Exact solutions for oscillatory shear sweep behaviors of complex fluids from the Oldroyd 8-constant framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we provide a new exact framework for analyzing the most commonly measured behaviors in large-amplitude oscillatory shear flow (LAOS), a popular flow for studying the nonlinear physics of complex fluids. Specifically, the strain rate sweep (also called the strain sweep) is used routinely to identify the onset of nonlinearity. By the strain rate sweep, we mean a sequence of LAOS experiments conducted at the same frequency, performed one after another, with increasing shear rate amplitude. In this paper, we give exact expressions for the nonlinear complex viscosity and the corresponding nonlinear complex normal stress coefficients, for the Oldroyd 8-constant framework for oscillatory shear sweeps. We choose the Oldroyd 8-constant framework for its rich diversity of popular special cases (we list 18 of these). We evaluate the Fourier integrals of our previous exact solution to get exact expressions for the real and imaginary parts of the complex viscosity, and for the complex normal stress coefficients, as functions of both test frequency and shear rate amplitude. We explore the role of infinite shear rate viscosity on strain rate sweep responses for the special case of the corotational Jeffreys fluid. We find that raising η∞ raises the real part of the complex viscosity and lowers the imaginary. In our worked examples, we thus first use the corotational Jeffreys fluid, and then, for greater accuracy, we use the Johnson-Segalman fluid, to describe the strain rate sweep response of molten atactic polystyrene. For our comparisons with data, we use the Spriggs relations to generalize the Oldroyd 8-constant framework to multimode. Our generalization yields unequivocally, a longest fluid relaxation time, used to assign Weissenberg and Deborah numbers to each oscillatory shear flow experiment. We then locate each experiment in the Pipkin space.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".