1: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
2:
3: %\documentclass[preprint,prb,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{bm}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Flow boundary conditions for chain-end adsorbing polymer blends}
11:
12: \author{Xin Zhou}
13: \author{Denis Andrienko}
14: \author{Luigi Delle Site}
15: \author{Kurt Kremer}
16:
17: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Polymerforschung,
18: Ackermannweg 10, 55128 Mainz, Germany}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: Using the phenol-terminated polycarbonate blend as an example, we
22: demonstrate that the hydrodynamic boundary conditions for a flow of
23: an adsorbing polymer melt are extremely sensitive to the structure
24: of the epitaxial layer. Under shear, the adsorbed parts (chain ends)
25: of the polymer melt move along the equipotential lines of the
26: surface potential whereas the adsorbed additives serve as the
27: surface defects. In response to the increase of the number of the
28: adsorbed additives the surface layer becomes thinner and solidifies.
29: This results in a gradual transition from the slip to the no-slip
30: boundary condition for the melt flow, with a non-monotonic
31: dependence of the slip length on the surface concentration of the
32: adsorbed ends.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \date{\today}
36:
37: %\pacs{83.80.Sq} {Polymer melts}
38: %\pacs{61.20.Ja} {Computer simulation of liquid structure}
39: %\pacs{47.27.Lx} {Wall-bounded thin shear flows}
40:
41: \pacs{83.80.Sq, 61.20.Ja, 47.27.Lx}
42:
43: \maketitle
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46: \label{sec:intro}
47:
48: The equations of continuum fluid mechanics are incomplete without
49: appropriate boundary conditions. In most situations it is required
50: that both normal and tangential components of the relative fluid
51: velocity vanish at the surface.~\cite{batchelor2000} This, so called
52: stick or no-slip boundary condition, has successfully accounted for
53: most of the experimental facts. It is, however, empirical by nature:
54: there are no theoretical arguments in favor of the no-slip; moreover,
55: it has been known since Maxwell's times~\cite{Maxwell67} that even a
56: simple kinetic theory of gasses predicts the non-zero value of the
57: tangential velocity at the wall.
58:
59: Providing some of the insight into the question, kinetic theory fails
60: already for simple fluids adjacent to a rigid solid. In a more general
61: context, multiple scattering from the individual wall molecules
62: remains the major problem of most analytical theories. In this
63: situation computer simulation techniques are able to advance our
64: knowledge of the processes occurring at the surfaces.
65:
66: Indeed, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations demonstrated that, in case
67: of simple fluids, the flow boundary conditions are sensitive to the
68: fluid epitaxial order~\cite{Thompson90} as well as the wall
69: structure.~\cite{cottinbizonne2003} The situation, however, becomes
70: much more complicated for polymers at the surfaces, because of the
71: much richer molecular arrangement (e.~g. formation of
72: brushes,~\cite{klein1996} various adsorbed and depleted
73: layers~\cite{aubouy1996}) as well as much stronger correlation between
74: the atoms right at the wall with the rest of the surface
75: layer.~\cite{ThompsonGR92,harmandaris2005,priezjev2004}
76:
77: Recent MD studies of the end-adsorbing polymer melts, performed with a
78: novel quantum based multiscale approach for the surface/polymer
79: interaction, showed that at least two mechanisms contribute to the
80: hydrodynamic boundary conditions.~\cite{zhou2005a} The attached parts
81: of the chains scatter on the surface potential while moving along its
82: equipotential lines.
83: %
84: This induces the density and the chain conformation modulation in the
85: adsorbed layer, and energy is lost from these modulations through the
86: coupling to the thermostat, similar to the situation observed for a
87: generic model of adsorbed surface layers.~\cite{cieplak1994}
88: %
89: On the other hand, single-end grafted chains of polymer brushes
90: undergo a coil/stretch transition and disentangle from the melt at a
91: given shear
92: rate,~\cite{brochard1992,ajdari1994,smith2005,brochardwyart1994}
93: favoring the slip boundary condition.
94: %
95: Though investigated for the special case of end adsorbing
96: polycarbonate on nickel, a similar scenario will occur for block
97: copolymers with an adsorbing block.
98:
99: Valid for {\em monodispersed} melts, this picture does not account for
100: the usual melt polydispersity, which is an outcome of all synthetic
101: polymerization reactions. Moreover, in many situations the
102: self-blending of polymer melts is used.~\cite{CheahC03} A small amount
103: of a lower weight polymer improves the melt processability without
104: significantly affecting its mechanical properties. It, however, alters
105: the structure of the surface layer~\cite{andrienko2005a} modifying the
106: hydrodynamic boundary conditions for the melt flow. These changes
107: shall be taken into account at the later stages of melt
108: processing.~\cite{NamhataGA99}
109:
110: In this work we focus on the hydrodynamic boundary conditions for
111: polymer {\em blends} adsorbed on a solid substrate. For this purpose
112: we consider a particular system, that is bisphenol-A polycarbonate
113: (BPA-PC) melt sheared over a (111) nickel surface. Our choice of
114: polycarbonate as a test system is twofold. First, it is widely used in
115: various applications~\cite{derudder2000} and, therefore, has been
116: intensively studied both experimentally~\cite{Morbitzer88} and
117: theoretically.~\cite{TsaiLC98,TschopKBBH98,TschopKHBB98,DelleSiteAAK02,DelleSiteLK04}
118: In particular, shear of monodispersed melts~\cite{zhou2005a} and the
119: structure of the static epitaxial layer for monodispersed
120: melts~\cite{AbramsK03,AbramsDK03} and blends~\cite{andrienko2005a}
121: have already been considered. Second, although it is a specific
122: system, it has a number of important generic features, which also
123: apply to a realistic description of many polymer brushes composed of
124: block copolymers.
125:
126: Our prime goal is to relate the structure of the adsorbed layer, which
127: changes in the presence of the low molecular weight additive, to the
128: hydrodynamic boundary conditions for the melt flow, specified by the
129: slip length and the surface friction coefficient.
130:
131:
132: \section{Simulation details}
133:
134: %figure:systems
135: \begin{figure}[ht]
136: \begin{center}
137: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig1.eps}
138: \end{center}
139: \caption[]{
140: Chemical structures: (a)
141: phenol-terminated bisphenol-{\em A} polycarbonate (in this study
142: $n=1,5,20$); (b) diphenyl carbonate (DPC);
143: (c) phenol.
144: } \label{fig:systems}
145: \end{figure}
146:
147: We consider four types of polymer mixtures. The host polymer (major
148: component) is the phenol terminated BPA-PC of $N_1 = 20$ repeat units.
149: The second (minor) component is one of the following: BPA-PC of $N_2 =
150: 5$ repeat units, one repeat unit, diphenyl carbonate (DPC), or phenol,
151: all shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:systems}.
152: %
153: For all mixtures, we use $n_1 = 400$ chains of the major component;
154: the number of molecules of the minor component, $n_2$, is then
155: adjusted to provide (approximately) $5\%$ of the total weight of the
156: system. Exact numbers are given in Table~\ref{tab:systems}.
157: %
158: %tab:systems
159: %
160:
161: \begin{table}[ht]
162: \begin{center}
163: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
164: \hline
165: $N_1,N_2$ & $n_1,n_2$ & $L_z, \sigma$ \\
166: \hline
167: 20 & 400 & 80.91 \\
168: 20,\,5 & 400,\,76 & 85.15 \\
169: 20,\,1 & 400,\,239 & 84.97 \\
170: 20,\,DPC & 400,\,521 & 84.69 \\
171: 20,\,Phenol & 400,\,1186 & 83.79 \\
172: \hline
173: \end{tabular}
174: \end{center}
175: \caption[]{
176: Studied systems. $\sigma = 4.41 \AA$.
177: } \label{tab:systems}
178: \end{table}
179:
180:
181: To simulate the melt, we use the previously developed coarse-graining
182: model, in which each monomer is replaced by four beads that correspond
183: to isopropylidene, carbonate, and the two linking phenylenes.
184: Interaction potentials, bead sizes and coarse-graining procedure are
185: described in Refs.~\cite{AbramsK03,AbramsDK03}.
186: %
187: The bead-wall interaction potentials are obtained from {\em ab~initio}
188: density functional calculations. All {\em internal} beads experience
189: strong increasing repulsion below $3.2\, \AA$, either due to the
190: nature of the molecular interaction or due to the steric hindrance by
191: the other beads. Only the chain ends absorb on the wall. The wall-end
192: interaction potential is expanded in 2D reciprocal lattice space of
193: (111) nickel surface and has the following form
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: U(x,y,z) = \sum_{i} U_{i}(z) \, f_{i}(x,y),
196: \label{eq:potential}
197: \end{eqnarray}
198: %
199: where $i=0,1,2$ corresponds to the reciprocal vectors of different
200: lengths, $f_{0} = 1$, $f_{1}=\cos({\bar x}-{\bar y})+\cos({\bar
201: x}+{\bar y})+\cos 2{\bar y}$, and $f_{2}=\cos({\bar x}-3{\bar
202: y})+\cos({\bar x} + 3{\bar y})+ \cos 2 {\bar x}$, where $({\bar
203: x},{\bar y}) = \frac{2 \pi}{a}\,(x,\frac{y}{{\sqrt 3}})$,
204:
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: \nonumber
207: U_{0} &=& \left\{
208: \begin{array}{lll}
209: \frac{5}{3} {\epsilon}_{r}
210: \left[ \frac{2}{5}
211: \left( \frac{z_0}{z} \right)^{10} -
212: \left( \frac{z_0}{z} \right)^4 + \frac{3}{5} \right] - \epsilon_0,
213: & z < z_{0} \\
214: \frac{\epsilon_0}{2} \left[
215: \cos \left(\pi \frac{z_c - z}{z_c-z_0} \right)-1 \right],
216: & z_0 \le z < z_c
217: %\\ 0, & z \ge z_c ,
218: \end{array}
219: \right.
220: \end{eqnarray}
221: \begin{equation}
222: \nonumber
223: U_{1,2} = \left\{
224: \begin{array}{lll}
225: - \epsilon_{1,2}, & z < z_0 \\
226: \frac{\epsilon_{1,2} }{2}
227: \left[ \cos \left( \pi \frac{z_c - z}{z_c-z_0} \right)-1 \right],
228: & z_0 \le z < z_c
229: %\\ 0, & z \ge z_c.
230: \end{array}
231: \right.
232: \end{equation}
233: The interaction potential obtained using {\em ab initio} calculations
234: is well reproduced by the following set of parameters: $\epsilon_{r} =
235: 1.5\,
236: \rm eV$, $\epsilon_{0}= 0.7\, \rm eV$, $\epsilon_{1} = -7/45\, \rm
237: eV$, and $\epsilon_{2} = -2/45\, \rm eV$. For details, see
238: Refs.~\cite{DelleSiteAAK02,DelleSiteAA03,zhou2005a}.
239:
240: The melts are confined to a slit pore of thickness $L_z$ with the
241: walls perpendicular to the $z$ axis. Periodic boundary conditions
242: are employed in $x$ and $y$ directions.
243: %
244: The $x$ and $y$ box dimensions are set to $L_x = 22.23\, \sigma$ and
245: $L_y = 21.72\,\sigma$ with $\sigma = 4.41\,\AA$, which corresponds to
246: a (111) hexagonal lattice of nickel with 39 and 22 unit cells. The
247: number density of beads is $n = 0.85$, which corresponds to $1.05\,
248: \rm g/cc$, the experimental density at the processing temperature,
249: $570\, \rm K$. The units are chosen such that $k_{B} T =1$ with
250: $T=570\,\rm K$ and $\sigma$ is unity.~\cite{AbramsK03,AbramsDK03}
251:
252: Starting configurations are generated by randomly placing the chains
253: in the simulation box. A short run is then used to remove the
254: bead-bead overlaps.~\cite{AbramsDK03} The production run is performed
255: in the $NVT$ ensemble with Langevin thermostat with friction $0.5
256: \tau^{-1}$, where $\tau$ is the unit of time in the simulations. The
257: thermostat is switched off in the shear direction. The velocity-Verlet
258: algorithm with the timestep $\Delta t = 0.005 \tau$ is used to
259: integrate the equations of motion. After equilibration for about $2
260: \times 10^5$ $\tau$, the shear is applied by moving the top and bottom
261: walls in opposite directions at a constant velocity $v_w$, so that the
262: shear rate is $\dot{\gamma} = 2v_{w}/L_z$.
263: %
264: The wall velocity is the same as in our previous studies of {\em
265: monodispersed} BPA-PC melts,~\cite{zhou2005a} $v_{w} \tau/\sigma =
266: 0.01$. The corresponding shear rate can be obtained from the time
267: mapping $1 \tau \approx 25\, \rm ps$, see Ref.~\cite{leon2005} for
268: details. Using this mapping we obtain $\gamma \approx 10^7 s^{-1}$.
269: Taking into account that the average chain length in a BPA-PC melt is
270: $N \sim 70$ the corresponding chain reptation time $\tau_d \sim
271: N^{3.4}$ is almost by two orders of magnitude larger than that of the
272: $N=20$ chains. Equivalently, the shear rate would be reduced to
273: $10^5\, s^{-1}$, close to the value used for industrial processing of
274: BPA-PC, $\sim 10^4\, s^{-1}$. Note that smaller shear rates either
275: have no significant effect on the adsorbed layer or are difficult to
276: analyze, due to significant error bars for the velocity profiles.
277:
278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
279: \section{Results}
280:
281: \subsection{Blends with different additives}
282:
283: We first have a look at the structure of the surface layer.
284: Fig.~\ref{fig:end_density} shows a typical chain end density profile
285: for a monodispersed melt ($N=20$). The chain end density has a sharp
286: peak next to the wall, which is due to the strong adsorption of the
287: ends; the region with no ends follows; finally, the bulk concentration
288: is reached at a distance of the order of the radius of gyration, $R_g
289: \approx 6.2 \sigma = 27\, \AA$.
290: %end-to-end distance.
291: The inset illustrates how this profile changes in the presence of the
292: additives: the shorter the chains of the {\em minor} component, the
293: more of them adsorb on the wall. This of course results in a decrease
294: of the number of the adsorbed chain ends of the {\em major} component,
295: in agreement with our earlier studies~\cite{andrienko2005a} except for
296: the phenol additive, for which we previously observed a weak increase
297: in the number of the adsorbed chain ends of the major component
298: compared to the DPC case.~\endnote{The difference is due to the more
299: specific, angular-dependent, potential used to describe the end-wall
300: attractive interaction in ref.~\cite{andrienko2005a}, which can be
301: considered as a refinement of a simpler surface potential used in
302: the current study. This affects the conformations of the adsorbed
303: molecules at the surface but is not critical for the conclusions of
304: the current study: as we will see, the flow boundary conditions are
305: basically specified by the surface concentrations of the adsorbed
306: chain ends of the major and minor components, and are not very
307: sensitive to the conformations of the adsorbed chains.}
308: %
309: %fig:end_density
310: %
311: \begin{figure}[ht]
312: \begin{center}
313: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig2.eps}
314: \end{center}
315: \caption{
316: Typical chain end density profile ($N=20$). The inset depicts the
317: change in the surface density (number of the adsorbed chain ends per
318: unit area) for the minor and major components. The log scale is used
319: to show the bulk density and the depleted region on the same plot.
320: } \label{fig:end_density}
321: \end{figure}
322:
323:
324: The representative snapshots of the systems with and without shear are
325: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:snapshots}. Snapshots (a) and (c) illustrate
326: the thinning of the adsorbed layer due to the decrease in the number
327: of the adsorbed chain ends of the major component.~\endnote{Note that
328: this is not the case for the pure ($N=20$) system and the 20:5
329: mixture: the latter has slightly thicker adsorbed layer, which can
330: also be seen from the center of mass profiles and the velocity
331: profiles. This effect is most probably due to the stiffness of the
332: relatively short chains of 5 repeat units, which adsorb and force
333: the long chains to stretch away from the wall.}
334: %
335: After shear is applied, the one-end attached chains disentangle from
336: the melt, stretch and form a thin lubricating layer between the bulk
337: and the chains adsorbed with two ends (see snapshots (b) and (d)).
338: Corresponding changes can also be detected by observing the center of
339: mass profiles.~\cite{zhou2005a}
340: %
341: %fig:snapshots
342: %
343: \begin{figure}[ht]
344: \begin{center}
345: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3.eps}
346: \end{center}
347: \caption{
348: Snapshots of the mixtures: 20:5 without
349: (a) and with (b) shear, 20:phenol without (c) and with (d) shear.
350: Polymer chains are divided into three populations: chains which
351: adsorb both ends (green), only one end (red), and no ends on the
352: surface (blue).
353: } \label{fig:snapshots}
354: \end{figure}
355:
356: Having resolved the structure of the adsorbed layer, we shall turn our
357: attention to the velocity profiles, which are shown in
358: Fig.~\ref{fig:velocity}.
359: %
360: For all mixtures, the profiles have features similar to those of
361: monodispersed systems.~\cite{zhou2005a} Next to the wall the velocity
362: is practically constant, since the adsorbed chains are dragged by the
363: wall. Immediately after the plateau, the velocity profile becomes a
364: linear function of $z$. The velocity of the beads at the wall, $v_s$,
365: is smaller than the wall velocity, $v_w$, i.~e. the chain ends slide
366: over the wall, moving between the hollow and bridge sites of the
367: potential (the difference in the adsorption energies of these two
368: sites is rather small, of the order of $2\,kT$, see the contour plot
369: in Fig.~\ref{fig:surface}). In case of the monodispersed system and
370: $20:5$ mixture we have $v_s/v_w \sim 0.5$. This ratio increases for
371: the $20:1$ mixture and reaches $1$ for the diphenyl carbonate and
372: phenol additives.
373: %
374: %fig:velocity
375: %
376: \begin{figure}[ht]
377: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig4.eps}
378: \caption{
379: Velocity profiles normalized to the wall velocity. Only a part of
380: the profiles in the vicinity of the wall is shown. The inverse of
381: the surface friction coefficient $\beta^{-1} \sim 1 - v_s / v_w$
382: (circles) and the shear stress ${f}_x/S$ (squares) are shown in the
383: inset. To calculate the velocity profiles we average over all beads,
384: independent of the nature of a particular bead.
385: } \label{fig:velocity}
386: \end{figure}
387:
388: We can write the stationary shear stress $\tau_{xz}$ (force per unit
389: area) as~\cite{leger1999}
390: %
391: \begin{eqnarray}
392: \tau_{xz} \equiv f_x / S = \beta (v_w - v_s),
393: \end{eqnarray}
394: where $\beta$ is the friction coefficient between the adsorbed layer
395: and the wall, $S$ is the surface area. Since the density of the minor
396: component in the bulk is small ($5\%$ in weight and most of it is
397: adsorbed on the walls) the bulk properties of the melt do not change
398: significantly from mixture to mixture. Indeed, the shear stress
399: $\tau_{xz}$ is practically independent of the molecular weight of the
400: additive (see the inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:velocity}). Therefore, the
401: change of $v_s$ is due to the different values of the friction
402: coefficient $\beta$, which increases significantly for short
403: additives.
404:
405: This increase is, in fact, rather unexpected: the adsorbed additives
406: reduce the number of the attractive sites available for the major
407: component and, in principle, shall screen the effective interaction of
408: the melt with the surface. Weaker interaction should result in a
409: smaller, compared to the monodispersed melt, friction coefficient.
410: This, however, does not happen in practice: the systems with the
411: phenol or diphenyl carbonate additives, which basically cover about
412: 80\% of the wall, have the biggest friction coefficient.
413: %
414: %fig:surface
415: %
416: \begin{figure}[ht]
417: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig5.eps}
418: \caption{
419: Snapshots of the chain ends adsorbed on the walls. Blue beads: major
420: component, yellow beads: minor component. The bead sizes correspond
421: to their van der Waals radii. The triangular grid depicts the
422: lattice of the (111) nickel surface. Contour plot illustrates the
423: bead-wall potential used in simulation, together with the possible
424: paths for the adsorbed beads. The contour levels are in electron
425: volts, $1\, {\rm eV} \approx 20\, kT$.
426: } \label{fig:surface}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429: To understand why this happens, let us have a look at the structure of
430: the beads adsorbed on the surface. Fig.~\ref{fig:surface} shows the
431: snapshots of the representative mixtures. The difference between the
432: systems is now clear: the adsorbed layer of the 20:5 mixture has a
433: structure similar to a two-dimensional (2D) gas; the packing of the
434: 20:1 mixture is more dense, but still disordered, similar to a 2D
435: liquid; for the 20:DPC as well as 20:Phenol (not shown) mixtures the
436: concentration of the adsorbed chain ends is so high that they form a
437: 2D crystalline layer. The hexagonal lattice of this layer has the
438: lattice constant of $2a$, where $a$ is a lattice constant of the (111)
439: nickel surface, which is of the order of the van de Waals diameter of
440: the adsorbed beads, i.~e. the close-packed surface layer is not
441: frustrated energetically, or, in other words, the surface potential
442: and the surface layer have commensurable lattices.
443:
444: \subsection{Different concentrations of the phenol additive}
445:
446: To quantify our results even further, we have also studied mixtures
447: with different concentrations of the phenol additive. In these
448: mixtures the surface densities of the adsorbed chain ends and phenol
449: molecules are monotonic functions of the total number of phenol
450: molecules in the system. Hence, they can be varied with a good
451: precision, which helps to analyze the systems in a more systematic
452: way.
453:
454: The systems were prepared in a similar manner: the number of the
455: phenol molecules was adjusted to provide different percentages of the
456: total weight of the system, in the range from $1\%$ to $20\%$.
457: Because of the finite size of the simulation box and phenol
458: adsorption, the concentration of the phenol molecules in the bulk is
459: always smaller than the one used for the system preparation. We
460: therefore used this number (from $1\%$ to $20\%$) only to label a
461: particular system. The important quantities are of course the surface
462: density of the adsorbed chain ends and phenol molecules.
463:
464: In addition to the velocity profiles we have calculated the
465: two-dimensional radial distribution function of the adsorbed molecules
466: \begin{equation}
467: g(r) =
468: \frac{2}{n^2} \frac{L_x L_y}{S(r)}
469: \left<
470: \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \sum_{j = i+1}^{n} p_{ij}(r)
471: \right>
472: \end{equation}
473: where $r_{ij} = \sqrt{(x_i-x_j)^2 + (y_i-y_j)^2}$, $S(r) =
474: \pi[(r+\Delta r)^2 - \pi r^2]$ is the bin area, $\Delta r =
475: r_{max}/N_{bins}$ is the bin width, $p_{ij}(r) = 1$ if
476: $r<r_{ij}<r+\Delta r$ and zero otherwise. The sum is performed over the
477: adsorbed beads (chain ends and phenol molecules) only, i.~e. $z_{i,j}
478: - z_{wall} < \sigma$; $n$ is the number of the adsorbed beads; $<...>$
479: denotes the ensemble average.
480:
481: %
482: %fig:rdf
483: %
484: \begin{figure}[ht]
485: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig6.eps}
486: \caption{
487: Two-dimensional radial distribution function of the adsorbed chain
488: ends. Inset shows the surface densities (number of adsorbed beads
489: per unit area) of the adsorbed ends as a function of the phenol
490: concentration.
491: } \label{fig:rdf}
492: \end{figure}
493:
494: To further characterize the quality of the hexagonal packing we have
495: also calculated the orientational order parameter~\cite{strandberg92}
496: \begin{equation}
497: S_6 = \left<
498: \frac{
499: \left|
500: \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \sum_{j = i+1}^{n} q_{ij} \exp(i6\phi_{ij})
501: \right|
502: }{
503: \sum_{i=0}^{n} \sum_{j = i+1}^{n} q_{ij}
504: }
505: \right>
506: \end{equation}
507: where $\phi_{ij}$ is the angle between the vector $r_{ij}$ and a given
508: axis in the $xy$ plane, $q_{ij} = 1$ if $r_{ij}$ belongs to the first
509: peak of the radial distribution function (in our case between $0.5
510: \sigma$ and $1.5 \sigma$), and zero otherwise. Note that $S_6 = 1$ in
511: the case of a perfect hexagonal order whereas $S_6 = 0$ indicates the
512: complete lack of such order.
513:
514: The radial distribution functions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf}. The
515: increase of the total number of the adsorbed molecules results in a
516: gradual solidification of the surface layer. The $4\%$ system ($\rho_s
517: = 0.775 \sigma^{-2}$) has a two-dimensional solid layer formed at the
518: surface, as it can be seen from the peaks at $2l$ and $\sqrt{3}l$,
519: where $l$ is the position of the first peak. Further increase of the
520: amount of adsorbed molecules merely improves the hexagonal
521: close-packing and, after the $5\%$ system ($\rho_s = 0.851
522: \sigma^{-2}$) the close packing of the surface is reached, i.~e. the
523: radial distribution function does not change anymore. The ratio
524: between the number of the adsorbed chain ends and the adsorbed phenol
525: molecules, however, still decreases, as it can be seen from the inset
526: to Fig.~\ref{fig:rdf}. In case of the blends, the solidification of
527: the surface layer occurs for the 20:DPC mixture.
528:
529: The force on the wall and the velocity of the adsorbed layer are shown
530: in Fig.~\ref{fig:v_surf}, together with the orientational order
531: parameter $S_6$. The orientational order parameter $S_6$ confirms that
532: the solidification of the surface layer occurs for the $4\%$ system,
533: and the saturation for the $5\%$ system, in agreement with the
534: behavior of the radial distribution functions.
535:
536: From the dependence of the relative velocity of the adsorbed layer on
537: the surface density of the adsorbed molecules one can see that once
538: the epitaxial layer is in a solid state, it follows the wall, i.~e. we
539: have the stick boundary conditions for the surface layer. However, before
540: the solidification, the velocity of the adsorbed layer is smaller than
541: the wall velocity and is roughly proportional to the total
542: concentration of the adsorbed chain ends.
543:
544: Similar to the relative velocity, the friction force on the wall
545: increases with the increase of the total amount of the adsorbed beads.
546: However, it does not reach a constant value at the point of
547: solidification of the surface layer, as the relative velocity does,
548: but starts to decrease, with the decrease rate proportional to the
549: ratio of the number of the adsorbed chain ends to the number of the
550: adsorbed phenol molecules. This is due to the fact that the amount of
551: the {\em long} chains adsorbed on the wall still decreases and the
552: surface layer disentangles from the bulk of the melt.
553:
554: Finally, we have also calculated the slip length, which is defined as
555: the extrapolation length of the linear velocity profile in the bulk to
556: zero and is often taken as a parameter in macroscopic descriptions of
557: a fluid flow. The concentration dependence of the slip length is shown
558: in the inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:v_surf}. Two regimes can be clearly
559: seen. First, at a low concentration of the adsorbed chain ends (e.~g.
560: in case of a pure melt, $N=20$) the melt slips over the wall. If we
561: increase the surface concentration of the adsorbed beads, the slip
562: length decreases and becomes zero at some concentration, i.~e. we
563: effectively have the no-slip boundary conditions for the melt flow.
564: This point, however, does not coincide with the actual locking of the
565: surface layer, which we observe only when it solidifies. The reason
566: can be seen from the shape of the velocity profiles: let us denote the
567: thickness of the adsorbed layer as $\delta$ and the velocity of this
568: layer as $v_s$. Then the bulk velocity can be written as $v = v_s
569: (L_z-2z)/(L_z-2\delta)$. The slip length $b$, obtained from the
570: condition $v(z = -L_z/2 - b) = v_w$, reads
571: \begin{equation}
572: b = \left( v_w / v_s -1 \right) L_z/2 - \delta v_w / v_s.
573: \label{eq:slip}
574: \end{equation}
575: It can be seen that two mechanisms contribute to the total slip length
576: $b$. The first one is due to the apparent slip of the adsorbed layer
577: over the surface. The second, negative, contribution is due to the
578: finite thickness of the adsorbed polymer layer. As we add the
579: additives, the adsorbed layer shrinks, giving rise to a higher slip;
580: the relative velocity of the adsorbed layer, however, drops down much
581: faster. Combined, these two mechanisms result in a zero slip for some
582: intermediate concentration of the adsorbed chain ends and a negative
583: slip for higher surface concentrations.
584:
585: After the solidification, the adsorbed layer follows the wall, i.~e.
586: $v_w = v_s$. However, if we further increase the amount of the phenol
587: additive, the ratio between the number of the adsorbed chain ends of
588: the long chains and phenol molecules will decrease, as well as the
589: thickness of the adsorbed layer. As a result, the (negative) slip
590: length will start to increase again.
591:
592: %
593: %fig:v_surf
594: %
595: \begin{figure}[ht]
596: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig7.eps}
597: \caption{
598: Normalized (to the wall velocity) velocity of the adsorbed layer
599: $v_s / v_w$ (circles), orientational order parameter $S_6$
600: (squares), and the force per unit area on the wall (triangles).
601: Inset: slip length, defined as a distance at which the melt velocity
602: extrapolates to zero.
603: } \label{fig:v_surf}
604: \end{figure}
605:
606: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
607:
608: Let us first turn to a brief discussion on the possible mechanisms of
609: friction in our system. Recalling that the adsorbed chain ends move
610: along the equipotential lines of the surface potential, we conclude
611: that the role of the adsorbed additives is twofold: apart from
612: screening the interaction of the melt with the wall, they also serve
613: as additional obstacles which block the possible paths for the chain
614: ends of the major component.
615: %
616: If we ignore weak entanglement of the chains in the adsorbed layer as
617: well as the motion of the adsorbed chain ends of the minor component
618: over the surface, the situation reduces to a two-dimensional site
619: percolation problem. Each vertex is designated open or closed at
620: random, with probability $p$ to be closed which is proportional to the
621: concentration of the chain ends of the minor component. Percolation
622: theory predicts that for the site percolation on a hexagonal lattice
623: the critical point of the percolation probability is $p_c =
624: 1/2$.~\cite{sykes63} Assuming that the transition happens for the
625: $20:1$ system (see the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:velocity}) we obtain
626: $p_c \approx 0.47$. Of course, due to the applied shear we have an
627: oriented or directed percolation: our lattice sites shall be assigned
628: particular orientations, along which the percolative paths are biased.
629:
630: On the other hand, gradual solidification of the adsorbed layer
631: results in the increase of the friction coefficient, due to the
632: collective motion of the adsorbed molecules: once the surface layer is
633: solidified, the adsorbed molecules cannot move in the direction
634: perpendicular to the shear direction. However, hopping between the
635: hole and bridge sites always involves a motion perpendicular to the
636: shear direction, or, in other words, the hexagonal symmetry of the
637: lattice forbids the motion of the beads along the shear.
638:
639: Once the surface layer is in a solid state, the relative velocity of
640: the adsorbed layer does not change anymore. However, the ratio between
641: the adsorbed chain ends of long and short molecules still changes.
642: This affects the thickness of the adsorbed layer as well as its
643: entanglement with the rest of the melt. As a result, the shear force
644: on the wall decreases with the increase of the concentration of the
645: additive. Similar scenario has already been discussed in the framework
646: of the mean-field
647: theory.~\cite{brochard1992,brochardwyart1994,ajdari1994,smith2005}
648:
649: To summarize, we studied the effective boundary conditions for a
650: polymer blend adsorbed on a structured surface. The slip boundary
651: condition observed for a monodispersed melt changes to the no-slip at
652: some concentration of the additive. Further increase of the
653: concentration of the additive at the surface leads to the
654: solidification and locking of the motion of the adsorbed surface
655: layer.
656:
657: Finally, we would like to comment on the importance of the multiscale
658: modeling methods we employ in our studies. As underlined in the
659: introduction, we consider a particular system, which is of high
660: relevance to different fields of modern technology. Our results,
661: despite the particular system considered, are the direct expression of
662: the interplay between specific (electronic based) molecule-surface
663: interactions and global statistical and dynamical properties of the
664: system, i.~e. the interplay between the different scales is the
665: crucial ingredient of the description. The electronic and molecular
666: resolution, implicit into the parameterization of the model, allows
667: for a level of analysis which is beyond any other existing
668: coarse-grained models or mean-field approaches. In this sense, this
669: study goes beyond the specificity of the system considered and calls
670: for extensions to other systems, and experimental tests. The present
671: approach is a route which allows to detect important, otherwise not
672: accessible, properties and sets a new link between theory, experiments
673: and technology.
674:
675: \acknowledgments This work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt
676: foundation, Germany (X.Z.) and by the BMBF, under Grant No. 03N6015,
677: and the Bayer Corporation. The advise of Vagelis Harmandaris is
678: acknowledged.
679:
680: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
681: \bibliography{man}
682:
683:
684: \end{document}
685: