A study of rheological limitations in rotary jet spinning of polymer nanofibers through modeling and experimentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The recently popularized method of rotary jet spinning (RJS) or centrifugal spinning is investigated to evaluate the rheological limitations of polymer solutions and melts to optimal spinnability. The influence of Newtonian or non‐Newtonian behavior of the polymer on spinnability is discussed. We observe that highly viscous polymers tend to block the die channels within a rotary jet spinneret and therefore suggest the use of relatively low Newtonian viscosities of between 1 and 10 Pa s for optimal fiber production. Computational fluid dynamics simulations are used in conjunction with experimental data to establish important processing parameters, such as typical shear rates in the device and optimal polymer melt or solution viscosities. A theoretical model for RJS is compared to measured fiber diameters. The comparison shows that although fiber diameters can be estimated very roughly in the case of polymer solutions, the prediction of fiber diameter in the case of polymer melts require further modeling work. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci.2020,137, 48963.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".