Translating and squirming cylinders in a viscoplastic fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three related problems of viscoplastic flow around cylinders are considered. First, translating cylinders with no-slip surfaces appear to generate adjacent rotating plugs in the limit where the translation speed becomes vanishingly small. In this plastic limit, analytical results are available from plasticity theory (slipline theory) which indicate that no such plugs should exist. Using a combination of numerical computations and asymptotic analysis, we show that the plugs of the viscoplastic theory actually disappear in the plastic limit, albeit very slowly. Second, when the boundary condition on the cylinder is replaced by one that permits sliding, the plastic limit corresponds to a partially rough cylinder. In this case, no plasticity solution has been previously established; we provide evidence from numerical computations and slipline theory that a previously proposed upper bound (Martin & Randolph, Geotechnique, vol. 56, 2006, pp. 141–145) is actually the true plastic solution. Third, we consider how a prescribed surface velocity field can propel cylindrical squirmers through a viscoplastic fluid. We determine swimming speeds and contrast the results with those from the corresponding Newtonian problem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".