A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008...

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


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


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


LFL NONE 3.9 5 1.4 1.1

UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7

9


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


10H80 R22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FRONT MID END

L

T

W

37


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


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


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 !

A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008...

Documents

Transcript of A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008...