Original article

Textile Research Journal

2017, Vol. 87(1) 15–30

Development of an innovative sandwich ! The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
composite material for protection of DOI: 10.1177/0040517515624880
trj.sagepub.com
lower limb against landmine explosion:
mechanical leg test results

Mehmet Karahan1 and Emir Ali Karahan2

Abstract
This paper includes results of the blast tests which were performed with the aim of comparing the energy absorption and
protection efficiency of protective boots with different sole configurations. Tests were performed on a mechanical leg
model vestured with protective boots. Load and three axis acceleration values were measured during the blast tests to
determine the protection efficiency of boot samples. Herewith, it was understood that merely a monolithic composite
layer used in a sole does not provide protection, whereas compressible metallic honeycomb material-based sandwich
composites demonstrate better energy absorption. With the innovative sandwich composite material developed in this
study, energy absorption was increased by 209% in comparison to monolithic composites.

Keywords
anti-personnel (AP) mine, boot, sandwich composite, mechanical leg

It is well known that anti-personnel (AP) landmines are the standoff distance, thus decreasing the effect of the
a worldwide problem affecting many countries. Despite blast wave.
the recent attempts to prohibit the use of these weap- The design of protective footwear against AP mines
ons, there are still a large number of landmines on the requires a specialized material design. The most widely
field and stockpiled, which poses a constant threat to used materials in such applications are fiber reinforced
soldiers and civilians alike. composites such as Kevlar or Dyneema, which can
Even after years of research, no simple approach has absorb the blast and provide enough ballistic strength
been developed for protection against AP landmines to minimize any secondary shrapnel effect.
due to the extreme loading which induces multiple There are a few successful applications of anti-mine
damage mechanisms on the lower body. The main boots available in the defence industry. ‘‘Spider Boot’’,
aim of protective boots or footwear against the land- developed in order to protect against AP mines, is a
mines is to prevent the loss of the victim’s foot, but if commercialized design.1–3 This boot keeps the foot
the damage is irreversible and traumatic amputation is above the ground at a particular height. The pods of
necessary, the aim is to keep the amputated area as low the boot press the ground away from the projection of
as possible. From a wearer’s perspective, the protective the foot, which prevents the blast being directly below
boots must be light and comfortable enough for oper-
ational use. More recently, textile structures produced 1
Uludag University, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Gorukle
with high-performance fibers have been used as Bursa, Turkey
2
reinforcement in the sole of footwear. The majority of Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Bilkent University,
this footwear relies on a combination of ballistic com- Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey
posites such as Aramid, Ultra High Molecular Weight
Corresponding author:
Polyethylene (UHMWPE), honeycombed lightweight Mehmet Karahan, Uludag University, Vocational School of Technical
metals (to absorb or deflect blast). There are also Sciences, Gorukle Bursa, TR-16059, Turkey.
designs that keep the feet off of the ground to increase Email: [email protected]
16 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

the foot. However, walking with these boots is difficult Employing mechanical leg equipment, this study is
and running is almost impossible. A long period usage focused on the comparison of the protection efficiency
is not a possibility due to lack of mobility and comfort. of monolithic and sandwich composite materials used
The boots, which are known as ‘‘Over Boots’’, are in the boot sole.
worn over a normal or a protective boot. This design
keeps the feet above the ground by the thickness of
boot sole.4,5 It is not suitable for usage over a long Materials and method
period, again owing to the lack of mobility.
More recent studies on protective boots generally
Sole and protective boots design
focus on designs that look like a conventional army The general appearance of the boots which were used in
personnel boot. The early designs were reinforced the tests is shown in Figure 1. According to this, the
with a metal plate in their sole.6,7 However, the exist- boot sole consists of two layers. The first one, which is
ence of metal plate reduces the flexibility of the sole and the bottom part, has a deflector in order to deviate the
increases the weight of the boot. Later studies have shockwave. The second one, which is on the deflector,
developed lighter constructions by using Kevlar and consists of the composite inserted plates. At the sole
Dyneema fabric layers with light metal alloys.8,9 The parts of the boots the deflector was kept the same,
boots built without using any metal reinforcement whereas the protective composite insert configurations
had multiple layers of Kevlar and Dyneema composite were changed. The shoe-upper of the boot is strength-
plates.10 In these designs, however, sole of the boot was ened by using 2-ply aramid woven fabric between the
not flexible because of the stiff composite layers. One of lining and leather.
the commercially successful models developed by the The aim of this study was to examine energy absorp-
Zeman Company, included Kevlar layers in the sole tions and protection efficiency of different composite
which provide protection to a maximum 50 g of AP configurations in the boot sole, so that, keeping
mine.11,12 All of these studies show that the protective the deflector same, three different configurations of
capability of the composite layers is limited as the the composite layers were employed. Definitions of
transmitted force, which directly relates to the conse- the samples which were used for the tests are given in
quent injury, cannot be lowered by increasing the com- Table 1. A deflector which was used at the mentioned
posite thickness or by using high-strength fibers owing samples consists of 2 mm-thick steel plates and the
to low compressibility under impulsive loads. The latest inner parts were filled with 3 mm aluminum honey
designs, therefore, have an energy-absorbing media comb core.21 The top of the deflector was covered
below the composite layers to decrease the magnitude with a cover which consists of a 1 mm thick steel
of the incident wave simply by inelastic deform- plate after placing the honeycomb inside the deflector.
ation.13,14 Such parts are generally in the form of The deflector was placed on the boot’s heel. Sizes and
V-shaped deflector in the sole to reflect the incident schematic representations of the deflectors are given in
blast wave, and hence reduce the momentum trans- Figure 2. Properties of the deflectors and composite
mitted to the feet.15 materials used in the sole are given at the Table 1.
Common characteristics of protective boots or foot The shoe vamp is consisted of three layers, the outer-
wears are that they have polymer composite materials most of these is leather, the innermost layer is the lining
in their sole against the blast effects. Yet only using the and aramid fabric is used for reinforcement between
composite layers cannot provide sufficient energy leather and lining. Table 2 shows the materials used
absorption against the AP landmines. Using plastically on the vamp of the boot.
deformable and compressible foam and honeycomb Aramid UD fabric and ultra-high molecular weight
materials with composite layers considerably increases polyethylene (UHMWPE) whose properties are given
the ultimate energy absorption.16 in Table 3, were used as reinforcement and nolax
The foremost aim of evaluating the protection against A21.2007 low-density polyethylene (LDPE) adhesive
AP landmines is determining the possible injuries that film (density 0.94 g/cm3, melting temperature 80–90 C
can occur on limbs against the specific explosive/protect- and melt flow rate of 6–9 g/10 min) was used as a matrix
ive material. For this purpose, various test equipment system. The properties of the fibers which were used in
and methods are being employed. It is a good approach the preparation of reinforcement structures, are given
to use strain-gauge, load cell and accelerometers to in Table 4.
determine the forces exerted on legs during the blast in Three different types of composite configurations
order to evaluate protection level. To this end, metal were used in the sole of the boot. On Type-1 boot
mechanical leg models were employed for several tests. only a monolithic composite insert was used in the
With some existing studies17–20 in this scope load and sole. On Type-2, aluminum honeycomb was inserted
strain transmitted to bones were retained. between two layers of composite skins. Type-3 is
Karahan and Karahan 17

Figure 1. Schematic views (a) and sole view of protective boots (b); Representative of boot segments (c).

Table 1. Definition of the sole construction and production parameters of the boot samples used in this study (UD: Uni directional;
UHMWPE: Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene)

Deflector Insert plate-1 Insert plate-2 Insert plate-3

Plate Plate Plate

Thickness Taper Height thickness thickness thickness
Sample Material (mm) angle ( ) (mm) Material (mm) Material (mm) Material (mm)

Type-1 Steel 2  0.1 106  3 21  0.5 UD aramid 10  0.5 UD UHMWPE 5  0.2 UD Aramid 5  0.2
plate plate plate
Type-2 and Steel 2  0.1 106  3 21  0.5 UD aramid 5  0.2 Aluminum 21  0.1 UD aramid 5  0.2
Type-3 plate honeycomb* plate
*Honeycomb cells are filled with glass spheres in the Type-3 sample.

identical with Type-2, but aluminum honeycomb cells

Protective boots manufacturing
were filled with glass microspheres. Tables 5 and 6 dem-
onstrate the material properties of the aluminum All composite plates used in the sole were produced by
honeycomb and glass microspheres. an autoclave process. The temperature of the process
18 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

Figure 2. Views and sizes of deflectors. (a) Schematic representation and sizes of deflector; 1, 2 and 3 indicate sizes on front view,
cross-section and isometric view, respectively; (b) Real view of deflector; 1 shows the deflector outer body and top cover of deflector;
and 2 shows the aluminum honeycomb core used in the deflector.

Table 2. Definition of the upper boot construction of the boot samples used in this study

Upper boot construction

Number Total thickness

Sample Material Type of plies (mm) Total weight (gr/m2)

1. Layer (Outer) Leather Cowhide 1 1.95  1.5 350  0.5

2. Layer (Inner) Aramid woven fabric CT 736 2 1.2  0.2 820  10
3. Layer (Inner) Lining fabric %100 cotton 1 0.2  0.1 240  5
woven fabric

Table 3. Properties of reinforcements used in the study (UD: Uni directional; UHMWPE: UHMWPE: Ultra high molecular weight
polyethylene)

Linear density Areal

Reinforcement of warp/fill Warp/fill Thread density, density, Crimp warp/
type Application Weave type yarns, Tex (or 0 –90 ) yarns threads/10 cm g/m2 fill, %

Aramid UD Composite UD 126/126 Kevlar 49/Kevlar 49 – 510 Non-crimp

sheet-GS3000 insert
in the sole
UHMWPE UD Composite UD 176/176 Dyneema SK 62/ – 240 Non-crimp
sheet-H62 insert Dyneema SK 62
in the sole
Aramid woven Upper boot 2  2 Basket 336/336 Twaron 2000/ 127/127 410 0.8/0.8
fabric- CT 736 weave Twaron 2000
Karahan and Karahan 19

Table 4. Parameters of the fibers used in the reinforcement gun-grade, adhesive and sealing compound of perman-
fabrics (UHMWPE: Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene) ent elasticity. This dual-purpose material is based on a
special moisture-cured polyurethane with an acceler-
Dyneema
Twaron 2000Õ Kevlar 49Õ SK 62 ated curing time. Having assembled the vamp, the
Parameters (Aramid) (Aramid) (UHMWPE) deflector and insert were placed on the mold and
rubber was injected into the mold. The injection
Young modulus, GPa 85 112 113 method that squeezes the rubber material at high pres-
Strength, cN/Tex 235 208 338 sure into the sole mold produces a permanent high-
Ultimate elongation, % 3.5 2.4 3.6 strength bond between the upper and sole as the two
Density, g/cm3 1.44 1.44 0.97 parts are combined. After curing, edge burrs were
removed. The manufacturing steps of the boots given
in Figure 3.

Table 5. Parameters of the aluminum honeycomb material used

in the sole of the boots
Mechanical leg and blast tests
Denton Hybrid III Dummy mechanical lower leg
Parameters Aluminum honeycomb
model, which was attached to a test fixture, was used
Producer Plascore for the blast tests. The test fixture allows leg movement
Type PAMG-XR1 5056 only in a vertical direction during the blast tests. The
Cell size (mm) 3.175 (10%) mechanical leg model was arranged to hold under 40 kg
Foil thickness (mm) 0.018 load, including its self-mass (Figure 4).
Plate thickness (mm) 25.4 The mechanical leg model is equipped with a load
True density (g/cm3) 0.05 (10%)
cell and 3-axes accelerometers. The load cell was
attached to the tibia axis. Two acceleration sensors
Compression strength (MPa) 2.34
were placed at the ankle and knee (Figure 5).
Compression modulus (MPa) 668.8
Whereas the load cell can only get measurements
from the tibia axis, acceleration sensors are able to
gather 3-axis data. The properties of sensors are given
in Table 7. A pressure sensor was placed on the test
Table 6. Parameters of the glass spheres materials used fixture one meter above from explosive material.
as filler in the honeycomb cells A sensor was placed on the test fixture as it looks
inwards and covered with tape. The exterior of the
Parameters Glass sphere
mechanical leg consists of removable vinyl skin/ureth-
Producer Cenosphere ane foam. Wires used for data gathering were protected
Size (micron) 100 in hoses. An eight-channel LTT data acquisition system
True density (g/cc) 0.9–1.0 was used in the experiments.
Bulk density (g/cc) 0.45–0.50 After the mechanical leg was worn with boots, an
Compression strength (MPa) 85  10 explosive was placed on the soil ground as it centers the
Float ratio (%) 95
heel and barely touches it, which is considered to be
worst case (Figure 6). The soil which was placed plastic
container used for these tests was medium sand pur-
chased in bags locally. The humidity level was very
was kept to 110 C and pressure of the vacuum low (less than 1%). 40 gram of TNT explosive was
to 14.8 bar during manufacturing. The composite used on the tests. Tests were repeated four times for
plates have 65% fiber volume fraction approximately. every sample and carried out at the General Security
Composite inserts and honeycomb were cut with water Department’s blast test facility.
jets before the sole was assembled.
For production of boots, firstly the vamp part was
sewn as aramid fabric between the leather and lining. Results and discussion
Later on, the insert and deflector were assembled to
each other and then to the vamp. Sikabond construct-
Load cell results
ive adhesive was used to bond the insert, honeycomb A load cell was used on the tibia axis of the mechanical
and deflector. This component glue is an elastic adhe- leg. The load cell was placed at a 150 mm distance from
sive and very suitable for ballistic applications. the explosive. With this load cell, only the force com-
Sikabond construction adhesive is a one-component, ponent in the direction of the tibia axis Fz was
20 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

Figure 3. Manufacturing steps of the boots: (a) the vamp and (b) the rubber injection process.

measured. Table 8 shows maximum and minimum fragments and other pieces stemming from the blast.
force values for different samples. All of the tests However, deformable and energy absorber structures
were performed under identical circumstances. The are necessary as well as composite layers. For this pur-
structure and sole heights of the boot samples were pose, metallic foam and honeycomb materials are
identical and only insert material in the sole differed. employed, in general.23–25 The Type-2 sample has a
Thus, all samples can be compared between each other sandwich composite, having an aluminum honeycomb
in a realistic manner for protection efficiency. core between two composite skins in the sole. At first
There is only a monolithic composite layer on Type-1 glance, the load cell results indicate that this structure
boot’s insole. This monolithic composite plate is neither has considerable effects on energy absorption. In com-
compressible nor deformable, meaning that it trans- parison to the Type-1 sample, force exerted on the tibia
mitted the force upwards directly during the blast. axis was decreased to 228 kN, in other words it was
Herewith the measured value of the load (442 kN) was decreased 48%. Compressibility of sandwich composite
considerably high. This situation implies if incompress- structure is demonstrated in Figure 7(b).
ible or non-deformable composites layers were to be In Type-2 the total thickness of composite skins
used, no energy absorption ability would be observed. above and beneath the honeycomb core is less than
Figure 7(a) shows the boot’s cross-section after blast for the total thickness of the composite insert plate of
the Type-1 sample. According to this, since the boot was Type-1. This situation has led to mass deficit. The
not compressed or deformed, it transmitted the blast Type-1 sample has showed no deformation, which indi-
load directly upwards, namely towards the tibia axis. cates that its protection efficiency would be low.
This is the worst case for an injury.22 However, in the Type-2 sample, inelastic deformation
For efficient energy absorption, using just mono- of the honeycomb core granted more energy absorption
lithic composite plate is not sufficient. Actually com- and decreased the load transmitted to the tibia axis
posite plates are needed for protection against considerably.
Karahan and Karahan 21

Figure 4. Total test set-up consisting of test frame, mechanical leg, sensors and data acquasition system.

Table 7. Sensor properties used in the mechanical leg

Measurement
Sensor Type Axes

Load cell (N) PCB 200C50 1-Axes

Ankle accelerometer (g) APTech-2081 3-Axes
Knee accelerometer (g) APTech-2081 3-Axes
Pressure sensor (Pa) Endevco –

Figure 5. View of mechanical leg and location of the sensors.

Despite the aforementioned advantages of metallic

honeycomb and foam core sandwich composites, their
compression strength is very low. This is a reason for
the limited energy absorption properties of these
materials.
These materials compacted after compressing for a
while under load and started transmitting the load dir-
ectly. After compaction, the core behaves as a solid and
there is no further absorption of the energy.26 Although
there are different approaches for improving energy
absorption capacity of these materials, many of these
only concentrate on increasing the compression
strength. For instance, corrugated and lattice truss Figure 6. Explosive placement before the blast tests.
22 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

Table 8. Blast test results

Load cell Ankle accelerometers (z-direction) Knee accelerometers (z-direction) Pressure sensor

Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max Min.

load load acceleration acceleration acceleration acceleration pressure pressure
(kN) (kN) (g) (g) (g) (g) (kPa) (kPa)

Type 1 442  27 424  69 2042  183 986  112 1906  229 1023  167 74.2  5.8 22.3  6.1
Type 2 228  14 11.6  4 1166  101 776  52 1129  147 685  29 78.5  6.2 20.4  5.5
Type 3 143  12 6.5  5 862  54 507  41 907  83 466  57 71.6  4.0 28.6  3.2

Figure 7. Cross-section view of the samples after the blast tests: (a) Type-1; (b) Type-2; and (c) Type-3.

cores are more advantageous owing to their higher comparison with Type-1 sample and decreased to
compression strength.25,26 Yet their cost is higher and 143 kN. About 59% decrease was achieved compared
manufacturing them is difficult. Another approach is to Type-2 whose cells were completely empty. Load
filling the honeycomb cells with foam which is the data for Type-3 were significantly lower than data
most outstanding solution.27,28 Yet this method pro- from a previous study with the same amount of explo-
vides only a limited improvement for compression sive.22 Figure 8(a) provides a comparison of load data
strength. for three samples. Figure 7(c) shows the cross-section
In this work, the effect of glass microspheres on of the Type-3 sample after blast. Although, the cross-
energy absorption capability of metallic honeycomb section does not display a significant difference with
core composites is studied as well. To do this, cells of Type-2, compression occurred more uniformly in
honeycomb core were filled with glass microspheres to comparison to Type-2. This case indicates that glass
about 75% of cell height, different from Type-2. Test microspheres spread the blast shock wave to a larger
results indicate that glass microspheres are quite effi- plane. The energy absorption mechanism of the glass
cient regarding energy absorption of metallic core sand- microspheres can be explained with breakage of
wich composites. According to the results obtained, the spheres at the first stage and then distorting the
energy absorption was increased dramatically by energy via sliding over each other. However, an
using glass microspheres in the honeycomb cells. The impact of about 59% shows that there can be different
load transmitted to tibia axis was decreased 209% in energy absorption mechanisms. No studies were found
Karahan and Karahan 23

Figure 8. Comparison of peak load (a), ankle (b) and knee peak acceleration (c) and peak pressure (d) data of different samples.

on this issue; however, it can be assumed that, owing to during the blast. The first of these occurred at
sudden compression under blast shock, glass can 0.025 ms. The zone observed before reaching the max-
absorb more energy via glass transition softening mech- imum load is where the deflector distorted the shock
anisms. Glass microspheres are considered to be semi- wave and absorbed a portion of blast energy, so peak
amorphous and semi-crystalline, they undergo phase load was reached with delay. After the first peak load,
transformation even at room temperature under high the force value also reached a negative peak. This situ-
pressure. This phase transformation of amorphous ation normally occurs owing to a negative pressure
structure is called glass–liquid transition or briefly effect. During such a negative phase, a partial vacuum
glass transition. The glass transition, which is a short- is created and air is sucked in. This is also accompanied
term and reversible reaction, is normally defined as the by high suction winds that carry the injurious effect as a
passage from a semi-crystalline structure to the semi- positive force.30 After 0.025 ms. where load was trans-
liquid phase below melting temperature without any mitted in an upwards direction, a shock wave was
melting. Under a great pressure wave such as explosion, observed to be moved along without energy absorption.
glass microspheres can perform this phase transition. Because the peak load value at this point is nearly equal
Owing to generally solid–liquid phase transition is to the first peak load value, the second peak value was
endothermic reactions, glass microspheres exhibit sig- reached at 0.1 ms. Following this, maximum negative
nificantly energy absorber characteristic.29 Since glass load occurs again and after 0.15 ms. load fell to about
microspheres are too light, easily affordable and applic- zero, owing to the shock wave ending. The load–time
able for sandwich composites, they show significant curve indicates that no means of energy absorption
energy absorption. This will a quite innovative and happens on the boot sole after deformation of the
remarkable development for energy-absorbing mater- deflector for the Type-1 sample.
ials. Their energy absorption mechanism will be inves- The load–time curve for the Type-2 sample is quite
tigated and clarified in future works. different (Figure 10). Reaching the first peak value of
For each sample load–time curves show quite differ- load is different from the Type-1 sample. Similar to
ent characteristics. Actually curves also explain the Type-1, peak load was reached without a necessary
energy absorption capacity of the samples. Figure 9 time for deformation of the deflector. Time for reaching
shows the load–time curve of the Type-1 sample. In the peak load was 0.015 ms. The reason for the decrease
this sample, two peak load points were reached in time required for reaching peak load was that the
24 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

Figure 9. Typical load–time curve of sample Type-1.

(a) 250 (b) 250

200
150 150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

100
50 50
0
0 0.05 0.1 0 0.002 0.004
-50 -50
Time (ms.) Time (ms.)

Figure 10. Typical load–time curve of sample Type-2.

(a) 200 (b) 180

150
Load (kN)

120
Load (kN)

100
60
50
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.005 0.01
Time (ms.) Time (ms.)

Figure 11. Typical load–time curve of sample Type-3.

honeycomb material between the composite layers and damped efficiently. The impact of injuries would be
deflector started to deform simultaneously owing to the decreased since no negative load value was observed
shock wave’s sudden blast effect. In other words, on the load–time curve.
whereas the deflector was deforming, the honeycomb The load–time curve of Type-3 sample shows some
material also began to deform simultaneously. This specific differences with Type-2 (Figure 11). First of all,
deformation continued gradually. Excessive oscillations the time needed for reaching the peak load value was
after peak load value were attributable to compression delayed critically. Peak load was reached at 0.04 ms.
of the honeycomb core material. After reaching the first Before this point, the curve follows an oscillatory
peak, the negative peak value was observed to be very path, possibly the deflector and honeycomb core
small since blast energy was absorbed by the honey- between composite skins were deformed before reach-
comb core’s deformation. Peak load values that were ing the peak load. The peak load remained for a very
observed later decreased gradually and blast was short time and the load level decreased quickly.
Karahan and Karahan 25

Fluctuations on the curve point towards a serious Acceleration curves show different characteristics.
deformation and energy absorption on the boot sole. Acceleration curves of Type-2 and Type-3 follow
However, a complex load–time curve was observed for more oscillation path owing to core deformation
this sample since both honeycomb core and glass (Figure 12).
microspheres were deformed simultaneously. Also, we Honeycomb and glass microspheres used on the
can conclude that energy was absorbed in a more effi- boot sole caused a considerable decrease in acceleration
cient way since no negative load occurred. Load was values as well as load values. The characteristics of
completely absorbed after 0.3 ms. later. Since the damp- acceleration–time curves do not differ for samples.
ing period of load was long, reaching the peak value For example, the acceleration–time curve obtained
was delayed, time remaining around peak load value only from ankle alignment is given in Figure 12.
was too short and the negative peak load was avoided, Pressure data were collected in order to determine
the protective efficiency of Type-3 sample was proved outdoor pressure within 1 meter distance from the
to be the best. explosive. Pressure was measured quite close for all
According to the blast test results, in the Type-1 three samples. Herewith, we concluded that difference
sample, the explosion load was transferred in the of sample type has no influence on pressure values. For
upward direction directly owing to non-compressible all three samples, the time needed for reaching peak
properties of the composite plates in the sole. The pressure value and damping of the pressure was
Type-2 and Type-3 samples absorbed more energy, nearly same. For all three sample comparisons of pres-
owing to inelastic deformation of the honeycomb core sure values are given in Figure 8(d). Characteristic pres-
in the sole. For these samples, the shock load was sure–time curves are given in Figure 13.
delayed and shock amplitude was reduced as well.
Thus, more kinetic energy was absorbed.
Boot damage assessment
Damage suffered by boots after the blast was evaluated
Acceleration and pressure data separately for sole, vamp and deflector, and mass
Acceleration as well as force measurements are import- before and after the blast were compared. For all
ant for evaluating boots’ protection efficiency or pos- sample, boot damage was observed merely on the heel
sible physical injuries since they indicate transmission part of the shoes where the mine was placed. Boots
speed of the shockwave. For this reason three-axis were not ruptured completely after the blast and so
acceleration data were gathered from both ankle and the mechanical leg inside the boots had no contact
knee alignment. Among these the-axis data, since more with the released dust particles or products such as
dominant loading occurred along z-axis, the influence gasses or smoke. All the tests confirmed this result.
of acceleration in this direction is more important Damage occurred on the heels of the boots appeared
than others. Keeping in view this aspect, only acceler- as tear and rupture of the rubber part. The vamp
ation values in the z direction were taken into and shoe lace were not damaged or did not tear on
consideration. any of the boots. The vamp kept its integrity totally
Data obtained from ankle alignment differed among after the blast and was not torn. The most important
sample types. While acceleration along the z axis was reason for the integrity of the vamp and sole after
measured as 2041 g for Type-1 sample, decreasing 43% the blast is their production via the injection
acceleration diminished to 1166 g for the Type-2 method. This method squeezes the rubber material at
sample. For the Type-3 sample acceleration decreased high pressure into the sole mold and produces a per-
136% relative to Type-1 and 35% relative to Type-2 manent high-strength bond between the upper and sole
and fell to 862. of boots.
Although it is farther from explosive, acceleration A polyurethane-based flexible adhesive was used to
values obtained from the knee are quite close to the attach the deflector to the composite plates and honey-
data gathered from the ankle. However, the influences comb to the composite plates. Force exerted during the
of sample change on these values were significantly dif- blast acted as an upwards pressure load, so that it was
ferent. While the z-axis of the acceleration observed applied to the sole of the boots only as compression
around the knee was measured as 1906 g for the deformation. No composite parts, except for the deflec-
Type-1 sample, it decreased by 40% and fell to 1129 tor, were removed from the sole. This situation was
for the Type-2 sample. For the Type-3 sample the accel- attributed to deficiency of a dominant shear force
eration value decreased by 110% relative to Type-1 and during the blast and to the force being exerted as pres-
24% relative to Type-2 and fell to 907. Figure 8(b) and sure load, substantially. The deflector was removed
(c) show peak acceleration values obtained from the from the sole because its geometry caused shear force
ankle and knee, respectively. from its sides.
26 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

Figure 12. Typical acceleration–time curves of the Type-1 (a), Type-2 (b) and Type-3 (c) samples.

Type-1 boot demonstrated critical damage on its Loss of mass was merely attributable to the rubber
heel after the blast. On this part rubber was ruptured part’s rupture.
through the middle of deflector and unimpaired parts For the Type-2 boot, the overall damage is a lit-
was opened owing to cracking (Figure 14(a) and (b)). tle different. Damage was limited to the heel of the
The deflector was separated from the sole in several boots for this sample too. On this part rubber was
tests, whereas an opposite situation also occurred in ruptured, however, no rive or puncture occurred on
other tests. The deflector was flattened and bent the boot sole (Figure 15(a) and (b)). In all tests the
upward by about 20–25 mm and slightly pinched. The deflector was separated from the sole during the blast.
honeycomb filling inside the deflector was completely Damage to the deflector was similar to the Type-1
solidified (Figure 14(d)). Examining the cross-section of sample. However, upward bending was only about
boots, no deformation, bending or damage was seen on 10–15 mm, which is less in comparison to Type-1 sam-
the composite insert (Figure 14(d)). Herewith, the ple’s deflector (Figure 15(d)). Honeycomb filling inside
energy absorption mechanism for Type-1 boots is the deflector was completely solidified similar to that
limited only with plastic deformation of the deflector of the Type-1 sample. The cross-section of Type-2 is
and a large part of the blast load transmitted to tibia quite different from that of Type-1. In this sample
axis. The Type-1 sample had 1750 g mass while its mass the honeycomb core between the composite skins was
decreased only 3.2% after the blast and fell to 1694 g. compressed with the impact of the upward force,
Karahan and Karahan 27

Figure 13. Typical pressure–time curves for the Type-1 (a), Type-2 (b) and Type-3 (c) samples.

however, it gained an arch form at the point of the solidified. The cross-section of the Type-3 sample
explosive source. Being compressed upwards, the appears to be quite different from Type-2. In this
honeycomb filling was broken and sheared off. Then sample the honeycomb core was uniformly compressed
again the honeycomb core was not completely com- with the impact of the upward force; however, unlike
pressed, apart for the portion of the explosive source. the case for the Type-2 sample, Type-3 did not gain an
Yet the honeycomb layer on the boot sole was not arch form and no rupture occurred. The honeycomb
deformed from the midst to the toe (Figure 15(c)). core displays a homogenous compression down to the
The Type-2 sample had 1598 g mass, whereas its mass midst of boot. That it compressed totally, indicates that
decreased about 5% after the blast and fell to 1512 g. more energy was absorbed. Also, homogenous com-
Loss of mass was merely attributable to the rubber pression implies glass beads inside the honeycomb
part’s rupture of the heel. cells spread the load in the plane. The honeycomb
The Type-3 boot was also damaged only from its core was not deformed from the midst of the boot
heel. On this part the rubber was ruptured, however, sole to toe. The Type-3 sample had 1650 g mass,
no rive or puncture occurred on the sole (Figure 16(a) whereas its mass decreased about 5% after the blast
and (b)). In all tests the deflector was separated from and fell to 1567 g. Loss of mass was merely attributable
the boot sole during the blast. The overall damage of to the rubber part’s rupture from the heel.
the deflector was observed to be similar to Type-1 and For all samples, since thermoplastic resin was used
Type-2 samples. However, upward bending was only for production of composite plates, the composite
about 10 mm (Figure 16(d)). The honeycomb filling plates showed no brittle deformation under blast
inside the deflector was completely compressed and loading.31
28 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

Figure 14. Damage pattern of sample Type-1 after the blast test: (a), (b) sole view; (c) cross-section view; and (d) deflector.

Figure 15. Damage pattern of sample Type-2 after the blast test: (a), (b) sole view; (c) cross-section view; and (d) deflector.
Karahan and Karahan 29

Figure 16. Damage pattern of sample Type-3 after the blast test: (a), (b) sole view; (c) cross-section view; and (d) deflector.

– Aluminum honeycomb core sandwich composite

Conclusions material filled with glass microspheres was also
This study presents the test results of experiments per- employed for the Type-3 sample. This is an innova-
formed with a mechanical leg model in order to com- tive candidate for production of blast protective
pare protection efficiency and energy absorption of armor, as well as mine boots, owing to its high
different mine boots. The applied test method was com- energy absorption capability.
patible with previous studies.8,32 The results that have – To evaluate Type-3 sample’s protection efficiency in
been achieved are as follows. a more detailed way, the same test will be continued
by employing a frangible leg model.
– If only a monolithic composite layer is used in a
protective boot sole, this leads to direct transmission
of the load inflicted from the blast. In other words it Declaration of conflicting interests
is not able to absorb energy. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
– Using sandwich composites with compressible core respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
material on protective boot sole provides a better article.
energy absorption. The Type-2 boot sample whose
sole has this form reduced the load transmitted Funding
through the tibia axis 48%, in comparison to The authors received no financial support for the research,
Type-1 boot whose sole has just a monolithic com- authorship, and/or publication of this article.
posite layer.
– Filling honeycomb cells with glass microspheres References
increased the energy absorption dramatically. In the
1. Shariful I, Makris A and Bergeron D. The Spider Boot:
Type-3 sample which was produced in this way, load An effective foot protective systems against anti-personnel
transmitted through the tibia axis decreased 209% in mine blasts. J Mine Action, June-2000.
comparison to the Type-1 sample and 59% in com- 2. Traverso LW, Johnson DE, Fleming A, et al. Combat
parison to the Type-2 sample. Damage assessments casualties in Northern Thailand: emphasis on land mine
and cross-sectional appearances of boot samples injuries and levels of amputation. Mil Med 1981; 146:
support this result. 682–685.
30 Textile Research Journal 87(1)

3. Makris A. L’Abbe R.J., Voisine P., et al. Anti-personel 19. Roberts I. MOD DCTA Antimine Boot. HFM-ET-007
mine foot protection systems. US patent no: 6.006.646, Meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 22 February 2000.
1999. 20. Harris R, Mannion S and Rountree S. The effects of anti-
4. Krohn HF, Flynn RM and Sasaman WO. Protective personnel blast mines on the lower extremity. HFM-ET-007
footpad assembly. US patent no. 2.720.714, August 15, Meeting, Brussels Belgium, 22 February 2000.
1952. 21. Kamberoğlu M, Karahan M, Alpdoğan C, et al.
5. Chavet I and Madmoni A. Minefield shoe and method for Evaluation of foot protection effectiveness against AP
manufacture thereof. US2003/0172554 A1, September 18, mine blast: Effect of deflector geometry. J Testing Eval
2003. 2017; 45(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150171.
6. Ringler S and Chavet I. Device for reducing the danger of 22. Bass CR, Boggess B, Davis M, et al. A methodology for
accidental detonation of a landmine. US patent no: evaluating personal protective equipment for AP land-
4.611.411, September 16, 1986. mines. Proceedings of the 2001 UXO conference,
7. Jordan RD. Protective footgear. US patent no. 3.516.181, New Orleans, USA, April 2001.
June 23, 1970. 23. Hou W, Zhu F, Lu G, et al. Ballistic impact experiments
8. Fujinaka ES, Barron ER Macdonald JL, et al. Blast pro- of metallic sandwich panels with aluminum foam core.
tective footwear. US patent no: 3.318.024, May 31, 1996. Int J Impact Engng 2010; 37(10): 1045–1055.
9. Vaz GA. Protective boot and sole structure. US patent no: 24. Mohan K, Yip TH, Idapalati S, et al. Impact response of
6.425.193.B2, July 30, 2002. aluminum foam core sandwich structures. Mater Sci
10. Vaz GA. Blast and fragment resistant safety boot foot- Engng A 2011; 259: 94–101.
wear. US patent no: 5.979.081, November 9, 1999. 25. Wadley HNG, Dharmasena KP, O’Masta MR, et al.
11. Joynt VP and Dyk JTV. Protective footwear. US 2006/ Impact response of aluminum corrugated core sandwich
0000117 A1, January 5, 2006. panels. Int J Impact Engng 2013; 62: 114–128.
12. Zeman P. Anti land mine-boots. WO 03/037125 A1, 26. Karahan M, Karahan N, Gül H, et al. Quasi-static
October 29, 2001. behavior of three-dimensional integrated core sandwich
13. Lohrmann HR. Anti-personnel mine protective footpad. composites under compression loading. J Reinf Plastics
US patent no: 5.992.056, November 30, 1999. Compos 2013; 32(5): 289–299.
14. Peche JP, Gaultier R and Peltzer MO. Appliance for pro- 27. Shah CH, Palm T, Dyer TA, et al. End gaps of filled
tecting against the effects of explosive devices. US patent honeycomb. US7048986 B2, May 2006.
no: 6.655.051, December 2, 2003. 28. Howat EF. Foam filled cellular structural. US3970324 A,
15. Trimble K and Clasper J. Anti-personel mine injury; June 1976.
mechanism and medical management. J R Army Med 29. Mayes AM. Glass transition of amorphous polymer sur-
Corps 2001; 147: 73–79. faces. Macromolecules 1994; 27(11): 3114–3115.
16. Hanssen AG, Enstock L and Langseth M. Close-range 30. Buchan PA and Chen JF. Blast resistance of FRP com-
blast loading of aluminum foam panels. Int J Impact posites and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry
Engng 2002; 27: 593–618. structures – a state-of-the-art review. Composites: Part B
17. van Bree J.L.M.J., ‘‘HFM/ET007 Position paper’’, 2007; 38: 509–522.
HFM-ET-007 Meeting, Brussels Belgium, 22 February 31. Karahan M. Comparison of ballistic performance and
2000. energy absorption capabilities of woven and unidirec-
18. Coffey CG, Torrance K, Lonson D, et al. Design, con- tional aramid fabrics. Text Res J 2008; 78(8): 718–730.
struction and commissioning of a surrogate human leg test 32. NATO-RTO-TR-HFM-089 AC/323 (HFM-089) TP/51.
facility. Amtech Report TR9775.2701, Rev. 1, November Test methodologies for personal protection equipment
1999. against anti-personnel mine blast, March 2004.