a comparison of the physical properties [& their causative factors] of froth vs. pour foams cpi...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A Comparison of the Physical Properties
[& Their Causative Factors]of Froth vs. Pour Foams
CPI 2008 - San Antonio
John MurphyFoam Supplies, Inc
![Page 2: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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?
![Page 3: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Froth AgentsFroth Agents
Blowing Agent: HCFC-22HFC-134a
HFC-152a
MW 86.5 102 66.5
Boiling Pt, C -40.8 -26.2 -25
Ht of Vaporization, kJ/kg 234 216 328
Lambda 11 13 13
GWP100 1700 1300 140
ODP 0.055 0 0 Solubility, Lambda worsen → Environmental improves Flammability issue w 152a
![Page 5: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Liquid BAsLiquid BAs
Blowing Agent: ECOMATEHFC-245fa nC5
MW 60 134 72
Boiling Pt, C 31.5 15.3 36
Lambda 10.7 12.2 15
GWP100 0 950 11
ODP 0 0 0 Solubility, Lambda worsen → Environmental issue w 245fa Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?
![Page 6: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37
![Page 7: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash Pt, C NONE -50 -19 -40 -37
%F 75* 58* 0 0 0
*req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable
![Page 8: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash 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 1.1
UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7
![Page 9: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash 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 1.1
UFL NONE 16.9 23 7.8 8.7
Heat of Combustio
n NONE -17.4 -16.2 -49.7 -46.9
![Page 10: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
FlammabilityFlammability
Blowing Agent
HFC-134
a
HFC-152
a ecomate nC5 cC5
MW 102 66 60 72 70.1
BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49
Flash 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 1.1
UFL 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!
![Page 11: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
DROP IN FORMULADROP IN FORMULAJ121- 1 2 3
Polyol blend 90.3 90.3 90.3
Surfactant 1.5 1.5 1.5
PC8 0.7 0.7 0.7
water 1.5 1.5 1.5
HCFC-22 6.0
ecomate 4.2
HFC-134a 7.1
RATIO
A 100 100 100
B 92.6 90.9 93.6
GEL, sec 58 - 62
Free Rise DENS, pcf 2.3 - 2.4
![Page 13: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Free rise densityFree rise density
BOX POURSSHOT,
sec g/sec lb/sec FRD
R-22 20 116.2 0.256 2.34
ecomate 20 115.8 0.255 2.38
R-134a 20 118.1 0.26 2.32
![Page 14: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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 !
![Page 15: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Minimum Fill DensityMinimum Fill Density
BOX POURS FRDMFDvert
MFD horz
R-22 2.34 3.43 3.21
ecomate 2.38 4.30 4.33
R-134a 2.32 3.04 3.20
![Page 16: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Minimum Fill DensityMinimum Fill Density
BOX POURS FRDMFDvert
MFD horz
R-22 2.34 3.43 3.21
ecomate 2.38 4.30 4.33
R-134a 2.32 3.04 3.20
Ecomate w/o Amine 2.34 3.03 3.23
Similar Flow w Each BA
![Page 17: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
R-22 DistributionR-22 Distribution
DENSITY 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
![Page 20: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
DE
NS
ITY
, p
cf
MFD V80
MFD H80
![Page 21: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
DE
NS
ITY
MFD H80
MFD V95
![Page 22: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
DE
NS
ITY
, pc
f
15% V80
10% V80
MFD V80
Packing increases DENSITY Does NOT improve DISTRIBUTION
![Page 24: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
R-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 DISTRIBUTION
R22 HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY 15% H80
10% H80
MFD H80
![Page 25: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTION
R134a VERT
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY
10% V95
MFD V95
![Page 26: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTION
R134a HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY
10% H80
MFD H80
![Page 27: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
DE
NS
ITY 10% H80
10% H95
MFD H80
![Page 28: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
ECOMATE w/o AMINEECOMATE w/o AMINE
J121-5 HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PANEL PCT
DE
NS
ITY
, p
cf
12% H80
7% H80
MFD
![Page 29: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
R-22 DISTRIBUTIONR-22 DISTRIBUTION
R22 HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY 15% H80
10% H80
MFD H80
![Page 30: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
R-134a DISTRIBUTIONR-134a DISTRIBUTION
R134a HORZ
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
PCT PANEL
DE
NS
ITY
10% H80
MFD H80
![Page 31: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Density DistributionDensity Distribution
Density Distributions – equivalent! Packing
Increases Density Doesn’t improve Distribution
Optimization can improve Distribution
All formulations need optimization!
![Page 32: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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
![Page 34: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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
![Page 35: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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
![Page 37: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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
![Page 38: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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
![Page 39: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on CS on R-134aR-134a Panel Panel
10H80 134a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
![Page 40: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on CS on ecomateecomate Panel Panel
MH80 ecomate
0102030405060708090
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
![Page 41: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Cell OrientationCell OrientationCS on CS on ecomateecomate Panel Panel
10H80 ecomate
0
20
40
60
80
100
FRONT MID END
L
T
W
![Page 42: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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 66.5
Lambda 10.7 11 13 13
GWP100 0 1700 1300 140
ODP 0 0.055 0 0
![Page 43: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
EnvironmentalEnvironmental Froths CONTAMINATE more than
Liquids [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids]
MW
ecomate 60
134a 102
245fa 134
![Page 44: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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
![Page 45: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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
![Page 46: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
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
![Page 47: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
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
![Page 48: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
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
![Page 49: A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070413/5697bfca1a28abf838ca97c8/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Compare for Yourself !Compare for Yourself !