Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seat Cushions
40% 86.1
INTRODUCTION 41.5
20% 46.0
Polyurethane flexible foam has been the material of 0 18.0
choice for automotive seating for nearly four decades. Its 0%
NAFTA Europe Japan
success is due to the soft initial feel yet firm support that it
provides for the occupants. However, the PU foam Figure 1. Breakdown of world-wide PU usage by region
cushion is just one of several elements of the complete seat and technology.
where the question arises, “which technology is best for the of the technologies and in doing so, develop a baseline for
various performance requirements?” Many publications in future work.
the past have compared the different technologies, but in Foam density was varied for all foams by water level
most cases, if not all, the comparisons were made at changes. Hardness in the Hot Cure foams was achieved
different densities and/or different foam hardnesses. through index changes and polymer polyol additions.
Therein lies the purpose of this paper. We wanted to Hardness in the TDI and TDI/MDI foams was varied
systematically benchmark the different technologies at primarily by polymer polyol content, and in the MDI
equivalent density and hardness and answer the question: foams through index changes only. A constant final part
“Is one single technology superior or more optimum than thickness of four inches was used to develop a base line for
any of the others from a performance stand point?” In future studies. Foam thickness variations will be
addition, we wanted to establish a baseline methodology investigated in follow-up work. Test blocks produced at
for evaluating new PU raw materials and technologies. the same foam grade (density and hardness targets) were
We chose to break down the three main technologies into produced at equivalent part weight. The density and
four categories. In addition to the Hot Cure technology, hardness targets for these test foams are summarized in
TDI-HR was broken down into straight TD-80 and Table 1.
TDI/MDI, or TM-20, as it is widely known. The MDI Foams were not made for all technologies in every grade.
technology used in this study was High Monomeric For example, Hot Cure foam technology is not suitable for
Polymeric (HMP) MDI. high density and high hardness grades.
Test Sample Preparation The test methods used in this study are summarized in
Table 2. The Ball Rebound Test was run according to
For each technology, foam test blocks measuring 15 x 15 ASTM D 3574. A 16-mm diameter, 16.3-g steel ball was
x 4 inches were prepared in water-jacketed aluminum dropped from a height of 500 mm and the percent rebound
molds. All test blocks, with the exception of the Hot Cure was recorded.
foam technology, were molded using state-of-the-art high Hysteresis Loss was determined using a Japanese
pressure Hennecke foam machines. The Hot Cure samples automotive manufacturer test method. The load-deflection
were produced using the hand mix technique employing a curve was obtained using a cross-head speed of 50
drill-press mixer. The mold temperature and mold release mm/min and a maximum deflection of 75%. The area
used were dependent on the technology. All foams were within this curve is the hysteresis loss.
hand-crushed on de-mold to ensure good dimensional The Transmissivity Test was performed according to
stability. Subsequently, the foams were aged a minimum Japanese Automobile Standard, JASO B 407. A 46-kg
of seven days at ambient conditions and for 24 hours at 72 “Tekken”-type pressing plate was employed. An Instron
o
F and 50% relative humidity before testing commenced. 8500 servo-hydraulic system was used to provide a 5-mm
total vertical amplitude sine wave excitation. The input
Foam Chemistry and output vibration data were collected and analyzed
using two accelerometers and a Bruel and Kjaer 3550
Typical foam formulations were used for each of the four multi-channel analyzer.
technologies studied: Hot Cure, TDI (TD-80), TDI/MDI The 50% Humid Aged Compression Set Test was
(TM-20), and MDI. The formulations used were generic in performed according to ASTM D 3574. The samples were
nature and were not necessarily optimized for any humid aged in an autoclave at 105 oC for 3 hours, and
particular physical property. The goal was to identify subsequently dried in a dry-air oven at 100 oC for 3 hours.
general trends, as well as areas for improvement, for each The samples were compressed 50% and placed in a 70 oC
of this test is the Humid Aged Compression Set (HACS). compression set testing. Figure 4 shows that the foam
This test consists of an initial high temperature and density influences these results with higher density giving
humidity aging followed by a drying step before the desired lower compression set values. The effect of
conducting the compression set test. Another variation is density was greater than the effect of different HR foam
the Wet Compression Set Test. In this variation, the technologies. In addition, all foam technologies gave
compression set test is run at moderately high temperature comparable results at high density.
and high humidity. The results of the 50% HACS Test and The other class of fatigue testing is known as dynamic
the Wet Compression Set Test are shown in Figure 3. The fatigue. It can be argued that these types are more
average compression set value for each technology foam representative of real life use. Dynamic fatigue tests can
grade is plotted. be conducted two different ways: at a constant pounding
The Hot Cure foam compression set results were force or at constant deflection.
substantially lower than the HR foam results. In fact, the We chose to run the constant force pounding (CFP) test
Hot Cure foams gave the lowest values in both types of according to ASTM D 3574. The description of this test
compression set testing. This behavior is a well-known was discussed in an earlier section. The different foam
positive characteristic of Hot Cure foam. Among the HR technologies are plotted at three different densities in
foam types, MDI foam performed the best in both types of Figures 5, 6, and 7. Figure 5 shows that at the lowest
Compression Set, %
25 25
20
Average
Average
20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI 32 40 56
Figure 3. 50% HACS and Wet Compression Set results Figure 4. Effect of foam density on compression set.
averaged over all foam grades. Values averaged over all technologies.
Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI TDI TDI/MDI MD I
35 35
30 30
Load Loss, %
25 25
Load Loss, %
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
250 N 250 N 400N
3 3
Figure 5. Load Loss results at 32 kg/m using ASTM Figure 7. Load Loss results at 56 kg/m using ASTM
Constant Force Pounding Test. Constant Force Pounding Test.
density and hardness, all foam technologies perform the of fatigue performance. However, Figure 8 shows that the
same in that they all give CFP Load Loss results of CFP test does not correlate very well with hysteresis loss
approximately 25%. as the sole variable.
The middle density load loss results (Figure 6) show that If hardness is also included in the model, the correlation
harder foams tend to perform better than softer foams. improves dramatically. A plot of predicted vs. actual CFP
This is a well-known artifact of the constant force Load Loss using this improved model is shown in Figure 9
pounding test. That is, harder foams are not strained as and is described by the equation:
much as softer foams and thus undergo less stress
softening. Comparing different technologies, TDI and CFP Load Loss = 11.95 - 0.07 x Hardness (N)
(1)
TDI/MDI foams tend to give lower load loss than Hot Cure + 1.04 x Hysteresis Loss(%)
or MDI foam. The MDI used in this study was a higher
hardness type. Optimization of MDI isomer content and Attempts were also made to correlate the CFP Load Loss
polyol resin would give results similar to the TDI and results with the transmissivity data. Resonance Frequency
TDI/MDI results. was the one parameter found to correlate well with CFP
At the high density (Figure 7) there are some subtle load loss (Figure 10) provided that the HR foam data and
differences between technologies, but all performed well Hot Foam data are treated as separate populations. This
regardless of foam hardness. An interesting follow-up means that the less time consuming transmissivity testing
study would be to repeat this load loss comparison after can be run as at least a screening test to predict constant
performing the fatigue-conditioning step at more severe force pounding fatigue results.
conditions (high temperature and humidity) to determine if The correlation coefficient can be improved even further
the same trends occur. (0.75 to 0.86) if the variables of foam density and hardness
Seat designers and foam producers are continually are included. The improved model is shown in Figure 11
searching for short-term tests that can correlate to and and is described by the equation:
approximate these longer, more time consuming dynamic
fatigue tests, such as CFP. Hysteresis loss is one short- CFP Load Loss = -14.20 - 0.25 x Density (kg/m3) - 0.006 x
term test that is often looked upon as a possible predictor Hardness(N) + 10.59 x Resonance Freq. (Hz) (2)
35
30
Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI
25
35
Load Loss, %
30 20
25
Load Loss, %
15
20
15 10
10
5
5 2
R = 0.53
0 0
250 N 400N 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 6. Load Loss results at 40 kg/m using ASTM
3 Hysteresis Loss, %
Constant Force Pounding Test. Figure 8. Load Loss vs Hysteresis Loss for HR foam.
35
35
30
Figure 9. Actual and predicted Load Loss using the model Figure 11. Actual and predicted Load Loss using the
with hardness and hysteresis loss. model with density, hardness, and resonance frequency.
This model shows that increasing the density and • Evaluating new PU raw materials and technologies
hardness and keeping the transmissivity resonance using this methodology
frequency low will give better fatigue data. Additional
data should be collected to confirm these models. • Validating the models for long-term dynamic fatigue
data.
FUTURE WORK
SUMMARY
Using this data as a baseline, future work should include:
A methodology has been developed to systematically
• Evaluating these foams in the constant force pounding evaluate different PU foam technologies at constant
test under higher temperature and high humidity density and hardness. In this study, typical foam systems
conditions. for each technology were used to establish a baseline for
future raw material and technology evaluations. Data from
• Reducing the foam thickness and reformulating each this preliminary work provided some interesting results
technology to get the same density and hardness and insight. No one technology was superior in all
comfort, durability, or physical property tests. However,
each technology had one or more strengths. In several
cases, foam density and/or hardness had more of an effect
than did the choice of PU technology. Moreover, with
each of the four technologies, foam formulations can be
35
optimized in most cases to meet the particular OEM
30 specifications.
Hot Foam The choice of technology should be based on the type of
25
Load Loss, %
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Ken Dr. Michael Blaszkiewicz is a
Sumner and Ron Zibert for their technical support with Senior Associate Scientist in
sample generation and data compilation. We would also Materials Characterization of
like to thank Walter Heckla, John Liddle, Lon Grant and Bayer Corporation’s
Don Glass for their support in foam testing. Without their Polyurethanes Division. He is
dedicated work, this paper would not have been possible. responsible for developing test
Thanks also to Joachim Werner and Sven Meyer-Ahrens methods that simulate material
for their contributions and technical discussions. performance in real-world
applications and for investigating
REFERENCES structure-property correlations for
polyurethane materials. Michael
1. Hilyard, N.C. 1994. ”Hysteresis Loss in Flexible received a Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University
Polyurethane Foams,” in Low Density in 1992 and spent one year as a visiting scientist at
CellularPlastics: Physical Basis of Behavior, N.C. Siemens in Munich, Germany, investigating the creep
Hilyard and A. Cunnigham, eds. Chapman and Hall, properties of piezoelectric actuators. Prior to joining
Chapter 8. Bayer, Michael was involved in failure analysis, product
design, and computer modeling of materials at the
2. Blair, G. R., R. So, A. Milivojevich, and J. D. van Westinghouse Science and Technology Center.
Heumen. 1998. “Automotive Seating Comfort:
Investigating the Polyurethane Foam Contribution-
Phase 1,” SAE International Congress and Exposition Brian L. Neal
980656.
Brian Neal received a Ph.D. in
3. Neal, B.L., 2000. ”Differences in Dynamic Chemical Engineering from the
Performance of Molded Polyurethane Foam as a University of Delaware in 1997.
Function of Pad Thickness and Supported Load,” In 1996, he joined ARCO
Proceedings of the API Polyurethanes Conference. Chemical Company, which
subsequently was acquired by
BIOGRAPHIES Lyondell Chemical Company. He
joined Bayer Corporation’s
Polyurethanes Division in 2000,
Mark A. Koshute
following Bayer’s acquisition of
Lyondell’s global polyols
Mark A. Koshute is a Senior
business. At Bayer, he is a Principal Research Engineer at
Development Scientist in the
the South Charleston Technical Center in West Virginia,
Polyurethane Division of Bayer working to develop new polyols and systems for HR
Corporation. He joined Bayer molded foam applications.
Corporation (then Mobay
Chemical Corporation) after
receiving his M.S. degree in
Polymer Science from the
University of Akron/Institute of
Polymer Science. He has 22 years
of experience developing new polyurethane raw materials
and foam systems for various automotive interior
applications including seating, headrests and headliner
applications.