Factors contributing to k-factor optimization with eco mate ® blown foams CPI Orlando 2007

1. Factors contributing to k-factor optimization withecomate®blown foams CPI Orlando 2007

2. How does ecomate compare?

3. How does ecomate comparein Foams ? • Handmix Pours Comparison • Molar Substitution - in same formulation • Same Index • Same Surfactant amount • Same Catalyst amount • Same molar BA content

4. BA Molar Substitution2” thick sample, 75 ºF • Handmix Data ONLY • Results are Relative • ECOMATE ~ same as 245fa • k NOT SOLELY dependant on MW 0.187 0.202 0.204 60 134 117

5. Thermal Conductivity • Not dependant solely on: • Molecular Wt • Gas λ • K-Factor at standard conditions • Depends on many additional factors, including: • Temperature • Processing • Formulation • Configuration • Protection

6. Temperature / k-factor Dependence

7. Examine Processing Effects • Hand Mix Factorial Design • Examine • Mix Time • Mix Speed • Pour Size • Surfactant Concentration

8. PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL DESIGN

9. PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL DESIGN

10. PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL DESIGN

11. PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL DESIGN

12. Mix Time Mix Speed Pour Size Surf. Concentration Not significant Faster = lower λ (less BA loss) Larger = lower λ (less surface area) More = lower λ (less BA loss) PROCESSING EFFECTS:Handmix Results Summary

13. Handmix v MachineSame ecomate Formulations • Machine ALWAYS Superior ! K FACTOR

14. Examine Formulation Effects • Polyol • Type and Amount • Catalyst • Surfactant • Type and Amount • Blowing agent • Temp Effect • Loss / Diffusion • Blends

15. Examine Polyol Effects • In a Hand Mix Factorial Design • Vary POLYOL BLEND • Hold Constant • Catalyst • Surfactant • Blowing Agent • INDEX = 120

16. POLYOL BLEND Design

17. Polyol Effect: DENSITY 25 – 75% 0 – 50% 0 – 25% • EDA faster, • - Captures more BA • - Thus Lower Density

18. Polyol Effect: THERMAL Props EDA worse ! Strong affinity for BA Less in vapor space

19. Polyol Results • Choice of Polyol Critical - • Not only affects Physicals • Faster reactivity captures more BA • Polyol Type can also affect k-factor, λ

20. Speed of reaction Cell Orientation Blow v Gel Cats Gel / Rise Ratio Examine Catalyst Effects

21. Gel Time EffectsFaster = Lower k PU Expo2002, pg 459, fig 12

22. Cat Effects: STRETCHED RISE Gellation Slower Faster SMALL, _|_ RISE BEST Orientation

23. Speed of reaction Cell Orientation Gel / Rise Ratio Faster is better Smaller, rounder better Gel at Rise best Catalyst Effects Results

24. Surfactant Effects • AFFECTS • Cell formation • Polyol / ISO compatibility • Strut / window thickness • Cell Windows open / closed • Fineness of Cells • Density • TYPE –Critical ! • Mol Wt • Siloxane content • Degree of modification • See Degussa Paper [ref 4] • AMOUNT –very important • Optimize for each formulation

25. Molecular Weight Influential, not critical Examine BA Effects

26. Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Influential, not critical Influential, not critical Examine BA Effects

27. Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity Influential, not critical Influential, not critical Very Important on Flow Examine BA Effects

28. Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity Flow = Cell Orientation Influential, not critical Influential, not critical Very Important on Flow Critical to Thermal Properties Examine BA Effects

29. Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity Flow = Cell Orientation Vapor pressure Influential, not critical Influential, not critical Very Important on Flow Critical to Thermal Properties Very Important Examine BA Effects

30. Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity Flow = Cell Orientation Vapor pressure Liquid v Gas Influential, not critical Influential, not critical Very Important on Flow Critical to Thermal Properties Very Important Measure k at Use Temp Examine BA Effects

31. Liquid v Gaseous BACondensation Effect

32. Liquid v Gaseous BA • GAS • Advantage of potential lower thermal properties • Lost because of higher Vapor Pressure • More Gas escapes during foaming

33. Caveat • Moisture • Very poor insulator • Very small molecule [MW=18], • Smaller than N2 [MW=28, 78%], • Smaller than O2 [MW=32, 21%] • Ubiquitous • Penetrates foams readily • Plays havoc with K-factor

34. Diffusion • Gases want to reach equilibrium

35. DiffusionIF POROUS • Graham’s Law Rate1 M2 = Rate2 M1 Water 3X greater Diffusion ! Rigid Foams NOT Porous ! Fick’s Law: Solubility Factors BA H2O

36. Blowing Agent LossAHAM Study • Negligible!

37. REAL LIFE EXAMPLES • BEST EVALUATIONS • Run side-by-side • Use Actual CABINETS • Use Actual Conditions • Measure • Energy used • Ice melt over time • Compressor cycles, or • Temperature change w time

38. Ice Melt Tests

39. BTU LOAD TEST – Refrigerated Display case, Maintain 40F 141b 245fa ecomate 18% more energy 20% more energy CONTROL ecomate, 245fa nearly same

40. DUTY CYCLE – 39” VENDOR CABINETS 5-100 watt bulbs to keep 95F 40 F CHILLER 40 F CHILLER 245fa ecomate %Time ON for 95 F: %Time ON for 95 F: 37.4% 36.8% ecomate, 245fa nearly same !

41. BLENDING BAs • Ecomate very compatible • Why spend extra money?

42. Handmix v MachineSame ecomate Formulations • Machine ALWAYS Superior ! • Ecomate machine k values respectable K FACTOR

43. Thermal Conductivity • Not dependant solely on: • MW • Gas λ • K-Factor at standard conditions • Depends on many additional factors, including: • Formulation • Processing • Configuration • Protection

44. Conclusions • Thermal Improvements available • Thru formulation • Thru processing • Protect foams from Moisture • Ecomate nearly equals 245fa • in Hand mix data • in Side-by-side Performance Tests • Compare for Yourself!

45. Compare for Yourself !