1. 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 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?

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-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

5. 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?

6. 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

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

8. 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

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

10. 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!

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 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
Free Rise DENS, pcf

13. 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

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 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

16. 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

17. 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

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 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

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

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

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 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

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

44. 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

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

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

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 CO2 e / lb

49. Compare for Yourself !