Factors contributing to k-factor optimization with eco mate ® blown foams CPI Orlando 2007
45
Factors contributing to k-factor optimization with ecomate ® blown foams CPI Orlando 2007
description
Factors contributing to k-factor optimization with eco mate ® blown foams CPI Orlando 2007. How does ecomate compare?. How does ecomate compare in Foams ?. Handmix Pours Comparison Molar Substitution - in same formulation Same Index Same Surfactant amount Same Catalyst amount - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Factors contributing to k-factor optimization with eco mate ® blown foams CPI Orlando 2007
Factors contributing to k-factor optimization with ecomate® blown foams
CPI Orlando 2007
2
How does ecomate compare?
ecomate 141b 245fa 365mf
c365/2
27 93 / 7
n-C5 cC5
Mol wt 60 117 134 148 149,6 72 70
Bpt, C 31,5 32 15,3 40,2 30 36 49
Sp Gr 0,982 1,24 1,32 1,25 1,28 0,62 0,75
Lambda 10,7 10 12,2 10,6 10,7 14* 11*
LEL/UEL 5,0 – 23,0
7,6 – 17,7 n/a 3,5 – 9,0 3,8 –
13,31,4 – 17,8 1,4 – 8,0
3
How does ecomate comparein Foams ? Handmix Pours Comparison
Molar Substitution - in same formulation Same Index Same Surfactant amount Same Catalyst amount Same molar BA content
4
BA Molar Substitution2” thick sample, 75 ºF
0.18
0.185
0.19
0.195
0.2
0.205k-factor
141b 245fa ecomate
Handmix Data ONLY
Results are Relative
ECOMATE ~ same as 245fa
k NOT SOLELY dependant on MW
0.2040.2020.187
5
Thermal Conductivity Not dependant solely on:
Molecular Wt Gas λ K-Factor at standard conditions
Depends on many additional factors, including: Temperature Processing Formulation Configuration Protection
6
Temperature / k-factor Dependencek-factor change w Temperature
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.140
0.150
0.160
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
TEMP, F
K FA
CTO
R
7
Examine Processing Effects
Hand Mix Factorial Design Examine
Mix Time Mix Speed Pour Size Surfactant Concentration
8
PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL
DESIGNMIX TIME, sec
Low 5Mid 7.5High 10
9
PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL
DESIGNMIX TIME, sec
MIX SPEED,
rpm
Low 5 1000Mid 7.5 2000High 10 3000
10
PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL
DESIGNMIX TIME, sec
MIX SPEED,
rpm
POUR SIZE,
gm
Low 5 1000 150Mid 7.5 2000 225High 10 3000 300
11
PROCESSING EFFECTS:HAND MIX FACTORIAL
DESIGNMIX TIME, sec
MIX SPEED,
rpm
POUR SIZE,
gm
SURF CONC,
pct
Low 5 1000 150 1Mid 7.5 2000 225 1.5High 10 3000 300 2
12
PROCESSING EFFECTS:Handmix Results Summary
Mix Time Mix Speed Pour Size Surf. Concentration
Not significant Faster = lower λ (less BA loss) Larger = lower λ (less surface
area) More = lower λ (less BA loss)
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
28
29
30
C: SURF CONC
lam
bda
One Factor Plot
1000 2000 3000
28
29
30
A: MIX SPEED
lam
bda
One Factor Plot
150 200 250 300
28
29
30
B: SIZE POUR
lam
bda
One Factor Plot
13
Handmix v MachineSame ecomate Formulations
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.2
J91-5 J91-6 J91-8
HANDMACHINE
Machine ALWAYS Superior !
14
Examine Formulation Effects Polyol
Type and Amount Catalyst Surfactant
Type and Amount Blowing agent
Temp Effect Loss / Diffusion Blends
15
Examine Polyol Effects In a Hand Mix Factorial Design
Vary POLYOL BLEND Hold Constant
Catalyst Surfactant Blowing Agent INDEX = 120
16
POLYOL BLEND Design
DESIGN Func. Eq. Wt. Visc. LO – HI LEVELS
Sucrose Glycerin
7 152 30K 25-75
EDA 4 70 17K 0-25
Ester 2.3 212 12K 0-50
17
Polyol Effect: DENSITYDESIGN-EXPERT Plot
DENSITYDesign Points
X1 = A: SUC-GLYX2 = B: ESTERX3 = C: EDA
A: SUC-GLY100.00
B: ESTER75.00
C: EDA75.00
0.00 0.00
25.00
DENSITY
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
• EDA faster,- Captures more BA- Thus Lower Density
25 – 75%0 – 50%0 – 25%
18
Polyol Effect: THERMAL Props
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot
THERMALDesign Points
X1 = A: SUC-GLYX2 = B: ESTERX3 = C: EDA
A: SUC-GLY100.00
B: ESTER75.00
C: EDA75.00
0.00 0.00
25.00
THERMAL
27
28 2930
31EDA worse !Strong affinity for BALess in vapor space
19
Polyol Results Choice of Polyol Critical -
Not only affects Physicals Faster reactivity captures more BA Polyol Type can also affect k-factor, λ
20
Examine Catalyst Effects Speed of reaction Cell Orientation
Blow v Gel Cats Gel / Rise Ratio
21
Gel Time EffectsFaster = Lower k
0.130
0.132
0.134
0.136
0.138
0.140
0.142
0.144
20 30 40 50 60
Gel Time (s)
Ther
mal
Con
duct
ivity
18.718.919.119.319.519.719.920.120.320.520.7
LAM
BDA
PU Expo2002, pg 459, fig 12
22
Cat Effects:
STRETCHED
SMALL, _|_ RISE BEST
23
Catalyst Effects Results Speed of reaction Cell Orientation Gel / Rise Ratio
Faster is betterSmaller, rounder
betterGel at Rise best
24
Surfactant Effects AFFECTS
Cell formation Polyol / ISO compatibility Strut / window thickness Cell Windows open / closed Fineness of Cells Density
TYPE – Critical ! Mol Wt Siloxane content Degree of modification See Degussa Paper [ref 4]
AMOUNT – very important Optimize for each formulation
25
Examine BA Effects Molecular WeightInfluential, not
critical
26
Examine BA Effects Molecular Weight Gas λ Value
Influential, not critical
Influential, not critical
27
Examine BA Effects Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity
Influential, not critical
Influential, not critical
Very Important on Flow
28
Examine BA Effects Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity Flow = Cell Orientation
Influential, not critical
Influential, not critical
Very Important on Flow
Critical to Thermal Properties
29
Examine BA Effects Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity Flow = Cell Orientation Vapor pressure
Influential, not critical
Influential, not critical
Very Important on Flow
Critical to Thermal Properties
Very Important
30
Examine BA Effects Molecular Weight Gas λ Value Solubility = Viscosity Flow = Cell Orientation Vapor pressure Liquid v Gas
Influential, not critical
Influential, not critical
Very Important on Flow
Critical to Thermal Properties
Very ImportantMeasure k at Use
Temp
31
Liquid v Gaseous BACondensation Effect
k-factor change w Temperature
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.1300.140
0.150
0.160
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
TEMP, F
K FA
CTO
R
32
Liquid v Gaseous BA GAS
Advantage of potential lower thermal properties
Lost because of higher Vapor Pressure More Gas escapes during foaming
33
Caveat Moisture
Very poor insulator Very small molecule [MW=18],
Smaller than N2 [MW=28, 78%], Smaller than O2 [MW=32, 21%]
Ubiquitous Penetrates foams readily Plays havoc with K-factor
34
Diffusion Gases want to reach equilibrium
35
DiffusionIF POROUS
Graham’s LawRate1
Rate2
M2
M1=
M2 M1 134 18
Gas245f
a H2O
Rate1 / Rate2 = 2.73 Rigid Foams NOT Porous !Fick’s Law: Solubility Factors
Water 3X greater Diffusion !
36
Blowing Agent LossAHAM Study
Negligible!
Amount of CFC-11 Blowing Agent in Sampled RefrigeratorsSample When Produced,
Pre-1993At End of Life, Prior to Shredding,
2004
A-1 15.2 % 15.4 %A-2 14.1 % 13.0 %
B-1 15.9 % 16.0 %B-2 16.7 % 15.2 %
C-1 16.0 %* 16.0 %C-2 13.0 – 14.0 % * 13.8 %
D-1 14.0 – 16.0 % * 15.7 %D-2 14.0 – 16.0 % * 14.3 %
37
REAL LIFE EXAMPLES BEST EVALUATIONS
Run side-by-side Use Actual CABINETS Use Actual Conditions Measure
Energy used Ice melt over time Compressor cycles, or Temperature change w time
38
Ice Melt TestsDrink Dispenser Tests
Ice Melt @ 75 FIdentical results !
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 1000 2000 3000
minutes
ice
rem
aini
ng (g
)
134a
ecomate
39
CONTROL 18% more energy
20% more energy
BTU LOAD TEST – Refrigerated Display case, Maintain 40F
ecomate, 245fa nearly same
40
40 F CHILLER
40 F CHILLER
%Time ON for 95 F: %Time ON for 95 F:
DUTY CYCLE – 39” VENDOR CABINETS5-100 watt bulbs to keep 95F
36.8% 37.4%
ecomate, 245fa nearly same !
41
BLENDING BAs Ecomate very compatible
Why spend extra money?Ecomate / 245fa Blends
PAT APP 20060160911Exp-1 Exp-2 Exp-3 Exp-4
Ecomate, mol% 90 75 50 25
HFC 245fa, mol% 10 25 50 75
K-factor, init 0.165 0.161 0.158 0.153
CS// , psi 31 25 33 24
Dim Stab Cold, [28d,-29C, V%] 2 3 5 9
42
Handmix v MachineSame ecomate Formulations
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.2
J91-5 J91-6 J91-8
HANDMACHINE
Machine ALWAYS Superior !
Ecomate machine k values respectable
43
Thermal Conductivity Not dependant solely on:
MW Gas λ K-Factor at standard conditions
Depends on many additional factors, including: Formulation Processing Configuration Protection
44
Conclusions Thermal Improvements available
Thru formulation Thru processing
Protect foams from Moisture Ecomate nearly equals 245fa
in Hand mix data in Side-by-side Performance Tests
Compare for Yourself!
Compare for Yourself !
