Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cryogenics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cryogenics

Thermal conductivity of rigid foam insulations for aerospace vehicles

M. Barrios ⇑, S.W. Van Sciver
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Tallahassee, FL 32310, USA
Mechanical Engineering Department, FAMU/FSU College of Engineering, Tallahassee, FL 32310, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present work describes measurements of the effective thermal conductivity of NCFI 24-124 foam, a
Received 18 January 2012 spray-on foam insulation used formerly on the Space Shuttle external fuel tank. A novel apparatus to
Received in revised form 6 November 2012 measure the effective thermal conductivity of rigid foam at temperatures ranging from 20 K to 300 K
Accepted 25 November 2012
was developed and used to study three samples of NCFI 24-124 foam insulation. In preparation for mea-
Available online 23 January 2013
surement, the foam samples were either treated with a uniquely designed moisture absorption apparatus
or different residual gases to study their impact on the effective thermal conductivity of the foam. The
Keywords:
resulting data are compared to other measurements and mathematical models reported in the literature.
Polyisocyanurate foam
Insulation
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thermal conductivity
SOFI

1. Introduction range. Prior to measurement, some of the samples were treated

Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen are commonly used as rock-
et fuel and as a result the aerospace industry has a demand for high
quality cryogenic insulation that can be applied to launch vehicles.
One example of an application for porous insulating media is the
thermal protection system of the external tanks of the Space
Shuttle, where spray-on foam insulation (SOFI) has been used for
decades [1]. This rigid foam insulation was selected for Space
Shuttle application because it has a low thermal conductivity
(k = 0.02 W/m K at room temperature) and high strength to density
ratio (8–9 kPa/kg/m3) [2].
Extensive research has been performed on thermal transport in
foam insulations, although the vast majority has been associated
with near room temperature applications in, for example, the
building industry. Low temperature applications are unique due
to the potential for moisture absorption and other condensable
gases affecting thermal transport. Mathematical models have been
proposed to predict heat transport through foam insulation, but
these models generally have not been tested at low temperatures.
As a result, more experimental data on the foams of interest sub-
jected to the anticipated operating conditions are required.
Here we report thermal conductivity measurements using a no-
vel apparatus that has been developed specifically to study rigid
foam samples at temperatures ranging from 20 K to 300 K [3].
The effective thermal conductivity of three samples of NCFI
24-124 foam insulation was measured over the full temperature
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, Michigan State
University, USA. Tel.: +1 757 269 7058.
E-mail addresses: barrios@frib.msu.edu, barrios@jlab.org (M. Barrios).
with different residual gases or water vapor to investigate their
effect on the thermal conductivity. The data are compared to mea-
surements reported in the literature and to mathematical models
developed to predict the thermal conductivity of porous media.
2. Theory background
Thermal conductivity is an important measure of insulation
performance. However, because nearly all cryogenic insulation is
inhomogeneous, the thermal conductivity of such materials is dif-
ficult to predict. Fourier’s conduction law provides the definition
for the thermal conductivity, k(T), of a solid body:
q ¼ kðTÞrT ð1Þ
When the material in question is isotropic and the temperature
difference is small, the thermal conductivity can be averaged over
the temperature range, and the one dimensional heat conduction
of a constant cross-section sample becomes:

kðTÞA DT
Q¼ ð2Þ
L
where L is the length of the sample in the direction of heat transfer
and A is the cross sectional area (perpendicular to the heat transfer

direction). Note that in the Eq. (2), kðTÞ refers to the average thermal
conductivity of a solid. In the case of cryogenic insulation (e.g. MLI,
foam, aerogel beads), the conditions mentioned above (isotropic
and small DT) are rarely met.
In practice for anisotropic materials, it is normal to measure the
effective thermal conductivity, keff, of a sample. The effective

0011-2275/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2012.11.004
 M. Barrios, S.W. Van Sciver / Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19
Nomenclature
q heat flux
Q heat energy
k thermal conductivity
A cross sectional area
T temperature
l length of material in the heat transfer direction, cell
dimension
keff effective thermal conductivity
ks effective solid conductivity
kg effective gas conductivity
kr effective radiative conductivity
Kn Knudsen number
k mean free molecular path
L characteristic spacing of a medium
p pressure
M molecular mass
q density

thermal conductivity can replace kðTÞ in Eq. (2), but is assumed to
include additional heat transfer modes such as gas conduction,
radiation heat exchange, and in some cases convection and contact
resistance.
Mathematical models exist that estimate these components of
keff under different conditions. Most models found in the literature
combine solid and gas thermal conductivity using geometric sim-
plification of the internal structure of the foam [4–10]. Radiation
is assumed to occur in parallel with the conduction modes and is
added to the solid and gas conductivity to arrive at an estimate
for the overall effective thermal conductivity. In the following sec-
tion, we review various attempts to model keff for porous media.
The purpose is to provide basic understanding of the mechanisms
and to show where additional theoretical effort is necessary.
2.1. Solid and gas conductivity
Maxwell [7] was one of the first to examine conduction in het-
erogeneous media. He developed a fairly simple expression for the
electrical conductivity of a material consisting of spherical inclu-
sions within a medium. This model can be adapted to describe
the effective thermal conductivity as,
 
2kg þ ks þ Pðkg  ks Þ
keff ¼ ks
2kg þ ks  2Pðkg  ks Þ
where ks is the thermal conductivity of the solid matrix material
and kg is gas conductivity. The porosity (P) is defined as the ratio
of the pore volume to the total volume of the material. Use of Eq.
(3) depends on knowledge of the thermal conductivity of the solid
matrix and contained gas and it ignores any contribution due to
radiation heat transport.
Determining the solid conductivity contribution to the effective
thermal conductivity requires knowledge of the thermal conduc-
tivity of the solid matrix material, ks. If the thermal conductivity
of the solid polymer that makes up the polyurethane (PU) or polyi-
socyanurate (PI) foam is known for the temperature range in ques-
tion it can be used in conjunction with the internal geometry to
determine the effective contribution from the solid matrix, km.
However, for some porous media, there is little data available for
the thermal conductivity of the solid material. Tseng et al. [11] ap-
proached this problem by assuming the thermal conductivity of PU
foam to be equal to that of nylon, a similar material. Still this ap-
proach is limited by the incomplete knowledge of the internal
structure of the PU material. Alternatively, Wu et al. [12] estimated
13
CV constant volume specific heat
c average molecular speed
j Boltzmann constant
a accommodation coefficient
i,j indices
Aij empirical function for use with gas mixtures
n total number of gases in a mixture, refractive index
y mole fraction of a gas in a mixture
e constant used in the Maxon–Saxena relation
P porosity
km thermal conductivity of a solid matrix
fs fraction of solid in the struts of a porous material
b extinction coefficient
bs extinction coefficient of solid polymer
qf foam density
qs solid polymer density
the thermal conductivity of the solid matrix by subtracting the cal-
culated radiation contribution from effective thermal conductivity
of the porous medium measured in vacuum. This latter method
may be reasonable for open cell foams, but for closed cell foams,
performing measurements in vacuum does not ensure that the
residual gas has been entirely removed from the cells.
Obtaining the gaseous contribution to the thermal conductivity,
kg, can also be difficult because it is dependent on the composition
and pressure of the contained gas. For most gases at pressures
above about 1 Pa, the thermal conductivity is mainly a function
of temperature. However, at low pressures (p < 1 Pa) and for many
types of porous media, the mean free path of the gas molecules be-
comes larger than the pore size. In this case, the gas thermal con-
ductivity is mainly function of the accommodation coefficient, a, a
quantity that determines how well the gas molecules transfer en-
ergy to the solid material. For this reason, it is most desirable to
know the gaseous pressure and temperature within the porous
media even though this may not be achievable for closed cell
foams.
Springer [13] and Tien and Cunnington [14] considered four dif-
ferent regimes of gaseous heat conduction based on the value of
the Knudsen number:
k
ð3Þ Kn ¼ ð4Þ
l
where k is the mean free path of the molecules and l is the pore size.
The four gas regimes are: free-molecule (Kn > 10), transition
(10 > Kn > 0.1), temperature-jump (slip) (0.1 > Kn > 0.01), and con-
tinuum (Kn < 0.01). Springer estimated the gaseous heat conduction
for the above regimes for simple geometric configurations (parallel
plates, coaxial cylinders, and concentric spheres) and small bound-
ary temperature differences.
From kinetic theory the thermal conductivity of a gas in the
continuum approximation can be expressed by:
1
kg / cqC V k ð5Þ
3
where q is density, CV is the heat capacity at constant volume (J/
kg K), and c is the average molecular speed:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
8kB T
c ¼ ð6Þ
pM
where kB is the Boltzmann constant. However, for the residual gases
present in porous insulating media the small voids can cause the
14 M. Barrios, S.W. Van Sciver / Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19
gas to enter the free-molecule regime at low pressures. For such
complex void geometries, Tien and Cunnington [14] suggested the
use of an effective mean free path to develop the following empir-
ical relation for effective gas thermal conductivity in the transition
and temperature-jump regimes:
0 of the mean penetration distance of radiation in the medium. Unfor-
kg ¼ akg ½l=ðl þ kÞ
In the free-molecule regime, the apparent thermal conductivity
can be estimated using Knudsen’s formula:
 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cþ1 R rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kFM ¼ a  plDT
c1 8pMT
A further complication in the calculation of thermal conductiv-
ity occurs when there is a mixture of gases present. In many cases
when calculating the thermal conductivity of a mixture of gases, a
simple molar average of the thermal conductivity of the compo-
nents is insufficient [15]. In mixtures involving two gases with dif-
ferent molecular weights, however, the thermal conductivity tends
to be lower than expected. The Wassiljewa equation can be used to
account for this correction:
X
n extinction coefficient of the solid material is not included in the
y ki
kg ¼ Pn i
i¼1 j¼1 yj Aij
where kg is the thermal conductivity of the gas mixture, ki is the
thermal conductivity of gaseous component i, n is the total number
of gases in the mixture, yi and yj are the mole fractions of compo-
nents i and j, and Aij is a function to be specified (Aii = 1). For non-
polar gas mixtures, Poling et al. [15] suggest the Mason–Saxena
relation:
h i1=2
e 1 þ ðki =kj Þ1=2 ðMi =Mj Þ1=4
Aij ¼
½8ð1 þ Mi =Mj Þ1=2
where M is molecular weight of the gaseous components and e is a
constant near unity.
Once values for ks and kg have been determined, it is then nec-
essary to account for the tortuous path that heat conduction fol-
lows within the structure of the porous media. This is especially
important in evacuated media, when gas conduction is minimized.
Several heat transfer models [4–6] developed with heat conduction
through loose fill insulations can be simplified for use with rigid
foam calculations. These models involve the additional complexi-
ties of surface contact, packing arrangement, and porosities on dif-
ferent scales (i.e. hollow glass spheres, aerogel beads) which can
generally be neglected in the case of rigid foam. Other models have
been developed specifically for rigid foam [7–10].
Many approaches found in the literature analyze a unit cell
within the microstructure of the porous media. The unit cell is de-
fined by Dul’nev [4] as the smallest volume whose effective heat
conductivity coincides with the effective heat conductivity of the
disperse system. The unit cell can be represented in many forms:
cubic inclusion, spherical inclusion, cubic skeleton with intercon-
necting pores, etc. Different methods are used to find the thermal
conductivity of the unit cell chosen to represent the internal struc-
ture of the system. Geometric parameters are then used to relate
the dimensions of the unit cell to the porosity of the media. The
effective thermal conductivity of the media is then found as a func-
tion of the solid and gas conductivities and the porosity.
2.2. Radiative conductivity
Radiation heat transfer can significantly contribute to the effec-
tive thermal conductivity of a porous medium. For optically thick
media, Siegel and Howell [16] suggested an effective radiative con-
ductivity given by:
16n2 rT 3
kr ¼ ð11Þ
3b
where n is the refractive index of the porous media, r is the Stefan–
Boltzmann constant, and b is the extinction coefficient, the inverse
ð7Þ tunately, the extinction coefficient is another property that can vary
with polymer type, morphology, and temperature. Glicksman [10]
analyzed the structures of cell walls and struts to find the following
relation for the extinction coefficient for PU and PI foams:
 ffi
ð8Þ fs q f
 
qs ð1  fs Þqf
b ¼ 4:1 þ bs ð12Þ
l qs
where qf is the density of the foam, qs is the density of the solid
polymer, fs is the fraction of solid in the struts of the foam, and bs
is the extinction coefficient of the solid polymer. The first term on
the right side of Eq. (12) is the contribution to the extinction coef-
ficient due to the struts. Because the struts are typically much thick-
er than the cell walls, they can be considered opaque. Therefore, the
ð9Þ strut contribution.
Although there has been a considerable effort applied toward
modeling thermal transport in porous media containing gases,
the results are qualitative at best. In the present case of SOFI mate-
rial at low temperature, the effective thermal conductivity is com-
plex because the internal structure of the material is not well
characterized, the thermal conductivity of the solid matrix mate-
rial is not well known and the material is a closed cell foam, with
the gas composition and pressure within the foam cells not well
known. One additional complexity comes about as a result of the
ð10Þ low temperature application of SOFI. That is, the possibility that
in its application some of the contained gas may condense at low
temperature further complicating the effort to calculate the gas
contribution to the effective thermal conductivity. All these factors
combine to make prediction of the effective thermal conductivity
very challenging and thus demanding experimental measurements
to properly characterize the material property.
3. Thermal conductivity measurement apparatus
The experimental apparatus developed for measurement of the
effective thermal conductivity of flat plate samples of SOFI or other
solid materials at low temperatures has been described previously
[3]. Here we provide a summary of the important characteristics of
this device so that the reader can best understand the experimen-
tal methods and results.
The ASTM standard C177, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Steady-
State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Proper-
ties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus,’’ [17] was used
as a template and modified to accommodate the additional
requirements for operation in a cryogenic environment. The appa-
ratus design uses a single-sided guarded-hot-plate with only one
cold plate and one specimen. This approach greatly simplified
the design of the cooling plate, which was connected directly to
a cryocooler as a heat sink. Also, a double-sided design would re-
quire a more complicated thermal link and thermal stabilization
between the two cold sides. Fig. 1 is a schematic of the experimen-
tal chamber.
The apparatus was calibrated using a disk of nylon with a
known thermal conductivity as a control sample. Through this pro-
cess, it was found that contact resistance between the faces of the
sample and the hot and cold plates was a limiting factor, even
when copper grease was applied to the faces of the sample. The
thickness (25.4 mm) of the samples and the diameters of the
 M. Barrios, S.W. Van Sciver / Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19 15

To Cryocooler

Stainless Steel Plate Copper Stem

Hot Cold Plate

Plate Insulation Sample
Phenolic
Guard

Compression Springs Aluminum Guard

Vacuum Chamber

Fig. 1. A schematic of the experimental chamber for measurement of the effective thermal conductivity of solid foam samples.

temperature sensors (3.175 mm) created a large enough uncer-
tainty in the gauge length to eliminate the possibility of embed-
ding the sensors within the sample. It was thereafter decided
that, in order to minimize the contact resistance, the foam sample
should be bonded to copper plates using Stycast 2850 epoxy. The
Stycast provides excellent thermal contact with the faces of the
sample. Temperature sensors were then mounted to the copper
plates. The added thermal resistance of the Stycast layers and cop-
per plates was determined to comprise less than 1% of the overall
sample resistance.
The experimental cell is attached to a cryocooler (Cryomech
model PT-810) at the top of the cold plate by means of a copper
stem that penetrates the stainless steel plate and a braided copper
thermal link. The cryocooler is capable of providing 14 W of cool-
ing power to the apparatus at 20 K. A heater is mounted to the
head of the cryocooler to control the overall temperature of the
apparatus. Stainless steel tubes are welded to the top of the cold
plate to provide mechanical supports. The apparatus is placed in-
side an evacuated cryostat with a liquid nitrogen shield to isolate
it from ambient. Fig. 2 is a schematic of the entire apparatus.
The effective thermal conductivity of the SOFI samples was
measured by recording the temperature on either side of the sam-
ple for a specific heater power after steady state was achieved.
Prior to installing a sample in the apparatus, the diameter and
thickness were measured at various locations. These measure-
ments were then used to calculate the surface area and the average
thickness of the sample. The heater power was measured by
recording the voltage across the heater and the voltage across a
known resistor in series at room temperature to yield the current
through the circuit. The temperatures were measured using Cernox

Fig. 2. A schematic of the apparatus for measurement of the effective thermal conductivity of SOFI.
16 M. Barrios, S.W. Van Sciver / Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19
sensors on the copper plates attached to the specimens and on the
aluminum guard.
Before calculating the effective thermal conductivity, a correc-
tion was made to account for any heat leak between the hot plate
and aluminum guard. The typical accuracy of the temperature sen-
sors was ±40 mK. This translates to an uncertainty of less than 1%
in temperature measurement. The heater voltage resolution on the
Lakeshore 340 temperature controller is 1.25 mV. The estimated
minimum required operating voltage is 553 mV. This corresponds
to a maximum heating power uncertainty of 0.2%. Width and area
measurement uncertainty were limited to below one percent sim-
ply by performing several measurements with a micrometer. Ther-
mal contraction measurements from the literature vary, but do not
exceed 2% between room temperature and 80 K. The sum of the er-
rors listed above is reflected in the overall 6% error bars seen in the
results. For most measurements a DT of 10 K across the sample
was chosen to make it possible to determine the effective thermal
conductivity with an instrument error below 5%.
4. Measurements and discussion
The thermal conductivity of three samples of NCFI 24-124 foam
was measured. This foam has a porosity of 97% and an average pore
diameter of 0.3 mm. Table 1 lists the three samples and shows the
conditions under which the thermal conductivity was measured.
The first NCFI sample (#1) was tested ‘‘as received’’ by installing
it within the experimental chamber under room temperature and
atmospheric pressure of air (296 K and 102.6 kPa) and sealing the
chamber. The thermal conductivity was then measured at various
temperatures between 296 K and 30 K. The gas pressure in the
experimental chamber varied from 102.6 kPa at 296 K to
0.267 kPa at 30 K. Subsequently, in order to examine the effect of
different residual gases on the thermal conductivity of the foam,
sample #1 was tested under vacuum and with helium gas added
to the experimental chamber.
Fig. 3 shows the thermal conductivity of sample #1 in air and
under vacuum. The thermal conductivity shows a clear decrease
with temperature down to 80 K followed by a sharp increase. As
is discussed below, this increase in keff probably results from the
condensation of the lower thermal conductivity heavy gases onto
the cell walls thus increasing the molar ratio of higher thermal
conductivity trace gases such as helium. Tseng et al. [11] observed
a similar phenomenon for newly sprayed polyurethane foam be-
tween 230 K and 280 K. In this temperature range, the R141b gas
present in the cells condenses and the air remaining in the cells
dominates the thermal transport. In the present case, helium was
inadvertently introduced into the foam during a leak checking pro-
cess. As a result during the measurement, the air present in the
cells condensed below 80 K and the remaining helium gas domi-
nated the heat transport dramatically increased the effective ther-
mal conductivity of the SOFI sample.
The data from Fesmire et al. [18], shown as the solid circles in
Fig. 3, are the effective conductivity of the same material as our
sample, recorded at average temperatures of 297 K and 185 K,
respectively. Their data appears slightly below that found in the
present study. Fesmire et al. measured a sample aged in a climate
Table 1
NCFI 24-124 samples and the conditions under which their thermal conductivity was measured. Sample #1 (‘‘as received’’, x) was subjected to an unknown amount of helium gas
during the leak check process, which is believed to have affected the thermal conductivity.
Sample number As received Water vapor conditioned
#1 x
#2 x x
#3 x
Fig. 3. The thermal conductivity versus average temperature for NCFI 24-124
sample #1 in the ‘‘as received’’ and evacuated cases compared with literature data
[18]. The increase at low temperature in the ‘‘as received’’ case is probably the
result of residual helium gas. The error bars correspond to a 6% uncertainty
determined by the temperature sensors, heater, sample width and area measure-
ment, and thermal contraction.
controlled area for 18 months. Our sample was aged in the same
area for 18 months, and stored in a sealed plastic bag for 4–5 years
before testing. The discrepancy in the data could be due to aging,
diffusion of the low thermal conductivity blowing agent out of
the foam over time, or the presence of the higher thermal conduc-
tivity helium gas.
For the vacuum case, sample #1 was placed in the experimental
chamber and evacuated, using a turbo-molecular vacuum pump,
for one week at room temperature. At this point the pressure inside
the chamber was 138.3 Pa, decreasing at less than 0.4 Pa per hour.
The cryocooler was then turned on and the sample cooled to 30 K.
As expected, the measurements show a clear decrease in effective
thermal conductivity compared to the as received case with helium
contamination. The data for the evacuated case follow a similar
trend to that of the as received case at high temperature, but do
not reproduce the anomaly below 80 K.
In order to further examine the effect of residual gas on the
thermal conductivity of the foam, sample #1 was placed in the
experimental chamber, evacuated overnight and then purged with
101 kPa of helium gas at ambient temperature three times. After
the third filling, the cryocooler was then turned on and the thermal
conductivity measurement repeated. Due to the 97% high porosity
of the foam, the residual gas can dominate the effective thermal
conductivity. This is shown in Fig. 4, where the effective thermal
conductivity of the foam with helium as a residual gas is compared
to that of the evacuated and as received cases. The effective ther-
mal conductivity of the helium case is roughly three times larger
than that of the as received case. In this regime, the thermal con-
ductivity of helium gas is at least six times larger than that of air
and the thermal conductivity of the solid material is greater than
that of helium gas, so it is surprising that the effective thermal
conductivity measured is lower than that of pure helium gas. This
Helium purged Under vacuum Helium/air mixtures
x x
x
 M. Barrios, S.W. Van Sciver / Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19
Fig. 4. The thermal conductivity data of NCFI 24-124 sample #1 for the helium
purged case, the ‘‘as received’’ case, and the evacuated case. The thermal
conductivity of the conditioned sample #2 ( ) is shown for comparison.
discrepancy is almost certainly due to insufficient purging of the
sample. Because of the closed cell nature of the foam it is very dif-
ficult to replace all of the R141b gas and air originally present in
the cells with helium gas. In any case, the trend in the thermal con-
ductivity of the helium purged case approaches that of the sample
#1 ‘‘as received’’ case below 50 K. This is further evidence that in
the as received case, the sample was contaminated with helium
gas.
Also seen in Fig. 4 are the data from the conditioned NCFI
24-124 sample #2. Sample #2 was tested in the same fashion as
sample #1; but it was first subjected to a launch pad conditioning
process. The conditioning process subjected the foam to a typical
environment expected on the launch pad in Cape Canaveral
(T = 34 ± 2 °C, Relative Humidity >75%) for 8 h. This conditioning
process causes moisture absorption in the foam, potentially affect-
ing its thermal properties [19]. Above 70 K, the thermal conductiv-
ity of the conditioned sample is nearly the same as the ‘‘as
received’’ sample. This shows that the conditioning process and
moisture absorption have little effect on the thermal conductivity
of the foam.
To quantify the effect of helium intrusion on the thermal con-
ductivity of the foam at low temperature, sample #2 was first evac-
uated for several weeks and the thermal conductivity then
measured between 30 K and 290 K. This provided a baseline for
the thermal conductivity of the foam with minimal contribution
from the residual gas. The chamber was then filled with air to a
pressure of 85.3 kPa. A period of 24 h was then given for the air
to diffuse into the foam during which time additional air was
added to the chamber to maintain the pressure constant. The ther-
mal conductivity of the sample was then measured from 20 K to
120 K.
The sample was then warmed to near room temperature and a
small amount (267 Pa partial pressure) of helium gas was added to
the 85.3 kPa of air. This brought the mole fraction of helium gas to
0.3% at room temperature. At low temperature the helium gas
would then be in the transition gas conduction regime. Lastly, sam-
ple #2 was warmed to room temperature and more helium was
added up to a partial pressure of 16 kPa, which brought the total
gas pressure to 101 kPa at room temperature and the mole fraction
of helium to 16%. This mixture was chosen to maintain the contin-
uum gas regime over the entire temperature range 20–300 K. As
discussed previously, the continuum regime occurs when the
Knudsen number is less than 0.01, meaning the mean free path
17
Fig. 5. The thermal conductivity vs. temperature for sample #2 with various
residual gas mixtures. Lines through the data are guides to the eye.
of the molecules is much shorter than the characteristic dimension
of the cells within the foam.
Fig. 5 shows that the thermal conductivity of the 85.3 kPa of air
case for sample #2 follows the thermal conductivity of the condi-
tioned case closely until around 80 K where it begins to approach
the thermal conductivity of the evacuated case. This is expected
as uncontaminated air will condense and freeze below 80 K and
leave a near vacuum environment within the cells.
The presence of 0.3% helium gas should cause the thermal con-
ductivity of the sample to be larger than that of the air and evacu-
ated cases at temperatures below 80 K. It can be seen in Fig. 5 that,
in fact, the thermal conductivity begins to increase as the temper-
ature is lowered below 100 K. This marked increase shows that
even a small amount of helium gas produces an increase in the
effective thermal conductivity of the foam at lower temperatures.
As expected, the thermal conductivity of the sample was much
higher due to the higher mole fraction of helium (see Fig. 5). How-
ever, as the temperature of the sample increased from 40 K to 60 K
an unexpected drop in effective thermal conductivity was ob-
served. Near the observed pressure at 40 K, the sublimation line
nitrogen is crossed. This could cause some of the nitrogen to leave
the surfaces of the foam. As the nitrogen pressure increases, it
mixes with the helium gas and impedes the overall heat transport,
thus lowering the effective thermal conductivity. However, a corre-
sponding increase in pressure is not recorded in the measurements
possibly because the pressure increase is small and the time neces-
sary for the gas to diffuse out of the sample had not elapsed.
The sample #2 effective thermal conductivity measurements
were then compared to the Maxwell model, Eq. (3). This model re-
quires knowledge of the porosity and thermal conductivity of the
solid material and the gas. Values for the porosity and solid
thermal conductivity at room temperature were taken from the
literature [20,21]. Below room temperature, the solid thermal con-
ductivity was extrapolated by reproducing the relationship
between temperature and thermal conductivity seen in similar
materials, such as PVC and nylon. The cell dimensions were deter-
mined from average values measured using SEM images [19]. The
residual gas thermal conductivity, required in all of the models, is a
difficult parameter to estimate. In order to do so accurately, the
mixture of gases and their partial pressures must be known. Also,
at low temperatures the condensation of gases must be taken into
account (e.g. in a mixture of nitrogen and helium, the nitrogen will
condense at higher temperatures than helium, causing the molar
ratio of helium in the mixture to increase). At low pressures, as
18 M. Barrios, S.W. Van Sciver / Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19

Fig. 6. The effective thermal conductivity data for the evacuated NCFI 24-124
sample #2 compared to predictions based on the Maxwell model, Eq. (3). Fig. 8. The thermal conductivity data for the NCFI 24-124 sample #2 with an initial
mixture of 85.3 kPa air and 16.0 kPa helium (84% Air/16% He) at 300 K plotted
against predictions from the Maxwell model, Eq. (3).

Fig. 7. The thermal conductivity data for the NCFI 24-124 sample #2 with air as a
residual gas at 85.3 kPa at 300 K plotted against predictions from the Maxwell
model, Eq. (3). Fig. 9. The effective thermal conductivity for two NCFI 24-124 samples. Sample #2
is launch pad conditioned and sample #3 as received.

continuum gas heat transfer transitions into the Knudsen regime,

the gas thermal conductivity becomes even more difficult to esti-
Comparisons between the effective thermal conductivity results
mate. The mathematical models do not take these factors into ac-
and the Maxwell’s model make it clear that in order to make accu-
count, and it is left to the analyst to determine the appropriate
rate predictions of keff in SOFI it is necessary to know the types of
value for gas thermal conductivity at each point.
residual gases present in the foam. Furthermore, it is important
Fig. 6 is a comparison between Maxwell’s model and the data
to understand how the pressures of the gases change with temper-
from the evacuated case for sample #2. The model tends to under
ature. The large surface areas present in the foam can cause gases
predict the thermal conductivity at temperatures above 40 K. The
to condense at temperatures higher than would normally be
sharp increase in thermal conductivity from 30 K to 50 K is possi-
expected.
bly due to sublimation of nitrogen inside the cells of the foam.
The effective thermal conductivity of a third NCFI 24-124 sam-
The nitrogen increases the thermal conductivity of the foam, but
ple #3 was measured ‘‘as received’’ to check reproducibility and
since the foam is closed cell the increased pressure inside the foam
obtain data without helium gas contamination. These results are
is not recorded by the pressure gauge, and is therefore not reflected
compared to the launch pad conditioned sample #2 in Fig. 9. As
in the model.
can be seen in the figure, the conditioning process has little effect
Fig. 7 is a comparison between the Maxwell model and the data
on the effective thermal conductivity of the foam resulting in at
from the 100% air sample. Again, the model fails to predict the in-
most a 10% increase.
crease in thermal conductivity between 35 K and 55 K. This is a fur-
ther indication that the gauge pressure does not accurately depict
the pressure inside the cells at low temperatures. 5. Conclusions
Fig. 8 compares the measurements of the 84% air/16% He sam-
ple to the model. In this case, the model predicts the increase in The goal of this work was to measure the effective thermal con-
thermal conductivity from 20 K to 40 K, but greatly over predicts ductivity of flat plate samples of spray-on foam insulation (SOFI)
the conductivity from 50 K to 110 K. Again, this is due to fluctuat- with different preparation and at temperatures ranging from
ing gas pressures inside the closed cells, causing the thermal con- 20 K to 300 K. A single sided guarded-hot-plate apparatus was
ductivity to decrease as nitrogen sublimates. developed for this purpose.
 M. Barrios, S.W. Van Sciver / Cryogenics 55–56 (2013) 12–19
For sample #1 as received, the data show a clear decrease in
thermal conductivity with decreasing gas pressure in the experi-
mental chamber with the data for the evacuated case following a
similar trend to that of the as received sample. In any case, the
trend in an anomaly in the effective thermal conductivity below
50 K appears to have been caused by helium gas contamination.
The effective thermal conductivity of the sample #2 was then
studied to explore the effect of launch pad conditioning and helium
gas contamination. The conductivity was first measured to deter-
mine the effect of conditioning. Following this measurement, the
sample was first subjected to 85.3 kPa of air at 300 K and its the
thermal conductivity closely followed the previous measurements
down to 80 K where it approached the thermal conductivity of the
evacuated case. This is expected because as the temperature de-
creases, the air will adhere to the surfaces of the foam and leave
a vacuum. When a partial pressure of 0.267 kPa of helium was
added to the 85.3 kPa of air at room temperature, the effective
thermal conductivity increased above the base case below 100 K.
This marked increase shows that even this small amount of helium
gas affects the thermal conductivity of the foam at lower temper-
atures. As more helium is added to the residual gas mixture an in-
crease in thermal conductivity can be seen over the entire
temperature range. Measurements below 120 K show that the
effective thermal conductivity does not correlate with Maxwell’s
model. This is probably due to the inability to know the partial
pressures of the gas mixtures within the cells at low temperature.
These effective thermal conductivity results stress the impor-
tance of residual gases present in foams like SOFI. Although launch
pad conditions may slightly increase the thermal conductivity of
the foam, exposure to high thermal conductivity gases such as he-
lium or hydrogen can have a much greater effect. In the case of
hydrogen storage, exposing the foam to venting or leaking hydro-
gen gas can cause a significant increase in the effective thermal
conductivity of the foam.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NASA Kennedy Space Center and
the Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion (FCAAP). The Na-
tional High Magnetic Field Laboratory is supported by the NSF and
the State of Florida.
19
References
[1] Harvey J, Butler J, Chartoff R. Development of polyisocyanurate pour foam
formulation for Space Shuttle external tank thermal protection system. NASA
technical report. Marshall Space Flight Center; August 1988.
[2] Sparks LL. Low-temperature properties of expanded polyurethane and
polystyrene. In: McElroy DL, Tye RP, editors. Thermal insulation
performance, ASTM STP 718, American Society for Testing and Materials;
1980. p. 431–52.
[3] Barrios M, Van Sciver SW. An apparatus to measure thermal conductivity of
spray-on foam insulation. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol. 1218; 2010. p.
938–45.Barrios M, Vanderlaan and Van Sciver SW. Thermal Conductivity of
Spray-On Foam Insulations for Aerospace Applications. AIP Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 1434, pp. 1319-1326, 2012.
[4] Dul’nev GN. Heat transfer through solid dispersed systems. Eng Phys J
1965;9:275.
[5] Odelevskii VI. Calculation of the generalized conductivity of heterogeneous
systems. Zh Tekh Fiz 1951;21(6):667.
[6] Luikov AV, Shashkov AG, Vasiliev LL, Fraiman YE. Thermal conductivity of
porous systems. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1968;11:117–40.
[7] Maxwell JC. A treatise on electricity and magnetism. 3rd ed. vol. 1. Oxford:
Clarendon Press; 1892. p. 440.
[8] Russell HW. Principles of heat flow in porous insulators. J Am Ceram Soc
1935;18:1–5.
[9] Schuetz MA, Glicksman LR. A basic study of heat transfer through foam
insulation. J Cell Plast 1984;20(2):114–21.
[10] Glicksman. Heat transfer in foams. In: Hilyard NC, Cunningham A, editors. Low
density thermal plastics. London: Chapman and Hall; 1994.
[11] Tseng C, Yamaguchi M, Ohmori T. Thermal conductivity of polyurethane foams
from room temperature to 20 K. Cryogenics 1997;37(6).
[12] Wu J, Sung W, Chu H. Thermal conductivity of polyurethane foams. Int J Heat
Mass Transfer 1999;42:2211–7.
[13] Springer GS. Heat transfer in rarefied gases. In: Irvine TF, Hartnett JP (editors).
Advances in heat transfer. vol. 7; 1971. p. 163–218.
[14] Tien CL, Cunnington GR. Cryogenic insulation heat transfer. In: Irvine Jr TF,
Hartnett JP, editors. Advances in heat transfer, vol. 9. New York: Academic
Press; 1973. p. 349–417.
[15] Poling B, Prausnitz J, O’Connell J. The properties of gases and liquids. New
York: McGraw Hill; 2001.
[16] Siegel R, Howell JR. Thermal radiation heat transfer. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill book
Company; 1981.
[17] ASTM C177. Standard test method for steady-state heat flux measurements
and thermal transmission properties by means of the guarded-hot-plate
apparatus. Annual book of ASTM standards; 04.06, (2000a).
[18] Fesmire JE, Coffman BE, Meneghelli BJ, Heckle KW. Spray-on foam insulations
for launch vehicle cryogenic tanks. Cryogenics; January 26, 2012.
[19] Barrios M. Material characterization of rigid foam for aerospace vehicles. PhD.
Dissertation, Florida State University, Department of Mechanical Engineering;
2011.
[20] Sullivan RM, Ghosn LJ, Lerch BA. Application of an elongated Kelvin model to
Space Shuttle Foams. J Spacecraft Rockets 2009;46(2):411–8.
[21] Stewart J. The influence of morphology on polyurethane foam heat transfer.
Masters thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of
Mechanical Engineering; 1994.