See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342319298

Study on mechanical properties of polyurea coating with various process

parameters

Article  in  Materials Research Innovations · June 2020

DOI: 10.1080/14328917.2020.1782078

CITATIONS READS

4 1,028

5 authors, including:

Dr Arunkumar T. M. Anish
CMR Institute of Technology Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology
65 PUBLICATIONS   822 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   448 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

J. Jayaprabakar Jeya Jeevahan

Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology
85 PUBLICATIONS   999 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   771 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Surface Coatings for Biomedical Applications View project

SOLAR PARABOLIC COLLECTOR View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Arunkumar T. on 14 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Materials Research Innovations

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymri20

Study on mechanical properties of polyurea

coating with various process parameters

Arunkumar T , Anish M , J Jayaprabakar , Jeya Jeevahan & Durairaj RB

To cite this article: Arunkumar T , Anish M , J Jayaprabakar , Jeya Jeevahan & Durairaj RB
(2020): Study on mechanical properties of polyurea coating with various process parameters,
Materials Research Innovations, DOI: 10.1080/14328917.2020.1782078

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14328917.2020.1782078

Published online: 19 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymri20
MATERIALS RESEARCH INNOVATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/14328917.2020.1782078

Study on mechanical properties of polyurea coating with various process

parameters
a
Arunkumar T , Anish Mb, J Jayaprabakar b
, Jeya Jeevahan b
and Durairaj RBb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, CMR Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, India; bSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Sathyabama
Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Recently polyurea (PU) is widely used as a surface coating to protect the material under various harsh Received 23 April 2020
loads, hazardous chemical reactions and climatic conditions. The high efficient isocyanate-amine Accepted 7 June 2020
reaction kinetics makes it mandatory to use a reactive spray coating technique for the realistic KEYWORDS
production of PU. However, the efficiency of the PU depends on various process parameters of the Polyurea coating; process
plural spray coating system. Herein, the effect of plural spray coating process parameters, namely, parameter; mechanical
mixing ratio, temperature, coating pressure, and stand-off distance was studied by comparing properties; optimisation
mechanical properties such as hardness, tensile, elongation, young’s modulus, tear and wear index
of PU. Besides, the optimal process parameters and corresponding levels have been identified using
the Taguchi method and it has been found that each property has a different best process parameter.
To circumvent this, grey relational analysis (GRA) was carried out and it has improved overall
efficiency by 7.71%.

1. Introduction isocyanate could lead to dramatic changes in the mechanical

properties [13]. Overall, PU coating efficiency is based on
The chemical reaction of isocyanate and an amine give the
various process parameters such as mixing ratio, tempera­
formation of Polyurea (PU). The PU coating technologies
ture, pressure and standoff distance [14,15].
have been chosen as the supreme of all the developments of
The novelty of this work is to examine, the effect of plural
the past 20 years. The technology is a combination of rapid
spray coating process parameters namely mixing ratio, tem­
curing at very low temperatures; water insensitivity with the
perature, coating pressure, and stand-off distance by com­
best results in mechanical and chemical properties [1–4].
paring mechanical properties such as hardness, tensile,
The promotion of new raw materials and enhanced spray
elongation, young’s modulus, tear and wear index of PU.
equipment is the easy ways of overcoming the problems of
this technology like substrate wetting, inter-coat adhesion
and surface finish quality. Since the results were increasing 2. Experimental work
day by day in the market, the growth of polyurea usage began
PU is used as a coating material, which has excellent
to increase in the US and then in Asia [5,6]. During the early
mechanical properties and extended durability even in
period, PU has been used as a protective layer over polyur­
extreme environmental conditions [16].PU is coated on the
ethane insulation foam for roofing applications. Now, PU is
glass specimens using a mechanical purge gun by varying
used effectively for tanks, parking garages, ballistic shields,
process parameters mentioned in Table 1 [17]. The systema­
reservoirs, membranes, linings, caulks, transportation vehi­
tic flow chart of the coating process is as shown in Figure 1.
cles like bumpers, cowlings, side panels, dashboards, and as a
Based on four process parameters with three levels the total
joint filler/caulk [7,8]. Romanov et al. reported that the
number of experiments as per full factorial design should be
reaction rate between isocyanate and hydroxyl groups was
81 [18,19]. Taguchi proposes the L9 orthogonal array for
very fast which affected the composition life and decreased
three-level four-factor design which corresponds to only
the coating sensitivity to the humidity during spraying.
nine experiments as shown in Table 1 [20,21].PU was coated
Consequently, high-pressure equipment is to resolve this
on glass sheet 3200 ± 50 µm thickness, to conduct various
issue and increase the lifetime of composition [9]. Robert
mechanical testing. After the coating process, all the speci­
reported the most influencing process parameter of the poly­
mens were tested using a holiday detector as per ASTM
urea spray coating such as temperature, pressure and volu­
D5162 – 15 standards for verifying (degree of coating con­
metric ratio. Besides, it has revealed that the mixing ratio and
tinuity) uniformity of coating. Also, the thickness was
pressure significant role in their properties compare to tem­
inspected in a different location by thickness gauge. All
perature [10]. On the other hand, pressure and nozzle dia­
these materials have been procured and coated from
meter controls the efficiency of mixing ratio, and also not
Saichem Coatings Private Ltd, Chennai, India. The shore
recommended that higher pressure variance during the coat­
‘A’ hardness was measured (DUROTECH M202 model
ing process [11]. Malguarnera et al. reported that mechanical
Figure 2(a)), from prepared 50 mm × 50 mm specimen
properties like tensile and elongation strength were
with the range of 20–100A according to ASTM D2240 stan­
enhanced due to the mixing ratio of isocyanate accumulation
dard [22]. The tensile test was measured (INSTRON 3382,
[12]. Roland et al. reported that 5 to10% variations in

CONTACT Arunkumar T arunmailinbox@gmail.com Department of Mechanical Engineering, CMR Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, India
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 T. ARUNKUMAR ET AL.

Table 1. PU Coating Process Parameters as per L9 Taguchi. abrasion; B – the weight of test specimen after abrasion; C –
Mixing Spray Standoff dis­ number of cycles of abrasion (1000 cycles). All tests have
Sample L9 Taguchi ratio of Temperature pressureN/ tancemm
No array Isocyanate ( ) mm2(psi) (feet)
been triplicated to ensure that the findings are reproducible.
1 1 1 1 1 100% (1:1) 70 °C 19.30 914.4 (3)
(2800)
2 1 2 2 2 100% (1:1) 75 °C 19.99 1143 (3.75)
(2900)
3 1 3 3 3 100% (1:1) 80 °C 20.68 1371.6 (4.5)
(3000)
4 2 1 2 3 110% 70 °C 19.99 1371.6 (4.5)
(1.1:1) (2900) 3. Results and discussions
5 2 2 3 1 110% 75 °C 20.68 914.4 (3)
(1.1:1) (3000) The experimental values of hardness tear strength and wear
6 2 3 1 2 110% 80 °C 19.30 1143 (3.75) index concerning different process parameters of nine sam­
(1.1:1) (2800)
7 3 1 3 2 120% 70 °C 20.68 1143 (3.75) ples as shown in Figure 3. The hardness value of the 7th
(1.2:1) (3000) sample is high and the 1st sample is low as compared with
8 3 2 1 3 120% 75 °C 19.30 1371.6 (4.5) others due to variation in isocyanate and coating pressure.
(1.2:1) (2800)
9 3 3 2 1 120% 80 °C 19.99 914.4 (3) Likewise, the tear strength value of 6th sample is high and 9th
(1.2:1) (2900) sample is low and the wear resistance of the 5th sample is
high and 8th sample is low as compared with others due to
variation in isocyanate, coating pressure and standoff dis­
Figure 2(c)) at room temperature with a constant speed of tance. From higher and lowercombinationsclearly revealed
50 mm per minute and corresponding relative humidity that the coating temperature does not influence the hardness,
ranging 45–55% as per ASTM D 638. Tear test also carried tear strength and wear. However, the highest hardness value
out at the same condition (INSTRON 3382), and tear of 7th sample, i.e. mixing ratio of 120% isocyanate, at a
strength was calculated from the ratio of maximum load to temperature of 70 , pressure of 20.68 N/mm2 with
specimen thickness at room temperature as per ASTM D 1143 mm standoff distance (A3B1C3D2), tear strength
624. The abrasive wear resistance was determined (Taber value of6th sample, i.e. mixing ratio of 110% isocyanate, at a
abraser model 503, Figure 2(d)) from a prepared specimen temperature of 80 , the pressure of 19.3 N/mm2 with
of 120 × 120 mm with a Ø12.6 mm hole at the centre, as per 1143 mm standoff distance (A2B3C1D2) and wear resistance
ASTM D 4060–95. Herein, 1 Kg of CS 10 rubber was used for value of 5th sample, i.e. mixing ratio of 110% isocyanate, at a
the 1000 cycle and wear index calculate from weight loss by temperature of 75 , the pressure of 20.68 N/mm2 with
Equation (1). Where A – the weight of test specimen before 914.4 mm standoff distance (A2B2C3D1) indicates all the

Figure 1. (a) Systematic Flow Chart, (b) Process controller and (c) real-time of Coating process.

Figure 2. (a) Shore A durometer (b) UTM (c) Tensile and tear test samples (d) Wear index.
processing parameter level has influenced their properties.
Similarly, the experimental values of tensile strength, young’s
modulus and breaking elongation %, i.e. fracture strain with
respect to different process parameters of nine samples are as
shown in Figure 4.The tensile strength of 5th sample is high
and 1st sample is low as compared with others due to varia­
tion in isocyanate, coating pressure and temperature.
Besides, breaking elongation %and tensile values for the
respective samples 3, 5 and 7 are considerably higher than
those of the other samples due to the optimum level of (110%
isocyanate) mixing ratio. Hence, the highest tensile strength
and fracture strain of 5th sample combination are mixing
ratio of 110% isocyanate, at a temperature of 75 , the pres­
sure of 20.68 N/mm2 with 914.4 mm standoff distance
MATERIALS RESEARCH INNOVATIONS 3
(A2B2C3D1). These results enlighten each test/mechanical
properties of PU have different optimum process parameter,
it can be further optimised by Taguchi analysis.
3.1. Taguchi analysis
The obtained experimental values are optimised as per
the Taguchi method with the help of Minitab 16 soft­
ware. The S/N ratio for the experimental values of the
hardness, tensile, tear and wear index was calculated
using the Equations (2) and (3) and mentioned in
Tables 2 and 3. The desired data is ‘smaller the better’
4 T. ARUNKUMAR ET AL.

for wear and ‘larger the better’ for hardness, tensile and
tear strength.

From Table 4 it can be observed that the coating

Figure 3. Hardness, Tear and Wear index of the samples.
Figure 4. Tensile, Elongation %@break and Young’s modus of the samples.
pressure has the major effect of hardness as its ranking
is the highest, followed by mixing ratio, standoff dis­
tance and temperature. Also, the mixing ratio has the
major effect of tensile strength as its ranking is the
highest followed by temperature, coating pressure and
standoff distance. Besides, with the help of the main
effects plot (Figure 5), it can be noted that the best
combination for obtaining the highest hardness value is
120% of isocyanate, at 75 temperature, 20.68 N/mm2
pressure and 1143 mm standoff distance (A3B2C3D2).
Similarly, the highest tensile strength (Figure 6) is 110%
of isocyanate, at 80 temperature, 20.68 N/mm2 pres­
sure and 1371.6 mm standoff distance (A2B3C3D3).
From Table 5 it can be observed that the mixing ratio
has the major effect of tear strength and wear index as
its ranking is the highest, followed by coating pressure,
temperature and standoff distance for tear strength,
standoff distance, coating pressure and temperature for
wear index. Besides, with the help of main effects plot
(Figure 7) it can be noted that the best combination for
obtaining highest tear strength is 110% of isocyanate, at
70 temperature, 19.3 N/mm2 pressure and 1143 mm
standoff distance (A2B1C1D2), which is also untried
combination. Similarly, the highest wear resistance
(Figure 8) is 110% of isocyanate, at 80 temperature,
19.99 N/mm2 pressure and 914.4 mm standoff distance
(A2B3C2D1).

3.2. Multivariable analysis

Table 2. Experimental values and Signal to Noise ratio of tensile strength.
Maximum Elongation @ Young’s Tensile S/N ratio
Grey relational analysis (GRA) has been led to optimizing the
Sample load break Modulus strength of Tensile vast number of untried combinations extracted from the
No. N (%) MPa MPa strength Taguchi analysis, and the data’sare described in Table 6
1 394.96 706.66 33.041 11.677 21.3472 [23,24].
2 350.27 748.33 35.820 12.754 22.1133
3 321.86 798.60 35.459 13.316 22.4880
The best process parameter is the 5th combination as the
4 274.78 846.86 38.913 14.939 23.4869 grey relational grade obtained is the highest 0.856. Hence
5 258.60 853.33 36.722 16.255 24.2200 this combination (A2B2C3D1) is the best from tried com­
6 241.51 868.30 38.341 15.762 23.9525
7 253.20 809.99 36.208 13.955 22.8947
binations. Furthermore, the Taguchi method is applied to
8 270.84 818.33 38.133 14.442 23.1929 acquire the optimum process parameter of grey relational
9 242.78 843.33 36.864 14.304 23.1093 grade (Gi) values. From Table 7, it can be observed that the
mixing ratio has a major effect as its ranking is the highest,
followed by standoff distance, pressure, and temperature.
Table 3. Experimental values and Signal to Noise ratio of hardness, tear and Besides, with the help of the main effects plot (Figure 9), it
wear values. can be noted that the best combination for obtaining opti­
Hardness Tear Wear mum process parameters is 110% of isocyanate, at 75°C
Sample No. Shore A S/N ratio KN/m S/N ratio mg/cycles S/N ratio temperature, 20.68 N/mm2 pressure and 1143 mm standoff
1 88.9 38.9780 65.759 36.359 47.3 −33.497 distance (A2B2C3D2).
2 90.2 39.1041 55.647 34.909 46.9 −33.4235
3 90.6 39.1426 57.414 35.180 50.1 −33.9968
4 90.7 39.1521 65.369 36.307 46.3 −33.3116
5 91.6 39.2379 67.223 36.550 45.9 −33.2363 3.3. Confirmation test
6 90.4 39.1234 75.161 37.520 46.4 −33.3304
7 92.0 39.2758 62.269 35.885 56.2 −34.9947 The confirmatory test was conducted to determine the opti­
8 90.7 39.1521 53.605 34.584 57.1 −35.1327 mum level of coating process parameters and it has been
9 90.3 39.1138 51.708 34.271 52.1 −34.3368 compared with predicted value of grey relational grade as
 MATERIALS RESEARCH INNOVATIONS 5

Table 4. Factor of effect table for tensile and hardness values.

Hardness Tensile
Parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Delta Rank Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Delta Rank
Mixing ratio 39.07 39.17 39.18 0.11 2 21.98 23.89 23.07 1.90 1
Temperature 39.14 39.16 39.13 0.04 4 22.58 23.18 23.18 0.61 2
Pressure 39.08 39.12 39.22 0.13 1 22.83 22.90 23.20 0.37 3
Standoff Distance 39.11 39.17 39.15 0.06 3 21.89 22.99 23.06 0.16 4

Figure 5. Main effect plot of hardness. Figure 7. Main effect plot of tear strength.

Figure 8. Main effect plot of wear index.

Figure 6. Main effect plot of tensile strength.

experimental value of combination A2B2C3D2 is 0.922

mentioned in Table 8. The predicted optimal value of com­
bination A2B2C3D2 is 0.889 which is 3.85% greater than the
value of initial design (A2B2C3D1) which is 0.856. Besides,
confirmation test was done based on the optimised combi­
nation, i.e. 110% of isocyanate, at 75°C temperature, 20.68 N/
mm2 pressure and 1143 mm standoff distance (A2B2C3D2).
From confirmation test values, it can be clearly observed that
there is a significant improvement in the experimental value
when compared with the initial design (Table 8). The
which is 7.71% greater than the value of (A2B2C3D1) initial
design which is 0.856.
4. Conclusion
The intention of this work was successfully attained by
enhanced the mechanical properties of PU usingthe opti­
mised process parameter of plural spray coating. The experi­
mental results show the significant improvement in

Table 5. Factor of effect table for tear and wear values.

Tear Wear
Parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Delta Rank Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Delta Rank
Mixing ratio 35.48 36.79 34.91 1.88 1 −33.64 −33.29 −34.82 1.53 1
Temperature 36.18 35.35 35.66 0.84 3 −33.93 −33.93 −33.89 0.05 4
Pressure 36.15 35.16 35.87 0.99 2 −33.99 −33.69 −34.08 0.39 3
Standoff Distance 35.73 36.10 35.36 0.75 4 −33.69 −33.92 −34.15 0.46 2
6 T. ARUNKUMAR ET AL.

Table 6. Normalised S/N ratio, Quality loss (∆), Grey relational coefficient (Gij), Grey relational grade Gi of samples.
Normalised Signal to Noise (S/N) ratio Quality loss (∆) Grey relational coefficient (Gij) Grey relational grade
Sample No. hardness Tensile Tear Wear hardness Tensile Tear Wear hardness Tensile Tear Wear Gi
1 0.000 0.000 0.643 0.862 1.000 1.000 0.357 0.138 0.333 0.333 0.583 0.784 0.509
2 0.424 0.267 0.196 0.901 0.576 0.733 0.804 0.099 0.465 0.405 0.384 0.835 0.522
3 0.553 0.397 0.280 0.599 0.447 0.603 0.720 0.401 0.528 0.453 0.410 0.555 0.486
4 0.585 0.745 0.627 0.960 0.415 0.255 0.373 0.040 0.546 0.662 0.573 0.926 0.677
5 0.873 1.000 0.702 1.000 0.127 0.000 0.298 0.000 0.797 1.000 0.626 1.000 0.856
6 0.488 0.907 1.000 0.950 0.512 0.093 0.000 0.050 0.494 0.843 1.000 0.910 0.812
7 1.000 0.539 0.497 0.073 0.000 0.461 0.503 0.927 1.000 0.520 0.498 0.350 0.592
8 0.585 0.642 0.096 0.000 0.415 0.358 0.904 1.000 0.546 0.583 0.356 0.333 0.455
9 0.456 0.613 0.000 0.420 0.544 0.387 1.000 0.580 0.479 0.564 0.333 0.463 0.460

Table 7. Factor of effect table of Gi. the overall efficiency of the PU coating by 7.71%.
Parameter Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Delta Rank
Mixing ratio 0.5057 0.7815 0.5023 0.2792 1 Disclosure statement
Temperature 0.5925 0.6109 0.586 0.0249 4
Pressure 0.5917 0.5529 0.6449 0.092 3 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Standoff distance 0.6081 0.642 0.5394 0.1027 2

Notes on contributors
Arunkumar T Indian citizen, born in Gingee, Villupuram District,
TamilNadu. He is specialized in the field of Mechanical Engineering,
with his Bachelor Degree in Mechanical Engineering, Master Degree in
Engineering Design and PhD in Mechanical engineering (Coating). He
has 11+ years of teaching experience and is currently working as an
Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
CMR Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, India. His research interests
cover ceramic, polymeric, nano materials, surface coating, tribological
behaviour, corrosion, and mechanical testing. He as a co-investigator
has successfully completed a funded research project from the Ministry
of Defense, CVRDE, Chennai, India. He has published more than 30
research articles in various SCI/WoS and Scopus indexed Journals.
Anish. M has obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical
Engineering, Master’s degree in Thermal Engineering and PhD in
Nuclear Reactor. He has more than 08 years of teaching experience at
various levels and is presently working as an Assistant Professor in the
Figure 9. Main effect plot of Gi. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sathyabama Institute of
science and Technology, Chennai, TamilNadu, India. He has guideda
good number of Academic Projects for UG and PG students in his
Table 8. Initial and optimal process factors of PU. career. He has published/presented several papers in various national
Optimal parameter and international journals / conferences.
Initial design Prediction Experiment Jayaprabakar J. is a citizen of India, born in Gudiyattam, Vellore
Coating characteristics A2B2C3D1 A2B2C3D2 A2B2C3D2 District, TamilNadu. He obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical
Engineering Master’s degree in Thermal Engineering and PhD in
Hardness (Shore A) 91.6 91.8
Tensile strength (Mpa) 16.25 16.5 Alternate fuels. He has more than 16 years of teaching experience at
Tear strength (KN/m) 67.22 69.35 various levels and is presently working as an Associate Professor in the
Wear Index (mg/cycle) 45.9 46 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sathyabama Institute of
Grey relational grade 0.856 0.889 0.922 science and Technology, Chennai, India. He has completed a funded
Grey relational grade % – 3.85 % 7.71 % project and is currently involving in a few funded projects. Currently 4
research scholars are pursuing PhD under his guidance. He has guided a
good number of Academic Projects for UG and PG students in his
career. He has published/presented several papers in various national
mechanical properties due to the influence of all process and international journals / conferences.
parameters on different levels. Besides, GRA optimised the Jeya Jeevahan has completed his Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical
multiple performance characteristics of PU by the following Engineering from Noorul Islam College of Engineering, Kanyakumari,
combination. in 2005, and Master of Engineering in CAD/CAM from Rajalakshmi
Engineering College, Chennai, in 2012. He is currently working as
Assistant Professor at Sathyabama Institute of Science and
Technology, Chennai. He is an active researcher in the fields of edible
films, nanomaterials, biofuels, coatings, and nanomaterials, and their
applications. He has also published his findings in more than 45 inter­
national peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters.
These results enlightened that the excess amount of isocya­
R B Durairaj has completed his bachelor degree in Mechanical engi­
nate, temperature and standoff distance may affect the
neering from Arunai engineering college, triuvannamalai, affiliated to
mechanical properties of PU. Finally, a confirmation test Anna University and Post graduation in Robotics Engineering from
revealed that the optimized combination has been improved SRM institute of science and technology, Chennai. During his post

graduation he was working as an internship trainee for about one year
in Non-Ferrous Materials technology development center, Hyderabad.
During his undergraduate and post graduate studies he his actively
involved in various research activities and published more than 40
papers in international journals and conferences. Also received best
paper award from our former president of India Dr APJ Abdul kalam
in International conference on Emerging green technologies ICEGT
2011 at periyar Maniammai University, thanjavur.
ORCID
Arunkumar T http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4425-2878
J Jayaprabakar http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3290-5771
Jeya Jeevahan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1877-3197
References
[1] Iqbal N, Tripathi M, Parthasarathy S, et al. Polyurea spray
coatings: tailoring material properties through chemical
crosslinking. Prog Org Coat. Elsevier BV. 2018
Oct;123:201–208.
[2] Arunkumar T, Venkatachalam P, Anish M, et al. Effect of flame-
retardant additive with polyurea for explosive environment.
Mater Res Innovation. Informa UK Limited. 2019 Dec 6.
DOI:10.1080/14328917.2019.1700331
[3] Patel MG, Desai KR, Patel HS. Synthesis and characterization of
colored polyureas. Int J Poly Mater. 2005;54(8):767–773.
[4] Ramachandran S, Arunkumar, Manimaran. S. Comparative
dynamic analysis on coated aluminium and mild steel plate under
projectile impact by Abaqus explicit method. Int J Appl Eng Res.
2015;10(13):11012–11017.
[5] Primeaux DJ. 100% solids aliphatic spray polyurea elastomer
systems. J Elastomers Plast. SAGE Publications. 1992 Oct;24
(4):323–336.
[6] Arunkumar. T, Ramachandran S. Adhesion Behavior of
polyurea coating on mild steel. Int J Appl Eng Res.
2015;10(1):1143–1149.
[7] Arunkumar. T, Ramachandran S. Thermal and fire retardant
behaviour of polyurea. Int J Appl Eng Res. 2015;10(1):10159–
10162.
[8] Ewen JH Processing and Properties of Polyurea RIM. SAE Technical
Paper Series. SAE International; 1985 Feb 1; DOI: 10.4271/850156
[9] Romanov SV, Panov YT, Botvinova OA. The influence of iso­
cyanate index on the physicomechanical properties of sealants
and coatings based on polyurea. Polym Sci Ser D. Pleiades
Publishing Ltd. 2015 Oct;8(4):261–265.
[10] Robert ML. Influence of processing pressure differential
and mixing module configuration on volumetric ratio and
physical properties of a spray polyurea elastomer; 3rd
View publication stats
MATERIALS RESEARCH INNOVATIONS 7
Annual Polyurea Development Association Conference;
San Antonio - Texas Dec 9–11; 2002.
[11] Jadhav KT, Vijay Babu PV. Effect of various parameters on
formation of polyurea microcapsules by interfacial polycon­
densation techniques. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2013;4(9):1084–
1090.
[12] Malguarnera SC, Suh NP. Liquid injection moldingI. An inves­
tigation of impingement mixing. Polym Eng Sci. Wiley. 1977
Feb;17(2):111–115.
[13] Roland CM, Twigg JN, Vu Y, et al. High strain rate mechanical
behavior of polyurea. Polymer. 2007;48(2):574–578.
[14] Arunkumar T, Ramachandran S. Surface coating and character­
isation of polyurea for liquid storage. Int J Ambient Energy.
Informa UK Limited. 2016 Aug 25;38(8):781–787.
[15] Arunkumar T, Sunitha S, Theerthagiri J, et al. Effect of polyurea
coating on corrosion resistance over mild steel and aluminium
substrates for liquid storage applications. Mol Cryst Liq Cryst.
Informa UK Limited. 2018 Jul 24;670(1):60–73.
[16] Arunkumar T, Ramachandran S. Investigation of morphological
and mechanical features of polyurea. Appl Mech Mater. Trans
Tech Publications, Ltd. 2015 Jun;766–767:606–611.
[17] Arunkumar T, Ramachandran S, Muthumanickam MA, et al.
Study of surface roughness analysis of polyurea coating. J Balkan
Tribological Assoc. 2016;22(4):3528–3537.
[18] Arivalagan P, Chandramohan G, Arunkumar, et al. Studies on
dry sliding wear behaviour of hybrid composites; Frontiers in
Automobile and Mechanical Engineering −2010; IEEE; 2010
Nov; DOI:10.1109/fame.2010.5714796
[19] Arunkumar T, Jebasingh C, Venkatachalam P, et al. Abrasive
wear behaviour of plasma sprayed Al2O3/TiO2 Coatings.
BEIESP. 2019 Dec 10;9(2):5020–5023.
[20] Lin CL. Use of the Taguchi method and grey relational analysis to
optimize turning operations with multiple performance character­
istics. Mater Manuf Processes. Informa UK Limited. 2004 Dec 28;19
(2):209–220.
[21] Fung C-P, Kang P-C. Multi-response optimization in friction
properties of PBT composites using Taguchi method and prin­
ciple component analysis. J Mater Process Technol. Elsevier BV.
2005 Dec;170(3):602–610.
[22] Arunkumar. T, Ramachandran S. Analysis of hardness of
polyurea coated on mild steel with effect to fuel absorption.
Int J Appl Eng Res. 2015;10(11):10415–10418.
[23] Shen YK, Chien HW, Lin Y. Optimization of the micro-injection
molding process using grey relational analysis and mold flow ana­
lysis. J Reinf Plast Compos. SAGE Publications. 2004 Nov;23
(17):1799–1814.
[24] Arunkumar T, Anand G, Venkatachalam P, et al. Effect of plural
spray coating process parameters on bonding strength of poly­
urea with steel and aluminum for liquid storage applications. J
Test Eval [Internet]. ASTM International. 2020 May 8;49
(5):20200061.