Blast Mitigation Using FRP Retrofitting

and Coating Techniques

T.S. Chundawat,1 Dipti Vaya,1 N.K. Sini,2 I.K. Varma1,3

1
Department of Applied Sciences, The NorthCap University, Gurgaon, Haryana 122017, India

2
Molecular Engineering Institute, Kinki University, Japan

3
Center for Polymer Science and Engineering, IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India

Extensive experimental and computational studies have idleness in the load bearing paths, reserve strength in excess
been carried out on survivability of buildings, vehicles, of live loads and increase in energy absorbing capabilities.
combat helmets etc exposed to various high-velocity
projectiles such as explosives, bullets, sharpenal etc.
The explosions lead to creation of blast waves which,
Such explosive attacks have necessitated the develop- according to fluid dynamics, is the pressure and flow result-
ment of protective techniques for mitigation of blast. ing from the deposition of large amount of energy in a small
Retrofitting the above mentioned structures with light localized volume. A blast wave consists of a positive and a
weight materials such as fibrous composites, coatings negative pressure phase. In the positive pressure phase of
or both seems to be of foremost importance. The pres-
ent review focuses mainly on experimental techniques
the blast wave, compressed air move radially outward from
reported in last fifteen years for blast mitigation. the blast source. As the wave expands, the air becomes rap-
The topics covered include introduction, applications idly less compressed causing a quick drop in pressure [2].
and properties of FRP coatings, types of explosives and A common feature of all explosions results in release of
other details of charge, testing procedures and perform- large amounts of chemical or mechanical energy in very
ance evaluation of protected structures. Proposed
mechanism for improvement in blast mitigation of pro- short time periods of the order of 1026 to 1023 seconds.
tected structures has also been discussed. POLYM. COM- The fast energy release causes instantaneous increase in the
POS., 00:000–000, 2016. V
C 2016 Society of Plastics Engineers pressure and temperature within the explosive material to
values that can reach 100 MPa and 3,000 K, respectively
[2].It would be worthwhile to review the characteristics of
INTRODUCTION the blast wave before describing the protection of various
structures.
The use of explosive devices by terrorists as means for
destruction has necessitated the improvement of the blast
resistance of civil and military structures armored, vehicles, BLAST WAVE PHENOMENA
combat helmet etc. Recent increase in terrorist activities
A blast wave is an area of pressure expanding supersoni-
and military involvement in prolonged conflicts have
cally outward from an explosive core. It has a leading shock
revealed the vulnerability of human beings and structures to
front of compressed gases. The blast wave is followed by a
explosions and blast wave. The increasing use of impro-
blast wind of negative pressure which sucks items back in
vised explosive devices (IEDs) [1] poses a very serious
threat to military as well as civilian personals. The simplest towards the center. The blast wave is harmful especially
of such IED consists of a container carrying fuel, and oxi- when one is very close to the center or at location of con-
dizer and a detonation device. Significant Governmental, structive interference. Most casualties sustained in such
military and civil resources have been directed towards attacks are due to disintegration and fragmentation of walls
reducing the vulnerability of the society to bomb attacks. A and shattering of windows.
variety of technical recommendations for blast resistance In a blast wave the variation in pressure with time and
that have been suggested include stability of the structures, distance is of great significance. A pressure–impulse dia-
gram is normally required for the design of protective struc-
tures. The main characteristic of blast wave is that the
Correspondence to: D. Vaya; e-mail: diptivaya08@gmail.com
DOI 10.1002/pc.24116
pressure rises very sharply at the moving front and reaches
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). a maximum value (the peak overpressure, Pp). For a short
C 2016 Society of Plastics Engineers
V interval after detonation, there will be the change in the

POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016
 Besides peak overpressure there are many other param-
eters influence blast wave, which mainly includes the
scale distance “Z” from the explosive center. The Z value
is highly dependant on the weight of explosive used. For
instance, two different weight of TNT explosive will gen-
erate the same overpressure, however they perform at two
different distances from the explosive centre. The scale
distance (Z) can be calculated by using the following
formula:

R
FIG. 1. Variation of overpressure with time at a fixed location. Z5
W 1=3
ambient pressure because it takes some time for blast wave where R is the radius of the centre of explosive and W is
to travel from the point of explosion to the given location. the equivalent weight of TNT. The equivalent weight of
The arrival time depends upon the energy yield of explosion TNT (W) can be determined by multiplying the actual
and the slant range. The duration of the overpressure posi- mass of explosive with TNT equivalence factor. Table 1
tive phase also increases with the energy yield and distance shows TNT equivalence factors of few explosives
from explosion. For example in a 20 kilo ton air burst, this reported based on the energy per unit mass [3]
phase lasts roughly one second to 1.4 second at start range
of 1–2 miles. The overpressure drops to zero in a short time
PROTECTION OF STRUCTURES
and this marks the end of the positive (or compression)
phase (Fig. 1) [3]. Terrorists attack on structures may not be eliminated
As the blast wave travels in the air away from the completely but the effects of these attacks on structures
source, the overpressure decreases steadily till it drops can be mitigated to a large extent by (a) modification in
below that of the surrounding atmosphere, this is called their structures or (b) retrofitting techniques or (c) coating
the negative phase. During this phase a partial vacuum is applications.
produced and the air is sucked in, instead of being pushed New buildings under construction may utilize modified
away from the explosion as happens during positive over- concrete or reinforcing the concrete to better withstand
pressure. The peak values of underpressure are usually explosion-induced blast wave loads by applying internal
small compared with peak positive overpressure. With reinforcement, e.g., fiber-reinforced concrete (RC) and
increasing distance from explosion, both peak values polymer reinforced concrete masonry walls. Concrete,
decrease, the positive more rapidly than the negative. The basically a conglomerate formed through the solidification
area under the pressure-time curve represents the specific of a mixture of cement, water, fillers, and modifying
impulse from which only the positive is considered agents, is the most widely used construction material in
responsible for structural deformation. The negative spe- the world. Wide variety of binding cement materials and
cific impulse is often neglected due to its small size. concrete fillers as well as physical and mechanical char-
For a great variety of buildings the degree of blast acteristics of the concrete components significantly com-
damage depends on the drag force associated with the plicates the development of generalized microstructure
strong winds accompanying the passage of blast wave. models and strength theories for concrete.
The drag force is influenced by shape and size of struc- Fiber-reinforced polymers concrete materials are cur-
ture, peak value of dynamic pressure and its duration and rently being used in civil applications to extend the struc-
location. The dynamic pressure is proportional to the tural integrity of deteriorated structures or increase load
square of wind velocity and the density of air behind the bearing capacity. Extensive testing has been performed by
shock front. For very strong shocks the peak dynamic military research laboratory to determine the response of
pressure is larger than peak overpressure.
When the incident blast wave from an explosion in air
TABLE 1. TNT equivalence factor of various explosives [3].
strikes a more dense medium such as the earth’s surface, it is
reflected. The exact value of the peak reflected pressure will Explosive used TNT equivalence factor
depend on the strength of the incident wave and the angle at
which its strikes, the surface and the nature of surface. TNT 1.00
HMX 1.256
If the blast wave strikes an object on its way, it RDX (cyclonite) 1.185
reflects and delivers reflected pressure PR which will be PETN (Pentaerythritol tetranitrate) 1.282
twice or more stronger than the incident one. This appears Amatol (80% ammonium nitrate 0.586
because the particles at the front of blast wave are and 20% TNT)
stopped by the structure but they are still forced to move Pentolite (50% PETN and 50% TNT) 1.129
60% RDX and 40% TNT 1.148
forward by the particles coming from behind.

2 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 DOI 10.1002/pc

concrete structure for various explosions, but more of the resins, a spray on coatings system is a cost effective and
research on mitigation is not done. time efficient method. Investigations have been reported
Ultrahigh performance concrete (UHPFC) is a rela- in the last fifteen years for development of elastomeric
tively new construction material with higher strength, coating systems for retrofitting-strengthening structures
deformation capacity and toughness than conventional for blast loading. Rigid organic coatings based on epoxy,
normal strength, normal weight concrete. These superior unsaturated polyester, vinyl ester resins or alkyd resins
properties are achieved by adding small steel fibers into have not been considered in such applications because of
concrete mix that results in improvement in compressive their brittle nature.
strengths in excess of 150 MPa, tensile capacities of Thermoplastic elastomer polyurethane and the elasto-
approximately 30 MPa and much greater ductility than meric thermoset polyurea are finding new application in
normal strength, normal weight concrete. UHPFC has increasing the survivability of structures under impact load-
been used in structural elements to resist extreme earth- ing such as blast and ballistic events. These polymers are
quake effects [4], blast loads and ballistics loads [5–7] ideal protective coating materials for buildings or an
and in high performance structures [8]. The mechanical inserted layer between the face sheet and foam core in a
properties and high density of UHPFC makes it an ideal blast tolerant sandwich structures. The glass transition tem-
material for resisting blast effects [7, 9]. perature (Tg) of polyurea is around 2508C and polyurea can
Fragmentation and structural collapse can be prevented be used over a wide temperature range from 2508C to
by bonding of fiber-reinforced composites to masonry 1508C and shows high heat resistance. The stiffening
walls [10], placing layers of aluminum foams on walls behavior of polyurea and polyurethane depends on strain
[11] steel stud reinforcements [12], profiling of metal and strain rate as well as temperature and pressure [18].
plates used in movable constructions [13] and metal Elastomeric coatings based on polyurea or polyur-
foams [14], foam-like materials such as honeycombs [15] ethane help in strengthening of structures being subjected
and polymeric materials [10, 16]. Buchan and Chen have to impact and blast loads. These polymers can be applied
reviewed [17] the blast resistance of FRP composites and easily by spraying onto the surface and such elastomeric
polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures. coatings have high ductility, strength and strain-to-failure
The primary focus in this review is to highlight the as high as 100%. This aspect plays a significant role in
approaches investigated in last decade for blast mitigation case of high strain rate impulse loading. These coatings
and provide structural protection against blast. Both also provide a shield in containing debris and fragments
experimental and numerical studies [Finite element (FE) from the blast [19].
analysis] have been reported in literature for describing Polyurea and polyurethane sprays offer easier applica-
the material and structure response to dynamic blast. tion than FRP composites, and such coatings are being
However, we have only confined on discussion on experi- extensively studied. These spray coatings however have
mental studies. the disadvantage during application because protective
clothing and spray equipment’s have to be used.
APPLICATION OF FRP’S AND COATINGS In case of maximum displacement carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer (CFRP) with polyurea (CPU) speci-
The advanced fiber-reinforced organic matrix resin men shows smallest displacement due to combination of
composites (FRP’s) have superior specific strength and highly ductile material of polyurea and highly stiff and
modulus and are essentially corrosion free. The applica- strong material of CFRP.
tions of FRP’s is relatively easy on concrete structures The FRP and coatings may be applied only on the
and comprises of (a) cleaning and filling of interior wall internal surface (tension sides) or exterior surface (com-
surfaces (b) application of primer to interior wall (c) pressive sides) or on both sides of an existing structure.
application of thin epoxy layer to the retrofitting materials
and (d) pressing the reinforcing material against the wall RETROFITTING MATERIALS
till the curing of epoxy was complete. AND THEIR PROPERTIES
An alternative approach, i.e., coating of elastomeric
material, is being considered for retrofitting the concrete
structures. These materials possess an elongation capacity Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
of 100% or more and can be applied easily by spraying A variety of retrofitting materials have been reported
onto the face of structure as well as the ability of coating in the literature. Kevlar fabric (high impact strength) has
layer to act as a shield in containing debris and fragments been used to cover the inside walls of the buildings for
from the blast. Another advantage of these materials is preventing the fragments from falling. The fabric has to
the possibility of customizing their chemical composition be safely secured by anchoring to the floor and ceiling.
and stoichiometry by altering their underlying hard and Geotextile fabric application using woven polypropylene
soft domains. has also been studied for preventing masonry wall debris
Amongst the wide range of retrofit materials such as fragments falling on occupants [20]. Such an arrangement
carbon/glass or aramid fiber-reinforced organic matrix does not provide any structural strength to the walls.

DOI 10.1002/pc POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 3

 TABLE 2. Different FRP composite materials reported in literature and their properties.

Tensile Tensile Elongation Density Compressive Compressive Inter laminar

Compounds Strength (MPa) Modulus (GPa) (%) (kg/m3) modulus (GPa) Strength (MPa) Shear (MPa) Ref.

CFRP 876 72.4 1.2 – – – – [23]

Basalt FRP 2500–4800 89 31 – – – – [23]
E-glass composite X1 5 512.5 X1 5 29.2 – – X1 5 31.9 X1 5 363.4 X1 5 77.1 [24]
(FGI-1854)a X2 5 350.9 X2 5 23.9 – – X2 5 26.9 X2 5 336.4 X2 5 58.4
E-glass composite X1 5 1125.7 X1 5 56.7 X1 5 67.5 X1 5 449.7 X1 5 59.3 [24]
(carbon LT650)a X2 5 1036.9 X2 5 57.1 X2 5 59.1 X2 5 387.2 X2 5 54.3
GFRP (QE1200)b 260 17 – 1750 – 200 – [25]
Composites laminatesc 986 95.8 – – – – – [26]
Carbon/Epoxy 1208.87 – – – – – – [27]
E-glass/Epoxy 412.10 – – – – – – [27]
Polyurea 20 – 310 – – – – [23]

X1, Warp direction; X2, Fill direction.

a
The composites based on six plies of E-glass woven fabrics (FGI-1854) having a size compatible with a number of resins and carbon stitch bonded
fabrics (LT 650) and brominated vinyl ester were fabricated by vacuum assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) process [24].
b
Composites were constructed using two plies of (08/908/6458) E-glass of quadri axial skin (QE1200) on a 40 mm thick SAN foam core (P800)
infused with a Prime-LV epoxy resin [25].
c
Composite coupons of CFRP unidirectional fabric in wet layup process were used as reinforcement of epoxy resins.

Several extruded thermoplastic sheets were investi- crete walls also investigated [29]. The CFRP reinforced
gated in 1999 by AFRL. These polymers were UV and walls exhibited less residual displacement than the bare
temperature stable, flame resistant and cost effective. controlled walls whereas the K/G hybrid reinforced walls
These thermoplastics were stiffer and stronger (maximum had significantly less residual displacement.
tensile strength 55,800 KPa) than other classes of materi- Kumar et al. [30] also reported real-time and post-
als. However it was difficult to apply such sheets on a mortem analysis on carbon composite panels to evaluate the
large scale hence were not investigated further [21, 22]. effects of plate curvature on blast mitigation. In this study a
Use of strengthening of RC columns is achieved finite-element (FE) model of blast-loading response of
through the FRP composites. These composites have bet- CFRP panels was developed in ABAQUS 6.11 and its
ter corrosion resistance, higher specific strength, modulus results were compared to experimental findings [31]. The
and lower density than other state-of-the-art materials. effect of transient boundary conditions, where the dynamic
Installation and transportation of FRP’s is more cost response of curved CFRP panels was analyzed using high-
effective than other materials. A number of FRP compo- speed photography and 3D DIC technique followed by a
sites using different matrix and fibers as well as hybrid post-mortem analysis was described [30].
fabrics (glass, carbon, aramid and natural fibers) have Chopped E-glass fibers strand mat have also been used
been investigated in past decades. The resin mostly used by Nurick et al. [32] in FRP’s due to their easy availability,
is generally a thermosetting resin such as epoxy or vinyl cheap and widely applicable engineering properties. The
ester (brominated vinyl ester resin). In few cases unsatu- laminates were fabricated using unsaturated orthophthalic
rated polyester has also been used. The carbon fibers polyester and a Vf (volume fraction) of 25%. The laminates
used in civil applications are low cost fibers with lesser were laid to a total of 14 plies from chopped strand mat
mechanical properties. The properties of some FRP com- plies and 08/908 woven fabric plied in alternative sequence
posites, GFRP sandwich panel constituent element and and a plastic PE4 explosive was used to generate the blast
polyurea coatings are given in Table 2. loading.
Mouritz et al have reported that stitched composites
had better performance on the blast effect as compared to
Sandwich Panels/Nanocomposites and Honeycomb
unstitched materials [28]. It is predicted that damage tol-
Structure
erance can be effectively improved by reinforcing the
composite with higher stitching (20 stitches/cm2) and the A conventional sandwich panel is a layered structure
thicker yarns (above 1,000 denier). The stitching was consisting of two thin high-strength stiff face-sheets sepa-
made using E-Glass fiber/vinyl ester and Kevlar yarn. rated by a low density, thick core [33]. The face sheets
Then the stitched materials were tested on ballistic impact are usually made of laminated composites or metallic
for resistance and flexural strength. plates that evenly distribute blast pressure to the core
The composite of Kevlar/Glass (K/G) hybrid consisted which deforms plastically, thereby absorbing energy from
of Kevlar with glass warp, knitted biaxial fabric, with Kev- the blast wave. The main purpose is to keep the low fail-
lar yarn thermo-chemically bonded to the fabric in the glass ure load for the core so that it can deform plastically,
warp direction and epoxy adhesive. CFRP reinforced con- together with the plates and absorb energy from the blast

4 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 DOI 10.1002/pc

before it impacts the protected structures. Three distinct tures and mechanical properties. The hard segments
groups of core topologies have been described. These domains are dispersed in a soft segments matrix. The micro
include (a) folded plates (corrugated cores), (b) honeycomb phase separation of hard and soft domains is responsible for
cores and (c) truss cores [34]. The honeycomb topologies the versatile properties of this class of materials.
that have been investigated are hexagonal honeycomb, Polyureas are closely related to polyurethane and are
square honeycomb and triangular honeycomb. formed by the reaction between di/polyisocyanates with
Hoemann et al. [35] investigated honeycomb fiber- polyamines and chain extenders. Coatings based on poly-
reinforced polymer panels for blast mitigation. They eval- ureas have advantages of good chemical resistance and
uated FRP honeycomb panels as a temporary structure for shorter curing time [39, 40]. The short hard set time (2–3
blast and fragmentation loading. For the preparation of minutes) ensures that the coatings can be walked on just
this composite material they used sand and PVC honey- after a few minutes.
comb structure for studying the effect of blast loading. A key advantage of polyurea spray coating is that
The primary static evaluation provided a method of char- amine/isocyanate reaction is very fast. In contrast polyur-
acterizing the FRP materials and their dynamic response ethane requires high level of catalyst (dibutyltin dilaurate)
and pressure with time. After detonation, it was observed and control of temperature and humidity. Polyurea, on the
that the honeycomb cores confined the sand as expected, other hand are insensitive to moisture and humidity. They
which provided the needed energy dissipation necessary exhibit good mechanical properties (tensile strength, elon-
for fragmentation protection. However the overall hazard gation and shear strength) and thermally stable upto
of loose fibers and panels debris in the surrounding air 1508C. Polyurea systems are 100% free of solvent.
was not measured, it was duly noted to be a consideration The application of polyurea coatings however, require
for a health risk. Therefore, there is a need for further specialized two component mixing equipments such as
evaluation of honeycomb FRP panels to achieve a more heatable high pressure two component spray machine with
desirable level of overall efficiency. impingement mixing which helps in rapid dispensing of the
Zhou [36] and Maharsia et al. [37] studied the nano- polyurea raw materials. Although the studies of polyurea
particles of silicon carbide, clay, carbon nanofiber and were reported as early as 1948 but the concepts of polyurea
graphene for the development of honeycomb structure of elastomer technology were introduced about two decades
fiber composites. The presence of nanoparticles in a poly- ago by the chemists at Texaco Chemical Company (now
mer honeycomb matrix enhanced stiffness and the ability Huntsman Corporation) in Austin Texas. Polyurea are
to absorb energy. highly reactive systems and physical properties of elasto-
Bahei-El-Din [38] reported a blast tolerant conven- mers develop fully within 24 h compared to polyurethane
tional and modified sandwich design. The conventional which takes 1–2 weeks.
sandwich design consists of thin outer and inner face Polymer containing urea and urethane group within the
sheets made of fibrous laminates, separated by a layer of backbone have advantages of both types of structures. They
structural foam core. In the modified design, a thin poly- consist of defined hard and soft segments. By selectively
urea interlayer is inserted between the outer face sheet adjusting these segments the properties of the polymers can
and the foam core. In the initial response period the over- be changed from highly elastic and soft to hard and brittle.
all deflections are limited and significant. Foam core Poly(urethane-urea) exhibit high tensile strength, elonga-
crushing was observed in the conventional design by the tion- to- break, hardness and modulus in comparison with
incident compression wave. This type of damage is much other types of thermoplastic elastomers [41].
reduced in the modified design, by stiffening of the poly-
urea interlayer under shock compression, which provides
Synthesis and Structure PU/Polyurea Coatings
support to the outer face sheet and alters propagation of
stress waves into the foam core. This benefits the long A number of isocyanates prepolymer (A-component)
term, bending response and leads to significant reductions polyether amines or cycloaliphatic amines (B-component)
in face sheet strains and overall deflection. The total or diols when mixed and combined with chain extenders
kinetic energy of the modified sandwich plate is much yield a broad range of products for coating applications.
lower than that of a conventionally designed plate, and so A general reaction for preparation of polyurea and polyur-
is the stored and dissipated strain energy. ethane is given in Scheme 1.
Generally the isocyanates prepolymers may be methyl-
ene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) based (aromatic sys-
Polyurethane (PU) and Polyurea Coating
tems) or hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) or isophorone
The wide applicability of PU is due to the flexibility in diisocyanate (IPDI) based (aliphatic systems). The major
selection of monomeric materials from a great variety of advantage of aliphatic systems as compared to aromatic
diisocyanates, macrodiols and chain extenders. Different ones is their UV stability, but they require longer curing
types of molecular architecture specifically tailored for a time. Isocyanates prepolymers are prepared by partial
specific application can be synthesized by judicious selec- polymerization of diisocyanates with a polyol in order to
tion of monomers. It is possible to alter their microstruc- reduce the overall isocyanate content (Scheme 2).

DOI 10.1002/pc POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 5

 SCH. 1. Reactions of isocyanate prepolymers with polyols and polyamines

Aliphatic diisocyanates can be used in place of aro- compared to PPG (C3) diamine. The incorporation of poly-
matic diisocyanates to yield a variety of prepolymers of dimethyl siloxanes units in urea and urethane copolymers
isocyanates. The hard segments of polyurethane/polyurea has been reported by Sheth et al. [43]. The polyurea sample
is provided by the isocyanate groups and chain extenders with PDMS and MW of 7,000 g/mol and hard segment con-
while the soft segments are from polyether amines or tent of 25% exhibited remarkable service temperature win-
polyols. dow 2308C (from 255 to 1758C) whereas it was
The chain extenders are a low molecular weight approximately 2008C wide (from 255 to 1458C) for the
amine/hydroxyl terminated resin which controls the over- equivalent polyurethane sample. The degree of microphase
all systems dry time. The most common chain extender separation was found to be greater in the PU samples due to
used in two component polyurea is diethyle toluene their more cohesive bidentate hydrogen bonding.
diamine (DETDA) available as an 80:20 isomer of the
2,4-diamine and 2,6-diamine (Scheme 3)
Effect of Strain Rates
Co-chain extenders are also used along with DETDA.
This is generally a secondary or hindered amine (Scheme 4). High strain rates are experienced in structure exposed
In case of polyurethane the chain extender is a low to blast. It is therefore necessary to compare the effect of
molecular weight glycol such as ethylene glycol or 1,4,- matrix and fibers on properties of fibrous composites
tetramethylene glycol. Polyether amines are secondary specially when subjected to static and dynamic loading
aliphatic, liquid polyether diamines which have lower during blast high impact conditions. Ochola et al. [44]
reactivity than the corresponding primary amines. This investigated on strain-rate sensitivity of CFRP and glass-
slows down the curing speed of polyurea/polyurethane fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites by testing a
elastomeric coating systems. single-laminate configuration, i.e., cross-ply (08/908) with
The structure of commercially available secondary a strain-rate varying from 1023 s21 to 450 s21. In this
amines used in preparation of polyurea and polyurethane study 48 ply layered cross-ply laminates were prepared.
are given in Scheme 5. The maximum stress values of the stress strain curves
Poly(tetramethylene glycol) based diamine (Poly THF) indicated the ultimate stress for the materials. The results
such as Poly THF 1,700 also contains a high percentage of showed that dynamic strength of GFRP increased with
internal secondary amine function and is basically a trifunc- the growing strain rate. At low strain rates kinking and
tional amine [42]. Poly-THF based amines are expected to shear failure are experienced by both GFRP and CFRP
produce coatings with high heat and humidity resistance while debonding and delamination were observed at high

SCH. 2. Formation of isocyanate prepolymers by partial polymerization.

6 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 DOI 10.1002/pc

 SCH. 3. Chain extender diamines for polyurea formation. SCH. 5. Secondary amine for polyurea/polyurethane formation.

strain rates. It is suggested that this transition in failures land features. Extensive testing has been done by defense
is again associated with an increase in energy, from low research establishments to determine the response of con-
strain rates to high strain rates. crete structures to various types and levels of explosion but
Orton el al. [26] reported wet lay-up CFRP, in which much of the result findings have not been published.
carbon fibers are saturated with epoxy and applied to a RC.
They conducted tensile strength test on 21 CFRP coupons.
Type of Explosives and Other Details of the Charge
Strain rate range varied from 0.0015 to 7.865 s21 which are
representative of strain rates that may occur in CFRP during The two explosives that have been investigated are tri-
a blast event. The results showed that there was no increase nitrotoluene (TNT) and ammonium nitrate fuel oil
in tensile strength of CFRP at higher strain rates. Due to the (ANFO). Explosion of such high energy materials causes
interface between the concrete and CFRP, the shock wave a rapid release of energy which compresses and pushes
is reflected when it reaches the CFRP. The loading of the the surrounding air out and away from the detonation
CFRP occurs once the entire slab starts to move in response center to form a blast wave [24]. As mentioned earlier
to the blast. Therefore the strain rate experienced in the the blast pressure variation generally comprises of two
CFRP is dependent on the structural system to which the phases. The positive phase is defined as a phase with
CFRP is attached. pressure above ambient and a negative phase with pres-
sure below ambient. The shock front velocity, peak over-
EVALUATION OF BLAST RESISTANCE pressure and its duration, blast impulse, and dynamic
pressure or blast wind (function of the velocity of the air
The major emphasis now-a-days is on retrofitting of
particles behind shock front) are important blast wave
the existing buildings with FRP or applications of organic
parameters associated with positive phase [45].
coatings. The effect of such treatments on blast resistance Charges ranging from 450-900 Kg of TNT at standoffs
can be assessed only by dynamic testing. The properties from 3-6 m were studied by Crawford et al. [46]. Charge
of the materials used in such applications have been usu- weights of 13–33 Kg of ANFO explosives (approximately
ally evaluated by static tests such as tensile strength and 80% efficiency of TNT) at a standoff of 3 m have also
modulus (ASTM D638, ISO 527-1), flexural strength and been reported. Their test results showed that the FRP ret-
modulus (ASTM D790, ISO 178), compressive strength rofitted panels were able to withstand high pressure and
(ASTM D695, ISO 75-1, ISO 75-2) and interlaminar displacements in contrast to control panels which failed
shear strength (ASTM D2344). Rate dependent stress– in shear. Lu et al. [47] studied the FRP retrofitted with
strain behavior of FRP and polymers has been determined concrete slabs on tension surface alone or on both surfa-
by dynamic mechanical analysis, quasi-static compression ces at a distance of 300 mm and concluded that retrofit-
testing and split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) testing. ting FRP on both surfaces was more effective than
applying FRP on tension surface alone. Wu et al. con-
Dynamic Tests on Retrofitted Structures ducted blast tests on reinforced slabs retrofitted with
CFRP strips on both the surfaces using two blast detona-
The response of a structure to blast loading is governed tions of 0.08 Kg and 2.1 kg of TNT at a standoff distance
by many factors. These include the nature of charge, its of 0.6 m [48].
mass and standoff distance, structure, size and orientation, Recent studies on externally bonded CFRP pultruded
proximity of the target to other structures and to significant plates (2.8 mm thick) to conventionally RC slabs on com-
pression face indicated an increase in its ductility and
blast resistance [49]. The retrofitted slabs were exposed
to a blast from a charge weight of 1–5 kg and at a stand-
off distance of 1.5–0.92 m. Kim et al. [23] applied a blast
load generated by the detonation of 35 lbs ANFO explo-
sive charge at a 1.5 m standoff on FRP retrofitted RC
SCH. 4. Co-chain extender diamine for polyurea formation. slabs. Razaqpur et al. have reported the use of ANFO

DOI 10.1002/pc POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 7

 TABLE 3. Explosive test of FRP retrofitted masonary wall. pressurizing the high-pressure section until the pressure
difference across the diaphragm reaches a critical value
S. No. Experiment Charge weight (Kg) Stand off (m) Ref.
and it ruptures. This rapid release of gas creates a shock
1 TNT 450–900 3–6 47 wave that travels down the tube to impart air blast load-
ANFO 13–33 3 47 ing on a specimen.
2 TNT 0.08 and 2.1 0.6 49 Mosallam et al. [27, 51] used a high pressure water
3 TNT 1–5 1.5–0.92 50 bag to apply uniformly distributed pressure on large scale
4 ANFO 35 1.5 24
slab specimen. The loading rate was kept constant (3.45
5 ANFO 15.8 1.5 51
TNT 13 1.5 51 kPa/min) for all test specimen. In the experimental pro-
6 TNT 830 >46 30 gram, 10 full-scale destructive tests were conducted on
(2,670 3 2,670 3 76 mm) unreinforced and RC slabs
repaired and retrofitted with both carbon-epoxy and E-
glass-epoxy composites. All tested slabs were simply sup-
comprising of 5.7% fuel oil and 94.3% ammonium
ported on all four sides undergoing two-way action. Elec-
nitrate. The explosive energy of ANFO is 3,717 kJ/kg
tronic strain gauges were bonded to the concrete surface
which is 82% of 1 kg of TNT [50]. These results have
between the FRP layers (if any), on the reinforcing bars,
been summarized in Table 3.
and similar strain gauges were also bonded to the outer
surface of the FRP layers to measure axial strains in dif-
Testing Procedures ferent directions. Deflections at five different critical loca-
tions were continuously monitored using linear variable
Both experimental and FE research has been carried
differential transducers (LVDT’s) mounted on a light-
out to study the behavior of concrete or FRP retrofitted
weight rigid aluminum frame.
structures under blast loads. The charge may be detonated
in the air above a test panel. In this case the panel is
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
fixed horizontally in a steel box and the box is buried in
RETROFITTED CONCRETE SLABS
the ground with its top being level with the ground sur-
face. The charge is hung with a wire and centered above
the center of panel [50]. FRP
The use of FRP composites for retrofitting concrete
Blast Test materials has been shown to be very successful in restor-
ing or increasing the strength of the members. Retrofitting
Blast loading of varying intensities can be produced by RC structures subjected to blast loads using fiber-
varying means. Explosions have been widely used to pro- reinforced polymer (FRP) composite has distinct advan-
vide rapid loading rates with accompanied pressure loading tages over other retrofit materials because of the light-
due to expansion of gasses and products of explosions. weight, excellent mechanical properties, durability, high
Thus blast tests have been performed by applying explosive impact strength, easier installation and inherent blending
charges on concrete walls at various stand-off distances. with the structures [50, 52].
The reflected pressures, accelerations and deflections on Recently, the application of composite materials such
the walls were measured as failure analysis by using pres- as FRPs and polymer coatings to enhance the ductility of
sure gages, single-axis accelerometers and deflection gages concrete structures has been reported where strips or
respectively. The Wright Laboratory Air Base Survivability plates are attached to the surface for either repair or
Section studied the capability of surviving air blast of upgrade of the energy absorbing ability. For the study of
860kg TNT on structures reinforced externally with com- FRP retrofitted concrete structures, there is little detailed
posite reinforcing materials at a stand-off distance from 11- information available in the literature.
15m [29]. The blast on structures externally reinforced with In order to estimate FRP retrofitting effect under blast
(a) autoclaved carbon reinforced plastic [CFRP] [3-ply lam- loading Kim et al. [23] studied nine 1,000 3 100 3
inate, laid-up in a 0/90/0 degree fiber orientation, bonded 150 mm RC slab specimens retrofitted with CFRP, basalt
with epoxy], (b) Kevlar/glass hybrid [K/G] and (c) unrein- fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) and CFRP with polyurea.
forced wall structure (for control) were investigated. The maximum displacement observed in CFRP, polyurea,
Tekalur et al. [24] studied the damage evaluation in E- CPU and BFRP retrofitted was 21.4%, 15.7%, 37.4% and
glass vinyl ester and carbon composites by using a shock 19.8% respectively.
blast load or a controlled explosion tube method. The One of the problems with retrofitting FRP is its
explosive used was 454 mg of RDX binder and 167 mg debonding from the concrete at relatively low strain level.
of PETN circular area of 25.4 mm. A shock tube is long This reduces the energy, the slab was able to dissipate in
rigid cylinder used to generate a gas flow, divided into a blast load. Use of fiber anchors greatly improved the per-
high-pressure and a low pressure driven section, which formance by allowing the FRP sheet to fail by fiber rup-
are separated by a diaphragm. The tube is operated by ture than debonding [53]. Layout of the FRP also helps in

8 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 DOI 10.1002/pc

improving the ductility of FRP. The use of carbon fiber Arora et al. [25] also reported the blast response of
anchors at the end of sheet further improves the ductility glass–fiber composites. They used high speed photogra-
of FRP. Orton el al also reported CFRP mitigation at the phy with digital image correlation (DIC) analysis under
back of slab reduce the overall displacement of the slab extreme shock loading conditions to characterize the blast
by 60% and retention of flying debris at a scaled range of response of the panels. Glass fiber composites were pre-
0.6m/kg. However for a scaled range of 0.4 m/kg 1/3 pared by using of E-glass and epoxy resins. During the
CFRP mitigation could not prevent the breach. air blast experiment the damage was more for air blast
The CFRP-reinforced walls exhibited less residual dis- loaded composite sandwich panels supported around their
placement and damaged due to delamination of the compos- edge is for a crack to initiate in the front skin (with local-
ite material, however it survived to fail catastrophically ized delamination around the cracked region) and shear
compared to the control wall. The K/G hybrid-composite cracking in the core. The back face skin maintains their
fabric material showed more ductility than CFRP composite form without sustaining any visible damage such as
counterpart with no delamination but it teared at midwall shearing or cracking.
height [29]. Mosallam et al. [27] reported the application of car-
Davidson et al. [21] reported explosive tests on polymer bon/epoxy and E-glass/epoxy composites as retrofit mate-
retrofits applied on either the interior or to the interior and rial in large-scale slab specimens; high-pressure water
exterior wall panels by applying various explosive charge bag was used for uniformed pressure development. In this
positioned away from highly reinforced structures contain- process, several laminates of composites are bonded to
ing masonry walls and compared their results with walls the finished concrete surfaces in the hoop and longitudi-
without polymer retrofit [control wall]. Steel foam insula- nal directions for enhancing the ductility, flexural and
tion on both sides of the wall panels was applied to enforce axial capacity. The majority of these applications focused
one-way bending. A pressure of 393 kPa 57 psi explosive on the ductility in seismic areas. In this particular applica-
charge was imparted to the walls, the control wall col- tion, the fibers are exposed to tension due to the Poisson
lapsed, however the polymer retrofit wall panel remained effect which, in turn, provide the required hoop stresses
intact. The control wall fully disintegrated when double without adding to the column’s stiffness and it has been
explosive charge was applied, while the polymer held much extended to cover other reinforced composites, including
of the retrofitted wall together, but the wall sheared from its beams and slabs where strips are attached to the bottom
supports because of the extreme energy imparted by the of the slabs for either repairing purposes or for upgrading
blast. Polymer coating on both inside and outside of the the flexural capacity of these materials. Both FRP sys-
walls provided some additional strength against the blast tems were effective in appreciably increasing the strength
compared to control and one side coated polymer retrofit of the repaired slabs to approximately five times that of
[22]. The masonry wall tests conducted by the Air Force the as-built slabs. For retrofitting applications, use of FRP
Research Laboratory at Tyndall AFB concluded that a systems resulted in appreciable upgrade of the structural
paint-on polymer reinforcement method can be effective capacity of the as-built slabs up to 500% for unreinforced
than unreinforced CMU walls subjected to blast loading. specimens and 200% for steel reinforced specimens.
Polymer-reinforced one-way flexure walls can resist the The aramid composite has been reported to be more
explosive tests containing 10-fold increase in peak pres- effective because it resulted in more energy absorption, a
sures without any catastrophic collapse as compared to reduction of 30% in maximum displacement and a more
unreinforced concrete masonry walls and can reduce the ductile failure mode compared to the control specimens.
risk to building inhabitants [21]. Razaqpur et al. [50] studied GFRP laminates based on
The shock blast on E-glass fiber composite showed unidirectional composite fabric with E-glass fibers in the
continuous damage failure modes such as permanent main reinforcing direction and a small amount of aramid
deformation, fiber breakage, and delamination while the fibers perpendicular to the main direction. In this study
carbon fiber composites showed no signs of external dam- the post-blast static strength of the retrofitted panel was
age until 0.6 MPa threshold pressure. 75% higher than that of the companion un-retrofitted
Tekalur et al. [24] reported the effect of various fibers panel.
on the blast response of composite panels. They used Muszynski & Purcell have reported two concrete struc-
vinyl ester for the preparation of E-glass fiber composite tures and three air-entrained concrete, masonry walls for
and carbon composites materials. They found tensile high explosive detonations [29]. They used material avail-
modulus and strength of E-glass fiber composite were ability, strength and total cost in determining the best ret-
29.2GPa, 512.5 MPa and 23.9 GPa, 350.9 MPa with two rofit material after the testing of CFRP and an aramid/
different directions. Similarly carbon composites showed glass hybrid. Both concrete structures revealed less resid-
56.7 GPa, 1125.7 MPa and 57.1 GPa, 1036.9 MPa. In ual displacements on the walls strengthened with compos-
comparison between E-glass fibers and carbon composites ite materials than the bare control walls. The CFRP-
with respect to shock pressure (0.6 MPa), carbon compo- reinforced walls exhibited less residual displacement than
sites are more effective than E-glass fiber composite for the bare control walls but were damaged due to delamina-
blast effect. tion of the composite material. Use of Kevlar/glass-

DOI 10.1002/pc POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 9

 TABLE 4. Threshold loading and damage observed in different CFRP panels [31].

Threshold blast
S. No. Radius pressure (MPa) Damage observed

Panel A Infinite 3.65 No visible damage, at P 5 4.68 MPa, there is fiber breakage,
and surface delamination extending upto seven layers.
Panel B 305 mm 3 No visible damage, at P 5 3.58 MPa, there is catastrophic failure
with fiber breakage and delamination.
Panel C 112 mm 7.78 No visible failure except burning of carbon fiber on the surface
exposed to blast loading, at P 5 8 MPa, there is catastrophic
failure with fiber breakage.

composite materials seems to be a cost-effective method ties in thickness direction-high energy absorption capacity
of protecting concrete structures against the effects of air and damping ability in the front layer and high flexural
blast from a conventional weapon than the more costly rigidity in the rear layer for sufficient mechanical support
CFRP-laminate materials. In this process two plywood along the structural stiffness.
forms were used with the CFRP laminate for the applica-
tion onto the first interior wall. The results of this
Coatings
research also indicate that the knitted or “dry” composite
materials are easier to apply to a concrete substrate than The initially used PU coatings contained a large vari-
the “rigid” CFRP laminates and exhibited a more ‘‘duc- ety of organic solvents which are harmful to the environ-
tile’’ response than its CFRP counterpart. ment and human health. Such coatings have been
Myers et al. [54–56] reported GFRP materials for the replaced by water borne [59] PU coatings in the past dec-
retrofitting instead of CFRP for static tests. According to ades. These coatings are environment friendly. Significant
them, glass fiber retrofitted materials were the most eco- improvement in performance (e.g., mechanical properties,
nomical. Crawford et al. [57] reported that carbon and thermal stability etc.) was observed by incorporation of
glass fiber material are typically used for column retrofits, clay, cellulose, silica and starch nano-crystals in such
aramid were more appropriate due to its impact resist- coatings [60–64].
ance. They reported that CFRP is preferred over GFRP More recently PU has been used in laminates on build-
and aramid for wrapping purpose because of its high stiff- ings and vehicles to impart impact resistance to the struc-
ness which prevents the concrete from expanding [58]. ture. For example, building foundations coated with PU
Mosalam et al. [51] reported the effectiveness of the are more resistant to damage from a bomb blast and are
CFRP composites in rehabilitation of RC slabs. They less likely to fragment. Debris propelled by the blast pres-
studied a full-scale testing of a building to examine struc- sure is a leading cause of injury in bombed buildings [21,
tural collapse and evaluated different retrofit systems 65, 66].
including polymer composites. They found CFRP systems The rate dependent stress–strain behavior of one poly-
showed 200% improvement in the load carrying capacity urea and three polyurethane materials was studied by Yi
after the retrofitting, and it is best when retrofitting et al. [67] using dynamic mechanical analysis, quasi static
applied to both side of the slab. Their results showed that compression testing and SHPB testing. The large strain
less than 50% reduction of the fundamental frequency stress behavior of polyurethane and polyurea shows
due to concrete damage observed for the retrofitted slab strong hysteresis, cyclic softening and strong rate depend-
compared to more than 85% reduction for the as build ence transition from a rubbery like behavior observed at
slab. However the maximum displacement is reduced by low strain rate (10232100 s21) loading to a leathery or
40-70% with the CFRP retrofit compared to the as build glassy like behavior observed at high strain rate (1023
slab. s21) loading conditions.
Kumar et al. [30] reported that curvature had a profound Roland et al. [68] have reported stress strain data on
effect on the blast response of the CFRP panels. In this elastomeric polyurea in uniaxial tension over a range of
research they have prepared different panel based on differ- strain rates from 0.06-573 s21. The experiments were per-
ent radii of curvature (Panel A, B, C). The observed thresh- formed on a new drop weight test instrument, which pro-
old loading and damage behavior is shown in Table 4. vided mechanical data at strain rates upto 1,000 s21,
Nurick et al. [32] observed three distinct damage modes filling the gap between conventional low speed instru-
on air pressure blasts. These were (a) matrix cracking, (b) ments and SHPB test.
delamination/debonding and (c) penetration as a final dam- Sarva et al. [69] investigated the large deformation
age. The resistance to delamination/debonding decreased stress–strain behavior of polyurea and polyurethane over
with increasing thickness of laminates. It was suggested a wide a range in strain rate from 0.001 s21 to
that the damage resistance of a layered composite might be 10,000 s21. The mechanical behavior is of particular
improved by utilizing a gradient of the mechanical proper- interest at very high strain rate due to their role in

10 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 DOI 10.1002/pc

protective coatings on structures to enhance structure sur- due to its capability in reducing the vulnerability of the
vivability during high rate loading events. The polyurea structures to blast loads.
samples tested in these studies showed a transition from a The effect of polyurea on the performance of steel
rubbery regime behavior at low rate to a leathery regime plate under blast loads was investigated by Samiee et al
behavior at highest strain rates whereas the polyurethane [76]. Different thicknesses of polyurea were considered
showed a transition from a rubbery state to glassy state. and influence of the position of polyurea relative to the
The mechanism of blast and ballistic mitigation from direction of the blast loading, i.e., whether polyurea is
PU laminates is not entirely understood, but contributing cast on the side facing the blast or on the opposite side of
factors may include delayed onset of necking of the metal the plate. The FE simulation was also conducted using
substrate [70], alteration of stress waves through the lami- LS-DYNA with user defined material models. It was
nate [71] and substantial energy dissipation within the PU shown that polyurea thickness was essential factor in
due to a strain-induced transition from the rubbery to the effectiveness of it use for blast mitigation. When a thin
glassy state [72]. The glass transition zone of polymers is layer of polyurea was cast on either side of the steel
the region of greatest energy dissipation and this transi- plate, the change in performance was negligible. A supe-
tion can be induced in rubbers by sufficiently fast defor- rior performance was observed when polyurea layer of
mation. Substantial efforts have been made these days to enough thickness was cast on the back face of the plate.
characterize viscoelastic behavior, including high strain On the contrary, Ackland et al. [77] reported that the
rate testing in tension [68], compression [67, 73], and polyurea coatings on mild steel plates debonded over a
combined bulk and shear [74, 75], as well as modeling circular area resulting in a hyper elastic extension of the
[70]. Such efforts are essential for understanding and opti- polyurea and a maximum transient deformation approxi-
mizing the performance of PU coatings. mately twice that of bare steel plates. They concluded
Bogoslovov et al. [72] have investigated impact that in practical application it would be hazardous to
induced glass transition in elastomeric coating by incor- objects behind a blast resistant structure if a polyurea
poration of polybutadiene (PB) as soft segment. PB has coating is applied to the back surface.
low glass transition and exhibit rubbery behavior during Grujicic et al. [78] investigated the blast–wave impact
mechanical perturbation. The corresponding PB based PU mitigation ability of polyurea when used as a helmet sus-
has a high Tg and fails in a brittle mode at high strain pension–pad material and compared with conventional
rate. This failure is accompanied by large energy dissipa- foams suspension-pad material. The computational studies
tion. Impact induces a transition to glassy state PB based carried out by Grujicic and coworkers have demonstrated
PU thereby the accompanying response is markedly dif- that polyurea could provide blast mitigation effects [79].
ferent from that of a rubber. Molecular level computational methods were used to
Raman et al. [19] investigated the effect of polyurea investigate the various shock-waves related phenomena. A
concept level analysis and design of polyurea for enhanced
coatings to reinforce concrete panel subjected to blast
blast mitigation dealing with shock wave generation, propa-
load from a 2kg TNT charge at 1.6m standoff distance.
gation, dispersion and transmission/reflection within poly-
The maximum and permanent displacements recorded in
urea and adjoin material layers as present in the case of a
the uncoated as well coated panels were observed to be
blast loaded assembly consisting of head covered with a pol-
significantly different. For example application of poly-
yurea augmented helmet were also carried out by Grujicic
urea 4mm coating layer (about 7% of panel thickness) at
et al. [80]. Recently a comprehensive review and a critical
the non-blast face of the panel, the maximum and perma-
assessment of a polyurea material constitutive model of
nent displacement of the panel were reduced by more
Shim and Mohr [81] have been reported.
than 40%. Increasing the thickness of coating from 4 mm
Due to a very broad range in the mechanical properties
to 8 mm only marginally reduced the maximum displace-
of polyurea in current research, Grujicic et al. [82] also
ment. Application of coating on both faces enhanced the
reported the main features of polyurea viz. (a) a high-
performance of the panel. However such double coating
level of stress versus strain constitutive nonlinearity; (b)
applications are not justified because of cost and time extreme strain-rate (and temperature) sensitivity; and (c) a
efficiency. The energy dissipated into a structure during a high degree of pressure dependence decade.
blast is converted into strain energy and kinetic energy. There has been substantial effort over the last few
The strain energy is accumulated by the elastic compo- years to characterize the mechanical response of polyurea
nents of the structure as internal energy. The kinetic under a wide range of strain rates including high-speed
energy results in movement of components of the struc- loading conditions. Among these, the ones making the
tural systems. The use of polyurea coatings on the panels dominant contribution to the mechanical response of this
facilitates in the energy absorption of the systems thereby class of elastomers are:
increasing the blast resistance. The FE analysis demon-
strated the contribution of the polyurea coatings in terms a. Rate/time independent (equilibrium) hyperelastic (HE)
of panel displacement control energy dissipation. This behavior which dominates material mechanical response
technique can be adopted favorably to protect structures at low-strain rates;

DOI 10.1002/pc POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 11

 b. Large-strain material degradation which results in a more
ACKNOWELDGMENTS
compliant behavior of the pre deformed material;
c. Rate/time-dependent viscoplastic material behavior which The authors are thankful to CFEES, DRDO Lab., Govt.
dominates material mechanical response at the intermediate- of India for financial support.
and high-strain rates.
NOMENCLATURE
The applications of polyurea mentioned above capital-
ize on the exceptional ability of polyurea to alter/disperse ANFO Ammonium nitrate fuel oil
shock waves and to absorb the kinetic energy associated CFRP Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer
with these waves [83] under high-rate loads [71]. This DETDA Diethyle toluene diamine
shock-dispersion/energy-absorption has been linked to its DIC Digital image correlation
ability to undergo a deformation-induced phase transition FE Finite element
during which the rubbery state of the material is con- FRP Fiber-reinforced polymer
GFRP Glass-fiber-reinforced polymer
verted to the glassy state [72].
HDI Hexamethylene diisocyanate
It is obvious from this review that the testing proce-
IPDI Isophorone diisocyanate
dures, explosives and properties of retrofitting materials
MDI Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
are significantly different in various studies which makes
PB Polybutadiene
comparison difficult. There is a need for comprehensive
PU Polyurethane
studies under similar conditions.
RC Reinforced concrete
SHPB Split Hopkinson pressure bar
FUTURE RESEARCH TNT Trinitrotoluene
UHPFC Ultrahigh performance concrete
Advanced fiber reinforced (e.g., glass, carbon, aramid,
hybrid etc.) organic matrix resins (e.g., epoxy, vinyl ester REFERENCES
and USP etc.) have been studied in the past for retrofit-
ting of existing concrete units against mitigation of blast. 1. G.C. May and P.D. Smith, Design of Elements in Rein-
FRP retrofitted techniques were believed to be most forced Concrete and Structural Scheme, Blast Effects on
effective in such application. However their use is rather Buildings; Thomas Telford, London, United Kingdom
limited due to their higher initial costs like material and (1995).
their application, lower time efficiency and their installa- 2. P.D. Smith and J.G. Hetherington, Blast and Ballistic Load-
tion on the existing structures. One of the major limiting ing of Structures; Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford (1994).
factors of materials is their low failure strains. 3. J. Trajkovski, R. Kunc, J. Perenda, and I. Prebil, Latin Am.
The recent use of polymer sprays offers easier applica- J. Solid Struct., 11, 1999 (2014).
tion than composite materials and sheets. There is poten- 4. G.J. Parra-Montesinos, S.W. Peterfreund, and S.H. Chao,
tial to optimizing all of these materials and techniques for ACI Struct. J., 102, 487 (2005).
blast retrofitting. 5. J. Magnussen and M. Hallgren, Structures under Shock and
Impact VIII, 15, 53 (2004).
In addition polyurea/polyurethane coating can be con-
sidered as an important material for composite structures 6. X. Luo, W. Sun, and S.V.N. Chan, Magn. Concrete Res.,
59, 199 (2007).
that may undergo projectile penetration. Polyurea coat-
7. M. Rebentrost and G. Wight, 2nd International Conference
ings can be used as a protective shield against flying
on Ultra-High Performance Concrete (2008).
particles which break away during the penetration pro-
8. M. Rebentros and B. Cavill, Reactive powder concrete
cess. This mainly helps to reduce the severe damage
bridges; In: 6th Aust Roads Bridge Conference, (2006).
caused by projectiles to human bodies and fragile
9. T. Ngo, P. Mendis, and T. Krauthammer, J. Struct. Eng.,
structures.
133, 1582 (2007).
A understanding of the bond between the organic coat-
10. J.T. Baylot, B. Bullock, T.R. Slawson, and S.C. Woodson,
ing/FRP and the building structures is of tremendous sig- J. Struct. Eng., 131, 1186 (2005).
nificance. The debonding of the coating or delimination
11. A. Schenker, I. Anteby, E. Nizri, B. Ostraich, Y. Kivity, O.
of the FRP will lead to catastrophic failure of structure. Sadot, O. Hanam, R. Michealis, E. Gai, and G. Ben Dor, J.
The application of the coatings on the blast facing build- Struct. Eng., 131, 1233 (2005).
ing structures may play tremendous role in terms of 12. H. Salim, R. Dinan, and P.T. Townsend, J. Struct. Eng.,
energy absorption of the building structures thereby 131, 1212 (2005).
reducing the failures. There is a need for in-depth studies 13. L.A. Louca, J.W. Boh, and Y.S. Choo, Struct. Build., 157,
on material properties such as poisson’s ratio, density and 319 (2004).
strain rates effects for accurate modeling of the dynamics 14. O. Sadot, I. Anteby, S. Harush, O. Levinatant, E. Nizri, B.
of the structure under the effects of blast waves induced Ostraich, A. Schenker, E. Gal, Y. Kivity, and G. Ben-Dor,
by explosion. J. Struct. Eng., 131, 1226 (2005).

12 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 DOI 10.1002/pc

15. M.F. Ashby, A. Evans, N.A. Fleck, L.J. Gibson, J.W. 41. F. Yeh, S.H. Benjamin, B.S. Brayan, S. Michel, and H.W.
Hutchinson, and H.N.G. Wadley, Mater. Des., 23, 119 Siesler, Macromolecules, 36, 1940 (2003).
(2003). 42. S. Gottke, F. Alemdarogiu, and W. Bertleff, Urethane Tech-
16. A. Vaziri, Z. Xue, and J.W. Hutchinson, J. Mech. Mater. nol. Int., 27, 32 (2010).
Struct., 1, 97 (2006). 43. J.P. Sheth, A. Aneja, G.L. Wilkes, E. Yilgor, G.E. Atilla, I.
17. P.A. Buchan, and J.W. Chen, Compos. Part B-Eng., 38, 509 Yilgor, and L. Beyer, Polymer., 45, 6919 (2004).
(2007). 44. R.O. Ochola, K. Marcus, G.N. Nurick, and T. Franz, Com-
18. C. Li, and J. Lva, J. Mater. Lett., 63, 877 (2009). pos. Struct., 63, 455 (2004).
19. S.N. Raman, T. Ngo, P. Mendis, and T. Pham, Adv. Mater. 45. L. Hammond, and R. Grzebieta, Shock Vib., 7, 333
Sci. Eng., Article ID 754142, 1 (2012). (2000).
20. A. Remennikov and D. Carolan, High Performance Retrofit 46. J.E. Crawford, L.J. Malvar, K.B. Morrill and J.M. Ferritto,
Solutions for Blast Protection of Facades in Office Build- Composite Retrofits to Increase the Blast Resistance of
ings in Proceedings of the RNSA Security Technology Con- Reinforced Concrete Buildings; In Proceedings of the 10th
ference, Melbourne, Australia 44, (2007). International Symposium on Interaction of the Effects of
21. J.S. Davidson, J.W. Fisher, M.I. Hammons, J.R. Porter, and Munitions with Structures, San Diego, USA, 1, (2001).
R.J. Dinan, J Struct Eng., 131, 1194 (2005). 47. B. Lu, P. Silva and A. Nanni and J. Baird, Retrofit for
22. J.S. Davidson, J.R. Porter, R.J. Dinan, M.I. Hammons, and Blast-Resistant RC Slabs With Composite Materials, Univer-
J.D. Connell, J. Perform Constr. Fac., 18, 100 (2004). sity of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri (2006).
23. J.J. Kim, N.H. Yi, S.B. Kim, J.K. Choi, and J.C. Park, The 48. C. Wu, D.J. Oehlers, J. Wachl, C. Glynn, A. Spencer, M.
Second Official International Conference of International Matthew, and I. Day, Adv. Struct. Eng., 10, 397 (2007).
Institute of FRP in Construction for Asia Pacific Region, 49. C. Wu, D.J. Oehlers, M. Rebentrost, J. Leach, and A.S.
APFIS, (2009). Whittaker, Eng. Struct., 31, 2060 (2009).
24. S.A. Tekalur, K. Shivakumar, and A. Shukla, Compos. Part 50. A.G. Razaqpur, A. Tolba, and E. Contestabile, Compos.
B-Eng., 39, 57 (2008). Part B-Eng., 38, 535 (2007).
25. H. Arora, P.A. Hooper, and J.P. Dear, Compos. Part A- 51. K.M. Mosalam and A.S. Mosallam, Compos. Part B-Eng.,
APPL S., 42, 1651 (2011). 32, 623 (2001).
26. S.L. Orton, V.P. Chiarito, C. Rabalais, M. Wombacher, and 52. H.J. Kim, J.W. Nam, S.B. Kim, J.H. Kim, and K.J. Byun, J.
S.P. Rowell, Polymers, 6, 1026 (2014). Korea Concr. Inst., 19, 241 (2007).
27. A.S. Mosallam, and K.M. Mosalam, Constr. Build Mater., 53. S.L. Orton, V.P. Chiarito, K. Jared, and T.G. Coleman, J.
17, 43 (2003). Struct. Eng., 140, 04013060 (2014).
28. A.P. Mouritz, Compos. Part B-Eng., 32, 431 (2001). 54. J. Myers, and P. Carney, In Proceedings of the Architectural
29. L.C. Muszynski, and M.R. Purcell, J. Compos. Constr., 7, Engineering Conference, Austin, USA, 246 (2003).
98 (2003). 55. J.J. Myers, A. Belarbi, and K.A. El-Domiaty, In Proceed-
30. P. Kumar, D.S. Stargel, and A. Shukla, Compos. Struct., 99, ings of the 9th North American Masonry Conference, Clem-
19 (2013). son, USA (2003).
31. P. Kumar, J. LeBlanc, D.S. Stargel, and A. Shukla, Int. J. 56. J.J. Myers, A. Belarbi, and K.A. El-Domiaty, The Masonry
Impact Eng., 46, 74 (2012). Soc. J., 22, 9 (2004).
32. T. Franz, G.N. Nurick, and M.J. Perry, Int. J. Impact Eng., 57. J.E. Crawford, J. Malvar, J.W. Wesevich, and J. Valancius,
27, 639 (2002). ACI Struct. J., 94, 371 (1997).
33. Y. Yang, A.S. Fallah, M. Saunders, and L.A. Louca, Eng. 58. J.E. Crawford, L.J. Malvar, and K.B. Morrill, Reinforced
Struct., 33, 2781 (2011). concrete column retrofit methods for seismic and blast pro-
34. R. Alberdi, J. Przywara, and K. Khandelwal, Eng. Struct., tection; In Proceedings of the Society of American Military
56, 2119 (2013). Engineering Symposium on Compressive Force Protection;
35. J. Hoemann, H. Salim and R.J. Dinan. Fiber Reinforced Charleston, USA (2001).
Polymer (FRP) Panels for Blast and Fragmentation Mitiga- 59. J.Y. Jang, Y.K. Jhon, I.W. Cheong, and J.Y. Kim, Colloid.
tion; 78th Shock and Vibration Symposium, 4-8 November Surf. A Phys. Eng. Aspect., 196, 135 (2002).
2007 in Philadelphia PA. AFRL-RX-TY-TP, 4533, (2008). 60. B.K. Kim, J.W. Seo, and H.M. Jeong, Eur. Polym. J., 39,
36. N. Zhou, A. Beyle, and C.C. Ibeh, Adv. Mater. Res., 47, 85(2003).
1133 (2008). 61. H.Y. Choi, C.Y. Bae, and B.K. Kim, Prog. Org. Coat., 68,
37. R.R. Maharsia and H.D. Jerro, Mater. Sci. Eng., 454, 416 356(2010).
(2007). 62. X.D. Cao, H. Dong, and C.M. Li, Biomacromolecules., 8,
38. Y.A. Bahei-El-Din, and G.J. Dvorak, Mech. Adv. Mater. 899(2007).
Struct., 14, 465 (2007). 63. J.J. Chen, C.F. Zhu, H.T. Deng, Z.N. Qin, and Y.Q. Bai, J.
39. P. Lv, M.X. Li, and W.B. Huang, Adv. Mater. Res., 151, Polym. Res., 16, 375(2009).
1203 (2011). 64. Y.I. Tien, and K.H. Wei, Macromolecules, 34, 9045(2001).
40. D.K. Chattopadhyay and K.V.S.N. Raju, Prog. Polym. Sci., 65. C.M. Roland, Rubber Technologist’s Handbook, Vol. 2,
32, 352 (2007). RAPRA, Shrewsbury, UK (2007).

DOI 10.1002/pc POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 13

66. J. Porter, R.J. Dinan, M.I. Hammons, and K.J. Knox, Infor- 75. T. Jiao, R.J. Clifton, and S.E. Grunschel, Am. Inst. Phys.
mation Analysis Center Quarterly, 6, 47 (2002). Conf. Proc., 845, 809 (2006).
67. J. Yi, M.C. Boyce, G.F. Lee, and E. Balizer, Polymer, 47, 76. A. Samiee, A.V. Amirkhizi, and S.N. Nemat, Mech. Mater.,
319 (2006). 64, 1 (2013).
68. C.M. Roland, J.N. Twigg, Y. Vu, and P.H. Mott, Polymer, 77. K. Ackland, C. Anderson, and T.D. Ngo, Int. J. Impact.
48, 574 (2007). Eng., 51, 13 (2013).
69. S.S. Sarva, S. Deschanel, M.C. Boyce, and W. Chen, Poly- 78. M. Grujicic, W.C. Bell, B. Pandurangan, and T. He, Mater.
mer, 48, 2208 (2007). Des., 31, 4050 (2010)
70. Z. Xue and J.W. Hutchinson, Mech Mater., 39, 473 (2007). 79. M. Grujicic, W.C. Bell, B. Pandurangan, and P.S. Glomski,
71. Y.A. Bahei-El-Din, G.J. Dvorak, and O.J. Fredricksen, Int. J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 20, 877 (2010)
J. Solid Struct., 43, 7644 (2006). 80. M. Grujicic, B.P. Entremont, B. Pandurangan, J. Runt, J.
72. R.B. Bogoslovov, C.M. Roland, and R.M. Gamache, Appl. Tarter, and G. Dillon, JMEPEG, 21, 2024 (2012)
Phys. Lett., 90, 221910 (2007). 81. J. Shim, and D. Mohr, Int. J. Plast., 27, 868 (2011)
73. A.V. Amirkhizi, J. Isaacs, J. McGee, and S. Nemat-Nasser, 82. M. Grujicic, B. Pandurangan, W.C. Bell, B.A. Cheeseman,
Philos. Mag., 86, 5847 (2006). C.F. Yen, and C.L. Randow, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 528, 3799
74. V. Chakkarapani, K. Ravi-Chandar, and K.M. Liechti, J. (2011)
Eng. Mater. Technol., 128, 489 (2006). 83. C.M. Roland, and R. Cassini, Polymer, 48, 5747 (2007)

14 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2016 DOI 10.1002/pc