Experimental Studies of Compression and Impact Behaviours of Traditional Versus Alternative Polymer Support Materials for Pipelines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Non-metallic materials such as polymers and woods are commonly used as pipeline supports to distribute loads and dissipate mechanical vibrations. Neoprene is a synthetic rubber material widely used for these purposes but is softer than other common polymer materials such as Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMW) or Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). It is also generally less available and more expensive than natural materials like woods. Because there is an apparent lack of data on the compressive and impact resistance behaviors of pipe support materials, dedicated experiments were conducted on Neoprene, UHMW, Polyethylene (PE), PTFE, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Polyurethane (PU), and wood samples in this study. The influences of several factors such as temperature, layering, strain rate, and vibration frequency were evaluated. Understanding the differences in mechanical behaviour of these materials is important for pipeline design and stress calculations/simulations. For compression tests, a 10″ (25.4 cm) diameter conical shaped custom compression platen was designed and analyzed numerically with Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to ensure it met specific weight, maximum deflection, and alignment requirements. These custom platens were fabricated for the experiments from 1018 steel case-hardened for durability and stiffness. For impact experiments, a 12″ (30.5 cm) diameter pipe was set up on a supporting bracket with isolation liners (test materials) sandwiched between the pipe and the support and between the pipe and the bracket. Accelerometer sensors were installed on the pipe and underneath the two support legs of the assembly. Transfer functions on the pipe wall and underneath left and right support legs were measured when impacted using a calibrated force hammer. Compression tests under monotonic loading showed that PTFE was the stiffest material tested at maximum load, approximately 18% stiffer than Neoprene. Layering had an insignificant effect on the final compressive strain values at the maximum compressive load. However, between 10–100 MPa (1.45 ksi – 14.5 ksi) during the compression stroke, the stiffness of the overall sample is ∼10% lower with more than one layer. Impact tests revealed that PVC and Neoprene materials were more effective than PU in dampening the vibration response in the lower frequency range up to 700 Hz and higher frequency vibrations in the range 1000 Hz through 2000 Hz. None of the tested materials were effective in dampening the pipe vibrations excited in the range between 700 Hz and 1000 Hz.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».