Dilute rigid dumbbell suspensions in large-amplitude oscillatory shear flow: Shear stress response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the simplest relevant molecular model for large-amplitude shear (LAOS) flow of a polymeric liquid: the suspension of rigid dumbbells in a Newtonian solvent. We find explicit analytical expressions for the shear rate amplitude and frequency dependences of the first and third harmonics of the alternating shear stress response. We include a detailed comparison of these predictions with the corresponding results for the simplest relevant continuum model: the corotational Maxwell model. We find that the responses of both models are qualitatively similar. The rigid dumbbell model relies entirely on the dumbbell orientation to explain the viscoelastic response of the polymeric liquid, including the higher harmonics in large-amplitude oscillatory shear flow. Our analysis employs the general method of Bird and Armstrong ["Time-dependent flows of dilute solutions of rodlike macromolecules," J. Chem. Phys. 56, 3680 (1972)] for analyzing the behavior of the rigid dumbbell model in any unsteady shear flow. We derive the first three terms of the deviation of the orientational distribution function from the equilibrium state. Then, after getting the "paren functions," we use these for evaluating the shear stress for LAOS flow. We find the shapes of the shear stress versus shear rate loops predicted to be reasonable.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".