MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208521561 · doi:10.1002/app.51852

Squeeze flow in multilayer polymeric films: Effect of material characteristics and process conditions

2021· article· en· W3208521561 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Kanani Aghkand, Abdellah Ajji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Polymer Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicRheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSealantHeat transferMaterials scienceViscosityMechanicsWork (physics)Finite element methodComposite materialFlow (mathematics)ThermodynamicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, effects of sealing temperature, time, pressure, as well as sealant thickness and viscosity on squeeze out flow (SOF) in heat sealing were examined. A new image analysis approach is presented to quantify SOF in heat sealing. It was found that increasing temperature or pressure could improve SOF but only in thick 130 μm sealants and reducing the sealant thickness to 50 μm suppressed SOF. Reducing viscosity in 50 μm sealant films was also found to improve SOF only at high‐sealing pressure and long sealing times. Three approaches were used to model SOF: analytical one‐dimensional model, numerical one‐dimensional model using finite difference method (FDM), (iii) Numerical two‐dimensional model using finite element analysis. Heat transfer was modeled, and it was shown that heat transfer induces a delay in SOF. When the FDM and the heat transfer models were combined, a good agreement between experimental and model prediction could be obtained. In addition, modeling results showed that SOF occurred in shear rates within the transition region between the Newtonian and Power‐law regions. This indicates the importance of considering the Carreau‐Yasuda fluid behavior in modeling of SOF.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Polymer ScienceSame topicRheology and Fluid Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207