1 / 18

Smooth Transition; Using Safe And Cost-effective Gaseous Blowing Agents

Smooth Transition; Using Safe And Cost-effective Gaseous Blowing Agents. The Benefits of HFC-134a & HCFC-22/142b Technology. Agenda. Blowing Agent properties. Semi-optimized formulations. Blending and handling methods. Foam Processing. Foam Properties, Energy Consumption results. Cost. .

khristos
Download Presentation

Smooth Transition; Using Safe And Cost-effective Gaseous Blowing Agents

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smooth Transition; Using Safe And Cost-effective Gaseous Blowing Agents The Benefits of HFC-134a & HCFC-22/142b Technology

  2. Agenda • Blowing Agent properties. • Semi-optimized formulations. • Blending and handling methods. • Foam Processing. • Foam Properties, Energy Consumption results. • Cost.

  3. Properties Of The Blowing Agents

  4. Formulations • We modified each formulation for each blowing agent to optimize flow and thermal conductivity. • Except HFC-245fa where we used published data to generate the comparison due to patent restrictions. • Our targets were: • 31.5ml/g total blowing. • 1.4-1.5 pcf free rise density. • 25% CO2 blowing from water.

  5. Attributes of Formulations

  6. Discussion of Formulations • HCFC-22/142b uses 15% less physical blowing agent than HCFC-141b to achieve the same total blowing and free rise density. • HCFC-22 required an increase in total blowing to achieve the target density. Due to HCFC-22’s lower molecular weight, the % physical blowing agent and % CO2 were maintained.

  7. Discussion of Formulations • HCFC-124 and HFC-245fa maintained the total blowing and % CO2 blowing. However, due to higher molecular weights they use 19% and 13% more physical blowing agent. • HFC-134a had poor solubility in the polyols. Therefore, only 9.3% physical blowing agent could be achieved. The blowing level was maintained and density achieved by increased % CO2 blowing.

  8. Blending and Handling GBA Mixtures Methods • Two Methods of Blending for Production. • In-line mixer supplied by several equipment suppliers. • To day tanks. • To a holding tank to supply the entire plant. • Batch method. • Same as liquid blending only under pressure. • Use of a static mixer and pressure rate blend tank required. • Supply to day tanks or holding tank.

  9. Blending and Handling GBA Mixtures Methods • This project used the batch method. • A small pressure vessel with a static mixer. • Blend time was 45 minutes. • Peak pressures observed were 55 psig. • Plant trials are carried out using a large scale model of the laboratory unit.

  10. Blend Units

  11. Foam Dispensing • This project used a standard high-pressure impingement mix machine. • No modifications were required. • Day tanks were rate to 150 psi. • We used the following conditions. • 70oF Chemical temperatures. • 110oF mold temperature. • 2000 psi mix pressure.

  12. Properties of Foams

  13. Discussion of Foam Properties • The differences in thermal conductivity are reduced when the mean temperature is reduced 50oF. • Gaseous Blowing agents will achieve equal flow to liquid blowing agents. • Better plastic liner compatibility can be achieved with the gaseous blowing agents.

  14. Results in Cabinets • As reported cabinets made with HCFC-124 and HFC-245fa give equal energy consumption to current HCFC-141b technology. • This is confirmed by the similar flow and low temperature thermal conductivity results for these foams. • Base on these results we expect a 2-4% increase in energy consumption for cabinets made with HCFC-22.

  15. Results in Cabinets • We achieve equivalent energy consumption for cabinets made with HCFC-22/142b as those made with HCFC-141b. • The results of the HFC-134a system indicate a 5-7% energy penalty.

  16. Conclusions • Gaseous blowing agent technology using HCFCs now achieves energy efficiency and other foam properties equivalent to existing liquid systems and offers significant performance improvements and environmental benefits. • HCFC-22/142b is the most cost-efficient short term replacement for HCFC-141b. It will achieve equal energy efficiency to HCFC-141b. • HCFC-22/142b technology allows easy conversion to HFC-134a.

  17. Conclusions • Master batches using GBAs can be stored and processed under moderate pressure as efficiently and cost effectively. No modifications to dispensing equipment is necessary. • All of the GBAs shown can be process using the same blending modifications (batch or in-line). This allows smooth transition from HCFC-22/142b to zero ODP HFC-134a.

  18. Conclusions • The improvements to GBA technology have resulted in improved HFC-134a blown foam systems. Resulting in improved energy consumption results and density reduction. • Therefore, HFC-134a will be the most cost/performance effective replacement for HCFCs.

More Related