Rheological modeling of carbon nanotube suspensions with rod–rod interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explain the shear‐thinning behavior of untreated carbon nanotube (CNT) suspensions in a Newtonian matrix, a new set of rheological equations is developed. The CNTs are modeled as rigid rods dispersed in a Newtonian matrix and the evolution of the system is controlled by hydrodynamic and rod–rod interactions. The particle–particle interactions is modeled by a nonlinear lubrication force, function of the relative velocity at the contact point, and weighted by the contact probability. The stress tensor is calculated from the known fourth‐order orientation tensor and a new fourth‐order interaction tensor. The Fokker‐Planck equation is numerically solved for steady simple shear flows using a finite volume method. The model predictions show a good agreement with the steady shear data of CNTs dispersed in a Newtonian epoxy matrix as well as for suspensions of glass fibers in polybutene, 1 demonstrating its ability to describe the behavior of micro‐ and nanoscale particle suspensions. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 60: 1476–1487, 2014
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".