Effect of Aerodynamics on Film Blowing Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) technique using a renormalization group (RNG) k –ε model and Fluent software was employed to analyze numerically the effects of aerodynamics on the air ring cooling system of a film blowing process. An in-line scanning camera system developed in our lab was used to study experimentally the detailed dynamics of bubble instabilities. An operation window for the heat transfer coefficient and the maximum air velocity function was established. The simulation results showed that it is adequate mainly at low BUR (Blow-Up-Ratio) outside of the air ring. The relationship between thermal inertia and cooling air aerodynamics for different bubble geometries was also explored. Different bubble shapes, for the same BUR, produced significant differences in the airflow pattern and heat transfer coefficient. The combination of experimental measurements and numerical simulations indicated that various cooling rates result in important variations in the dynamics of bubble instabilities for different BUR bubbles. It was observed that increasing the cooling rate can destabilize the lower BUR bubbles, but stabilize the higher ones due to the production of different bubble shapes. Finally, it is shown that the bubble instabilities depend on the static pressure distribution along the bubble surface, and that minimizing the pressure gradient can stabilize the bubbles.
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) | 0.002 | 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".