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

net/publication/283792885

Thermal and mechanical properties of two kinds of hydroxyl-terminated

polyether prepolymers and the corresponding polyurethane elastomers

Article in Journal of Elastomers & Plastics · November 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0095244315613616

CITATIONS READS

11 746

3 authors, including:

Minghua Xia Luo Yunjun

Sun Yat-Sen University Beijing Institute of Technology
181 PUBLICATIONS 2,259 CITATIONS 427 PUBLICATIONS 5,040 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Energetic Materials View project

Biological treatment of high salinity wastewater View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luo Yunjun on 16 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Elastomers & Plastics
2016, Vol. 48(6) 546–560
Thermal and mechanical ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:

properties of two kinds sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0095244315613616

of hydroxyl-terminated jep.sagepub.com

polyether prepolymers
and the corresponding
polyurethane elastomers
Kezhu Mao, Min Xia and Yunjun Luo

Abstract
In order to analyze the differences in performance between two kinds of hydroxyl-
terminated polyether (HTPE) binders, the curing reaction kinetics of the prepolymers
and polyfunctional isocyanate (N-100) molecules and the thermal properties of the
prepolymers and the corresponding polyurethane (PU) elastomers were studied by non-
isothermal differential scanning calorimetry. The mechanical properties of PU elastomers
were also studied by uniaxial tensile tests. With these data, the binder type could be chosen
more appropriately for its application in rocket propellant formulations. The results showed
that the reactivity of hydroxyl-terminated block copolyether (TPEG) with an isocyanate
group is higher than that of hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether (PET). The chain
flexibility of TPEG was less than that of PET, but the stereoregularity and crystallization
ability of the former were superior. Compared to the prepolymers, the chain flexibility of
the corresponding PU elastomers was reduced, and the crystallization ability became
weaker such that their onset of crystallization was delayed. After the prepolymers were
reacted with N-100, the thermal properties of PU elastomers remained consistent with
their respective prepolymers. In summary, it was concluded that the mechanical properties
of TPEG/N-100 PU elastomer films were found to be superior to the PET/N-100 films.

Keywords
Hydroxyl-terminated polyether, mechanical properties, thermal properties, crystalliza-
tion ability, polyurethane elastomer

School of Materials Science and Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

Corresponding author:
Yunjun Luo, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, No. 5 Zhongguancun
South Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100081, China.
Email: yjluo@bit.edu.cn
Mao et al. 547

Introduction
Composite rocket propellant formulations based on hydroxyl-terminated polyether
(HTPE) binders have emerged as a new family of propellants due to their favorable
mechanical properties at both low and high temperatures. In addition, HTPE propellants
have been designed to meet insensitive munition (IM) requirements, especially in ‘‘slow
cook-off’’ tests for IM compliance as well as to meet the requirements for their use as
tactical missiles.1–5
Although HTPE has been described as a new type of binder,3 polyether binders have
been used in formulations since the mid-1950s.6 They were hydroxyl-terminated random
copolyethers (PETs) and were employed in the NEPE propellant.7–11 HTPE binders used
in rocket propellant compositions as described by Comfort and coworkers were produced
by ATK Alliant Techsystems (Arlington, Virginia, USA) under a DuPont patent and
designated as a hydroxyl-terminated block copolyether (TPEG), prepared with poly-
ethylene glycol (PEG) and polytetrahydrofuran (PTMG).2–4
The chemical structures of the two kinds of HTPE prepolymers are similar, yet their
performance properties differ significantly. Some researchers have analyzed the per-
formances of the two prepolymers via Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermogravi-
metric analysis (TGA), viscosity testing, and so on,12 but the data comparing their
performances in a binder system or as a propellant are scarce. Therefore, in order to
provide a theoretical basis for their application in these systems, the curing reaction
kinetics of the prepolymers and polyfunctional isocyanate (N-100) and the thermal
properties of the prepolymers and the corresponding polyurethane (PU) elastomers were
studied by non-isothermal DSC. The mechanical properties of PU elastomers were also
studied by uniaxial tensile tests. With these data, the binder type could be chosen more
appropriately for their application in rocket propellant formulations.

Materials and methods

Materials
Hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether. PET, n (ethylene oxide (EO)):n (tetrahydrofuran
(THF))  50:50, average relative molecular mass Mn ¼ 4038, hydroxyl value ¼ 24.4 mg
potassium hydroxide (KOH)/g, was obtained from the Liming Research Institute of
Chemical Industry (Henan Province, China).

Hydroxyl-terminated block copolymer. TPEG, n (EO):n (THF)  50:50, average relative

molecular mass Mn  4000, hydroxyl value ¼ 32.26 mg KOH/g, was prepared in the
university lab.

Polyfunctional isocyanate. N-100, number-average molecular weight Mn ¼ 725, average

functionality ¼ 3.9, was obtained from the Liming Research Institute of Chemical
Industry (Henan Province, China).
548 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 48(6)

Curing catalyst. Triphenyl bismuth (TPB), formulated into a 0.5 wt% solution with dioctyl
sebacate (DOS) as the solvent, was obtained from Shanghai Institute of Organic
Chemistry (Shanghai Municipality, China).

Preparation of PU elastomer film samples

Prepolymer and curing agent were mixed in a certain ratio according to the R value, and a
small amount of curing catalyst (TPB solution) was added to the beaker. The mixture
was stirred and vacuumed to remove the air bubbles, then poured into a polytetra-
fluoroethylene mold. After curing in the incubator at 60 C for 7 days, the films were
placed into a desiccator for 24 h.

Experimental equipment and test method

Curing reaction kinetics test. DSC analysis was performed on a DSC-60 differential
scanning calorimeter (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan) under nitrogen atmosphere at
heating rates (b) of 5, 10, 15, and 20 C min1. Composites weighing approximately
6–10 mg were placed in aluminum sample holders and tested over a range of 30–300 C.

Thermal properties test. DSC analysis was performed on a DSC1/500/578 differential

scanning calorimeter (Mettler-Toledo, Switzerland) under nitrogen atmosphere with a
heating rate (b0 ) of 10 C min1. Composites weighing approximately 6–10 mg were
placed in aluminum sample holders and tested over a range of 100 to 50 C. The
secondary circulation method of heating was used.

Mechanical properties test. Mechanical properties were tested on an AGS-J electronic

universal testing machine (Shimadzu Corporation) according to the method of GB/T
528—1998. Dumbbell-shaped samples were prepared and tested at 25 C and stretched at
a rate of 100 mm min1.

Analysis of curing reaction kinetics

Kissinger differential method. The Kissinger equation is described in equation (1) below,
and from the curve of lnðb=Tp 3 Þ*ð1=Tp Þ  103 , the activation energy Ea,K can be
obtained from the slope of the line:
   
b AR Ea;k
In ¼ In  ð1Þ
Tp 3 Ea;k RTp

Flynn–Wall–Ozawa integral method. The Flynn–Wall–Ozawa equation is described

in equation (2) below, and from the curve of logb*ð1=Tp Þ  103 , the activation energy
Ea,O can be calculated by the slope of the line:
AEa;0 Ea;0
logb ¼ log  2:315  0:4567 ð2Þ
GðaÞR RTp
Mao et al. 549

The reaction order ‘‘n’’. The Grane equation is described in equation (3) below, and from
the curve of ln b*ð1=Tp Þ  103 , the reaction order of the curing reaction film n can be
calculated by the slope of the line:
dðInbÞ Ea
¼ ð3Þ
dð1=Tp Þ nR

Results and discussion

Analysis of curing reaction kinetics
Although the relative amount of binder in the composite solid propellant was small, its
curing reaction kinetics determined the performance properties of the propellant. In
order to obtain outstanding performance, it was very important to control the curing
reaction rate. In this experiment, the curing reaction kinetics of PET/N-100 and TPEG/
N-100 binder systems were studied by a dynamic DSC method. The DSC curves
(Figure 1) could be analyzed to obtain the curing reaction kinetic parameters of the
binder systems, which could provide the theoretical basis for formulation adjustments
and processing conditions of the propellant.
The Kissinger differential method and the Flynn–Wall–Ozawa integral method are
typically used to obtain curing reaction kinetic parameters from DSC curves because
they are simple, and the amount of calculations necessary is small.13–14 These methods
were adopted in this experiment. The analysis results are shown in Table 1, and the
relationship curves are shown in Figures 2 to 4.
As the data showed, the curing reaction orders of the two binder systems were the
same, (0.951). This suggested that these curing reactions were complicated and that their
main reaction mechanisms were the same, for the reaction order n was the sum of
reaction orders of all the components in the reaction. The curing activation energy of
TPEG/N-100 binder system was lower than that of PET/N-100 binder system, indicating
that TPEG reacted more easily than PET with N-100. The most probable reason was that
the chain flexibility and the entanglement degree of chain segment structures of PET
were higher than those of TPEG. It would have been easier to wrap the hydroxyl of PET
in a random chain segment structure, so that the probability of hydroxyl and isocyanate
groups colliding and reacting would have been reduced, thereby reducing the curing
reaction activity and increasing the curing reaction activation energy.

Study on thermal performance

The thermal transition, crystallization, and melting behaviors of the prepolymers and
PUs were studied by DSC. The DSC thermograms of the PET and TPEG copolymer
samples are presented in Figure 5. A summary of the main results are shown in Table 2. It
was evident from Figure 5 that the prepolymers exhibited a single glass transition
temperature (Tg). The Tg of block copolymer TPEG was 6 C higher than the random
copolymer PET, for the chain flexibility of the block copolymer was less than that of the
random copolymer.
550 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 48(6)

Figure 1. The DSC curves of HTPE films under different heating rates. (a) PET/N-100 system and
(b) TPEG/N-100 system. DSC: differential scanning calorimetry; HTPE: hydroxyl-terminated
polyether; PET: hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether; TPEG: hydroxyl-terminated block
copolyether.

The block copolymer TPEG only had a hot crystallization peak (Tc1), which appeared
during the cooling stage, but the random copolymer PET had a hot crystallization peak
(Tc1) and a cold crystallization peak (Tc2) during the cooling and heating processes,
respectively. The hot crystallization peak temperature of PET was about 35 C lower than
Mao et al. 551

Table 1. Curing reaction kinetic parameters of PET/N-100 and TPEG/N-100 binder systems.

Binder system Ea,K (kJ mol1) Ea,O (kJ mol1) n

PET/N-100 63.19 66.89 0.951

TPEG/N-100 43.06 47.36 0.951

PET: hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether; TPEG: hydroxyl-terminated block copolyether; N-100: poly-
functional isocyanate; Ea,K: activation energy–Kissinger method; Ea,O: activation energy-Flynn–Wall–Ozawa
method; n: reaction order.

Figure 2. The relationship curve between lnðb=Tp 3 Þ*ð1=Tp Þ  103 :

552 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 48(6)

Figure 3. The relationship curve between logb*ð1=Tp Þ  103 :

that of TPEG, and the crystallization heat was also lower by 66 J g1. This suggested that
the crystallization of PET during the cooling process was not complete as the chain
segments entered the glassy state too quickly to complete an orderly arrangement under
the given cooling speed. The crystallization process further continued during the heating
stage, which caused the cold crystallization peak to appear. The reason for incomplete
crystallization during the cooling process was that the randomness of the PET copolymer
generally interrupted the symmetry and stereoregularity of the chains, which lead to the
Mao et al. 553

Figure 4. The relationship curve between lnb*ð1=Tp Þ  103 :

reduction of its crystallization ability. The extent of crystallization sharply declined, in

particular, when the mass amounts of the two components were similar to each other. In
contrast, each block of the block copolymer essentially maintained relative indepen-
dence from each other, so each block formed its own crystallization area, and subse-
quently, the crystallization ability of TPEG was greater than that of PET.
The results presented in Table 2 show that the block copolymer TPEG had a higher
melting temperature (Tm), a narrower melting range, and a smaller heat of fusion than the
554 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 48(6)

Figure 5. DSC curves of prepolymers PET and TPEG. DSC: differential scanning calorimetry;
PET: hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether; TPEG: hydroxyl-terminated block copolyether.

random copolymer PET. On the one hand, the symmetry and stereoregularity of the
TPEG chain segment structure were superior, the rigidity was greater, and the molecular
arrangement was closer than that of PET such that the conformational changes of the
polymer chains were less and DS was smaller, which caused TPEG to melt at a higher
temperature. On the other hand, when the polymer crystallized at a higher temperature,
the activity ability of the chain was greater and consequently the crystallization was
more perfect and the difference in crystallization structure was smaller. Therefore,
Mao et al. 555

Table 2. Thermal properties of prepolymers and PUs.

Crystallization Melting

Sample Tg ( C) Tc1 ( C) Heat (J g1) Tc2 ( C) Heat (J g1) Tm ( C) Heat (J g1)

PET 80.81 45.62 21.12 49.14 30.60 8.78 58.18

TPEG 74.78 10.81 87.16 — — 14.84 78.23
PET/N-100 77.45 — — 36.35 4.21 9.21 9.12
TPEG/N-100 70.63 17.21 52.65 — — 15.54 35.05

PU: polyurethane; PET: hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether; TPEG: hydroxyl-terminated block copo-
lyether; N-100: polyfunctional isocyanate; Tg: glass transition temperature; Tc1: hot crystallization peak; Tc2:
cold crystallization peak; Tm: melting temperature.

TPEG, which had a higher crystallization temperature, also had a higher Tm and a
narrower melting range.
The DSC thermograms of the PET/N-100 and TPEG/N-100 PU elastomers are presented
in Figure 6. The Tg of the PU elastomers increased slightly compared to those of the pre-
polymers due to a certain content of hard segment structure. The hot crystallization peak of
the PET/N-100 PU elastomer disappeared, while the cold crystallization temperature rose
approximately 13 C. In addition, the hot crystallization peak of TPEG/N-100 PU elastomer
was reduced by approximately 7 C in comparison with that of TPEG. These results sug-
gested that the crystallization ability of both PET and TPEG were reduced after the pre-
polymers reacted with the curing agent, and thus the crystallization was delayed in
comparison with the prepolymers. Compared with their respective prepolymers, the Tm of
PET/N-100 was lower but that of TPEG/N-100 was higher. The difference between the two
kinds of PU elastomers could be understood in terms of crystalline degree and chain rigidity.
After the prepolymers reacted with the curing agent, the crystallization of the PUs was
delayed and the formation of crystals became more imperfect, thereby lowering the Tm. The
rigidity of the chain structures, however, became greater due to the hard segments, causing
the Tm to increase. Competitive mechanisms were, therefore, formed. After PET reacted
with N-100, the hot crystallization peak disappeared and the Tm decreased, but TPEG
behaved in the opposite manner. This suggested that the effect of the degree of crystalline
perfection on the melting behavior of PET/N-100 was more significant, while the effect of
chain structure rigidity on the melting behavior of TPEG/N-100 was more significant.
Upon comparing the differences in thermal properties between the PUs, it was found
that TPEG/N-100 had a higher Tg than PET/N-100, which was the same trend seen in the
prepolymers. The crystallization ability of TPEG/N-100 was greater than that of PET/N-
100, while the Tm and the melting heat were higher for the former. These results sug-
gested that the thermal properties of the PU elastomers were based on those of the
prepolymers when using the same curing agent.

Research on the mechanical properties

N-100 is one kind of curing agent, which is used most widely. In the HTPE/N-100 binder
system, N-100 acted as a cross-linking agent and curing agent, which simplified the
556 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 48(6)

Figure 6. DSC curves of the PET/N-100 and TPEG/N-100 polyurethane elastomers. DSC: dif-
ferential scanning calorimetry; PET: hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether; TPEG: hydroxyl-
terminated block copolyether; N-100: polyfunctional isocyanate.

preparation process of the propellant as well as reducing the cost of propellant. For these
reasons, N-100 was chosen as the curing agent to study the difference in mechanical
properties between the two kinds of binder systems (see Table 3).
The mechanical properties results showed that, in both the PET/N-100 and the TPEG/
N-100 binder systems, the tensile strength of PU elastomer films increased gradually
Mao et al. 557

Table 3. Mechanical properties of the two binder systems.

PET/N-100 TPEG/N-100

R value sm (MPa) eb (%) sm (MPa) eb (%)

0.9 0.42 203.66 1.26 451.10

1.0 0.58 141.83 1.43 316.86
1.1 0.80 124.89 1.50 190.71
1.2 1.03 116.33 1.78 137.79

PET: hydroxyl-terminated random copolyether; TPEG: hydroxyl-terminated block copolyether; N-100: poly-
functional isocyanate; sm: tensile strength; eb: elongation at break.

with an increase in R value, while the elongation decreased. The reason was that with
the increase in the R value, the amount of isocyanate group increased, while the cross-
linking density increased. The molecular weight between cross-linking points decreased
and the hydrogen bonding between the rigid chains strengthened so that the aggregation
of macromolecular chains became stronger. When the R value was greater than 1.0, the
excess isocyanate could have reacted with the urethane groups, forming more cross-links
and tightening the network structure. Therefore, with the R value increased, the tensile
strength of PU elastomer film increased, while the cross-linking density increased, and
the content of soft segments between cross-linking points was relatively reduced so that
the elongation at the break of the PU elastomer film decreased.15
According to the comparative analysis, the mechanical properties of TPEG/N-100
films were superior to the PET/N-100 films. When the R value was 1.0, the tensile
strength of the TPEG/N-100 films was 2.46 times that of the PET/N-100 films, while the
elongation at break was 2.23 times. On the one hand, during the curing of the PU
elastomers, the chemical reaction was complicated, mainly due to the reactions among
isocyanate with hydroxyl groups, amino acid esters, water molecules, and so on. Due to
the difference of reaction activity and steric effects, a competitive mechanism was
formed. Compared to PET, the hydroxyl of TPEG had a higher reactivity, which made it
easier and faster to form the network structure, thereby resulting in superior mechanical
properties of PU elastomers made by TPEG than those made by PET. On the other hand,
double-crystalline block copolymers have been reported,16–17 suggesting that the crys-
tallization ability of the two different crystalline segments may have caused it to form a
layered crystalline structure as shown in Figure 7.
There were obvious differences in the main chain structures between the two
kinds of HTPE prepolymers. TPEG was a block copolyether, which was made from
PEG and PTMG, but PET was a random copolymer which was synthesized by EO
and THF. The main chain structure of the TPEG prepolymer more easily formed the
layered crystalline structure or microcrystalline zone than that of the PET pre-
polymer, as well as more easily forming a micro-phase separation. Therefore, the
mechanical properties of the TPEG/N-100 PU elastomer film were superior to those
of the PET/N-100 film.
558 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 48(6)

Figure 7. Layered crystal structure of the double-crystalline block copolymers.

Conclusions
In summary, the curing reaction kinetics of two prepolymers with a polyfunctional
isocyanate N-100, the thermal properties of prepolymers and the corresponding PU
elastomers, and the mechanical properties of PU elastomers were analyzed. The curing
activation energy of the TPEG/N-100 binder system was lower than the PET/N-100
binder system, indicating that the hydroxyl group of TPEG reacted more easily than
that of PET with the isocyanate group. The Tg of TPEG was 6 C higher than that of PET,
for the chain flexibility of the former was less than the latter. TPEG only had a hot
crystallization peak, which appeared during the cooling stage; however, the random
copolymer PET had a hot crystallization peak and a cold crystallization peak during the
cooling and heating processes respectively. The hot crystallization peak temperature of
PET was about 35 C lower than that of TPEG, and the crystallization heat was also lower
by 66 J g1. This suggested that the crystallization ability of TPEG was greater than that
of PET due to the differences in stereoregularity. TPEG had a higher Tm than PET, a
narrower melting range and a smaller heat of fusion.
The Tg of the PU elastomers increased slightly compared to those of the prepolymers
due to a certain content of hard segment structure. These results suggested that the
crystallization ability for both PET and TPEG were reduced after the prepolymers
reacted with the curing agent, and thus the crystallization onset was delayed in com-
parison with the prepolymers. Compared with their respective prepolymers, the Tm of
PET/N-100 was lower but that of TPEG/N-100 was higher. The difference between the
two kinds of PU elastomers could be understood in terms of crystalline degree and chain
Mao et al. 559

rigidity. In conclusion, the thermal properties of the PU elastomers were based on those
of the prepolymers when using the same curing agent.
The mechanical properties of TPEG/N-100 PU elastomer films were superior to those
of PET/N-100 elastomer films. On the one hand, the hydroxyl group of TPEG had a
higher reactivity than that of PET, which made it easier and faster to form a more perfect
network structure, but on the other hand, TPEG prepolymer, which is a kind of double-
crystalline block copolymer, more easily formed a layered crystal structure or micro-
crystalline zone, as well as more easily forming a micro-phase separation, to enhance the
mechanical properties of the binder system. In both the PET/N-100 binder system and
the TPEG/N-100 binder system, the tensile strength of PU elastomer film increased
gradually and the elongation decreased with an increase in the R value. In conclusion, the
mechanical properties of the TPEG/N-100 PU elastomer film were superior to those of
the PET/N-100 film.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
1. Comfort TF, Dillman LG, Hartman KO, et al. Insensitive HTPE propellants. In: Proceedings
of the ADPA Meeting, Insensitive Munitions Technology Symposium, Williamsburg, Virginia,
6–9 June, 1994.
2. Comfort TF, Dillman LG, Hartman KO, et al. Insensitive HTPE propellants. In: Proceedings
of the ADPA Meeting, Insensitive Munitions Technology, San Diego, California, 18–20
March, 1996.
3. Comfort T, Shanholtz C and Fletcher G. Process in HTPE propellants. In: Proceedings of
NDIA 39th Annual Gun & Ammunition/Missiles & Rocket Conference, Baltimore, Maryland,
USA, 13–16 April, 2004.
4. Fisher Michael J. HTPE propellants mature over last decade. Johns Hopkins Univ CPIA 2004;
2: 4–5.
5. Song X-Q, Zhou J-Y, Wang W-H, et al. Review on HTPE propellants. Chinese J Energ Mater
2008; 16(3): 348–352.
6. Klager K. Polyurethanes, the Most Versatile Binder for Solid Composite Propellants, AIAA
Paper No. 84-1239. Sacramento: Aerojet Strategic. Propulsion Co., 1984.
7. Fang C and Li SF. Experimental research of the effects of superfine aluminum powders on the
combustion characteristics of NEPE propellants. Propell Explos Pyrot 2002; 27(1): 34–38.
8. Li S, Liu Y and Tuo X. Mesoscale dynamic simulation on phase separation between plasti-
cizer and binder in NEPE propellants. Polymer 2008; 49(11): 2775–2780.
9. Zhang W, Fan XZ, Chen YD, et al. Rheological study on the crosslinking of NEPE propellant.
Chem J Chinese Univ 2009; 30(6): 1230–1234.
560 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics 48(6)

10. Pang W, Fan X, Yi J, et al. Thermal behavior and non-isothermal decomposition reaction
kinetics of NEPE propellant with ammonium dinitramide. Chinese J Chem 2010; 28(5):
687–792.
11. Wang N, Wan Q, Sui X, et al. Life prediction of NEPE propellants. Propell Explos Pyrot
2014; 39(1): 102–107.
12. Caro RI and Bellerby JM. Characterization and comparison of two hydroxyl-terminated
polyether prepolymers. Int J Energ Mater Chem Propuls 2010; 9(4): 351–364.
13. Kissinger HE. Reaction kinetics in different thermoanalysis. Anal Chem 1957; 29(05):
1702–1706.
14. Ozawa T. A new method of analyzing thermo-gravimetric data. Bull Chem Soc Japan 1965;
38(11): 1881–1886.
15. Mao K-Z, Xia M, Luo Y-J, et al. Effect of curing agent types on properties of HTPE
polyurethane elastomer films. Chinese J Explos Propell 2012; 35(1): 55–58.
16. Bogdanov B, Vidts A, Schacht E, et al. Isothermal crystallization of poly(caprolactone-ethylene
glycol) block polymers. Macromolecules 1999; 32: 726–731.
17. Bogdanov B, Vidts A, Van Den Bulcke A, et al. Synthesis and thermal properties of poly
(ethylene glycol)-poly(caprolactone) copolymers. Polymer 1998; 39: 1631–1636.

View publication stats