Joining of fiber‐reinforced polymer tubes for high‐pressure applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fiber‐reinforced polymer composites offer superior performance particularly in harsh environments; hence, they are recognized as an attractive material, especially for the transportation of pressurized fluids. However, an extensive use of these composites has been hampered, in part due to unsatisfactory solutions for the joining of subcomponents, and insufficient knowledge on the associated damage behavior. A favorable connection design for a piping system can be an adhesively bonded joint. In this study, a unique adhesive injection technique is presented that joins composite pipe sections using filament‐wound overlap sleeve couplers. The purpose of the present study was to characterize the performance and associated damage behavior of a prototype‐size pipe structure joined by the above procedure. Internal pressure and axial traction were applied to specimens at various biaxial ratios. In addition to the experimental investigation, the joint geometry was also modeled numerically employing the finite element technique. This yielded a better understanding of the damage behavior and enabled a parametric study that provided recommendations for an improved joint design. POLYM. COMPOS., 27:99–109, 2006. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".