This standard describes a method for the determination of the resistance of vulcanized rubbers to fatigue under repeated tensile deformations, the test piece size and frequency of cycling being such that there is little or no temperature rise. Under these conditions, failure results from the growth of a crack that ultimately severs the test piece.
The method is restricted to repeated deformations in which the test piece is relaxed to zero strain for part of each cycle. Analogous fatigue processes can occur under repeated deformations which do not pass through zero strain and also, in certain rubbers, under static deformation, but this standard does not apply to these conditions.
The method is believed to be suitable for rubbers that have reasonably stable stress-strain properties, at least after a period of cycling, and that do not show undue stress softening or set, or highly viscous behaviour. Materials that do not meet these criteria may present considerable difficulties from the points of view of both experiment and interpretation. For example, for a rubber that develops a large amount of set during the fatigue test, the test strain will be ill-defined and the fatigue life is likely to differ markedly under constant maximum load and constant maximum extension conditions; how the results for such a rubber should be interpreted, or compared with those for other rubbers, has not been established by basic work. As a general guide, a rubber for which the set determined in accordance with 8.5 and 9.2 exceeds is likely to fall into this category. For this reason, the method is not considered suitable for most thermoplastic elastomers.
Similar considerations apply with regard to other changes in elasticity behaviour during testing.
A distinction should be made between this fatigue test and the flexometer tests described in GB/T 15584, where fatigue breakdown occurs under the simultaneous action of stress and temperature.
Advantages over the De Mattia flex cracking and cut growth test (see GB/T 13934) include the following. The test yields quantitative results which do not depend on operator interpretation and which can be recorded automatically. The initial deformation is clearly defined and can readily be varied to suit different applications.
Foreword i 1 Scope 2 Normative references 3 Terms and definitions 4 Principle 5 Apparatus 6 Test piece 7 Test conditions 8 Procedure 9 Expression of results 10 Test report Annex A (Informative) Explanatory notes Bibliography
1 Scope
This standard describes a method for the determination of the resistance of vulcanized rubbers to fatigue under repeated tensile deformations, the test piece size and frequency of cycling being such that there is little or no temperature rise. Under these conditions, failure results from the growth of a crack that ultimately severs the test piece.
The method is restricted to repeated deformations in which the test piece is relaxed to zero strain for part of each cycle. Analogous fatigue processes can occur under repeated deformations which do not pass through zero strain and also, in certain rubbers, under static deformation, but this standard does not apply to these conditions.
The method is believed to be suitable for rubbers that have reasonably stable stress-strain properties, at least after a period of cycling, and that do not show undue stress softening or set, or highly viscous behaviour. Materials that do not meet these criteria may present considerable difficulties from the points of view of both experiment and interpretation. For example, for a rubber that develops a large amount of set during the fatigue test, the test strain will be ill-defined and the fatigue life is likely to differ markedly under constant maximum load and constant maximum extension conditions; how the results for such a rubber should be interpreted, or compared with those for other rubbers, has not been established by basic work. As a general guide, a rubber for which the set determined in accordance with 8.5 and 9.2 exceeds is likely to fall into this category. For this reason, the method is not considered suitable for most thermoplastic elastomers.
Similar considerations apply with regard to other changes in elasticity behaviour during testing.
A distinction should be made between this fatigue test and the flexometer tests described in GB/T 15584, where fatigue breakdown occurs under the simultaneous action of stress and temperature.
Advantages over the De Mattia flex cracking and cut growth test (see GB/T 13934) include the following. The test yields quantitative results which do not depend on operator interpretation and which can be recorded automatically. The initial deformation is clearly defined and can readily be varied to suit different applications.
Contents of GB/T 1688-2008
Foreword i
1 Scope
2 Normative references
3 Terms and definitions
4 Principle
5 Apparatus
6 Test piece
7 Test conditions
8 Procedure
9 Expression of results
10 Test report
Annex A (Informative) Explanatory notes
Bibliography
