1. A Comparison of the Physical Properties [& Their Causative Factors] of Froth vs. Pour Foams CPI 2008 - San Antonio John Murphy Foam Supplies, Inc

2. 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. 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. 4 Froth Agents Blowing Agent:HCFC-22HFC-134aHFC-152a MW86.510266.5 Boiling Pt, C-40.8-26.2-25 Ht of Vaporization, kJ/kg 234216328 Lambda1113 GWP 100 17001300140 ODP0.05500  Solubility, Lambda worsen →  Environmental improves  Flammability issue w 152a

5. 5 Liquid BAs Blowing Agent: ECOMATEHFC-245fanC5 MW6013472 Boiling Pt, C31.515.336 Lambda10.712.215 GWP 100 095011 ODP000  Solubility, Lambda worsen →  Environmental issue w 245fa  Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?

6. 6 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW10266607270.1 BPt, C-26.2-2531.53749 Flash Pt, CNONE-50-19-40-37

7. 7 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW10266607270.1 BPt, C-26.2-2531.53749 Flash Pt, CNONE-50-19-40-37 %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable

8. 8 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW10266607270.1 BPt, C-26.2-2531.53749 Flash Pt, CNONE-50-19-40-37 %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFLNONE3.951.41.1 UFLNONE16.9237.88.7

9. 9 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW10266607270.1 BPt, C-26.2-2531.53749 Flash Pt, CNONE-50-19-40-37 %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFLNONE3.951.41.1 UFLNONE16.9237.88.7 Heat of CombustionNONE-17.4-16.2-49.7-46.9

10. 10 Flammability Blowing Agent HFC- 134a HFC- 152a ecomatenC5cC5 MW10266607270.1 BPt, C-26.2-2531.53749 Flash Pt, CNONE-50-19-40-37 %F75*58*000 *req > ~68 wt% F to be non-flammable LFLNONE3.951.41.1 UFLNONE16.9237.88.7 Heat of CombustionNONE-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. 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. 12 DROP IN FORMULA J121-123 Polyol blend90.3 Surfactant1.5 PC80.7 water1.5 HCFC-226.0 ecomate4.2 HFC-134a7.1 RATIO A100 B92.690.993.6 GEL, sec58 - 62 Free Rise DENS, pcf2.3 - 2.4

13. 13 Free rise density BOX POURS SHOT, secg/seclb/secFRD R-2220116.20.2562.34 ecomate20115.80.2552.38 R-134a20118.10.262.32

14. 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. 15 Minimum Fill Density BOX POURSFRD MFD vert MFD horz R-222.343.433.21 ecomate2.384.304.33 R-134a2.323.043.20

16. 16 Minimum Fill Density BOX POURSFRD MFD vert MFD horz R-222.343.433.21 ecomate2.384.304.33 R-134a2.323.043.20 Ecomate w/o Amine2.343.033.23  Similar Flow w Each BA

17. 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. 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. 19 R-22 Distribution DENSITY DISTFILL END → VENT END 121.1 ABCDEFGHI R22 % PANEL102030405060708090 MFD V8023.263.223.24 3.253.273.313.343.24 10% V8033.563.543.57 3.563.643.563.48 15% V8053.703.71 3.70 3.743.803.783.68 20% V80123.773.833.813.83 3.803.79 3.73 MFD H8073.243.233.243.253.243.213.243.223.18 10% H8063.55 3.543.533.553.593.58 15% H8083.833.743.723.71 3.723.743.67

20. 20 Effect of Orientation  Vertical - Densifies more at end of rise

21. 21 Temperature Effect  Warmer mold gives lower density

22. 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. 23 R-22 DISTRIBUTION  Packing increases DENSITY  Does NOT improve DISTRIBUTION

24. 24 R-22 DISTRIBUTION

25. 25 R-134a DISTRIBUTION

26. 26 R-134a DISTRIBUTION

27. 27 R-134a DISTRIBUTION  Warmer Temp = Lower Density

28. 28 ECOMATE w/o AMINE

29. 29 R-22 DISTRIBUTION

30. 30 R-134a DISTRIBUTION

31. 31 Density Distribution  Density Distributions – equivalent!  Packing  Increases Density  Doesn’t improve Distribution  Optimization can improve Distribution  All formulations need optimization!

32. 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. 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. 34 Cell Orientation Compressive Strengths on R-22 Panel R-22 FRONTMIDEND L1-7512426 TMH802427 W 315141

35. 35 Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

36. 36 Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

37. 37 Cell Orientation CS on R-22 Panel

38. 38 Cell Orientation CS on R-134a Panel

39. 39 Cell Orientation CS on R-134a Panel

40. 40 Cell Orientation CS on ecomate Panel

41. 41 Cell Orientation CS on ecomate Panel

42. 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 MW60.186.510266.5 Lambda10.71113 GWP 100 017001300140 ODP00.05500

43. 43 Environmental  Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids  [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids] MW ecomate60 134a102 245fa134

44. 44 Environmental  Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids  [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for liquids]  Use Approx 2X more than ecomate MWnorm ecomate601 134a1021.7 245fa1342.23

45. 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 ecomate6010 134a1021.71300 245fa1342.23950

46. 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 ecomate60101 134a1021.713002210 245fa1342.239502122

47. 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. 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

49. Compare for Yourself !