Yield stress and wall slip of kaolinite networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the nonlinear rheological properties of kaolinite suspensions as a model fluid were studied. Three kaolinites with different average particle, aspect ratio and asperity were used to gain a deeper understanding of the effects of particle's geometry on yielding, rheology, and apparent slip velocity over a wide range of concentrations in the semi-concentrated to concentrated regime. To reveal the impact of geometry on kaolinite suspension's rheology, atomic force microscopy was employed, thus revealing unique information about the particle's structural differences. The apparent slip velocity was studied through the application of the Mooney technique using experimental data from parallel-plate geometry at various gap spacings. Sandpaper of varying grit was used to eliminate slip and estimate the true rheological parameters including the yield stress of these materials. Kaolinite suspensions were found to follow a Herschel–Bulkley model with yield stress that increases with concentration irrespective of the type of kaolinite particles. The aspect ratio and asperity of particles were found to alter their slip behavior by enabling the kaolinite network to have a tunable yield stress. It was also determined that the existence of resilient larger clusters at higher shear rates often induce higher slip effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".