Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Frictional contacts in sheared rod suspensions produce a nonzero rotational torque when derived from a dissipation function, overturning earlier null results and yielding a self-consistent kinetic equation and stress tensor.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:49 UTC pith:WX6MN52L

load-bearing objection Rayleighian approach revives frictional torque for rod suspensions—the central idea is right, but solid-friction results are unclosed and the contact-point symmetry is the load-bearing assumption. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.19149 v3 pith:WX6MN52L submitted 2025-12-22 cond-mat.soft

A Smoluchowski equation for a sheared suspension of frictionally interacting rods

Genevieve Qui\~nones , Peter D. Olmsted This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft PACS 83.80.Hj
keywords dense rod suspensionsfrictional contactsSmoluchowski equationRayleighian dissipationrotational dragshear thickeningcontact numbernematic order
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to show that frictional contacts between rods in a dense sheared suspension do affect the orientational dynamics, contrary to earlier calculations that found the average frictional torque to be zero. The resolution is methodological: instead of assuming the single-rod rotation law and adding a frictional torque on top, the authors build a dissipation function for solid (dry) and lubricated friction, average it over a mean-field distribution of contacts, and minimize the resulting Rayleighian with respect to rod angular velocity. Because the dissipation is even in the contact-point coordinate along a rod, the torque that emerges is proportional to a positive even moment of that coordinate, so it does not average away. The output is a self-consistent Smoluchowski equation and a stress tensor, both written as perturbations of the standard frictionless rod suspension model, plus a formula for the mean number of contacts per rod as a function of volume fraction, aspect ratio, and nematic order. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies the missing frictional piece that could explain shear thickening and vorticity-tilting in concentrated rod suspensions.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the frictional torque on a rod is a rotational drag proportional to the difference between the rod's angular velocity and the flow's imposed angular velocity, with a coefficient built from even moments of the contact position. The coefficients come from uniform averages over contact positions: terms odd in the contact coordinate drop out, but the squared terms do not. Inserting this torque into the continuity equation for rod orientation gives a Smoluchowski equation in which the usual Brownian and potential torque is divided by a renormalized rotational drag that includes frictional contacts; in the lubricated-only limit the drag simply increases by a const

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Rayleighian variational scheme for rod suspensions, with a new mean-field frictional dissipation function. The contact probability between rods is taken proportional to the excluded volume, and contact positions along each rod are assumed uniform and independent of orientation. The critical step is varying the frictional dissipation with respect to rod angular velocity; this flips the parity of the contact coordinate, so the surviving average is the mean squared contact lever arm divided by the local sliding speed, rather than the odd moments that killed earlier attempts. This single object carries the new physics and appears in the kinetic equation, the order-tensor dyn

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the mean-field assumption that contact points along a rod are uniformly distributed and independent of orientation, so that odd moments of the contact position vanish; if shear biases contacts toward rod ends or correlates them, the frictional torque changes form and the derived equations no longer follow.

What would settle it

Run a contact-resolved simulation of rods in simple shear with dry friction and measure the distribution of contact positions along each rod and the mean frictional torque per rod. If the mean contact position becomes nonzero with increasing shear rate (end-biased contacts), or if the torque is not of the form (rod angular velocity minus flow angular velocity) times a positive coefficient, the paper's central mechanism is refuted.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Lubricated contacts simply increase the rotational drag constant by an amount proportional to volume fraction times rod length cubed, so rods in dense suspensions rotate more slowly than the frictionless model predicts; the increment does not depend on the isotropic contact number because the contact-area factor cancels the excluded-volume factor.
  • Solid contacts make the drag self-consistent: the frictional drag depends on the contact velocity, which depends on the rotation rate it damps, so the equation of motion must be solved iteratively; in the strong-friction limit rods rotate with the flow.
  • The order-parameter dynamics and the stress each gain a frictional term proportional to the average frictional torque, so the model can predict shear-thickening behavior once the normal force and the solid-contact fraction are specified.
  • The average number of contacts per rod falls with increasing nematic order, roughly as volume fraction times aspect ratio times a decreasing function of the scalar order parameter, so more aligned suspensions have fewer frictional contacts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mean-field torque form is correct, the self-consistent feedback between stress, normal force, and rotational drag could produce a discontinuous jump in viscosity without invoking static-friction clusters—something the paper's equations make possible but do not demonstrate.
  • The contact-count dependence on nematic order is directly testable in existing rod-suspension simulations: count contacts per rod in sheared systems with different imposed order and compare the slope with the paper's predicted decreasing function of S.
  • The same lesson—that a dissipation-derived torque has even parity and survives symmetric averaging, while a torque added to a pre-imposed equation has odd parity and vanishes—may apply to other force laws in fiber suspension modelling, such as normal or non-central forces.
  • A numerical evaluation of the mean squared contact lever arm divided by sliding speed under simple shear would turn the formal stress expression into concrete viscosity predictions; the paper leaves this to future work.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Smoluchowski equation for a dense suspension of rigid rods under shear, with frictional rod-rod contacts, using Doi's Rayleighian/variational method. Two friction laws are considered: boundary-lubricated friction, proportional to the relative tangential contact velocity, and Amontons-Coulomb solid friction, proportional to the normal force and independent of slip magnitude. A mean-field contact probability based on Onsager excluded volume is introduced, and a uniform, orientation-independent distribution of contact points along each rod is assumed. The resulting averaged dissipation functions are minimized to obtain a frictional torque; in the lubricated limit this reduces to a renormalized rotational drag constant (Eq. V.1), while in the solid-friction limit it gives a self-consistent, nonlinear drag term (Eq. IV.10). The paper derives the corresponding Smoluchowski equation (Eq. IV.11), a Q-tensor dynamics in the weak-friction limit (Eq. V.11), and a stress tensor (Eq. VI.5), all as perturbations of the standard Doi model. It also proposes a generalized contact-number expression ⟨c⟩=(φL/D)(1−S²) (Eq. III.18).

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper resolves a long-standing puzzle: earlier calculations (Bounoua et al., Sandstrom and Tucker) found that frictional contacts give zero average torque, while the present Rayleighian approach yields a nonzero torque that depends on the rod angular velocity itself, producing a qualitatively new contribution to the Smoluchowski equation. The method is principled: it starts from physically motivated dissipation functions and minimizes the Rayleighian, rather than assuming a Jeffery-like equation of motion and adding a torque. The lubricated-contact calculation is clean and gives an explicit, closed-form renormalization of the rotational drag, while the solid-friction result identifies a self-consistent structure that could be relevant to shear thickening in rod suspensions. The paper also provides a falsifiable prediction for the contact number as a function of nematic order. However, the central nonzero-torque result rests on an unverified assumption about the distribution of contact points, and the solid-friction equations are left in an unclosed, formal form. These are correctable with additional analysis, simulation tests, or a clearly

major comments (2)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (III.19); used in Eqs. (IV.2) and (IV.4)] The nonzero frictional torque is obtained by dropping all terms odd in the contact-point coordinates ε_i and ε_j. This is justified only if ε_i and ε_j are uniformly distributed along the rod centerlines, mutually independent, and independent of orientation, as assumed in Eq. (III.19). In a sheared dense suspension this is not a trivial symmetry consequence: the flowing pair distribution is anisotropic, and contact points can be fore-aft biased or correlated (e.g., end-dominated contacts). If such bias or correlation exists, the odd-in-ε terms do not vanish, and the frictional torque is no longer simply of the form (ω_i−ω_0) times a scalar coefficient. Since this form enters the minimization that leads to Eq. (IV.9), the Smoluchowski equation (IV.11), and the stress (VI.4)-(VI.5), the assumption is load-bearing. The manuscript provides no simulation, experiment, or scaling argument to su
  2. [Eqs. (IV.9)-(IV.11) and Appendix C] Even after the mean-field averaging, the solid-friction drag ζ_F depends on ⟨(ε_i)^2/|v_c|⟩_j, which is a functional of the unknown orientation distribution ψ and of the self-consistent angular velocity ω_min itself (Eq. IV.10). Thus Eqs. (IV.9) and (IV.11) are not closed evolution equations; they define a fixed-point problem whose kernel is unknown. Appendix C proposes an approximate evaluation, but it uses Jeffery-type angular velocities for both rods (Eq. C.1), the Bounoua et al. approximation for 1/|v_c| (Eq. C.2), and a quadratic closure (Eq. C.7); none of these is justified in the dense, strongly interacting regime where the model is intended to apply. The small-Δ expansion (Eq. V.6) still contains the same unclosed average. As written, the central equations are formal rather than directly usable for predictions. The authors should either provide a controlled closure strategy, a nu
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (III.18)] The text says 'in the limit S=0 the number of contacts should not scale with the aspect ratio L/D.' This should presumably be S=1 (perfect order), since Eq. (III.18) gives ⟨c⟩→0 as S→1 and ⟨c⟩→φL/D as S→0. Also, Eq. (III.18) is not derived from Eq. (III.17) (which has the coefficient 45/32) but is a distinct interpolation chosen to enforce the correct limits. It should be explicitly labeled as an ansatz.
  2. [§II.B, sign conventions] The sign convention for torques is confusing: Eq. (II.2) defines the drag torque on the rod as −ζ_rω_i, but Eq. (II.12) calls δR_0/δω_i the 'torque on the fluid' and sets it to zero. The relation between the torque on the rod, the torque on the fluid, and the variational derivative should be stated once, so that the signs in Eqs. (III.8), (IV.2), and (IV.4) can be checked without ambiguity.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'self-consitent' in the Introduction, 'cdue' and 'assocated' in the Conclusion, and inconsistent use of the double angle-bracket notation in Eqs. (IV.1)-(IV.4) before it is formally defined. These are minor and should be corrected.
  4. [§IV.C, Eq. (IV.8)] The function Θ(p) is introduced with limiting behavior (IV.7) but no explicit form is proposed. Since the solid/lubricated crossover is central to the shear-thickening interpretation, it would be helpful to state whether the results depend on the sharpness of Θ and to suggest a concrete model, e.g., a logistic or step function, for numerical implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Smoluchowski equation and stress follow by variation of an explicitly stated Rayleighian; the contact-number formula is a flagged interpolation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The paper constructs a Rayleighian from assumed dissipation functions (Eqs. II.23, II.24) and obtains torques, the angular velocity, the Smoluchowski equation, and the stress by standard variational derivatives (Eqs. II.5, II.7, IV.8–IV.11, VI.2–VI.5). No parameter is fitted to the quantities being predicted; the frictional torque in Eq. IV.2 follows from differentiating the mean-field dissipation function with respect to ω_i, not from assuming the result. The nonzero torque relative to Bounoua et al. is traced to not pre-imposing Jeffery dynamics, which is a methodological choice, not a circular reduction. The 'prediction' of contact number, Eq. III.18, is explicitly introduced as an approximation ('Hence, we approximate...') and is an interpolation between the Philipse isotropic limit and the perfectly ordered limit; it is not used to derive the Smoluchowski equation or stress. The paper also clearly states its physical limitations: static friction is not treated, spatial homogeneity is assumed, and the contact-point distribution in Eq. III.19 is assumed uniform and orientation-independent. These are unverified assumptions and correctness risks, not circular steps, because they are inputs to the derivation rather than outputs disguised as predictions. The self-consistent form of Eq. IV.9 is a fixed-point closure, not circularity: the frictional drag is defined in terms of the same angular velocity it renormalizes, which is explicitly acknowledged. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked. Overall, the derivation is not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the Rayleighian variational principle and a mean-field contact model taken from the excluded-volume literature. No free parameters are fitted to data, but the contact-number S-dependence and the sharp Θ(p) step are hand-chosen model inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Contact-number alignment dependence (1 - S^2) = 1 - S^2
    Eq. III.18 replaces the derived closure result (1 - 45/32 S^2) from Eq. III.17 without a new derivation; the replacement is chosen by hand to give ⟨c⟩→0 as S→1 and avoid the negative values of the closure approximation.
  • Threshold pressure P* in Θ(p) = not specified (characteristic lubrication breakdown pressure)
    Eq. IV.7 assumes a sharp step from Θ=0 (lubricated) to Θ=1 (solid) at P=P*; P* is a model input related to contact force, not predicted.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Rayleighian / Onsager variational principle (minimize R = Φ + Ȧ)
    Standard soft-matter tool (Doi 2011, 2013) assumed to give the correct equations of motion for all dissipative processes; static friction, which does no work, is outside this framework (Sec. VII).
  • domain assumption Mean-field contact probability P_con = ρ̄ v_ex = (4φ/π)(L/D)|τ|
    Standard excluded-volume-based contact counting (Philipse, Onsager); assumes uncorrelated, independent pairs, valid at most semi-dilute; at φL/D>1 the 'probability' can exceed unity.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform, orientation-independent distribution of contact points ε_i, ε_j
    Needed to drop odd-ε terms and obtain the (ω_i−ω0) torque; end-biased contacts would change the result.
  • domain assumption All solid contacts are sliding (above the static limit)
    Explicitly stated in Sec. VII; static friction/clusters are not captured, so the model cannot address stick-slip contributions to DST.
  • domain assumption Small normal relative velocity approximation |v_c| ≈ |Δv|
    Eq. III.7 (as in Bounoua et al.); reasonable for dense hard rods but affects the frictional force direction.
  • domain assumption Force laws: Amontons-Coulomb (II.22) and boundary lubricated (II.21)
    Contact-level constitutive assumptions taken from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Doi quadratic closure and Bounoua's approximation for 1/|v_c| (Appendix C)
    Closure approximations needed to evaluate solid-friction averages; Bounoua et al. state the 1/|v_c| approximation underestimates by a factor ~1/ln(L/D).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17274 in / 25663 out tokens · 234698 ms · 2026-08-03T14:49:05.105018+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work we develop constitutive equations for a dense, sheared suspension of frictionally interacting rods by applying Onsager's variational method as formulated by Doi. We treat both solid friction, of the Amontons-Coulomb form; and lubricated friction, which scales with relative tangential velocity at the contact point. Dissipation functions in terms of the rod angular velocity are derived via a mean field approach for each form of friction, and from these, a Rayleighian for dense suspensions of rigid rods under shear constructed. Derivatives of this Rayleighian with respect to rod angular velocity and velocity gradient give a Smoluchowski equation and stress tensor, respectively. We show that these are representable as perturbations to Doi's model for a sheared liquid crystal. We also suggest a form for the average number of contacts between rods as a function of volume fraction, aspect ratio, and nematic order parameter, generalizing Philipse's random contact equation for disordered packings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19149 by Genevieve Qui\~nones, Peter D. Olmsted.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Various concentration regimes of rod suspensions: a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Contact area for two rods. Each of the dotted lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Two rods in contact, the black dots are their centers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Rheology of dense suspensions of granular spherocylinders by particle-based simulation

    cond-mat.soft 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A DEM-style model with blended lubrication and dynamic timesteps predicts dense granular-rod suspension viscosity rising with volume fraction and aspect ratio, plus flow alignment up to an aspect-ratio-dependent peak.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V.6 to calculate the dynamical equation for the order tensorQ

    Dynamical equation forQ We can use the Smoluchowksi equation as approxi- mated in Eq. V.6 to calculate the dynamical equation for the order tensorQ. Beginning from ˙Q= ∫ ( ˆu ˆu− ˆI

  2. [2]

    Odijk, Polyelectrolytes near the rod limit, Journal of Polymer Science: Polymer Physics Edition15, 477 (1977)

    T. Odijk, Polyelectrolytes near the rod limit, Journal of Polymer Science: Polymer Physics Edition15, 477 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    ˙ψd ˆu,(V.7) we find ˙Q= ˙QDE+ ˙QFRIC (V.8) = ˙QDE+ ∫ ( ˆu ˆu− ˆI

  4. [4]

    This term can be evaluated using the following identity [40], ∫ ( ˆu ˆu− ˆI

    ˆR⋅ ⎛ ⎝ ˆR ˜U ζr ∆⟨ (ˆϵi)2 ∣ˆvc∣ ⟩ j ψ⎞ ⎠ d ˆu, (V.9) where ˙QDE is Doi’s [10] equation of motion forQand ˙QFRIC is due to the effects of friction. This term can be evaluated using the following identity [40], ∫ ( ˆu ˆu− ˆI

  5. [5]

    FRICTIONAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE STRESS We have thus-far constructed the Rayleighian on a per- particle basis

    ˆR⋅(xψ)d ˆu= ∫ ( ˆu×x)⊗ ˆu+ ˆu⊗(x× ˆu)ψd ˆu, (V.10) to obtain ˙QFRIC = ∆ ζr ∫ ψd ˆu ⎧⎪⎪⎨⎪⎪⎩ ⟨(ˆϵi)2 ∣ˆvc∣ ⟩ j ×[( ˆu× ˆR ˜U)⊗ ˆu+ ˆu⊗ ( ˆR ˜U× ˆu)]}.(V.11) 9 VI. FRICTIONAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE STRESS We have thus-far constructed the Rayleighian on a per- particle basis. To calculate the stress tensorσwe need the RayleighianR v expressed per volume instead...

  6. [6]

    Bj¨ orkman, The nonlinear history of fibre flow research

    U. Bj¨ orkman, The nonlinear history of fibre flow research. part 1: Background and Beginning, Applied Rheology 18, 23974 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    A. P. Philipse, The random contact equation and its im- plications for (colloidal) rods in packings, suspensions, and anisotropic powders, Langmuir12, 1127 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    J. K. Dhont and W. J. Briels, Viscoelasticity of suspen- sions of long, rigid rods, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physic- ochemical and Engineering Aspects213, 131 (2003)

    2003

  9. [9]

    Fernandez, R

    N. Fernandez, R. Mani, D. Rinaldi, D. Kadau, M. Mos- quet, H. Lombois-Burger, J. Cayer-Barrioz, H. J. Her- rmann, N. D. Spencer, and L. Isa, Microscopic mecha- nism for shear thickening of non-Brownian suspensions, Physical Review Letters111, 108301 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Lootens, H

    D. Lootens, H. Van Damme, Y. H´ emar, and P. H´ ebraud, Dilatant flow of concentrated suspensions of rough par- ticles, Physical Review Letters95, 268302 (2005)

    2005

  11. [11]

    Wyart and M

    M. Wyart and M. E. Cates, Discontinuous shear thicken- ing without inertia in dense non-Brownian suspensions, Physical Review Letters112, 098302 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    Phan-Thien and A

    N. Phan-Thien and A. L. Graham, A new constitutive model for fibre suspensions: flow past a sphere, Rheolog- ica Acta30, 44 (1991)

    1991

  13. [13]

    Jeffery, The motion of ellipsoidal particles in a vis- cous fluid, Proc

    G. Jeffery, The motion of ellipsoidal particles in a vis- cous fluid, Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. A Contain. Papers Math. Phys. Charact.103, 58 (1923)

    1923

  14. [14]

    S. G. Advani and C. L. Tucker, The use of tensors to describe and predict fiber orientation in short fiber com- posites, Journal of Rheology31, 751 (1987)

    1987

  15. [15]

    hyperconcentrated

    to calculate viscosity overshoots in fiber filled poly- mer melts under shear. In the concentrated regime, ϕ L D >1 (I.3) and rod-rod interactions dominate [16]. For solutions withϕL/D≳3, the isotropic-nematic transition occurs arXiv:2512.19149v2 [cond-mat.soft] 23 Dec 2025 2 in Brownian suspensions [17], leading to non-zero orien- tational orderS>0 (see ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    M. Doi, Molecular-dynamics and rheological properties of concentrated-solutions of rodlike polymers in isotropic and liquid-crystalline phases, Journal of Polymer Science Part B Polymer Physics19, 229 (1981). 11

    1981

  17. [17]

    Folgar and C

    F. Folgar and C. L. Tucker, Orientation behavior of fibers in concentrated suspensions, Journal of Reinforced Plas- tics and Composites3, 98 (1984)

    1984

  18. [18]

    J. L. Ericksen, Transversely isotropic fluids, Kolloid- Zeitschrift173, 117 (1960)

    1960

  19. [19]

    S. M. Dinh and R. C. Armstrong, A rheological equation of state for semiconcentrated fiber suspensions, Journal of Rheology28, 207 (1984)

    1984

  20. [20]

    Tseng, A constitutive equation for fiber suspen- sions in viscoelastic media, Physics of Fluids33, 071702 (2021)

    H.-C. Tseng, A constitutive equation for fiber suspen- sions in viscoelastic media, Physics of Fluids33, 071702 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Doi and S

    M. Doi and S. Edwards, Dynamics of rod-like macro- molecules in concentrated solution. part 1, Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 274, 560 (1978)

    1978

  22. [22]

    Doi, Onsager’s variational principle in soft matter, Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter23, 284118 (2011)

    M. Doi, Onsager’s variational principle in soft matter, Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter23, 284118 (2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    R. G. Larson and H. C. Ottinger, Effect of molecular elasticity on out-of-plane orientations in shearing flows of liquid-crystalline polymers, Macromolecules24, 6270 (1991)

    1991

  24. [24]

    D. Pan, Y. Wang, H. Yoshino, J. Zhang, and Y. Jin, A review on shear jamming, Physics Reports1038, 1 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    N. M. James, H. Xue, M. Goyal, and H. M. Jaeger, Con- trolling shear jamming in dense suspensions via the par- ticle aspect ratio, Soft Matter15, 3649 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Tapia, S

    F. Tapia, S. Shaikh, J. E. Butler, O. Pouliquen, and ´E. Guazzelli, Rheology of concentrated suspensions of non-colloidal rigid fibres, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 827, R5 (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    Rathee, S

    V. Rathee, S. Arora, D. L. Blair, J. S. Urbach, A. K. Sood, and R. Ganapathy, Role of particle orientational order during shear thickening in suspensions of colloidal rods, Physical Review E101, 040601 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    R. B. Pipes, D. W. Coffin, S. F. Shuler, and P. ˇSim´ aˇ cek, Non-Newtonian constitutive relationships for hypercon- centrated fiber suspensions, Journal of Composite Mate- rials28, 343 (1994)

    1994

  29. [29]

    Singh, Hidden hierarchy in the rheology of dense sus- pensions, MRS Communications13, 971 (2023)

    A. Singh, Hidden hierarchy in the rheology of dense sus- pensions, MRS Communications13, 971 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    R. Seto, R. Mari, J. F. Morris, and M. M. Denn, Discon- tinuous shear thickening of frictional hard-sphere suspen- sions, Physical Review Letters111, 218301 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    J. R. Royer, D. L. Blair, and S. D. Hudson, Rheologi- cal signature of frictional interactions in shear thickening suspensions, Physical Review Letters116, 188301 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    J. C. Maxwell, On the calculation of the equilibrium and stiffness of frames, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science27, 294 (1864)

  33. [33]

    C. R. Sandstrom and C. L. Tucker, A theory for concen- trated fiber suspensions with strong fiber-fiber interac- tions, inMakromolekulare Chemie. Macromolecular Sym- posia, Vol. 68 (Wiley Online Library, 1993) pp. 291–300

    1993

  34. [34]

    Toll and J.-A

    S. Toll and J.-A. E. M ˚ anson, Dynamics of a planar con- centrated fiber suspension with non-hydrodynamic inter- action, Journal of Rheology38, 985 (1994)

    1994

  35. [35]

    Djalili-Moghaddam and S

    M. Djalili-Moghaddam and S. Toll, A model for short- range interactions in fibre suspensions, Journal of Non- Newtonian Fluid Mechanics132, 73 (2005)

    2005

  36. [36]

    Bounoua, E

    S. Bounoua, E. Lemaire, J. F´ erec, G. Ausias, A. Zubarev, and P. J. J. M. Kuzhir, Apparent yield stress in rigid fibre suspensions: the role of attractive colloidal interactions, Journal of Fluid Mechanics802, 611 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Doi and S

    M. Doi and S. F. Edwards,The Theory of Polymer Dy- namics(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989)

    1989

  38. [38]

    Doi,Soft Matter Physics(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)

    M. Doi,Soft Matter Physics(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    M. P. Petrich and D. L. Koch, Interactions between con- tacting fibers, Physics of Fluids10, 2111 (1998)

    1998

  40. [40]

    Yamane, Y

    Y. Yamane, Y. Kaneda, and M. Doi, Numerical simu- lation of semi-dilute suspensions of rodlike particles in shear flow, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 54, 405 (1994)

    1994

  41. [41]

    A. M. Sonnet and E. G. Virga,Dissipative ordered fluids: theories for liquid crystals(Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Onsager, The effects of shape on the interaction of colloidal particles, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences51, 627 (1949)

    L. Onsager, The effects of shape on the interaction of colloidal particles, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences51, 627 (1949)

    1949

  43. [43]

    Toll, Packing mechanics of fiber reinforcements, Poly- mer Engineering and Science38, 1337 (1998)

    S. Toll, Packing mechanics of fiber reinforcements, Poly- mer Engineering and Science38, 1337 (1998)

    1998

  44. [44]

    Ferec, G

    J. Ferec, G. Ausias, M. C. Heuzey, and P. J. Carreau, Modeling fiber interactions in semiconcentrated fiber sus- pensions, Journal of Rheology53, 49 (2009)

    2009

  45. [45]

    Weinan and P

    E. Weinan and P. Zhang, A molecular kinetic theory of inhomogeneous liquid crystal flow and the small Deborah number limit, Methods and Applications of Analysis13, 181 (2006)

    2006

  46. [46]

    Demirkurt, D

    B. Demirkurt, D. Petrova, D. K. Sharma, M. Vacha, B. Weber, D. Bonn, and A. M. Brouwer, Resolving multi-asperity contacts at the nanoscale through super- resolution fluorescence imaging, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters15, 1936 (2024)

    1936

  47. [47]

    Heussinger, Shear thickening in granular suspensions: Interparticle friction and dynamically correlated clusters, Physical Review E88, 050201 (2013)

    C. Heussinger, Shear thickening in granular suspensions: Interparticle friction and dynamically correlated clusters, Physical Review E88, 050201 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    Moghimi, J

    E. Moghimi, J. S. Urbach, and D. L. Blair, Stress and flow inhomogeneity in shear-thickening suspensions, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science678, 218 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    D’Amico, S

    A. D’Amico, S. Tu, and A. Singh, Topological insights into dense frictional suspension rheology: Third-order loops drive discontinuous shear thickening, The Journal of Chemical Physics162, 214906 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Kim and S

    S. Kim and S. J. Karrila,Microhydrodynamics (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 1991)

    1991

  51. [51]

    R. G. Larson,The structure and rheology of complex flu- ids, Vol. 150 (Oxford University Press, New York, 1999). Appendix A: Average “Fiber” T orque An alternative method to determine the effect of con- tact torque in suspensions of rods was explored by Bounouaet al.[31], Djalili-Moghaddam and Toll [30], Toll and M ˚ anson [29], and Sandstrom and Tucker [...

    1999

  52. [52]

    Finally, the fullϵintegral in C.6 is ∫ L 2 − L 2 dϵi ∫ L 2 − L 2 dϵj∣ϵi∣(ϵi)2 = L5 32 .(C.10) Inserting C.10, C.9 and C.8 into C.6 (and invoking the definition of⟨⟩ j, Eq

    to express the integral in terms of irreducible tensors built from ˆuj and ˆui, ∫ ∣τ∣ψ jd ˆuj ≈ ∫ π 4 [1−( ˆui α ˆui β− δαβ 3 )( ˆuj α ˆuj β− δαβ 3 )]ψ jd ˆuj = π 4[1− ˆui ˆui∶Q], (C.9) 15 where only terms up to second order have been kept. Finally, the fullϵintegral in C.6 is ∫ L 2 − L 2 dϵi ∫ L 2 − L 2 dϵj∣ϵi∣(ϵi)2 = L5 32 .(C.10) Inserting C.10, C.9 an...