Experimental and numerical studies on bubble dynamics in nonpressurized foaming systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work explores the influence of rheological properties on polymer foam development in nonpressurized systems. To understand the complex contributions of rheology on the mechanism of bubble growth during different stages of foam processing, visualization studies were conducted by using a polymer‐foaming microscopy setup. The evolving cellular structure during foaming was analyzed for its bubble surface density, bubble size, total bubble projected area, and bubble size distribution. Morphological analysis was used to determine the rheological processing window in terms of shear viscosity, elastic modulus, melt strength and strain‐hardening, intended for the production of foams with greater foam expansion, increased bubble density and reduced bubble size. A bubble growth model and simulation scheme was also developed to describe the bubble growth phenomena that occurred in nonpressurized foaming systems. Using thermophysical and rheological properties of polymer/gas mixtures, the growth profiles for bubbles were predicted and compared to experimentally observed data. It was verified that the viscous bubble growth model was capable of depicting the growth behaviors of bubbles under various processing conditions. Furthermore, the effects of thermophysical and rheological parameters on the bubble growth dynamics were demonstrated by a series of sensitivity studies. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 54:1947–1959, 2014. © 2013 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".