3.8 Article

Identification of swelling/shrinking coefficients under CO2 on an FKM O-ring - Comparison with HNBR and influence of reinforcements on the matrices

期刊

MATERIAUX & TECHNIQUES
卷 110, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/mattech/2022029

关键词

rubber; coupling environment; CO2 pressure; material testing; reinforcements

资金

  1. Schlumberger Geoservices Company [CITEPH-36-2012]
  2. Schlumberger Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A better understanding of elastomers' behavior during Rapid Gas Decompression (RGD) requires advanced knowledge of gas sorption and desorption. This study investigates the behavior of Fluorocarbon rubber (FKM) seals under different CO2 pressures and evaluates the effect of nanofillers on elastomers.
A better understanding of elastomers' behavior during Rapid Gas Decompression (RGD) requires advanced knowledge of what is happening during gas sorption and desorption. This will offer to improve numerical simulation phenomena to consider a real environmental use of an O-ring, as for thermal applications. A previous experimental study developed testing protocols to investigate the performance of elastomeric O-rings. The non-contact measurement technique has been validated to identify the swelling and shrinking coefficients during sorption and desorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) from a Hydrogenated Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (HNBR) O-ring. The present work describes the effect of CO2 pressures on Fluorocarbon rubber (FKM) seals behavior coupled with temperature. To evaluate the effect of reinforcing the HNBR and FKM matrices with nanofillers, experimental tests were carried out and compared with those of the two elastomers without fillers. The four materials' CO2 sorption and desorption coefficients are identified, and their swelling upon decompression is measured. It appears that HNBR is the best candidate under the applied service conditions. On the other hand, the nanofillers introduced in the elastomers may cause some early damages under RGD conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据