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 Better Flow? Less Shrinkage? 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

Froth Agents Blowing Agent: HCFC-22 HFC-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 GWP100 1700 1300 140 ODP 0.055 Solubility, Lambda worsen → Environmental improves Flammability issue w 152a

Liquid BAs ECOMATE HFC-245fa nC5 MW 60 134 72 Boiling Pt, C 31.5 15.3 Blowing Agent: ECOMATE HFC-245fa nC5 MW 60 134 72 Boiling Pt, C 31.5 15.3 36   Lambda 10.7 12.2 15 GWP100 950 11 ODP Solubility, Lambda worsen → Environmental issue w 245fa Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?

Flammability MW 102 66 60 72 70.1 BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49 Blowing Agent HFC-134a HFC-152a   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

Flammability MW 102 66 60 72 70.1 BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49 Blowing Agent HFC-134a HFC-152a   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* *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable

Flammability MW 102 66 60 72 70.1 BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49 Blowing Agent HFC-134a HFC-152a   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* *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFL 3.9 5 1.4 1.1 UFL 16.9 23 7.8 8.7

Flammability MW 102 66 60 72 70.1 BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49 Blowing Agent HFC-134a HFC-152a   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* *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFL 3.9 5 1.4 1.1 UFL 16.9 23 7.8 8.7 Heat of Combustion -17.4 -16.2 -49.7 -46.9

Flammability MW 102 66 60 72 70.1 BPt, C -26.2 -25 31.5 37 49 Blowing Agent HFC-134a HFC-152a   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* *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFL 3.9 5 1.4 1.1 UFL 16.9 23 7.8 8.7 Heat of Combustion -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!

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

DROP IN FORMULA Polyol blend 90.3 Surfactant 1.5 PC8 0.7 water HCFC-22 J121- 1 2 3 Polyol blend 90.3 Surfactant 1.5 PC8 0.7 water HCFC-22 6.0 ecomate 4.2 HFC-134a 7.1 RATIO A 100 B 92.6 90.9 93.6 GEL, sec 58 - 62 Free Rise DENS, pcf 2.3 - 2.4

Free rise density BOX POURS SHOT, sec g/sec lb/sec FRD R-22 20 116.2 0.256 2.34 ecomate 115.8 0.255 2.38 R-134a 118.1 0.26 2.32

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 Density BOX POURS FRD MFD vert horz R-22 2.34 3.43 3.21 ecomate 2.38 4.30 4.33 R-134a 2.32 3.04 3.20

Minimum Fill Density Similar Flow w Each BA BOX POURS FRD MFD vert 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 3.03 3.23 Similar Flow w Each BA

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 Uniform distribution is desired Panels cut into 10 equal pieces [A to J] Long direction – fill end to vent end Densities determined Results graphed

R-22 Distribution R22 DENSITY DIST FILL END → VENT END 121.1 A B C D E    → 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 3.25 3.27 3.31 3.34 10% V80 3 3.56 3.54 3.57 3.64 3.48 15% V80 5 3.70 3.71 3.74 3.80 3.78 3.68 20% V80 12 3.77 3.83 3.81 3.79 3.73 MFD H80 7 3.23 3.21 3.18 10% H80 6 3.55 3.53 3.59 3.58 15% H80 8 3.72 3.67

Effect of Orientation Vertical - Densifies more at end of rise

Temperature Effect Warmer mold gives lower density

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 DISTRIBUTION Packing increases DENSITY Does NOT improve DISTRIBUTION

R-22 DISTRIBUTION

R-134a DISTRIBUTION

R-134a DISTRIBUTION

R-134a DISTRIBUTION Warmer Temp = Lower Density

ECOMATE w/o AMINE

R-22 DISTRIBUTION

R-134a DISTRIBUTION

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

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

Cell Orientation Compressive Strengths on R-22 Panel FRONT MID END L 1-7 51 24 26 T MH80 27 W   31 41

Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

Cell Orientation CS on R-134a Panel

Cell Orientation CS on R-134a Panel

Cell Orientation CS on ecomate Panel

Cell Orientation CS on ecomate Panel

Economics Fluorochemicals ALWAYS more Expensive Blowing Agent: 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 GWP100 1700 1300 140 ODP 0.055

Environmental Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids]   MW ecomate 60 134a 102 245fa 134

Environmental 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

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   MW norm GWP100 ecomate 60 1 134a 102 1.7 1300 245fa 134 2.23 950

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   MW norm GWP100 CO2 e ecomate 60 1 134a 102 1.7 1300 2210 245fa 134 2.23 950 2122

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

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

Compare for Yourself !