Abstract
AbstractA polymer sample‐preparation method (extended‐chain condensation, ECC) based solely on molecular‐dynamics simulations has been compared to a connectivity‐altering Monte Carlo method (coarse‐grained end‐bridging, CGEB). Since the characteristic ratio for the CGEB samples is closer to the experimental value, ECC results in polymer structures that are too compact. The stress–strain relations are different in the strain‐hardening regime. For CGEB samples, a stronger strain hardening is observed and the strain‐hardening modulus is more realistic; for the CGEB polystyrene (PS) sample GR = 9 ± 1 MPa is found versus GR = 4 ± 2 MPa for the ECC samples. These differences have to be attributed to a steeper increase in the contributions to the total stress from bond‐ and dihedral angles for CGEB than for ECC samples.magnified image
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
