Appropriate Boundary Conditions in the Flow of Molten Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is considerable experimental evidence that the classical no-slip boundary condition of fluid mechanics is not always a valid assumption for the flow of high molecular weight molten polymers. In fact, molten polymers slip at solid surfaces when the wall shear stress exceeds a critical value. Moreover, there exists a second critical wall shear stress value at which a transition from a weak to a strong slip takes place. The later corresponds to the case of an almost plug flow and it is accompanied by pressure oscillations in the case of capillary flow generated by a constant-speed piston-driven capillary rheometer. The two modes of slip (weak and strong) are due to flow-induced chain detachment/desorption directly from the polymer/wall interface and to chain disentanglement of the polymer chains in the bulk from a monolayer of polymer chains adsorbed at the interface. In this work, the two physical mechanisms of slip are discussed and validated on the basis of suitably analyzed experimental data. Based on these two modes of slip, the slip phenomena observed during the capillary flow of polymers (mainly polyethylenes) are explained including the absence of pressure oscillations in the capillary flow of branched polyethylenes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".