Effect of cationic surfactant addition on the drag reduction behaviour of anionic polymer solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although extensive research work has been carried out on the drag reduction (DR) behaviour of polymers and surfactants alone, little progress has been made on the synergistic effects of combined polymers and surfactants. In this work, the interactions between drag‐reducing anionic polymer (copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate, referred to as PAM) and drag‐reducing cationic surfactant (octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride, OTAC) are studied. Solutions are prepared using both deionised (DI) water and tap water. The measurement of the physical properties such as electrical conductivity and viscosity are used to determine the surfactant–polymer interactions. The addition of surfactant to the polymer solution has a significant effect on the properties of the system. The critical micelle concentration (CMC) of the mixed surfactant–polymer system is found to be different from that of the surfactant alone. With the addition of surfactant to a polymer solution, a substantial decrease in the viscosity occurs. The observed changes in the viscosity of mixed polymer–surfactant system are explained in terms of the changes in the extension of polymeric chains, resulting from polymer–surfactant interactions. The anionic PAM chains tend to collapse upon the addition of cationic OTAC. The pipeline flow behaviour of PAM/OTAC mixtures is found to be consistent with the bench scale results. The DR ability of PAM is reduced upon the addition of OTAC. At low concentrations of PAM, the effect of OTAC on the DR behaviour is more pronounced. The DR behaviour of polymer solutions is strongly influenced by the nature of water (DI or tap). © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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".