Comparison of Froth vs. Pour Foams: Physical Properties & Factors - Study Findings 2008

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. 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. 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 The Study

4. Froth Agents • Solubility, Lambda worsen → • Environmental improves • Flammability issue w 152a

5. Liquid BAs • Solubility, Lambda worsen → • Environmental issue w 245fa • Flammability issue w HCs, ecomate?

6. Flammability

7. Flammability

8. Flammability

9. Flammability

10. Flammability • 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

13. Free rise density

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

16. Minimum Fill Density • 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

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

34. Cell OrientationCompressive Strengths on R-22 Panel

35. Cell OrientationCS on R-22 Panel

36. Cell OrientationCS on R-22 Panel

37. Cell OrientationCS on R-22 Panel

38. Cell OrientationCS on R-134a Panel

39. Cell OrientationCS on R-134a Panel

40. Cell OrientationCS on ecomate Panel

41. Cell OrientationCS 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

43. Environmental • Froths CONTAMINATE more than Liquids • [~6-8% LOSS for Froth vs. ~3-4% for Liquids]

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

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

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

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 !