Peel Strength of Multilayer Polymer-Based Pipes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multilayer polymer composite piping typically comprises a primarily load-bearing structural layer and one or two inner and outer protective layers. The latter aims to protect the structural layer from damage caused during installation and operation. Multilayer pipes are an attractive alternative to conventional single-layer composite piping and are sought for elevated temperatures and pressure operation for oil and gas transportation. Concerns associated with multilayer pipes are fluid permeation, lack of barrier performance, and inadequate adhesion between layers. Rapid gas decompression (RGD) testing replicates the rapid decrease in pressure that may occur in operation. It helps identify defects in the pipe design, materials, and/or fabrication, leading to layer separation and even pipe collapse. However, RGD testing is expensive, requires complex equipment, and may pose safety risks. Therefore, an alternative safe, expedient, and cost-effective procedure is sought. In response to this need, peel testing is investigated according to the DIN 53357 standard, also known as German wheel peel testing. A peel test apparatus has been adapted based on the DIN 53357 standard in the present work. Results from testing five-layer polymer-based pipes are reported in the present study. Baseline tests were performed at room temperature at a 10 mm/minute peel rate on a 10 mm wide and 2.5 mm thick peel strip. The influence of peel rate, peel strip width and thickness, and temperatures were investigated in this work. This contribution concludes with a discussion about the effects of these parameters and the suitability of peel testing for multilayer pipes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".