1 / 49

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

A Comparison of the Physical Properties [ & Their Causative Factors ] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc. Why Froth?. Perceived Molding Advantages Can foam in cooler mold, Less Tight mold needed Higher initial viscosity Better Flow?

buck
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Comparison of the Physical Properties [&Their Causative Factors]of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc

  2. 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. 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 The Study

  4. Froth Agents • Solubility, Lambda worsen → • Environmental improves • Flammability issue w 152a

  5. Liquid BAs • Solubility, Lambda worsen → • Environmental issue w 245fa • Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?

  6. Flammability

  7. Flammability

  8. Flammability

  9. Flammability

  10. Flammability • 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 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 FORMULA

  13. Free rise density

  14. Minimum 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 Density

  16. Minimum Fill Density • Similar Flow w Each BA

  17. Minimum 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 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 Distribution

  20. Effect of Orientation • Vertical - Densifies more at end of rise

  21. Temperature Effect • Warmer mold gives lower density

  22. Temperature 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 DISTRIBUTION • Packing increases DENSITY • Does NOT improve DISTRIBUTION

  24. R-22 DISTRIBUTION

  25. R-134a DISTRIBUTION

  26. R-134a DISTRIBUTION

  27. R-134a DISTRIBUTION • Warmer Temp = Lower Density

  28. ECOMATE w/o AMINE

  29. R-22 DISTRIBUTION

  30. R-134a DISTRIBUTION

  31. Density Distribution • Density Distributions – equivalent! • Packing • Increases Density • Doesn’t improve Distribution • Optimization can improve Distribution • All formulations need optimization!

  32. Cell Orientation across 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 ORIENTATION I WIDTH B E LENGTH • Measured Compressive Strength • [on SECTIONS B, E, I ] • In Panel Length, Width, & Thickness directions • Independent of Pour Orientation

  34. Cell OrientationCompressive Strengths on R-22 Panel

  35. Cell OrientationCS on R-22 Panel

  36. Cell OrientationCS on R-22 Panel

  37. Cell OrientationCS on R-22 Panel

  38. Cell OrientationCS on R-134a Panel

  39. Cell OrientationCS on R-134a Panel

  40. Cell OrientationCS on ecomate Panel

  41. Cell OrientationCS on ecomate Panel

  42. Economics • 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

  43. Environmental • Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids • [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids]

  44. Environmental • Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids • [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for liquids] • Use Approx 2X more than ecomate

  45. Environmental • 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

  46. Environmental • 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

  47. Conclusions • 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. Conclusions • 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

  49. Compare for Yourself !

More Related