Characterizing The Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane Foams
The Department of Energy has many radioactive facilities that are on the path of deactivation and decommissioning (D and D). These facilities can sit cold and dark for many years before final disposition, and must be maintained to ensure no radiological release occurs in the interim. Improvements and additions to D and D tool sets can greatly: Save time and money, Reduce worker risk. Conventional fixatives widely used often take the form of paints or films that are not readily applicable to 3-dimensional void spaces. Foams are one promising platform that may offer solutions to a number of contaminated problem sets such as: Gloveboxes, Pipes, Tanks. SRNL is working to characterize various commercial foams that would encapsulate the interior volume of a given space and are capable of immobilizing any remaining contamination. One key performance metric of these foams is how well they will perform in an accident scenario. To this end, SRNL is researching the mechanical properties of these foams to ensure that the material can withstand the environment of application while maintaining structural integrity. ASTM standard E3191-18 served as a guiding document for this project, outlining the requirements that foaming fixatives used for the mitigation of radioactive contamination need to meet before being implemented. Objective: Quantification of the mechanical properties of 6 commercial polyurethane foams was performed using multiple ASTM standards to record measurements for: Compression testing: Flexible Foams, Force required to produce 50% compression, Rigid Foams, Compressive and apparent modulus, Point of 10% core deformation, The 'Zero Deformation' point, Compressive strength, Yield point. Tensile testing: Tensile strength, Tensile stress, Percent elongation. Experiment 1: An electromechanical compressive tester (MTS Criterion Series 43) was used to evaluate 6 foams (4 flexible, 2 rigid). Per ASTM D1621, each rigid foam was compressed at 10% of the measured thickness per minute until the sample was 13% of it's original thickness. Per ASTM D35/4, each flexible foam was pre-flexed twice to 80% original thickness at a rate of 250 mm/min, then compressed to 80% original thickness at a rate of 50 mm/min. Experiment 2: An electromechanical tensile tester (MTS Criterion Series 43) was used to evaluate 6 foams (4 flexible, 2 rigid). Per ASTM D1623, rigid foams were pulled apart at a rate of 1.27 mm/min until the sample broke. Per ASTM D35/4, flexible foams were pulled apart at a rate of 500 mm/min until the sample broke. The strongest material in both compression and tensile testing scenarios was found to be the rigid intumescent polyurethane Hilti foam. The experiments revealed that the Hilti foam in a tensile scenario had a peak stress value that was larger than the closest competitor by a factor of 2.3 and a compressive yield point that was larger than the closest competitor by a factor of 1.4, indicating that the Hilti foam is the best choice for implementation in mechanically harsh environments. The performance metrics measured can serve as a basis for future mechanical tests that would help set relevant ASTM standards (E3191) for intumescent polyurethane foams in fixating applications. Tests like surface adhesion, impact, and flame tests would serve as a better indicator as to how this material would perform in environmentally harsh scenarios often found in decommissioned nuclear facilities. Further tests of the foams' intumescent properties would also be important should these foams be implemented in environmentally harsh scenarios.