If your operation is looking to replace pipelining or other wear components, selecting the right material is essential. No matter the industry or application, the right-wear material will provide consistent quality and long wear life, minimizing downtime and replacement costs.
With the wide range of products and materials on the market, it can be challenging to determine the best wear materials (or supplier) for your next project. To help get you started, you'll find a comparison between rubber and polyurethane lining below.
Rubber Lining – The Established Standard
Natural and synthetic rubber compounds have been the industry standard for pipelining and other wear components for nearly a century. Today, there is a vast array of unique compounds suitable for every application, with many striking the balance between cost-efficiency and dependable performance. Generally speaking, rubber is the ideal wear material for applications involving potential impingement, direct impact, and other abrasion caused by larger particle sizes. Rubber is generally less suitable for applications involving oil or high amounts of hydrocarbons.
Polyurethane – Performance and Innovation
If durability and wear material life is a priority for your operation, urethane-lined wear components are the ideal solution. Repeated testing shows polyurethane consistently outperforms unlined steel pipe and metallic pipe liners in challenging applications, offering considerable cost and safety advantages while maximizing throughput and efficiency. Urethane-lined components are suitable for many applications, especially those involving oils, hydrocarbons, and abrasion/tearing caused by sliding impact.
Which is Right for My Operation?
Depending on your industry, operating requirements, and budget, your operation could require either rubber or polyurethane wear components. One is not necessarily better than the other; both material types have specific applications and use cases in which they will outperform other products.
| Product Model | 80D-A | 80D-B | ||||||
| Appearance at 20℃ | White Liquid | Colorless Clear Liquid | ||||||
| Viscosity At 30℃/MPa.s | 500-800 | 300-600 | ||||||
| NCO% | --- | 22±0.3 | ||||||
| Product processing technology | ||||||||
| Ratio A:B | 100:100 | |||||||
| The temperature of B component/℃ | 35 | |||||||
| The temperature of A component/℃ | 35 | |||||||
| Post vulcanization time/h/℃ | 12/100 | |||||||
| Physical Property Index | ||||||||
| Test Item | Reference Ranges | Test Standard | Test Result | |||||
| Process time/min(100℃) | 10-15 | 12 | ||||||
| Hardness/Shore D | 80±2 | GB/T 531.1-2008 | 80 | |||||
| Tensile Strength/MPa | >50 | GB/T 528-2009 | 52 | |||||
| 100%Modulus/MPa | 8-12 | GB/T 528-2009 | 9 | |||||
| 300%Modulus/MPa | 15-20 | GB/T 528-2009 | 17 | |||||
| Rebound/% | 5-100 | GB/T 528-2009 | 55% | |||||
| Tear strength/MPa | >65 | GB/T 528-2009 | 69 | |||||
