4.2 Article

Comparative study of chemical and physical foaming methods for injection-molded thermoplastic polyurethane

Journal

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PLASTICS
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 373-388

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0021955X16652107

Keywords

Injection molding; foaming; thermoplastic polyurethane; blowing agents

Funding

  1. Wisconsin Institute of Discovery
  2. Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thermoplastic polyurethane is one of the most versatile thermoplastic materials being used in a myriad of industrial and commercial applications. Thermoplastic polyurethane foams are finding new applications in various industries including the furniture, automotive, sportswear, and packaging industries because of their easy processability and desirable customizable properties. In this study, three methods of manufacturing injection molded low density foams were investigated and compared: (1) using chemical blowing agents, (2) using microcellular injection molding with N-2 as the blowing agent, and (3) using a combination of supercritical gas-laden pellets injection molding foaming technology and microcellular injection molding processes using co-blowing agents CO2 and N-2. Thermal, rheological, microscopic imaging, and mechanical testing were carried out on the molded samples with increasing amounts of blowing agents. The results showed that the use of physical blowing agents yielded softer foams, while the use of CO2 and N-2 as co-blowing agents helped to manufacture foams with lower bulk densities, better microstructures, and lower hysteresis loss ratios. Chemical blowing agent-foamed thermoplastic polyurethane showed an earlier onset of degradation. The average cell size decreased and the cell density increased with the use of co-blowing agents. A further increase in gas saturation levels showed a degradation of microstructure by cell coalescence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available