Yield limit analysis of particle motion in a yield-stress fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A theoretical and numerical study of yield-stress fluid creeping flow about a particle is presented. Yield-stress fluids can hold rigid particles statically buoyant if the yield stress is large enough. In addressing sedimentation of rigid particles in viscoplastic fluids, we should know this critical ‘yield number’ beyond which there is no motion. As we get close to this limit, the role of viscosity becomes negligible in comparison to the plastic contribution in the leading order, since we are approaching the zero-shear-rate limit. Admissible stress fields in this limit can be found by using the characteristics of the governing equations of perfect plasticity (i.e. the sliplines). This approach yields a lower bound of the critical plastic drag force or equivalently the critical yield number. Admissible velocity fields also can be postulated to calculate the upper bound. This analysis methodology is examined for three families of particle shapes (ellipse, rectangle and diamond) over a wide range of aspect ratios. Numerical experiments of either resistance or mobility problems in a viscoplastic fluid validate the predictions of slipline theory and reveal interesting aspects of the flow in the yield limit (e.g. viscoplastic boundary layers). We also investigate in detail the cases of high and low aspect ratio of the particles.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".