Creating an effective

Consulting Report
Deborah Tihanyi
Engineering Communication Program
February 6, 2014
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Today, we’ll look at

Creating introductions

Using graphics

Elements of argument

Getting to the point at every level

Unpacking the rubric
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
What should an introduction do?
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
What should an introduction do?
Context
Background information
necessary to understand
the problem
“Gap” or Problem
Define the problem/
question(s) you’re trying
to answer
How you’ll fill the
gap or solution
Your approach to the
problem/questions
Overview of report
structure
How you’ll proceed in the
document
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
What should an introduction do?
Context
Background information
necessary to understand
the problem
“Gap” or Problem
Define the problem/
question(s) you’re trying
to answer
How you’ll fill the
gap or solution
Your approach to the
problem/questions
Overview of report
structure
How you’ll proceed in the
document
So how is this different from an
Executive Summary?
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Introductions vs. Executive Summaries
Introduction Executive Summary
Purpose
Sets up the rest of the document
The document in miniature: a
stand-alone part of the document
Audience
All readers of the report Generally management
Content
Problem being addressed, how
you’ll address it (includes preview
of structure)
All key information, with an
emphasis on bottom line
Form
First section of body of report:
paragraphs, might have further
subsections (e.g. functions,
objectives, constraints)
Maximum one page, paragraphs, no
section divisions
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Using graphics

Should you use them?

Where should they go?

Why are graphics important?

What types of graphics work for what
types of information?
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Matching types of graphics to
engineering actions
Engineering Action Type of Graphic
Describe, Design, Build
Illustration

Schematic

Photograph
Determine, which implies
Analysis & Comparison
Data Collation

Graphs

Tables

Charts
Apply, Use, Model
Conceptual Visuals

Process Diagrams
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Illustrative graphic
A visco-elastic foam as head restraint material – experiments and numerical simulations using a biorid model
© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 343 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4
2002), the neck displacement criterion (NDC) (Viano and
Davidsson 2001) and the bending moment M
y
were
determined. Recent work by Kullgren et al. (2003) and
Eriksson and Kullgren (2003) show that particularly the
NIC
max
and the N
km
correlate well with the AIS1 neck
injury risk. For practical reasons, the sled tests could only
be made at room temperature.
The head restraint of the seat is ring-shaped and cannot
be adjusted in height. The padding material is a standard
polyurethane (PU) foam. In a first set of tests, the PU
foam was replaced with the new VE foam while the
geometry of the head restraint remained unchanged. The
fabric cover of the head restraint was reused. Furthermore,
tests with a modified design of the head restraint were
made. Thereby, the outer contour of the head restraint
remained unchanged but the inner part was filled with
foam and the head restraint was thicker. Thus the head
restraint was no longer ring-shaped and the head to head
restraint distance was reduced by 15 mm.
Numerical simulation
To assess the protective potential of the new VE foam at
higher changes of velocities than used in the sled tests, a
three-dimensional mathematical model was developed
(Figure 2). The simulation was based on a multi-body
system model using MADYMO software (TNO 2001)
and consisted of the seat and a BioRID II model (Eriksson
2002a,b). The geometry of the seat was derived from the
seat tested in the sled tests. The seat base, the seat back
and the head restraint are modelled as facet surfaces. In
addition to the original head restraint, a version with
the modified shape as described above was generated
(Figure 3). The material properties of the PU and the VE
foam were derived from dynamic testing (Schmitt et al.
2003b) and included in the model. Properties of other
seat components like the recliner were obtained from the
dynamic sled tests as well as from additional static tests.
To validate the simulation model, it was subjected to
the same crash pulse as recorded in the according sled
test. The validation was performed for both, the standard
PU and the VE foam. Further simulations with a higher
delta-v than used in the sled tests were computed.
Trapezoidal shaped crash pulses were obtained by scaling
from the pulse used in the sled tests and resulted in delta-
v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h, and 40 km/h, respectively.
RESULTS
Sled tests
Results from the sled tests are presented in Table 1. The
NIC
max
values were slightly reduced when using visco-
elastic foam in combination with the modified and thus
thicker head restraint design. Keeping the geometric design
but changing the foam from PU to VE, reproduced the
NIC
max
values. Similar results were observed for the
maximum N
km
values. Replacing the foam only did not
much influence the maximum N
km
value, but increasing
the head restraint thickness strongly did. However all
maximum N
km
values determined were below the proposed
threshold of 1.0.
As to be expected, the head contacted the head restraint
earlier in time for the thick head restraint. The bending
moment showed a strong reduction in flexion when using
the thick head restraint; the extension moment was not
4
5
.
6
°
B
3
6
.0
0
°
H
RR
A
C
T4
T3
T2
P
B2
B1
TT1
T12
T11
D
Figure 1 Principle of the test set-up for the sled tests
including the measurement targets on the seat and the
BioRID dummy.
Figure 2 The three-dimensional numerical model represents
a BioRID II and a car seat. The seat geometry and the posture
of the dummy are similar to those used in the sled tests.
Figure 3 Numerical model showing the original head restraint
geometry (left) and the modified version that reduces the
head to head restraint distance (right).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
C
a
n
a
d
i
a
n

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
]

A
t
:

1
4
:
5
4

2
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
0
A visco-elastic foam as head restraint material – experiments and numerical simulations using a biorid model
© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 343 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4
2002), the neck displacement criterion (NDC) (Viano and
Davidsson 2001) and the bending moment M
y
were
determined. Recent work by Kullgren et al. (2003) and
Eriksson and Kullgren (2003) show that particularly the
NIC
max
and the N
km
correlate well with the AIS1 neck
injury risk. For practical reasons, the sled tests could only
be made at room temperature.
The head restraint of the seat is ring-shaped and cannot
be adjusted in height. The padding material is a standard
polyurethane (PU) foam. In a first set of tests, the PU
foam was replaced with the new VE foam while the
geometry of the head restraint remained unchanged. The
fabric cover of the head restraint was reused. Furthermore,
tests with a modified design of the head restraint were
made. Thereby, the outer contour of the head restraint
remained unchanged but the inner part was filled with
foam and the head restraint was thicker. Thus the head
restraint was no longer ring-shaped and the head to head
restraint distance was reduced by 15 mm.
Numerical simulation
To assess the protective potential of the new VE foam at
higher changes of velocities than used in the sled tests, a
three-dimensional mathematical model was developed
(Figure 2). The simulation was based on a multi-body
system model using MADYMO software (TNO 2001)
and consisted of the seat and a BioRID II model (Eriksson
2002a,b). The geometry of the seat was derived from the
seat tested in the sled tests. The seat base, the seat back
and the head restraint are modelled as facet surfaces. In
addition to the original head restraint, a version with
the modified shape as described above was generated
(Figure 3). The material properties of the PU and the VE
foam were derived from dynamic testing (Schmitt et al.
2003b) and included in the model. Properties of other
seat components like the recliner were obtained from the
dynamic sled tests as well as from additional static tests.
To validate the simulation model, it was subjected to
the same crash pulse as recorded in the according sled
test. The validation was performed for both, the standard
PU and the VE foam. Further simulations with a higher
delta-v than used in the sled tests were computed.
Trapezoidal shaped crash pulses were obtained by scaling
from the pulse used in the sled tests and resulted in delta-
v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h, and 40 km/h, respectively.
RESULTS
Sled tests
Results from the sled tests are presented in Table 1. The
NIC
max
values were slightly reduced when using visco-
elastic foam in combination with the modified and thus
thicker head restraint design. Keeping the geometric design
but changing the foam from PU to VE, reproduced the
NIC
max
values. Similar results were observed for the
maximum N
km
values. Replacing the foam only did not
much influence the maximum N
km
value, but increasing
the head restraint thickness strongly did. However all
maximum N
km
values determined were below the proposed
threshold of 1.0.
As to be expected, the head contacted the head restraint
earlier in time for the thick head restraint. The bending
moment showed a strong reduction in flexion when using
the thick head restraint; the extension moment was not
4
5
.
6
°
B
3
6
.0
0
°
H
RR
A
C
T4
T3
T2
P
B2
B1
TT1
T12
T11
D
Figure 1 Principle of the test set-up for the sled tests
including the measurement targets on the seat and the
BioRID dummy.
Figure 2 The three-dimensional numerical model represents
a BioRID II and a car seat. The seat geometry and the posture
of the dummy are similar to those used in the sled tests.
Figure 3 Numerical model showing the original head restraint
geometry (left) and the modified version that reduces the
head to head restraint distance (right).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
C
a
n
a
d
i
a
n

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
]

A
t
:

1
4
:
5
4

2
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
0
Fig. 1. Principle of test setup for sled tests [1] Fig. 2. Three dimensional numerical model
representing BioRID II and car seat [1]
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Illustrative graphic
In-line mixing of powder and polyol
Foaming new foam
Adjusting the chemical formulation [27,29]
Other regrind technologies include impact disk mill,
cryogenic grinding and extruder [27–29].
2.2. Re-bonding
Re-bonding is most widely used recycling process
for more than 30 years [18]. In the rebond process
(Fig. 5), recycled foam flakes originating from flex-
ible slab stock foam production waste are usually
blown from storage silos into a mixer that consists
of a fixed drum with rotating blades or agitators,
where the foam flakes are sprayed with an adhesive
mixture. In rebonding we are able to achieve new
properties of PU i.e., higher density and lighter
hardness [18].
In re-bonding of PU waste, to the 90.0% PU
scrap, 10.0% binder (NDI) is added. Waste is shred-
ded and mixed with binder, dyes can also be added,
and the mixture is then compressed. Steam is pro-
vided (Fig. 5) to complete the binding [18]. PU
recyclate granules used as filler in polyester mould-
ing compounds and gives added toughness to mate-
rial. Re-bonding yields a variety of padding
products, such as carpet underlay and athletic mats,
from recovered pieces of flexible polyurethane foam.
Flexible foam bonding utilizes foam pieces and
adheres them together to make padding type prod-
ucts (Fig. 6). The rebond process incorporates both
a surprising amount of flexibility and a wide vari-
ability in the mechanical properties of the final
Fig. 5. Schematic of flexible foam re-bonding [18].
Fig. 6. Rebonded foam: homogeneous distribution of the flake binder mixture [18].
680 K.M. Zia et al. / Reactive & Functional Polymers 67 (2007) 675–692
Fig. 3. Rebonded foam: homogeneous distribution of flake binder mixture [2]
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Data collation
K U Schmitt, F Beyeler, M Muser and P Niederer
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4 344 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd
much affected. The maximum acceleration of the head
and the T1 were decreased when using the VE foam
compared to the PU foam with the same design. With
respect to the neck displacement criterion (NDC, Figure
4), all foams were rated “good” with the VE made head
restraint performing slightly better than the PU made
and the thick head restraint clearly obtaining the best
result.
Numerical simulation
The numerical model was validated using data from the
sled tests performed with the original head restraint design
for both the PU and the VE foam. The acceleration of the
head, the first thoracic vertebra T1 and the pelvis as well
as injury criteria, like the NIC
max
, were determined. Table
2 and Figure 5 present the results of the simulations in
comparison to those of the sled tests. While the absolute
values for the accelerations calculated correspond well
with the results measured, the maximum T1 acceleration
was observed earlier in time in the simulation than in the
sled tests. This difference in timing caused higher NIC
max
values.
Subjecting the model to crash pulses that correspond
to delta-v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h and 40 km/h, the
influence of changing the head restraint design and the
padding material was analysed. The results of the
computation are presented in Table 3. It can be seen, that
the use of VE foam instead of PU foam clearly reduces
the maximum head acceleration. The higher the delta-v,
the larger the difference between the peak head
accelerations. However, as the maximum T1 acceleration
and the timing of the occurrence of the maximum
accelerations do not alter much, the resulting NIC
max
values
show only small differences between head restraints of
the different foams.
Additionally, the influence of increasing the head
restraint thickness was simulated. Figure 6 illustrates the
effect of using a thick head restraint at a delta-v of 30
km/h. Due to the reduced head to head restraint distance,
the head is accelerated earlier in time. For the VE foam
this initial increase is even more pronounced, because of
the higher initial strength of the material. In general, the
comparison with the original head restraint design shows
that increasing the thickness reduces the maximum head
acceleration significantly even if keeping PU as padding
Table 1a Results from the sled test experiments: head to head restraint distance, time of head contact, NIC
max
and N
km max
Head restraint design, Distance Head NIC
max
N
km max
foam contact
[mm] t [ms] NIC
max
[m
2
/s
2
] t [ms] N
km max
[ms]
Original, PU 80 74 15.1 65 0.52 109
Original, VE 80 70 15.1 63 0.56 106
Thick, VE 65 62 13.4 63 0.24 101
Table 1b Results from the sled test experiments: bending moments
Head restraint design, M
y
foam max. flexion [Nm] t [ms] max. extension [Nm] t [ms]
Original, PU 25.9 106 6.5 147
Original, VE 24.5 103 8.2 139
Thick, VE 5.2 62 5.5 121
x (mm)
Acceptable
PU
VE
VE, thick
Good
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Excellent
20
10
0
–10
–20
–30
–40
NDC Omega vs. x
z

(
m
m
)
x (mm)
Acceptable
PU
VE
VE, thick
Good
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Excellent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
–10
–20
–30
–40
O
m
e
g
a

(
d
e
g
)
Figure 4 Results from the sled test experiments: the NDC
for vertical distance (top) and for the head rotation (bottom).
Increasing the head restraint thickness improved the NDC
outcome.
NDC z vs. x
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
C
a
n
a
d
i
a
n

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
]

A
t
:

1
4
:
5
4

2
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
0
Table 1. Results from sled test experiments: bending moments [1]
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Data collation
severity.
15,16
These costs include the monetary value of
the loss of health plus all of the other costs resulting from
a serious injury.
We used the published cost estimates,
15,16
because
they mirror the official values used in regulatory analysis
by NHTSA but computed at a 3% rather than a 4%
discount rate. They draw on data from 1992–1994 Civil-
ian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Ser-
vices data for physician and emergency department fees,
1994–1995 data on hospital costs in Maryland and New
York (the only 2 states where costs, not charges or
payments, were known), and 1987 National Medical
Expenditure Survey and 1979–1987 National Council
on Compensation Insurance data on the percentage of
costs that occur Ͼ6 months postinjury.
The published estimates based short-term parental
work loss on the assumption that the lowest paid parent
would stay home to care for an injured child on any day
that an adult with a comparable injury would not work.
Information on the probability that an employed person
would lose work for a specific injury came from the CDS
1993–1999. Information on the days of work lost per
person who lost work came fromthe US Bureau of Labor
Statistics 1993 Survey of Occupational Injury and Ill-
ness.
17
Mean probabilities of work loss were estimated
from just those CDS records that had the relevant infor-
mation, which frequently was missing. Sample size con-
siderations drove the decision to pool several years of
CDS data. Long-term productivity loss by diagnosis was
based on 1979–1987 National Council on Compensation
Insurance Detailed Claims Information data on the prob-
ability that injuries would cause permanent partial/total
disability and 1997 Detailed Claims Information data on
the percentage loss of earning power for partially dis-
abled injury victims.
The published estimates included a variety of other
direct costs. Among them were emergency services, in-
surance claims administration, legal and court costs, and
workplace disruption costs. These estimates used insur-
ance data and data from previous NHTSA studies.
Following earlier studies,
5,18
the published estimates
based quality of life loss (QALY) on physicians’ estimates
of the functional capacity lost over time by injury diag-
nosis and a systematic review of the survey literature on
the loss in value of life that results from different func-
tional losses. These losses were costed based on a meta-
analysis examining what people pay for small changes in
fatality risk and surveys on what they state they are
willing to pay. Recognizing that monetizing the value of
quality of life is controversial, we provide analyses with
both unmonetized and monetized QALYs.
The savings frombooster seat use have 2 components:
injury prevention and injury severity reduction. We val-
ued injury prevention by multiplying the probability of a
serious injury for a child aged 4 to 7 years who travels
belted (.000704 annually) by the sum of booster seat
effectiveness (59%) times the average cost per seriously
injured belted child estimated using the published unit
costs ($851 745). We valued severity reduction at 41%
(100%–59%) of the difference in the average cost of a
serious injury to a child in a belt versus a child in a
booster seat ($851 745 vs $402 139). In compact form,
the calculation was as follows:
Annual costs averted ϭ0.000704 ϫ[0.59 ϫ$851 745 ϩ
0.41 ϫ ($851 745 Ϫ $402 139)]
RESULTS
Each booster seat in use can avert $484 {0.000704 ϫ
[0.59 ϫ $851 745 ϩ 0.41 ϫ ($851 745 Ϫ $402 139)]} in
injury costs annually. The present value of savings over
4 years is 3.8286 times this amount or $1854 (Table 1).
The savings include $245 in medical spending, $161 in
other resource costs, $433 in work losses, and QALYs
valued at $1015. The estimated net savings per booster
seat is $1824 ($1854 Ϫ $30). The benefit-cost ratio for a
booster seat is 61.8 ($1854/$30). The savings in medical
and other resource costs from a booster seat exceed its
purchase price by $376. Thus, it offers net cost savings
of $348 543 per QALY. If parental time expenditures are
TABLE 1 Savings per Booster Seat From Injury Reduction and Cost-Benefit Ratios
Variable Not Including Installation, Maintenance,
or Cost of Passing and Enforcing a Seat
Use Mandate
Including Installation
and Maintenance
Including Installation, Maintenance, and
Cost of Passing and Enforcing a Seat Use
Mandate
Present value of savings per seat, $ 1854 1854 1854
Medical spending 245 245 245
Other resource costs 161 161 161
Work loss 433 433 433
Monetized QALYs 1015 1015 1015
Booster seat costs, $ 30 197 216
Net savings per seat, $ 1824 $657 1638
Seat costs per QALY saved, $ 27 809 182 614 199 780
Net savings per QALY saved, $
a
348 543
a
193 738
a
176 572
a
Cost-benefit ratio 61.8 9.4 8.6
a
Booster seats and booster seat laws yield resource cost savings that exceed their implementation and maintenance costs. They offer net cost savings.
1996 MILLER et al
by on February 26, 2010 www.pediatrics.org Downloaded from
Table 2. Savings per booster seat from injury reduction and cost-benefit ratios [3]
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Data collation
K U Schmitt, F Beyeler, M Muser and P Niederer
IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4 344 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd
much affected. The maximum acceleration of the head
and the T1 were decreased when using the VE foam
compared to the PU foam with the same design. With
respect to the neck displacement criterion (NDC, Figure
4), all foams were rated “good” with the VE made head
restraint performing slightly better than the PU made
and the thick head restraint clearly obtaining the best
result.
Numerical simulation
The numerical model was validated using data from the
sled tests performed with the original head restraint design
for both the PU and the VE foam. The acceleration of the
head, the first thoracic vertebra T1 and the pelvis as well
as injury criteria, like the NIC
max
, were determined. Table
2 and Figure 5 present the results of the simulations in
comparison to those of the sled tests. While the absolute
values for the accelerations calculated correspond well
with the results measured, the maximum T1 acceleration
was observed earlier in time in the simulation than in the
sled tests. This difference in timing caused higher NIC
max
values.
Subjecting the model to crash pulses that correspond
to delta-v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h and 40 km/h, the
influence of changing the head restraint design and the
padding material was analysed. The results of the
computation are presented in Table 3. It can be seen, that
the use of VE foam instead of PU foam clearly reduces
the maximum head acceleration. The higher the delta-v,
the larger the difference between the peak head
accelerations. However, as the maximum T1 acceleration
and the timing of the occurrence of the maximum
accelerations do not alter much, the resulting NIC
max
values
show only small differences between head restraints of
the different foams.
Additionally, the influence of increasing the head
restraint thickness was simulated. Figure 6 illustrates the
effect of using a thick head restraint at a delta-v of 30
km/h. Due to the reduced head to head restraint distance,
the head is accelerated earlier in time. For the VE foam
this initial increase is even more pronounced, because of
the higher initial strength of the material. In general, the
comparison with the original head restraint design shows
that increasing the thickness reduces the maximum head
acceleration significantly even if keeping PU as padding
Table 1a Results from the sled test experiments: head to head restraint distance, time of head contact, NIC
max
and N
km max
Head restraint design, Distance Head NIC
max
N
km max
foam contact
[mm] t [ms] NIC
max
[m
2
/s
2
] t [ms] N
km max
[ms]
Original, PU 80 74 15.1 65 0.52 109
Original, VE 80 70 15.1 63 0.56 106
Thick, VE 65 62 13.4 63 0.24 101
Table 1b Results from the sled test experiments: bending moments
Head restraint design, M
y
foam max. flexion [Nm] t [ms] max. extension [Nm] t [ms]
Original, PU 25.9 106 6.5 147
Original, VE 24.5 103 8.2 139
Thick, VE 5.2 62 5.5 121
x (mm)
Acceptable
PU
VE
VE, thick
Good
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Excellent
20
10
0
–10
–20
–30
–40
NDC Omega vs. x
z

(
m
m
)
x (mm)
Acceptable
PU
VE
VE, thick
Good
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Excellent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
–10
–20
–30
–40
O
m
e
g
a

(
d
e
g
)
Figure 4 Results from the sled test experiments: the NDC
for vertical distance (top) and for the head rotation (bottom).
Increasing the head restraint thickness improved the NDC
outcome.
NDC z vs. x
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
C
a
n
a
d
i
a
n

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
]

A
t
:

1
4
:
5
4

2
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
0
Fig. 4. Results from sled test experiments: head rotation. Increasing head
restraint thickness improved NDC (neck displacement criterion) outcome [1]
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Conceptual Visual
weight will be disposed (maximum) to landfill. The
polyurethane industry is committed to meeting the
current needs of today without compromising the
needs of tomorrow. The continued development of
recycling and recovery technologies [12–14], invest-
ment in infrastructure necessary to support them,
the establishment of viable markets and participa-
tion by industry, government and consumers are
all priorities.
Years of research, study and testing have resulted
in a number of recycling and recovery methods for
polyurethanes that can be economically and envi-
ronmentally viable [15]. The four major categories
[16] are mechanical recycling, advanced chemical
& thermo chemical recycling, energy recovery and
product recycling (Fig. 1). Each method provides
a unique set of advantages that make it particularly
beneficial for specific locations, applications or
requirements [12,13]. Mechanical recycling (i.e.,
material recycling) involves physical treatment,
chemical & thermo chemical recycling (i.e., feed-
stock recycling) involves chemical treatment that
produces feedstock chemicals for chemical process
industry, and energy recovery (including waste-to-
energy) involves complete or partial oxidation of
the material [17], producing heat and power and/
or gaseous fuels, oils and chars besides by-products
that must be disposed of, such as ashes [9]. Due to
the typically long lifetime of PU-containing prod-
ucts the fourth option of product recycling or
‘‘closed loop” recycling (Fig. 2), is limited [8,18],
because markets change rapidly and the concept
of ‘‘down cycling” or ‘‘open loop” recycling strongly
applies to products based on bulk chemicals such as
PU.
Mechanical, chemical & thermo chemical recy-
cling and energy recovery, are all ways to recycle
polyurethane [19]. Mechanical recycling is done by
regrinding polyurethane foams into powders allow-
ing them to be reused in the production of new foam
as filler. The methods of reuse are flexible foam
bonding, adhesive pressing, and compression mold-
ing [18]. Flexible foam bonding utilizes foam pieces
and adheres them together to make padding type
products. Adhesive pressing is where the polyure-
thane granules are coated with a binder (glue) then
cured under heat and pressure to make parts like
floor mats for cars or tire covers. Compression
molding is where the polyurethane granules are
molded under high heat and pressure to create rigid
or hard parts such as pump and motor housing.
Energy recovery is a method in which polyurethane
can be burned efficiently resulting in a total con-
sumption of the material. Chemical & thermo chem-
ical recycling has several different methods such as:
glycolysis, hydrolysis, pyrolysis, hydrogenation, etc.
Glycolysis [20,21] is where polyurethane is chemi-
cally mixed and heated to 200 °C and produce
Fig. 1. Overview of options for polyurethane recycling [16].
Fig. 2. Closed loop polyurethane recycling as proposed by
ISOPA [18].
K.M. Zia et al. / Reactive & Functional Polymers 67 (2007) 675–692 677
Fig. 2. Overview of options for polyurethane recycling [2]
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Conceptual Visual
be useable as hydroxyl-containing components in
secondary PU synthesis, including foams, sealants
and adhesives [39]. PUF dissolution depends on
the molecular weight of glycol. Dipropylene glycol
and tetra ethylene glycol dissolved PUF in the
shortest time among polypropylene glycols and
polyethylene glycols, respectively. PUF dissolution
time was reduced to one-half for each 10 °C rise in
the range of 170–200 °C. Also PUF dissolution time
was inversely proportional to KOH (catalyst) con-
centration. Dibutyltindilaurate concentration had
less influence on PUF dissolution time than KOH
concentration. Smaller PUF particles dissolved in
a shorter time. Especially, the initial glycolysis con-
version of PUF was proportional to the total sur-
face area of PUF particles [40].
Members of the European Diisocyanate and Pol-
yol Producers Association (ISOPA) and indepen-
dent researchers have optimized single-phase
glycolysis [18]. Split-phase glycolysis [12], (Fig. 13),
where the product separates in two phases, has been
developed up to pilot scale for MDI flexible foams.
The viability of glycolysis appears to be in the area
of recycling production waste as opposed to post-
consumer waste.
Scheirs [12] distinguishes two approaches, wherein
(1) a single polyol is recovered or (2) flexible and
rigid polyols components are recovered. An exam-
ple of a process where a single polyol is recovered
is the alcoholysis process developed by Getzner
Werkstoffe Austria. A process for double recovery
of polyols was developed by ICI, referred to as the
split-phase glycolysis (SPG) process, as shown in
Fig. 13. In the SPG process scrap PU foam, prefer-
ably based on MDI, is reacted with DEG producing
a two product phases in the reactor. The lighter
layer contains the flexible polyol, the heavier layer
contains the MDI-derived compounds that are con-
verted into a rigid polyol using propene oxide. The
recovered polyols can be used to produce new PUR
and PUF foams. Reaction times, at 200 °C, are sev-
eral hours. PU foam waste densified to around
1100 kg/m
3
is used. The SPG process is sensitive
to contamination by styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN)
[12,41]. In the presence of hexamethylenetetramine
(HMTA) the glycolysis of water-blown PUF foams
in ethylene glycol (EG) yields the polyol and a
solution of urea carbamates and amines in the EG.
Fig. 11. Chemistry of glycolysis of PU results in the formation of ether polyol [12].
Fig. 12. Schematic of glycolysis process for PU foam recycling
[9,18].
684 K.M. Zia et al. / Reactive & Functional Polymers 67 (2007) 675–692
Fig. 3. Glycolysis process for polyurethane foam recycling [2]
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Elements of Argument
Grounds Conditions that allow for the claim
Claim Assertion - the point of the argument
Justification
Logical justification for the claim - the
“because” statement
Evidence
Facts/evidence that support the logic behind
the justification
Qualifier
Emphasis/limitation/condition on the claim -
“in this particular situation,” “perhaps”
Rebuttal
Situation that suspends the claim - “unless,”
“except when”
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Elements of Argument
Grounds Conditions that allow for the claim
Claim
Assertion - the point of the
argument
Justification
Logical justification for the claim -
the “because” statement
Evidence
Facts/evidence that support the logic behind
the justification
Qualifier
Emphasis/limitation/condition on the claim -
“in this particular situation,” “perhaps”
Rebuttal
Situation that suspends the claim - “unless,”
“except when”
Many of you will stop here ...
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Elements of Argument
Grounds Conditions that allow for the claim
Claim Assertion - the point of the argument
Warrant
Logical justification for the claim - the
“because” statement
Evidence
Facts/evidence that support the logic
behind the justification
Qualifier
Emphasis/limitation/condition on the
claim - “in this particular situation,”
“perhaps”
Rebuttal
Situation that suspends the claim -
“unless,” “except when”
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Elements of Argument
Grounds Conditions that allow for the claim
Claim Assertion - the point of the argument
Warrant
Logical justification for the claim - the
“because” statement
Evidence
Facts/evidence that support the logic
behind the justification
Qualifier
Emphasis/limitation/condition on the
claim - “in this particular situation,”
“perhaps”
Rebuttal
Situation that suspends the claim -
“unless,” “except when”
These are all types of evidence -
but where do they come from?
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Evidence comes from research

Peer-reviewed/scholarly sources

Industry sources

“The Web”

All things we covered in the library workshop
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
How do you use the evidence?
Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world
today.
Text example taken from [2].
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
How do you use the evidence?
Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world
today. Their many uses range from flexible foam in
upholstered furniture, to rigid foam as insulation in
walls, roofs and appliances to thermoplastic
polyurethane used in medical devices and footwear,
to coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers used
on floors and automotive interiors.
Text example taken from [2].
Multiple examples of uses
lend credibility to “most
versatile” claim
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
How do you use the evidence?
Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world
today. Their many uses range from flexible foam in upholstered
furniture, to rigid foam as insulation in walls, roofs and appliances
to thermoplastic polyurethane used in medical devices and
footwear, to coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers used on
floors and automotive interiors [1,2].
Text example taken from [2].
Sources, along with being
necessary, also add
credibility
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
How do you use the evidence?
Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world
today. Their many uses range from flexible foam in upholstered
furniture, to rigid foam as insulation in walls, roofs and appliances
to thermoplastic polyurethane used in medical devices and
footwear, to coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers used on
floors and automotive interiors [1,2].
Text example taken from [2].
Sources, along with being
necessary, also add
credibility
This is a fairly simple argument
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Qualifying claims can create a more
nuanced argument
In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the
incidence of neck injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and
mathematical simulations found a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with increasing head
restraint height (Eichberger et al. 1996, Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head
restraint distance was found to be an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari 1999,
Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson 2001). Recently it seems as if these geometric
properties of head restraints improve (IIHS 2001), i.e. head restraints become higher and
closer to the head. However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee
a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.
Text example taken from [1].
Claim
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Qualifying claims can create a more
nuanced argument
In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of neck
injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and mathematical
simulations found a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with
increasing head restraint height (Eichberger et al. 1996,
Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head restraint
distance was found to be an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari
1999, Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson 2001). Recently it seems as if
these geometric properties of head restraints improve (IIHS 2001), i.e. head restraints
become higher and closer to the head. However, a good head restraint geometry does not
necessarily guarantee a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.
Text example taken from [1].
Backing - note how it
also qualifies the claim
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Qualifying claims can create a more
nuanced argument
In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of neck
injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and mathematical simulations found
a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with increasing head restraint height (Eichberger et
al. 1996, Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head restraint distance was found to be
an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari 1999, Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson
2001). Recently it seems as if these geometric properties of head restraints
improve (IIHS 2001), i.e. head restraints become higher and closer to the
head. However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum
occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.
Text example taken from [1].
Summation of the qualifying conditions
for the claim
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Qualifying claims can create a more
nuanced argument
In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of neck
injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and mathematical simulations found
a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with increasing head restraint height (Eichberger et
al. 1996, Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head restraint distance was found to be
an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari 1999, Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson
2001). Recently it seems as if these geometric properties of head restraints improve (IIHS
2001), i.e. head restraints become higher and closer to the head. However, a good
head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a
minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.
Text example taken from [1].
Rebuttal anticipates arguments against even a
qualified claim
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Qualifying claims can create a more
nuanced argument
However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum
occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted. The constitutive structures
of the seat, like seat back and recliner joint, contribute by the extent of
rotation of the seat back during impact to the effective distance between
head and head restraint. Studies have analysed approaches to change the basic
properties of a seat, like for example the stiffness. A general consensus whether it is better to
increase or to decrease the seat stiffness was not reached (Svensson et al. 1993, Håland et al.
1996, Song et al. 1996, Muser et al. 2000). The head restraint stiffness has also received a
controversial discussion with some advocating a stiffer head restraint for whiplash protection
(Dippel et al. 1997) and others recommending a decreased head restraint stiffness (Jakobsson
et al. 1993).
Text example taken from [1].
The rebuttal - in itself another claim - now gets a
justification ...
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Qualifying claims can create a more
nuanced argument
However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum
occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted. The constitutive structures of the
seat, like seat back and recliner joint, contribute by the extent of rotation of the seat back
during impact to the effective distance between head and head restraint. Studies have
analysed approaches to change the basic properties of a seat, like for
example the stiffness. A general consensus whether it is
better to increase or to decrease the seat
stiffness was not reached (Svensson et al. 1993, Håland et al.
1996, Song et al. 1996, Muser et al. 2000). The head restraint stiffness has
also received a controversial discussion with some advocating a stiffer
head restraint for whiplash protection (Dippel et al. 1997) and others
recommending a decreased head restraint stiffness (Jakobsson et al. 1993).
Text example taken from [1].
... with further evidence that breaks down the
arguments against
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Getting to the point at all levels

Avoid mystery - state claims early (at the
document, section and paragraph levels)

Avoid filler - consider whether or not the
information you’re providing is necessary to
your argument

Avoid wordiness/passive voice - these can
all cause a reader to lose the thread
(subject and action) of a sentence
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Unpacking the rubric criteria

Appropriate

Verified

Justified
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Unpacking the rubric criteria

Appropriate

Verified

Justified

Sound judgment in

selection of points of analysis

selection & application of
methods of analysis

Level of detail for client’s
needs
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Unpacking the rubric criteria

Appropriate

Verified

Justified

Logical method

Corroborating, credible
source
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Unpacking the rubric criteria

Appropriate

Verified

Justified

Persuasive engineering
argument

Avoid “sales” language

Sound argument structure
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
Additional Resources

Engineering Communication: From Principles to Practice, 2nd ed.
(Irish & Weiss, 2013)

1st ed. (2009) online at: http://search.library.utoronto.ca/
details?8441319&uuid=ffa71d20-bed8-4ced-
b77d-7e28e6052b54

Make an appointment with an ECP tutor; go to http://
www.engineering.utoronto.ca/Directory/students/ecp/
booking.htm

E-mail me at deborah.tihanyi@utoronto.ca with questions
Wednesday, 12 February, 14
References
[1] K. U. Schmitt, F. Beyeler, M. Muser, P. Niederer, “A visco-elastic foam as head restraint material -
experiments and numerical simulations using a biorid model,” International Journal of
Crashworthiness, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 341-348, 2004.
[2] K. M. Zia, H. N. Bhatti, I. A. Bhatti, “Methods for polyurethane and polyurethane composites,
recycling and recovery: A review,” Reactive and Functional Polymers, vol. 67, pp. 675-692, 2007.
[3] T. R. Miller, E. Zaloshnja, D. Hendrie. (2006, Nov.) Cost-Outcome Analysis of Booster Seats for
Auto Occupants Aged 4 to 7 Years. Pediatrics. [Online]. 118(5), pp. 1994-1998. Accessed February
26, 2010. Available: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/1994
Wednesday, 12 February, 14