Benchmarking of Polyurethane Technologies for Automotive

Seat Cushions

MARK A. KOSHUTE AND BRIAN L. NEAL

MICHAEL BLASZKIEWICZ Bayer Corporation
Bayer Corporation South Charleston Technical Center
100 Bayer Road P.O. Box 38007
Pittsburgh, PA 15205 South Charleston, WV 25303

ABSTRACT construction. The specific attributes required of the PU

Polyurethane foam has been the material of choice for
automotive seat cushions for over thirty years. Worldwide,
this material is broken down into four main technologies:
TDI-HR, TDI/MDI-HR, MDI-HR, and TDI-Hot Cure
foam. There has been much discussion recently as to
which technology is best for seat comfort and durability.
These technologies have been compared in past
publications, but in most cases, comparisons were not
made at the same hardness and density. This type of
comparison often results in misleading conclusions.
In this study, foams of different technologies were
systematically prepared at equivalent density and hardness
targets. The hardness/density grades were chosen based on
typical industry targets. These various foam grades were
subject to a battery of durability, comfort, and physical
property tests. Results were analyzed and correlations
developed.
The results showed that no one technology meets all
criteria over all foam grades. Moreover, within certain
density/hardness grades, the differences in performance
between technologies were small. In addition, in many
cases the results were more dependent on foam density and
foam depends on the total car concept and seat
construction. The other elements include the support
construction and cover. All components have to be in
harmony with the entire car concept.
The PU foams used in automotive seat cushioning can be
classified into three main chemistries or technologies.
They are Hot Cure (HC), TDI-HR (including TDI/MDI)
and MDI-HR foam. Different regions of the world have
different philosophies in seat design; therefore, the
performance requirements that need to be met are diverse,
as well. Thus, the level to which the three main
technologies are used depends on existing manufacturing
facilities, performance requirements, and market
conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the usage breakdown for
the three major technologies in the three major market
areas, NAFTA, Europe and Japan.
With the globalization of automotive OEM’s as well as
complete seat and foam manufacturers, the versatility in
producing these technologies has increased to the point
Hot Cure TDI-HR MDI-HR

hardness than on the technologies that were used. Each 100%

13.9 14.5
technology had its strengths and therefore the selection of
80% 40.5
appropriate technology should be made based on the
39.5
specific criteria that are trying to be met. 60%

40% 86.1
INTRODUCTION 41.5

20% 46.0
Polyurethane flexible foam has been the material of 0 18.0
choice for automotive seating for nearly four decades. Its 0%
NAFTA Europe Japan
success is due to the soft initial feel yet firm support that it
provides for the occupants. However, the PU foam Figure 1. Breakdown of world-wide PU usage by region
cushion is just one of several elements of the complete seat and technology.
where the question arises, “which technology is best for the
various performance requirements?” Many publications in
the past have compared the different technologies, but in
most cases, if not all, the comparisons were made at
different densities and/or different foam hardnesses.
Therein lies the purpose of this paper. We wanted to
systematically benchmark the different technologies at
equivalent density and hardness and answer the question:
“Is one single technology superior or more optimum than
any of the others from a performance stand point?” In
addition, we wanted to establish a baseline methodology
for evaluating new PU raw materials and technologies.
We chose to break down the three main technologies into
four categories. In addition to the Hot Cure technology,
TDI-HR was broken down into straight TD-80 and
TDI/MDI, or TM-20, as it is widely known. The MDI
technology used in this study was High Monomeric
Polymeric (HMP) MDI.
EXPERIMENTAL
Test Sample Preparation
For each technology, foam test blocks measuring 15 x 15
x 4 inches were prepared in water-jacketed aluminum
molds. All test blocks, with the exception of the Hot Cure
foam technology, were molded using state-of-the-art high
pressure Hennecke foam machines. The Hot Cure samples
were produced using the hand mix technique employing a
drill-press mixer. The mold temperature and mold release
used were dependent on the technology. All foams were
hand-crushed on de-mold to ensure good dimensional
stability. Subsequently, the foams were aged a minimum
of seven days at ambient conditions and for 24 hours at 72
o
F and 50% relative humidity before testing commenced.
Foam Chemistry
Typical foam formulations were used for each of the four
technologies studied: Hot Cure, TDI (TD-80), TDI/MDI
(TM-20), and MDI. The formulations used were generic in
nature and were not necessarily optimized for any
particular physical property. The goal was to identify
general trends, as well as areas for improvement, for each
Table 1. Foam Density and Hardness Targets (or Grades)
Density Hot Cure
3
32 kg/m 250 N
3 250 N
40 kg/m
400 N
3 250 N
56 kg/m
of the technologies and in doing so, develop a baseline for
future work.
Foam density was varied for all foams by water level
changes. Hardness in the Hot Cure foams was achieved
through index changes and polymer polyol additions.
Hardness in the TDI and TDI/MDI foams was varied
primarily by polymer polyol content, and in the MDI
foams through index changes only. A constant final part
thickness of four inches was used to develop a base line for
future studies. Foam thickness variations will be
investigated in follow-up work. Test blocks produced at
the same foam grade (density and hardness targets) were
produced at equivalent part weight. The density and
hardness targets for these test foams are summarized in
Table 1.
Foams were not made for all technologies in every grade.
For example, Hot Cure foam technology is not suitable for
high density and high hardness grades.
Testing Procedures
The test methods used in this study are summarized in
Table 2. The Ball Rebound Test was run according to
ASTM D 3574. A 16-mm diameter, 16.3-g steel ball was
dropped from a height of 500 mm and the percent rebound
was recorded.
Hysteresis Loss was determined using a Japanese
automotive manufacturer test method. The load-deflection
curve was obtained using a cross-head speed of 50
mm/min and a maximum deflection of 75%. The area
within this curve is the hysteresis loss.
The Transmissivity Test was performed according to
Japanese Automobile Standard, JASO B 407. A 46-kg
“Tekken”-type pressing plate was employed. An Instron
8500 servo-hydraulic system was used to provide a 5-mm
total vertical amplitude sine wave excitation. The input
and output vibration data were collected and analyzed
using two accelerometers and a Bruel and Kjaer 3550
multi-channel analyzer.
The 50% Humid Aged Compression Set Test was
performed according to ASTM D 3574. The samples were
humid aged in an autoclave at 105 oC for 3 hours, and
subsequently dried in a dry-air oven at 100 oC for 3 hours.
The samples were compressed 50% and placed in a 70 oC
Technology
TDI TDI/MDI MDI
250 N 250 N 250 N
250 N 250 N 250 N
400 N 400 N 400 N
250 N 250 N
400 N 400 N 400 N
 Table 2. Summary of Test Methods in the case of full foam seating. Initial seating comfort is
Test Method generally characterized as the soft initial “show room” feel.
Several tests have become important measures of this static
Ball Rebound ASTM D 3574
comfort. These tests include Ball Rebound and Hysteresis
Hysteresis Loss Japanese Standard
Loss [2] described in the Experimental section. Results of
Transmissivity JASO 407B these tests are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. (In
50% Humid Aged C. S. ASTM D 3574 these tables, the average of all HR technologies appears in
Wet Compression Set Japanese Standard the last column, and the overall average of a given
Constant Force Pounding ASTM D 3574 technology appears in the last row). As expected, all three
HR foam technologies yield much higher ball rebound
results than the Hot Cure foam. Among the HR foam
oven for 22 hours. The final thicknesses of the samples types, both TDI and TDI/MDI foams yielded slightly
were measured and the compression set as a percentage of higher values, on average, compared to MDI. However,
the original deflection was calculated. increases in ball rebound values can be attained more
The Wet Compression Set Test was performed according effectively by increasing the foam density than by
to a Japanese automotive manufacturer test method. The choosing one HR technology over another. This density
samples were compressed to 50% deflection and placed in effect occurs because as foam density increases, the
a 50 oC / 95% relative humidity oven for 22 hours. The polymer matrix must become less rigid and more elastic to
final thicknesses of the samples were measured and the maintain the same IFD.
compression set as a percentage of the original thickness Hysteresis loss results in Table 4 show a similar but
was calculated. inverse relationship to the ball rebound results. For both
The Constant Force Pounding (CFP) Dynamic Fatigue tests, best results were recorded with higher density, more
Test was performed according to ASTM D 3574. A force elastic foam. The highest hysteresis losses, regardless of
of 750 N was applied at a rate of 70 cycles per minute for technology, were recorded for the mid-density, hard foams
80,000 cycles. The thickness and 40% IFD hardness were and the low density soft foams. Figure 2 illustrates the
measured one hour after the dynamic pounding had ended, reasonably good linear inverse correlation of ball rebound
and the load loss and thickness loss were calculated. and hysteresis for the HR foams and confirms the
relationship reported in earlier work [1,2].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Transmissivity
Static Comfort
In recent years vibration transmissivity testing has evolved
Although the flexible foam is only one element in the to be an important test for assessing dynamic seating
total comfort spectrum, it can play a major role, especially comfort. The different technologies were tested in our

Table 3. Ball Rebound, %

3
Density (kg/m ) IFD50R (N) Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI HR Avg
32 250 47 60 61 55 59
40 250 50 63 60 61 61
40 400 45 56 60 59 58
56 250 68 64 60 63
56 400 65 65 60 63
Technology Avg 47 62 62 59

Table 4. Hysteresis Loss, %

3
Density (kg/m ) IFD50R (N) Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI HR Avg
32 250 29.0 27.4 25.8 33.0 28.7
40 250 24.3 21.2 25.8 27.7 24.9
40 400 31.0 28.3 26.4 31.0 28.6
56 250 16.7 14.3 21.1 17.4
56 400 18.2 18.1 23.0 19.8
Technology Avg 28.1 22.4 22.1 27.2
 with the natural frequency of both internal and external
90 human body parts causing possible discomfort. It is
desirable to have an amplitude reading below 1.0
80
(attenuating condition) at 6 Hz for improved comfort.
Ball Rebound, %

70 Table 7 lists these results for the different technologies at

60
50
y = -0.5385 x + 73.986
40
R2 = 0.74
30
10 15 20 25 30
Hysteresis Loss, %
Figure 2. Ball Rebound vs. Hysteresis Loss for HR foams.
Pittsburgh testing laboratory according to the JASO
procedure discussed earlier. The results of this testing are
listed in Tables 5 through 8.
Table 5 lists the peak transmissivity or amplitude at
resonance. The results show that foam hardness plays a
major role in this property. At a given density, as hardness
increases the amplitude at resonance increases. This
relationship held true for all technologies. TDI gave the
lowest peak transmissivity of all technologies.
The type of PU technology had very little influence on
the resonance frequency, shown in Table 6. On the other
hand, increases in foam density and hardness both tended
to shift the resonance frequency to lower values.
Another key parameter that can be determined from
transmissivity testing is the amplitude at 6 Hz. This
frequency is considered important because it coincides
various foam grades. Although some small differences in
technology were measured, the combination of density and
foam hardness had a greater effect than the differences
between technologies. The TDI/MDI technology had a
slightly lower average amplitude than the other foam
chemistries. The data shows that foams produced at high
density and hardness will attenuate at 6 Hz.
35 The final piece of information that can be gleaned from
the transmissivity test is the frequency at which the foam
starts attenuating or damping vibrations. These results are
compiled in Table 8. Again, lower frequencies are
desirable for optimum comfort. As with the amplitude at 6
Hz, high density and high hardness foams correspond to
lower attenuating frequencies. Comparing technologies,
TDI/MDI foams attenuated at slightly lower frequencies on
average than the other technologies. This transmissivity
data should be taken in context knowing that the results are
influenced by the type of test plate, type of excitation, and
sample thickness used [3].
Fatigue Testing
In order to maintain seating comfort, the occupants must
be kept as close to the original seating position as possible
under both static and dynamic fatigue conditions. The
most common static fatigue-type tests are compression set
tests that measure percent set after being held under
constant deflection for a specified amount of time at
elevated temperature. A more severe variation

Table 5. Peak Transmissivity

3
Density (kg/m ) IFD50R (N) Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI HR Avg
32 250 2.2 2.5 3.3 2.7 2.8
40 250 2.7 2.0 3.0 2.2 2.4
40 400 3.4 2.4 3.9 3.1 3.1
56 250 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.3
56 400 2.7 3.6 3.3 3.2
Technology Avg 2.8 2.3 3.3 2.7

Table 6. Resonance Frequency (Hz)

3
Density (kg/m ) IFD50R (N) Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI HR Avg
32 250 4.6 4.7 4.4 5.0 4.7
40 250 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.5
40 400 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
56 250 3.9 3.8 4.4 4.0
56 400 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
Technology Avg 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.3
 Table 7. Amplitude at 6 Hz
3
Density (kg/m ) IFD50R (N) Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI HR Avg
32 250 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.6
40 250 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3
40 400 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2
56 250 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.1
56 400 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8
Technology Avg 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3

Table 8. Attenuating Frequency (Hz)

3
Density (kg/m ) IFD50R (N) Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI HR Avg
32 250 7.8 7.5 6.9 8.1 7.5
40 250 6.8 7.7 6.7 7.5 7.3
40 400 6.2 6.9 6.6 6.5 6.7
56 250 6.7 6.0 7.6 6.8
56 400 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.6
Technology Avg 6.9 6.9 6.4 7.0

of this test is the Humid Aged Compression Set (HACS).
This test consists of an initial high temperature and
humidity aging followed by a drying step before
conducting the compression set test. Another variation is
the Wet Compression Set Test. In this variation, the
compression set test is run at moderately high temperature
and high humidity. The results of the 50% HACS Test and
the Wet Compression Set Test are shown in Figure 3. The
average compression set value for each technology foam
grade is plotted.
The Hot Cure foam compression set results were
substantially lower than the HR foam results. In fact, the
Hot Cure foams gave the lowest values in both types of
compression set testing. This behavior is a well-known
positive characteristic of Hot Cure foam. Among the HR
foam types, MDI foam performed the best in both types of
compression set testing. Figure 4 shows that the foam
density influences these results with higher density giving
the desired lower compression set values. The effect of
density was greater than the effect of different HR foam
technologies. In addition, all foam technologies gave
comparable results at high density.
The other class of fatigue testing is known as dynamic
fatigue. It can be argued that these types are more
representative of real life use. Dynamic fatigue tests can
be conducted two different ways: at a constant pounding
force or at constant deflection.
We chose to run the constant force pounding (CFP) test
according to ASTM D 3574. The description of this test
was discussed in an earlier section. The different foam
technologies are plotted at three different densities in
Figures 5, 6, and 7. Figure 5 shows that at the lowest

50% HACS Wet Set 50% HACS Wet Set

30 30
Compression Set, %

Compression Set, %

25 25
20
Average

Average

20
15 15
10 10

5 5
0 0
Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI 32 40 56

PU Foam Technology Foam Density, kg/m3

Figure 3. 50% HACS and Wet Compression Set results Figure 4. Effect of foam density on compression set.
averaged over all foam grades. Values averaged over all technologies.
 Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI TDI TDI/MDI MD I
35 35
30 30

Load Loss, %
25 25
Load Loss, %

20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
250 N 250 N 400N
3 3
Figure 5. Load Loss results at 32 kg/m using ASTM Figure 7. Load Loss results at 56 kg/m using ASTM
Constant Force Pounding Test. Constant Force Pounding Test.

density and hardness, all foam technologies perform the
same in that they all give CFP Load Loss results of
approximately 25%.
The middle density load loss results (Figure 6) show that
harder foams tend to perform better than softer foams.
This is a well-known artifact of the constant force
pounding test. That is, harder foams are not strained as
much as softer foams and thus undergo less stress
softening. Comparing different technologies, TDI and
TDI/MDI foams tend to give lower load loss than Hot Cure
or MDI foam. The MDI used in this study was a higher
hardness type. Optimization of MDI isomer content and
polyol resin would give results similar to the TDI and
TDI/MDI results.
At the high density (Figure 7) there are some subtle
differences between technologies, but all performed well
regardless of foam hardness. An interesting follow-up
study would be to repeat this load loss comparison after
performing the fatigue-conditioning step at more severe
conditions (high temperature and humidity) to determine if
the same trends occur.
Seat designers and foam producers are continually
searching for short-term tests that can correlate to and
approximate these longer, more time consuming dynamic
fatigue tests, such as CFP. Hysteresis loss is one short-
term test that is often looked upon as a possible predictor
of fatigue performance. However, Figure 8 shows that the
CFP test does not correlate very well with hysteresis loss
as the sole variable.
If hardness is also included in the model, the correlation
improves dramatically. A plot of predicted vs. actual CFP
Load Loss using this improved model is shown in Figure 9
and is described by the equation:
CFP Load Loss = 11.95 - 0.07 x Hardness (N)
(1)
+ 1.04 x Hysteresis Loss(%)
Attempts were also made to correlate the CFP Load Loss
results with the transmissivity data. Resonance Frequency
was the one parameter found to correlate well with CFP
load loss (Figure 10) provided that the HR foam data and
Hot Foam data are treated as separate populations. This
means that the less time consuming transmissivity testing
can be run as at least a screening test to predict constant
force pounding fatigue results.
The correlation coefficient can be improved even further
(0.75 to 0.86) if the variables of foam density and hardness
are included. The improved model is shown in Figure 11
and is described by the equation:
CFP Load Loss = -14.20 - 0.25 x Density (kg/m3) - 0.006 x
Hardness(N) + 10.59 x Resonance Freq. (Hz) (2)

35
30
Hot Cure TDI TDI/MDI MDI
25
35
Load Loss, %

30 20
25
Load Loss, %

15
20
15 10
10
5
5 2
R = 0.53
0 0
250 N 400N 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 6. Load Loss results at 40 kg/m using ASTM
3 Hysteresis Loss, %
Constant Force Pounding Test. Figure 8. Load Loss vs Hysteresis Loss for HR foam.
 35
35
30

Load Loss, % Actual

Load Loss, % Actual 30
25
25
20
20
15
10 15
R2=0.85
R2=0.86
5 10
0 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Load Loss, % Predicted Load Loss, % Predicted

Figure 9. Actual and predicted Load Loss using the model Figure 11. Actual and predicted Load Loss using the
with hardness and hysteresis loss. model with density, hardness, and resonance frequency.

This model shows that increasing the density and
hardness and keeping the transmissivity resonance
frequency low will give better fatigue data. Additional
data should be collected to confirm these models.
FUTURE WORK
Using this data as a baseline, future work should include:
• Evaluating these foams in the constant force pounding
test under higher temperature and high humidity
conditions.
• Reducing the foam thickness and reformulating each
technology to get the same density and hardness
35
30
Hot Foam
25
Load Loss, %
• Evaluating new PU raw materials and technologies
using this methodology
• Validating the models for long-term dynamic fatigue
data.
SUMMARY
A methodology has been developed to systematically
evaluate different PU foam technologies at constant
density and hardness. In this study, typical foam systems
for each technology were used to establish a baseline for
future raw material and technology evaluations. Data from
this preliminary work provided some interesting results
and insight. No one technology was superior in all
comfort, durability, or physical property tests. However,
each technology had one or more strengths. In several
cases, foam density and/or hardness had more of an effect
than did the choice of PU technology. Moreover, with
each of the four technologies, foam formulations can be
optimized in most cases to meet the particular OEM
specifications.
The choice of technology should be based on the type of

seat parts being produced, the specifications that have to be

20 met, and regional economics. A wide variety of different
HR Foam PU foam technologies are available to the OEM design
15 engineers. Thus enabling the challenges provided from the
complex profile of desired seat cushion performance and
10 whole seat assemblies to be met. Having established a
2
R = 0.75
5 powerful tool for profiling foam chemistries in conjunction
with one of the most balanced product portfolios within the
0 industry, Bayer is in the pole position for customer support
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 for the foams of a new millenium.
Resonance Frequency, Hz
Figure 10. Load Loss as a function of resonance
frequency.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Ken
Sumner and Ron Zibert for their technical support with
sample generation and data compilation. We would also
like to thank Walter Heckla, John Liddle, Lon Grant and
Don Glass for their support in foam testing. Without their
dedicated work, this paper would not have been possible.
Thanks also to Joachim Werner and Sven Meyer-Ahrens
for their contributions and technical discussions.
REFERENCES
1. Hilyard, N.C. 1994. ”Hysteresis Loss in Flexible
Polyurethane Foams,” in Low Density
CellularPlastics: Physical Basis of Behavior, N.C.
Hilyard and A. Cunnigham, eds. Chapman and Hall,
Chapter 8.
2. Blair, G. R., R. So, A. Milivojevich, and J. D. van
Heumen. 1998. “Automotive Seating Comfort:
Investigating the Polyurethane Foam Contribution-
Phase 1,” SAE International Congress and Exposition
980656.
3. Neal, B.L., 2000. ”Differences in Dynamic
Performance of Molded Polyurethane Foam as a
Function of Pad Thickness and Supported Load,”
Proceedings of the API Polyurethanes Conference.
BIOGRAPHIES
Mark A. Koshute
Mark A. Koshute is a Senior
Development Scientist in the
Polyurethane Division of Bayer
Corporation. He joined Bayer
Corporation (then Mobay
Chemical Corporation) after
receiving his M.S. degree in
Polymer Science from the
University of Akron/Institute of
Polymer Science. He has 22 years
of experience developing new polyurethane raw materials
and foam systems for various automotive interior
applications including seating, headrests and headliner
applications.
Michael Blaszkiewicz
Dr. Michael Blaszkiewicz is a
Senior Associate Scientist in
Materials Characterization of
Bayer Corporation’s
Polyurethanes Division. He is
responsible for developing test
methods that simulate material
performance in real-world
applications and for investigating
structure-property correlations for
polyurethane materials. Michael
received a Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University
in 1992 and spent one year as a visiting scientist at
Siemens in Munich, Germany, investigating the creep
properties of piezoelectric actuators. Prior to joining
Bayer, Michael was involved in failure analysis, product
design, and computer modeling of materials at the
Westinghouse Science and Technology Center.
Brian L. Neal
Brian Neal received a Ph.D. in
Chemical Engineering from the
University of Delaware in 1997.
In 1996, he joined ARCO
Chemical Company, which
subsequently was acquired by
Lyondell Chemical Company. He
joined Bayer Corporation’s
Polyurethanes Division in 2000,
following Bayer’s acquisition of
Lyondell’s global polyols
business. At Bayer, he is a Principal Research Engineer at
the South Charleston Technical Center in West Virginia,
working to develop new polyols and systems for HR
molded foam applications.