Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Geometry-Dependent Adhesion in Transparent, Monodomain Liquid Crystal Elastomers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bulk mesogenic alignment alone determines adhesion strength in liquid crystal elastomer films.

desk verdict Solid room-temperature alignment-adhesion result for side-chain LCEs, but the abstract's factor-of-ten typo and single-frequency DMA extrapolations need fixing before the broad-temperature claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07639 v1 pith:O7IJ7CGE submitted 2025-07-10 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Aidan Street , Devesh Mistry , Johan Mattsson , Helen F. Gleeson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords liquidcrystalelastomerspressure-sensitiveadhesivesanisotropicadhesionpeeltestlosstangentdynamicmechanicalanalysishomeotropicalignmentplanar
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

This paper establishes that the adhesive strength of a liquid crystal elastomer (LCE) is controlled by the bulk orientation of its mesogens, not by surface chemistry. Using a 90-degree peel test on chemically identical, transparent films in four geometries, the authors find that a planar film peeled parallel to the director requires 0.067 N mm$^{-1}$ of force, while the planar perpendicular, isotropic, and homeotropic films require 0.043, 0.026, and 0.015 N mm$^{-1}$ respectively. Because contact-angle measurements show identical surface energies, the differences must arise from bulk alignment. The authors then show that an adhesion factor $\mathcal{A} = \tan\delta/G'$ obtained from dynamic mechanical analysis reproduces the room-temperature ranking and predicts how adhesion and its anisotropy change from 0 $^{\circ}$C to 80 $^{\circ}$C. This makes side-chain LCEs candidates for transparent, programmable pressure-sensitive adhesives whose grip and release direction can be set during film preparation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the adhesion factor $\mathcal{A}(\omega) = \tan\delta(\omega)/G'(\omega) = G''(\omega)/(G'(\omega))^2$, defined from the shear storage and loss moduli measured by small-amplitude oscillatory DMA at $\omega = 1$ rad s$^{-1}$. It quantifies how readily a material deforms while dissipating energy, so a high $\mathcal{A}$ means a soft yet lossy adhesive. The paper pairs this with a 90-degree peel test, using $\Theta = (1 - \cos\gamma)F/w$ to convert peel force per width into adhesive failure energy, and contact-angle measurements to rule out surface-energy differences. The combination lets bulk alignment be isolated as the only varying factor.

What would settle it

Measure peel force per unit width as a function of temperature for all four geometries and compare the ranking and magnitudes with $\mathcal{A}(T)$ from DMA at 1 rad s$^{-1}$. If the predicted crossover (isotropic exceeding planar perpendicular above 45 $^{\circ}$C) or the 12-fold planar anisotropy at 52 $^{\circ}$C does not appear in the peel data, or if changing peel rate reverses the ranking, the single-frequency adhesion factor is not the controlling quantity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in side-chain LCEs, the debonding force in a 90-degree peel test is set by the monodomain director geometry, with all other factors held constant. For chemically identical films with equivalent surface energy, the measured force per unit width is 0.067 N mm$^{-1}$ for planar alignment peeled parallel to the director, 0.043 N mm$^{-1}$ for planar alignment peeled perpendicular, 0.026 N mm$^{-1}$ for the isotropic film, and 0.015 N mm$^{-1}$ for homeotropic alignment. Normalized to the homeotropic case, the ratios are 4.4, 2.9, 1.73, and 1 for planar parallel, planar perpendicular, isotropic, and homeotropic, respectively, in agreement with the Corbett-Adams block model of LCE tack. The paper further claims that a temperature-dependent adhesion factor $\mathcal{A} = \tan\delta/G'$, measured by DMA at 1 rad s$^{-1}$, captures the bulk dissipation responsible for peel adhesion, matching the room-temperature peel data and indicating a maximum anisotropy of 12 between the two planar geometries at 52 $^{\circ}$C.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the adhesion factor $\mathcal{A} = \tan\delta/G'$ measured at a single shear frequency of 1 rad s$^{-1}$ is a valid proxy for the rate-dependent energy dissipation that controls 90-degree peel debonding at every temperature from 0 $^{\circ}$C to 80 $^{\circ}$C; this is not tested against peel measurements away from room temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Room-temperature adhesion ranking is fixed by director geometry: planar parallel (0.067 N mm$^{-1}$) > planar perpendicular (0.043 N mm$^{-1}$) > isotropic (0.026 N mm$^{-1}$) > homeotropic (0.015 N mm$^{-1}$), with planar parallel 4.4 times stronger than homeotropic.
  • Because surface energy is identical across films, adhesive strength can be tuned by bulk alignment alone, without altering chemistry.
  • The adhesion factor predicts that above 45 $^{\circ}$C the isotropic film requires more force to peel than the planar perpendicular film, and that the two planar geometries differ by a factor of 12 at 52 $^{\circ}$C.
  • The films approach the Dahlquist criterion near room temperature; the Chang plot suggests uses as high-shear adhesives, removable tapes, and, at 37 $^{\circ}$C, a possible medical tape.
  • Patterning the director should produce adhesive strips with regions that peel easily or resist peeling depending on local alignment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $\mathcal{A}(T)$ measured at 1 rad s$^{-1}$ is truly transferable, the same DMA protocol could screen other LCE chemistries for PSA behaviour without running peel tests; checking its rate dependence would sharpen that shortcut.
  • The reversal of anisotropy direction relative to the main-chain LCE study suggests the strain regime (linear elastic here, semi-soft there) selects which geometry adheres most strongly, a testable claim.
  • The presence of a second, higher-temperature relaxation implies that reaching the isotropic phase does not automatically lower adhesion; application temperature windows must be measured, not assumed.
  • Using patterned surface alignment or electric fields during curing could create films whose adhesive strength varies spatially, enabling removable or graded adhesives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports 90° peel adhesion measurements at room temperature for four chemically identical side-chain liquid crystal elastomer films—isotropic, homeotropic, planar with director perpendicular to the peel direction, and planar with director parallel to the peel direction. It finds that the planar-parallel geometry has the highest debonding force per unit width and the homeotropic geometry the lowest, with the isotropic film intermediate, and it attributes the differences to bulk mesogenic alignment because the surface energy, measured by water contact angle, is the same for all films. The authors then define a temperature-dependent adhesion factor A = tanδ/G' from DMA measurements at ω = 1 rad/s and use it to predict adhesion rankings and anisotropies from 0 °C to 80 °C, including a factor-of-12 anisotropy between the two planar geometries at 52 °C and an isotropic/planar-perpendicular crossover near 45 °C. The room-temperature peel values are compared with simulations by Corbett and Adams and with prior experiments by Pranda et al., and application windows are discussed using the Dahlquist criterion and a Chang plot.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, this is a valuable demonstration that bulk mesogenic alignment, rather than surface chemistry, controls the adhesive strength of transparent side-chain LCEs, and it is apparently the first study to compare all four possible film geometries. The room-temperature results are supported by internally consistent body values (0.067, 0.043, 0.026, 0.015 N/mm) that match the normalized ratios in Table 1, and the peel and DMA measurements are independent, with no fitted parameter needed for the room-temperature correlation. The data availability statement and the direct comparison with prior simulation and experiment are additional strengths. However, the manuscript currently contains a factor-of-10 discrepancy between the body values and the abstract/conclusions, and the temperature-dependent adhesion predictions rest on a single-frequency DMA proxy that is validated only at one temperature; these issues must be resolved before the broad-temperature PSA claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3 vs. Section 2.2] The abstract and the conclusions quote a maximum adhesive force per unit width of 0.67 Nmm−1, while Section 2.2 reports 0.067 Nmm−1 for the same planar-parallel measurement, and Equation 1 at γ = 90° gives Θ = F/w, so the factor of 10 cannot be absorbed by the relation between force and energy. The percentages in the abstract (62.5%, 38.5%, 23.0% lower) are also inconsistent with the body values: relative to 0.067 Nmm−1, the planar-perpendicular value is about 36% lower, the isotropic about 61% lower, and the homeotropic about 78% lower; the quoted numbers instead resemble the ratios of each value to the planar-parallel value. Please correct the abstract, conclusions, and any downstream quantitative claims to a single consistent set of values.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (2), and Fig. 5] The temperature-dependent adhesion predictions are an extrapolation from a single-frequency DMA proxy that is never validated against peel data away from room temperature. The adhesion factor A(T) = tanδ(1 rad/s)/G′(1 rad/s) is used to predict crossovers and a factor-of-12 anisotropy at 52 °C, but the dead-load peel test has no reported peel velocity, and no frequency sweep or time-temperature superposition analysis is provided to show that 1 rad/s represents the effective strain rate of the peel test between 0 °C and 80 °C. Because the two relaxations in Fig. 4 have different temperature dependences and the four geometries have different G′(T) and tanδ(T) curves, the predicted rankings could change at other effective rates. I recommend adding peel measurements at least at two additional temperatures (e.g., 37 °C and 52 °C), or otherwise demonstrating the rate equivalence, before claiming broad-temperature PSA applicability.
  3. [Section 2.4 / Conclusions] The claim that the material is a candidate for broad-temperature smart PSA applications depends on the unvalidated A(T) proxy, but the paper also uses the same proxy to draw quantitative conclusions, such as 'the isotropic phase becomes larger than planar ⊥ for T > 45 °C' and 'the planar parallel geometry is twelve times higher than the perpendicular case at 52 °C.' These are presented as predictions rather than measurements, yet the conclusions do not clearly flag them as untested predictions. Please either soften the conclusions to separate measured room-temperature behavior from predicted high-temperature behavior, or provide the missing experimental validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [26] appears to be a paper on PMMA/silica nanocomposites, but the text in Section 4 says the LCE formulation has been reported in detail previously and cites [26] for that formulation; this is likely the wrong reference and should be checked.
  2. [Table 1] The Pranda et al. column is ambiguous: the three values 0.1, 0.3, and 0.71 are listed as if they are separate columns, but the caption says they correspond to different crosslinker contents normalized to the planar-perpendicular case. Please reformat the table so this is visually clear.
  3. [Experimental Section] The text says 'Table 1 shows the wt. % of the components before and after the washing step,' but the table itself is labeled with mol% and is Table 2; please correct the cross-reference and the units.
  4. [Section 2.3] The statement 'the values largely overlap at a value of tan δ ≈ 0.6' should specify the temperature range over which this overlap occurs, since Fig. 4(d) shows strongly temperature-dependent loss tangents.
  5. [Figure 5] The black circles in Fig. 5 show peel forces at 20.5 °C superimposed on the adhesion-factor axis, but the mapping between the two quantities is not defined; please add a second axis or a normalization statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: peel forces, DMA moduli, and contact angles are measured independently, and the adhesion factor is imported from prior literature rather than fitted to the peel data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that monodomain LCE film geometry controls peel adhesion, rests on three independent measurements: 90-degree peel force per unit width at 20.5 degrees Celsius, contact angle as a function of strain, and DMA shear moduli at omega = 1 rad/s from 0 to 80 degrees Celsius. The adhesion factor A = tan(delta)/G' = G''/(G')^2 is introduced from prior literature (refs. [3,8]) and computed from the DMA data; no parameter is fitted to the peel forces, so the room-temperature agreement is a genuine comparison rather than a construction. The temperature-dependent statements (e.g., isotropic A exceeding planar perpendicular above 45 degrees Celsius, factor-of-12 planar anisotropy at 52 degrees Celsius) are extrapolations based on the single-frequency DMA proxy and are not validated against peel measurements at other temperatures; this is a validation gap or approximation risk, not a circular reduction. Self-citations [11,12,20,21] supply material constants (Tg near 10 degrees Celsius, order parameter around 0.6, relaxation behavior) and prior characterization, but the adhesion result does not reduce to these constants. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental ranking rests on standard peel mechanics, a heuristic DMA-based adhesion factor, and the assumption that all films are chemically identical with equal surface energy. No free parameters are fitted to the peel data; the only hand-chosen condition is the probe frequency, which sets the scale of all A values.

free parameters (1)
  • Probe frequency for adhesion factor = ω = 1 rad/s
    Chosen as a typical adhesion-test approximation from refs [3,8]; all A(T) values and the room-temperature correlation depend on this single frequency.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Peel force to adhesion energy conversion follows Θ = (1 - cos γ) F/w with no tensile deformation of the peeling arm (Eq. 1, Section 2).
    Standard peel mechanics invoked to convert measured force to energy; assumes a rigid peeling arm and steady-state 90 degree peel.
  • domain assumption The adhesion factor A = tanδ/G' at ω = 1 rad/s captures the dissipative process controlling peel adhesion across temperature.
    Equation 2 in Section 2.3; this heuristic from Ohzono and Corbett-Adams is used to extrapolate adhesion from DMA to temperatures where no peel data exist.
  • domain assumption Water contact angle on the free LCE surface is a sufficient proxy for the interfacial bond energy at the LCE-glass interface.
    Section 2.1 uses strain-independent water contact angles to conclude all films have identical surface contributions to adhesion.
  • domain assumption The four films are chemically identical and differ only in director alignment, relying on prior characterization (refs 11, 12, 19-21).
    The deconvolution of bulk alignment effects from chemistry and surface effects assumes identical composition after the washing step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometry-Dependent Adhesion in Transparent, Monodomain Liquid Crystal Elastomers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7IJ7CGE

@misc{pith2026250707639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometry-Dependent Adhesion in Transparent, Monodomain Liquid Crystal Elastomers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7IJ7CGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07639}
}
read the original abstract

Elastomeric pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSAs) form adhesive bonds under light pressure. Liquid crystal elastomers (LCEs) are exciting PSA candidates as they can impart both anisotropy and temperature-dependence to adhesion, but the full potential of their anisotropic adhesion is unexplored. Here, identical side-chain LCEs, produced as transparent isotropic or nematic films are investigated; the latter aligned in homeotropic or planar geometries. Their room-temperature adhesion, determined through a 90-degree peel test, is consistent with theoretical predictions and strongest in a planar geometry (peeled parallel to the director) with adhesive force per unit length of 0.67 Nmm-1. In contrast, adhesion of the planar perpendicular, isotropic and homeotropic films is 62.5%, 38.5% and 23.0% lower, respectively. The surface contribution to adhesion is identical for all films, confirming that the variation in adhesion is determined solely by the bulk LCE alignment controlled during film preparation. A temperature-dependent adhesion factor is determined from 0 Celsius to 80 Celsius using dynamic mechanical analysis, and found to be in excellent agreement with the peel data at room temperature. Molecular relaxations active above the glass transition temperature are dominant in determining LCE adhesion. The results show that side-chain LCEs can function as transparent, tunable, broad-temperature smart PSAs

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07639 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Idealized schematic of the relative peeling directions of the various LCE films with respect to the glass substrate (top-left) isotropic, (top-right) homeotropic, (bottom) planar with the director perpendicular and parallel to the peel direction from left to right respectively. Note that in both the homeotropic and planar ⊥ cases the director is perpendicular to the peel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Contact angle of water as a function of strain for the LCE systems: homeotropic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Force per unit width required to debond the LCE from the glass substrate at a peel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dynamic mechanical analysis results for the LCE film [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The adhesion factor, 𝓐 = 𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝜹/𝑮′, determined at ω = 1 rads-1 , as a function of temperature for the various samples: homeotropic (orange), isotropic (purple), planar ⊥ (green), and planar ∥ (red). The black circles superimposed at 20.5 ◦C show the adhesion force per u…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A schematic of the mold used for LCE producti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Structures of the LCE precursor components, the 6OCB is washed out of the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The thermal properties of this nematic LCE have been rigorously studied previously through differential scanning calorimetry. [11,12] The onset of the glass transition peak on cooling determined to be Tg ≈ 10 ◦C with no discontinuous Tni found below T = 200 ◦C. [11] Pe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Benedek, I., 2004, Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives and Applications, Marcel Dekker, ISBN: 9780824750596

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 1995, 15, 257–258, 10.1016/0143-7496(95)90006-3

    Brewis, D., Handbook of Adhesive Technology. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 1995, 15, 257–258, 10.1016/0143-7496(95)90006-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0143-7496(95)90006-3 1995

  3. [3]

    O., Terentjev, E

    Ohzono, T., Saed, M. O., Terentjev, E. M., Enhanced Dynamic Adhesion in Nematic Liquid Crystal Elastomers, Advanced Materials, 2019, 31, 10.1002/adma.201902642

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201902642 2019

  4. [4]

    A., Hedegaard, A., Kim, H., Clapper, J., Nelson, E., Hines, L., Hayward, R

    Pranda, P. A., Hedegaard, A., Kim, H., Clapper, J., Nelson, E., Hines, L., Hayward, R. C., White, T. J., Directional Adhesion of Monodomain Liquid Crystalline Elastomers, ACS Applied Materials Interfaces, 2024, 16, 6394–6402, 10.1021/acsami.3c16760

    work page doi:10.1021/acsami.3c16760 2024

  5. [5]

    Guo, H., Hou, S., Saed, M.O., Strong, Reversible, Heat-Activated Adhesion from Liquid Crystal Polymer Networks, Advanced Materials Interfaces, 2024, 11, 36, 10.1002/admi.202400488

    work page doi:10.1002/admi.202400488 2024

  6. [6]

    Choi, S., Guo, H., Kim, B., Seo, J.H., Terentjev, E.M., Saed, M., Ahn, S., Harnessing Extreme Internal Damping in Polyrotaxane-Incorporated Liquid Crystal Elastomers for Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives, Advanced Functional Materials, 2025, 35, 2413824, 10.1002/adfm.202413824

    work page doi:10.1002/adfm.202413824 2025

  7. [7]

    M., 2009, Liquid Crystal Elastomers, Clarendon Press, ISBN: 9780199214860

    Warner, M., Terentjev, E. M., 2009, Liquid Crystal Elastomers, Clarendon Press, ISBN: 9780199214860

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    R., Adams, J

    Corbett, D. R., Adams, J. M. Tack Energy and Switchable Adhesion of Liquid Crystal Elastomers. Soft Matter, 2013, 9, 1151–1163. 10.1039/c2sm26868j

    work page doi:10.1039/c2sm26868j 2013

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    O., Elmadih, W., Terentjev, A., Chronopoulos, D., Williamson, D., Terentjev, E

    Saed, M. O., Elmadih, W., Terentjev, A., Chronopoulos, D., Williamson, D., Terentjev, E. M., Impact Damping and Vibration Attenuation in Nematic Liquid Crystal Elastomers, Nature Communications, 2021, 12, 10.1038/s41467-021-27012-1 18

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    O., Terentjev, E

    Guo, H., Saed, M. O., Terentjev, E. M., Mechanism of Pressure-Sensitive Adhesion in Nematic Elastomers, Macromolecules, 2023, 56, 6247–6255, 10.1021/acs.macromol.3c01038

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Reynolds, M., Raistrick, T., Berrow, S

    Cooper, E. J., Reynolds, M., Raistrick, T., Berrow, S. R., Jull, E., Reshetnyak, V., Mistry, D., Gleeson, H. F., Controlling the Optical Properties of Transparent Auxetic Liquid Crystal Elastomers, Macromolecules, 2024, 57, 2030–2038, 10.1021/acs.macromol.3c02226

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Direct Observation of Biaxial Nematic Order in Auxetic Liquid Crystal Elastomers, Materials, 2022, 16, 393, 10.3390/ma16010393

    Wang, Z., Raistrick, T., Street, A., Reynolds, M., Liu, Y., Gleeson, H. F., Direct Observation of Biaxial Nematic Order in Auxetic Liquid Crystal Elastomers, Materials, 2022, 16, 393, 10.3390/ma16010393

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Gray, G

    Demus, D., Goodby, J. W., Gray, G. W., Spiess, H. W., Vill, V., 1998 Handbook of Liquid Crystals, Fundamentals, Wiley-VCH, ISBN: 9783527292707

    1998

  6. [14]

    Allen, K., 2012, Adhesion 10, Springer Science Business Media, ISBN: 9789400949386

    2012

  7. [15]

    R., Shaha, R

    Merkel, D. R., Shaha, R. K., Yakacki, C. M., Frick, C. P., Mechanical Energy Dissipation in Polydomain Nematic Liquid Crystal Elastomers in Response to Oscillating Loading., Polymer, 2019, 166, 148–154, 10.1016/j.polymer.2019.01.042

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Gay, C., Leibler, L., Theory of Tackiness, Physical Review Letters, 1999, 82, 936–939, 10.1103/physrevlett.82.936

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Lau, C

    Kinloch, A. J., Lau, C. C., Williams, J. G., The Peeling of Flexible Laminates. International Journal of Fracture, 1994, 66, 45–70, 10.1007/bf00012635

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Bayne, S

    Marshall, S. J., Bayne, S. C., Baier, R., Tomsia, A. P., Marshall, G. W. A Review of Adhesion Science, Dental Materials, 2010, 26, 11–16, 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.157

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Mistry, D., Gleeson, H.F., Mechanical Deformations of a Liquid crystal Elastomer at Director Angles Between 0° and 90°: Deducing an Empirical Model Encompassing Anisotropic Nonlinearity, Polymer Physics, 2019, 57, 20, 10.1002/polb.24879

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Mickthwaite, S

    Mistry, D., Connell, S. D., Mickthwaite, S. L., Morgan, P. B., Clamp, J. H., Gleeson, H. F., Coincident Molecular Auxeticity and Negative Order Parameter in a Liquid Crystal Elastomer, Nature Communications, 2018, 9, 10.1038/s41467-018-07587-y

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Mattsson, J

    Raistrick, T., Reynolds, M., Gleeson, H. F., Mattsson, J. Influence of Liquid Crystallinity and Mechanical Deformation on the Molecular Relaxations of an Auxetic Liquid Crystal Elastomer, Molecules, 2021, 26, 7313, 10.3390/molecules26237313

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Menard, K.P., Menard, N., 2020, Dynamic Mechanical Analysis, CRC Press, ISBN: 9781482255515, 10.1038/s41467-018-03346-1

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Rubinstein, M., Colby, R.H., 2003, Polymer Physics, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780198520597

    2003

  16. [24]

    Patrick, R.L., 1981, Treatise on Adhesion and Adhesives: Volume 5, Marcel Dekker, ISBN: 0824713990

    1981

  17. [25]

    Chang, E., Viscoelastic Windows of Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives, The Journal of Adhesion, 1991, 1-4, 189-200, 10.1080/00218469108026513

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    Yang, F., Nelson, G.L., PMMA/Silica Nanocomposite Studies: Synthesis and Properties, 2004, Journal of Applies Polymer Science, 6, 91, 3844-3850, 10.1002/app.13573

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Selective Patterning of Auxetic Liquid Crystal Elastomers, presented at the International Liquid Crystalline Elastomer Conference, Boulder, CO, USA, October 2023

    Street, A., Berrow, S., Mistry, D., and Gleeson, H. F., Selective Patterning of Auxetic Liquid Crystal Elastomers, presented at the International Liquid Crystalline Elastomer Conference, Boulder, CO, USA, October 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Wang, Z., Tuneable Liquid Crystal Elastomer Devices with Electric-field Induced Alignment, PhD thesis, University of Leeds 2025 19 Geometry-Dependent Adhesion in Transparent, Monodomain Liquid Crystal Elastomers ToC figure

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.