ALFORU's Mattress Making Machine for Sale

When using a batch foam machine for polyurethane soft foam foaming, have you encountered the following situations?

1.Uneven and numerous foam pores,

2. Rough foam texture.

3. Chaotic pore sizes across the entire foam surface, with slight signs of large pores.

Issues like these are quite common. The main reason for the first issue is that the distance between the mixing impeller of the foam machine and the bottom of the mixing barrel is too great; the second issue is that the mixing blades are too short and narrow: the third issue is that the angle of the mixing blades is too large.

Many manufacturers who design and produce foam machines only understand the principles during the design process, without understanding the significant relationship between a different design in foam production and product quality. A reasonable and perfect mechanical design can only be gradually improved in actual work, and only experienced foamers can achieve this.

Here are some experiences we have had with machine modifications and upgrades, hoping they will be helpful:

First, the installation position of the mixing wheel should be as low as possible, closer to the bottom of the mixing barrel is better. In general, the distance between the lowest point of the mixing blade and the bottom of the mixing barrel should be around two centimeters

Second, the shape of the mixing blade should be fan-shaped, with a moderately wide edge. The advantage of being wide is that it increases the contact area with the liquid material, providing sufficient power and also balances the liquid material.

Third, the length of the mixing blade should also be as long as possible, leaving about three to four centimeters from the baffle inside the mixing barrel.

Fourth, the two edges of the mixing blade should be sloped, with the angle of inclination based on the width of one end and two centimeters difference on both sides. After the mixing blade is modified, proper operation is also crucial, especially the mixing speed. Most batch foam machines nowadays are equipped with high-speed timing frequency conversion devices. However, in actual production, this device is often unnecessary. The operating speed mainly depends on the amount of material in the mixing barrel. If there is a lot of material, the speed should be appropriately faster, and if there is less material, then the speed should be lower.

Want to read 13 more common foaming problems and solutions about polyurethane sponge foam? Please click on this article link to read: Common Issues and Solutions for Polyurethane Foam Production-Part 1

14. Poor Rebound

A. Raw materials: high activity polyether polyols, low molecular weight, highly active silicone oil.

B. Process formulation: high silicone oil content, excessive tin, high water content with the same tin usage, high TDI index, large amount of white oil and powder.



15. Poor Tensile Strength

A. Raw materials: excessive low molecular weight polyether polyols, low functionality hydroxyl value.

B. Process formulation: insufficient tin, poor gelation reaction, high TDI index with the same tin usage, low water content, low crosslinking.



16. Smoke during Foaming

Excessive amine release a large amount of heat during water and TDI reaction, causing evaporation of low-boiling substances and smoke. If not core scorching, smoke mostly consists of TDI, low-boiling substances, and monomer cycloalkanes in polyether polyols.



17. Foam with White Streaks

Fast foaming and gelation reaction but slow transfer in continuous foaming, resulting in a dense layer due to localized compression, causing white streaks. Increase transfer speed or lower material temperature, reduce catalyst usage.



18. Brittle Foam

Excessive water in the formulation leads to excess biuret formation, which does not dissolve in silicone oil. Poor use of tin catalyst, insufficient cross-linking reaction, high content of low molecular weight polyether polyols, high reaction temperature causing ether bond breakage and decreased foam strength.



19. Foam Density Lower than Set Value

Foam index is too high due to inaccurate measurement, high temperature, low pressure.



20. Foaming with Skin, Edge Skin, and Bottom Air

Excessive tin, insufficient amine, slow foaming rate, fast gelation rate, low temperature during continuous foaming.



21. Elongation Rate Too High

A. Raw materials: high activity polyether polyols, low functionality.

B. Process formulation: low TDI index, insufficient cross-linking, high tin.



22. Uncontrolled Foam (Small bubbles rapidly moving beneath surface)

A. Low-pressure foaming machine: increase mixing head speed, decrease gas injection.

B. High-pressure foaming machine: increase mixing head pressure.



23.Milky Moving Lines

A. Increase conveyor speed

B. Adjust cushion plate inclination.

C. Reduce amine catalyst usage



24.Inserted Material Backflow

A. Increase conveyor speed.

B. Adjust cushion plate inclination.

C. Increase amine catalyst usage.



25.Moon Pits

A. Low-pressure foaming machine: reduce mixing head speed and gas injection.

B. High-pressure foaming machine: increase mixing head pressure.

C. Silicone oil quality issue.

D. Increase amine amount while reducing tin amount to ensure adequate cell opening.



26.Slow Curing,Sticky Surface

Polymer strength increases too slowly, resulting in soft, sticky foam that is difficult to cut.

Foam blocks appear unstable when exiting channels.

Increase catalyst usage, check polyol, water, and TDl measurement accuracy.



This article outlines common polyurethane foam defects and how to resolve them. If your production faces issues like collapsing, scorching, or coarse bubbles, we can help diagnose and optimize your process – from machine settings and raw material ratios to environmental controls.



Contact us today for customized technical support and improvement solutions to ensure more stable and efficient foaming results.

Manufacturing polyurethane filter foam typically involves two key stages. The first stage involves preparing open-cell or partially open-cell polyurethane foam according to the desired porosity. If the foam is closed-cell, it needs to be subjected to roller compression to rupture the cell walls, thereby creating the necessary porous structure. The second stage is to remove all the cell membranes to form a reticulated structure.



To produce polyurethane filter foam, the size of the pores and the structure of the network of the foam are largely determined by the catalyst, foaming agent, and surfactant.



In practical operations, there are two common methods for forming the network:



First is the alkali hydrolysis method. The steps of this method involve immersing the soft polyester-type polyurethane foam obtained from the first stage in a 10% sodium hydroxide solution at 50 degrees Celsius for about 10 minutes. Then it goes through processes such as washing with water, neutralization with acetic acid, another round of water washing, and drying, resulting in the final product of polyurethane filter foam.



Another method is the combustion method, also known as the explosion method. This method requires placing the soft polyether-type or polyester-type polyurethane foam obtained from the first stage into a sealed container. The container is then evacuated to 13.3 Pa, followed by the introduction of oxygen and natural gas (in a volumetric ratio of 2:1), bringing the internal pressure of the container to a certain level (which increases with the porosity). Next, the gas inside the container is ignited using a spark plug. The heat generated from the combustion process will burn off or melt the cell membranes without damaging the cell struts. Finally, the resulting product after combustion is cleared with air, and the filter foam is removed from the container.



Both of these methods are effective ways to prepare polyurethane filter foam, and the specific choice between them depends on the material of the foam and the desired structural characteristics.

Aluminum Hydroxide

Also known as hydrated alumina. The aluminum hydroxide used as a fire retardant is mainly @-tri-hydrated alumina. It appears as a white fine crystalline powder with an average particle size of 1-20 micrometers. Its relative density is 2.42, refractive index is 1.57, and 30% slurry pH is 9.5-10.5. The dehydration initiation temperature is 200 degrees Celsius, with an absorption heat of 2.0 KJ/G.

During combustion, it releases a large amount of chemically combined water, absorbs a considerable amount of heat, slows down the polymer's thermal degradation rate, reduces the material surface temperature, delays and suppresses the combustion of the substrate. It will generate a large amount of steam on the substrate surface, diluting the oxygen in the combustion zone, reducing the concentration of smoke and toxic flammable gases. The aluminum oxide generated during combustion can promote the formation of a carbonized protective layer on the polymer surface.



Melamine

Commonly known as melamine, it is a white monoclinic crystal with low toxicity, non-flammable, and a melting point of 354 degrees Celsius. It undergoes endothermic sublimation and rapid decomposition under high heat. At temperatures between 250-450 degrees Celsius, it can absorb a large amount of heat and release nitrogen during decomposition, slowing down the material's combustion rate. At the same time, it forms a carbonized barrier layer on the substrate surface, acting as a fire retardant. However, there are some dispersion problems, so it needs to be used in combination. When used as a fire retardant, high-temperature decomposition can produce toxic cyanide gas.



Organophosphorus Flame Retardant

Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP)

A pale yellow transparent viscous liquid. It contains 7.2% phosphorus and 49.4% chlorine, with a flash point of 251.7 degrees Celsius, ignition point of 282 degrees Celsius, and spontaneous combustion temperature of 514 degrees Celsius. It starts to decompose at 230 degrees Celsius and is soluble in alcohols, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, etc. When used at 5%, it can achieve self-extinguishing properties, and at 10%, it can make the material self-extinguish or non-flammable, while also having water resistance, light resistance, and antistatic properties.



Fire Retardant Polyether Polyol

1. Formula Ingredients:

Polyether polyol 3050: Mn3000;

Flame-retardant polyether polyol: Hydroxyl value 28, flame-retardant solid mass fraction 23%;

Silicone oil: L580

Triethylene diamine solution: Mass fraction 33%;

Tin octoate solution: Mass fraction 33%;

TDI: Industrial grade

Polyurethane soft foam plastic is one of the important products in the polyurethane industry. Its production necessarily involves the use of organic amine catalysts, especially organic tertiary amine catalysts. This is because organic tertiary amine catalysts play a significant role in the main reactions of polyurethane foam formation: the reactions of carbon dioxide and molecular polymerization, promoting rapid expansion of reaction mixtures, increased viscosity, and sharp increase in polymer molecular weight. These conditions are essential for the formation of foam bodies, ensuring that soft foam plastics have advantages such as low density, high strength-to-weight ratio, high resilience, and comfort for sitting and lying. There are many types of organic amine catalysts that can be used for polyurethane soft foam plastics. Among them, the highly efficient catalysts recognized by various manufacturers are: triethylene diamine (TDEA) and bis(dimethylaminoethyl) ether (referred to as A1). These are also the most widely used organic amine catalysts in the world today, with the highest consumption among various catalysts.



Due to the molecular structural differences between TDEA and A1 catalysts, there are significant differences in their catalytic performance, particularly in their reactions to carbon dioxide gas and molecular polymerization. If the user does not pay attention to these differences in production, not only will they fail to produce qualified foam products, but it will also be difficult for foam bodies to form. Therefore, understanding and mastering the performance differences between these two catalysts in polyurethane foam production is of great significance. TDEA exists in a solid state under normal conditions, making its application less convenient. In actual production, low molecular weight alcohol compounds are commonly used as solvents, formulated into 33% solutions for ease of use, commonly referred to as A33. On the other hand, A1 is a low-viscosity liquid that can be directly applied. Below is a comparison of the catalytic performance differences between A1 and A33 in the production of polyurethane soft foam plastics.



A33 has a 60% catalytic function for the reaction with carbon dioxide gas and a 40% catalytic function for molecular polymerization. It has a low effective utilization rate of carbon dioxide gas, resulting in lower foaming height and higher foam density. Since most of the catalytic function is used for molecular polymerization reactions, it is easy to produce closed-cell foam bodies, which are stiff with low rebound, and the adjustable range of tin catalysts becomes narrower. To achieve the same catalytic function, the amount used is 33% more than A1. Both the bottom skin and outer skin of the foam body are thicker. Increasing the amount can increase the reaction speed, but the amount of tin catalyst must be reduced accordingly, otherwise closed-cell foam bodies will be produced.



A1 has an 80% catalytic function for the reaction with carbon dioxide gas and a 20% catalytic function for molecular polymerization. It has a high effective utilization rate of carbon dioxide gas, resulting in higher foaming height and lower foam density. Since most of the catalytic function is used for gas generation reactions, it is easy to produce open-cell foam bodies, which are soft with high rebound, and the adjustable range of tin catalysts becomes wider. To achieve the same catalytic function, the amount used is less than A33. Both the bottom skin and outer skin of the foam body are thinner. Increasing the amount can increase the reaction speed, but the amount of tin catalyst must be increased accordingly, otherwise over-foaming and cracking may occur.



In terms of overall performance between TDEA and A1, A1 has a higher comprehensive catalytic performance than triethylene diamine. Its actual application effects are also better, although not as convenient as triethylene diamine in terms of transportation and storage. Currently, the vast majority of mechanical continuous foam production facilities almost exclusively use A1, while all box-type foam production facilities use TDEA. However, this is not absolute. With a clear understanding of the differences between the two and appropriate formulation adjustments, they can be interchangeable and both can produce excellent foam products.