Method and device for evaluating aging state of double-layer rubber

Abstract

The invention provides a double-layer rubber aging state evaluation method and device, and the evaluation method at least comprises the following steps: carrying out multiple tests on double-layer rubber to obtain multiple test results, the double-layer rubber comprises a first layer of rubber and a second layer of rubber which are laminated, and the first layer of rubber and the second layer of rubber are laminated; the multiple tests at least comprise an appearance state test, an adhesive strength test, a thickness test and a hardness test; according to a preset grade evaluation rule and each test result, obtaining an evaluation grade of each test; and evaluating the aging state of the double-layer rubber according to the evaluation levels of all the tests. According to the evaluation method and device provided by the invention, the aging state of the double-layer rubber lining can be efficiently, conveniently and comprehensively evaluated.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of corrosion protection technology, and specifically to a method and apparatus for assessing the aging state of double-layer rubber. Background Technology

[0002] In large equipment such as condenser water chambers, double-layer rubber linings, consisting of a soft outer layer and a hard inner layer, are often used as an anti-corrosion layer, compared to single-layer hard rubber linings. This not only provides excellent corrosion protection but also avoids cracking of the hard rubber lining caused by large-scale structural deformation and localized impacts, as well as abrasion from hard particles in the water. After long-term service, the double-layer rubber lining gradually ages under the influence of water flow impact, wear, and its own aging. Its anti-corrosion ability against the insulating medium decreases, and damaged areas will rapidly corrode due to severe galvanic corrosion between the carbon steel substrate and the titanium alloy heat transfer tubes and tube sheet. Rubber lining detachment can further clog the heat transfer tubes, leading to equipment degradation. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the aging condition of the double-layer rubber lining to determine whether it needs replacement or repair. Summary of the Invention

[0003] This invention proposes a method and apparatus for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber, which can efficiently, conveniently and comprehensively evaluate the aging state of double-layer rubber linings.

[0004] To address the aforementioned technical problems, this invention provides a method for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber, comprising at least the following steps:

[0005] Multiple tests were performed on the double-layer rubber to obtain multiple test results. The double-layer rubber includes a first layer of rubber and a second layer of rubber stacked together. The multiple tests include at least appearance test, adhesive strength test, thickness test and hardness test.

[0006] Based on the preset grading rules and the results of each test, obtain the grading level for each test; and

[0007] The aging condition of the double-layer rubber is evaluated based on the evaluation level of all the tests described.

[0008] In one embodiment of the present invention, obtaining the evaluation level of the appearance condition test includes at least the following steps:

[0009] When the number of defects on the appearance of the double-layer rubber is less than a first value, the evaluation level of the appearance condition test is the first level;

[0010] When the number of defects on the appearance of the double-layer rubber is greater than or equal to the first value and less than or equal to the second value, the evaluation level of the appearance condition test is the second level.

[0011] When the number of defects on the appearance of the double-layer rubber is greater than the second value, the evaluation level of the appearance condition test is the third level.

[0012] In one embodiment of the present invention, obtaining the evaluation level of the adhesive strength test includes at least the following steps:

[0013] Test the first adhesive strength between the first layer of rubber and the second layer of rubber, and determine the level of the first adhesive strength test as a first sub-level, a second sub-level, or a third sub-level based on the first adhesive strength.

[0014] The second adhesive strength between the second layer of rubber and the substrate is tested, and based on the second adhesive strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is determined to be a first grade, a second grade, or a third grade; and

[0015] The overall grade of the adhesive strength test is determined based on the grades of the first adhesive strength test and the second adhesive strength test.

[0016] In one embodiment of the present invention, when testing the first adhesive strength, a reinforcing material is first formed on the side of the first layer of rubber away from the second layer of rubber. Then, a peeling force is applied to cause the reinforcing material and the first layer of rubber to detach from the second layer of rubber together, and the force-displacement data during the peeling process is recorded in real time.

[0017] In one embodiment of the present invention, when the first adhesive strength is greater than or equal to the first strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is a first sub-grade; when the second strength is less than or equal to the first adhesive strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is a second sub-grade; when the first adhesive strength is less than the second strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is a third sub-grade; wherein, the first strength is 5 N / mm-8 N / mm, and the second strength is 1.5 N / mm-2.5 N / mm.

[0018] In one embodiment of the present invention, when the second adhesive strength is greater than or equal to the third strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is a first grade; when the fourth strength is less than or equal to the second adhesive strength and the third strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is a second grade; when the second adhesive strength is less than the fourth strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is a third grade; wherein the third strength is 5MPa-8MPa, and the fourth strength is 1.5MPa-2.5MPa.

[0019] In one embodiment of the present invention, when the level of the first adhesive strength test is a first sub-level and the level of the second adhesive strength test is a first sub-level, the overall level is a first level; when the level of the first adhesive strength test is a first sub-level, a second sub-level, or a third sub-level, and the level of the second adhesive strength test is a third sub-level, the overall level is a third level; otherwise, the overall level is a second level.

[0020] In one embodiment of the present invention, when obtaining the evaluation level of the thickness test, if the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber is greater than the first thickness or the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber is greater than a preset ratio of the designed thickness, the evaluation level of the thickness test is the first level; if the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber is less than or equal to the second thickness, the evaluation level of the thickness test is the third level; otherwise, the evaluation level of the thickness test is the second level, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, the first thickness is 4mm-5mm, and the second thickness is 1.5mm-2.5mm.

[0021] In one embodiment of the present invention, obtaining the evaluation level of the hardness test includes at least the following steps:

[0022] Before the double-layer rubber is put into use, the initial hardness of the double-layer rubber is tested;

[0023] After the double-layer rubber is put into use, the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber and the actual thickness of the first layer rubber are tested.

[0024] When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is within a first range, and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is greater than or equal to a first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is the first level, wherein the first set value is 1.5mm-2.5mm;

[0025] When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is within a second range, and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is greater than or equal to the first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is the second level.

[0026] When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is outside the second range and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is greater than or equal to the first set value, or when the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is greater than the first difference and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is less than the first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is the third level.

[0027] In one embodiment of the present invention, when evaluating the aging state of the double-layer rubber, the aging state of the double-layer rubber is good when the evaluation levels of the appearance condition test, the adhesive strength test, the thickness test, and the hardness test are all at the first level; the aging state of the double-layer rubber is severe when at least one of the evaluation levels of the appearance condition test, the adhesive strength test, and the thickness test is at the third level; otherwise, the aging state of the double-layer rubber is moderate.

[0028] The present invention also proposes an evaluation device for the aging state of double-layer rubber, comprising at least:

[0029] The acquisition unit is used to acquire multiple test results of the double-layer rubber.

[0030] A first evaluation unit is communicatively connected to the acquisition unit; and

[0031] The second evaluation unit is communicatively connected to the first evaluation unit.

[0032] In summary, this invention proposes a method and apparatus for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber. By improving the evaluation method, it can efficiently, conveniently, and comprehensively assess the aging state of double-layer rubber, thereby accurately predicting its service life. Furthermore, the evaluation method proposed in this invention, by forming a reinforcing material on one side of the first layer of rubber before the peel test, solves the problem of being unable to perform adhesive strength testing due to the thinning of the first layer of rubber, providing a reference for testing the adhesive strength of thin-layer materials. Attached Figure Description

[0033] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0034] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a method for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber in one embodiment of the present invention.

[0035] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the testing of the adhesive strength between the first layer of rubber and the second layer of rubber in one embodiment of the present invention.

[0036] Label Explanation:

[0037] 10. Double-layer rubber; 101. First layer of rubber; 102. Second layer of rubber; 11. Substrate; 12. Reinforcing material; 13. Clamp; 14. Tensile gauge; 15. Opening. Detailed Implementation

[0038] The following specific examples illustrate the implementation of the present invention. Those skilled in the art can easily understand other advantages and effects of the present invention from the content disclosed in this specification. The present invention can also be implemented or applied through other different specific embodiments, and various details in this specification can also be modified or changed based on different viewpoints and applications without departing from the spirit of the present invention.

[0039] It should be understood that the invention can be embodied in various forms and should not be construed as being limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, providing these embodiments will make the disclosure thorough and complete, and will fully convey the scope of the invention to those skilled in the art.

[0040] The technical solution of the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the embodiments. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0041] Please see Figure 2 As shown, this invention proposes a double-layer rubber 10, comprising a first rubber layer 101 and a second rubber layer 102 stacked together. The first rubber layer 101 is, for example, a soft rubber, and the second rubber layer 102 is, for example, a hard rubber. The double-layer rubber 10 is used to adhere to the surface of a substrate 11, thereby isolating the corrosive medium from the substrate 11 and providing corrosion protection. Specifically, in this embodiment, the second rubber layer 102 is positioned close to the substrate 11, and has good adhesive strength with the substrate 11, allowing it to adhere to the surface of the substrate 11 to isolate the corrosive medium from the substrate 11. The adhesive strength between the first rubber layer 101 and the second rubber layer 102 is greater than the adhesive strength between the first rubber layer 101 and the substrate 11, while also serving as a transition layer for the second rubber layer 102, achieving high overall adhesive strength and high density to provide better corrosion protection. The substrate 11 is made of materials such as various metals.

[0042] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown, the method for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber 10 provided by the present invention can efficiently, conveniently and effectively evaluate the aging state of double-layer rubber 10, thereby accurately predicting the service life of double-layer rubber. The evaluation method includes at least steps S11-S13.

[0043] Step S11: Perform multiple tests on the double-layer rubber and obtain multiple test results. Among them, the multiple tests include at least appearance condition test, adhesive strength test, thickness test and hardness test.

[0044] Step S12: Obtain the evaluation level of each test according to the preset level evaluation rules and each test result.

[0045] Step S13: Evaluate the aging status of the double-layer rubber based on the evaluation level of all tests.

[0046] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown, in one embodiment of the present invention, in step S11, the double-layer rubber 10 has a designed thickness before use. However, as the double-layer rubber 10 is adhered to the surface of the substrate 11 to prevent corrosive media from directly contacting the substrate 11, the first layer of rubber 101 gradually wears down and thins, thus the double-layer rubber 10 gradually ages. Then, multiple tests are performed on the double-layer rubber 10 in use, obtaining multiple test results. These multiple tests include, for example, appearance condition tests, adhesive strength tests, thickness tests, and hardness tests. The results of each test are evaluated using first, second, and third grades, with the first grade represented by A, the second grade by B, and the third grade by C.

[0047] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown, in one embodiment of the present invention, in steps S11 and S12, an appearance condition test is performed on the double-layer rubber 10 to obtain the appearance condition test results. Then, according to the preset grade evaluation rules and the appearance condition test results, the evaluation grade of the appearance condition test is obtained. Specifically, the number of defects present on the appearance of the double-layer rubber 10 is checked in a single inspection. When the number of defects is lower than a first value, the evaluation grade of the appearance condition test is A; when the number of defects is greater than or equal to the first value and less than or equal to a second value, the evaluation grade of the appearance condition test is B; when the number of defects is greater than the second value, the evaluation grade of the appearance condition test is C. Defects include, for example, blistering, breakage, and cracks. The first and second values ​​can be specifically set according to whether the defect exists only in the double-layer rubber 10 or penetrates through the double-layer rubber 10 to the surface of the substrate 11. When the defect exists only in the double-layer rubber 10, the first value is, for example, 2-3, and the second value is, for example, 4-15. When the defect penetrates through the double-layer rubber 10 to the surface of the substrate 11, the first value is, for example, 2-3, and the second value is, for example, 4-5.

[0048] Please see Figures 1 to 2As shown in Tables 1 and 2, in one embodiment of the present invention, in steps S11 and S12, the adhesive strength of the double-layer rubber 10 is tested to obtain the adhesive strength test results. Then, according to the preset grade evaluation rules and the adhesive strength test results, the evaluation grade of the adhesive strength test is obtained. Specifically, firstly, the first adhesive strength between the first layer rubber and the second layer rubber is tested. When the first adhesive strength is greater than or equal to the first strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the first sub-grade, denoted as A1; when the second strength ≤ the first adhesive strength < the first strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the second sub-grade, denoted as B1; when the first adhesive strength is less than the second strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the third sub-grade, denoted as C1; then, the second adhesive strength between the second layer rubber and the substrate is tested. When the second adhesive strength is greater than or equal to the third strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the first sub-grade, denoted as A1. The grade is represented by 2; when the fourth strength ≤ the second adhesive strength < the third strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the second sub-grade, represented by B2; when the second adhesive strength is less than the fourth strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the third sub-grade, represented by C2; then, based on the first grade and the second grade, the comprehensive grade of the adhesive strength test is determined. Specifically, when the grade of the first adhesive strength test is A1 and the grade of the second adhesive strength test is A2, the comprehensive grade is A; when the grade of the first adhesive strength test is A1, B1, or C1, and the grade of the second adhesive strength test is C2, the comprehensive grade is C; otherwise, the comprehensive grade is B. The first strength is, for example, 5 N / mm - 8 N / mm, specifically 6 N / mm; the second strength is, for example, 1.5 N / mm - 2.5 N / mm, specifically 2 N / mm; the third strength is, for example, 5 MPa - 8 MPa, specifically 6 MPa; and the fourth strength is, for example, 1.5 MPa - 2.5 MPa.

[0049] Table 1. Evaluation Grades of First and Second Bond Strength

[0050]

[0051] Table 2. Overall Grade of Adhesion Strength Test

[0052]

[0053] Please see Figures 1 to 2As shown in Tables 1 and 2, in one embodiment of the present invention, in steps S11 and S12, the first adhesive strength is tested, for example, by a peeling method. Specifically, the double-layer rubber 10 is fixed to the special fixture 13 of a universal tensile testing machine. For example, a tensile gauge 14 is used to apply a peeling force at a first set rate to separate the first layer rubber 101 and the second layer rubber 102 along the adhesive interface. The force-displacement data during the peeling process is recorded in real time. After the adhesive area is completely separated, the ratio between the average peeling force and the width of the double-layer rubber is calculated to obtain the first adhesive strength. Further, please refer to... Figure 2 As shown, since the first layer of rubber 101 is relatively thin, it may break during the separation process, preventing the peel test from being completed. Therefore, before the peel test, the surface of the first layer of rubber 101 can be roughened by sanding. Then, a reinforcing material 12 is applied to the side of the first layer of rubber 101 facing away from the second layer of rubber 102. After the reinforcing material 12 dries, the adhesive interface between the first layer of rubber 101 and the second layer of rubber 102 is used as the stop surface. The reinforcing material 12 and the first layer of rubber 101 are cut from the surface of the reinforcing material 12 to form an opening 15. The clamp 13 is then fixed together with the reinforcing material 12 and the first layer of rubber 101 behind the opening 15. Then, a peeling force is applied using a tension gauge 14 to detach the reinforcing material 12 and the first layer of rubber 101 together from the second layer of rubber 102. Therefore, by setting the reinforcing material 12, the breakage of the first layer of rubber 101 during the peel test can be avoided, thus ensuring the normal progress of the test. The thickness of the reinforcing material 12 is, for example, greater than the thickness of the first layer of rubber 101, specifically 1mm-3mm. The reinforcing material 12 may include, for example, polyurethane flexible rubber, and the specific model may be, for example, Belzona 2211 thick polymer rubber.

[0054] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown in Tables 1 and 2, in one embodiment of the present invention, in steps S11 and S12, the second adhesive strength is tested, for example, by a pull-off method. Specifically, the double-layer rubber 10 and the substrate 11 are respectively fixed to the upper and lower clamps of a universal tensile testing machine. Then, an axial tensile force is applied along the vertical direction of the adhesive interface at a second set rate until interface debonding or substrate 11 failure occurs, and the maximum tensile force value is recorded. The second adhesive strength is calculated according to the formula: second adhesive strength = maximum tensile force / adhesive area. The first set rate and the second set rate are, for example, each between 1 mm / min and 10 mm / min.

[0055] Please see Figures 1 to 2As shown, in one embodiment of the present invention, in steps S11 and S12, a thickness test is performed on the double-layer rubber 10 to obtain the thickness test result. Then, according to the preset grade evaluation rules and the thickness test result, the thickness test evaluation grade is obtained. Specifically, after the double-layer rubber 10 is used, for example, the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber 10 is measured by an instrument such as a magnetic thickness gauge. When the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber 10 is greater than the first thickness or the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber 10 is greater than a preset proportion of the designed thickness, the thickness test evaluation grade is A; when the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber is less than or equal to the second thickness, the thickness test evaluation grade is C; otherwise, the thickness test evaluation grade is B, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness. The first thickness is, for example, 4mm-5mm, the preset proportion is, for example, 85%-95%, or 90%, and the second thickness is, for example, 1.5mm-2.5mm.

[0056] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown, in one embodiment of the present invention, in steps S11 and S12, a hardness test is performed on the double-layer rubber 10 to obtain the hardness test result. Then, according to the preset grade evaluation rules and the hardness test result, the evaluation grade of the hardness test is obtained. The hardness test is performed, for example, using the Shore hardness measurement method. Specifically, the double-layer rubber 10 is placed stably on a rigid support surface, and the indenter of the hardness tester is vertically inserted into the double-layer rubber 10. After maintaining contact between the indenter and the double-layer rubber 10 for 1-2 seconds, a stable value is read as the final hardness value. The hardness tester includes two scales: scale A and scale D. Scale A is suitable for soft rubber, i.e., the first layer rubber 101, and scale D is suitable for hard rubber, i.e., the second layer rubber 102.

[0057] Please see Figures 1 to 2As shown, in one embodiment of the present invention, in steps S11 and S12, when performing a hardness test on the double-layer rubber 10, before the double-layer rubber 10 is put into use, the initial hardness of the double-layer rubber 10 is first tested, for example, using a ruler A. After the double-layer rubber 10 is put into use, the actual hardness of the double-layer rubber 10 is tested, for example, using a ruler A. The actual thickness of the first layer rubber 101 is tested using a magnetic thickness gauge. When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is within a first range, and the actual thickness of the first layer rubber 101 is greater than or equal to a first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is A; when the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is within a second range, and the actual thickness of the first layer rubber 101 is greater than or equal to the first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is B; when the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is outside the second range, and the actual thickness of the first layer rubber 101 is greater than or equal to the first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is B. When the actual thickness of one layer of rubber 101 is greater than or equal to the first set value, or when the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is greater than the first difference and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber 101 is less than the first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is C. When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is less than or equal to the first difference and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber 101 is less than the first set value, it indicates that the first layer of rubber 101 is too thin. The measured actual hardness represents more the hardness characteristics of the second layer of rubber 102 and cannot reflect the hardness characteristics of the first layer of rubber 101. However, since the tip of the D scale indenter is particularly sharp, the D scale cannot be replaced for measurement. At this time, the measured actual hardness data has no reference value, so it is not included in the index as an evaluation factor. That is, the evaluation level of the hardness test is no longer used as the basis for judging the aging state of the double layer of rubber 10. The first range is, for example, [-7,7]ShoreA, the second range is, for example, [-20,-7)ShoreA and (7,15]ShoreA, the first difference is, for example, [9-11]ShoreA, specifically, 10ShoreA, the first set value is, for example, 1.5mm-2.5mm, further for example, 1.8mm-2.2mm, specifically, 2mm.

[0058] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown, in one embodiment of the present invention, after obtaining the evaluation levels of appearance condition test, adhesive strength test, thickness test and hardness test, in step S13, the aging state of the double-layer rubber 10 is comprehensively evaluated. Specifically, when the evaluation levels of appearance condition test, adhesive strength test, thickness test and hardness test are all A, the aging state of the double-layer rubber is good, and the double-layer rubber 10 can be managed as newly manufactured rubber and can continue to be used for 6-10 years; when at least one of the evaluation levels of appearance condition test, adhesive strength test and thickness test is C, the aging state of the double-layer rubber is serious and the lifespan is short, and it can continue to be used for 1-3 years; otherwise, the aging state of the double-layer rubber is moderate, and the aging state of the double-layer rubber needs to be re-evaluated within 3-6 years.

[0059] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown, the aging state evaluation method for double-layer rubber 10 proposed in this invention is based on four dimensions: appearance, adhesive strength, thickness, and hardness. This method can efficiently, conveniently, and comprehensively evaluate the aging state of double-layer rubber, thereby assessing its service life. Specifically, the appearance considers the contribution of the integrity of the second rubber layer 102 in the double-layer rubber 10 to corrosion protection; the adhesive strength comprehensively considers the type characteristics of both rubber layers and their impact on corrosion resistance and downstream equipment during aging to determine the evaluation level; and the hardness considers the impact of the thinning of the first rubber layer 101 on the hardness evaluation level, as well as the deviation of the actual hardness measurement value after the first rubber layer 101 becomes thinner.

[0060] Please see Figures 1 to 2 As shown, based on the above-described method for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber 10, this invention also proposes an evaluation device for the aging state of double-layer rubber 10, comprising at least an acquisition unit, a first evaluation unit, and a second evaluation unit. The acquisition unit acquires multiple test results of the double-layer rubber 10, including appearance test results, adhesive strength test results, thickness test results, and hardness test results. The first evaluation unit is communicatively connected to the acquisition unit and acquires the evaluation level for each test according to preset evaluation rules and each test result. The second evaluation unit is communicatively connected to the first evaluation unit and evaluates the aging state of the double-layer rubber 10 based on the evaluation levels of all tests. The test results and evaluation levels for each test, as well as the process for acquiring the aging state of the double-layer rubber 10, are detailed in the above-described evaluation method and will not be elaborated upon here.

[0061] In summary, this invention proposes a method and apparatus for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber. Based on four dimensions—appearance, adhesive strength, thickness, and hardness—it can efficiently, conveniently, and comprehensively evaluate the aging state of double-layer rubber, thereby assessing its service life. Furthermore, the evaluation method proposed in this invention addresses the problem that adhesive strength testing cannot be performed on the thinner single-layer rubber in a double-layer rubber system. It establishes a method for testing adhesive strength after reinforcement, providing a reference for testing the adhesive strength of thin-layer materials.

[0062] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of this application and an explanation of the technical principles employed. Those skilled in the art should understand that the scope of the invention involved in this application is not limited to the technical solutions formed by specific combinations of the above-described technical features. It should also cover other technical solutions formed by arbitrary combinations of the above-described technical features or their equivalents without departing from the inventive concept. For example, technical solutions formed by substituting the above-described features with (but not limited to) technical features with similar functions disclosed in this application. Except for the technical features described in the specification, the remaining technical features are known to those skilled in the art. To highlight the innovative features of this invention, the remaining technical features will not be described further here.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the aging state of double-layer rubber, characterized in that, At least the following steps are included: Multiple tests were performed on the double-layer rubber to obtain multiple test results. The double-layer rubber includes a first layer of rubber and a second layer of rubber stacked together. The multiple tests include at least appearance test, adhesive strength test, thickness test and hardness test. Based on the preset grading rules and the results of each test, obtain the grading level for each test; and The aging condition of the double-layer rubber is evaluated based on the evaluation level of all the tests described.

2. The evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Obtaining the evaluation level of the appearance condition test includes at least the following steps: When the number of defects on the appearance of the double-layer rubber is less than a first value, the evaluation level of the appearance condition test is the first level; When the number of defects on the appearance of the double-layer rubber is greater than or equal to the first value and less than or equal to the second value, the evaluation level of the appearance condition test is the second level. When the number of defects on the appearance of the double-layer rubber is greater than the second value, the evaluation level of the appearance condition test is the third level.

3. The evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Obtaining the evaluation grade of the adhesive strength test includes at least the following steps: Test the first adhesive strength between the first layer of rubber and the second layer of rubber, and determine the level of the first adhesive strength test as a first sub-level, a second sub-level, or a third sub-level based on the first adhesive strength. The second adhesive strength between the second layer of rubber and the substrate is tested, and based on the second adhesive strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is determined to be a first grade, a second grade, or a third grade; and The overall grade of the adhesive strength test is determined based on the grades of the first adhesive strength test and the second adhesive strength test.

4. The evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that, When testing the first adhesive strength, a reinforcing material is first formed on the side of the first rubber layer away from the second rubber layer. Then, a peeling force is applied to detach the reinforcing material and the first rubber layer together from the second rubber layer, and the force-displacement data during the peeling process is recorded in real time.

5. The evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that, When the first adhesive strength is greater than or equal to the first strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the first sub-grade; when the second strength is less than or equal to the first adhesive strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the second sub-grade; when the first adhesive strength is less than the second strength, the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the third sub-grade; wherein, the first strength is 5N / mm-8N / mm, and the second strength is 1.5N / mm-2.5N / mm.

6. The evaluation method according to claim 5, characterized in that, When the second adhesive strength is greater than or equal to the third strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the first grade; when the fourth strength is less than or equal to the second adhesive strength and less than the third strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the second grade; when the second adhesive strength is less than the fourth strength, the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the third grade; wherein, the third strength is 5MPa-8MPa, and the fourth strength is 1.5MPa-2.5MPa.

7. The evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that, When the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the first sub-grade and the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the first sub-grade, the overall grade is the first grade; when the grade of the first adhesive strength test is the first sub-grade, the second sub-grade, or the third sub-grade, and the grade of the second adhesive strength test is the third sub-grade, the overall grade is the third grade; otherwise, the overall grade is the second grade.

8. The evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When obtaining the evaluation level of the thickness test, if the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber is greater than the first thickness or the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber is greater than a preset ratio of the designed thickness, the evaluation level of the thickness test is the first level; if the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber is less than or equal to the second thickness, the evaluation level of the thickness test is the third level; otherwise, the evaluation level of the thickness test is the second level, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, the first thickness is 4mm-5mm, and the second thickness is 1.5mm-2.5mm.

9. The evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Obtaining the evaluation grade of the hardness test includes at least the following steps: Before the double-layer rubber is put into use, the initial hardness of the double-layer rubber is tested; After the double-layer rubber is put into use, the actual thickness of the double-layer rubber and the actual thickness of the first layer rubber are tested. When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is within a first range, and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is greater than or equal to a first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is the first level, wherein the first set value is 1.5mm-2.5mm; When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is within a second range, and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is greater than or equal to the first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is the second level. When the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is outside the second range and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is greater than or equal to the first set value, or when the difference between the initial hardness and the actual hardness is greater than the first difference and the actual thickness of the first layer of rubber is less than the first set value, the evaluation level of the hardness test is the third level.

10. The evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When evaluating the aging state of the double-layer rubber, the aging state of the double-layer rubber is good when the evaluation level of the appearance condition test, the adhesive strength test, the thickness test, and the hardness test are all at the first level; the aging state of the double-layer rubber is severe when at least one of the evaluation levels of the appearance condition test, the adhesive strength test, and the thickness test is at the third level; otherwise, the aging state of the double-layer rubber is moderate.

11. An evaluation device for the aging state of double-layer rubber, characterized in that, The evaluation method applied to any one of claims 1-10 includes at least: The acquisition unit is used to acquire multiple test results of the double-layer rubber. A first evaluation unit is communicatively connected to the acquisition unit; and The second evaluation unit is communicatively connected to the first evaluation unit.

Images