Manufacturing Methods of Foam for U-Value Meters

Stuart Buddle

Examensarbete / Degree Thesis

Materials Processing Technology
2017
DEGREE THESIS
Arcada

Degree Programme: Materials Processing Technology

Identification number: 17326

Author: Stuart Buddle
Title: Manufacturing Methods of Foam for U-Value Meters

Supervisor (Arcada): Mathew Vihtonen

Commissioned by: Arcada

Abstract:
The thesis is dependent upon a manufacturing conundrum of finding the best method of
manufacturing for medium run productions. In this case 100 units of foam insulation for the
U-Value Meters. These U-Value Meters have been developed at Arcada since 2010 in order to
determine how well a wall thermally insulates. This numerical analysis of thermal resistance is
known as a U-Value, hence the name U-Value Meter. The meter has been extremely successful
both locally and abroad, consequently more metres were required. The construction of the meter
revolves around a foam core that holds all the components in place whilst simultaneously
thermally insulates those components allowing a measurement to be taken. The aim was
therefore “to select a mass manufacturing means for the U-Value Meter’s internal foam with a
primary focus on cost and time for 100 units”. Although cost and time were the key criteria, each
method was analysed via a SWOT Analysis, an analytical tool for the methods’ Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, hence “SWOT”. The three manufacturing methods of
Milling, Do It Yourself (DIY) and steam Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) were analysed and compared.
It was found that for a quantity of 100 no method was outstanding, yet both milling and DIY were
appropriate, especially considering the units were made entirely in house at Arcada. Having said
that, in the future if more than 200 units are required the best manufacturing method when
considering time and money is via steam-expanded polystyrene.

Keywords: U-Value, Foam, Manufacture.

Number of pages: 68
Language: English
Date of acceptance:
Contents
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................... 6
Data ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Glossary of Terms.......................................................................................................................................... 8
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Aim .................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Research Question and Hypothesis .................................................................................................. 10
1.3 Objective and Structure .................................................................................................................... 10
1.4 What is a U-Value Meter? ................................................................................................................. 11
2. Theory ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Heat Transfer .................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Theoretical Conduction ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 What is a U-Value? ............................................................................................................................ 15
2.4 Practice.............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.5 Applications....................................................................................................................................... 16
2.6 The Competition ............................................................................................................................... 16
2.7 The Construction of the Meter ......................................................................................................... 17
2.8 Need for the Internal Foam .............................................................................................................. 18
2.9 Types of Manufacturing .................................................................................................................... 18
2.10 Short vs. Long Run Strategy ............................................................................................................ 18
2.11 Computer Aided Design .................................................................................................................. 19
2.12 Computer Aided Manufacturing ..................................................................................................... 19
2.13 Milling Theory ................................................................................................................................. 20
2.14 Supportive Manufacturing Theory .................................................................................................. 21
2.14.1 SLA Printing .............................................................................................................................. 21
2.14.2 Silicone ..................................................................................................................................... 21
2.15 History of Polymer Foams ............................................................................................................... 22
2.16 Foam Cell......................................................................................................................................... 22
2.17 Foam Density .................................................................................................................................. 23
2.18 Materials of Foams ......................................................................................................................... 23
 2.18.1 Polyurethane ............................................................................................................................ 23
2.18.2 Polystyrene .............................................................................................................................. 23
2.19 Manufacturing Methods ................................................................................................................. 24
2.19.1 Slabstock .................................................................................................................................. 24
2.19.3 Moulding .................................................................................................................................. 24
2.20 Applications of Foams ..................................................................................................................... 26
2.21 Foam Selection ................................................................................................................................ 26
2.22 SWOT Assessment Method............................................................................................................. 26
3. Method ............................................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Milling ............................................................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1 Restrictions ................................................................................................................................ 27
3.1.2 Foam Choice............................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.3 Design in SolidWorks.................................................................................................................. 28
3.1.4 Technical Drawing of Milled Foam............................................................................................. 29
3.1.5 Design in Mastercam ................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.6 Production.................................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.7 Milling Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.8 Post Processing .......................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.9 Density ....................................................................................................................................... 34
3.1.10 Mass Production Cost Calculation ........................................................................................... 34
3.1.11 SWOT Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 34
3.1.12 SWOT Milling Summary ........................................................................................................... 38
3.2 Foam Expansion via DIY Method ...................................................................................................... 39
3.2.1 Method and Expectations .......................................................................................................... 39
3.2.2 Restrictions ................................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.3 Material and Properties ............................................................................................................. 39
3.2.4 SolidWorks Design ..................................................................................................................... 39
3.2.5 Technical Drawing of DIY ........................................................................................................... 41
3.2.6 Printing ....................................................................................................................................... 42
3.2.7 Mould Production ...................................................................................................................... 43
3.2.8 Foam Production ........................................................................................................................ 44
3.2.9 Outcome .................................................................................................................................... 44
3.2.10 Cost and Density ................................................................................................................. 45
 3.2.11 SWOT Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 46
3.2.12 SWOT DIY Summary ................................................................................................................. 50
3.3 Industrial Foam Expansion (EPS) ................................................................................................. 51
3.3.1 Restrictions ................................................................................................................................ 51
3.3.2 Design......................................................................................................................................... 51
3.3.3 Density ....................................................................................................................................... 51
3.3.4 Plan for Production .................................................................................................................... 52
3.3.4 SWOT EPS ................................................................................................................................... 52
3.3.5 SWOT EPS Summary................................................................................................................... 56
4. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 57
4.1 SWOT Qualitative Results ................................................................................................................. 57
4.2 Quantitative Time and Financial Cost Results................................................................................... 58
4.2.1 Cost Comparison Short Run ....................................................................................................... 59
4.2.2 Cost Comparison Long Run ........................................................................................................ 60
4.2.3 Time Comparison Short Run ...................................................................................................... 61
4.2.4 Time Comparison Long Run ....................................................................................................... 62
4.2.5 Cost x Time Short Run ................................................................................................................ 63
4.2.6 Cost x Time Long Run ................................................................................................................. 64
5. Discussion................................................................................................................................................ 65
5.1 Time and Financial Costs Discussion ................................................................................................. 65
5.2 SWOT Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 65
5.3 Discussion Resolution ....................................................................................................................... 66
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 66
References .................................................................................................................................................. 67
Acknowledgments
My supervisor Mathew Vihtonen has been incredibly supportive throughout not only my thesis but my
studies alike. He has always been constructive and I would like to say thank you. I would like to thank
Erland Nyroth for his invaluable expertise in manufacturing and his guidance throughout this project. I
would also like to thank Mikael Paronen for his role in managing this project and his determination to
network and promote the device as well as his guidance to me personally. I would also like to make thanks
to all those involved currently and previously in this specific project such as Harri Anukka and Dennis
Biström.
Data
Figures
Figure 1. U-Value Meter.............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2. Theoretical Heat Flow .................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3. Exploded U-Value Meter .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4. SLA Printing, courtesy of (Hipolite, 2014) .................................................................................... 21
Figure 5. Open (a.) Vs Closed (b.) Cell Foam, Courtesy of (Mills, 2007, p. 2) ............................................. 22
Figure 6. Production of Slabstock Foams, Courtesy of (Academlib, 6.1.1 Slabstock Foams) ..................... 24
Figure 7. Moulded Foam Production, courtesy of (Academlib, 6.1.2 Molded Foams) ............................... 24
Figure 8. Foam Injection Moulding Process, Courtesy of (Cad) .................................................................. 25
Figure 9. Snipping Tool Image from SolidWorks ......................................................................................... 28
Figure 10. Image of Arcada’s Vacuum Table ............................................................................................... 30
Figure 11. Snipping Tool Image of Step 1 Mastercam Tool Path ................................................................ 31
Figure 12 . Snipping Tool Image of Steps 2,3,4 Mastercam Tool Paths ...................................................... 32
Figure 13. Snipping Tool Image of Steps 5,6,7 Mastercam Tool Paths ....................................................... 32
Figure 14. Snipping Tool Image of Steps 8,9 Mastercam Tool Paths .......................................................... 32
Figure 15. Hot Air Gun in Use...................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 16. Final Milled Foam ....................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 17 . SolidWorks Design for Foam Expansion .................................................................................... 40
Figure 18. SLA Printed Pattern with Supports (left), Prior to Silicone Casting (right)................................. 42
Figure 19. Cast Silicone (left), Final Mould (right) ...................................................................................... 44
Figure 20. De-moulded Foam via DIY (left), In Use (right) .......................................................................... 45
Figure 21. Graph of Short Run Cost Comparison ........................................................................................ 59
Figure 22. Graph of Long Run Cost Comparison ......................................................................................... 60
Figure 23. Graph Time Comparison Short Run ........................................................................................... 61
Figure 24. Long Run Planned Time Comparison ......................................................................................... 62
Figure 25. Cost Times Time Planned Long Run Comparison ...................................................................... 64

Tables
Table 1. SWOT Analysis Outline .................................................................................................................. 26
Table 2. Cost of Outsourced Foam Milling .................................................................................................. 34
Table 3. SWOT Milling ................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 4. DIY ................................................................................................................................................. 50
Table 5. SWOT EPS ...................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 6. Short Run Cost Comparison .......................................................................................................... 59
Table 7. Long Run Cost Comparison ........................................................................................................... 60
Table 8. Time Comparison Short Run ......................................................................................................... 61
Table 9. Long Run Planned Time Comparison. ........................................................................................... 62
Table 10. Cost Times Time Short Run Comparison ..................................................................................... 63
Table 11. Cost Times Time Planned Long Run Comparison ........................................................................ 64
Glossary of Terms
Polymers

Ps Polystyrene

EPS Expanded Polystyrene

Pu Polyurethane

PLA Polylactic Acid

Temperature and Energy

K Kelvin

C Celcius

W Watt

k Thermal Conduction Coefficient (W/m°C)

h Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m°C)

Printing

FDM Fused Deposition Modelling

SLA Stereolithography

UV Ultra Violet

U-Value Meter

AUX Auxiliary

PCB Printed Circuit Board

Moulding

Flash Excess material forced through the part line

Part line Divider between the mould halves

Units

g Gram

kg Kilogram (103 Grams)

N Newtons (kg.m.s-2)

m Metre

mm Millimetre (10-3 Metres)

L litres (106 mm3)

Bar 100 kPa

Pa Pascal (1 N/m2)

Milling

RPM Revolutions per minute (of the cutting tool)

Cutting Speed The speed difference between the cutting tool and the work surface in mm/min

d Diameter of the cutting tool in mm

Feed rate The velocity that the cutting surface advances into the material

Chip load The radial depth of a tooth per single revolution

No. of teeth The number of cutting surfaces on the tool

G-Code Instructions for the machine in CNC

CNC Computer Numerical Control

 1. Introduction
1.1 Aim
To select a mass manufacturing means for the U-Value Meter’s internal foam with a primary focus on cost
and time for 100 units.

1.2 Research Question and Hypothesis

What is the most appropriate manufacturing method for the U-Value Meters’ internal foam for a quantity
of 100?

It is expected to find an appropriate manufacturing method, however as the desired quantity is between
short and long run, an optimal method is not expected.

1.3 Objective and Structure

In order to fulfil stated aim, it will be necessary to understand the required needs before researching foam
classifications and materials. Consequently, this will be followed by an analysis of manufacturing methods
for appropriate foams and an examination of how the item in question is currently produced via milling.
Other methods of DIY and EPS will then be examined. The results will then be analysed, compared and
discussed with a focus on time and cost in connection with a SWOT analysis.

10
 1.4 What is a U-Value Meter?
Since 2010 Arcada University of Applied Science has developed the U-Value Meter. In short, the device is
used in order to define energy loss in the form of heat through varying surfaces. See figure 1. below. The
mathematics of heat transfer and the application of the meter is examined on the following pages.

Figure 1. U-Value Meter

11
2. Theory
2.1 Heat Transfer
Heat transfer is categorized via convection, conduction and radiation. Convection refers to fluid
movement due to heat energy where the “molecules expand upon introduction of thermal energy. As
temperature of the given fluid mass increases, the volume of the fluid must increase by the same factor”
(Cengel, 2012) this in turn causes fluid and energy displacement. Conduction “transfers heat via direct
molecular collision” (Gonzalez, 2015) such that the higher speed (energy) particles will collide with those
of lower kinetic energy consequently speeding them up and increasing their kinetic energy. Radiation
“generates from the emission of electromagnetic waves. These waves carry the energy away from the
emitting object” (Gonzalez, 2015). However, in regards to the U-Value Meter, only conduction is
measured and relevant as explored in the following sections.

2.2 Theoretical Conduction

Mathematically thermal resistance is calculated by adding the thermal conduction of the elements of the
wall in series. One such example is as follows:

“Consider a 1.2 m high and 2 m wide glass window whose thickness is 6 mm and thermal conductivity
k = 0.78 W/m°C. Determine the steady rate of heat transfer through this glass window for a day during
which the room is maintained at 24°C while the temperature of the outdoors is -5°C. Take the convection
heat transfer coefficients on the inner and outer surfaces of the window to be h1 = 10 W/m2°C and
h2 = 25W/m2°C, and disregard any heat transfer by radiation”. (Cengel, 2012, p. 188)

The thermal resistance of a wall is examined in respect to electrical resisters. The rate of heat transfer is
considered in series as demonstrated by figure 2. with heat transfer from left to right:

12
 24°C inside with -5°C outside with
wall h1 = 10 W/m2 wall h2 = 25 W/m2

Figure 2. Theoretical Heat Flow

The area (A) = 1,2 X 2 m

= 2,4 m2

1
Where: 𝑅 = ℎ𝐴 Equation 1

𝑙
𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = 𝐾𝐴 Equation 2

𝑇∞1 −𝑇∞2
𝑞= 𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
Equation 3

𝑞 = 𝑈𝐴∆𝑇 Equation 4

1
𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑈𝐴 Equation 5

1
𝑈 = 𝑅𝐴 Equation 6

(Incropera, 2006, pp. 98-99)

1 1
Therefore: 𝑅1 = ℎ = = 0,0416 °C⁄𝑊 (see equation 1)
1𝐴 10×2,4

𝑙 0,006
𝑅𝑔𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐴 = 0,76×2,4
= 0,0033 °C⁄𝑊 (see equation 2)

1 1
𝑅2 = ℎ = = 0,016 °C⁄𝑊 (see equation 1)
1𝐴 25×2,4

13
Consequently: 𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑅1 + 𝑅𝑔𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 + 𝑅2

𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 0,0616 °C⁄𝑊

Steady Heat Transfer:

𝑇∞1 −𝑇∞2 24+5

𝑞= = = 471 𝑊 (see equation 3)
𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 0,0616

1
As: 𝑞 = 𝑈𝐴∆𝑇 and 𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑈𝐴 (see equation 4,5)

1
Then: 𝑈= (see equation 6)
𝑅𝐴

1
𝑈= = 6,76 W/m2K
0,0616 × 2,4

(Incropera, 2006, pp. 98-99)

However, this was just a theoretical example and usually the R1, or RSI (Resistance Surface Internal) is
0,13 and the R2, or RSE (Resistance Surface External) is 0,04.

Given these more realistic values the resistance is therefore:

𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑅1 + 𝑅𝑔𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 + 𝑅2
0,006
𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 0,13 + + 0,04
0,76
𝑅𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 0,178

Therefore, the U-Value is calculated more realistically as:

1
𝑈=𝑅 (see equation 6)

1
𝑈 = 0,178 = 5,6 W/m2K

14
 2.3 What is a U-Value?
A U-Value refers to “the rate of transfer of heat through a structure divided by the difference in
temperature across the structure” (Lymath, 2015). Consequently the lower the U-Value the better the
insulator with the units given logically in W/m2K (ie. Watts per Metre Squared Kelvin).

However, Arcada University’s meter does not rely on theory but rather the recorded energy a wall absorbs
in relation to the change in temperature the wall withstands as outlined by equation 7 below.

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑊)
𝑈 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = = W/m2 K
∆𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑚2 )

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝑊) 1
𝑈 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = ×
𝑇∞2 − 𝑇1 1000 × 0,01 𝑚 2

(note: the area of the meter is 100 x 100 mm = 0,01m2)

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝑊)⁄
10
𝑈 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = 𝑇∞2 −𝑇1
Equation 7

For example if the meter shows a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius and power of 140 mW when the
outside temperature is 7 degrees, the U-Value is calculated as follows:

140⁄
10
𝑈 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 = = 1,08 W/m2K
20−7

2.4 Practice
Materials should hold stable insulation properties irrelevant of the application however, “workmanship
and installation standards can strongly affect the thermal transmittance. If insulation is fitted poorly, with
gaps and cold bridges, then the thermal transmittance can be considerably higher than desired”. (Lymath,
2015). This results in buildings requiring greater heating than initially calculated costing more in the end
and preventing classifications of “passive houses”. A passive house is a “building standard that is truly
energy efficient, comfortable and affordable at the same time” (About Passive House - What is a Passive
House?, 2015). They usually make use of the surrounding nature such as the sun or internal heat sources
so that the energy demand does not exceed 15 kWh/m2 (About Passive House - What is a Passive House?,
2015).

15
 2.5 Applications
By giving true insulation data on specific walls, appropriate measures can be taken to improve the
structure. For example if it is discovered that a building is losing extensive energy through the windows,
then adding double glazed may significantly decrease the heating cost and pay off the new windows
within a 10 -12 years for example.

The applications include not only improving pre-existing structures as examined above, but also in
recommendations for improving building standards, cost optimization of new structures and
recommendations for heritage listed buildings.

2.6 The Competition

There are pre-existing heat flux meters that use a thermopile sensor attached to a surface that calculate
the thermal transmittance by dividing the heat flow by the average temperature difference over a period
of weeks (Lymath, 2015). This method has huge disadvantages due to the timeframe, cumbersome
equipment and disturbance to the inhabitance. The Meter developed at Arcada is small and light leaving
no residue as well as producing reliable measurements within an hour or two without the need for cables.

16
 2.7 The Construction of the Meter
The meter is constructed in a sandwich format of a lower circuit board followed by an insulating foam
topped with a top circuit board nestled within the protective case. Note that the case does not cover the
active base circuit board that supplies the energy to the contact surface. See figure 3. Below.

a
b
c
d
e

Figure 3. Exploded U-Value Meter

a. The base circuit board contains a heating element with thermometer located in the middle. Wires
extend off the plate to connect with the top circuit board. A female USB connection attaches the
reference pin at the top.
b. The foam thermally isolates the boards and offers rigidity to the structure. See the following page.
c. The top circuit board contains the electronics, screen, switches, battery connection, LCD display
and a facing down female AUX connection for data transfer and charging.
d. The external reference pin contains a thermometer connected to the base board via a male USB
connector. It is housed in the case under the top bridge when not in use.
e. The case protects the unit, houses a ¼”- 20 photography nut for measurements taken on difficult
surfaces and a magnet to hold the reference pin on the top.

Note; there are plastic nut towers and screws holding all pieces together left out of the figure.

17
 2.8 Need for the Internal Foam

The foam has two key roles, to isolate thermally the electronics so any heat generated by the battery does
not reach the base circuit board. In addition, the foam holds the device together in one piece making a
robust package. This in turn allows for measurements to be taken.

2.9 Types of Manufacturing

There are two key forms of manufacturing, additive and subtractive. Subtractive manufacturing is
considered traditional manufacturing as it relies on removing material from a larger block. This means of
production is often achieved via milling or turning (Paramasivan, 2016). Additive manufacturing relies on
“successively depositing material in layers such that it becomes a predesigned shape” (Paramasivan,
2016). The most common form of additive manufacturing is 3D printing that rely on slicing a design into
layers that are then created one at a time. See section 2.14.1 for more information on SLA printing.

2.10 Short vs. Long Run Strategy

Production can also be considered in two other lights, short and long run (Investopedia). Companies
especially refer to strategy as either short or long run. In essence, short run refers to the company’s ability
to fulfil the current agreements and contracts without the need for expansion. When considering the U-
Value Meters, all that was actually needed at the beginning of this thesis was 20-30 metres for the current
orders. This is short run. Whereas the long run refers to the ability to fulfil hypothetical or desirable
contracts. In this situation all factors (such as size of the operation, duration of the lease and desired
output) are in flux, ie. can be changed (Investopedia). In regards to quantity of the metres long run refers
to 500 or more units. Consequently, the U-Value metre project is in a state of short run, with a plan of
long run yet with a desired quantity of metres in between. Unfortunately manufacturing methods are
only financially viable as short or long run, but not in between. This is the conundrum of medium run
production.

18
 2.11 Computer Aided Design
CAD or ‘Computer Aided Design’ refers to a plethora of computer-based programs that facilitate the
creation of two or three-dimensional graphical representations of physical objects (Siemens, CAD/
Computer- Aided Design, 2017). The reasons for using this software include:
 Superior and more accurate visualisation of the final product including assemblies and
interlocking parts.
 Improved accuracy compared to manual techniques.
 Better documentation of designs.
 The ability to reuse design data easily.
(Siemens, CAD/ Computer- Aided Design, 2017)
Some of the most common computer programs include:
 AutoCAD
 Rhinoceros 3D
 Solid Edge
 SolidWorks

2.12 Computer Aided Manufacturing

Computer aided manufacturing or CAM “refers to the use of numerical control (NC) computer software
applications to create detailed instructions (G-code)” (Siemens, CAM / Computer-Aided Manufacturing,
2017) these instructions instruct computer numerical controlled (CNC) tools to manufacture the part.
(Siemens, CAM / Computer-Aided Manufacturing, 2017). The benefits of using CAM include:

 Maximising the full potential of production tools such as speeds and feeds and also part
complexity.
 Standardise production with product lifecycle management
 Aid in producing shop documentation

Examples of CAM software include:

 Mastercam
 SolidCAM

19
 2.13 Milling Theory
Milling is subtractive manufacturing as outlined in section 2,9 above and relies on some simple equations
to ensure safe and optimal cutting. Milling uses spinning bits with cutting teeth that move in the x, y, z
planes in order to remove material from a block. Consequently, there are restrictions placed by the
material being removed and the cutting tool. One such example is if the tool removes too much material
at a time the tool can become stuck or break however if too little is removed per cut then the tool needs
to make more cuts for the same outcome wearing out the tool and taking unnecessarily long. Therefore,
speeds and feeds are calculated in respect to the material being cut. The general rule is the harder the
material, the slower the cut.

Therefore,

(𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑)
RPM = 𝜋𝑑
Equation 8

𝐶h𝑖𝑝 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
Feed Rate = 𝑅𝑃𝑀 × ( )× 𝑁𝑜. 𝑇𝑒𝑒𝑡h
𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ
Equation 9

(Smid, 2003, p. 524)

Where,
 Cutting speed is the speed difference between the cutting tool and the work surface in mm/min
 d is diameter of the cutting tool in mm
 RPM is the revolutions per minute (of the cutting tool)
 Feed rate is the velocity that the cutting surface advances into the material
 Chip load is the radial depth of a tooth per single revolution
 No. of teeth is the number of cutting surfaces on the tool
(Smid, 2003, p. 524)

20
 2.14 Supportive Manufacturing Theory
2.14.1 SLA Printing
SLA or Stereolithography is a form of additive manufacturing used in section 3.2.6 of this thesis. The part
is constructed layer by layer by a UV laser (or projector) curing a UV sensitive liquid resin. The production
means is sensitive to overhangs however supports can be generated and are easily removed as the cured
resin is often brittle (Materialise). See figure 4. below.

Figure 4. SLA Printing, courtesy of (Hipolite, 2014)

2.14.2 Silicone
Casting silicone is used in section 3.2 and is utilised for the DIY method of foam production. Silicone is an
inorganic polymer as it is constructed of chains of alternating silicon and oxygen atoms, differing from the
conventional carbon chains of organic polymers (Britannica, 2009). Having said that usually vinyls (CH2),
methyls (CH3) or phenyls (C6H5) are attached to the silicone atom chains as silicone is tetravalent (bonds
on four electrons) (Britannica, 2009). Therefore the general formula for silicone polymers is (R2SiO)x
where R can be any organic group (Britannica, 2009). There are two types of vulcanised silicone rubber
depending if they are vulcanised at room temperature (RTV) or at high temperatures (HTV). Usually RTV
silicones are of lower molecular weight (Britannica, 2009). Having said that the general properties of
silicones are: resistant to heat and cold, flexible, water repellent and easily sterilised (Wacker, 2017).
These properties make them appropriate for protecting electronics, sealing bathrooms, casting moulds
and medical uses such as wound dressings (Wacker, 2017).

21
 2.15 History of Polymer Foams
Polymer foams have been developed since the 1920s starting with that of latex foams (Frisch, 2006). In
regards to latex foams, two key production methods of the timeframe are most relevant known as the
Dunlop and Talalay processes. Both processes rely on vulcanization (liquid latex expanded and hardened
by use of cross-linking with sulphur) of the rubber to expand into the mould. However, the Talalay process
uses a vacuum to expand the foam followed by freezing and the addition of carbon dioxide prior to
vulcanization (Anonymous, 2017).

These innovations encouraged the development of flexible, semi flexible and rigid foams in use today.
Within the flexible classification, materials commonly used include polyvinyl chloride, polyolefin,
urethane, silicone and fluorocarbons (Frisch, 2006). In regards to rigid foams, the most common materials
include polystyrene, polyurethane and those of an epoxy base (Frisch, 2006).

2.16 Foam Cell

As foam cavities are constructed from bubbles, there are two key structures, open and closed (Kevin,
2016). Open refers to cavities that are connected and able to ‘breath’, closed refers to those cavities that
a completely separated by the foam. Please see figure 5. below.

Figure 5. Open (a.) Vs Closed (b.) Cell Foam, Courtesy of (Mills, 2007, p. 2)

22
 2.17 Foam Density
Foam density is analysed proportionally to the density of the raw material. Of course the foam material
has exactly the same weight per volume, however when the cavity volume increases, then the density
decreases (Mills, 2007, p. 3). Consequently, the equation is as follows:

𝜌𝑓
𝑅= Equation 10
𝜌𝑃

Where the R is the relative density, 𝜌𝑓 is the foam density and 𝜌𝑃 is the material density. “When no other
phases (such as glass fibres or solid fire retardant additives) are present, R is the volume fraction of
polymer in the foam” (Mills, 2007, p. 3). In these situations it is expected that low density foams have an
R less than 0,1.

2.18 Materials of Foams

2.18.1 Polyurethane
The foam expands and crosslinks via the following general polyurethane equation (Udumbasseri, 2016).

𝑅𝑁 = 𝐶 = 𝑂 + 𝐻𝑂 − 𝑅1 → 𝑅𝑁𝐻 − (𝑂𝑅1 )𝐶 = 𝑂

However, the slabstock foam uses five key materials of:

 Polyol, usually triols making up the bulk of the foam.

 Isocyanate, such as toluene di iso-cyanate is used as a raw material.
 Blowing Agent, usually carbon dioxide used for expansion. It is formed by the reaction of
iso-cyanate and water.
 Tin and Amine Catalyst, used to restrict the rate of carbon dioxide formation such as di-
methyl amino ethanol or triethylene diamine.
 Silicone Oil Surfactant, to assist uniform mixing preventing collapsed cells.
 The Process may also utalise pigments and fire retardants.

(Udumbasseri, 2016)

2.18.2 Polystyrene
The other key material for foam production is polystyrene. Expanded PS “is manufactured as beads
containing pentane. When they are heated in steam, the hydrocarbon volatilises and the bead expands.
These are subsequently blown into moulds and fused by further steaming and then cooling” (York, 2014).

23
 2.19 Manufacturing Methods
There are two key manufacturing methods of polymer foams known as slabstock and moulding.

2.19.1 Slabstock
Slabstock refers to a manufacturing technique whereby the foam is continuously deposited and expanded
onto a conveyer belt consequently creating a large block or “slab” that is then cut to size. (Academlib,
6.1.1 Slabstock Foams). See figure 6. below.

Figure 6. Production of Slabstock Foams, Courtesy of (Academlib, 6.1.1 Slabstock Foams)

2.19.3 Moulding
The second key manufacturing method of polymer foams is moulding whereby “the components of the
foam are mixed and injected or poured into a premade mould that the foam fills as it forms. The foam
has a set resistance time and is removed” (Academlib, 6.1.2 Molded Foams). See figure 7.

Figure 7. Moulded Foam Production, courtesy of (Academlib, 6.1.2 Molded Foams)

24
The process of producing expanded polystyrene (EPS) is in three stages. The first stage is pre-expansion
where polystyrene beads come into contact with steam and the pre-foaming agent (often pentane) starts
to boil causing the beads to expand 40 to 50 times in volume (EPS, 2014). The beads are then conditioned
where they are left to mature and reach equilibrium temperature and pressure. The final stage is the
placement of the beads in a mould and steam being added once more. This causes further expansion and
fusing of the beads to one another (EPS, 2014).

Moulding of foams can be speedup via injection moulding whereby the materials are fed into a screw
prior to being pushed into a mould as demonstrated in figure 8.

Figure 8. Foam Injection Moulding Process, Courtesy of (Cad)

The advantage of this manufacturing means include:

 Complex designs
 Conditioned during production to ensure closed cell, self-skinned and crosslinked
 Rigid
 Impact resistant
 Relatively fast production per unit
 Cheap moulding as usually only aluminium moulds are required.

(Cad)

25
 2.20 Applications of Foams
The applications of polymer foams are divided into the four key categories of packaging, building and
construction, furniture and bedding and automotive (Markets, 2016). The reasons for their applications
are logically directly dependent upon their physical properties of thermal /sound insulation,
impact/weight absorbance, relative density and affordability. It is important to note that these properties
make rigid foams highly useful in the construction of composite cores. This is due to the importance of
composite skins absorbing the compressive and tensile loads whilst the foam only holds the skins apart.

2.21 Foam Selection

There are two key reasons for selecting a closed cell foam for this application. The first of which is in
regards to rigidity as “open cell foam is soft – like a cushion” (Foam-Tech, 2008) this is not appropriate for
the U-Value Meters as an open cell foam would not support the circuit boards as required. The second is
logically in relation to thermal isolation. Close cell foam will hold lower U-Values, ie. be better insulators.
This is a requirement, as the foam needs to isolate the heat between the circuit boards and the battery.
(Foam-Tech, 2008).

2.22 SWOT Assessment Method

When examining and comparing anything it is important to use a fair framework. One of the most
common is the SWOT analysis. The tool was initially developed by Albert S. Humphrey in the 1960s to
separate internal and external impacts via a matrix (Tools). SWOT is an acronym standing for Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Strengths refers to the positive attributes, weaknesses to the
negative and are both internal factors. In regards to external factors lies the opportunities (the places to
expand) and threats, the hazards. See table 1.

Table 1. SWOT Analysis Outline

INTERNAL External
Strengths Assets Opportunities Areas to improve

Weaknesses Shortcomings Threats The competition

26
 3. Method
Three manufacturing methods are explored under section 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. The three manufacturing
methods of Milling, DIY and EPS were chosen as they represent a variety of manufacturing strategies from
short run to long run. The methods were also chosen as two out of the three can be used in house at
Arcada.

3.1 Milling
Until December 2016 the foam for the meters had been milled individually from both sides, this was highly
inefficient and consequently the author designed a piece to be milled from only one side. Having said
that, it is commonplace the mill, waterjet cut or any other means of subtractive manufacturing processing.
This is due to the soft nature of foam whereby exceptionally high speeds and feeds can be used and the
tool wears very slowly. It is therefore an affordable method for processing foams with varying dimensions.
However, one downside of such a means is the surface as often with the case at Arcada, the foam became
‘fluffy’ on the milled sides.

3.1.1 Restrictions
Prior to designing the piece it is necessary to first determine the limitations of the in house HAAS milling
machine. Consequently, the following restrictions were noted as follows:

 Max size of the milling area is 600 x 300 mm

 Max size of the vacuum table is 300 x 335 mm

Post analysis of the milling restrictions the physical restrictions were analysed as follows:

 Max 100 x 100 x 40 mm dimensions in X, Y, Z orientation

 Draft from thermoformed case is either 0° on one side and 3° degrees on the remaining
three.
 The electronics (especially those prone to heating) require a tight tolerance in cable holes
to prevent hot or cold channels.
 The battery needs to be as far from the rear circuit board as possible to minimise heat
travel.
 Holes need to be milled through the piece for attachment via screw towers to the case of
the device.

27
 3.1.2 Foam Choice
The foam was selected as Finnfoam a polystyrene closed cell foam. It is nonhazardous to health
comprising of 96-98% polystyrene and carbon dioxide. The remainder consists of colour agents, stabilizers
and cell structure modifiers (Finnfoam). The production method of Finnfoam is extrusion compressed, ie.
It is a slab that expands into a max width and height consequently developing a rigid hardened waterproof
surface on both the top and bottom of the slab. The cell structure is homogeneous and of course closed
with a relative density of 32 kg/m3 (Finnfoam). See section 3.1.9 for the relative density. The material is
highly affordable at €13,90 per sheet of 50 x 600x 2500 mm producing up to 250 pieces per sheet.

3.1.3 Design in SolidWorks

Upon analysis of the restrictions, the piece was designed in solidWorks primarily with extrusions and
extrude cut features to yield the piece as follows:

Figure 9. Snipping Tool Image from SolidWorks

Technical drawings of the piece were developed not necessary for milling, but for referencing the
produced part. See section 3.1.4.

28
3.1.4 Technical Drawing of Milled Foam

29
 3.1.5 Design in Mastercam
The design then needs to be analysed and processed in Mastercam in order to produce the G-Code that
programs the mill.

In order to attach the foam to the mill one of two options is available, clamping or vacuum. Clamping is
very useful as it requires no external vices and can form a strong compression on the work pieces. It is
also the easiest to set-up. Using a vacuum table is more time consuming in the setup however it results in
a 0,9 bar pressure (90 000 N/m2) without the need for fixing devices on top of the work piece. It is highly
useful for securing foam as it produces a consistent regular force across the base of the piece as opposed
to point loads given by clamps. Consequently, a vacuum table is most appropriate. See figure 10.

Figure 10. Image of Arcada’s Vacuum Table

3.1.6 Production
Erland Nyroth developed the toolpaths and milled four prototypes each with minor changes specified by
the student. Erland Nyroth developed a timesaving array of six units per cycle taking 14 minutes per series
of six. Upon development of the optimum design the student then developed their own G-code in
Mastercam for their own educational purposes as outlined in section 3.1.7.

30
 3.1.7 Milling Procedure
On opening the parasolid file in Mastercam the origin was moved to the top left of the piece as it is the
standard location. To achieve this the design was rotated and moved.

The procedure chosen by the student involved nine steps using only three tools to create the shape. Each
tool is changed only once to avoid unnecessary tool changes.

Step 1:
Tool: 10 mm end mill
See figure 11. (right)
The tool is HSS or High Speed Steel with 2 teeth that
cuts a finishing cutting speed cut of aluminium at
75-105 m/min (Smid, 2003, p. 523). Therefore, as
foam is substantially softer than aluminium,
250 m/min is used with a chipload of 0.2 mm/tooth.
The revolutions per minute (RPM) feed rate and time
is calculated as follows. See equations 8 and 9.

Figure 11. Snipping Tool Image of Step 1 Mastercam

RPM = 250 x 1000/(20π) Tool Path

=3978
Feed rate = 3978 x 0.2 x 2 = 1591 mm/min
Length = 120 mm
Time = 120/1591 = 0,08 minutes

For the following eight operations Mastercam calculated all the speeds and feeds however for the 4 mm
end mill the calculations are completely incorrect as it was chosen to use the five times gearbox that runs
at 20 000 RPM and therefore the chipload is one fifth if the same speed is used. See figures 12, 13, 14.

31
 2 3 4

Figure 12 . Snipping Tool Image of Steps 2,3,4 Mastercam Tool Paths

5 6 7

Figure 13. Snipping Tool Image of Steps 5,6,7 Mastercam Tool Paths

8 9

Figure 14. Snipping Tool Image of Steps 8,9 Mastercam Tool Paths

Steps 2, 3, and 4 are completed with the same 10 mm end mill of step one. Steps 5, 6, and 7 are completed
with the 4 mm triple fluted end mill with the gearbox. Step 8 is completed with the 4 mm triple fluted end
mill with the gearbox whilst Step 9 uses the 3 degree drafted end mill with 3 flutes.

32
 3.1.8 Post Processing
Upon completion of the milling, the pieces need finishing of the surface. Due to the mill cuts the surface
is fluffy and electrostatic with the cut foam. Consequently, the surface is sanded lightly. The surface is
then hardened with a hot air gun at 300 degrees Celsius for a few seconds per side. See figure 15.

Figure 15. Hot Air Gun in Use

As a result of the vacuum table the holes for the screw towers and electronic connections could not be
completed by the mill or the vacuum would be lost. Therefore the holes leave a 0,2 mm bridge that is
simply punched out with a drill bit by hand.

Figure 16. Final Milled Foam

33
 3.1.9 Density
As the manufacturer specified this 32 kg/m3 it is easy to calculate the foam density via equation 10 as
Polystyrene has a density of 1050 kg/m3 (Crow, 2016):

𝜌𝑓
𝑅=
𝜌𝑃

32
𝑅=
1050

𝑅 = 0,03

3.1.10 Mass Production Cost Calculation

The material cost is calculated as follows:

Size needed per piece 120 x 120 x 38 mm

Size of sheet 50 x 600 x 2500 mm

Therefore (600/120) x (2500/120) = 625 units per sheet costing € 13,90

13,90/ 625 = €0,02224 per unit

According to a company quote, the cost of milling for varying quantities ignoring material cost is as follows
in table 2:

Table 2. Cost of Outsourced Foam Milling

Quantity € /unit €
10 46 460
100 22 2200
500 16,5 8250
1000 11 11000

3.1.11 SWOT Analysis

The milling of foam pieces has shown some great potential yet still holds many weaknesses to be discussed
below in the SWOT analysis (see section 2.22 for more details on SWOT).

34
Strengths

The internal factors of this production method revolve around the advantages of short run manufacturing
as outlined below.

Cost

For short run production, the cost is relatively cheap as the material is easily available and each item can
be changed without a significant increase in cost.

Individualisation

As the HAAS milling machine mills out each piece separately according to the G-Code, then each piece can
easily be modified. This is especially relevant for developing the optimal shape.

Time

Erland Nyroth programed the machine to produce an array of 6 in just 14 minutes averaging just 2 minutes
20 seconds each piece of milling time, add in on the tool changes, stock set-up and piece removal, the
pieces can still be produced in around three minutes (neglecting post processing).

When considering post processing of sanding and the use of hot air, an estimate of 5 minutes per piece is
used resulting in 12 units per hour once the correct tool paths and G-code are created.

Immediate Testing

As the pieces are milled in house at Arcada then the pieces can be examined and tested immediately so
in the development of the optimum design, change can be made immediately and new G-code produced.
This is especially relevant when comparing to an outsourced method that could easily require a two day
postage post production.

Material Choice

As milling machines can process a large variety of materials especially those of closed cell foams, then the
optimum material can be selected from a larger library than other manufacturing means such as reactive
injection moulding. For this specific situation, thermally insulating foam had been selected.

35
Weaknesses

Conversely to the strengths, the internal weaknesses of milling revolve around the shortcomings of short
run manufacturing as discussed below.

Cost per item

As extensive work is required per piece produced with programing, milling and post production, the cost
per piece is relatively high when larger quantities are needed. At a quantity of 10 the cost is a staggering
€46, but by 100 units the cost per unit is an affordable €11.

Post processing needed

Unfortunately upon removal from the vacuum table each piece of the array of six needed to be cut out,
the surface needed to be sanded then blasted with the hot air gun and finally the holes for the screw
towers (and electronics) needed to be punched out. This is a real disadvantage as other manufacturing
methods are ready to use upon removal from the machine.

Finish

The surface finish is far from desirable as post milling it is ‘fluffy’ and electrostatic. Upon post processing
the surface no longer holds fluff but is very rough. As the foam is to be covered by a thermoformed case
it is not a huge problem for the application however it does lack the last refinement needed for a
professional impression.

Base is tacky from sealing tape

As a result the vacuum table design, extra vacuum tape is needed with a rubber seal to maintain suction.
This tape is then stuck to the base of the foam. There is no need to remove the sticky tape as it doesn’t
impede the functionality of the pieces. However, the tape does impact the presentation of the foam.

36
 Waste

As this manufacturing method relies on removal of material, the material that is removed is waste. As a
result of the material forming dust rather than chips the material has to cleared with a vacuum cleaner
and cannot be re processed and used. Having said that, the waste material can be regained as energy as
it is a polymer. The slab is 50 mm high and needs to be cut on the band saw in the x and y direction
resulting in a total estimated waste of 40 %. Having said that, as the density is so low and the financial
cost is minimal the waste material is likewise negligible.

Opportunities

The external opportunities of this manufacturing method allow for the development and refinement of
milling allowing for cheaper, cleaner and more refined products.

Larger array in larger machine

As much of the time is taken in tool changes or placing the stock in place. Time and money can be saved
if more foam pieces are produced in one series. Unfortunately the vacuum table dimensions limit this
and even if it didn’t the milling table is limited to 300 x 600 mm. If outsources a larger array of 5 x 5 may
be utilised in order to minimise time and cost.

Automatic post processing

If mass production was required by this method then automatic post processing of sanding and hot air
can be implemented.

Develop sealing system with O ring so no tape is needed.

For a professional finish on the base then large O-rings can be used instead of the ribbon to maintain
minimum loss of suction and would not require any sticky vacuum tape.

Personalise each piece, eg. with a reference number

As all foam pieces can be made with varying dimensions then it reasons that each piece can be made with
an individual serial number. This number may be useful when assuring the correct reference pin is
connected to the correct meter. However, as each meter case has an individual sticker number to linkup
with the meter and pin, then personalising the foam is unnecessary.

37
Threats

The external element of threats rely on the other methods examined in this thesis of: EPS and DIY casting.
However, it is also fair to consider carving out the pieces completely by hand. The foam responds
positively to the scalpel blade and if an individual piece is required, then it stands to reason that it can be
cut by hand. In continuation to subtractive manufacturing methods. Foam is an excellent material for
hot wire cutting where a current is passed through a wire with high resistance that then heats up and is
able to slice through foam like a hot knife through butter.

3.1.12 SWOT Milling Summary

Table 3. SWOT Milling

INTERNAL External
Strengths Opportunities
 Cost  Larger array
 Individualization  Automatic post processing
 Time  Develop sealing system with an O-ring so
 Immediate Testing no tape is needed
 Material Choice  Personalise each piece, eg. with a
reference number

Weaknesses Threats
 Cost per item  EPS
 Post processing needed  DIY Casting
 Finish  Carving
 Base is tacky from sealing tape  Hot wire
 Waste

38
 3.2 Foam Expansion via DIY Method
3.2.1 Method and Expectations
DIY method refers to ‘do it yourself’ with the idea that anyone can complete it at home or in their shed.
For this section of the thesis it is slightly more complex as it relies on the school’s restrictions rather than
an individuals. This is particularly relevant when it comes to the production of the pattern.

The reason for this venture is to prepare the student to produce an EPS mould design. The design will not
be produced due to the high initial cost, however the preparation via DIY will allow for the design to be
on call if the need arise for an EPS moulded mould. However, this venture also offers information for the
possibility of short run moulded foam and produces an interesting comparison to other means of foam
production.

3.2.2 Restrictions
The key restrictions to this means of production rest heavily upon demoulding requirements and the
availability and cost of materials. A budget of 100 Euros has consequently been set and the mould needs
to be flexible enough to withdraw the columns to form the holes. It is also feasible that the foam will
either expand too much or shrink significantly upon curing producing inappropriate forms.

3.2.3 Material and Properties

The material of choice was a store bought polyurethane foam intended for filling gaps in walls. The
material is sold in a can and produces 22-28 litres.

3.2.4 SolidWorks Design

Considering the restrictions examined above, the piece was redesigned in SolidWorks with radii on all
edges. As it is unknown whether the foam is easily pierced by the electric pins under the switch, a cutout
was designed. The pins behind the screen have not been accounted for as it is expected that the expanded
foam will allow some give and will consequently align the top circuit board. The tab above the battery
holder by the PCB has been excluded from the design as the detail is too fine for foam expansion. The
holes for electrical connection between the PCBs have been realigned so as the construction is more
accurate and faster. See figure 17.

39
 Figure 17 . SolidWorks Design for Foam Expansion

The piece is produced in SolidWorks exactly the same as previously with the use of extrusions, extrude
cuts and fillets. See section 3.2.5 below of the technical drawing of the piece on the following page.

40
3.2.5 Technical Drawing of DIY

41
 3.2.6 Printing
The pattern was shelled inward to minimise wasted resin and printed via SLA (stereolithography) printing
on Arcada’s FormLabs Form2 in white resin. The material choice is white resin2 due to it’s rigidity and
availability at Arcada. The layer height was set to 0,1 mm, the largest height available as the detail does
not need to be flawless for this form as the foam itself will not be flawless either. See figure 18 below.

Figure 18. SLA Printed Pattern with Supports (left), Prior to Silicone Casting (right)

The piece was printed on a 30 degree angle with supports in order to prevent the overhung top surface
from collapsing. It is expected that the silicone when casting will tear with the long thin rods to allow for
holes to form. Consequently, rigid black support rods were used to sit within the casted resin. See figure
18. above right.

Upon completion of the print, post processing is necessary in order to finish the surface. This post
processing involves submerging the piece in a two series bath of isoproponal the first ‘dirty’ one for 45
minutes and the second ‘clean’ one for five minutes. As a tacky layer is still present it is necessary to wash
the surface with warm soapy water. The post curing time is 48 hours and the surface must be dry and
non-tacky. The reason for a smooth surface is twofold; to cast a smooth surface on and prevent
contamination of the curing silicone.

42
 3.2.7 Mould Production
As there are thin towers for the screw towers and electronic connections to be made from silicone.
Internal supports are to be made to hold the silicone upright. This is similar to steel in concrete. See
figure 18. The printed piece needs to be secured to a plywood base with plywood walls with the following
dimensions:

1400 x 1400 x 800 high = 1 568 000 mm3

Whilst the volume of the pattern from SolidWorks = 267 000 mm3

1 kg of silicone with unknown density, volume found from measuring the can

31 x 50 x50 x 120 = 943 000 mm3

Therefore the silicone height is found by

140 x 140 x height – 267 000 = 943 000 mm3

height = 62 mm

Making a theoretical 20 mm even wall on all sides and base of the mould. Silicone choice was Silicon NV
purchased from a hobby shop for the reason it is self-degassing and designed for casting.

The silicone requires a 2% vulcaniser. As the whole weight of silicone is used, then

1010 g silicone / 98 x 2 = 20,6 g of vulcaniser for the 1010 g silicone

Mixed for 5 minutes then cast over the printed pattern. The silicone mould was left for 24 hours in a plastic
bag in case of silicone leakage.

After 24 hours the plywood case is broken and the pattern removed see figure 19.

43
Figure 19. Cast Silicone (left), Final Mould (right)

3.2.8 Foam Production

The foam is injected into the silicone mould filling roughly half prior to the lid being clamped down. The
optimum setting is 90 minutes in an oven at 50°C. They can then be removed from the mould. The pieces
require a day to dry. The holes for the screw towers and electronics do not meet and are simply punched
out by hand with a drill bit. A slight flash is removed from the base where the foam expanded through
the part line.

3.2.9 Outcome
Both screw tower silicone columns failed (broke off) by 35 rounds. The mould is useable but extra post
processing of drilling the towers is needed. By 42 units one of the two connection hole segments of the
silicone mould broke making the mould unusable. However, the results are better than expected fitting
nicely around the PCBs and within the case also. See figure 20. on the following page.

44
Figure 20. De-moulded Foam via DIY (left), In Use (right)

3.2.10 Cost and Density

The cost per piece is in relation to the longevity of the silicone mould and the cost of the 3D printed
pattern and canned foam. One can costs €4,95 with 22-28 litres total (from package), estimate of 30%
loss due to clearing the nozzle and excess foam released through air holes. The waste is irregular as it is
dependent on the individual.

So, 0,7 x 25 = 17,5 Litres with an item volume of 267 000 mm3. Therefore 17,5/0,267 = 65 units = € 0,076
per piece in material. Therefore, for a quantity of 42 (lifespan of the mould), the cost neglecting working
hours is:

4,95 + 53 for the silicone = 57,95 total = €1,38 /piece.

Considering roughly every 40 cycles an extra three hours is required for casting new moulds, these costs
are considered as follows with a salary of €20/hour:

40 cycles / (20 x 3) = €0,67/ piece

The cost including wage is as follows if €20/hour is considered:

€1,38 + 1,5 (hours) x 20 /4 (with a four part mould) + €0,67 = €9,55 / piece

45
The density of the piece is calculated to be 27,1 kg/m2 as the pieces weigh 7,25 g and have a volume of
0,267 Litres. Therefore 7,25 / 0,267 = 27,1 kg/m2.

The relative density from equation 10 is as follows:

𝜌𝑓
𝑅=
𝜌𝑃

27,1
𝑅=
1020

𝑅 = 0,062

3.2.11 SWOT Analysis

The DIY foam expansion of foam pieces has shown some surprising potential as the results are almost
exactly what was desired. It stands to reason that there would have been unexpected shrinkage, issues
demoulding and adherence to the mould could have made this manufacturing method a disaster.
Nonetheless there are some issues with this method discussed below in the SWOT analysis.

Strengths

The internal factor of strengths of this production method revolve around the advantages of short run
manufacturing as discussed below.

Easy

The process of producing the pattern by 3D printing holds some complexities as analysed above, however
from the casting of silicone stage onwards the production process is incredibly easy with the materials all
easily sourced from hobby shops or the hardware store. The method of injecting the foam via the can
nozzle and placing a silicone sheet above was simple and required no expertise either.

Cheap

After neglecting the cost of the 3D printer in house (that was not purchased for this project) the cost of
materials was exceptionally cheap with each can costing less than five euros and the mould costing round

46
50 Euros. If the pattern cost needed to be calculated for outsourcing as it is not a normal home appliance,
the cost would still be less than 150 Euros.

Surface Finish

Relative to milling analysed previously, the surface finish of DIY expansion is immaculate. The surface is
smooth as a hardened layer formed on the surface as it made contact with the silicone mould.

Material Choice

Although the material choice options are limited by the availability of varying foams, one option available
is a fire retardant foam intended for insulating walls with a fire danger. This is significant as although the
U-Value Meters are not to be used in these severe conditions, if a short were to happen on one of the
circuit boards then the danger would not carry throughout the meter.

Cost Excluding Wage

The meters are incredibly cheap when excluding the cost of the manufacturer. As it is a DIY method the
wage of the person making the pieces is not considered as it is something that can be done at home in
their own time. Therefore the cost per piece is only 1,38 Euros per piece excluding the cost of the pattern.
Having said that, when the wage is considered then the cost is € 8,88 with a four cavity mould.

No Post Processing

In contrast to milling no post processing of the surface is needed, it is removed from the mould smooth
and finished.

Weaknesses

On the contrary to the strengths, the internal weaknesses of DIY expansion revolve around the
shortcomings of the material.

Time

The production was optimised to a turnover of one every 90 minutes. This is incredibly slow when
compared to the 2:20 minute production of the milled foam. If this method were to be used for a quantity
of 100 then the time would be 150 hours, ie roughly one month. However, with a four cavity mould this
would take a full week.

47
 Surface Cavities

Although the surface is smooth there are some large cavities that formed due to the expansion of the
foam and the skinning that consequently occurred.

Water Vapour

A small by-product of this method is water. This water is trapped within the cavities, as it is a closed cell
foam however this water vapour is minimal.

Bulging at the sides

As a result of the pressure of the expanding foam and the softness of silicone, when excess foam was
injected the pressure causes bulging on all surfaces except for the base as it is in contact with plywood.
This bulging I problematic as it prevents the correct construction of the meters.

Failing Towers

By 42 pieces produced, the mould failed beyond repair or fair use. This is a huge weakness as the mould
lifespan is less than 50 cycles, comparatively less than other silicone moulds and especially to metallic
injection mould moulds. The failed parts of the mould are the towers to shape the cavities for the screw
towers and electronics.

Waste

As a result of the difficulty in measuring injected material release holes were made on the base. There
was consequently an estimated loss of 30% material per unit. This loss is exceptionally high when
comparing to EPS. Having said that, as the density is so low, the actual material loss is negilgable.

Cost Including Wage

The cost per unit including wage is comparatively high at € 9,55/ piece.

Post Processing

Although no post processing is required on the surface, processing is required on the screw towers and
electronic connections to punch out the remaining material to allow for construction alike that of the
milling.

48
Opportunities

The external opportunities of this manufacturing method allow for the development and refinement of
foam expansion in relation to both the material and the mould design.

Two-part mould

The mould currently consists of a cavity and a flat wall. If the mould were to be made of two silicone
halves the length of the screw holes would be halved consequently putting less pressure on each end of
the tower.

More Cavities

If more cavities were to be made then the production time would be minamised per item. For example if
a four cavity mould were to be made or four separate moulds, then the production time would be four
per 90 minutes, ie. Every 23 minutes. Nonetheless the moulds would still fail over time and as the
manufacturor’s salary is not considered, there would be zero reduction in cost per item.

EPS

Although EPS is logically a threat to this production method, it is also an opportunity. The DIY method
was developed to refine the design and prepare for the possibility of reactive injection moulding.

Threats

The external element of threats rely on the other methods examined in this thesis of: EPS and milling. It
is also fair to consider other methods of DIY such as carving and the use of a hot wire as outlined under
the threats to milling.

49
 3.2.12 SWOT DIY Summary
Table 4. DIY

INTERNAL External
Strengths Opportunities
 Easy  Two-part mould
 Cheap  More Cavities
 Surface Finish  EPS
 Material Choice
 Cost Excluding Wage
 No Post Processing

Weaknesses Threats
 Time  EPS
 Surface Cavities  Milling
 Water Vapour  Carving
 Bulging at the sides  Hot wire
 Failing Towers
 Waste
 Cost Including Wage
 Post Processing

50
 3.3 Industrial Foam Expansion (EPS)
The key reason for analysing industrial foam production is to prepare for such a venture. The vast majority
of foam used for packaging and electrical insulation in any form of mass production is via reactive injection
moulding or steam. Consequently, the ideal outcome of the method is to have a design ready for steam
moulding for expanded polystyrene (EPS).

3.3.1 Restrictions
Due to the milling requirements of the mould the minimum radii is 2 mm and there cannot be any
undercuts as is the case with the milled foam and DIY method.

It is preferential to design the mould so milling is only required on one face (mould part) as the less milling
of the mould results in a lower cost.

A draft of three degrees is needed for demoulding.

3.3.2 Design
The design used by the DIY method was developed for the tooling restrictions of reactive injection
moulding. Consequently the design is identical to that in section 3.1.4

The design was developed so as the shape could be milled out of a single mould halve with a flat back
plate.

3.3.3 Density
Unfortunately as the pieces have not been produced it is impossible to calculate accurately the relative
density, however as (EPS, 2014) states that EPS is 98% air then the relative density R in respect to equation
10 is 0,02.

51
 3.3.4 Plan for Production
A company was contacted and the design restriction (as explained above) were discussed. They
recommended a four cavity mould and recommended a minimum order of 1000 to offset the cost of 6500
Euros for the mould. The material choice for industrial foam expansion is polystyrene as it is standard for
this means of production and it was recommended by the company.

The design illustrated on in section 3.1.4 was deemed appropriate and the company agreed to produce
the mould and pieces once we required them.

Unfortunately as the final method for production has not been produced, only proposed it is very difficult
to analyse and compare to the other methods or production. This is especially true as the company is not
only the producer of the pieces but the producers of the mould too. It is important to note that the
student completing this thesis had no intention to design the mould or produce the pieces, only develop
a design and establish the manufacturing method’s feasibility to produce such pieces. Nonetheless, the
following SWOT analysis has been completed on the expectations of such a manufacturing method.

3.3.4 SWOT EPS

Strengths

As steam EPS is the standard production technique for small foam items in large quantities, the internal
strengths rest heavily on those of mass production in contrast to the DIY method examined previously.

Large quantity quickly

For EPS the cycle time is typically counted in the seconds, for items of this size a series of four could be
produced every 40 seconds easily, resulting in 100 produced in less than 17 minutes. If an even larger
quantity is needed, it is an incredibly easy upscaling process as the moulds should holdup for 100 000
cycles producing four times that (as it is a four part mould).

Cost (Large Quantity)

The cost for a large quantity is incredibly low with each piece costing just 0,55 € for a quantity of 1000 and
0,42 € beyond 15 000 pieces. Of course the cost of the initial mould of € 6 500 equates the cost per item
(for 100 pieces to) 6500 / 1000 + 0,55 = €7,05.

52
 No post processing

Mass production methods are optimized to require as little post processing. If post processing is used it
is usually automated, such as surface treatments. However in this method of producing these foam pieces
there should be no need whatsoever for any processing.

Smooth Surface

As a result of the pieces being made by expanding into a mould, it is expected that the pieces would yield
a slight skin creating a smooth surface.

Consistency

Once again, as it is mass production, then it is expected that this method produced the most consistent
pieces.

Minimal waste

The process is designed to optimise material as on each cycle the precise volume of material is used. The
only waste possible is in the optimisation stage resulting in an estimated three percent waste. The lowest
by far of all the manufacturing methods.

Weaknesses

On the contrary to the strengths, the internal weaknesses of EPS revolve around the shortcomings of the
material.

High Initial Cost

Unfortunately as the method requires a functioning mould, the cost of producing one item is staggering
at 6500.

53
 Mould Production Time

Prior to the first piece being made the mould itself needs to be milled and constructed usually taking
weeks as the raw materials of the mould need to be sourced even before the metal (usually aluminum) is
milled.

Postage

The production is also not local (in Muurla) so the results are not immediate with expected postage of
two days.

Sameness

Mass production always struggles with variety; consequently, it is impossible to vary each piece such as
adding a series number. This is still true with this manufacturing method. In continuation if an error has
been made in the design it cannot easily be fixed. An error in design will require a minimum of re-milling
the mould, potentially replacing the entire mould, in this case costing 6500.

Large Minimum Order

Fast mass production has it’s downsides when it comes to small orders, the company The company
recommends a minimum quantity of 1000 units. It is feasible they could produce less however a single
cavity mould would be used and the cost per item would be excessive.

Limited Material Choice

In this specific example due to the thin sections the company only recommends small grain EPS the
material is appropriate however, if another material perhaps urethane were to be desired, then it is not
a feasible manufacturing method. Having said that, EPS is UV resistant as opposed to PU.

54
Opportunities

The opportunities of this manufacturing method are difficult to predict, as the method is only a proposal.
In continuation, the manufacturing method is already set up for optimal production, hence why the
industry exists. Nonetheless a few possibilities are notable.

More cavities

Steam moulding is comparatively outstanding for producing many pieces in a single machine per cycle.
The recommendation is currently a four cavity mould, but assuming the machine is large enough with a
large enough clamping force there is no reason why a 16 cavity mould could not be used.

Cheaper Production Location

If the items were to be made in a cheaper location the cost of the mold and material could be minamised.
Having said that, the most obvious location of China is relatively far away and the cost of postage
(shippage) would increase. It is important to note that the pieces are mostly air so the space required to
ship them would be huge potentially costing more per item.

Threats

The external element of threats rely on the other methods examined in this thesis of: DIY and milling. It
is also fair to consider other methods of DIY such as carving outlined under the threats to milling.

55
 3.3.5 SWOT EPS Summary
Table 5. SWOT EPS

INTERNAL External
Strengths Opportunities
 Large quantity quickly  More cavities
 Cost (Large Quantity)  Cheaper Production Location
 No post processing
 Smooth Surface
 Consistency
 Minimal waste

Weaknesses Threats
 High Initial Cost  Milling
 Mould Production Time  DIY Casting
 Postage  Carving
 Sameness
 Large Minimum Order
 Limited Material Choice

56
4. Results
The results revolve around the comparison of the SWOT analyses and a cost comparison with an emphasis
on the advantages and disadvantages of short and long run manufacturing. Initially the qualitative results
are examined from the SWOT analyses prior to the quantitative data analysis of time and financial cost.

4.1 SWOT Qualitative Results

The SWOT analyses for each individual method considered costs in terms of time and money, however
these are explored in the following section. Consequently the remaining qualitative issues include the
issues of individualisation/consistency, materials, post processing, surface finish, quantities and waste.

Prototyping and Consistency

The short run manufacturing methods of milling held a great advantage of individualisation, making that
method superior in concept generating, however the DIY method despite being a short run method did
not. For the EPS method, individualisation was not feasible; however it would most likely hold the most
consistent results. This is especially true when comparing to DIY as the sides occasionally bulged out
and cavities were visible.

Material Variety

In respect to material choice milling was by far the most superior as virtually any foam can be milled
assuming it can be held by the vacuum table. The DIY method had some advantages when it came to
materials as a fire retardant option was available. In continuation, the EPS was least desirable as only
one form of small grained polystyrene was appropriate. Having said that, small grain PS is a very
appropriate material due to its insulation properties.

Post Processing

For post processing the EPS method was found to be best as no processing of the surface or screw
towers is needed. The DIY method had some attributes as although the screw towers needed to be
punched out, the surface was relatively smooth. At the far end was the Milling as the screw towers
needed to be punched out and the surface needed to be post processed.

57
 Surface Finish

The surface finish of the EPS is expected to be most desirable as it is expected to be smooth and without
cavities. The DIY method is in the middle as it formed a smooth skin however larger cavities were
observed. The surface finish of milling is last as it rough upon post processing.

Quantities

When examining quantities none succeeded with the specified quantity of 100 this is as a result of the
gap between short and long run manufacturing methods.

Waste

It is expected that the EPS method produces the least waste as the means is designed to be optimised in
regards to waste, ie. with precise measurements. With regards to DIY roughly 30% waste is produced
and Milling at 40%. The massive loss with milling is due to the fundamentals of subtractive
manufacturing and in regards to DIY the inefficiencies of measuring.

4.2 Quantitative Time and Financial Cost Results

The time and financial cost results use quantities if they are to be all outsourced. This was chosen as not
all manufacturing methods can be made at Arcada. It was decided to choose two timeframes that of short
run and long run, ie. with quantities of 1-100 units and 100-1000 respectively. With results from the short
run all data was considered to build the results, for example the time needed to source materials.
However as it is expected for mass production that the purchasers are aware of this time then it was not
accounted for.

58
 4.2.1 Cost Comparison Short Run
Consequently, for a short run financial cost comparison it was found that the DIY method was most
affordable. See figure 21 below. The costs are displayed in Table 6 (right) and were concluded via the
following equations:

Table 6. Short Run Cost Comparison

Quantity Milling DIY EPS
Milling See section 3.1.10
10 460 238,4 6505,5
DIY 150 (pattern) + 53/42 (silicone) + 20 660 326,8 6511

30/4 (wage) 30 860 415,2 6516,5

40 1060 503,6 6522
=150 +9,55 x Qty
50 1260 592 6527,5
EPS 6500 (mould) + Qty x 0,55 60 1460 680,4 6533
70 1660 768,8 6538,5
80 1860 857,2 6544
90 2060 945,6 6549,5
100 2200 1034 6555

Figure 21. Graph of Short Run Cost Comparison

It is clear that the initial financial cost of the EPS mould is completely unrealistic; however, both milling
and DIY are feasible.

59
 4.2.2 Cost Comparison Long Run
For a long run financial cost comparison, it was observed that the EPS method was most affordable from
a quantity of roughly 600. See figure 22 below. Having said that, if a quantity of 100 is needed and the
only consideration made is financial cost then clearly DIY is most feasible. The costs are calculated via the
following equations and represented in table 7.

Table 7. Long Run Cost Comparison

Quantity Milling DIY EPS

100 2200 1034 6555
Milling See section 3.1.10
200 3700 2068 6560,5
DIY 150 + 9,55 x Qty
300 5200 3102 6566
(see cost comparison short run) 400 6700 4136 6571,5
500 8250 5170 6577
EPS 6500 (mould) + Qty x 0,55
600 8800 6204 6582,5
700 9350 7238 6588
800 9900 8272 6593,5
900 10450 9306 6599
1000 11000 10340 6604,5

Figure 22. Graph of Long Run Cost Comparison

When considering cost alone, both Milling and DIY are most affordable however after 600 units EPS is
the most affordable.

60
 4.2.3 Time Comparison Short Run
When only time is considered in a short run perspective the time of manufacturing the moulds and
postage etc. are taken into account as short run works in the present to fulfil current orders. Consequently
the values in hours are calculated via the following equations and represented in table 8.

Table 8. Time Comparison Short Run

Quantity Milling DIY EPS

Milling 2 (source materials) +
10 2,38 91,75 114,027
Qty. x 0,038 (time of milling) 20 2,76 95,5 114,054

DIY 80 (pattern) + 8 (casting silicone) + 30 3,14 99,25 114,081

40 3,52 103 114,108
Qty. x 1,5/4 (casting)
50 3,9 106,75 114,135
EPS 38 x 3 (mould production) + 60 4,28 110,5 114,162

Qty. x 0,0027 (time of production) 70 4,66 114,25 114,189

80 5,04 118 114,216
90 5,42 121,75 114,243
100 5,8 125,5 114,27

Figure 23. Graph Time Comparison Short Run

From figure 23. It is clear that if only a short timeframe is considered, then milling is by far the best taking
virtually seconds per piece.

61
 4.2.4 Time Comparison Long Run
The long run time considerations neglect sourcing of tools and materials as good planning takes into
account tooling and sourcing before the need. Also, as a business works in the desired order mindset as
opposed to the current order mindset, the only consideration is the time per piece. The values are
calculated via the following equations and represented in table 9.

Table 9. Long Run Planned Time Comparison.

Long Run Time Comparison Quantity Milling DIY EPS

100 3,8 37,5 0,27
Milling Qty. x 0,038
200 7,6 75 0,54
DIY Qty. x 1,5/4 = 0,375 300 11,4 112,5 0,81

EPS Qty. x 0,0027 400 15,2 150 1,08

500 19 187,5 1,35
600 22,8 225 1,62
When planning is considered (see figure 24) the 700 26,6 262,5 1,89
timeframe of EPS is by far the most affordable with DIY 800 30,4 300 2,16
off the scale at a quantity of 400 and milling gradually 900 34,2 337,5 2,43
taking more and more time compared to EPS. 1000 38 375 2,7

Figure 24. Long Run Planned Time Comparison

62
 4.2.5 Cost x Time Short Run
To exaggerate the differences in time and money for each manufacturing method it was chosen to
multiply the time in hours by the cost in Euros from the short run results. They are logically calculated as
follows and represented in table 10.

Table 10. Cost Times Time Short Run Comparison

Milling short run cost x short run time Quantity Milling DIY EPS

DIY short run cost x short run time 10 1094,8 21873,2 741802,6
20 1821,6 31209,4 742605,6
EPS short run cost x short run time
30 2700,4 41208,6 743408,8
40 3731,4 51870,8 744212,4

When time is accounted for the sourcing of materials, 50 4914 63196 745016,2

producing of the mould, etc. as is the case for the short 60 6248,8 75184,2 745820,3

run, milling is the most feasible, followed closely by DIY 70 7735,6 87835,4 746624,8

see figure 25 below. However due to the massive time 80 9374,4 101149,6 747429,5

and financial cost investment in the mould, EPS is far too 90 11165,2 115126,8 748234,5

expensive. 100 1276 129767 749039,9

Figure 25. Cost Times Time Short Run Comparison

63
 4.2.6 Cost x Time Long Run
As with 4.2.5, the results are multiplied to examine both time and financial cost simultaneously. However
when considering the long run, the expectation is that the initial time investments are neglected as the
company is working with potential or hypothetical orders. The values are calculated as follows and
represented in table 11.

Table 11. Cost Times Time Planned Long Run Comparison

Milling long run cost x long run time Quantity Milling DIY EPS
100 8360 38775 1769,85
DIY long run cost x long run time
200 28120 155100 3542,67
EPS long run cost x long run time
300 59280 348975 5318,46
Long run planning neglects sourcing of tools and materials 400 101840 620400 7097,22
as good planning takes into account tooling and sourcing 500 156750 969375 8878,95
before the need. 600 200640 1395900 10663,65
700 248710 1899975 12451,32
Consequently when planning is respected the financial
and time cost for mass production is most affordable by 800 300960 2481600 14241,96

EPS as milling gradually increases whilst DIY quickly 900 357390 3140775 16035,57

increases exponentially. 1000 418000 3877500 17832,15

Figure 25. Cost Times Time Planned Long Run Comparison

64
5. Discussion
5.1 Time and Financial Costs Discussion
The most interesting issue of this thesis is the quantity. Concepts or short run manufacturing up to 10
units offers varying manufacturing methods. These methods typically hold high costs per units, but
require minimal upfront time and monetary investments. As is the case with milling the foam or DIY foam
expansion. These methods struggle to hold up when larger quantities are needed in respect to time and
cost. Comparatively to mass manufacturing of minimum orders of 1000 the initial time and money is huge
but the running costs both in terms of time and money are marginal. The aim was:

“To select a mass manufacturing means for the U-Value Meter’s internal foam with a primary focus on
cost and time for 100 units.”

Consequently, a dilemma is created as a quantity of 100 was needed. In this situation roughly half the
cases were milled in house and half cast via DIY due to the staggering initial cost if reactive Injection
moulding. Consequently both milling and DIY are feasible, however not optimal.

5.2 SWOT Discussion

In regards to the SWOT analyses, the comparisons revolve around the fundamental restriction of both
short and long run manufacturing. These restrictions are as follows:

Short Run

Short run production is cheap for a few pieces, yet expensive for large quantities. From the short run
methods of this thesis, the surface finish was found to be less desirable with high waste but better material
choice.

Long Run

Long Run manufacturing is excellent with consistency but lacks the ability to make changes, it is also
restricted with material choices. However the lack of post processing is a great asset to this manufacturing
means.

65
 5.3 Discussion Resolution
This situation leads itself open to development. Perhaps a manufacturing method could be developed to
fulfil the needs of middle run productions requiring foam. Perhaps mould construction could be
developed so a curing agent could be utilised in DIY without the need for high clamp forces to produce
pieces in a matter of minutes, not hours. The silicone mould could also be developed as outlined in the
DIY SWOT analysis to withstand 100 cycles, rather than just the 42 achieved. This area of interest could
happily be continued by another student at Arcada.

6. Conclusion
In regards to the key criteria of time and money all three options are average at best at a quantity of 100
due to the reasons discussed above in regards to the gap between short and long run productions.
Roughly half the foam for the metres was produced via each of the two short run methods in house at
Arcada. Each method is feasible however; EPS is not due to the staggering initial cost. In continuation,
EPS needed extensive preparation in order to guarantee the product is of the correct dimensions.
However when multiplying the factors in figure 25. at a quantity of 200 there is already a clear successor,
that of EPS. By 200 the DIY method is completely unrealistic due to time and milling is far too financially
expensive. In sum, for a quantity of 100 units there is no ideal manufacturing means discovered.

66
References
About Passive House - What is a Passive House? (2015). Retrieved 01 27, 2017, from Passive House
Institute:
http://passiv.de/en/02_informations/01_whatisapassivehouse/01_whatisapassivehouse.htm

Academlib. (n.d.). 6.1.1 Slabstock Foams. Retrieved 02 02, 2017, from Academlib.com free online college
textbooks: http://academlib.com/14380/environment/slabstock_foams

Academlib. (n.d.). 6.1.2 Molded Foams. Retrieved 02 02, 2017, from Academlib.com Free online college
textbooks: http://academlib.com/14381/environment/molded_foams#360

Anonymous. (2017, 01 30). Dunlop Vs. Talalay Latex Foam. Retrieved from Sleep on Latex:
http://sleeponlatex.com/blogs/news/7845413-dunlop-vs-talalay-latex-foam

Britannica, E. (2009, 07 22). Silicone Chemical Compound. Retrieved 04 07, 2017, from Encyclopædia
Britannica: https://global.britannica.com/science/silicone

Cad, J. (n.d.). Foam Injection Molding Company. Retrieved 03 16, 2017, from jcad International:
http://jcadusa.com/services/rapid-manufacturing-and-custom-plastic-injection-molding/foam/

Cengel, Y. A. (2012). Fundamentals of Thermal Fluid Sciences (4th Edition). McGraw-Hill.

Crow. (2016, 05 19). Polystyrene, Names and Identifiers of Polymer. Retrieved 03 15, 2017, from
polymerdatabase: http://polymerdatabase.com/polymers/polystyrene.html

EPS, A. (2014). How is EPS made. Retrieved 02 03, 2017, from Expanded Polystyrene Australia:
http://epsa.org.au/about-eps/what-is-eps/how-is-eps-made/

Finnfoam. (n.d.). Composition and Structure. Retrieved 02 06, 2017, from Finnfoam, Insulation You Can
Trust: http://www.finnfoam.com/products/finnfoam/composition-and-structure/

Foam-Tech. (2008). What is the Difference Between Open-cell and Closed-cell Polyurethane Foams?
Retrieved 01 30, 2017, from Foam-Tech Specializing in Superinsulation: http://www.foam-
tech.com/products/urethane_foam/open_closed_cell.htm

Frisch, K. (2006). History of Science and Technology of Polymeric Foams. Journal of Macromolecular
Science, 1089-1112 .

Gonzalez, C. (2015, 10 30). What’s the Difference Between Conduction, Convection, and Radiation?
Retrieved 01 30, 2017, from Machine Design: http://machinedesign.com/whats-difference-
between/what-s-difference-between-conduction-convection-and-radiation

Hipolite, W. (2014, 09 03). Roland DG Unveils Their ARM-10 SLA 3D Printer for $6,995, Along With a New
Milling Machine. Retrieved 04 07, 2017, from 3D Print.com: https://3dprint.com/13822/roland-
dg-arm-10-3d-printer/

Incropera. (2006). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (6th Edition). John Wiley & Sons.

Investopedia. (n.d.). Long Run. Retrieved 04 19, 2017, from Investopedia:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/longrun.asp

67
Kevin. (2016, 02 25). Open vs Closed Cell Foam Insulation. Retrieved 01 30, 2017, from All Thumbs DIY:
http://allthumbsdiy.com/building/insulation/open-vs-closed-cell-foam-insulation

Lymath, A. (2015, 02 01). What is a U-value? Heat loss, thermal mass and online calculators explained.
Retrieved 01 21, 2017, from NBS: https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-is-a-u-value-heat-
loss-thermal-mass-and-online-calculators-explained

Markets. (2016, 05). Polymer Foam Market by Type. Retrieved 02 06, 2017, from Markets and Markets:
http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/foams-market-1011.html

Materialise. (n.d.). Stereolithography. Retrieved 04 07, 2017, from Materialise:

http://www.materialise.com/en/manufacturing/technologies-materials/stereolithography

Mills, N. (2007). Polymer Foams Handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Paramasivan, V. (2016, 08 17). Additive Manufacturing vs Subtractive Manufacturing. Retrieved 04 05,

2017, from Creative Mechanisms: https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-
manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing

Siemens. (2017). CAD/ Computer- Aided Design. Retrieved 04 07, 2017, from Siemens:
https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/plm/cad.shtml

Siemens. (2017). CAM / Computer-Aided Manufacturing. Retrieved 04 07, 2017, from Siemens:
https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/plm/cam.shtml

Smid. (2003). CNC Programing Handbook.

Tools, M. (n.d.). SWOT Analysis. Retrieved 04 06, 2017, from Mind Tools - Essential Skills for an Excellent
Career: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_05.htm

Udumbasseri, C. (2016). Manufacturing Polyurethane foams. Mumbai: Linkedin.

Wacker. (2017). SILICONES - PROPERTIES AND APPLICATIONS. Retrieved 04 07, 2017, from Wacker:
https://www.wacker.com/cms/en/products/product_groups/silicones.jsp

York. (2014, 01 02). The Essential Chemical Industry Online. Retrieved 03 16, 2017, from Poly
(phenylethene) (Polystyrene):
http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/polymers/polyphenylethene.html

68