Adhesion Capabilities of Permanent Foaming Fixatives

Abstract

DOE-EM have identified an operational requirement for a fixative that can immobilize and/or encapsulate residual contamination in 3D void volumes (pipes, gloveboxes, waste containers, etc.) during D and D activities. Failure to safely and effectively immobilize residual contamination can: Put workers at risk; Contaminate the public and environment; Drive up costs. Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) polyurethane (PU) foams is one possible solution and is currently being investigated by Savannah River National Lab (SRNL). Adhesion testing will dictate how well PU foams will adhere and immobilize residual contamination onto a substrate. Results can provide a performance criteria for Section 5 of ASTM E3191: Standard Specification for Permanent Foaming Fixatives Used to Mitigate Spread of Radioactive Contamination. Initial mechanical testing showed intumescent rigid PU foams were best in class (tensile, compression, TGA/DSC) Application of intumescent rigid PU foam in pipe scenario with 'contamination' showed excellent adhesion capabilities as long as foam had contact with pipe. The foam, however, was not able to penetrate 'contamination' but created pockets where the contamination interacted with the substrate. Pretreatment options of pipe were considered to produce better immobilization capabilities. Pretreatment options included COTS products like baking spray, rubber cement, and soap. Foam was still able to immobilize on a global sense, but not a local sense. Essentially acted as a mechanical plug. A tensile tester (MTS Criterion Series 43) was utilized to evaluate the tensile adhesion strength of 6 COTS PU foams. ASTM D1623: Tensile and Tensile Adhesion Properties of Rigid Cellular Plastics. Procedures: PU foams were cured between two smooth 2'' x 2'' 304 stainless steel coupons with hinges glued on plates for gripping support. Parameters Used: Pull rate of 0.1 in/min. Calculations: Tensile adhesion strength, elongation, and ImageJ analysis of how PU foam is left on substrate. Outcome: The PU foam with the best adhesion capabilities would be downselected for further evaluation to be used as a permanent foaming fixative. The rigid PU foams had the best adhesion capabilities with the R1 foam having a max load of 236 N. One of the I-R2 samples reached almost 450 N and another sample reached 2500 N before slipping. The other intumescent foam, I-F4, had the most coverage on the stainless steel coupon's surface from the ImageJ results (61.43% surface coverage). The intumescent foam, I-R2, will be the foam of choice for future testing due its fire retardant and adhesion capabilities. Future directions: Conduct the following experiment in a pipe scenario with the down-selected PU foam. Procedures: PU foam will be cured between in a 304 stainless steel pipe (ID: 4'', OD: 4.5'', Height: 4''). Parameters Used: Compression testing results will be referenced to determine if foam's adhesion strength would be greater its compression strength as its being compressed. Calculations: Compression strength, shear stress, total time elapsed. Conduct further adhesion testing with the down-selected PU foam (I-R2) to be treated as a permanent foaming fixative (PFF). Determine the minimum contact the PFF should have with the substrate for adequate results. Evaluate if PFF's adhesion capabilities is time dependent (3.1.5 of ASTM E3911). Subject PFF to seismic stressors addressed in Safety Basis of Interim Operation documents (SBIO) to further evaluate adhesion capabilities.