Mechanically assembled polymer interconnects with dead volume analysis for microfluidic systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanical and fluidic properties of silicon and polymer peg-in-hole type interconnect structures are analyzed, tested, and compared in this paper. Microfluidic interconnects composed of interlocking cylindrical posts and holes are microfabricated of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and SU-8 polymers and are mechanically tested together with existing silicon interconnects. PDMS cylindrical posts experimentally assemble with lower force (20-81mN) than comparable SU-8 cylindrical posts (44-227mN) for PDMS, SU-8, and silicon holes. In addition to interconnect fabrication and experimental demonstration of substrate-to-substrate attachment, fluidic properties of the interconnects are analyzed via ANSYS simulation to predict whether pressure drop is expected to result in disassembly. Pressures due to simulated fluid flow at 1mL/min are expected to be 383.6Pa at the interconnect interface. Worst-case interconnect dead volume is simulated using ANSYS and Matlab. We estimate the dead volume at maximum fluid flow rates (50µL/min and 1mL/min) to range from 5.8 to 33nL. The fluidic analysis predicts sudden expansions should have larger dead volumes with lower pressure drops, and sudden contractions should have lower dead volumes and higher pressure drops along the interconnect for the same change in channel width.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".