aTe 5265
High-Pressure Impingement Mixing Method for Foam-in-Salvage
by K.E. Alexander and J.R. Myers, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, and B. Blaser,
Naval Sea Systems Command
Copyright 1986 Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 18th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 5-8,1986. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission
to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than :JOO words.
Batelle has developed a high-pressure
impingement mixing (HPIM) system for the
U.S. Navy. The system, consisting essen-
tially of a mixing head and a flexible
mixing chamber, produces polyurethane fQam
underwater for salvaging sunken vessels.
It utilizes both chemicals and labor
efficiently. This development is the first
subaquatic application of HPIM.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Navy has used rigid pGly-
urethane foam in raising and salvaging
sunken ships. This technique, known as
foam-in-salvage, was used to raise the
USS Frank Knox and the USS Sidney E. Smith.
Other techniques, such as using compressed
gas lift bags and pontoons and expandable
polystyrene beads, can provide the buoyancy
needed to refloat sunken ships. Polyurethane
foam, however, has the necessary density and
strength, which, with its compact pre-blown
fnrm make it a very advantageous means for
salvaging ships.
Since 1980, the U.S. Navy has lead.a
program to develop the foam-in-salvage
method. This program has included research
on the formulation of polyurethane resin
systems and the design of improved p0ly-
urethane processing equipment. The ultimate
goal of this program is to develop the tech-
niques and equipment necessary to impr0ve
the efficiency of the foam-in-salvage
method. - been the system used for ship salvage.
Polyurethane foam is made primarily
from two components, polymeric dispenyl-
methane diisocyanate (MDI) and a p0lyol.
The catalysis and blowing agents (FreGn™,
carbon dioxide, or nitrogen) are premixed
with these chemicals. When the MDI and the
polyol are combined, the resulting mixture
References and illustrations at end of
expands, then hardens. The time required
for this process is a function of the temp-
eratures of the components, the degree of _
mixing between the components, and their
innate reaction times. The volume of the
polyurethane foam can be as much as thirty
times the original volume of its components.
The foam has excellent rigidity and buoy-
ancy; it can provide a buoyant force of
0.88 to 0.96 grams per cubic centimeter
(55 to 60 Ib/ft 3 ) in seawater.
There are three basic categories of
foam-making machines: froth, pour, and re-
action injection moding (RIM). Although
the basic foam-making machines can be
modified by adding heat exchangers, recircu-
lation schemes, and other accessories, the
operating principles remain the same, and
all machines will fall into one of the
three basic categories.
In the froth system, the two poly-
urethane components are held in separate
tanks under pressure--usually under nitrogen
at 150 to 200 psi. The pressure moves the
components separately to a "gun", where
metering devices and valves control the flow.
After the valves, the gun typically has a
static mixer where the two components are
brought together. Two blowing agents are
used: one causes the foam to froth immediate-
ly upon release to the atmosphere; the other
makes the foam continue to rise and also
controls the final density of the foam.
Because of its uncomplicated and compact
nature, the froth system has historically
The pour process employs metering pumps
to push the chemicals. Pour systems generally
have motorized mixing heads, which may be
powered either hydraulically or electri-
cally. Pour machines often include accessor-
ies such as timers or recirculators. Re-
circulators help maintain the components
at a constant temperature and hold flow
rates constant.
pape~
363
2 HIGH PRESSURE IMPINGEMENT MIXING METHOD FOR FOAM-IN-SALVAGE
The third type of foaming process-re-_
action injection ID01ding (RIM)-- is a varia-
tion of the pour process. Because RIM
actually describes how a molding is made,
a more accurate term is "high-pressure im-
pingement mixing (HPIM)." An HPIM machine
operates at much higher pressures (1000 to
3000 psi) than pour or froth machines. In
an HPIM machlne, the two components of the
foam are separately pressurized and metered
before being impinged against one another.
Of the three basic types of foaming
machines, the pigh-pressure impingement
mixing type is the best for use under water.
The major advantage of the HPIM type machine
in this situation is the high pressure itf
self. Freons™ are often used as blowing
agents for the f~am. However, their low
boiling points make tterr difficult to keeF
in solution until the foam is dispensed.-
The high pressure helps keep the Freon™
dissal ved ir, the !-01;yol and permi.ts using
Freons™ with lower boiling poin~s at warmsr
temperatures. An HPIM machire also typi~
cally requii~s less maintenance, tas a
lighter head, and req~ires less flushing
of the head.
High-pressure impingement mixing has
been used successfully on land in RIM
machines, but it had never before been
used successfully underwater. -Subaquatio
use of this method requires some adapta-
tions. Hence tte research objectives of
the program were to develGp HPIM t@chniqu€s
and equipment for subaquatic use and te
demonstrate that this pr0QaSS produces
high quality foam underwater.
Developing high-pressure impingement
mixing techniques for underwater use en-
tails selecting suitable polyurethane feam
components; developing a non-plugging an~
reusable head and a mixing cham£er, both
of which will exclude wate~; ensuring that
chemicals are used efficiently and safely;
and designing the machine and mi·xing
chamber to be easy to use and maintain.
Polyurethane foam chemistry can b~ ad-
justed to produce foams with many different
properties. For underwater salvage opera~
tions, the lightest foam possible is de-
sired. Foam having a density of 2 Ib/ft J
in air can be produced. The formulation
rBsulting in this density in air will ra~
suIt in a slightly heavier foam in water
due to the higher ambient pressure, in-
efficiencies, and water entrapment.
Urethane foams can be eithep flexible
or rigid. Rigid foam is necessary for
salvage. Flexible foam is compressible,
and thus does not have acceptable density
properties under water pressure.
The cream time of a polyurethane fGam
resin system is defined as the length of
364
OTe 5265
time from first mixing the two components
until the mixture begins to rise. The rise
time of the resin system is the time from
when the chemicals are mixed until they
stop rising and the foam is set. Tempera-
ture affects the cream time and rise time
o~ a polyurethane resin system. For every
10 0 F rise in temperature, the reaction rate
of the resin system doubles.
A non-plugging and reusable head is
necessary for producing foam successfully
underwater. A head that periodically plugs
reduces foaming efficiency and may delay a
salvage job. Disassembling equipment under-
water takes several times as long as it
would take on land. Thus, changing parts
of a head or cleaning a head underwater
would be very time-consuming and should be
avoided.
Underwater maintenance on a foaming head
can be avoided either by bringing the gun
up to the surface for maintenance or by
making the foaming head reliable enough that
it requires no underwater maintenance.
Bringing the head to the surface for main-
tenance could take as much or more time than
doing the maintenance underwater. Hence
the foaming head must be designed to be
reliable.
Using chemicals efficiently makes an
economical salvage mission out of an other-
·wise very costly one. Efficiency is defined
here as the ratio of the amount of component
chemicals that become foam to the amount of
component chemicals dispensed. Efficiency
is a vital parameter when making foam under-
water, because MDI will react with water
more readily than with the other foam com-
ponent, polyol. Thus, the nascent foam must
be protected from the water until enough of
the components have reacted for the reaction
to be self-sustaining for the rest of the
rise time.
The head and the accessories attached
to the head must remain functional despite
the flow of chemicals being burned off and
on repeatedly and delays between chemical
use. If the head and accessories were not
reusable, they would have to be changed
every time the diver stopped the foaming
operation. This is a time-consuming under-
water maintenance chore.
The ease with which a diver can handle
the head and accessories is crucial to the
successful application of the technique.
If the diameter, length, and weight of the
system are too great, it will be awkward
and tiring for the diver to use. If several
divers are needed to handle the head, then
salvage expense is increased.
Safety is a paramount concern in all
machine design. When working with poly-
urethane resin systems, the concern centers
on the MDI. This foam component can cause
a hypersensitive asthmatic reaction in

OTC 5265 -K. E. Alexander
approximately 20 percent of the population.
Thus, it is important to contain the MDI in
the on-deck machinery. The MDI should be
exposed to the atmosphere as little as
possible, particulaYly when personnel are
operating the machine and h~ndling the
chemicals. - There was no provision for recirculation
ENGINEERING ACTIVITY
A machine to pressurize and meter the
polyurethane components was needed to serve
as a test bed for developing the high-
pressure impingement mixing head. A sim-
plified machine was built first~ A second
machine was built later, capitalizing on
the knowledge gained from research with the
first machine.
The first machine, shown in Figure 1,
consisted of a double shafted motor and two
piston pumps. The small tank on top of the
motor contains dioctylphthalate (DOP), which
is used as a pump lubricant. The foam compo-
nents were drawn directly from 55 gallon
drums that had been inverted in barrel hand-
ling devices (Figure 2). This machine had
no heaters, no---on-board chemical storage,
no chemical recirculation, and the instru-
mentation was limited to pr~ssure gauges.
Some features lacking on the first
machine were included 2n the seBond foaming
machine. These features were: higher flow
rate, chemiQal temperature control, chemical
rBcirculation, an improved flushing system,
and improved maintainability.
The low production ra~e of the first
foam machine was not necess-ar·ily optimum for
keeping water-away from the fQrmin~ foam.
If large enough quantities~f foam are pre-
sent, some "self protection" may occur. Thus,
since the success of making polyurethane foam
underwater rests in large part upon water
exclusion, a small-scale ma~hine will not
necessarily perform the same as a larger-
scale machine. Therefore, the second machine
was designed for full-scale salvage work.
The reaction rate of p~lyurethane resin
systems doubles for every 10 o F· rise in
temperature. Controlling this reaction rate
is necessary for the optimal design of the
head and nozzle. Becaus~ s~lvage must be
performed in waters from th~ tr0p~es ~o
arctic areas, the foam components could be
supplied to the machine- at widely different
temperatures. Thus, reaction rates could
also differ widely from mis~iQn to mission.
Faster reacting chemicals are preferable,
so the problem is one of heating the chemi-
cals except in the warmest climates. Heaters
and temperature controllers are provided for
both the polyol and the MnI~
A very fast resin system is required for
high-pressure impingement mixing systems.
The cream time of the foam system used is
1 to 2 seconds at 72 0 F, and the rise time is
365
3
10 to 11 seconds at the same temperature.
The components aTe heated to make the uream
time and rise time of the foam even faster
and to compensate for cold water tempera-
tures.
on the first machine. To stop the flow of
chemicals, the motor had to be stopped. This
sometimes made the pressure for the polyol
and MDI drop at different rates, causing one
chemical to shoot into the orifice from which
the other chemical was exiting. This situa-
tion was a potential cause of clogging the
head. The second machine featured recircu-
lation of the chemicals, as shown in Figures
3 and 4. In this machine, the chemicals were
flowing at all times, either down the hoses
to the head or in the recirculation loop to
the reservoir tank. A three-way valve was
used to switch the flow of each chemical.
In the first machine, DOP was used as
the flushing agent. DOP is not a solvent of
polyol and MDI but is a neutral agent.
Polyol and MDI can react to form foam in the
presence of DOP. Once these chemicals have
reacted to form polyurethane, there is no
practical way to dissolve them. The DOP
flushing system did retard some head clogging
but was not adequate. On the second machine,
methylene chloride was provided as a flush-
ing agent. Methylene chloride is a solvent
of polyol and MDI. Furthermore, the flushing
system in the second machine was programmed
to flush immediately and automatically each
time foaming ceased. This flushing system
was excelle~t, and prevented head clogging
during all experimentation. Moreover, auto-
flushing eliminates one potential source of
operator error.
The second machine was designed for
maintainability and safety. Our major goal
was to avoid opening lines and exposing MDI
to the air during routine operation of the
machine. Transfer pumps were used to convey
the polyol and MDI from the suppply drums.
This setup was only for laboratory use. In
field use, the chemicals would be supplied
in large tanks.
A significant concern in the design of
the machine was to isolate the polyol and
the MDI from each other until they impinge
at the head. The plumbing was arranged so
that all the polyol components are at one
end of the machine and the MDI components
are at the other. This was done for damage
control in the event of accidental chemical
mixing.
HEAD DESIGN
The head must be designed to withstand
the 1500 psi pressures required in high-
pressure impingement mixing. It must keep
the polyol and MDI separated until the
streams of the two chemicals are inten·
tionally ~mpinged. The sizes required for
L HIGH PRESSURE IMPINGEMENT
the orifices in the head are. a function of
khe desired flow rate and pressure.
The i.mpingemen% angle (See Figure 5) is
critical in the design of the head. Far–best
mixing, the impingement angle should be zero
so that the etreams of polyol and MDI hit on(
another straight on. This geonetry ensures
the maximum possible turbulence and mixing.
However, if the flow rates or pressures of
the two streams become unequal, this geometr~
has the maximum potential for clogging: if
flow rates or pressures are uneqtial, one
stream may enter the opposite orifice and
make foam in the head. A solvent flush sys-
tem must be provided to keep the orifices
from clogging.
HEAD ACCESSORIES
A mixing chamber is attached to the hea(
to exclude water from the area where the
polyol and MD1 are reacting to form foam.
The MDI is prone to conbining with water in-
stead of with the polyol. If too much of
this MDI-water mixing occurs, no foam will
be formed. IF a slight amount of the MDI
combines with water, then foaming will occur
but the efficiency will be reduced.
The length of the mixing chamber is
critical. It depends on the reaction rate.
of the polyurethane foam, which in tiurn de-
pends on the chemical design of the poly-
urethane foam resin system, the degree of
mixing achieved, and the temperature of
the reaction. In designing the mixing cham-
ber, these three variablee were held constan”
while the length of the mixing chamber was
varied until the optimum length was achieved
The diameter and length of the mixing cham-
ber are interdependent. The smaller the
diameter of the mixing chamber, the faster
the polyurethane foam will be forced from
the chamber.
Choosing the appropriate material for
constructing the mixing chamber is signifi-
cant in the development of the system. The
mixing chamber contacts water, polyol, MDI,
and. methylene chloride, thus the chosen
material must stand up to these chemicals, a
least in the short kerm. The material shoul
be sufficiently durable, both mechanically
and chemically, to last for /+ to 8 hours.
This minimun life allows salvage personnel
to replace khe mixing chamber at convenient
times during a salvage mission, such as
during breaks or at the end of the day.
TESTING
—.
The high-pressure impingement mixing
technique was tested both in the laboratory
and in the field. Figure 6 shows ,the tank
used as the laboratory equivalent of the
ocean. This tank is 7.8 meters deep by
1.6 meters in diameter (6 ft X 5& ft).
The head was placed at the bottom of
MIXING METHOD FOR FOAM-IN-SALVAGE OTC 5265
;he tank. Foaming was done at ambient air
temperature ranging from 30°F to 70°F and
~t water temperatures ranging from 48°F to
~5°F. The chemicals were supplied to the
?oam machine from 55 gallon drums by transfer
lumps . One pair of drums (one of polyol
~nd one of MDI) lasts for about 9 minutes,
fhich therefore was the upper limit on con-
tinuous foaming. In the laboratory tests,
lowever, the small size of the test tank was
;he real limitation. It was possible to
?oam for up to ~ minutes by pushing the foam
>ff the top of the tank as it was formed.
The field tests were performed in 40
Lo 50 feet of seawater in the Fort Lauder-
Iale area. The air temperature was 60°F and
Lhe water temperature was 70°F.
The field test object was a steel box,
1.4 X 1.4 X 1.2 meters (4.5 X 4.5 X 4 ft),
set on legs. The box was open at the bottom
znd had a removable top (see Figure 7).
l’helegs allowed the diver to enter the
object from below. A weight prevented the
object from ascending, even when it was com-
pletely filled with buoyant foam. The
treight also served as a safety feature for
the tests, preventing an uncontrolled ascent
of the test object.
At first, the test object was lined
~ith plastic to prevent the foam from ad-
hering to.the walls. However, the foam was
very easy to remove, even without the plastic
lining. This was significant because In
past operations, removing foam from salvage
objects has been quite difficult.
EXPERIMENTAL
.—- RESULTS
Figure 8 shows the head with inherently
non-clogging and reusable mixing chamber
developed during the laboratory and field
tests. The head, made from stainless steel,
is designed to operate at chemical pressures
of 1000 to 1500 psi. This pressure range is
optimum for thorough mixing, yet low enough
to keep the head and mixing chamber reason-
ably lightweight. The head has 3/16-inch-
diameter orifices for both the polyol and
the MDI, permitting a nominal flow rate of
6 gpm. At this flow rate, a 100-ton salvage
object can be raised with the buoyancy pro-
duced in 8 hours of foaming.
The orifices are positioned such that
the streams are not aimed directly at each
other, but are tilted at a slight angle,
which helps prevent head clogging. The angla
makes the head more tolerant of slight pres-
sure.and flow rate differences between the
polyol and MDI streams. If the impingement
angle is kept at 15 degreee or less, there
is still sufficient mixing to produce good
quality foam. Also, a narrow impingement
angle causes some forward momentum to be im-
parted to the reacting components and the
resulting foam. This helps keep the foam
moving through the mixing cham~er.
OTC 5265 -. ‘--”-”K.
E. u
. .
The head has proved to be remarkably
clog resistant; nevertheless ;ib_-~a_g_been
designed so that all orifices and pas-sage-
ways can be easily accessed for cleaning.
The head flushing solvent enters the
polyol and MDI channels ups”tream..ofthe
orifices. Laboratory experience has shown
that a small amount of polyol and MDI can
seep into the solvent flush lines. If the
polyol and MDI mix in the presence of khe
methylene chloride solvent, their reaction
is severely inhibited, but eventually-these
chemicals do react. The resulting sub-
stance can clog solvent supply lines. A cycles without clogging the mixing chamber
special feature of the solvent flush system
is the use of separate flush lines for the
polyol and MDI sides of the head. Using
separate flush lines prevents mixing the”
polyol and MDI in the flushing solvent.
Moreover, the lines carrying the solvent
and the components have check valves to pre-
vent the backward seepage of chemicals.
In addition to the check valves- in the
polyol, MDI and solvent lines, ball valves
were installed in the polyol and MDI lines
just upstream of the head. Th-a ball valve
handles were ”yoked together so that the
diver could shut off both valves at the
same time. These valves stopped seepage
from the polyol and MDI lines through “the
orifices.
The optimum mixing chamber was a flexi-
ble tube, 9 to 12 inches long by 3 inches
in diameter. An important characteristic
of this chamber is its flexibility, which
allows the operator to squeeze the chamber
temporarily shut when foaming begins. ‘This
manual shut-off excludes water from the foam
until the foam has risen enough for the re-
action to be self-sustaining for the rest
of the rise time. In addition, the chamber
flexes slightly as a plug forms, allowing
the plug to be expelled periodically.
Flexible mixing chambers of fluori-
nated ethylene propylene (FEP) , butyl rubber
and gum rubber were all successful. The gum
rubber was less satisfactory than the other
two materials because the methylene chloride
flush deteriorated the gum rubber within
minutes of contacting it. Because it is- a
fluroplastic, FEP has the lowest coefficient
of friction of the three flexible materials.
Nevertheless, despite khe vast difference
in friction qualities between I?EP and butyl
rubber, both worked quite well. The opera-
tor could feel the clogs forming ,and being
expelled from the chamber about once every
20 seconds.
Rigid-tube mixing chambers were also
investigated. Various length of poly-
tetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) were used. PTFE is a fluro-
plastic, thus it has an extremely low co-
efficient of friction compared with PVC.
Yet rigid tubes of both materials clogged.
under ..__. 5
Without exception, all rigid PTFE and PVC
tubes clogged within 2 minutes of the onset
of foaming. Although polyurethane has ex-
cellent adhesive qualities, the mechanism
of clogging is by mechanical expansion
locking rather than by adhesion. The poly-
urethane foam clogs the tube by expanding
until it is force fit within the tube.
The flexible mixing chambers are in-
herently non-clogging. The operator was
able to foam for 10 seconds, stop foaming
for 10 seconds, foam again for 10 seconds,
and repeat this sequence for a number of
of the head.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A high-pressure impingement mixing
head with flexible nixing chamber was de-
veloped for the U.S. Navy for producing
polyurethane foam underwater. This foam
is to be used to displace water and to pro-
vide buoyancy in sunken objects so that the
objects can be raised to the surface for
salvage. The head design is vastly simpler
than other existing impingement mixing de-
signs. The foam-producing system described
in this paper features a combination of
high-pressure impingement mixing, a flexi-
ble mixing chamber, and ultra fast cream
time (1 to 2 second) foam.
The technique of generating p~ly-
urethar:e foam in air by high pressure im-
pingement mixing is well known as RIM.
However, this method has not previously
been used to produce polyurethane foam
underwater . Earlier systems included rigid
mixing chambers and used precision pistons
and seals to wipe the reacted materials from
the chamber. These devices are not suitable
for subaquatic use because the piston and
wiping mechanism make the head too large
and too heavy for portability; the rigid
chamber becomes clogged with expanding,
hardening, and adhering foam; and water
migrates into the mixing chamber and chemi-
cally combines with the MDI, preventing the
formation of foam. Also, earlier equipment
was designed to produce foam on a very small
scale, compared with the volume needed for
salvaging sunken vessels.
MDI and polyol are the components that
react to form polyurethane. These compo-
nents are mixed at the impingement site
inside the flexible mixing chamber by the
high-pressure impingement mixing technique.
In this technique, two streams of fluid
chemicals, directed at each other at 1000
to 1500 psi, mix instantaneously as the
streams collide. Since the streams are
directed at each other at an angle between
O and 15 degrees away from straight on,
some forward momentum is maintained to
spray the foa~ forward. The flexible
mixing chamber collapses to exclude water
and expands to allow the reaching foam to
rise. A chemical solvent flush prevents
6 HIGH PRESSURE IMPINGEMENT MIXING METHOD FOR FOAM-IN-SALVAGE OTC 5265

the head from clogging.
The flush system reliably keeps. the
head from clogging during use. The hixing
chamber inherently does not clog. Access
for cleaning at the end of a mission is
easily obtained by disconnecting the chemic-
al supply lines, removing the flextble ~
mixing chamber from the head, and removing
2 plugs.
Myers, J.R., D.W. Caudy and D.J. Hackman.
Prototyp e Salvage Foaming~tem.
Battelle, 1985.
Myers, J.R., K.E. Alexander, D.J. Hackman
and D.W. Caudy. Protot ype Salvage
Foaming System. Battelle, 1985.

The head is specifically designed for

ultra fast cream time. (1 to 2 seconds)
polyurethane resin systems. The head is
also designed to produce very large volumes
of polyurethane f.aam, suitable for salvage.
Liquid is output from the head at a rate of
12 gpm, which under ideal conditions becomes
360 gpm of foam.

The flexible mixing chamber has the

purpose of protecting the nascent foam from
water until it has reacted sufficiently to
be self-sustaining for the rest of its rise
time. It is primarily- used for water ex-
clusion and only secondarily as a means of
directing the foam ko the point of applica-
tion.

The inherently non-clogging and reusabl<

flexible mixing cham-ber is unique to this
development . Rigid mixing chambers clog,
primarily because the foam expands and me-
chanically locks in the chamber. Although
polyurethane foam has excellent adhesive
properties, the primary mechanism of cloggin{
is mechanical expansion lo-eking rather than
adhesion. This has been demonstrated in
this program by using a rigid PTFE mixing
chamber (which clogged) and then using a
flexible l?EP mixing chamber (which did not
clog). P’TFE and FEP. are both fluoroplastics
and they have the same friction characteris-
tics.

Further experimentation again demon-

strated that the flexibility of the nozzle
matters more -than the friction characterist-
ics of the nozzle material. None of the
flexible nozzles made of FEP, Gooch tubing
(gum rubber], or butyl rubber clogged.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge

the United States Navy for supporting the
research reported herein.

~EFERENCES

1. Myers. John, Don Hackman and Les Nikodem

Evaluation of New Urethanes and Urethane
Dispensing Equipment for Imprfiving
Foam-in Salva~e Plan. Battelle, 7980.

2. Myere, J.R., D.J. Hackman and L.F.

Nikodem. Development of Rigid Poly-
urethane Foam Components for Foam-in
—-—
Salvage Ap placations. Battelle, 1982.
 Fig. 1—FM potyurethme foam machine,

Fig. 2-Hand!lng devices for chemical drums

 m
FOAM DISPIWSER

ON
FLUSH
OFF

7-

2-.
P

t-j9--
P
T
a 1 II=
FLUSHING FLUSHING
1. *- .

/i
VALVE VALVE
,-
1 ,1.

//
..-. -..
20HP

, I

7EMP
CONT b
/(

3
\
ELEC
HEAT

AIR
PRESS

.-
TEMP
CONT

Q-.
Q3
‘f
FROM
PRESSURIZED
POLYOL
SUPPLY
FFROM
PRESSURIZE
MO!
SUPPLY

Fig. 3—Foam machine flow schematic.

Fig. 4—Full-scale foam machine.

Fig. 5—Head Impingement angle.

Fig, 6–Laboratory test tank.

F19. 7-Fle!d test object.

 IMPINGEMENT
SITE
, POLYOL IN
/

MD I IN

————
--
—,.
FLEXIBLE FLUSH IN
MIXING

.-.
–..-
.-
.—.-
-----
.--
— -
CHAMBER HOSE CLAMP
\ /

-, .—

3— ——-
~ .——
:—:_ \
FOAMING HEAD
Fig. 8—HPIM head and mixing chamber.