Polymer and surfactant flows through a periodically constricted tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow of three non-Newtonian fluids, comprising polymer and surfactant additives, in a periodically constricted tube (PCT) are experimentally compared. The radius of the tube walls is sinusoidal with respect to the streamwise direction. The three fluids are aqueous solutions of flexible polymers, rigid biopolymers and surfactants, which are typically used for drag-reduction in turbulent flows. Steady shear viscosity measurements demonstrate that rigid and flexible polymer solutions are shear-thinning, while surfactant solutions have a Newtonian and water-like shear viscosity. Capillary driven extensional rheology demonstrates that only flexible polymer solutions produce elastocapillary thinning. Particle shadow velocimetry is used to measure the velocity of each flow within the PCT at five Reynolds numbers spanning roughly 0.5 to 300. Relative to the Newtonian flows, rigid polymer solutions exhibit a blunt velocity profile. Flexible polymer solutions demonstrate a distinct chevron-shaped velocity contour and zones of opposing vorticity when the Deborah number exceeds 0.1. Using the vorticity transport equation, it is revealed that the opposing vorticity zones are coupled with a non-Newtonian torque. The PCT reveals that the surfactant solutions have similar non-Newtonian features as flexible polymer solutions – those being a chevron velocity pattern, opposing vorticity and a finite non-Newtonian torque. This observation is of practical importance since conventional shear and extensional rheometric measurements are not capable of demonstrating non-Newtonian features of the surfactant solutions. The investigation demonstrates that the PCT serves as a viable geometry for showing the non-Newtonian traits of dilute surfactant solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".