Direct and Indirect Polymer-Polymer Interfacial Slip Measurements in Multilayered Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant slip can occur during flow of two immiscible polymers due to reduced entanglements at their interface. The slip is of practical importance because of its effect on morphology and adhesion of these multi‐phase materials, such as disordered two‐phase blends and multilayer films. In this research, we are investigating the amount of polymer‐polymer slip over a range of shear stresses from rheological measurements (i.e., indirect method) and visualization measurements (i.e., direct method) on co‐extruded multilayer films. Two types of alternately layered blends were chosen: polypropylene (PP)/polystyrene (PS) and polyethylene (PE)/fluoropolymer (FP) blends. The multilayer samples of both PP/PS and PE/FP blends were prepared in a co‐extrusion setup (Zhao and Macosko J. Rheol. 2002) at 200 and 210 °C, respectively, in order to match viscosity and linear viscoelasticity. To study the polymer‐polymer interfacial slip over a wide stress range, three types of rheometers were used: an in‐line slit‐die rheometer, a rotational parallel‐disk rheometer, and a sliding‐plates rheometer (SPR). It was observed that the viscosity of a multilayer sample is lower than the harmonic average viscosity of two neat polymers for both PP/PS and PE/FP and decreases with the number of layers above a certain critical shear stress. Two visualization techniques, (i) the SPR with a glass top plate and (ii) a high temperature shearing cell, were utilized to prove the slip. The slip velocity (i.e., the amount of macroscopic velocity discontinuity at the interface) with respect to shear stress was calculated from each rheological and visualization methods and compared.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".