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 66.5Boiling Pt, C -40.8 -26.2 -25Ht of Vaporization,

kJ/kg 234 216 328 Lambda 11 13 13GWP100 1700 1300 140ODP 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 72Boiling Pt, C 31.5 15.3 36   Lambda 10.7 12.2 15GWP100 0 950 11ODP 0 0 0 Solubility, Lambda worsen →

Environmental issue w 245fa Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?

6

FlammabilityFlammabilityBlowing Agent

HFC-134

a

HFC-152

a   ecomate nC5 cC5MW 102 66 60 72 70.1

BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37

7

FlammabilityFlammabilityBlowing Agent

HFC-134

a

HFC-152

a   ecomate nC5 cC5MW 102 66 60 72 70.1

BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37

%F 75* 58* 0 0 0*req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable

8

FlammabilityFlammabilityBlowing Agent

HFC-134

a

HFC-152

a   ecomate nC5 cC5MW 102 66 60 72 70.1

BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49Flash 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 1.1UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7

9

FlammabilityFlammabilityBlowing Agent

HFC-134

a

HFC-152

a   ecomate nC5 cC5MW 102 66 60 72 70.1

BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49Flash 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 1.1UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7

Heat of Combustio

n NONE -17.4 -16.2 -49.7 -46.9

10

FlammabilityFlammabilityBlowing Agent

HFC-134

a

HFC-152

a   ecomate nC5 cC5MW 102 66 60 72 70.1

BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49Flash 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 1.1UFL 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 90.3Surfactant 1.5 1.5 1.5

PC8 0.7 0.7 0.7water 1.5 1.5 1.5

HCFC-22 6.0ecomate 4.2HFC-134a 7.1

RATIOA 100 100 100B 92.6 90.9 93.6

GEL, sec 58 - 62Free Rise DENS, pcf 2.3 - 2.4

13

Free rise densityFree rise densityBOX POURS

SHOT, sec g/sec lb/sec FRD

R-22 20 116.2 0.256 2.34ecomate 20 115.8 0.255 2.38R-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 3.21ecomate 2.38 4.30 4.33R-134a 2.32 3.04 3.20

16

Minimum Fill DensityMinimum Fill Density

BOX POURS FRDMFDvert

MFD horz

R-22 2.34 3.43 3.21ecomate 2.38 4.30 4.33R-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 DistributionDENSITY 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

DENS

ITY,

pcf

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

DENS

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

DEN

SITY

, pcf

15% V80

10% V80

MFD V80

Packing increases DENSITY Does NOT improve DISTRIBUTION

24

R-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 DISTRIBUTIONR22 HORZ

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

PCT PANEL

DEN

SITY 15% H80

10% H80

MFD H80

25

R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTIONR134a VERT

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

PCT PANEL

DENS

ITY

10% V95

MFD V95

26

R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTIONR134a HORZ

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

PCT PANEL

DENS

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

DENS

ITY 10% H80

10% H95

MFD H80

28

ECOMATE w/o AMINEECOMATE w/o AMINEJ121-5 HORZ

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

PANEL PCT

DENS

ITY,

pcf

12% H80

7% H80

MFD

29

R-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 DISTRIBUTIONR22 HORZ

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

PCT PANEL

DEN

SITY 15% H80

10% H80

MFD H80

30

R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTIONR134a HORZ

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

PCT PANEL

DENS

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

LTW

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 66.5Lambda 10.7 11 13 13GWP100 0 1700 1300 140ODP 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 !