The bundle theory for polymer crystallisation

Abstract

The bundle theory of polymer crystallisation expounded by Allegra (J. Chem. Phys., 1977, 66, 5453; Ferroelectrics, 1980, 30, 195) is revisited as new experimental and simulation results are considered. We propose a framework by which recent evidence of structure formation prior to crystallisation may be understood at the molecular level. We suggest that polymer crystallisation is controlled by the metastable equilibrium whereby van der Waals intramolecular associations (bundles) form among parallel stems with a length of a few chain atoms. Bundle aggregation may develop into pre-crystalline structures. The similarity between initial fold lengths observed from solution and from bulk crystallisation appears to support the assumption that their value is controlled by intramolecular bundle statistics with an equilibrium character. Secondary, i.e. surface, nucleation is preceded by chain adsorption on the growing crystal. Chain segregation is determined by the unfavourable adsorption equilibrium of shorter chains. Three models of bundle formation are considered, differing in the length distribution of the crystalline stems and in the topology of bundle association. For moderate undercoolings (ΔT50°C for polyethylene), considering bundle aggregates with more complex topologies rather than simple bundles hardly affects the predicted fold length. Conversely, allowing for stems with different lengths within the same bundles improves the agreement with experimental data. The mechanism by which bundle equilibrium may influence current interpretations of the crystal growth rates in different regimes remains to be assessed.

References

1. J. I. Lauritzen, Jr. and J. D. Hoffman, J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stds., 1960, 64A, 73.
2. J. D. Hoffman, L. J. Frolen, S. R. Gaylon and J. I. Lauritzen, Jr, J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stds., 1975, 79A, 671.
3. J. D. Hoffman, Polymer, 1983, 24, 3.
4. J. J. Point, Macromolecules, 1979, 12, 770; Discuss. Faraday Soc., 1979, 68, 167.
5. B. Wunderlich and A. Mehta, J. Polym. Sci., Polym. Phys. Edn., 1974, 12, 255.
6. M. Hikosaka, Polymer, 1987, 28, 1257; ibid., 1990, 31, 458.
7. D. M. Sadler, Polymer, 1983, 24, 1401.
8. Throughout this paper the term configuration will be adopted instead of conformation to stress the statistical meaning of a point in configuration space instead of the actual shape of the molecule.
9. G. Allegra, J. Chem. Phys., 1977, 66, 5453.
10. G. Allegra, Ferroelectrics, 1980, 30, 195.
11. J. Rault, in Crystallization of Polymers, ed. M. Dosière, Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1993, pp. 313–322.
12. In performing the calculations for polyethylene, we took the numerical value of the van der Waals energy η directly from the data pertaining to the stable orthorhombic form. It should be stressed that the relevant parameter is the product α(3η–k_BT_o ln λ), i.e., the free energy difference per crystallised stem. We believe it reasonable that in reality η should be smaller than the value taken by us, and the number of bonds per stem, α, correspondingly larger (see also the discussion in Section 4).
13. In the first paper on this subject⁹ one of us (GA) incorrectly proposed an expression for the statistical weight of the crystal-like configurations where the contribution at the melting temperature T_o was not removed [see e.g. eqns. (4) and (5)].
14. B. Wunderlich, Macromolecular Physics, Academic Press, New York, 1976, vol. II.
15. P. H. Geil, Polymer Single Crystals, Wiley Interscience, Chichester, 1963.
16. D. C. Bassett, Principles of Polymer Morphology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
17. K. Armitstead and G. Goldbeck-Wood, Adv. Polym. Sci., 1992, 100, 219.
18. S. J. Spells and D. M. Sadler, Polymer, 1984, 25, 739; S. J. Spells, A. Keller and D. M. Sadler, Polymer, 1984, 25, 749.
19. M. Stamm, E. W. Fischer, M. Dettenmaier and P. Convert, Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc., 1979, 68, 263.
20. P. J. Barham, R. A. Chivers, A. Keller, J. Martinez-Salazar and S. J. Organ, J. Mater. Sci., 1985, 20, 1625.
21. Notice that, by contrast, the usual solvent-mediated attraction forces would not determine any intramolecular contraction in a very concentrated solution—nor, for that matter, even in the polymer bulk by extrapolation—because the energy of any interaction is taken to depend solely on the existence of the interatomic contact, with no reduction of configurational degrees of freedom.
22. P. G. de Gennes, Rep. Prog. Phys., 1969, 32, 187; J. Phys. (Paris), 1976, 77, 1445.
23. S. Brueckner and S. V. Meille, Nature, 390, 155; S. V. Meille, S. Brueckner and W. Porzio, Macromolecules, 1990, 23, 4114; R. A. Campbell, P. J. Phillips and J. S. Lin, Polymer, 1993, 34, 4809.
24. S. J. Organ and A. Keller, J. Mater. Sci., 1985, 20, 1602.
25. M. Imai, K. Kaji and T. Kanaya, Macromolecules, 1994, 27, 7103; M. Imai, K. Kaji, T. Kanaya and Y. Sakai, Phys. Rev. B, 1995, 52, 12696; K. Kaji and M. Imai, in Proc. Int. Symp. on Physics of Complex Liquids, ed. F. Yonezawa, K. Tsuji, K. Kaji, M. Doi and T. Fujiwara, Nagoya, Japan, November 1997.
26. N. J. Terrill, P. A. Fairclough, E. Towns-Andrews, B. U. Komanschek, R. J. Young and A. J. Ryan, Polym. Commun., 1998, 39, 2381.
27. P. G. de Gennes, J. Phys. Lett., 1975, 36, L55.
28. G. Allegra and F. Ganazzoli, Gazz. Chim. It., 1987, 117, 99.
29. T. Yamamoto, J. Chem. Phys., 1998, 109, 4638.
30. J. P. K. Doye and D. Frenkel, J. Chem. Phys., 1998, 109, 10033.
31. C. Liu and M. Muthukumar, J. Chem. Phys., 1998, 109, 2536.
32. L. Toma, S. Toma and J. A. Subirana, Macromolecules, 1998, 31, 2328.
33. C.-M. Chen and P. G. Higgs, J. Chem. Phys., 1998, 108, 4305.
34. Yu. A. Kuznetsov, E. G. Timoshenko and K. A. Dawson, J. Chem. Phys., 1995, 1038, 4305.
35. G. Allegra and F. Ganazzoli, Gazz. Chim. It., 1987, 117, 599.
36. B. Wunderlich, M. Moeller, J. Grebowicz and H. Baur, Adv. Polym. Sci., 1988, 87, 1; G. Ungar, Polymer, 1993, 34, 2050; S. V. Meille and G. Allegra, Macromolecules, 1995, 28, 7764.
37. D. C. Bassett, S. Block and G. J. Piermarini, J. Appl. Phys., 1974, 45, 4186.
38. The multiplicity N is given by the number of distinct eulerian trails to construct the aggregate (see ref. 39) times the number of different ways to choose a stem in a bundle after which to start a connection with the next bundle of the aggregate. This makes N dependent on the number of stems in the bundles; as an example, in the aggregates 2a and 2b of Fig. 3, we respectively have N=(p₁– 1) and N=(p₁– 1)(p₂– 1), p_i being the number of stems in the ith bundle.
39. F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley, Philippines, 1969, chs. 13, 4 and 7.