slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A Comparison of the Physical Properties [ & Their Causative Factors ] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Anton PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A Comparison of the Physical Properties [ & Their Causative Factors ] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Anton

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

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


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on

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?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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
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?
the 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

The Study
froth agents
Froth Agents
  • Solubility, Lambda worsen →
  • Environmental improves
  • Flammability issue w 152a
liquid bas
Liquid BAs
  • Solubility, Lambda worsen →
  • Environmental issue w 245fa
  • Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?
flammability10
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!
drop in formulation
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
minimum fill density
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 !
minimum fill density16
Minimum Fill Density
  • Similar Flow w Each BA
minimum fill density17
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
density distribution
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
effect of orientation
Effect of Orientation
  • Vertical - Densifies more at end of rise
temperature effect
Temperature Effect
  • Warmer mold gives lower density
temperature effect22
Temperature Effect
  • Warmer mold = lower density
    • True for Froth & Liquid BAs
    • WHY? Less BA Loss
      • Lower Formula COST
      • Better for Environment
    • :. Use Warm Molds
r 22 distribution23
R-22 DISTRIBUTION
  • Packing increases DENSITY
  • Does NOT improve DISTRIBUTION
r 134a distribution27
R-134a DISTRIBUTION
  • Warmer Temp = Lower Density
density distribution31
Density Distribution
  • Density Distributions – equivalent!
  • Packing
    • Increases Density
    • Doesn’t improve Distribution
  • Optimization can improve Distribution
  • All formulations need optimization!
cell orientation across panel
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
cell orientation
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
eco nomics
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
environmental
Environmental
  • Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids
    • [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids]
environmental44
Environmental
  • Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids
    • [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for liquids]
    • Use Approx 2X more than ecomate
environmental45
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
environmental46
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
conclusions
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
conclusions48
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