relation.
Modulus fit E0 = 1.99
Fitted to E = E0(1 + c*rate^alpha) for rates <= 0.01 (Sec 4.3).
Modulus fit c = 1.8
Fitted to the same empirical relation.
Modulus fit alpha = 0.57
Fitted to the same empirical relation.

assumptions (9)

standard math Overdamped Langevin equations (7)-(8) govern particle position and director dynamics with Ito spurious drift term.
Basis of the Brownian dynamics simulation; standard in soft matter coarse-grained models.
domain assumption Hertzian contact potential (eq 1) represents short-range repulsion between elastic particles.
From refs [33,34]; particles treated as elastic spheres.
domain assumption D-bond harmonic potential (eq 2) represents an ideal-chain network strand.
From ref [35]; kD-bond related to average chain size.
domain assumption Transient potential formalism justifies bonds that change or break under deformation.
Based on author's prior work [28,29]; not re-derived here.
domain assumption System is incompressible with Poisson ratio nu = 1/2.
Stated in Sec 2; used in the flow field (eq 12) and stress definition.
ad hoc to paper B-bonds break immediately and irreversibly when B-bond energy exceeds Ecrit (Sec 2.2).
Phenomenological breakage rule; no molecular derivation.
ad hoc to paper Initial lamellar structure is built by an artificial crystallinity field rather than by cooling (Sec 3.2).
Acknowledged as unphysical but simpler than simulating crystallization.
domain assumption Macroscopic averages over lamellar stacking directions assume affine deformation of mesoscopic regions (Appendix D).
Simplifies average over spherulites; ignores mechanical balance between regions.
standard math Stress is computed by virtual work assuming no B-bond breakage during the small virtual deformation (Sec 2.3).
Valid for sufficiently small strain variations; standard linear response.

invented entities (3)

Particle director u_j
purpose: Encodes orientation of each coarse-grained particle so that tilt and bending potentials can represent elastic-plate behavior of crystalline layers.
Orientational degree of freedom added to particles; no direct experimental observable; follows vector-based bond models (refs 36-39).
B-bond (brittle, breakable bond)
purpose: Connects crystalline particles with hard, brittle elasticity and breaks when deformed beyond an energy threshold, producing yield.
Phenomenological model element; the breakage threshold is a chosen parameter, not linked to a measurable molecular quantity.
D-bond (ductile bond)
purpose: Forms a soft, unbreakable rubber-like network that connects all particles and constrains broken crystalline pieces.
Harmonic spring representing a network strand; standard ideal-chain model element.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coarse-Grained Simulation Model for Crystalline Polymer Solids by using Breakable Bonds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A5HSSR3Y

@misc{pith2026241113752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coarse-Grained Simulation Model for Crystalline Polymer Solids by using Breakable Bonds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A5HSSR3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13752}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a highly coarse-grained simulation model for crystalline polymer solids with crystalline lamellar structures. The mechanical properties of a crystalline polymer solid are mainly determined by the crystalline lamellar structures. This means that coarse-grained models rather than fine-scale molecular models are suitable to study mechanical properties. We model a crystalline polymer solid by using highly coarse-grained particles, of which size is comparable to the crystalline layer thickness. One coarse-grained particle consists of multiple subchains, and is much larger than monomers. Coarse-grained particles are connected by bonds to form a network structure. Particles are connected by soft but ductile bonds, to form a rubber-like network. Particles in the crystalline region are connected by hard but brittle bonds. Brittle bonds are broken when large deformations are applied. We perform uniaxial elongation simulations based on our coarse-grained model. As the applied strain increases, crystalline layers are broken into pieces and non-affine and collective motions of broken pieces are observed. Our model can successfully reproduce yield behaviors which are similar to typical crystalline polymer solids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13752 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Images of the coarse-grained model in this work. (a) A cr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Snapshots of elongation simulations of crystalline polymer s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Snapshots of elongation simulations with different nominal s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Snapshots of elongation simulations with different nominal s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Power spectra data for the non-affine displacement field in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Broken B-bond fractions during elongation. (a) Broken B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Two-dimensional small-angle scattering patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Schematic images of scattering patterns and structura [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Stress-strain curves by the coarse-grained crystallin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Stress-strain curves averaged over lamellar stacking d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Strain rate dependence of (a) the yield stress [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: A stress-strain curve for an elastic network formed on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Maxwell construction for the stress-strain curve in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

[1]

The Physics of Polymers , 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin, 1997

Strobl, G. The Physics of Polymers , 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin, 1997

work page 1997
[2]

J.; Lovell, P

Young, R. J.; Lovell, P. A. Introduction to Polymers , 3rd ed.; Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Lin, L.; Argon, A. S. Structure and plastic deformation of polyet hylene. J. Mater. Sci. 1994, 29, 294–323

work page 1994
[4]

B.; Young, R

Bowden, P. B.; Young, R. J. Deformation mechanisms in crystalline polymers. J. Mater. Sci. 1974, 9, 2034–2051

work page 1974
[5]

Drawing and extrusion of semi-crystalline polymers

Peterlin, A. Drawing and extrusion of semi-crystalline polymers. Collid Polym. Sci. 1987, 265, 357–382

work page 1987
[6]

Tensile Yield of Isotactic Polypropylene in Terms of a Lamellar-Cluster Model

Nitta, K.; Takayanagi, M. Tensile Yield of Isotactic Polypropylene in Terms of a Lamellar-Cluster Model. J. Polym. Sci. B: Polym. Phys. 2000, 38, 1037–1044

work page 2000
[7]

Novel Proposal of Lamellar Clustering P rocess for Elucidation of Tensile Yield Behavior of Linear Polyethylenes

Nitta, K.; Takayanagi, M. Novel Proposal of Lamellar Clustering P rocess for Elucidation of Tensile Yield Behavior of Linear Polyethylenes. J. Macromol. Sci. B 2003, 42, 107–126

work page 2003
[8]

Molecular theory of mechanical properties of cryst alline polymers

Tashiro, K. Molecular theory of mechanical properties of cryst alline polymers. Prog. Polym. Sci. 1993, 18, 377–435

work page 1993

Show all 66 references

[9]

Structural changes in the ordering proc ess of polymers as studied by an organized combination of the various measurement techniques

Tashiro, K.; Sasaki, S. Structural changes in the ordering proc ess of polymers as studied by an organized combination of the various measurement techniques. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2003, 28, 451–519

2003
[10]

R.; Zeng, Y.; Schaefer, J

L´ opez-Barr´ on, C. R.; Zeng, Y.; Schaefer, J. J.; Eberle, A. P. R.; Lodge, T. P.; Bates, F. S. Molecular Align- ment in Polyethylene during Cold Drawing Using In-Situ SANS and Raman Spectroscopy. Macromolecules 2017, 50, 3627–3636

2017
[11]

F.; Donald, A

Butler, M. F.; Donald, A. M. A Real-Time Simultaneous Small- and Wide -Angle X-ray Scattering Study of in Situ Polyethylene Deformation at Elevated Temperatures. Macromolecules 1998, 31, 6234–6249

1998
[12]

V.; Ge hrke, R.; Rieger, J

Jiang, Z.; Tang, Y.; Men, Y.; Enderle, H.-F.; Lilge, D.; Roth, S. V.; Ge hrke, R.; Rieger, J. Structural Evolution of Tensile-Deformed High-Density Polyethylene during Ann ealing: Scanning Synchrotron Small- Angle X-ray Scattering Study. Macromolecules 2007, 40, 7263–7269

2007
[13]

Tensile Deformation of Bulk Polyamide 6 in the Preyield Strain Range

Millot, C.; S´ egu´ ela, R.; Lame, O.; Fillot, L.-A.; Rochas, C.; Sotta, P. Tensile Deformation of Bulk Polyamide 6 in the Preyield Strain Range. Micro-Macro Strain Relationships via in S itu SAXS and W AXS. Macro- molecules 2017, 50, 1541–1553

2017
[14]

Eﬀect of Submicr on Structures on the Mechanical Behavior of Polyethylene

Kishimoto, M.; Mita, K.; Ogawa, H.; Takenaka, M. Eﬀect of Submicr on Structures on the Mechanical Behavior of Polyethylene. Macromolecules 2020, 53, 9097–9107. 23

2020
[15]

Siesler, H. W. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrosco py in polymer research. J. Macromol. Struct. 1980, 59, 15–37

1980
[16]

Molecular Orientations and True S tress-Strain Relationship in Isotactic Polypropylene Film

Song, Y.; Nitta, K.; Nemoto, N. Molecular Orientations and True S tress-Strain Relationship in Isotactic Polypropylene Film. Macromolecules 2003, 36, 8066–8073

2003
[17]

Deformation mechanism of h igh-density polyethylene probed by in situ Raman spectroscopy

Kida, T.; Oku, T.; Hiejima, Y.; Nitta, K. Deformation mechanism of h igh-density polyethylene probed by in situ Raman spectroscopy. Polymer 2015, 58, 88–95

2015
[18]

Microstructural Interpretation of Inﬂuences of Molecular Weight on the Tensile Properties of High-Density Polyethylene Solids Using Rheo-Ra man Spectroscopy

Kida, T.; Hiejima, Y.; Nitta, K. Microstructural Interpretation of Inﬂuences of Molecular Weight on the Tensile Properties of High-Density Polyethylene Solids Using Rheo-Ra man Spectroscopy. Macromolecules 2021, 54, 225–234

2021
[19]

Raman Spectroscopic Analyses of Structure-Mechan ical Properties Relationship of Crystalline Polyoleﬁn Materials

Kida, T. Raman Spectroscopic Analyses of Structure-Mechan ical Properties Relationship of Crystalline Polyoleﬁn Materials. Nihon Reoroji Gakkaishi 2022, 50, 21–29

2022
[20]

Lee, S.; Rutledge, G. C. Plastic Deformation of Semicrystalline Po lyethylene by Molecular Simulation. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 3096–3108

2011
[21]

M.; Locker, R.; Rutledge, G

Kim, J. M.; Locker, R.; Rutledge, G. C. Plastic Deformation of Sem icrystalline Polyethylene under Exten- sion, Compression, and Shear Using Molecular Dynamics Simulation. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 2515–2528

2014
[22]

Plastic Deformation Mech- anisms of Semicrystalline and Amorphous Polymers

Jabbari-Farouji, S.; Rottler, J.; Lame, O.; Makke, A.; Perez, M.; Barrat, J.-L. Plastic Deformation Mech- anisms of Semicrystalline and Amorphous Polymers. ACS Macro Letters 2015, 4, 147–150

2015
[23]

L.; Rutledge, G

Yeh, I.-C.; Lenhart, J. L.; Rutledge, G. C.; Andzelm, J. W. Molecu lar Dynamics Simulation of the Eﬀects of Layer Thickness and Chain Tilt on Tensile Deformation Mechanisms o f Semicrystalline Polyethylene. Macromolecules 2017, 50, 1700–1712

2017
[24]

Deformation and fracture processes of a lamellar structure in polyethylene at the molecular level by a coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulation

Higuchi, Y.; Kubo, M. Deformation and fracture processes of a lamellar structure in polyethylene at the molecular level by a coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulation. Macromolecules 2017, 50, 3690–3702

2017
[25]

A.; in’t Veld, P

Olsson, P. A.; in’t Veld, P. J.; Andreasson, E.; Bergvall, E.; Jutema r, E. P.; Petersson, V.; Rut- ledge, G. C.; Kroon, M. All-atomic and coarse-grained molecular dyna mics investigation of deformation in semi-crystalline lamellar polyethylene. Polymer 2018, 153, 305–316

2018
[26]

L.; Kr¨ oger, M.; Rutle dge, G

Ranganathan, R.; Kumar, V.; Brayton, A. L.; Kr¨ oger, M.; Rutle dge, G. C. Atomistic Modeling of Plastic Deformation in Semicrystalline Polyethylene: Role of Interphase Top ology, Entanglements, and Chain Dynamics. Macromolecules 2020, 53, 4605–4617

2020
[27]

Chain-Level Analysis of Reinforced Polyethylene through Stretch-Induced Crystallization

Hagita, K.; Yamamoto, T.; Saito, H.; Abe, E. Chain-Level Analysis of Reinforced Polyethylene through Stretch-Induced Crystallization. ACS Macro Letters 2024, 13, 247–251

2024
[28]

Coarse-graining of microscopic dynamics into a mes oscopic transient potential model

Uneyama, T. Coarse-graining of microscopic dynamics into a mes oscopic transient potential model. Phys. Rev. E 2020, 101, 032106

2020
[29]

Application of projection operator method to coa rse-grained dynamics with transient poten- tial

Uneyama, T. Application of projection operator method to coa rse-grained dynamics with transient poten- tial. Phys. Rev. E 2022, 105, 044117

2022
[30]

From the melt via mesomorphic and granular crystalline layers to lamellar crystallites: A major route followed in polymer crystallization? Eru

Strobl, G. From the melt via mesomorphic and granular crystalline layers to lamellar crystallites: A major route followed in polymer crystallization? Eru. Phys. J. E 2000, 3, 163–183

2000
[31]

Self-consistent ﬁeld model sim ulations for statistics of amorphous polymer chains in crystalline lamellar structures

Uneyama, T.; Miyata, T.; Nitta, K. Self-consistent ﬁeld model sim ulations for statistics of amorphous polymer chains in crystalline lamellar structures. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 141, 164906

2014
[32]

van Duin, A. C. T.; Dasgupta, S.; Lorant, F.; III, W. A. G. ReaxF F: A Reactive Force Field for Hydro- carbons. J. Phys. Chem. A 2001, 105, 9369–9409

2001
[33]

D.; Lifshitz, E

Landau, L. D.; Lifshitz, E. M. Theory of Elasticity , 3rd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, 1986

1986
[34]

C.; Cacciuto, A.; Frenkel, D

P` amies, J. C.; Cacciuto, A.; Frenkel, D. Phase diagram of Hertz ian spheres. J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 131, 044514

2009
[35]

Doi, M.; Edwards, S. F. The Theory of Polymer Dynamics ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1986

1986
[36]

Solvent-free coarse-grained lipid model for large- scale simulations

Noguchi, H. Solvent-free coarse-grained lipid model for large- scale simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 2011, 134, 055101. 24

2011
[37]

A.; Asonov, I

Kuzkin, V. A.; Asonov, I. E. Vector-based model of elastic bon ds for simulation of granular solids. Phys. Rev. E 2012, 86, 051301

2012
[38]

A.; Krivtsov, A

Kuzkin, V. A.; Krivtsov, A. M. Enhanced vector-based model f or elastic bonds in solids. Lett. Mater. 2017, 7, 455–458

2017
[39]

Exte nsion of moving particle simulation by introducing rotational degrees of freedom for dilute ﬁber suspen sions

Enomoto, K.; Ishida, T.; Doi, Y.; Uneyama, T.; Masubuchi, Y. Exte nsion of moving particle simulation by introducing rotational degrees of freedom for dilute ﬁber suspen sions. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 2024, 96, 125–137

2024
[40]

K.; Dhont, J

Tao, Y.-G.; den Otter, W. K.; Dhont, J. K. G.; Briels, W. J. Isotro pic-nematic spinodals of rigid long thin rodlike colloids by event-driven Brownian dynamics simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 2006, 124, 134906

2006
[41]

D.; Lifshitz, E

Landau, L. D.; Lifshitz, E. M. Fluid Mechanics, 2nd ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1987

1987
[42]

Gardiner, C. W. Handbook of Stochastic Methods , 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin, 2004

2004
[43]

Honeycutt, R. L. Stochastic Runge-Kutta algorithms. I. Whit e noise. Phys. Rev. A 1992, 45, 600–603

1992
[44]

Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensio nally equidistributed uni- form pseudo-random number generator

Matsumoto, M.; Nishimura, T. Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensio nally equidistributed uni- form pseudo-random number generator. ACM Trans. Model. Comp. Simul. 1998, 8, 3–30, http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/˜m-mat/MT/emt.html

1998
[45]

Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation ; Springer: New York, 1986

Devroye, L. Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation ; Springer: New York, 1986

1986
[46]

Mesoscale simulation of spherulite growth during polym er crystallization by use of a cellular automaton

Raabe, D. Mesoscale simulation of spherulite growth during polym er crystallization by use of a cellular automaton. Acta Mater. 2004, 52, 2653–2664

2004
[47]

Nanoscale buckling deformation in layered copolymer ma- terials

Makke, A.; Perez, M.; Lame, O.; Barrat, J.-L. Nanoscale buckling deformation in layered copolymer ma- terials. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 680–685

2012
[48]

P.; Keller, A

Pope, D. P.; Keller, A. Deformation of Oriented Polyethylene. J. Polym. Sci.: Polym. Phys. Ed. 1975, 13, 533–566

1975
[49]

Desari, A.; Misra, R. D. K. On the strain rate sensitivity of high de nsity polyethylene and polypropylenes. Materials Science and Engineering A 2003, 358, 356–371

2003
[50]

Jamming of soft particles: geometry, mechanics , scaling and isostaticity

van Hecke, M. Jamming of soft particles: geometry, mechanics , scaling and isostaticity. J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. 2010, 22, 033101

2010
[51]

P.; Chakraborty, B

Behringer, R. P.; Chakraborty, B. The physics of jamming for g ranular materials: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2019, 82, 012601

2019
[52]

Ericksen, J. L. Equilibrium of bars. J. Elast. 1975, 5, 191–201

1975
[53]

Fielding, S. M. Complex dynamics of shear banded ﬂows. Soft Matter 2007, 3, 1267–1279

2007
[54]

Why does shear banding be have like ﬁrst-order phase transitions? Derivation of a potential from a mechanical constitutive model

Sato, K.; Yuan, X.-F.; Kawakatsu, T. Why does shear banding be have like ﬁrst-order phase transitions? Derivation of a potential from a mechanical constitutive model. Eur. Phys. J. E 2010, 31, 135–144

2010
[55]

D.; Lifshitz, E

Landau, L. D.; Lifshitz, E. M. Statistical Physics Part 1 , 3rd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, 1980

1980
[56]

Adhikari, R.; Michler, G. H. Inﬂuence of molecular architecture o n morphology and micromechanical be- havior of styrene/butadiene. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2004, 29, 949–986

2004
[57]

Fredrickson, G. H. The Equilibrium Theory of Inhomogeneous Polymers ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2006

2006
[58]

Theory of Microphase Separation in Block Copolymers

Leibler, L. Theory of Microphase Separation in Block Copolymers . Macromolecules 1980, 13, 1602–1617

1980
[59]

Equilibrium Morphology of Block Copolymer M elts

Ohta, T.; Kawasaki, K. Equilibrium Morphology of Block Copolymer M elts. Macromolecules 1986, 19, 2621–2632

1986
[60]

W.; Bates, F

Matsen, M. W.; Bates, F. S. Unifying Weak- and Strong-Segreg ation Block Copolymer Theories. Macro- molecules 1996, 29, 1091–1098

1996
[61]

Incorporating Fluctuations and Dynamics in Self-Consistent Field Theories for Polymer Blends

M¨ uller, M.; Schmid, F. Incorporating Fluctuations and Dynamics in Self-Consistent Field Theories for Polymer Blends. Adv. Polym. Sci. 2005, 185, 1–58. 25

2005
[62]

Density Functional Theory for Block Copoly mer Melts and Blends

Uneyama, T.; Doi, M. Density Functional Theory for Block Copoly mer Melts and Blends. Macromolecules 2005, 38, 196–205

2005
[63]

Microstructural study of mechan ical properties of the ABA triblock copoly- mer using self-consistent ﬁeld and molecular dynamics

Aoyagi, T.; Honda, T.; Doi, M. Microstructural study of mechan ical properties of the ABA triblock copoly- mer using self-consistent ﬁeld and molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 117, 8153–8161

2002
[64]

Inﬂuence of Tie an d Loop Molecules on the Mechanical Properties of Lamellar Block Copolymers

Makke, A.; Lame, O.; Perez, M.; Barrat, J.-L. Inﬂuence of Tie an d Loop Molecules on the Mechanical Properties of Lamellar Block Copolymers. Macromolecules 2012, 45, 8445–8452

2012
[65]

Nanoscale Buckling in Lamellar Block Copolymers: A Molecular Dynamics Simulation Approach

Makke, A.; Lame, O.; Perez, M.; Barrat, J.-L. Nanoscale Buckling in Lamellar Block Copolymers: A Molecular Dynamics Simulation Approach. Macromolecules 2013, 46, 7853–7864

2013
[66]

Scattering pa tterns and stress-strain relations on phase-separated ABA block copolymers under uniaxial elongating s imulations

Hagita, K.; Akutagawa, K.; Tominaga, T.; Jinnai, H. Scattering pa tterns and stress-strain relations on phase-separated ABA block copolymers under uniaxial elongating s imulations. Soft Matter 2019, 15, 926– 936. 26

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Physics of Polymers , 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin, 1997

Strobl, G. The Physics of Polymers , 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin, 1997

work page 1997

[2] [2]

J.; Lovell, P

Young, R. J.; Lovell, P. A. Introduction to Polymers , 3rd ed.; Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Lin, L.; Argon, A. S. Structure and plastic deformation of polyet hylene. J. Mater. Sci. 1994, 29, 294–323

work page 1994

[4] [4]

B.; Young, R

Bowden, P. B.; Young, R. J. Deformation mechanisms in crystalline polymers. J. Mater. Sci. 1974, 9, 2034–2051

work page 1974

[5] [5]

Drawing and extrusion of semi-crystalline polymers

Peterlin, A. Drawing and extrusion of semi-crystalline polymers. Collid Polym. Sci. 1987, 265, 357–382

work page 1987

[6] [6]

Tensile Yield of Isotactic Polypropylene in Terms of a Lamellar-Cluster Model

Nitta, K.; Takayanagi, M. Tensile Yield of Isotactic Polypropylene in Terms of a Lamellar-Cluster Model. J. Polym. Sci. B: Polym. Phys. 2000, 38, 1037–1044

work page 2000

[7] [7]

Novel Proposal of Lamellar Clustering P rocess for Elucidation of Tensile Yield Behavior of Linear Polyethylenes

Nitta, K.; Takayanagi, M. Novel Proposal of Lamellar Clustering P rocess for Elucidation of Tensile Yield Behavior of Linear Polyethylenes. J. Macromol. Sci. B 2003, 42, 107–126

work page 2003

[8] [8]

Molecular theory of mechanical properties of cryst alline polymers

Tashiro, K. Molecular theory of mechanical properties of cryst alline polymers. Prog. Polym. Sci. 1993, 18, 377–435

work page 1993