Customer Specifies PORON®? Deson Helps You Cut Costs from Three Angles​

In electronics, telecom, and automotive, Rogers PORON® microcellular polyurethane foam is a trusted choice for gasketing, sealing, and cushioning. Its compression set resistance, flame retardancy, and wide hardness range make it a benchmark material.

But "trusted" comes with a rising price tag. Raw material costs, logistics, and labor have all climbed, and PORON® prices keep increasing. Many customers tell us: "We've always used this grade, but the price is now killing our budget."

The real question is: Is that specific PORON® grade on your drawing still the best fit for your current product?

Deson doesn't manufacture PORON®, but we process it daily – slitting, die‑cutting, laminating. We know Rogers' numbering system and the cost behind each parameter better than most.

When we see "PORON 4701-40-15-188-04," our first step isn't quoting – it's decoding that number with you.

1. Decode the Number – Avoid "Over‑Specification"

Rogers' numbering is a compact material ID. Take “4701-40-15-188-04”:

• 4701: Formulation family — determines flame retardancy, outgassing level, and temperature resistance

• 40: Compression modulus — higher hardness requires more material cohesion and higher processing cost

• 15: Foam thickness — thicker grades equal higher material consumption

• 188: Custom width — non-standard sizes generate serious edge-trim waste

• Suffix P: PET lamination — adds extra material and lamination labor cost

This system lets you choose different thickness, hardness, and width within the same family. But in practice, many customers picked a grade years ago and never re‑evaluated – even as product design, volumes, and processes changed.

Ask yourself:

- Can thickness be adjusted? If your gap is 0.5mm, do you really need 0.38mm? Maybe 0.4mm or 0.5mm works and costs less.

- Is that hardness necessary? A 40 psi grade (medium) might be overkill for low‑stress sealing; 30 psi could suffice and cost slightly less.

- Does width cause nesting waste?Specified width may not match die‑cut layout, leaving unusable edge trim.

- Is PET lamination truly needed? If not, skip it – save material and lamination cost.

Real example: A consumer electronics customer specified high‑density PORON 4790-92-20 for a display cushion. Space was ample, stress low. We suggested 4701-40-15 (medium density, standard thickness) – performance met all requirements, material cost dropped ~22%, tool life improved. Small‑batch trial passed with zero issues.

Decoding isn't about changing for change's sake – it's about knowing if that "specific digit" is calculated or just habit.

2. From Brand Spec to Performance Benchmarking – Let Data Speak

If we find the specified PORON® is over‑specified, we move to performance‑equivalent alternatives.

Principle: substitution is a lateral move, not a downgrade.We only recommend alternatives that match or exceed:

- Compression set

- Flame retardancy

- Hardness/modulus range

- Long‑term reliability (verified)

Two substitution paths:

- Within the same brand: e.g., move from 4790 series (higher performance) to 4701 series (balanced) with same dimensions – lower cost, same brand trust.

- Cross‑brand matching:Other brands or domestic foams can match key physical properties (compression set, rebound, hardness, flame rating).

Evaluation process we recommend:

1. Get TDS (Technical Data Sheets) – compare compression set, density, hardness, flame rating, temp range point‑by‑point.

2. Run sample tests – Deson provides free die‑cut samples for real assembly testing (fit, seal, rebound after compression). We suggest at least 72‑hour compression testing.

3. Verify batch consistency – prioritize materials already proven across multiple customers to avoid "good sample, bad mass production."

Real case: A telecom customer used PORON 4701-40-15-188-04, 800,000 parts/year, material cost ¥0.87/part. We proposed a domestic microcellular PU foam. TDS comparison: compression set ≤9% (PORON ≤8% – acceptable), hardness 38 psi vs 40, flame rating UL94 V‑0 both. Customer tested 100 parts, then 500 – all passed. Material cost dropped to ¥0.56 – a 35.6% reduction.

Substitution doesn't mean sacrificing performance – it's about choosing the right reference and validation.

3. Optimize Die‑Cut Nesting – Squeeze Waste Out

Branded material is expensive; wasting it in processing doubles the loss.

Deson is a die‑cutting converter. We know nesting layout directly impacts material utilization – the ratio of finished part area to raw material area. Lower utilization = more waste.

Three common waste sources:

- Complex shapes – loose nesting reduces utilization. Example: round gaskets can be staggered to improve from 70% to 82% utilization – just a CAD re‑layout, no design change.

- Overly tight tolerances – ±0.1mm vs ±0.2mm may not affect function, but tighter tolerance reduces tool life and cutting speed, increasing processing cost 10–20%. Relax non‑critical tolerances.

- Width mismatch – if raw width is 500mm but layout only needs 480mm, you waste 20mm edge trim. Adjust layout or ask for custom width.

Nesting optimization is the cheapest cost‑saving measure – no material change, no product redesign, just smarter layout.

Typical case:A customer's gasket layout gave 72% utilization. We rotated parts 45° and adjusted spacing – utilization rose to 86%, reducing material consumption 16% and cutting per‑part cost ~14%. No product changes – pure manufacturing optimization.

4. Complete Case: From Specified PORON® to 42% Total Cost Reduction

These three approaches work together. Here's a real example:

Customer:Base‑station antenna maker, 1,000,000 parts/year, PORON 4701-40-15-188-04, die‑cut, 0.38mm thick, ±0.1mm tolerance.

Pain point: Supplier raised price two years in a row – per‑part cost from ¥0.78 to ¥0.87.

Deson's three‑step solution:

Step 1 – Decode and adjust parameters:

- Thickness 15 (0.38mm) – antenna gap was 0.5mm, so 0.38mm worked, but we checked if thickness could be fine‑tuned.

- Hardness 40 – gasket sat in a low‑stress slot, so we proposed reducing to 30 (softer) – still met sealing and contact needs.

- Width 188 – original single‑row nesting wasted edge trim – room for improvement.

Step 2 – Performance‑equivalent alternative:

We found a domestic microcellular PU foam with compression set ≤9% (vs PORON ≤8% – acceptable), hardness 30 psi (matched target), UL94 V‑0, temp range -20°C~+100°C. Customer tested three batches – all passed.

Step 3 – Renest layout:

Improved utilization from 72% to 86% – reducing material waste by 14%.

Results:

- Material unit cost: ¥0.87 → ¥0.56 (-35.6%)

- Nesting utilization: 72% → 86% (16% less material per part)

- Overall per‑part cost: ¥0.87 → ¥0.50 (-42.5%)

- Annual savings: 1,000,000 × ¥0.37 = ¥370,000 RMB

No assembly changes, no new equipment, all EMC tests passed.

Closing: What Deson Does

Deson doesn't make PORON® – but we process it deeply. Our daily work is understanding this material, optimizing its use, and helping you achieve the same performance at a better cost.

If you have a PORON® grade on your drawing, ask:

- Are all parameters truly necessary?

- When did you last re‑evaluate?

- Is your nesting layout optimized?

If unsure, send us your drawing. No charge, no push – just a clear cost analysis.

Click on the https://desoninsulation.com/

WhatsApp: +86 15976940109

Email: jenniferho@deson-china.net

ngineering Team – we turn complex materials into clear savings.