Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Thermo-elastic properties of hydrated epoxy-graphene nanocomposites from ensemble-based molecular dynamics simulations

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A water-content threshold near 3 wt% separates harmless hydration from mechanical degradation in epoxy and epoxy-graphene systems, and reliable predictions require ensembles of hundreds of replicas.

desk verdict Useful ensemble-MD methodology and a plausible hydration threshold, but the central 2–3 wt% threshold is not statistically established and the paper states it inconsistently. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15301 v1 pith:KYXSJV2O submitted 2026-07-10 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Maxime Vassaux , Werner A. Müller , James L. Suter , Alexandros Anastasiou , Martin Simmons , David Tilbrook , Peter V. Coveney This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords moleculardynamicsepoxygraphenenanocompositehydrationglasstransitiontemperatureelasticmoduliensemblesimulationsuncertaintyquantification
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 reports large-ensemble molecular dynamics simulations of a cross-linked epoxy resin and its graphene nanocomposite, hydrated from 0 to 5 wt% water. It finds a sharp threshold: up to about 3 wt% water, hydration mainly lowers the glass transition temperature while leaving elastic moduli essentially unchanged; beyond 3 wt%, bulk, shear, and Young's moduli deteriorate. The paper also shows that the distribution of predicted Young's modulus only becomes Gaussian and converged with about 1000 replicas, whereas typical MD studies use one or a handful. If correct, this establishes a practical hydration limit for epoxy-based materials and a concrete minimum-ensemble rule for meaningful MD predictions of mechanical properties.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is an ensemble-based molecular dynamics protocol. For each water content, ten independently hydrated replicas of the cross-linked DGEBF-MDEA network (with or without a 10-layer graphene tactoid) are cooled through a 10 K-step simulated annealing schedule, then each replica is strained in tension and compression along six directions with re-initialised velocities, producing 100 stress measurements per material. Mechanical moduli are extracted from the elastic constant tensor via finite-deformation stress sampling; the glass transition temperature is extracted by fitting the hyperbola of Patrone et al. to density-versus-temperature data. The 1000-replica convergence study for

What would settle it

Measure the Young's modulus and glass transition temperature of a DGEBF-MDEA epoxy cured to high conversion, conditioned at controlled relative humidities corresponding to 0–5 wt% water uptake, and compare with the simulation's threshold at ~3 wt%. Alternatively, run the same ensemble-based protocol with a different force field (e.g., CHARMM or a reactive potential) or with a larger simulation box; if the threshold shifts significantly, or the 20-replica modulus distribution is not bimodal, the paper's central quantitative claims are not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hydration acts on epoxy and epoxy-graphene systems in two regimes separated by a threshold near 3 wt% water. Below the threshold, added water is mostly bound to polar sites, creates free volume, and reduces the glass transition temperature (from about 410 K to about 380 K) without changing elastic moduli. Above the threshold, water clusters form, plasticise the matrix, and lower Young's, bulk, and shear moduli, while Poisson's ratio rises. A second claim is that these moduli predictions are only statistically converged when the ensemble contains hundreds of independent replicas: a 20-replica ensemble gives a bimodal, skewed distribution of Young's modulus, 100 repli

Load-bearing premise

The central claims rest on the assumption that the PCFF+ and SPC/E force fields, the 90% cross-linked network, the roughly 100 Å box, and the graphene-removal equilibration procedure together faithfully represent a real epoxy and its hydration behaviour; if these modelling choices misrepresent water–polymer interactions or network structure, the 3 wt% threshold and the ensemble-size requirement could be simulation artefacts rather than material properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below roughly 3 wt% water, component stiffness is preserved even though Tg drops; above it, stiffness degrades, so 3 wt% is a practical design hydration limit for epoxy-based parts.
  • MD studies of mechanical properties of epoxy and similar polymers should report ensemble sizes of at least hundreds of replicas; single-replica or small-ensemble results carry unknown and potentially large error bars.
  • Graphene does not mitigate hydration softening in the aggregated tactoid form; its benefit is limited to a higher bulk modulus and Poisson ratio, not higher Young's modulus or Tg.
  • The water-clustering crossover near 3 wt% explains the threshold mechanistically: bound water plasticises differently from clustered water, so the threshold may be amenable to spectroscopic or scattering verification.
  • The bimodality of the 20-replica Young's modulus distribution offers a concrete diagnostic for detecting when an MD ensemble is too small.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quantitative 3 wt% value is likely tied to the specific chemistry and cross-link density of DGEBF-MDEA; other epoxy formulations may show a different threshold, so the number should not be extrapolated without additional simulations.
  • The 1000-replica convergence result implies that many published MD estimates of elastic properties of hydrated polymers, which typically use one or a few replicas, may be reporting values whose uncertainty is effectively undefined.
  • The finding that graphene increases water clustering suggests that well-dispersed graphene (as opposed to a 10-layer tactoid) might alter the hydration threshold, possibly concentrating water near interfaces and changing the balance of bound versus clustered water.
  • A testable extension: applying the same ensemble-based protocol to the same epoxy cross-linked to a higher conversion (e.g., 95%) would show whether the threshold and the convergence behaviour depend on network topology, and whether the neat-epoxy baseline obtained by graphene removal biases the comparison.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses ensemble-based molecular dynamics to study hydrated epoxy (DGEBF/MDEA) and epoxy-graphene nanocomposites at 0–5 wt% water content. The authors report density, glass transition temperature (Tg), and elastic moduli (Young's, bulk, shear, Poisson's ratio) for 100 replicas per system, and additionally compute Young's modulus distributions for 20, 100, and 1000 replicas at 5 wt% hydration. The central claims are (i) a distinct hydration threshold at 3 wt%: below it Tg decreases while mechanical properties remain unaffected, above it mechanical properties deteriorate; and (ii) that hundreds of replicas are required to obtain converged, Gaussian-like distributions of elastic properties in these heterogeneous systems. Dry baseline predictions (Tg ~410 K, Young's modulus ~2.6 GPa) agree with experiments, and the 1000-replica convergence demonstration is a notable contribution.

Significance. If the threshold and ensemble-size claims are established, the paper would provide practically useful guidance for MD simulations of hygrothermal aging in epoxy nanocomposites: a water-content threshold with distinct thermal/mechanical regimes, and a minimum ensemble size for reproducible elastic-property predictions. The strengths are the systematic 0–5 wt% hydration scan, validation of dry baselines against experiment, and the explicit 1000-replica uncertainty-quantification experiment showing that small ensembles produce skewed or bimodal Young's modulus distributions. However, the threshold claim is currently not statistically supported, and the neat-epoxy baseline construction may introduce bias. The paper's value will depend on whether the authors can provide rigorous statistical evidence for the threshold and demonstrate that the qualitative structural mechanism (bound-to-free water crossover) coincides with the mechanical breakpoint.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs §3.3 and Conclusion] The central threshold is stated inconsistently. The abstract says 'a distinct threshold at 3 %wt water content'; §3.3 states that properties 'remain stable upto 2% water content' and 'Beyond this threshold' deteriorate; the conclusion says 'beyond 2% to 3% hydration.' The manuscript must either define a single threshold with an uncertainty interval or explicitly reframe the claim as a transition zone. This is load-bearing because the abstract's quantitative threshold is the headline result.
  2. [§3.3, Figure 6] No statistical hypothesis tests are provided. The mechanical property changes between adjacent hydration levels (e.g., 0 vs 1, 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3 wt%) are reported only as means and standard deviations over 100 replicas. The error bars are substantial—for Young's modulus they appear to span roughly ±0.2 GPa—and the reported differences are of comparable magnitude. Without pairwise significance tests (e.g., Welch's t-test or Mann-Whitney U with multiple-comparison correction) or a formal change-point test, the claim that properties are 'unaffected' below a threshold and 'deteriorate' above it is not justified. Please report effect sizes and confidence intervals for the relevant comparisons.
  3. [§3.1 and §3.2] The proposed mechanism for the threshold—that water molecules change from bound to free at ~3 wt%—is not quantitatively connected to the data. The cluster size analysis in §3.1 is qualitative, and no metric such as fraction of free water, mean cluster size, or hydrogen-bond population is plotted as a function of water content with a breakpoint at the same location. To support the threshold claim, show that a structural water metric changes at the same water content and demonstrate this is statistically distinguishable from a monotonic trend.
  4. [§2.1] The neat epoxy baseline is obtained by removing the graphene sheets from the graphene-containing composite and re-equilibrating. This is not an independently constructed neat system: the cross-linked network topology, free-volume distribution, and potentially the hydration environment are inherited from the composite. The comparison between epoxy and graphene nanocomposites therefore conflates the effect of graphene with the effect of this initialization. Please validate by building neat epoxy networks from independent packing/cross-linking runs and showing that key descriptors (cross-link density, density, Tg, moduli) agree with the current baseline within statistical uncertainty.
  5. [§4, Figure 7] The claim that 'hundreds of replicas are necessary to report converged distributions of elastic properties' is demonstrated for only one state point: neat epoxy at 5 wt% hydration. The conclusion generalizes this rule to all hydrated epoxy and graphene systems. Either restrict the claim to the tested system or support it with at least one additional state point (e.g., a graphene nanocomposite or a lower hydration level). Additionally, the 'convergence' assessment is based on visual inspection of histograms and Q-Q plots; quantitative tests (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk, bootstrap confidence intervals for skewness) would strengthen the conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Formatting of percentages is inconsistent: '3 %wt' in the abstract vs '5wt%' and '2% water content' elsewhere. Please unify.
  2. [§2.1] Typo: 'grapheene' should be 'graphene'.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (1)] The term 'e^c' uses Euler's constant e alongside a least-squares fit; please define the notation explicitly (e.g., exp(c)) to avoid ambiguity. The Patrone method is referenced in the text but no citation number is given at that point; [27] should be cited here.
  4. [§2.3 and §2.5] The text in §2.3 says the simulated annealing has a 'combined duration of 90 ns of NPT,' while §4 says equilibration was 'over 100 ns.' Please reconcile these numbers or clarify what is included in each.
  5. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states that 'standard error' is displayed in panels (a,b), but panel (c) says error bars correspond to 'total standard deviation of all 10 replicas.' Please clarify which quantity is plotted in each panel.
  6. [Figure 7] For 20 replicas, a histogram with Freedman-Diaconis binning may be misleading; consider also showing individual replica values or a strip plot. The Q-Q plot for 20 replicas also has very few points and is hard to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central predictions are simulation outputs, not fitted inputs or self-citation closures.

full rationale

The paper's central results—the hydration threshold in Tg and mechanical properties, the graphene effect on K and ν, and the claim that ~1000 replicas are needed for converged modulus distributions—are generated by the MD simulations described in §2 and presented in Figs. 5–7, not derived from a fit of the target quantities. The Tg estimate uses the Patrone hyperbola (Eq. 1) fitted to density-vs-temperature data; extracting T0 from a measured density curve is a standard operational estimate, not a circular 'prediction' because the density data are not constructed from T0. The ensemble-size claim is supported by the paper's own 20/100/1000-replica histograms and Q-Q plots (Fig. 7). Self-citations to refs. 12 and 18–20 supply methodology and prior context, but the load-bearing evidence in this paper is its own simulations, including comparisons against experimental Tg (~410 K) and Young's modulus (~2.6 GPa). The abstract's 3 wt% threshold vs §3.3's 'up to 2%' wording and absence of significance tests are substantive statistical-validity concerns, but they are not circularity: the values are observed simulation outcomes. No step reduces by construction to an input parameter or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The scientific burden sits on classical force-field fidelity and model representativeness, not on new physical entities. The one numerically fitted component is the Patrone hyperbola used to extract Tg; the cross-link conversion cutoff is a hand-chosen protocol parameter. All other entries are domain assumptions about transferability of the models.

free parameters (2)
  • Patrone hyperbola Tg fit parameters (T0, rho0, a, b, c) = T0 (Tg) and four shape parameters fitted per density-temperature curve
    Eq. (1) is fit by least squares to 26 density measurements; the reported Tg and its hydration trend depend on this fit, though the density data themselves are independent observations.
  • Cross-link conversion cutoff = 90% of epoxy groups bonded
    Chosen in §2.1; ring catenation is cited as the reason to stop at 90%; a different conversion would change Tg and moduli.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption PCFF+ classical force field accurately describes epoxy-water-graphene interactions and mechanical response
    Invoked in §2.1; all conclusions inherit force-field errors; the paper notes force field as an unaddressed uncertainty in §4.
  • domain assumption SPC/E rigid water model adequately represents absorbed water, including cluster formation
    §2.2; water cluster behavior is central to the threshold interpretation.
  • domain assumption The ~100 Å cubic box with one 10-layer graphene tactoid and 90% cross-link conversion is representative of bulk composite
    §2.1-2.3; no systematic size or conversion study for the hydrated systems is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The neat epoxy baseline obtained by deleting graphene sheets from the composite and re-equilibrating is an unbiased representation of pure epoxy
    §2.1: 'The pure epoxy system is obtained from the graphene systems by removing the graphene sheets and re-equilibrating the system.' This couples the two compared systems and may bias graphene-vs-epoxy differences.
  • domain assumption Short annealing steps (0.5 ns NVT + 2 ns NPT per 10 K) are sufficient to sample the glass transition and equilibrate density
    §2.3; the authors acknowledge long relaxation times but do not test convergence of Tg with cooling rate.
  • standard math Patrone hyperbola model describes density-temperature behavior and yields an unbiased Tg estimator
    Eq. (1) from ref [27]; the fitted T0 is taken as Tg.
  • domain assumption A 1% strain amplitude keeps the deformation in the linear elastic regime
    §2.4; the elastic moduli are computed from finite deformations at ±1% strain, assuming linear response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermo-elastic properties of hydrated epoxy-graphene nanocomposites from ensemble-based molecular dynamics simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYXSJV2O

@misc{pith2026260715301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermo-elastic properties of hydrated epoxy-graphene nanocomposites from ensemble-based molecular dynamics simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYXSJV2O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15301}
}
read the original abstract

Epoxy-based materials are inherently hygroscopic, absorbing moisture from the environment, which can significantly alter their short and long-term performance. The presence of graphene is often considered as a potential candidate to act as a microscopic barrier, mitigating the adverse effects of hydration on the matrix. This study investigates the impact of hydration on the glass transition and elastic mechanical properties of epoxy resins and their graphene nanocomposites, focusing on water content up to 5 %wt. Using large-ensemble molecular dynamics simulations, we analyze the temperature-driven glass transition and mechanical response of both neat epoxy and epoxy-graphene systems under varying hydration levels. Our results reveal a distinct threshold at 3 %wt water content: below this, hydration primarily reduces the glass transition temperature, while mechanical properties remain unaffected. Beyond 3 %wt, however, the mechanical properties deteriorate, highlighting a non-linear sensitivity to water uptake. Furthermore, we emphasize the critical role of ensemble size in ensuring the reliability of molecular dynamics predictions for such heterogeneous systems. Our simulations demonstrate that ensembles substantially larger than current state-of-the-art standards are necessary to achieve converged distributions of the predicted mechanical properties, particularly in highly heterogeneous hydrated epoxy-graphene nanocomposites. These findings provide novel insights into the hydration behavior of epoxy-based materials and underscore the potential of graphene to enhance their environmental resistance. This work also advances the understanding of structure-property relationships in polymer nanocomposites, offering guidance for the design of more robust materials in humid environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Molecular models of epoxy-graphene nanocomposites. (a) Visualisation of the hydrated epoxy-graphene nanocomposite molecular model. The molecular model is composed of 103, 365 atoms con￾tained in a cubic box approximately 100 Å wide at 300K. The model shown has a water content of 5 wt%. (b) Visualisation of the water molecules and the stack of graphene sheets in the molecular model shown in (a) as packed in the epoxy… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. figure 1.b). Water molecules are modelled using the rigid SPC/E water model run under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Methodology for the simulation of synthesis and characterisation epoxy-graphene nanocomposites. (i) The synthesis consists in a first cross-linking step of the epoxy monomers, in presence or not of a graphene tactoid. (ii) The cross-linked molecular models are equilibrated at 700 K and 1 atm. (iii) The molecular models are hydrated to the targeted hydration level. (iv) The hydrated molecular models are cooled down t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Water structure in epoxy resins. Water short-range and medium-range order in epoxy resins. (a-d) Evolution of the radial distribution functions (RDF) of the water and epoxy oxygen atoms with water content. (a) Water-water oxygen RDF up to 10 Å, (c) zoom on the 4 to 10 …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graphene-induced structural changes in water. Water short-range and medium-range order at 5% hydration. Evolution of the RDF of between the water oxygen atoms and various epoxy chains atoms types: (a) in pure epoxy resins and (b) in graphene-epoxy nanocomposites. (c) W…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density and glass transition. Influence of water content on the evolution of the (a) polymer and (b) graphene nanocomposite density with temperature. The vertical dashed lines label the glass transition temperature. (c) Evolution of the glass transition temperature wit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mechanical elastic properties. Degradation of the elastic properties for both pure epoxy polymer and graphene nanocomposites, as a function of water content from 0 % to 5 % by mass. (a) Young’s modulus, (b) bulk modulus, (c) and (d) shear moduli G1 and G2, and (e) Pois…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Uncertainty quantification. Analysis of the distribution of Young’s modulus in pure epoxy resin with 5 % hydration using a non-bootstrapped histogram and a quantile-quantile plot for three ensemble size: (a, b) 20 replicas, (c, d) 100 replicas, and (e, f) 1000 replicas…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references

  1. [1]

    R. J. Morgan, J. E. O’neal, D. L. Fanter, The effect of moisture on the physical and mechanical integrity of epoxies, Journal of Materials Science 15 (1980) 751–764

    1980

  2. [2]

    L.-h. Tam, D. Lau, Moisture effect on the mechanical and interfacial properties of epoxy-bonded material system: An atomistic and experimental investigation, Polymer 57 (2015) 132–142

    2015

  3. [3]

    Kim, Distribution and Diffusion of Water in Model Epoxy Molding Compound: Molecular Dynamics Simulation Approach, IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging 33 (2010) 333–339

    Seung Geol Lee, Seung Soon Jang, Jongman Kim, G. Kim, Distribution and Diffusion of Water in Model Epoxy Molding Compound: Molecular Dynamics Simulation Approach, IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging 33 (2010) 333–339

    2010

  4. [4]

    Yamamoto, R

    S. Yamamoto, R. Kuwahara, K. Tanaka, Dynamic behaviour of water molecules in heterogeneous free space formed in an epoxy resin, Soft Matter 17 (2021) 6073–6080

    2021

  5. [5]

    Pandiyan, J

    S. Pandiyan, J. Krajniak, G. Samaey, D. Roose, E. Nies, A molecular dynamics study of water transport inside an epoxy polymer matrix, Computational Materials Science 106 (2015) 29–37

    2015

  6. [6]

    Zhang, K

    D. Zhang, K. Li, Y. Li, H. Sun, J. Cheng, J. Zhang, Characteristics of water absorption in amine-cured epoxy networks: a molecular simulation and experimental study, Soft Matter 14 (2018) 8740–8749. 15

    2018

  7. [7]

    J. Hou, L. Zou, Z. Han, L. Zhang, Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Key Physical Prop- erties of Cross-Linked Epoxy Resins Saturated with Water Absorption, in: 2024 IEEE 7th International Electrical and Energy Conference (CIEEC), IEEE, Harbin, China, 2024, pp. 899–903

    2024

  8. [8]

    Frömbgen, E

    T. Frömbgen, E. Surzhikova, J. Dölz, J. Proppe, B. Kirchner, C. R. Jacob, Uncertainty quantification for in silico chemistry, Chemical Reviews 126 (2026) 4189–4236

    2026

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Sheng, G

    C. Sheng, G. Wu, X. Sun, S. Liu, Molecular Dynamics Investigation of the Thermo- Mechanical Properties of the Moisture Invaded and Cross-Linked Epoxy System, Poly- mers 14 (2021) 103

    2021

  2. [10]

    Peretz Damari, L

    S. Peretz Damari, L. Cullari, D. Laredo, R. Nadiv, E. Ruse, R. Sripada, O. Regev, Graphene and boron nitride nanoplatelets for improving vapor barrier properties in epoxy nanocomposites, Progress in Organic Coatings 136 (2019) 105207

    2019

  3. [11]

    D. G. Papageorgiou, I. A. Kinloch, R. J. Young, Mechanical properties of graphene and graphene-based nanocomposites, Progress in Materials Science 90 (2017) 75–127

    2017

  4. [12]

    J. L. Suter, M. Vassaux, P. V. Coveney, Large-scale molecular dynamics elucidates the mechanics of reinforcement in graphene-based composites, Advanced Materials 35 (2023) 2302237

    2023

  5. [13]

    Liu, Y.-C

    H.-K. Liu, Y.-C. Wang, T.-H. Huang, Moisture effect on mechanical properties of graphene/epoxy nanocomposites, Journal of Mechanics 32 (2016) 673–682

    2016

  6. [14]

    W. Li, L. Zhang, M. Zhang, S. Chen, Structures of Graphene-Reinforced Epoxy Coatings and the Dynamic Diffusion of Guest Water: A Molecular Dynamics Study, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 59 (2020) 20749–20756

    2020

  7. [15]

    S. Kwon, M. Y. Lee, S. Yang, Molecular dynamics approach on the hygroelastic behavior of epoxy/graphene nanocomposites, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 33 (2019) 741–747

    2019

  8. [16]

    S. Yang, S. Kwon, M. Y. Lee, M. Cho, Molecular dynamics and micromechanics study of hygroelastic behavior in graphene oxide-epoxy nanocomposites, Composites Part B: Engineering 164 (2019) 425–436

    2019

  9. [17]

    X.Zhang, G.He, H.Yao, X.Wang, G.Ma, J.Li, Z.Yu, G.Lu, Z.Gao, Effectofgraphene on the properties of epoxy in hygrothermal environment by molecular dynamics method, Electronic Research Archive 31 (2023) 3510–3533

    2023

  10. [18]

    S. Wan, R. C. Sinclair, P. V. Coveney, Uncertainty quantification in classical molecular dynamics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 379 (2021) rsta.2020.0082, 20200082

    2021

  11. [19]

    Vassaux, S

    M. Vassaux, S. Wan, W. Edeling, P. V. Coveney, Ensembles Are Required to Handle Aleatoric and Parametric Uncertainty in Molecular Dynamics Simulation, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 17 (2021) 5187–5197. 16

    2021

  12. [20]

    J. L. Suter, W. A. Müller, M. Vassaux, A. Anastasiou, M. Simmons, D. Tilbrook, P. V. Coveney, Rapid, Accurate and Reproducible Prediction of the Glass Transition Tem- perature Using Ensemble-Based Molecular Dynamics Simulation, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 21 (20...

    2025

  13. [21]

    H. Sun, S. J. Mumby, J. R. Maple, A. T. Hagler, An ab Initio CFF93 All-Atom Force Field for Polycarbonates, Journal of the American Chemical Society 116 (1994) 2978– 2987

    1994

  14. [22]

    J. R. Maple, M. Hwang, T. P. Stockfisch, U. Dinur, M. Waldman, C. S. Ewig, A. T. Hagler, Derivation of class II force fields. I. Methodology and quantum force field for the alkyl functional group and alkane molecules, Journal of Computational Chemistry 15 (1994) 162–182

    1994

  15. [23]

    M. J. Hwang, T. P. Stockfisch, A. T. Hagler, Derivation of Class II Force Fields

  16. [24]

    Derivation and Characterization of a Class II Force Field, CFF93, for the Alkyl Functional Group and Alkane Molecules, Journal of the American Chemical Society 116 (1994) 2515–2525

    1994

  17. [25]

    K. K. Bejagam, C. N. Iverson, B. L. Marrone, G. Pilania, Molecular dynamics simula- tions for glass transition temperature predictions of polyhydroxyalkanoate biopolymers, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 22 (2020) 17880–17889

    2020

  18. [26]

    URL:https://www.materialsdesign.com/medea- software

    Materials Design MedeA, 2024. URL:https://www.materialsdesign.com/medea- software

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ryckaert, G

    J.-P. Ryckaert, G. Ciccotti, H. J. Berendsen, Numerical integration of the cartesian equations of motion of a system with constraints: molecular dynamics of n-alkanes, Journal of Computational Physics 23 (1977) 327–341

    1977

  20. [28]

    P. N. Patrone, A. Dienstfrey, A. R. Browning, S. Tucker, S. Christensen, Uncertainty quantification in molecular dynamics studies of the glass transition temperature, Poly- mer 87 (2016) 246–259

    2016

  21. [29]

    Ribeiro, W

    H. Ribeiro, W. M. Silva, M.-T. F. Rodrigues, J. C. Neves, R. Paniago, C. Fan- tini, H. D. R. Calado, L. M. Seara, G. G. Silva, Glass transition improvement in epoxy/graphene composites, Journal of Materials Science 48 (2013) 7883–7892

    2013

  22. [30]

    Shiu, J.-L

    S.-C. Shiu, J.-L. Tsai, Characterizing thermal and mechanical properties of graphene/epoxy nanocomposites, Composites Part B: Engineering 56 (2014) 691–697

    2014

  23. [31]

    D.Freedman, P.Diaconis, Onthehistogramasadensityestimator:L2theory, Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 57 (1981) 453–476

    1981

  24. [32]

    Edeling, M

    W. Edeling, M. Vassaux, Y. Yang, S. Wan, S. Guillas, P. V. Coveney, Global ranking of the sensitivity of interaction potential contributions within classical molecular dynamics force fields, npj Computational Materials 10 (2024) 87. 17

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.