Rheology of fiber filled polymer melts: Role of fiber‐fiber interactions and polymer‐fiber coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experimental study and a numerical modeling analysis are carried out to examine the effects of fiber‐fiber interactions and coupling between fiber orientation and polymer chains conformation on the rheological properties of fiber suspensions. The experimental study allowed examination of large fiber volume fractions up to 35% over a range of shear rates that spans eight decades. This study confirmed already known results and led to new ones. In particular, a peak in the steady shear viscosity at the low shear rate region is observed at large volume fractions. Furthermore, new results regarding the applicability of the Cox‐Merz rule, the behavior of the damping factor, and the end pressure drops are reported, and physical interpretations are proposed. The results of the numerical modeling showed that it is necessary to account for the polymer‐fiber coupling factor to obtain a good fit between the model predictions and the experimental measurements. Comparisons between the model predictions and the experimental measurements allowed study of the variation of the parameters that govern the fiber‐fiber interactions and the polymer‐fiber coupling with the properties of the suspension and the flow. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 45:385–399, 2005. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".