Post on 18-Jan-2016
A Comparison of the Physical Properties
[& Their Causative Factors]of Froth vs. Pour Foams
CPI 2008 - San Antonio
John MurphyFoam Supplies, Inc
2
Why Froth?Why Froth?
Perceived Molding Advantages Can foam in cooler mold, Less Tight mold needed
Higher initial viscosity
Better Flow? Less Shrinkage? Better Thermal Conductivity? Better Density Distribution?
3
The StudyThe Study Same
Formulation 3 BAs Low pressure
equipment -15ppm Lanzen Mold Compare
Solubility Reactivity Density Economics
Control Packing Mold Temp Orientation
Monitor Free Rise Density Flow Dens Gradient Cell Orientation
4
Froth AgentsFroth Agents
Blowing Agent: HCFC-22HFC-134a
HFC-152a
MW 86.5 102 66.5
Boiling Pt, C -40.8 -26.2 -25
Ht of Vaporization, kJ/kg 234 216 328
Lambda 11 13 13
GWP100 1700 1300 140
ODP 0.055 0 0 Solubility, Lambda worsen → Environmental improves Flammability issue w 152a
5
Liquid BAsLiquid BAs
Blowing Agent: ECOMATEHFC-245fa nC5
MW 60 134 72
Boiling Pt, C 31.5 15.3 36
Lambda 10.7 12.2 15
GWP100 0 950 11
ODP 0 0 0 Solubility, Lambda worsen → Environmental issue w 245fa Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?
6
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37
7
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37
%F 75* 58* 0 0 0
*req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable
8
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37
%F 75* 58* 0 0 0
*req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable
LFL NONE 3.9 5 1.4 1.1
UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7
9
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37
%F 75* 58* 0 0 0
*req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable
LFL NONE 3.9 5 1.4 1.1
UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7
Heat of Combustio
n NONE -17.4 -16.2 -49.7 -46.9
10
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37
%F 75* 58* 0 0 0
*req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable
LFL NONE 3.9 5 1.4 1.1
UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7
Heat of Combustion NONE -17.4 -16.2 -49.7 -46.9 Ecomate less flammable than HFC-152a, HCs
FSI Ecomate PU systems are rated as COMBUSTIBLE, not flammable. Do not require Red Label
Hydrocarbon Blended Systems are FLAMMABLE!
11
Drop in formulationDrop in formulation
Optimized for R-22 BA Drop-in
On Molar basis No Catalyst adjustments
Lanzen Mold [2000 x 200 x 50 mm] 80 F and 95 F 20 min demold Vert & Horz
12
DROP IN FORMULADROP IN FORMULAJ121- 1 2 3
Polyol blend 90.3 90.3 90.3
Surfactant 1.5 1.5 1.5
PC8 0.7 0.7 0.7
water 1.5 1.5 1.5
HCFC-22 6.0
ecomate 4.2
HFC-134a 7.1
RATIO
A 100 100 100
B 92.6 90.9 93.6
GEL, sec 58 - 62
Free Rise DENS, pcf 2.3 - 2.4
13
Free rise densityFree rise density
BOX POURSSHOT,
sec g/sec lb/sec FRD
R-22 20 116.2 0.256 2.34
ecomate 20 115.8 0.255 2.38
R-134a 20 118.1 0.26 2.32
14
Minimum Fill DensityMinimum Fill Density Formula optimized for Froth
HIGH Level of Amine Polyol to counter Evaporative Cooling
Causes Liquid BA foams to lock-up prematurely Therefore will have high MFD !
Reformulated w/o Amine polyol Still Not Optimized → Normal MFD !
15
Minimum Fill DensityMinimum Fill Density
BOX POURS FRDMFDvert
MFD horz
R-22 2.34 3.43 3.21
ecomate 2.38 4.30 4.33
R-134a 2.32 3.04 3.20
16
Minimum Fill DensityMinimum Fill Density
BOX POURS FRDMFDvert
MFD horz
R-22 2.34 3.43 3.21
ecomate 2.38 4.30 4.33
R-134a 2.32 3.04 3.20
Ecomate w/o Amine 2.34 3.03 3.23
Similar Flow w Each BA
17
Minimum Fill DensityMinimum Fill Density
MFD high [3.0-3.2 pcf] – :. No End Shrinkage Used unblended Isocyanate Fear of incompatibility w some HFC
blends Fewer Blends to make
MFD is a measure of FLOW Similar Flow w each BA
18
Density DistributionDensity Distribution
Uniform distribution is desired Panels cut into 10 equal pieces [A to J] Long direction – fill end to vent end Densities determined Results graphed
19
R-22 DistributionR-22 Distribution
DENSITY DIST FILL END → VENT END
121.1 A B C D E F G H I
R22%
PANEL 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
MFD V80 2 3.26 3.22 3.24 3.24 3.25 3.27 3.31 3.34 3.24
10% V80 3 3.56 3.54 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.64 3.56 3.48
15% V80 5 3.70 3.71 3.71 3.70 3.70 3.74 3.80 3.78 3.68
20% V80 12 3.77 3.83 3.81 3.83 3.83 3.80 3.79 3.79 3.73
MFD H80 7 3.24 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.24 3.21 3.24 3.22 3.18
10% H80 6 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.54 3.53 3.55 3.59 3.58 3.58
15% H80 8 3.83 3.74 3.72 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.72 3.74 3.67
20
Effect of OrientationEffect of Orientation
Vertical - Densifies more at end of rise
R-22 Orientation
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PANEL PCT
DE
NS
ITY
, p
cf
MFD V80
MFD H80
21
Temperature EffectTemperature Effect
Warmer mold gives lower density
R134a Temp Effect
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY
MFD H80
MFD V95
22
Temperature EffectTemperature Effect
Warmer mold = lower density True for Froth & Liquid BAs WHY? Less BA Loss
Lower Formula COST Better for Environment
:. Use Warm Molds
23
R-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 VERT
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PANEL PCT
DE
NS
ITY
, pc
f
15% V80
10% V80
MFD V80
Packing increases DENSITY Does NOT improve DISTRIBUTION
24
R-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 DISTRIBUTION
R22 HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY 15% H80
10% H80
MFD H80
25
R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTION
R134a VERT
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY
10% V95
MFD V95
26
R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTION
R134a HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY
10% H80
MFD H80
27
R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTION
Warmer Temp = Lower Density
R134a HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY 10% H80
10% H95
MFD H80
28
ECOMATE w/o AMINEECOMATE w/o AMINE
J121-5 HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PANEL PCT
DE
NS
ITY
, p
cf
12% H80
7% H80
MFD
29
R-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 DISTRIBUTION
R22 HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY 15% H80
10% H80
MFD H80
30
R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTION
R134a HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY
10% H80
MFD H80
31
Density DistributionDensity Distribution
Density Distributions – equivalent! Packing
Increases Density Doesn’t improve Distribution
Optimization can improve Distribution
All formulations need optimization!
32
Cell Orientation Cell Orientation across Panelacross Panel
Even with uniform Density Distribution
Cell orientation is Important Affects Physical Properties
Compressive strength Thermal conductivity Dimensional Stability
Should be uniform across panel
33
CELL ORIENTATIONCELL ORIENTATION
Measured Compressive Strength [on SECTIONS B, E, I ] In Panel Length, Width, & Thickness directions Independent of Pour Orientation
LENGTH WID
TH
B E I
34
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCompressive StrengthsCompressive Strengths
on R-22 Panel on R-22 Panel
R-22 FRONT MID END
L 1-7 51 24 26
T MH80 24 27 27
W 31 51 41
35
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on R-22 PanelCS on R-22 Panel
MH80 R22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
36
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on R-22 PanelCS on R-22 Panel
10H80 R22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
37
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on R-22 PanelCS on R-22 Panel
15H80 R22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
38
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on CS on R-134aR-134a Panel Panel
MH80 134a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
39
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on CS on R-134aR-134a Panel Panel
10H80 134a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
40
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on CS on ecomateecomate Panel Panel
MH80 ecomate
0102030405060708090
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
41
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on CS on ecomateecomate Panel Panel
10H80 ecomate
0
20
40
60
80
100
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
42
EcoEconomicsnomics Fluorochemicals ALWAYS more Expensive
Cost depends directly on the # F added 2C HFCs require >68 wt% F to be non-flammable
Higher MOLE Wt adds to formulation expense Lambda NOT related to F content, MW Ecomate superior λ, MW, Cost, Environmental
Cost not tied to Petrol prices
Blowing Agent:
Eco-mate
HCFC-22
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
MW 60.1 86.5 102 66.5
Lambda 10.7 11 13 13
GWP100 0 1700 1300 140
ODP 0 0.055 0 0
43
EnvironmentalEnvironmental Froths CONTAMINATE more than
Liquids [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids]
MW
ecomate 60
134a 102
245fa 134
44
EnvironmentalEnvironmental Froths CONTAMINATE more than
Liquids [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for liquids] Use Approx 2X more than ecomate
MW norm
ecomate 60 1
134a 102 1.7
245fa 134 2.23
45
EnvironmentalEnvironmental Froths CONTAMINATE more than
Liquids [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for liquids] Use Approx 2X more than ecomate Higher GWPs than ecomate
MW norm GWP100
ecomate 60 1 0
134a 102 1.7 1300
245fa 134 2.23 950
46
EnvironmentalEnvironmental Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids
[~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for liquids] Use Approx 2X more than ecomate Higher GWPs than ecomate
Ecomate Saves ~ 1 metric Tonne CO2 e Per pound Ecomate used to replace 134a or 245fa
MW norm GWP100 CO2 e
ecomate 60 1 0 1
134a 102 1.7 1300 2210
245fa 134 2.23 950 2122
47
ConclusionsConclusions
Temperature Effect Warmer mold = lower density
True for Froth & Liquid BAs WHY? Less BA Loss
Lower Formula COST Better for Environment
:. Use Warm Molds Why use Froth, when:
Liquids perform as well or Better in heated molds Liquids Cost LESS
48
ConclusionsConclusions Similar Properties – Liquid or Froth
Flow [MFD] - Same Dimensional Stability – No Issues Density Distribution - Equivalent Cell orientation - Same
Froth foams are more expensive Both in real cost and cost to environment
Ecomate use can save 1 MT CO2 e / lb
Compare for Yourself !Compare for Yourself !