Continuous PU Panels Production - Productivity Evaluation and Chemical Systems Cost Comparison

Continuous PU Panels Production - Productivity Evaluation and Chemical

Systems Cost Comparison
Theodoros Bouras-Soulimas, TCG Licensed Chemical Engineer
https://www.linkedin.com/in/theodoros-bouras-soulimas-b0a101133/

Notation:

i PU panel of i mm thickness (wall or roof).

mi (Kg) Chemicals required to produce all i mm thickness PU panel orders (based on
recipe – theoretical).
m̂ i (Kg/m2) Chemicals required to produce 1 m2 of an i mm thickness PU panel (based on
recipe – theoretical).
v̂i (m3/m2) Physical volume of 1 m2 i mm thick PU panel (insulating core).
Vi (m3) Total physical volume of i mm thickness PU panel production.
Si Total production of i mm thickness PU panels.
Σmi (Kg) Chemicals required to produce all mm thickness PU panel placed orders (based
on recipe – theoretical).
Σm (Kg) Census based chemicals consumption after all mm thickness PU panel placed
orders production.
ΣVi (m3) Total physical volume of all mm thickness PU panels production.
ΣSi (m2) Total production of all mm thickness PU panels.
ρi (Kg/m3) Density of an i mm thickness PU panel (insulating core).
ρi = m̂ i / v̂i = mi / Vi
ρ (Kg/m3) ρ = Σm / ΣVi
ρₒ (Kg/m3) ρₒ = Σmi / ΣVi
ISOi (Kg) Isocyanate required to produce all i mm thickness PU panel orders (based on
recipe – theoretical).
ISOi + POLi ≈ 0.95 × mi
POLi (Kg) Polyol required to produce all i mm thickness PU panel orders (based on recipe
– theoretical).
ISOi + POLi ≈ 0.95 × mi
R R = ISOi / POLi

Theodoros Bouras-Soulimas, TCG Licensed Chemical Engineer Page 1 of 4

Continuous PU Panels Production - Productivity Evaluation and Chemical Systems Cost Comparison

Ui m/min Production speed of an i mm thickness PU panel (based on recipe – theoretical).

ti min Life span of a PU discharge rake code utilized when producing an i mm thickness
PU panel.

1. Continuous PU panels line productivity evaluation

The most common productivity indices are scrap/ B rated m² production, total PU panels production
per product thickness, as well as total materials consumption (chemicals & coils) over a fixed period.

The actual chemicals consumption per product m² as opposed to the theoretical requirements
(recipe based), is the most important evaluation parameter since it directly affects accounting
results (production cost per m²). It is a strong function of the metal facings’ back coating quality
(usually variable), as well as utilized chemicals system’s origin nP mixability (surfactants, silicons, etc)
and to a certain extend the production line’s subsystems capacity or specifications (corona
treatment, dynamic and static mixers geometries, low or high pressure side mixing & pipeline
length).

Comparing ρ versus ρₒ (see table above) is the most convenient & meaningful way to evaluate
productivity over a fixed period since it correlates production input with output, instead of just an
input based evaluation as it would be the case with actual versus theoretical chemicals consumption.
Despite this input-output correlation, the ρ versus ρₒ approach is not sufficient when comparing
productivity over different periods with different production outputs (ΣSᵢ) and of course different
product mix (insulating core thicknesses i). Different outputs of different product mix data need first
to be put into context in order to enable interpretations and meaningful efficiency comparisons
between different production periods.

In doing so, it would be useful to convert every i mm thick PU panel production into the most
frequently produced thickness equivalent in terms of chemicals’ consumption (wall 50 mm insulating
element for the purposes of this report). Considering the adequacy of for example, 1 ton of ISO+POL
chemicals to produce SW50 m² of wall 50mm PU panels or SR30 m² of roof 30 mm PU panels, it would
be:

1000 𝐾𝑔
𝑆𝑤50 =
𝑚𝑊50
𝜌𝑖 × 𝑉𝑖
𝑆𝑊50 × 𝑚𝑊50 = 𝑆𝑅30 × 𝑚𝑅30 𝑆𝑊50 = 𝑆𝑖 ×
𝜌𝑊50 × 𝑉𝑊50
1000 𝐾𝑔
𝑆𝑟30 =
𝑚𝑅30

thus enabling any i mm thickness panel production Sᵢ to be reduced to a wall 50 mm equivalent

production. The efficiency of any production period can now be transcribed into a single integral
index as follows:

𝐾𝑔 𝛴𝑚 𝜌𝑖 × 𝑉𝑖
Reduced Efficiency Index: 𝛥 2
= where 𝛴𝑆𝑤50 = 𝛴 𝑆𝑖 ×
𝑚 𝛴𝑆𝑊50 𝜌𝑊50 × 𝑉𝑊50

A reduced index Δ translates into the same wall 50 mm reduced total m² production exactly meeting
client demand for lesser amount of chemicals in any given production period and therefore
corresponds to an improved efficiency when comparing production periods.

An increased Δ index and therefore reduced efficiency, could be attributed to increased product
densities to compensate for inferior metal facings’ back-coating quality or line subsystems’
performance (corona treatment for example), frequent production halts (increased startup scrap),
inefficient production scheduling (number of startups and corresponding scrap), increased A/B rated

Theodoros Bouras-Soulimas, TCG Licensed Chemical Engineer Page 2 of 4

Continuous PU Panels Production - Productivity Evaluation and Chemical Systems Cost Comparison

production m² (A rated production = surplus m² production over client placed orders to be stocked)
etc.

2. Chemical systems cost comparison

A chemical system selection based exclusively on €/Kg ISO & €/Kg POL can be quite misleading in
terms of overall cost effectiveness. Physicochemical parameters such as origin nP mixability, POL
viscosity & silicons affect production cost directly (increased ρ, PU discharge rake performance and
therefore production cycle duration with corresponding startup scrap, etc) and should therefore be
taken into consideration.

Likewise with productivity comparisons, €/Kg ISO & €/Kg POL data need to be put into a more
meaningful & production output related context to enable cost effective decisions when choosing a
chemical system. A well informed decision on a chemical systems’ cost efficiency respectfully to
another’s should therefore be based on:

 actual cost per unit mass of the chemical system in total (actual €/Kg ISO+POL) instead of
just the cost per unit mass of the chemical system’s component (€/Kg ISO & €/Kg POL)
 actual cost of the chemical system per m² of a wall 50 mm reduced production (or other
most frequently produced thickness assumption)

both in reference to a documented production period (annual data preferably). Actual costing takes
production cycle & PU discharge rake procurement (expendable, one use plastic rakes - if applicable)
related costs into consideration.

It is:

𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚
𝐼𝑆𝑂 + 𝑃𝑂𝐿 = 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝐼𝑆𝑂 = 𝑅 ×
𝑅+1
𝐼𝑆𝑂 𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚
𝑃𝑂𝐿
=𝑅 𝑃𝑂𝐿 = 𝑅+1

€ R × €/Kg ISO + €/Kg POL

€/Kg of chemical system = =
Kg ISO + POL R + 1

Startup scrap following a production halt consists of approximately (based on experience) 10 m² of

scraped metal coil (5 m² upper & 5 m² bottom metal facings) + 5 m² of A/B rated panels. The
corresponding €/production halt cost can be determined as follows:

€/production halt = 10 m² scrapped metal coil × ~ 3.5 Kg/m² metal coil × (€/Kg metal coil
procurement cost – €/Kg scrapped metal coil retail) + 5 m² B rated panel × (average €/m²
placed panel order selling price – average €/m² B rated panel selling price)

Therefore:

Actual €/Kg ISO+POL = { €/Kg ISO+POL } + { production halt related costs due to life span of PU
discharge rake system (function of rake geometry & physicochemical characteristics of the PU
chemical system) } + { expendable, one use plastic rakes procurement related costs (if applicable) }

€ € 𝑆𝑖 € 1 𝑆𝑖 1
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐾𝑔 𝐼𝑆𝑂+𝑃𝑂𝐿
= 𝐾𝑔 𝐼𝑆𝑂+𝑃𝑂𝐿 + 𝛴 𝑈𝑖 ×𝑡 𝑖
× 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑡
× 𝐼𝑆𝑂 +𝑃𝑂𝐿
+𝛴 𝑈𝑖
×𝑡 | ×
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑚𝑖𝑛
€ 1
× 𝛴(𝐼𝑆𝑂
𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖 +𝑃𝑂𝐿 𝑖 )

and

Theodoros Bouras-Soulimas, TCG Licensed Chemical Engineer Page 3 of 4

Continuous PU Panels Production - Productivity Evaluation and Chemical Systems Cost Comparison

€ € 𝛴(𝐼𝑆𝑂 𝑖 +𝑃𝑂𝐿 𝑖 )
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 50 𝑚𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑚 2
= 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐾𝑔 𝐼𝑆𝑂+𝑃𝑂𝐿
× 𝛴𝑆𝑊 50

Notes:

 The PU discharge rake’s life span contribution to actual costs should be taken into
consideration mostly for 30 to 50 mm wall & roof panels where the shorter production cycle
issues are more predominant (most likely due to higher reactivities and because of
scheduled production runs of all other species usually lasting less than 1.5 h).
 ISO & POL reactants comprise approximately 95% of PU insulating core’s mass with the rest
5% consisting of catalysts, additives & blowing agent(s). If comparing cost against a chemical
system with incomplete recipe portfolio, ISOᵢ & POLᵢ can be obtained through:

ISOᵢ = Sᵢ × 0.95 × (ρᵢ × v̂ i) × R / (R + 1) & POLᵢ = Sᵢ × 0.95 × (ρᵢ × v̂ i) / (R + 1)

Theodoros Bouras-Soulimas, TCG Licensed Chemical Engineer Page 4 of 4