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

4 Froth Agents Blowing Agent:HCFC-22HFC-134aHFC-152a MW Boiling Pt, C Ht of Vaporization, kJ/kg Lambda1113 GWP ODP  Solubility, Lambda worsen →  Environmental improves  Flammability issue w 152a

5 Liquid BAs Blowing Agent: ECOMATEHFC-245fanC5 MW Boiling Pt, C Lambda GWP ODP000  Solubility, Lambda worsen →  Environmental issue w 245fa  Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?

6 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW BPt, C Flash Pt, CNONE

7 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW BPt, C Flash Pt, CNONE %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable

8 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW BPt, C Flash Pt, CNONE %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFLNONE UFLNONE

9 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW BPt, C Flash Pt, CNONE %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFLNONE UFLNONE Heat of CombustionNONE

10 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW BPt, C Flash Pt, CNONE %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFLNONE UFLNONE Heat of CombustionNONE  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 J Polyol blend90.3 Surfactant1.5 PC80.7 water1.5 HCFC ecomate4.2 HFC-134a7.1 RATIO A100 B GEL, sec Free Rise DENS, pcf

13 Free rise density BOX POURS SHOT, secg/seclb/secFRD R ecomate R-134a

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 BOX POURSFRD MFD vert MFD horz R ecomate R-134a

16 Minimum Fill Density BOX POURSFRD MFD vert MFD horz R ecomate R-134a Ecomate w/o Amine  Similar Flow w Each BA

17 Minimum Fill Density  MFD high [ 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 DENSITY DISTFILL END → VENT END ABCDEFGHI R22 % PANEL MFD V % V % V % V MFD H % H % H

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  Measured Compressive Strength  [ on SECTIONS B, E, I ]  In Panel Length, Width, & Thickness directions  Independent of Pour Orientation LENGTH WIDTH BE I

34 Cell Orientation Compressive Strengths on R-22 Panel R-22 FRONTMIDEND L TMH W

35 Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

36 Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

37 Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

38 Cell Orientation CS on R-134a Panel

39 Cell Orientation CS on R-134a Panel

40 Cell Orientation CS on ecomate Panel

41 Cell Orientation CS 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 Blowing Agent: Eco- mateHCFC-22 HFC- 134aHFC-152a MW Lambda GWP ODP

43 Environmental  Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids  [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids] MW ecomate60 134a fa134

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

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 MWnormGWP 100 ecomate a fa

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 MWnormGWP 100 CO2 e ecomate a fa

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 CO 2 e / lb

Compare for Yourself !