|
|
Breaking the Performance Barrier in Automotive Interiors
by Jim Bilancieri
Rijoy Putatunda
Derrick Twene
Ad van Dorst
March 1, 2010
The
U.S. automotive industry has gone through huge transformations in the past 30
years, starting with the structure of the industry, where the dominance of the
Big Three has been challenged by global players. Improvements in on-the-road
performance have made exponential step changes as well. The performance
improvements cover multi-dimensional aspects like fuel efficiency, robustness,
safety features and comforts to name a few (Table 1).
Interior automotive design has also undergone broad changes to improve
ergonomics, functionality and appeal. Not the least of these is the expanded
use of durable plastic materials, which now account for the majority of the
human-contact surfaces.
In this article, we focus on the needs of interior car coatings. These coatings
are driven by three criteria: look, feel and functionality. While look and feel
are a function of fashion trends and are relatively short lived, the demands in
functionality are usually step changes in terms of physical and chemical
resistance properties which, in turn, are intended to preserve the look and
feel of the coating.
Automotive Interiors: A Pleasurable Ride
Interior
automotive surfaces like door trim panels, instrument panels, dashboards and
center consoles are often exposed to a broad array of chemicals as a result of
daily use. Just considering the ingredients found in food and personal care
items, cleaners and dressings, deodorizers and pet products; interior surfaces
must be resistant to chemicals, which can be oleophilic or hydrophilic; acidic
or alkaline; and solvents like alcohols, glycol ethers and hydrocarbons.
Chemicals particularly harsh to interior surfaces include sun tan lotion,
mosquito repellant (DEET: N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) and the freshness
fragrances that make driving a more pleasurable experience. Now let’s raise the
degree of difficulty by requiring protection at sub-zero and elevated
temperatures to 140 ºF!
All global automotive players have defined
standards for interior coatings so that they retain their look and feel in the
face of these extreme conditions. For example, General Motors has developed the
Global Approved Paint on Plastic Systems based on GM 14867 specification. These
are usually one-component systems. On the other hand Volkswagen’s TL-226
specification has another set of stringent standards that typically use
two-component systems in Europe.
Defining the Innovation Need
Coating
suppliers to the interior automotive plastics market are often large
multinational corporations or regional players who form global alliances in
order to supply the OEMs across the planet. Local regulations and growing
consumer sustainability awareness make the use of low-VOC waterborne systems a
prerequisite for many of the surface protection coating systems. Subsequently,
coatings need to have good atomization during application providing the
“appearance” prescribed by the designer, high adhesion to ABS and PC-ABS
plastics and protective properties to resist chemical and abrasion
attack.
The GM Global Specification and VW TL-226 specifications for interior
automotive plastic coatings have particularly defined the need to address the
DEET/sun lotion attack on the coating systems. Both require resistance to attack
under 80 ºC temperatures. To meet these demands, this multinational team of
developers chose a polyurethane-hybrid polymer system.
For application areas where the requirements are at a high level, urethane
polymer chemistry forms a good basis from which new performance barriers can be
reached.
Polymer Design
Various
synthesis routes for high-molecular-weight polyurethane dispersions are common
practice. Best know are the acetone process, the melt dispersion process, the ketamine
process and the prepolymer mixing process. The first synthesis step of all
these processes is the same, being a well-known polyurethane reaction in which
diols or polyols are reacted with diisocyanates (Figure 1). Reaction product is
then dispersed in water.
In the case of anionic polyurethane dispersions, the prepolymer chains contain
carboxylic acid stabilizing groups provided, for example, by dimethylol
propionic acid (DMPA). The prepolymer acidity is then neutralized and
transferred to water, where spontaneous particle formation occurs. Chain
extension is then carried out resulting in the formation of a
high-molecular-weight waterborne polyurethane polymer dispersion. The very
nature of the process results in the formation of a polymer colloid, which is
significantly different from that of emulsion polymers. They differ in terms of
their colloidal, morphological and application
characteristics.
It
is well understood that, in terms of particle and polymer morphology,
polyurethane dispersions have a unique advantage over many other polymers in
their ability to form coherent films. The degree of coalescence and the
interpenetration of the polymer chains leading to further gradual coalescence
of the particles are reported to be much higher for typical polyurethane than
for a typical acrylic latex particle (Figure 2).
Critical
to the superior film formation are two factors. First is the presence of water
within the particle. Moisture content of the particle plays the roll of
plasticizer in that it softens the particle thus making it easier to coalesce,
as shown in Figure 3.
The second critical factor involves the nano-particle
size of most polyurethane dispersions. During the coalescing process, particles
are driven together by the evaporation of water from the coating. This
“hydrostatic vacuum” forces the particles together the same way evacuating air
between two surfaces binds them. The effectiveness of this process is relative
to the surface area of particles. For a given mass of dispersed polymer,
smaller particles will result in a greater surface area and a greater driving
force.
Moreover,
polyurethanes “generate” performance enhancement due to their ability to form
micro-phase morphology, where hard segments and soft segments (segment phase
separation) are manipulated to achieve suitable polymer packing resulting in
enhanced hydrogen bonding (Figures 4 and 5). In designing new polymers to meet
the new performance criteria this performance enhancer is addressed with special
care.
Additionally,
the inclusion of a polyurethane-hybrid design provided benefits that a
polyurethane homopolymer or physical blend of resins could not. It is well
understood that many of the physical performance improvements found in a hybrid
design over a physical blend can be attributed to the homogeneity of the dried
films.
The Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) images,
shown in Figure 6, are presented in the phase mode showing the hard and soft
segment distribution of the polymer. The image on the left illustrates the
incoherent phase distribution of two dissimilar polymers during film formation.
The image on the right illustrates the homogeneous distribution of dissimilar
polymer resulting from hybrid polymerization. A homogeneous distribution of
these regions is important in maintaining the physical characteristics of the
polyurethane. Nano-phase hybrid technology is regarded as an excellent way to
reinforce coatings and improve their performance.
Meeting Performance Needs on Two Continents
The
GM World specification for interior automotive plastics (GMW14867) contains
demanding performance requirements for adhesion, humidity and impact, but the
most demanding requirement is the resistance to chemical attack at 80 ºC (Table
2). GMW14445 utilizes a chemical cocktail comprised of equal amounts of: DEET,
octyl methoxycinnamate, octocrylene, and homosalate.
Of
equal difficulty is the VW TL-226 specification, which requires 24 h resistance
to hand cream and sun block lotion at 80 ºC (Table 3).
By
means of intelligent raw material choices and proprietary polymerization
techniques NeoRez R-4000 was developed to meet the resistance challenge of GMW
14867 and VW TL-226. NeoRez R-4000 is designed to be effective in both 1K and
2K coatings. Two-component coatings utilize a blend of hydrophilic and
hydrophobic isocyanate adducts to achieve higher crosslink density that is
required to meet the 24 h 80 ºC test. Performance test results are shown in
Table 4.
Formulation
NeoRez
R-4000 can be compounded to meet the appearance needs for clearcoats, solid
colors with varying grades of gloss and, of course, metallic (silver being the
most popular). Waterborne coatings also need a shelf life of about six months,
which demands good compatibility of the binder with the pigment preparation and
additive alike. Starting-point formulations are shown in Table
5.
To
ensure good compatibility, all formulations should be prepared using a
high-speed dissolver with each additive being carefully incorporated to avoid
shock or flocculation. For two-component formulations, a (1:1) ratio of
hydrophobic combined with hydrophilic isocyanate was added to a set amount of
the one-component finished formulation under agitation (Table
6).
The final formula films where checked as
drawdowns on glass for flocculation and incompatibility. The coatings were
visually assessed then measured for gloss, haze and pigment float. The
formulations were additionally stored at 50 ºC for 3 months and
rechecked for quality and performance.
Conclusion
It is well known that the performance standards for
interior automotive plastic coatings have dramatically changed since plastics
first appeared in the automobile cockpit. The standards established by General
Motors and Volkswagen are amongst the most difficult to meet. But considering
the plethora of chemicals, food items and reagents that may be residing on a
coated plastic surface during mid afternoon sun in Phoenix it stands to reason
that the polymers used to protect and beautify these substrates need to be top
performers. NeoRez R-4000 is a new and effective polymer to help the formulator
meet this challenge. n
Acknowledgements
The authors convey thanks to Ilse Koks- van den Nouweland, Sandy Wheeler and
Delia Kriticos for experimental application work, and Herman Ryborz and Stefan
Geboers for contributing the numerous synthesis and not giving up.
This paper was
presented at the Coatings for Plastics Symposium sponsored by PCI Magazine,
Chicago, 2009.
|
Ad van Dorst DSM
NeoResins, Wilmington, MA
Rijoy Putatunda DSM
NeoResins, Wilmington, MA
Derrick Twene DSM
NeoResins, Wilmington, MA
Jim Bilancieri DSM
NeoResins, Wilmington, MA
References 1. Dietrich,
D. Prog. Org. Coatings 1981,
9, 281. 2. SatGuru,
R.; McMahon, J.; Padget, J.C.; Coogan, R.G. J. Coatings Techn. 1994, 66, (830), 47. 3. Wilkinson,
T.S. PhD thesis (1997), Lancaster University Lancaster, UK. 4. Lucas,
H.R.; Mealmaker, W.E.; Giannopous, N.
Prog. Org. Coatings 1996, 27, 133. 5. vd
Waals, A.; Satguru, R.; Swaans, R.; Dekkers, C. PPCJ 2009, 1, 20-21.
Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
|
| |
|
|
|