Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Review

Development of materials and structures for shielding applications against

Blast and Ballistic impact: A Detailed Review
Anand Pai, Chandrakant R. Kini, Satish Shenoy B. ∗
Department of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The development of armaments has brought forth the challenges of protection systems from gunfire and the
Blast waves like, while the advances in high energy explosives and availability, run the risk of intentional explosions
Ballistic impact like bomb blasts. The military forces, and the civilians worldwide, have suffered severe injuries/fatalities,
Shielding armours
victimized by attacks due to acts of extremism or warfare. The blast events due to aerial and terrestrial
Material classification
bombings at warzones, are frequent and expected, while those due to ambush attacks of terror are haphazard
Multi-layered
and unpredictable, which offer extremely tough challenges to the task of protection. The shielding materials
for ballistic impacts from projectile weapons have found widespread applications for military vehicles and
personnel serving in police and defence sectors. The standard bulletproof vests offer protection for low to
medium calibre projectiles, while they are less worthy against explosions, rendering little or no protection to
the individual. In the current work, research spanning over the last 70 years has been reviewed, comparing the
shielding materials for both blast and ballistic protection, their structural designs and developments including
thin and lightweight materials. Beginning with a short introduction to blast theory, the detailed review of
the materials employed for protection against different types of blast (open-air, underwater, confined space)
as well as ballistic impact are covered. Potential novel materials for future applications have been discussed
along with subsequent potential and challenges to aid material designers.

Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Blast phenomenon ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1. Chemistry behind the blast...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Classification of blast events based on surrounding media ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1. Open-air blast .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2. Confined blast/explosion........................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3. Underwater blast...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Background of shielding armours ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1. Shielding materials for ballistic impact against bullets, projectiles and shaped charges................................................................................. 8
3.2. Shielding materials for open-air blast ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3. Spall protection...................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.4. Shielding materials for confined blast ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.5. Shielding materials for underwater blast .................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.6. Summary of armour materials ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
4. Multi-layered armour systems for shielding .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
5. Conclusion and future scope ............................................................................................................................................................................... 22
CRediT authorship contribution statement ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Declaration of competing interest ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22
References......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Satish Shenoy B.).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109664
Received 6 September 2021; Received in revised form 28 May 2022; Accepted 16 June 2022
Available online 1 July 2022
0263-8231/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

as a potential hazard since it is capable of destruction on a massive

Nomenclature scale.
𝜎𝑖 Incident compressive stress wave With the imminent threat of terrorism and random nature of the
𝜎𝑡 Transmitted compressive stress wave terrorist attacks, even the civilians and domestic society at large face
the risk of explosions from IEDs, frag grenades exposing precious
𝜏 Relaxation time (s)
human lives to mortal danger [5]. Blast injury caused by primary or
𝐴 Flow area, m2
secondary exposure to explosions has been faced by miners, oil and
𝐸1 Modulus of the first layer (GPa) gas field workers. Explosion induced injuries are mainly classified as
𝐸𝑟 Relaxed Modulus of the viscoelastic mate- blast wave pressure loading, spall/shrapnel penetration, blunt impact,
rial (GPa) and chemical/burn injuries [6–9].
𝐸𝑢 Unrelaxed Modulus of the viscoelastic ma- To safeguard the individuals against ballistic and blast impact, and
terial (GPa) mitigate the extent of the injury, various materials and structures have
𝑓𝐴 Frequency tuned by the first layer (Hz) been developed, tested and applied for protection in the post-World
𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 Critical frequency of the viscoelastic layer War period. The shielding materials must be capable of stalling the
𝐼+ Positive Impulse momentum of the bullets and absorbing the kinetic energy within a
𝐼− Negative Impulse very short distance ∼3–5 mm.
The combat bullets come in varying sizes, shapes and masses suiting
𝐼0 Incident impulse onto the armour (N s)
the type of weapon—handguns, rifles, shotguns and sub-machine guns.
𝐼0 Incident impulse onto the armour (N s)
The velocity of the bullets vary from 360–870 m/s [4,10,11]. Different
𝐼𝑡 Transmitted impulse from the armour to methodologies have been adopted for development of shielding systems
the protected structure (N s) for ballistic as well as blast threats. Fig. 1 shows an adaptation of the
𝐼𝑡 Transmitted impulse from the armour to approach suggested by the Committee on Opportunities in Protection
the protected structure (N s) Materials Science and Technology for Future Army Applications [12].
𝐿1 Thickness of the first layer (m) The method involves perceiving the threat whether blast or ballistic,
𝑚𝑎 Mass of the armour (kg) selection of suitable materials, fabrication and testing (with or without
𝑚𝑎 Mass of the armour (kg) the modelling stage), and if the armour design successfully performs, it
𝑀𝑠 Mach Number is passed to the next stage i.e. production. The parameters of the threat
𝑚𝑠 Mass of the protected structure (kg) and the armour performance are input to a canonical model to serve
as a database for future development. In line with the methodology
𝑚𝑠 Mass of the protected structure (kg)
laid down for the shielding materials, international standards like NIJ
𝑃 Wave Pressure, kPa
Standard 0108.01, STANAG 2920 have been introduced for Ballistic
𝑃 (𝑡) Wave pressure at time instant ‘𝑡’, kPa resistant shielding materials. The standards focus on the assessment of
𝑃𝐵′ Transmitted Pressure in Layer ‘B’, kPa the threat, which in the case of ballistic resistant materials, are bullets
′
𝑃𝑖,𝐴 Incident Pressure at interface of Layers ‘A’ or projectiles which can vary in terms of the calibre, impact velocity,
and ‘B’, kPa mass, material and shape [13,14]. The NIJ Standard 0108.01 classifies
′
𝑃𝑟,𝐴 Reflected Pressure at interface of Layers ‘A’ the armour materials into five categories based on the weapon type-
and ‘B’, kPa 357 Magnum to high-powered and armour-piercing rifles. The standard
𝑅0 Explosion length, m also specifies the bullet velocity and the number of hits per armour
𝑅𝑠 Distance covered by shock wave after time (5 hits till Level III and 1 hit for Level IV). The standards specify the
‘𝑡’, m 𝑉50 , as one of the indicators of ballistic limit which corresponds to the
velocities at which 50% of the projectiles fail to penetrate the target.
𝑟ℎ𝑜1 Density of the first layer (kg m−3 )
Thus, the armour may stop 50% of projectiles fired at the 𝑉50 ballistic
𝑍𝐴 Acoustic Impedance of material in Layer
limit velocity, while it is capable of stopping almost all of the projectiles
‘A’, kPa
fired at velocities less than the 𝑉50 limit. Residual velocity is another
𝑍𝐵 Acoustic Impedance of material in Layer metric which refers to the projectile velocity after perforation of the
‘B’, kPa material. Depth of penetration (DOP) for the projectile indicates the
𝑃0 Ambient pressure at ‘𝑡’=0, kPa resistance offered by the armour material and in turn the protection
𝛥(𝑚𝑢) Rate of change in momentum, kJ/s to the structure or individual whose safety is intended. Hence, this
provides a safety limit for usage of armour materials against projectile
impact.
While the standards for Ballistic resistant materials have been well-
1. Introduction defined, the standards for blast shields are still in the progressive
stage, with initial focus on specific applications like door and win-
The occurrence of ballistic and blast events throughout the world dow systems. ASTM F2927 (Door systems) and ASTM F1642/1642-17
is rising day by day owing to civil wars, guerilla insurgencies, cross- (glazing systems) have been in place for blast resistant materials. MIL-
398 [15] prescribes the criteria for shields for protection against ther-
border conflicts and terrorist attacks with the imminent mass destruc-
mal, pressure, and fragmentation hazards from accidental or intentional
tion of life and property both mobile and stationary. The modern
detonation of explosives.
era of warfare has evolved into a multi-dimensional entity with es-
Hence, in this review, focus has been given to the phenomena of
calated threats to day-to-day life. Blast events arise from land mines,
blast waves to highlight the threats associated with explosion events.
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), Aerial Missile attacks, and Rocket The theory behind blast waves, their classifications based on the media
Propelled Grenades (RPGs) which can form Explosively Formed Pro- surrounding the explosion epicentre, the strategies for the shielding
jectiles (EFP’s) and Blast Debris like shrapnel, glass shards and ballis- materials, mechanisms and methods for mitigating the damage have
tic spall [1–3]. Additionally, the defence personnel and war vehicles been discussed in the succeeding section. Overall, this review attempts
posted on the national borders have to face serious challenges from a comprehensive coverage of the principles behind shielding applica-
projectile weapons like handguns, machine guns, sub-machine guns, au- tions, different designs and configurations of materials used in shielding
tomatic and assault rifles, carbines [4]. The blast phenomenon emerges strategies, over the past 7 decades.

2
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 1. Methodology for development of shielding materials against blast and ballistic threats [12].

2. Blast phenomenon reactant mixtures [22,23]. Detonations, hence are far more destructive
than deflagrations that involve subsonic travel of the flame front.
2.1. Chemistry behind the blast
2.2. Classification of blast events based on surrounding media
Explosion or detonation of high energetic materials results in the
rapid release of energy with instant emission of huge quantities of high- The blast events and their effects vary with the surrounding me-
pressure gases [16–18]. The chemistry behind a blast is attributed to dia and the boundary conditions. The different conditions during an
the detonation or deflagration of high energetic explosive charges. An explosion within a confined space, a free-field blast and underwater
explosive can be defined as any chemical compound or mechanical blast, influence the shielding strategies [25]. Confined spaces limit the
mixture that is susceptible to self-reaction when subjected to stimuli peak overpressure due to structure interactions of the waves namely
like electric discharge, heat, impact, friction, and shock [16,19]. The reflection, diffraction or focus effect which elevate the morbidity and
effect is exhibited as a rapid chemical reaction with the consequent mortality rates. Hence, free field blast phenomena have a peak over-
release of large volumes of extremely hot gases that exert pressures in pressure, higher by a factor of 8, with a longer positive phase duration
the surrounding medium. Explosives can pertain to any of the three as that occurring in closed spaces for the same mass of explosive
states of matter—gaseous, liquid or solid. They can be physical mixtures charge [26]. Detonating an explosive charge underwater leads to a
of fuel and oxidizers (e.g. Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel-Oil) or contain the large bubble containing the gases from the blast and a high-intensity
fuel and oxidizer in the same molecule (e.g. RDX) [20]. shock wave propagates through the surrounding mass of water. As it
Table 1 shows the detonation properties of some of the common reaches the surface, a dome of spall gets formed and culminates in
explosives used. The velocity of the blast waves is extremely high and a release wave due to the impedance mismatch between water and
can reach Mach Number at the source as high as 25, which signifies the air. Thus, the material designers have to take into consideration the
potent destructive capability along with spontaneous acceleration im- changing conditions between blast events. Each of the blast events has
parted to the debris or free objects lying on the path of the blast waves been discussed in detail below. Fig. 2 shows the pressure variation at
which can induce shrapnel damage. The estimation of characteristic a point with time for different types of explosions.
parameters of blast waves can be carried out through the TNT (tri-
nitro-toluene) equivalent and multi-energy methods [21]. The former 2.2.1. Open-air blast
is suitable for detonation occurring from solid or gaseous charges while When detonation occurs in an open-space, the blast event is catego-
the latter pertains to deflagration of gas charges alone. The behaviour rized as air burst (detonation above the ground level) and ground burst
of TNT featured blast includes a short duration shock wave coupled (detonation on the ground surface) [27]. Detonation in open spaces
to the flame front caused during the detonation. By definition, detona- enable oxidation reactions with abundant supply of oxygen from the
tions involve shock waves travelling at supersonic speeds through the air. The sudden expansion of post-explosion gases causes a blast wave

3
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Table 1
Description of different explosives and their detonation properties [24].
Explosive Density Heat of detonation Detonation Detonation Detonation
(kg/m3 ) (kcal/mol) temperature (K) velocity (m/s) pressure (kbar)
TETRYL 1.731 −836.8 2017 7850 260
PETN 1.778 −618.7 2833 8260 335
RDX 1.806 −501.8 2587 8639 347
TNT 1.653 −817.2 2829 6942 187
HNS 1.74 −1540.3 3059 7000 241
HMX 1.902 −660.7 2364 9110 390

Fig. 2. Pressure variation at a point with time for different conditions (A) Free-Field Explosion (B) Underwater explosion (C) Confined Space (D) Shock tube simulation [25].

that moves with significantly high velocity through the environment unprecedented rise in the destructive capability and usage in IEDs.
surrounding the epicentre of the blast. Two phenomena contribute to Hence, TNT curves are widely used to compare the effects of different
the resultant pressure from a blast namely the pressure rise due to high energetic materials. The TNT curves display the variation of the
ongoing combustion of gases from the blast and the pressure drop due side-on peak pressure and scaled positive duration concerning the
to the expansion of the gases. The type of explosion has a significant scaled distance. Fig. 4 shows the intensity of side-on peak pressure vari-
influence on the shape of the blast wave. The explosion energy, the en- ation with actual distance and duration for an event of TNT detonation
ergy density and rate of energy release adversely affect the amplitude, of mass 57 kg (125 lbs) [24]. So, the structures, as well as people near
duration and other characteristics of the blast wave [27]. When a blast the blast epicentre would be subjected to an overpressure of 20 times
wave approaches a quiescent media at ambient conditions, the ambient the atmospheric pressure and are prone to damage due to pressure
pressure at that point instantly increases to peak pressure and then with loading, thermal damage, shrapnel damage as well as blunt impact due
time starts decreasing to negative pressure, gradually reverting to the to individuals being thrown by the blast wave. In blast wave theory,
ambient pressure. The pressure versus time curve takes the shape of a Sach Scaling Method uses the energy released from the explosive, 𝐸0
Friedlander wave for free-field conditions as shown in Fig. 3. A blast to compute a characteristic scale called the Explosion length 𝑅0 [23]. If
wave starts with high velocity and continuously decays as it propagates 𝑅𝑠 is the distance travelled by the shock at any time instant ’𝑡’, the ratio
to acoustic velocity. (𝑅𝑠 /𝑅0 ) also termed Sach scale can be used to compute the shock Mach
Eqs. (1)–(3) show the relations for the positive and negative im- number 𝑀𝑠 as given in Eq. (4). The overpressure which is defined as
pulses of the blast wave. The intensity of the blast wave depends on the difference between shock pressure and ambient pressure could be
the overpressure, positive and negative impulses. The positive impulse calculated from Eq. (5). Fig. 5 shows the variation of the overpressure
is primarily responsible for the high-pressure loading. and the Mach Number with Sach scale. Hence, in the near field of
the blast wave, the Mach Number will be as high as 4.1 while the
𝛥(𝑚𝑢) = 𝑃 𝐴 𝑑𝑡 (1) overpressure will be 18.5 times the ambient pressure. Above the Sach
∫
scale of 0.5, the blast wave decays into an acoustic wave due to which a
𝑡𝑎 +𝑡+
drastic drop in both the overpressure and the Mach Number is noticed.
𝐼+ = 𝐴 (𝑃 (𝑡) − 𝑃0 ) 𝑑𝑡 (2)
∫ 𝑡𝑎 Fig. 6 shows the intensity of the overpressure with distance from the
𝑡𝑎 +𝑡+ +𝑡− epicentre of the blast along with the time-scale. When the observer is
𝐼− = 𝐴 (𝑃0 − 𝑃 (𝑡)) 𝑑𝑡 (3) at a distance of ∼1–1.5 times the explosion length 𝑅0 , the proximity is
∫𝑡𝑎 +𝑡+
said to be close. Whereas, when the observer is at a distance of more
Table 2 shows the pressure and impulse equivalents for some stan- than 4 times that of the explosion length, the proximity is said to be
dard explosives. The nature and potency of explosives have seen an moderate. For distance more than 8 times that of the explosion length,

4
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 3. Pressure versus time curve for free-field conditions (Friedlander wave) [27].

blast wave passes through a point, the pressure which shot to a very
high value of the overpressure starts dropping due to the expansion of
gases, any object at that location would experience a positive impulse
as well as a negative impulse. The positive impulse is responsible for
causing damage to objects and structures [30]. When a structure is
subjected to blast waves or impact, two effects take place. Firstly,
the impulsive loads due to the blast impinge onto the surface of
the structure causing deformation as well as inducing stress within
the structure. Secondly, blast wave reflection and transmission at the
surface takes place (Fig. 7). If a cased explosive is filled with addi-
tional metallic insertions for causing missile damage, then the structure
can be damaged by piercing or penetration which is termed shrapnel
damage [31]. The extent of blast wave reflection and transmission is
a function of the shock impedance of the media through which the
blast wave travels as well as that of the object [5,32]. Eqs. (6) and (7)
show the transmitted and reflected overpressures from the blast wave
interaction at the interface.
Fig. 4. Side-on peak pressure variation with actual distance and duration for TNT ( )
detonation event [24]. 2𝑍𝐵
𝑃𝐵′ = 𝑃𝑖,𝐴
′
(6)
𝑍𝐴 + 𝑍𝐵
Table 2 ( )
′ ′ 𝑍𝐵 − 𝑍𝐴
Comparison of explosives of TNT equivalents for pressure and impulse [28]. 𝑃𝑟,𝐴 = 𝑃𝑖,𝐴 (7)
𝑍𝐴 + 𝑍𝐵
Explosive Pressure equivalent Impulse equivalent
Tri-Nitro Toluene (TNT) 1 1 2.2.2. Confined blast/explosion
C-4 1.3 1.5 When the detonation of the explosive occurs within a confined
Composition B (60 RDX/40 TNT) 1.2 1.1
space, the blast wave interaction with the walls of the confines cause
Pentolite 1.42 1.44
Dynamite (60% straight) 0.9 0.9 shock wave reflections and turbulent mixing of the detonation products
with fuel and air inside the space [33]. This promotes afterburning
reactions inside the space causing a spike in the quasi-static pressure
and an enhanced destructive capability. As the high energy blast waves
the overpressure of the blast wave deteriorates to ambient, hence the encounter the confining walls, they induce pressure loading, vibrations,
proximity can be termed as far-field. eventually leading to crack development [34]. When the detonation
0.1343 takes place inside buildings, with large wall surface areas, the ex-
𝑀𝑠 2 = (4)
𝑅 3 tremely high impulse associated with the blast compression wave can
( 𝑅𝑠 )
0 be detrimental [35]. The confined blast events can occur in storage
𝑃𝑠 − 𝑃0 0.156 facilities for high explosives, combustible gases like propane, liquefied
= −1 (5)
𝑃0 𝑅 3 petroleum gas [36], during transportation [37], and battery containers
( 𝑅𝑠 )
0 where flammable mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen are generated
The time scales for blast phenomenon is significantly smaller as internally [38,39].
compared to general impact while the energy levels associated with
the former is considerably higher [27]. It is important to study the 2.2.3. Underwater blast
interaction of blast waves with objects and the modification to the When the detonation of the charge takes place within water bodies,
blast waves post-interaction. Generally, the overpressure of the blast beneath the surface of water, the event is termed an underwater blast.
wave manifests similarly to a crushing force on the external surface These blasts behave differently since water is ∼1000 times denser than
of the structure while the dynamic gust causes an acceleration in drag air, incompressible which complicate the fluid–structure interaction.
sensitive bodies, in the path of the gust. Any object that is oriented Instantaneous release of heat energy within a small radius leads to
along the path of the direction of propagation of the blast wave will localized boiling forming superheated, high pressure, steam bubble ac-
be subjected to the overpressure or side-on pressure only [29]. As the companied by shock propagation [40]. The dynamic pressure augments

5
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 5. Variation of (a) overpressure (b) Mach Number, with Sach scale [27].

Fig. 6. Overpressure variation with distance from the epicentre [27].

and plate surface gives rise to spray reloading. As the steam bubble
reaches the cavitation zone, a major reloading event called water
hammer reloading occurs. While the primary pressure pulse from low
intensity explosions cause plate stresses within the elastic limit, water
hammer reloading can cause yielding, the extent of which depends on
the mass of charge, type of the charge, depth below free surface and the
stand-off distance. The high-pressure steam bubble suffers expansion
and collapse cycles, leading to pressure pulses. When the steam bubbles
collapse near the free surface, large pressure water jets are formed
which can rupture the plate [41] not unlike water jet machining. The
underwater blast events influence the structural integrity of off-shore
rigs, ship hulls, submarine walls and amphibious vehicles. If the blast
is in close proximity to the shores, berthing/docking facilities also face
Fig. 7. Blastwave interaction at the interface of two materials. the threat of underwater blast.

3. Background of shielding armours

the hydrostatic pressure at the blast depth and reaches a peak value
within 𝜇 s. The shock velocity decays strongly to acoustic limits for The shielding materials used in the armours for protection
from blast and ballistic impacts have seen consistent up-gradation over
water in less than 10 times the charge radius.
the last century. Post World War-II period saw accelerated growth in
Rajendran et al. [40] have conducted extensive studies on mechan- research on shielding materials for both blast and ballistic protection.
ics of metal plate deformation subjected to underwater explosion. Any While, the ballistic protection saw the advent of innovative designs
plate placed in the path of the pressure wave experiences an initial push in bullet proof armour materials, the evolution of blast-proof armours
leading to motion of the plate with a kick-off velocity. The reflected faced many challenges. Depending on the level of threat i.e. the type
rarefaction wave from the plate surface causes water breaking, leading of blast, the shielding material type and the mechanism of protection
to cavitation. After repetitive reflections between the zone of cavitation play an important role in blast mitigation.

6
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Table 3 the huge difference in the impedance values of the air and parts of
Acoustic impedance for some substances [43,44]. the human body (Tissues, Muscles and Bones 106), spalling is a
Medium Density (kg/m3 ) Acoustic impedance, Z major phenomenon leading to major injuries or fatalities. Focussing
×106 (N s/m3 )
on the wave phenomena—transmission and reflection that occurs at
Alumina 3800–3900 35
interfaces, when a blast wave travels from a region of low impedance to
Aluminium 2700 24
Air 1.2 4.00E−04
a region of high impedance, a compression wave transmits through the
Bone 2900–3800 6.6 latter. But, when a blast wave travels from a region of high impedance
Boron carbide 2500–2600 25.5 to low impedance, a rarefaction wave results [32]. When a compression
Brick 1900–2100 7.4 wave meets a rarefaction wave within the same material, a state of
Concrete 2300–2500 6.9–10.4
tensile stress within the material is developed which if exceeds the
Epoxy 1200 5.16
Fat tissues 900 1.33 tensile strength, rupture of material takes place. This effect can be
Glass 2500–2700 13 referred to as spalling. Hence, spall can be defined as a failure mode
Graphite 1500–1600 9.55 in which a crack or rupture occurs in a material internally, at areas
Muscle 1060 1.7 subjected to stress levels above the material’s tensile strength [46].
Polyethene 900 4.4
Hence, humans in the path of blast waves are extremely vulnerable.
Steel 7800 46
Silicon carbide 3200–3300 30 Using metallic walls as shielding serves to be futile at times. Steel
Water 996 1.5 has a high density, strength, and stiffness which makes it an impor-
tant structural material. But, due to the huge difference in acoustic
impedance of steel with air (4000 times higher for steel) through which
the blast wave approaches, steel is prone to spall damage and generates
The materials used for blast mitigation have additional roles as
shrapnel during the blast wave interaction that can, in turn, cause
compared to those used in ballistic protection where the materials
mortal harm to the recipients [1]. Therefore, the impedance mismatch
need to withstand the impact from the projectiles and absorb the
between the armour material and air is an important consideration for
associated kinetic energy [42]. The blast proof materials must minimize
blast protection [5].
the magnitude of the transmitted compression wave and the positive
impulse, along with moderating the time of interaction between the Massive Shield. When the blast wave travels from the armour to the
blast wave and the shielding structure [41]. This would lower the target structure, the transmitted impulse is related to the incident
resultant stresses transferred to the body or structure being shielded. impulse by Eq. (11), considering rigid-body dynamics with negligible
There are numerous techniques to achieve blast mitigation [5]. energy dissipation [47]. The higher the mass of the armour material,
lesser is the impulse received by the protected or target structure.
• Impedance Mismatch When energy dissipation is significant in rigid-body dynamics, the
• Massive Shield transmitted impulse is given by Eq. (12) [5]. In both the cases, when
• Friction, Plastic deformation and Delamination 𝑚𝑎 ≫ 𝑚𝑠 , i.e. making the shield more and more massive can minimize
• Viscoelastic Deformation the transmitted impulse and serve in blast mitigation. However, the
necessity of the armours to be lightweight, conflicts with this approach.
Impedance Mismatch. The acoustic impedance of a material is defined
as the product of the sound velocity in that material and the density of ( )
2𝑚𝑎
the material. Depending on the relative magnitude of the impedances, 𝐼𝑡 = 𝐼0 (11)
𝑚𝑎 + 𝑚𝑠
there can be three cases—When 𝑍𝐵 ≫ 𝑍𝐴 , the transmitted overpressure ( )
is almost twice that of the incident overpressure while the reflected 𝑚𝑎
𝐼𝑡 = 𝐼0 (12)
overpressure is almost equal to the incident overpressure. When 𝑍𝐵 𝑚𝑎 + 𝑚𝑠
≪ 𝑍𝐴 , the transmitted overpressure is diminished in magnitude while Friction, Plastic deformation and Delamination. Some materials mitigate
the reflected overpressure behaves as an expansion wave instead of blast waves by dissipating the energy through ‘Friction’. A series of
a compression wave. Thus, neighbouring particles in medium ‘A’ will friction plates are provided in between the armour and the protected
experience opposing forces due to the incident and reflected overpres- structure. The assembly shown in 8 acts as a semi-active damping
sures causing a tensile failure in the material. This phenomenon is system. During impact of blast wave onto the cladding, the normal force
called ’spalling effect’ which can be seriously detrimental to metallic on the friction plates is varied via the actuator, which imparts damping
armours used on tanks and armoured war vehicles [6,16]. Additionally, by the phenomenon of friction hysteresis. The normal force applied by
the spall could damage the defence personnel inside the tanks and vehi- the actuator depends on the frequency of the incident waves. Thus,
cles as shrapnel or missile damage. When 𝑍𝐵 = 𝑍𝐴 , the entire incident mitigation of vibrations is possible over a wide frequency range [48].
overpressure would be transmitted through the second medium without Several researchers have developed variants of variable friction based
any reflection phenomenon. Eq. (8) determines the acoustic impedance mitigation devices [49–51].
of a given material of density ‘𝜌’ when the sound velocity through that Plastic deformation occurs when the material under the influence
material is ‘𝑎’. For determining the sound velocity in solid materials, of the blast absorbs the energy as strain energy and undergoes contin-
the bulk modulus ‘𝜅’ could be utilized to determine the sound velocity uous deformation beyond the elastic limits, with a permanent residual
as given in Eq. (9). strain in the material [5]. When the deformation exceeds the ulti-
mate strength, ductile tearing takes place in metals/alloys, while fibre
𝑍𝑚 = 𝜌𝑎; (8)
fracture occurs in fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) [52–54]. Porous
√ materials like foams when employed as a core between sandwich panels
𝑍𝑚 = 𝜌𝜅 (9) are subjected to constant area collapse or crushing before complete
( ) densification thus absorbing the energy from the blast waves [55].
2𝑍𝐵
𝜎𝑡 = 𝜎𝑖 (10) Multi-layered materials absorb the energy from the blast, in the
𝑍𝐴 + 𝑍𝐵 course of which the interfaces behave as sites of huge interlaminar
Eq. (10) [45] based on Eq. (6) shows that if a material with 𝑍𝐵 ≪𝑍𝐴 stresses. The bond energy between the layers when overwhelmed by
is selected, the transmitted stress wave can be minimized. Table 3 the blast energy leads to the layer detachment called Delamination [56–
shows the values of the acoustic impedance for different materials. 58]. Delamination is commonly observed at the edges of the lami-
When the unprotected human body is exposed to the blast waves, nate [57]. In composite laminates, the delamination is caused by shock

7
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 8. Blast mitigation through sliding friction plate assembly.

wave and impact loading in a direction normal to the fibre orientation,

causing a decrease in the compressive and buckling strength [59]. The
delamination damaged area is a function of the number of interfaces
or plies in the laminate [60]. The plastic deformation and delamination
modes of material response are for one-time use only, with no flexibility
to face secondary waves of blast.

Viscoelastic Deformation. Viscoelastic materials like Vinyl Ethylene Ac-

etate dissipate energy at particular frequencies when stress waves
transmit through them [61]. The effectiveness of the viscoelastic ma-
terial depends on the characteristic frequencies and amplitudes of the
incident stress waves [5]. The stacking sequence of a multi-layered
laminate can be organized such that the stresses and frequencies of the
blast waves get tuned to match the optimal energy-dissipating frequen-
cies of the viscoelastic material. Rahimzadeh et al. [5] suggested that
for effective tuning, two layers of material have to be placed ahead
of the viscoelastic material, the first layer being more stiff and denser
compared to second layer, resulting in a very large impedance mis-
match. For the first layer, the internal reflections tune the characteristic
frequency to a value given by Eq. (13). In case of viscoelastic materials Fig. 9. Details of the chronology and domain of the references.
with large difference between the relaxed and unrelaxed modulus are
considered, the characteristic frequency is given by Eq. (14) [62].
When 𝑓𝐴 matches 𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑐 , the viscoelastic layer efficiently dissipates the the shielding materials, separately for different blast types and ballistic
energy of the pressure waves. The energy dissipated increases with protection. The following sub-sections are dedicated to ballistic and
successive loading and unloading cycles for this particular frequency blast type-based protective materials and methods.
alone. For dissipating energy at other frequencies, a viscoelastic ma-
terial with multiple relaxation times or multiple viscoelastic materials 3.1. Shielding materials for ballistic impact against bullets, projectiles and
are required. shaped charges
√
𝐸1
𝜌1 The extent of damage caused by propelled projectiles is dependent
𝑓𝐴 = (13) on the impact velocity, normal or oblique impact, geometry of projec-
2𝐿1
√ tile, boundary conditions [63]. While general material parameters like
𝐸𝑟 areal density and thickness of the plates play a role, the mechanism of
𝐸𝑢
resistance is material specific. Metal materials being ductile, isotropic,
𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = (14)
2𝜏 and homogeneous, display excellent hardness compared to polymers.
Fig. 9(a) shows the chronological distribution of the different ref- Against projectile impact, the resistance was offered through the phe-
erenced research output on shielding materials over the past 70 years, nomena of surface damages, plastic deformation, and fracture, ensuring
with an increasing trend in the quantum of references, as the timeline nil or minimum penetration [64]. Ceramic materials, like alumina,
moves towards the present. The evolution is a witness not only to silicon carbide, or boron carbide, being hard and brittle, the impact by
the novel materials being used for the shielding applications, but also projectiles are concentrated, leading to local rupture and consequent
the re-use of the conventional materials, for instance, as hexagonal fragmentation which is termed as ‘‘Mushrooming’’ [65]. The ceramic
honeycomb, foams. Fig. 9(b) shows the relationship between shielding materials blunt the projectile during the penetration thus minimizing
materials for blast and ballistic impacts. The difference between shield- the damage. Bourne et al. [66] have recorded the types of failures
ing materials for ballistic protection and that used for blast protection occurring in ceramic behind a travelling shock front comprising loss of
is that the latter materials, apart from protection to projectile impact, tensile strength, and shear strength, reduction in acoustic impedance,
must perform additional functions of tolerating high overpressures and relating them to the Hugoniot Elastic limits (HELs) of the ceramics.
positive impulses, resist spalling and shrapnel damage. Nearly 65% of Sherman et al. [67] highlighted that radial cracks developed in ceram-
the overall literature on shielding materials pertains to the domain ics due to intense reflected waves, also inducing spalling as additional
of blast protection, and the rest belonging to the ballistic impact damage mode.
protection. The study on the shielding materials would focus on the The fibre-reinforced polymers saw fabrics of high strength and high
types of materials used, key metrics used by researchers to compare modulus fibres incorporated into suitable matrix which when used

8
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

as armour materials against ballistic impact showed the mechanisms was 14% less than the hybrid panels consisting of graphite-epoxy and
of tensile deformation in primary yarns, bending deformation of sec- Kevlar hybrid configurations attributed to the synergistic effects of
ondary yarns, delamination and matrix cracking. The advantages of the soft and rigid panel combination in energy absorption. In 1992,
metallic and ceramic materials could be combined by the metal matrix Pepin [76] stressed on ensuring the arid condition of the fabrics. Any
composites reinforced with nano-sized ceramic particulates [68], or ce- ingress of moisture or liquids was found to severely impair the energy-
ramic matrix composites containing metallic fillers [69]. Similarly, the absorption of the material. This was proven by the superior ballistic
fibre metal laminates comprising repetitive stacking of metallic/alloy performance of dry fabrics over resin-impregnated fabrics. Compared
layers with fibre-reinforced laminae could lead to superior properties to open honeycomb, waffle shell core constructions comprising the
against ballistic impact [70]. The advancements in shielding materi- rigid rod crossing members (introduced into the panel core surrounded
als were then extended to protect against shaped charges (missiles, by dry fabric with lateral supports), helped in delaying the buckling
torpedoes) and projectiles. failure of the cross members. In 1993, Vives [69] constructed a ballistic
In 1954, Dietz et al. [71] invented a shielding material for missile protection armour consisting of three layers. An auxiliary plate made up
impact, consisting of a laminated plastic armour of nylon (2 × 2 of sintered ceramic (alumina) with circular blind holes, perpendicular
basket weave drawn), fortisan (regenerated cellulosic fibre) and spun to the plane of the plate constituted the first layer. The purpose of the
glass with suitable bonding materials. The inventors employed the holes was to score the projectile surface creating lines of weakness so
concept of ‘‘constrained delamination’’. The impact surface of the ar- that the projectile shatter when it impacts the third layer. The second
mour consisted of a brittle ply which would shatter on missile impact layer was a honeycomb layer made up of aluminium, for shock ab-
increasing the impact area of the missile. For the next layer, a ply sorption. The third layer was a metallic armour plate. During projectile
of high shear strength to punching was placed, while plies of higher impact, the cellular structure of the auxiliary plate led to the splitting
tensile strength and strain were placed on the rear side of the ar- of the brass jacket surrounding the projectile, and longitudinal grooves
mour. The inventors investigated the shielding capacity of the armour were scored on the projectile creating lines of weakness, and enhancing
by the 𝑉50 test, from which the Ballistic limit was obtained for the the tendency to shatter the projectile. In 1999, Børvik et al. [77] studied
different armour configurations. The armour configurations showed the impact characteristics of blunt-nosed projectiles on 12 mm thick
circular delamination on the rear side of the plates, which was the Weldox® 460E steel plates under lower ordinance velocity regime. The
residual deformation after complete absorption of the kinetic energy failure in the steel plates occurred through shear plugging. The authors
of the projectiles. In the 70s, two-layered armours were adopted to observed void growth in the localized shear region, indicating ductile
ensure the lightweight feature. Metal matrix composites (MMCs) were fracture. Perforation studies of 8 mm thick Weldox® 460E steel plates
also explored for shielding. In 1974, Dawson [68] designed protective were also carried out [78].
armours from aluminium matrix composites for shaped charges. Shaped In 2004, Fu et al. [79] constructed ballistic structural panels using
charges work on the principle of the Munroe effect, wherein the shock fibreglass woven phenolic prepreg as face sheets, Kevlar™ 29, style 745
energy is concentrated by a hollow or void cut on a surface of a high fabric interleaved with Nomex™ honeycomb layers bonded using ultra-
explosive [72]. Hence, the armour material must be able to diffuse the thin ionomer adhesive films. Armour plates backed by an auxiliary
jet particle stream. Such materials must possess discontinuous density. ceramic plate backing, to score the shrapnels or projectiles were also
The matrix material was aluminium alloy 2024, in which high strength, developed. Two panels of thicknesses 0.5’’ (12.7 mm) and 1’’ (25.4 mm)
fine wires of stainless steel were dispersed (25% by volume). Other rein- were constructed. The panels were subjected to ballistic resistance tests
forcements considered were wires of Boron and Beryllium. The armour using .44 magnum lead SW bullet and 9 mm FMJ bullet fired at a
material was fabricated by diffusion bonding of the stainless steel wires distance of 16 ft (1.83 m) at velocity of 1400 ft/s (427 m/s). The
into the matrix. This offered a lightweight and stronger alternative to authors observed no penetration on any of the panels, indicating a high
conventional steel. A ceramic coating consisting of vapour-deposited degree of retention of structural integrity. In 2005, Lopez-Puente [80]
titanium carbide was applied on the outer surface of the plate for pro- investigated the effect of the adhesive layer (toughened epoxy resin)
tection against projectile impact. In 1985, Brown et al. [73] developed a thickness on alumina–aluminium armours. The armours were impacted
spaced armour consisting of four layers. A lamina of 5.5–6.5 mm thick, using armour-piercing projectiles fired close to the Ballistic limit. The
high carbon steel (carbon content 0.44–0.49) was used as the outer authors observed three important phenomenon—the shear stress on
layer. The second layer was an aluminium alloy sheet bonded to the the adhesive decreased with adhesive thickness leading to better bond-
outer steel layer by a polysulphide adhesive. The third layer comprised ing between the ceramic and the aluminium backing plate, ceramic
a core material of paper honeycomb that provided a spacing of 62 mm spalling reduced with thin adhesive layers, and energy absorption by
between the aluminium sheet and the last layer. The last layer was a the backing plate increased with the thickness of the adhesive layer,
laminate of multiple plies of ballistic grade fabric. The inventor claimed improving the load transference from ceramic to metal. In the same
that the spaced armour was capable of tolerating 30 calibre armour- year, Tham [81] conducted the perforation and penetration studies
piercing, 30 calibre ball, NATO ball, M-16 and Teflon coated projectiles of reinforced concrete using 3D hydrocode simulation. The impactor
impacting at velocities equal to or less than muzzle velocity. In 1989, was a steel ogival-nose projectile with a diameter of 25.4 mm and
Hartman [74] manufactured ballistic materials from high-strength mag- mass of 0.5 kg. The projectile velocity was varied between 300 to
nesia alumina-silicate glass fabric and phenol formaldehyde binder 1000 m/s. The simulation results were compared with experimental
using hot compression moulding. The areal density of a half-inch thick residual velocities and post-test damage results. The constitutive model
laminae was 22–25 kg/m2 , with a 𝑉50 value of 2715 ft/s (827 m/s) to with a pressure-dependent yield strength, damage and strain hardening
2865 ft/s (873 m/s). In 1989, Pepin [75] manufactured lightweight, hy- showed good agreement with the experimental results. Continuing this
brid, structural, energy-absorbing panel using Kevlar™ 29 plain weave work, Tham [82] compared the results from numerical and empir-
fabrics placed between facesheets containing rigid rod polymer fibres ical studies with regard to the maximum depth of penetration and
like polybenzbisoxazole (PBO) or polybenzbisthiazole (PBZT). These deceleration-time response during the penetration of a concrete target
polymer fibres have fracture modes conducive to absorbing kinetic using the ogive-nosed steel projectile. The SPH-Lagrange technique was
energies of high velocity fragments. The sandwich panels were tested found to provide the optimum response. In 2008, Arias et al. [42]
using 2"×6"×0.19" (50.8 mm ×152.4 mm ×4.83 mm) titanium pro- studied the perforation of thin steel plates (Weldox® 460E) impacted
jectiles fired from a gas gun at a velocity of 550 ft/s (168 m/s). by different shaped projectiles (blunt, conical and hemispherical) us-
High speed photography was used to document the impact event, ing numerical simulation, ABAQUS-Explicit code. For the material, a
energy absorbing mechanisms and deformation of the test panels. It thermoviscoplastic behaviour was considered and the Johnson–Cook
was observed that the Penetration threshold of Kevlar baseline panels constitutive model was employed. The impact velocities were varied

9
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

from 190–600 m/s. The influence of adiabatic shear bands, plastic work titanium alloy facesheets and AC-KH-1.83-48 meta-aramid honeycomb
and temperature gradient in the plate were investigated. The conical core. The sandwich panels were subjected to impulse loading by a
projectiles produced a radial compressive state and hole enlargement. mylar flyer accelerated by an electric gun technique. The authors
This work was extended in [83] where different diameters of conical concluded that the stress pulses incident on the sandwich panels were
projectiles were used to perforate the Weldox® 460E steel plates. The blocked by the aramid honeycomb through crushing and the damage
key parameters measured were the ballistic limit, the residual velocity, to the back plate was reduced. Kechagiadakis et al. [92] tested non-
the plastic work, and the temperature levels produced during the crimp multi-layered aramid fabrics against ballistic impact by 9 mm
penetration process. projectiles and bullet simulating projectiles. The multi-layered armour
In 2010, Coghe et al. [84] studied the bodywork effect, which refers comprised five layers of Kevlar® XP S102. The projectile velocity was
to the decrease in the ballistic resistance when armour materials like varied from 226 m/s to 402 m/s. The ballistic limits were found to be
high-hardness steel is included on the interior of vehicle body. The higher for the bullet simulating projectile as compared to the 9 mm
effect was studied for impact by 5.56 × 45 mm NATO projectile. The projectile.
perforation studies were carried out on the steel plates at different In 2018, Palta et al. [93] carried out a numerical study of the
ballistic limit velocities V50 . The perforation on the plates occurred ballistic performance of monolithic steel plates (Weldox® 700E), multi-
due to plugging. The authors used high-speed photography during the layered steel plates and hybrid sandwich structures comprising steel
impact and saw flattening of the projectile tip in some while severe and Kevlar 129/epoxy plies. The authors investigated 30 different
blunting in others, which eventually contributed to the bodywork configurations for ballistic impact by .223 bullets at 900 m/s using a
effect. In 2011, Lyons et al. [85] made a ballistic resistant panel non-linear finite element model adhering NATO Level I and EN1063 BR
from multiple sheets of high modulus, UHMWPE (TENSYLON™) using 5 standards. The numerical results were validated against experimental
different adhesives for inter-layer bonding purpose. The areal density test results from literature. The authors observed that as compared
of the panel was 2 psf (9.76 kg/m2 ). 0.30 calibre FSP projectiles were to monolithic steel plates, hybrid plates comprising steel and Kevlar
used to test the ballistic performance of the panels as per MIL-STD- layers offered better ballistic protection with 25% reduction in the
662F standard. The polystyrene-isoprene copolymer adhesive resulted weight. In the same year, Palta et al. [94] developed a numerical model
in the highest 𝑉50 values, among the different adhesives used. The for advanced combat helmets as per NIJ-0106.01 standard and the
ballistic test results showed that including TENSYLON™ led to enhanced U.S. Army’s 𝑉50 ballistic limit. The material for the combat helmets
shielding of the armour designs with increase in the 𝑉5 0 limits. In 2016, was Kevlar 129. The numerical model results were compared with
Monteiro et al. [86] fabricated multi-layered ballistic armour system existing test results from literature. The model was capable of accurate
(MBAS) using two plates of 10 mm each, first one being a ceramic plate responses to impact by 9 mm bullets and 1.1 g fragment simulating
containing Al2 O3 doped with 4 wt% N2 O5 . For the second plate, either projectiles. In 2019, Palta et al. [95] developed a multi-scale finite
Kevlar™–epoxy lamina or 30 vol.% of ramie fabric-epoxy composite element model consisting of meso- and micro- scales for determining
were used. Ballistic tests were conducted by targeting a projectile of the ballistic response of multi-ply woven fabrics. The number of plies
size 7.62 × 51 mm (NATO ammunition); the depth of penetration and varied from 3 to 10. The key metrics measured were the benergy transi-
indentation on the target MBAS were investigated. On impact, the tions, deformations, and damage patterns at the impact of 𝑉100 ballistic
ceramic layer undergoes fragmentation, dissipating ∼57% of impact limit. Fras et al. [96] investigated the dynamic perforation of 3 mm
energy, while the effectiveness of the second layer depended on the thick plates made of ultra-high strength (>2000 MPa) steel (Mars® 300).
degree to which it captured the ceramic fragments. From this study, the 8 mm diameter projectiles of different tip shapes— conical, blunt and
30 vol.% ramie-epoxy composite was found to perform better than the hemispherical were used to impact the steel plates at velocities up
Kevlar™ composite. In 2015, Garcia-Gonzalez et al. [87] compared the to 380 m/s. In all the plates, the failure occurred through plugging.
mechanical behaviour of polyether-ether ketone (PEEK) and titanium Among the different tip shapes, hemispherical projectiles were found
alloy Ti6Al4V under impact loading. Perforation tests were conducted to be efficient, with 10% higher residual velocities. In 2020, Gilson
using steel spheres of mass 1.3 g, with kinetic energy of the projectiles et al. [97] continued the work on ballistic gelatin by investigating the
varied from 21 J–131 J. The authors observed a predominantly ductile non-penetrating response of shielded gelatin blocks. DYNEEMA® HB80
response of PEEK under high strain rates and also the energy absorption was used in form of multi-layered structure comprising 34 unidirec-
was higher for PEEK as compared to Ti6Al4V alloy. In the same year, tional layers. Bi-metallic projectiles-Projectile 1 (9 mm bullet with lead
Garcia-Gonzalez [88] studied the perforation response of short carbon core and brass jacket) and Projectile 2 (0.44 Magnum with lead core
fibre (30% by weight) filled PEEK using the 1.3 g steel spheres. The and copper jacket) were used for the ballistic impact at velocities of
authors noted the improvement in the stiffness and strength, while a 390 m/s and 425 m/s respectively. During the impact, the development
reduction in the ductility. The key observations included the energy of the transient cavities were captured by a high speed camera and
absorption, damage extension and failure mechanism of the reinforced the transient pressures were measured by pressure gauges mounted on
and unfilled PEEK. C-scan and SEM inspection of the impacted surfaces the gelatin block. The authors observed that the shielding undergoes
were carried out. The carbon fibre reinforced PEEK showed a brittle perforation by the projectile, causing deceleration of the projectile
failure and a significant drop in the energy absorption compared to and consequent deformation. Also, a three-peak pressure wave was
unfilled PEEK. Gilson et al. [89] developed a numerical model for noted to propagate into the gelatin block, with separate patterns for
ballistic penetration of Fackler gelatin, when impacted by low calibre the two projectiles. Gilson et al. [98] conducted the damage assess-
projectiles. Gelatin shows a complex, non-linear material response. The ment of UHMWPE based composite during the ballistic impacts by the
projectiles used were 9 mm and .44 magnum, a high speed camera was two bi-metallic projectiles of different morphologies and masses. The
used to record the penetration of the projectile into the gelatin block. prime damage mechanisms were—fibre breakage, delamination and
Hogan et al. [90] studied the response of hot-pressed boron carbide permanent backface deflection. In 2021, Caçoilo et al. [99] numerically
ceramic plate to the ballistic impact caused by spherical projectiles evaluated the effect of bullet impact on military helmets. The impact of
of diameter 6.35 mm (93 wt. % WC), with a speed of 275 m/s and 9 mm NATO projectiles at different angles from 0 to 75◦ , on the helmets
930 m/s. The fragmentation of the ceramic was analysed in terms of the at different impact velocities has been studied. For the helmet shell,
fragment size and shapes. The smaller sized fragments were formed due Kevlar 29™ and Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) were considered, while
to coalescence of fractures originating from carbonaceous defects in the nylon for the straps and leather for the head band were taken up. The
material. The larger fragments were formed from the structural failure key parameters—helmet and projectile deformation, peak acceleration,
of the ceramic. In 2017, Zhao et al. [91] investigated the deformation impact energy and Head Injury Criterion (HIC) values were measured.
and the failure modes of sandwich panels comprising Ti-6Al-4 V (TC4) The authors implied that the maximum values of HIC occurred for

10
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

direct impact (0◦ ). In 2022, Kósla et al. [100] used multi-criterial Sandusky et al. [108] tested the effectiveness of portable, transparent
analysis to optimize the ballistic inserts in armours. The ballistic tests shields against the blast impact from detonation of explosives. The
were conducted as per STANAG 2920 standards. Three types of inserts authors measured the blast overpressures, temperature and heat flux
were used—soft inserts consisting of para-aramid Twaron® CT612WRT during the impact. The polymer shields were made of polycarbonate.
and Twaron® UD42 layers, hard inserts comprising Twaron® CT736 The 1/2" thick shields were able to withstand blast overpressures
prepregs and Al2 O3 ceramic layers. From the ballistic tests, the authors from detonation of charges of mass (≤2 g), fragment penetration was
observed that soft inserts worked well against impact by .22 calibre observed when the charge mass was increased to 2.8 g. Thicker shields
fragments at 400–700 m/s. While woven fabric laminates displayed were required in case of higher blast overpressures (≥3 g).
fibre-pullout, rupture and extension of the p-aramid yarn, unidirec- In 2004, Fleck et al. [109] have developed a design procedure
tional fabric laminates displayed cone formation, debonding from the for evaluating the blast response of clamped sandwich beams. The
polyethylene binder, fibre breakage and separation. dynamic response of clamped sandwich structure to blast loads has
While most of the shielding materials discussed in this section dealt been categorized into three stages—Fluid structure interaction at the
with bullet or projectile impact, there are certain class of materials face plate, Collapse of the core and Extension/Bending of the back
that need to withstand similar scenarios in the outer space. Whipple plate. In the first stage, a uniform velocity gets imparted to the face
shields are shielding structures provided on space vehicles, satellites for plate. In the second stage, the velocities of the face and the core get
tolerating impact from space debris, dead satellite components which equalized due to momentum sharing and in the final stage, the beam is
travel at far higher speeds than the bullets, with velocities reach- brought to rest by the retardation, caused by plastic deformation and
ing ∼18 km/s. Cherniaev et al. [101] investigated layered ceramic- stretching. The authors have constructed performance charts for differ-
aluminium Whipple shield employing the shock impedance matching ent sandwich core topologies for both open-air blast and underwater
of the ceramic and aluminium layers. An aluminium (shock impedance blast, considering a monolithic beam for comparison.
∼ 13.76×106 kg∕(m2 s)) substrate was coated on both sides with SiC In 2009, Nurick et al. [110] investigated the performance of blast-
(shock impedance 36.27 ×106 kg∕(m2 s)) using physical vapour de- loaded sandwich structures against explosion caused by plastic explo-
position (PVD) up to a thickness of 0.05 mm. A 1 mm diameter, sives. The structures consisted of two mild steel plates of thickness
aluminium projectile at 7000 m/s was used to impact the shielding ma- 1.4 mm each sandwiching a core layer. The core layer was made up of
terials. On comparing the ceramo-aluminium shield with all-aluminium aluminium alloy AA5052 honeycomb with a branch angle of 80◦ with
shields, the former offered better fragmentation characteristics owing a height of 13 mm. A disc of 1 g PE4 plastic explosive was detonated
to its stronger shock loading. In 2019, Zhang et al. [102] developed and a cylindrical tube was used to direct the blast towards the sandwich
a debris shielding structure (Whipple shield) consisting of Ti-Al-nylon panel. The backplate displacement was measured to assess the degree
impedance and Al-Mg graded materials. A two-stage light gas gun was of blast protection against two types of blast loading—uniform and
used to create hypervelocity impacts on the materials, using 5 mm localized blasts. Three types of phases were observed—Only front
diameter aluminium projectiles, at velocities of 3.5 and 6.5 km/s. plate deforms, front plate deforms and contacts the backplate with
The impact characteristics, penetration holes on the Whipple shield insufficient momentum to cause permanent backplate deformation or
and damage patterns on the rear wall of the structure were studied. front plate deforms and induces permanent backplate deformation due
The authors observed that the Al/Mg bumper caused the projectile to sufficient momentum, front plate tears and impacts the back plate.
to rupture into smaller fragments that were distributed across a large In 2010, Amini et al. [111] compared the behaviour of monolithic DH-
area. This was achieved by altering the path of wave propagation 36 steel plates with polyurea coated DH-36 steel plates when subjected
and increasing the duration of interaction required for the rupture. to impulsive blast loads. The monolithic steel plates were 1 mm thick
Additionally, the shock heating effect for the Al/Mg bumper augmented while the bi-layered polyurea-steel laminate was 4.75 mm thick, with
the kinetic energy attenuation and bumper material fracture. Hence, the coating thickness of 3.75 mm. For the testing, an aluminium alloy
for the same areal density, the impedance graded Ti-Al-nylon Whipple projectile (AA7075) of mass 0.832 kg, was discharged from a gas gun
shield outperforms the homogeneous AA2024 Whipple shield of an at controlled velocities, striking a 25.4 mm thick polyurethane cylinder
equal areal density. More extensive developments on whipple shield which transferred the impulsive shock loading to the steel plates. The
designs have been reviewed in [65]. modes of deformation of the various configurations were inspected to
determine the resistance to the shock loading. The deformed plates
3.2. Shielding materials for open-air blast were categorized as No failure, moderate failure and severe failure. The
failure mode transformed from bending-dominant to in-plane tensile
The shielding materials and structures intended for protection stretching dominant failures, when velocity of impact transitioned from
against open-air blast need to meet the following requirements—reduce low to high. The failure stages were classified as hoop cracking, radial
the magnitude of transmitted compression wave, absorb the impact cracking and tangential cracking.
energy from the positive impulse with least deformation, moderating In 2011, Huang [112] constructed an explosion-proof material com-
the duration of interaction between the blast wave and the protective prising a core body made of polyurethane/polyether around which
structure. Thus, the eventually transferred stresses and energy to the a metallic mesh of high porosity, is wound in a spiral fashion. The
structure being shielded would be minimized. The initial phase of the metallic mesh is coated with a non-metallic layer. The inventor claimed
post-world war period saw the utilization of shields with higher mass that the material possesses good resistance to collapse and deformation.
and strength (massive shields), typically monolithic metallic plates for In 2013, Liu et al. [113] studied the response of sandwich panels con-
mitigating open-air blasts [103,104]. Parallel efforts were shown by taining aluminium foam core with varying densities, to a blast wave.
researchers in leveraging the techniques of impedance mismatch, plas- Closed-cell aluminium foam cores of relative density in the range 0.16–
tic deformation, delamination and friction achievable in multi-layered 0.23, were manufactured by molten body transitional foaming process,
armours for defence against open-air blasts [105,106]. with 3 wt. % Ca as a viscosity enhancer (added at 720 ◦ C), 1.2 wt%
In 1980, Rajamani et al. [107] have compared the response of TiH2 as a foaming agent (added at 690 ◦ C), the addition was done at
aluminium 2024 alloy and unidirectionally reinforced E-glass fibre a stirring speed of 1500 rpm for 120–200 s. The sandwich panels were
epoxy composite panels to blast loading. The authors observed dynamic fabricated from two mild steel plates of thickness 4.2 mm each, and
amplification factors for the aluminium plate in the range of 2.0– aluminium foam core of thickness 16 mm, sandwiched between the
2.5, whereas in case of solid glass-epoxy plate the range was 1.3–1.8 steel plates. The blast experiment was conducted by using 1 g PETN
for the strains considered. This work was limited to the response of in the detonator and 10 g cyclonite cylindrical charge as the explosive.
isotropic and orthotropic plies, and not sandwich structures. In 1994, A stand-off distance of 10 mm between the explosive and the sandwich

11
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

panel was maintained. The key metrics considered during this study varied. The blast pressure, impulse along with the deflections of the
were the central deformation of the panels subjected to the blast, the panels were measured. The authors have stated that the blast energy
ratio of the peak load incident on the panel to the peak load transmitted absorption varies directly with a yield strength of the material. Yuen
from the panel. The energy was dissipated by the foam core through et al. [119] studied the response of 2 mm thick DOMEX steel plates
formation and growth of cracks. As the aluminium foam core density to different orientations (0◦ , 15◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ ) of the blast loads. The
decreased, the peak load transmitted from the sandwich structure in- blast was generated by detonating a PE4 plastic explosive with charge
creased. Zhang et al. [114] developed sandwich panels with corrugated mass varying between 8 and 28 g. The performance was evaluated
core for estimating the response to blast loading. The facesheets and the by the maximum deflection/tearing of the target plates. The authors
corrugated core were made of 304 stainless steel. The core was filled concluded that increasing the angle of tilt led to greater deflection of
with PVC foam (Divinycell H250) in three configurations—at the front, the blast wave, in turn, reducing the deformation of the target plate.
at the rear and fully-filled. The front side foam filling and fully-filled Osnes et al. [120] studied the effect of blast loading on laminated glass
configurations showed the best performance in the absorption of blast comprising two, 3.8 mm thick annealed float glass panes and 1.52 mm
energy. The failure mode of the front face changed from complete tear- thick polyvinyl butyral interlayer. Additionally, ballistic impacts using
ing mode to partial tearing mode, while the back face transformed from 7.62 mm bullets at speeds of 600–871 m/s. The authors opined that
petalling failure mode to large inelastic deformation mode without frac- when the laminated glass is perforated by debris from blast or other
ture. The backside foam filling was ineffective in reducing the backplate projectiles accompanying the blast front, the shock shielding capability
deformation. In 2013, Sousa-Martin et al. [115] explored the behaviour diminishes significantly. Hussein et al. [121] conducted blast wave
of sandwich structures containing 5754-H22 aluminium alloy skins and response studies on cantilever, thin oriented strand boards (1 cm thick).
cork compound core of varying thickness against blast impact. The The TNT charges were detonated at a stand-off distance of 3 m. The
samples were mounted on a 4-cable ballistic pendulum, and blast waves boards were able to mitigate the blast overpressures by ∼ 20%. The
originating from the detonation of 30 g of C4 explosive at a stand- acceleration of the wave at the wall centroid was also measured, which
off distance of 300 mm were made to strike the samples. The authors was found to be two times that at the corners of the wall. Zhou
observed a decrease in the transmitted impulse to the structure with the et al. [122] evaluated the performance of sandwich panels consisting
increase in the core thickness. The maximum thickness reduction due of metallic face-sheets and PVC foam graded/ungraded cores under air
to the blast was ∼11 %. Jang et al. [16] proposed a similar sandwich blast loading. The blast was generated by a cylindrical TNT charge
structure with low-density core held between two high-density panels. of mass 55 g, which was placed atop the centre of the panel and
The authors modified the models for mass, deflection and energy detonation was initiated remotely. The permanent deformation of the
absorption based on the three stage deformation theory proposed by panel and the failure modes were used for measuring the performance
Fleck and Deshpande. The design variables included the geometry of the different sandwich panels. A localized dishing deformation on
and material composition of the sandwich panels. The authors opined the faceplate and a dome deformation of the backplate was observed
that the back sheet must be thicker than the face sheet to endure by the authors. The panels with thicker cores (lower core density) were
bending and stretching better. In 2014, Yun et al. [116] utilized two found to reduce the backplate deformation. Employing PVC forms of
types of aluminium foams—AA1070 and AA2024 in blast protective increasing grades (core gradation) was found to be beneficial to the
structures, the latter foam having higher compressive strength. The mitigation of the air blast shockwave. Table 4 shows the comparison of
foams of different relative densities and thicknesses were sandwiched the key metrics used for analysis of performance of different shielding
between steel plates of thickness 1.6 mm–3 mm. A cylindrical explosive materials. In 2021, Elgy et al. [123] explored the blast impact response
(7.6 kg of C4) was used to create the blast wave. The different panels of high-strength steel ARMOX 440 T steel to explosions from charges
were arranged circularly around the explosive at scaled distances as buried in uniform sand. The mass of the explosive charge (400–1000 g
per Sach’s scaling law [27]. The permanent deformation along the of PE4), thicknesses of the plate (6–12 mm) were varied to determine
central axis in horizontal and vertical directions was measured after the effects on the deformation pattern of the plates, which was captured
the subjecting the foam panels to the blast. The authors concluded that by high speed digital photography. Table 5 summarizes the shielding
using aluminium alloy foams of higher densities reduces the extent materials utilized in open-air blast resistance applications.
of plastic deformation. In the same year, Schenk et al. [106] estab- Other strategies for air-blast protection include the use of geo-
lished that the choice of the cellular core architecture affects the blast materials like concrete, sand and soil in structural form of walls or
energy dissipation through plastic core compression and momentum berms [124–126]. Earthen barriers or berms are installed at the perime-
drop due to fluid–structure interactions. In 2015, Rahimzadeh et al. [5] ter of the facility to be protected, and they serve by deflecting the blast
employed a novel blast tuning technique for multi-layered armours. The wave and absorbing the fragments/debris from the blast. Crawford
arrangement of elastic and viscoelastic layers within the armours was et al. [127] have constructed two blast barriers with 1" thick steel plates
found to affect the stress waves and energy dissipation due to which sandwiching a very thick (∼1 ft) layer of concrete or soil. Another ap-
the blast tuning helps in augmenting the degree of protection against proach in air-blast mitigation involved the employment of functionally
blasts. In 2016, Jin et al. [117] used finite element analysis to study graded structures [128,129]. Hause [128] developed a theory for the
the dynamic response of a novel sandwich structure to blast loading. response of functionally graded plate-structures against Friedlander air-
AA 2024 facesheets were used for the front and rear plates. Different blast, based on the Classical Laminate theory. The constituent materials
grades of auxetic, re-entrant cell, honeycombs made from AA3104 involved a ceramic and a metallic phase, with thickness varied as per
were considered for the core sandwiched between the facesheets. The a power law. The effects of geometrical non-linearities, the dynamic
deformation modes and axial deflections caused by plastic stretching effects, compressive tensile edge loadings, the damping effects, and
and bending were investigated. The authors found out that graded and thermal effects were incorporated into the model. Duc et al. [129] used
cross-arranged honeycomb cores (with higher density) improved the Reddy’s higher order shear deformable theory for functionally graded
blast resistance as compared to ungraded/regular core arrangements. plates subjected to blast loads. The thickness of the layers was varied as
In 2018, Mehreganian et al. [118] compared numerical, experimental per a power law. Similar works on functionally graded materials have
and empirical techniques to evaluate the effect of localized air blast been taken up in [130,131].
loads on mild steel and armoured steel plates. Panels of areal density
ranging from 31 kg/m2 to 37 kg/m2 with a nominal thickness of 4.6 mm 3.3. Spall protection
were used in the tests. The air blast was generated by the detonation of
a PE4 plastic explosive, the charge mass was varied from 24–70 g. The As explained in the previous sections, spalling is a typical response
stand-off distances between the blast origin and the panels were also of metal materials and alloy sheets (isotropic, homogeneous materials

12
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Table 4
Summary of shielding materials used in ballistic resistant applications.
Structural form Materials Remarks Reference
Ceramic Hot pressed B4 C ceramic Fragmentation characterization at different velocities [90]
Ceramic Alumina/Aluminium Armour efficiency at different adhesive thicknesses [80]
Concrete Reinforced Concrete Penetration and Perforation by a ogive-nosed steel projectile [81,82]
Composite Fibre-reinforced polymer comprising UHMWPE Highest Ballistic limit for Polystyrene-isoprene copolymer [85]
plies with different adhesives
Composite Kevlar 129𝑇 𝑀 /epoxy Determination of 𝑉50 limits against 9 mm bullets and fragment [93–95]
simulating projectiles
Composite Unfilled PEEK/Short carbon fibre reinforced PEEK Reinforced PEEK showed brittle failure, decrease in energy absorption [87,88]
in contrast to unfilled PEEK
Monolithic MMC- AA2024 matrix, Stainless Steel Wire Material density discontinuous to counter Munroe effect [68]
reinforced
Monolithic Metallic-Weldox® 460E Steel Ballistic impact by blunt-nosed projectiles [77,78]
Monolithic Metallic-Weldox® 460E Steel Perforation studies using different shaped projectiles [42,83]
Monolithic Metallic-Weldox® 700E Steel Ballistic impact by .223 bullets [93]
Monolithic Metallic-Mars® 300 Steel Projectiles with blunt, conical and hemi-spherical tips [96]
Multi-layered Nylon, Fortisan and spun-glass Combination of brittle, high strength and high shear strength plies [71]
Multi-layered High carbon steel, Aluminium alloy sheet, Paper Good tolerance against variety of projectiles [73]
honeycomb
Multi-layered Kevlar 29𝑇 𝑀 with polymer fibres Synergistic effect in energy absorption [75]
Multi-layered Sintered alumina face sheet with perforation, Holes on facesheet to score the projectiles and create lines of weakness [69]
aluminium honeycomb, Steel plate
Multi-layered Fibreglass reinforced phenolic facesheet, Kevlar Structural integrity retained up to 427 m/s [79]
29𝑇 𝑀 , NOMEX𝑇 𝑀 honeycomb, ceramic auxiliary
plate
Multi-layered Alumina (ceramic) plate, Kevlar-epoxy and Ceramic facing undergoes fragmentation absorbing energy, armour [86]
Ramie-epoxy plies backing to trap fragments
Multi-layered Ti6Al4V facesheets with meta-aramid honeycomb Mylar flyers for impact, Core crushing lowered damage to backplate [91]
Multi-layered Ceramic faceplate (SiC), aluminium alloy plate Better Shock loading in multi-layered compared to monolithic [101]
aluminium alloy
Multi-layered UHMWPE (Dyneema® HB80) Damage mechanisms by bi-metallic projectiles [97,98]

Table 5
Summary of shielding materials used in Open-air Blast Resistant Applications.
Structural form Materials Remarks Reference
Metallic foam AA1070 and AA2024 foams of varying mass Plastic deformation reduced with increasing foam density [116]
densities
Monolithic Metallic- DH36 steel coated with polyurea Failures categorized as bending-dominant and In-plane tensile [111]
stretching-dominant, Cracking types- Hoop, tangential and radial
Monolithic Metallic- Mild steel and armoured steel plates Blast energy absorption proportional to yield strength [118]
Monolithic Metallic- Domex steel plates, Panels placed at Higher angle of tilt caused greater deflection of blast wave and lower [119]
varying inclination to incident blast wave central deformation
Multi-layered Mild steel skins, AA5052 honeycomb Uniform and localized blast impact, Deformation profiles characterized [110]
Multi-layered 5754-H22 aluminium alloy skins and cork core of Transmitted impulse, deflection of skins measured [115]
varying thickness
Multi-layered Mild steel skins with aluminium foam core For better endurance against blast, backplate to be thicker than [113]
faceplate
Multi-layered Layers of elastic and visco-elastic materials Blast tuning concept based on acoustic impedance [5]
Multi-layered AA2024 skins with variety of cellular cores Higher blast resistance shown by graded and cross-arranged [117]
honeycombs
Multi-layered 304 SS skins with corrugated SS core filled with Foam filling location at front, rear and full affected blast mitigation [114]
PVC foam
Multi-material Polyurethane core surrounded by metallic mesh High resistance to collapse and deformation [112]
Multi-material PVC (graded/ungraded) foams surrounded by Core thickness inversely proportional to backplate deformation [122]
metallic face sheets
Wood Oriented Strand Board Response of blast wall to M-80 charge open space blast setup [121]

and elastoplastic) placed in light gaseous media like air. When a blast elastic modulus of ∼22.7 GPa and areal density of 15.6 kg/m2 . While
wave or shock wave propagating through the sheet undergoes reflection fabricating the second layer, the fibreglass was coated with a starch
at the rear side, a rarefaction wave is created which on superimpos- solution to impart shock absorbability and deformability. Around 15
ing with the primary wave created a tensile effect inside the sheet layers of starch-coated fibreglass were stacked and using polyester as
causing cracks and eventually fracture of the material [101]. Several the binder, the curing was carried out under temperature and pressure.
methods have been employed to improve the spall resistance—coating The two layers joined using suitable adhesives and the combined areal
the metallic sheet with elastomeric and polymeric materials, to improve density was 47.2 kg/m2 . The limit of positive acoustic impedance for
the damping. In 1973, Gulbierz et al. [132] developed a dual-material the adhesive material was capped at 0.5 kg/ms to maximize the armour
armour for spall protection. In this work, different resinous bonding efficiency. Armour efficiency which was defined as the momentum
materials like epoxy, polyester, polyurethane, polypropylene, and ny- halted per unit weight of armour was used as the metric. In 1987, Tas-
lon were considered. The outer layer was epoxy bonded fibreglass of demiroglu [1] designed two sets of laminated spall liners, the former of
thickness 5/8’’ (15.87 mm), having a tensile strength of ∼700 MPa, thickness 0.29’’ (7.4 mm) and the latter of thickness 0.25’’ (6.35 mm).
the elastic modulus of ∼25.5 GPa and areal density of 31.5 kg/m2 . The In both the sets, 2–3 laminates comprising 3–6 plies of high tensile
inner shock absorbent layer was made up of polyester bonded fibreglass strength fabric, namely ballistic nylon and polyamide were used. The
of thickness 1/2’’ (12.7 mm), having a tensile strength of ∼410 MPa, the different fabric plies were bonded using a resinous adhesive (a mixture

13
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Table 6
Summary of shielding materials used in Spall Shielding Applications.
Structural form Materials Remarks Reference
Multi-layered Stackup of fibreglass-epoxy ply and Armour efficiency measured for the stackups [132]
fibreglass-polyester ply
Multi-layered Ballistic nylon-polyamide, martensite steel Tolerated 𝑉50 limits up to 730–790 m/s [1]
sheets
Multi-layered B4 C ceramic plate coated with polyvinyl acetal Ceramic layer shatters, other layers delaminate [133]
and butyral resin, Kevlar backplate successively restraining flying fragments
Multi-layered AA7039 facesheets with Al2 O3 ceramic and Spall suppression best for AA1100 backing, [43]
AA1100 backing materials Minimum backing thickness ∼ 12.7 mm
Multi-layered Polystyrene, PVC foam sheet, ceramic particle Excellent Spall deceleration achieved [72]
reinforced AA2024 backsheet

of phenol-formaldehyde and polyvinyl butyral). Adjacent to the fabric containers [35–39]. There have been consistent efforts in mitigation
laminates, martensite steel sheets with a tensile strength of ∼1500 MPa, of confined blasts. Development of cargo containers for high energetic
the carbon content of 0.21% and manganese content of 0.45% were materials, battery covers and vehicle hulls [38,39,134–139], have been
used. The 𝑉50 ballistic limit for the two liners was in the range of 2400– ongoing for the last four decades.
2600 ft/s (731–792 m/s). The dynamics of the spall liner to impact In 1977, Benedick et al. [28] devised an explosion containment de-
and penetration by .30 calibre bullet or shell fragments included initial vice using a layer of distended and crushable filler material surrounded
penetration, shattering of the facing, with bending of the fibre plies in by a thick steel wall for absorbing the kinetic energy of the explosion.
the direction of the projectile path. In 1988, Moskowitz [133] devised The authors have claimed that the blast energy and momentum are dis-
a ballistic armour with a spall shield. A ceramic plate of boron carbide sipated within 10% expansion of the armour. Multi-layered sandwiched
of thickness 0.35–0.5’’ (8.9–12.7 mm) was coated with a thin layer construction started gaining popularity in the early 80s. In 1984,
of plasticized polyvinyl acetal resin or plasticized polyvinyl butyral Boyars et al. [104] used explosion attenuation container design of a
resin with thickness 0.05’’ (1.27 mm) on the impact side. A 0.4’’ bucket-shaped member with laminated wall structure containing three
(10.16 mm) reinforced composite ply made up of Kevlar was bonded on metallic (stainless steel) and two foamed plastic layers (styrofoam) and
the rear side of the ceramic plate using a flexible adhesive. The ceramic a detachable lid. These laminations were observed to provide effective
layer shattered completely due to projectile impact while the other shock wave attenuation and directing the shock wave towards the lid
layers were subjected to successive delamination. In 1990, Musante of the container. In 1996, Bennett et al. [136] used a thermoplastic
et al. [43] tested different spall suppression materials as a backing fluoropolymer reinforced with continuous polyetherimide fibres to fab-
layer for Aluminium 7039 alloy facet plate. The principle of impedance ricate explosion resistant reinforced containers. The containers were
matching was employed for selection of the backing materials. The capable of withstanding radial ruptures at pressures of 2–7 MPa. In
backing plates from unfired alumina, bisque-fired alumina, fully-fired 1998, Fleisher et al. [140] designed a blast-resistant cargo container to
alumina, 1100 aluminium and alumina-loaded epoxy were bonded to minimize or tolerate in-flight explosions due to the detonation of high
the faceplate using an epoxy adhesive. Among the backing materials, energetic materials or an implanted bomb. Glass-reinforced aluminium
the performance of aluminium 1100 was found to be the best with laminates were used to construct the walls of the container in the
complete suppression of spall, but there was a minimum thickness of shape of a cuboid. In the event of a blast, the container would attain a
0.5’’ (12.7 mm) below which spallation was found to occur. The func- spherical shape. Continuous hinges with substantially round hinge pins
tions of the backing layers were to suppress the spall, generate minimal, were employed to minimize the stress concentration along the joints. In
non-lethal fragments and jet penetration mechanisms to space charged 2002, Palley et al. [36] designed blast-proof transport devices for gun
warheads. In 2002, Lyons et al. [72] devised an armour inclusive of a powder and explosives. The container involved a nested arrangement
spall cover. A polymer fabric of high impact polystyrene was the first of two to three bands made of high strength fibre material, successive
layer that formed the spall cover. The second layer was made up of a bands oriented orthogonal to each other to form a closed volume.
0.25’’ (6.35 mm) thick, nitrile/polyvinyl chloride foam sheet or flexible The authors stated that for successful protection from the blast, the
honeycomb structure. The third layer was a ceramic reinforced metal mitigating material must absorb the heat energy from the blast as
matrix composite plate. AA2024 was the metal matrix used for the sensible or latent heat (phase change), collapse and absorb the energy
armour plate. The last layer was a fibre-reinforced polymer laminate from the impulse by crushing or/and visco-elastic effects. Condensable
backing. A polyurethane-based adhesive was used to bond the different gases contained within aqueous foams would condense at high pres-
layers together. When the armour was struck with a ballistic projectile, sure, liberate the latent heat and due to the density change decrease
in this case, the spall from the facing layers, the flexible inner layer the shock wave velocity. The aqueous foam of density 10–100 kg/m3
and the polymer rear layers trap the spall and decelerate it such that the containing the condensable gas was placed inside the inner band to
spall is incapable of penetrating a 0.02" thick AA2024 aluminium sheet. act as the blast mitigating material. Fig. 10 shows the arrangement of
Table 6 summarizes the shielding materials utilized in spall protection. the different box section bands with relevant numbering, offering the
advantages of being hinge-less and channel-less.
3.4. Shielding materials for confined blast In 2006, Ponomarev et al. [35] devised a blast compression wave
absorption device consisting of a container filled with gas at vacuum
The confined blasts occurring with the enclosed spaces are charac- pressure. When the blast wave hits the container walls, rupture occurs,
terized by blast wave interactions with the walls of the space. The inter- causing the ambient air to enter the container through the void and
actions comprise multiple reflections at the walls and turbulent mixing in turn decrease the blast pressure and impulse. In 2007, Noda [9]
of the detonation products within the space, augmenting the blast designed an explosion-proof container consisting of two cases. The
overpressures. The materials intended for protection against confined outer case was made up of a carbon fibre-reinforced polymer composite
blasts need to resist excessive pressure loading, which otherwise would using modified polyphenylene oxide (PPO) resin. The inner case was
induce vibrations and eventually crack development which could lead fabricated from galvanized carbon-steel sheet. The authors claim that
to failure of the shielding material. Confined blasts in many cases are the device generates negative incident impulse that attenuates the
accidental rather than intentional. The incidents of confined blasts were incident blast impulse, the extent of attenuation being a function of
observed in storehouses for high explosives and combustible gases, dur- the distance from the blast epi-centre. Table 7 summarizes the shielding
ing transportation of flammable and explosive substances and battery materials utilized in confined blast resistance applications.

14
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Table 7
Summary of shielding materials used in confined blast resistant applications.
Structural form Materials Remarks Reference
Multi-layered Steel wall surrounding a crushable filler Kinetic energy of explosion dissipated within 10% [28]
material of expansion
Multi-layered Stainless steel plates, styrofoam layers and Effective shockwave attenuation with the [104]
detachable lid shockwave directed towards the lid
Multi-layered Thermoplastic fluoro-polymer reinforced Radial rupture limits enhanced till 2-7 MPa [136]
with polyetherimide fibres
Multi-layered Nested arrangement of orthogonal bands, Hinge-less and Channel-less arrangement [36]
with inner band filled with acqueous foam
Multi-layered Laminated container filled with a gas at As container ruptures, pressure reduced due to [35]
vacuum vacuum
Multi-layered Carbon fibre reinforced polyphenyloxide Negative incident impulse at interface opposes the [9]
backed by galvanized carbon steel sheet blast wave, achieving attenuation

the panels in seawater and open ponds. The panels had to bear in
addition to normal operational stresses, sea waves induced motion and
fatigue, the shock waves from the underwater explosion. The foam had
to possess sufficient shear strength, adequate thickness for withstanding
the impact and shear modulus to prevent buckling of the sandwich.
The skins were expected to tolerate high tensile, compressive and
interlaminar shear forces.
( 0.33 )1.13
𝑊
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 53.9 (15)
𝐷
In 1994, Mouritz et al. [144] fabricated 14 layered GRP panels 7–
9 mm thick, from E-glass fibre reinforced vinyl ester resin, Derakane
411. The panels were tested in water-filled pit by detonating PE4
explosive charge of varying mass 5.8–300 g at stand-off distances of 0.3
to 1.3 m 11. The maximum pressure was given by Eq. (15). The authors
observed that the extent of bending of the laminate panels were higher
for air-backed conditions in comparison with water-backed conditions
during the blast. Laminate bending developed a tensile stress on the
rear layers, causing matrix cracking, and for low stand-off distances,
Fig. 10. Nested arrangement of two/three bands [36]. fibre fracture.
In 1999, Cichocki [145] used the FEA approach to study the under-
water blast response of a composite structure comprising 25 mm thick
3.5. Shielding materials for underwater blast steel skins sandwiching a 450 mm thick concrete core, and transverse
connections between the outer skins. The source of detonation was a
When blasts occur within water, the instantaneous release of a 40 kg spherical charge of TNT, placed exterior to the structure. Cowper-
high amount of energy causes an intensely hot, high pressure mass of Symond’s model was employed for the rate sensitivity of steel. The
water to move spherically outward impacting any materials obstructing author observed that the major damage phenomena were the plastic
its path. In structures subjected to underwater blast, the shielding deformation and perforation of the steel plates.
materials face the problems of the fluid–structure interaction, with In 2001, Mouritz [146] explored the effectiveness of stitching glass
water as the fluid (∼1000 times denser than air). In addition to the reinforced vinyl ester composites with thin yarns of 𝐾𝑒𝑣𝑙𝑎𝑟49𝑇 𝑀 in the
hydrostatic pressure acting on the structure, underwater waves due through-thickness direction to ballistic impact by a bullet moving at
to explosion induce secondary blast pressure loading on the struc- 0.9 km/s and underwater explosive wave travelling at 1.5 km/s. The
ture [141]. Making the structures lighter could reduce the impulse author used plain woven E-glass roving (areal density 0.6 kg m−2 ) and
transmitted from underwater blast waves. Lighter plates show a high chopped E-glass strand mat (areal density 0.3 kg m−2 ) to develop a 14-
acceleration response to blast loading, aiding in cavitation of water ply stackup with alternating type of arrangement. The stitch density
at the interface and causing the further loading to cease [142]. The was varied from 3–6 stitches/cm2 for the 2 × 20 Tex spun (180 denier)
growth of cavitation fronts (breaking and closing fronts) varies with the 𝐾𝑒𝑣𝑙𝑎𝑟49𝑇 𝑀 yarn. The 120 mm × 120 mm target plates were impacted
type of structure, whether monolithic or sandwiched, with the latter by a 5.56 mm diameter F1 ball round weighing 4.0 g, fired from a
outperforming the former on an equivalent mass basis [142]. In the Steyr rifle. Air backed composite panels (270 mm × 70 mm) submerged
current section, the applications of both monolithic and sandwiched in water were subjected to explosive charges weighing 30–50 g at a
structures in mitigation of underwater blasts is covered. stand-off distance of 1 m to generate peak overpressures of 13–25 MPa.
Glass-fibre Reinforced Polymers (GRPs) found widespread use in In both the cases, the common metric employed for comparison was
the construction of armour materials for underwater blast. In 1989, the delamination crack length, which was found to decrease with the
Hall [143] discussed the use of GRP/foam sandwich panels in mine degree of stitch 12. The stitching was found to be more effective for
counter-measure vehicles. The typical construction involved a high mitigating the underwater blast as compared to the ballistic impact,
strength foam core (60 mm thick) sandwiched between two GRP skins as it increased the Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness. The au-
(8–9 mm thick). For the foam core, modified poly vinyl chloride (PVC) thor concluded that utilizing heavier stitching (∼20 stitches/cm2 ) and
was employed, while for the GRP skins, laminates containing alternate thicker yarns (>1000 denier) could further mitigate the blast. In 2007,
layers of chopped strand mat and woven rovings of glass fibre with McShane et al. [147], compared the underwater blast performance
isophthalic polyester resin were used. The testing procedure involved of multi-layered beams with steel skins sandwiching Y-frame core,
placing the panels inside a rigid high strength steel box with heavy a corrugated core or a foam core, in contrast to monolithic steel
frame supports. Charges were detonated at different distances from beams of equal mass. Fleck-Deshpande framework was employed for

15
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 11. Underwater explosive shock testing for GRP panels [144].

Fig. 12. Delamination lengths for (a) Ballistic impact (b) Underwater blast for the GRP stitched and unstitched panels [146].

the response model. The rear deflection of the beam for the same mass linearly with the impulse, with tension stress state contributing to
was found to be least in the corrugated and the Y-frame cores, while the ultimate fracture of the plates. In 2015, Hawass et al. [151],
monolithic beams showed very large rear deflections. Wei et al. [148] developed 5-layered sandwich structures from 204 aluminium alloy
affirm that metallic sandwich panel structures offer better resistance (skins), low-density polyethylene foams (secondary skins) and EPDM
against underwater blasts for the same mass of monolithic structures. rubber layer (core). An underwater shock generator based on a ham-
This is due to reduced momentum transfer by the water to the structure, mer with pendulum arm (shock generation) was employed to test the
shock mitigation by core crushing. The structure consisting of SS 304 panels. Three-layered monolithic AA204 laminates were also tested for
steel plates sandwiching a core of relative density 9% (Fig. 13(b)) was comparison. The authors observed a lower central displacement for the
compared with solid aluminium cylinder (Fig. 13(c)). The specimens 5-layered composite panels. In 2016, Avachat et al. [152] investigated
were placed on the pedestal, the cylinder above was filled with water the underwater blast performance of Three-layered structure composed
and a fixed explosive charge was detonated to develop underwater blast of PVC foams sandwiched by 12 mm thick AA6061 plates. The PVC
waves impinging on the specimens (Fig. 13(a)). It was observed that the foams contain high residual strength, low water absorption, high chem-
multi-layered pyramidical panel outperformed the aluminium cylinder ical stability, and thermal insulation, making them suitable for marine
as lower stress and impulse were transmitted when impacted by the applications. The density of the PVC foams were varied between 60–
underwater blast waves. 250 kg m3 . The authors concluded that the core density affects the
In 2012, Li et al. [149] investigated low mass polyurethane closed core compressive strain and the impulse transmission. The faceplate
cell foams of varying densities as protective layer for lifejackets against thickness influenced the compressive strain and impulse transmission,
underwater blast. Four foams were compared based on foam yield while there was no such effect for the backplate thickness. In 2019, Ren
plateau strength, and the foam energy absorbing capacity, with the et al. [153] tested the underwater blast response of sandwich structures
strain rates playing a characteristic roles in the blast response. In 2014, containing honeycomb core stacked between two metallic plates of
Ren et al. [150] studied the behaviour of air-backed 5A06 aluminium varying thicknesses 2–6 mm. AA5052 was the material used for the
alloy plates against lab-scale underwater explosive pressure loading. plates as well as the core. The explosive charge used was a 3.1 g mixture
The authors observed that the maximum deflection of the plate varied of RDX and paraffin wax, with 1 g detonator. The charge was placed

16
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 13. (a) Underwater Blast test setup (b) Metallic sandwich specimen (c) Solid
aluminium cylindrical specimen [148].

at the centre of a horizontal PVC tube filled with water to generate

the underwater blast waves. As the thickness of the facesheet and core
increased, the transmitted shockwave intensity dropped. With increase
in areal density of the structure, the bulge formation at the centre
diminished in size, till it finally disappeared. In 2018, Matos et al. [154]
studied the dynamic response of aged bi-axial composite laminates
comprising carbon fibre-epoxy plies with the configurations [0, 90]𝑠 and
[45, −45]𝑠 . The ageing was carried out at 65 ◦ C in seawater for 35–70
days. The experiments were carried out on the specimens connected to
an air-backed enclosure, in an underwater explosion setup. The charge
Fig. 14. (a) Material Selection Chart showing wave speeds (adapted from M.F.
used was RP503 (454 mg RDX and 167 mg PETN) explosive placed at
Ashby [155]) (b) Developmental direction of material types in shielding applications
a stand-off distance of 152 mm. Three high speed cameras were used (c) Ballistic and Blast specific applications of material types.
to capture the full field displacement, velocities, strains and bubble-
specimen interactions. The authors found out that with increase in the
weathering time, the maximum central deflection increased for both
and laminated materials with variability in the stacking sequence of the
the configurations. In [45, −45]𝑠 , inter-fibrillar and through-thickness
various material plies have been explored for enhanced safety against
cracking was noticed while in [0, 90]𝑠 , delamination was the dominant
blast and ballistic impact. Table 9 shows the key metrics considered
failure mode. Table 8 summarizes the shielding materials utilized in
for measuring the performance of shielding materials for different
underwater blast resistance applications.
applications.
3.6. Summary of armour materials The bubble plot shown in Fig. 14(a) indicates the developmental
direction of different material classes in the shielding applications over
It has been observed that depending on the shielding application, the past 70 years. The material classification includes the metallic,
whether against ballistic impact, free-field/open-air blast, underwater ceramic, fibre-reinforced polymer composites and multi-layered (sand-
blast or confined blast, various shielding mechanisms and strategies wiched) types, while the other materials include cellular materials like
have been employed by researchers in the past century. Over the past honeycombs, foams (acqueous, polyurethane), viscoelastic materials,
7 decades, the shielding structures have seen the usage of metals and friction based claddings, concrete, and ballistic gelatin. From the plot,
alloys, ceramics, fibre-reinforced polymers, honeycombs and foams, it is clear that multi-layered/sandwiched material configurations have
viscoelastic materials. It is evident that researchers have favoured those been mostly preferred for shielding applications in comparison to the
materials with wave speeds ∼ 103 , which can better tolerate the impact remaining types, with emphasis given to the lightweight structures over
due to the shock waves [27]. The configurations employing sandwiched time. The latest focus seems to be directed at cellular and auxetic

17
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Table 8
Summary of shielding materials used in Underwater Blast Resistant Applications.
Structural form Materials Remarks Reference
Composite E-glass fibre with vinyl ester resin Stand-off distance 0.3–1.3 m, using PE4 explosive, detonation in [144]
water-filled pit
Composite Carbon fibre-epoxy laminates- [45, −45]𝑠 , [0, 90]𝑠 Maximum central deflection increased with higher ageing time, [154]
with underwater ageing for 35–70 days failure modes- inter-fibrillar cracking in [45, −45]𝑠 and
Delamination in [0, 90]𝑠
Monolithic Metallic-5A06 aluminium alloy Maximum deflection linearly increased with impulse, ultimate [150]
fracture occurred by tensile stress
Multi-layered Glass fibre-isophthalic polyester and PVC foam Panels tested against underwater charge detonation at different [143]
core stand-off distances
Multi-layered Steel skins 25 mm, 450 mm thick concrete core Plastic deformation and perforation characterization conducted [145]
Multi-layered Glass fibre-vinyl ester stitched with thin Kevlar™ Effectiveness of stitching density on Delamination, crack lengths [146]
yarns investigated
Multi-layered SS304 plates, pyramidical lattice core of 9% Large deflection observed for monolithic aluminium cylinder [148]
density compared with solid aluminium cylinder
Multi-layered AA204 alloy skins, low density polyurethane Lowest central displacement observed for 5-layered configuration [151]
foams, EPDM rubber core
Multi-layered AA6061 plates and PVC foams of varying density Core density affected compressive strain and Impulse [152]
transmission
Multi-material Steel skins, Y-frame corrugated core and foam core densification pressure, maximum transmitted force on the [147]
protected structure, work done on cellular cladding investigated
Monolithic Metallic- AA5052 skins with AA5052 honeycomb Shockwave intensity mitigated by thicker facesheets and denser [153]
core cores
Polymer foams Low density polyurethane closed cell foams Foam yield plateau strength and energy absorbing capacity [149]
investigated

Table 9
Key metrics for performance evaluation of the shielding materials.
Researchers Ballistic limit Armour Areal Munition Blast Deformation Remarks
(𝑉50 ) efficiency density type pressure
Dietz et al. [71] ✓ ✓ ✓ Missile resistant
Gulbierz et al. [132] ✓ ✓ ✓ Spall resistant
Dawson [68] ✓ ✓ ✓ Shaped charges
Benedick et al. [28] ✓ Blast resistant
Boyars et al. [104] ✓ ✓ Blast protection
Tasdemiroglu [1] ✓ ✓ Spall liner
Brown et al. [73] ✓ ✓ 30 calibre, NATO ball
Moskowitz [133] ✓ Spall liner
Hartman [74] ✓ ✓ Ballistic resistant
Pepin [75,76] ✓ ✓ Ballistic resistant
Musante et al. [43] ✓ ✓ ✓ Spall suppression, Space charge warhead
Vives [69] ✓ ✓ Ballistic resistant
Bennett et al. [136] ✓ Blast resistant
Fleisher et al. [140] ✓ ✓ Blast resistant
Lyons et al. [72,85] ✓ ✓ Spall resistant, 30-calibre round 869 m/s
Palley et al. [36,37] ✓ ✓ Blast proof
Fu et al. [79] ✓ ✓ 0.44 magnum SW & 9 mm FMJ bullet
Ponomarev et al. [35] ✓ Blast proof
Noda [9] ✓ Blast proof
Nurick et al. [110] ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast resistant, 1 g PE4 plastic adhesive
Amini et al. [111] ✓ ✓ ✓ Shockproof, AA7075 0.832 kg projectile
Huang [112] ✓ ✓ Blast proof
Lyons et al. [72,85] ✓ ✓ ✓ Ballistic resistant, 0.30 calibre projectile
Liu et al. [11,113,156] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast proof, 1 g PETN + 10 g cyclonite
Jang et al. [16] ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast resistant
Yun et al. [116] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast proof, Cylindrical charge C4
Schenk et al. [106] ✓ ✓ Blast resistant
Rahimzadeh et al. [5] ✓ Blast protection
Monteiro et al. [86] ✓ ✓ ✓ Ballistic armour, NATO ammunition
Jin et al. [61] ✓ ✓ Blast protection
Zhang et al. [114] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast resistant, 55 g cylindrical TNT
Zhou et al. [122] ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast resistant, Mylar flyer (55 g TNT)
Mehreganian et al. [118] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast resistant, 24–70 g PE4
Yuen et al. [119] ✓ ✓ ✓ Blast resistant, 8–28 g PE4

materials, driving the shielding innovation at the helm of latest re- 4. Multi-layered armour systems for shielding
search. The different armour structures and materials have been briefly
summarized in Table 5. From Figs. 14(b) and 14(c), it can be observed From the background on the shielding materials, the most preferred
that preference has been given to multi-layered armours for shielding configuration of materials is the multi-layered material systems. In
applications for ballistic as well as open-air and underwater blast events this section, concentration has been devoted to these structures. The
as compared to monolithic or single material types. In the case of multi-layered armour comprise an assemblage of sandwiched plies
confined blast events, although the multi-layered configurations are consisting of three primary layers- A facet plate (sacrificial cladding) at
common, alternatives include cellular materials, air-filled diaphragms, the exposure end to impact from projectiles or blast waves (Proximal
acqueous foams. End) [116], a core for absorbing the shock energy and a distal plate

18
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Table 10
Features of some materials used for facet plate and distal plate.
Material Features References
Steel
- High Hardness steel Excellent hardness, strength and stiffness, brittleness and higher weight limits its [43,116,132]
usage. Highly Susceptible to spall.
- Mild steel Hardness is lower owing to the lower carbon content, but strength and stiffness [1,110,111,138,157,158]
better. High-density limits usage. Highly Susceptible to spall.
- Stainless steel High strength and stiffness with excellent abrasive resistance owing to the presence [137,159]
of Cr. Density is a concern. Highly Susceptible to spall.
Aluminium
- AA2024 Moderate strength, one-third lower than steel, but density is also a third of that of [22,68,72,85]
steel, Spall-prone.
Ceramic High specific strength, lightweight, hard and frangible, blast energy dissipated as [69,160–162]
fracture instead of deformation.
Aramid Excellent specific tensile strength, lightweight, high impact strength, modulus low [157,163–167]
compressive strength and difficult to machine or cut.
Polyethene (UHMWPE) Ultra-lightweight, excellent specific strength and stiffness, low moisture absorption, [72,85,90,166,168]
high abrasive resistance

having high strength, low density, and ease of fabrication for explosion-
resistant panel skins. Metallic materials used in facet plates require a
spall shield to minimize or prevent the effect of spall [31,85,132,133,
169]. Typical materials used in the spall lining include nylon cloth,
rubber, resin-impregnated glass fabric bonded to the exterior surface
of the armour [72]. Tasdemiroglu [1] used a spall shield consisting of
a laminate of woven aramid and ballistic nylon fabric with marten-
site sheet steel sandwiched between the two layers. Polyurea coating
was employed to protect the facet materials in recent works as a
spall shield [5,111]. Plasticized polyvinyl acetal resin and plasticized
polyvinyl butyral resin are conventionally used as adhesive materials
between the facet and core [1,133].
Fig. 15. Typical design of multi-layered shielding armour.
The core layer has two primary functions—achieve the desired
thickness of the sandwich panel with minimum weight addition, and
permit internal flexure of the sandwiched layers protecting the stability
(Far end) as the final layer, adjacent to the structure to be protected as of the distal plate layer [79]. The core material must have the following
shown in Fig. 15. In addition to the three layers, the adhesive holding characteristics—good resilience, high crushing strength (compressive
the three layers becomes the fourth component of the armour. and shear), toughness and stiffness, vibration resistance, lightweight,
The facet plate acts as a protective layer tolerating the brunt of economical and easy to manufacture [106,170]. A typical core con-
the impact. A typical facet material must withstand structural failure, struction contains a cellular material like a honeycomb or open-celled
compressive pressure from shock waves on impact, with a response foam which enables the dissipation of impact energy by the collapse
characterized by bending and stretching. This results in plastic defor- of the cellular core i.e. in the form of plastic energy [91,171,172].
mation dissipating energy [5]. The facet and distal plate materials must The core structure consists of various topologies—corrugated, diamond
satisfy the following requirements—high specific strength, stiffness, cell, pyramidal, hexagonal and square honeycomb, rigid rod crossing,
excellent strain energy absorptivity, thermal and vibrational stabil- waffle [16,75]. Suitable materials for the core include foams made
ity, abrasive and indentation resistance, lightweight. Table 10 shows up of aramid, aluminium, cellulose, polyurethane, PVC [36,37,79,122,
the succession of materials used for the facet as well as distal plate 173,174]. For aluminium foams, the molten body transitional foaming
construction. Early attempts at devising the facet plates involved the method using titanium hydride was commonly employed. The den-
usage of high hardness steel as the primary material [43,73,116, sification strain of the foam material is an important parameter for
132]. Nonetheless, high hardness steel had several shortcomings—high selection of the foam material which can be defined as the strain at
density, poor formability, brittleness, and heat sensitivity. Moreover, which the foam density and base material density become equal [116].
inherent brittleness of steel was susceptible to spall generation, causing Schenk et al. [106] employed a stacked double core arrangement.
high-velocity fragments. Mild steel was used as an alternative for the The folded layers were stacked in the 𝑧-direction, forming a cellular
facet material by several researchers [1,138,157]. Mild steel plates of material defined by 𝑛1 unit cells along the corrugation, 𝑛2 unit cells
thickness 1.6 mm were used as the faceplate material for sandwich across the corrugation, and s-stacked layers with 𝑛3 repeating layer
structures with hexagonal honeycomb core [110,111,117]. Stainless pairs (Fig. 16). The proposed sandwich core material was oriented
steel was also considered as an alternative for the facet plate owing with its 𝑦-axis parallel to the out-of-plane axis of the sandwich panel.
to its excellent abrasive resistance [137,159]. Steel possesses an areal Alternately stacked sequence of folded sheets of the Miura (double-
density as high as ∼1 kN/m2 . Hence, an alternate material to lower the corrugated) pattern with improvised folding kinematics were found to
overall weight of the armour as well as mitigate the brittleness issue improve the out-of-plane compressive strength, strong anisotropy with
was sought. The alternatives considered were lighter metals, ceramics, the freedom to tailor the mechanical properties of the core.
fibreglass, graphite and high-performance polymers. Aluminium was Some other designs of the core included stacks of dry fabrics of
considered with continuous reinforced fibres for improving strength. ballistic materials like aramid, UHMWPE, polybenzobisoxazole (PBO)
Qi et al. [22] compared Aluminium alloy (AA2024-T3) with rolled or polybenzobisthiazole (PBZT) [76]. Alternately, the core could be re-
homogeneous steel rods (AS3678-250) for maximum back face deflec- placed by suitable air bladders and fluid-filled chambers, which depend
tion and specific energy absorption. Aluminium was used in explosion on the component stiffness to disperse and attenuate the blast en-
safety garment, in tandem with a woven fabric by Stinson et al. [163]. ergy especially in confined conditions [5,35]. Conventional honeycomb
AA2024 was used by Lyons et al. [72,85] in aluminium matrix com- structures display high stiffness and strength for the loading direction,
posites. Fleisher et al. [140] used glass-reinforced aluminium laminates that is oriented out-of-plane to the cells. However, in-plane strength

19
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 16. Stacked double core arrangement with various folded designs [106].

and stiffness of honeycomb structures suffer, owing to the bending of waves. The material adjusts its strength and thickness in response to the
the cell walls. This causes linear elastic deformation which on reaching incident blast waves and returns to its neutral state when the stress is
a critical limit, induces the collapse of cells by elastic buckling, plastic dissipated. Zetix fabric is fabricated from Spectra™-wrapped polyester
yielding, creep or brittle fracture. The cell wall material plays an monofilaments as the yarn and ballistic nylon as the high strength cord.
important role in the mannerism of collapse. Among different honey- The alternative yarn materials such as Kevlar™, Vectran™, Hytrel™ and
comb topologies, the square honeycomb displays excellent deflection Nomex™ can be used for modifying fabric properties.
and energy absorption characteristics, making them suitable in impact Ai et al. [176] have designed four types of metallic-based meta-
applications [16]. The properties of existing honeycombs can be altered materials using twin-material star-shaped re-entrant planar lattice struc-
by changing the cell angles [175]. tures employing laser-based additive manufacturing (Fig. 18). Three
With progressive research, focus was directed towards novel mate- length parameters, one angle parameter and three material combina-
rials compared to conventional ones which brings us to the ‘‘Auxetic’’ tions were considered as the design variables. These materials were
materials. ‘‘Auxetic’’ refer to the materials that display Negative Pois- sans pins, adhesives, welds or pressure-fit joints. The effect of design
son’s ratio (NPR), i.e. extension along a direction causes extension in parameters on Poisson’s ratio, Young’s Modulus and Coefficient of ther-
the other orthogonal direction too [11,30,176–181]. This aspect could mal expansion was analysed in detail. The metamaterials displayed an
make auxetic materials suitable as cores in multi-layered materials excellent combination of the properties unattainable by conventional
or simply stand-alone materials for ballistic and blast shielding. The materials. The applications intended for these materials pertain to the
domain of antennas and precision instruments for maximizing service
domain of auxetic materials is very large but worth a mention in this
lives with enhanced thermo-mechanical resistance.
review, given the advancements in the cellular structures on one hand
Since auxetic honeycombs display synclastic curvature on loading,
and state-of-the-art yarns developed with helical auxetic property on
the curved honeycomb core can be used in microwave absorber ap-
the other [182]. Ingrole et al. [175] have presented a design modi-
plications like radome shells [185], the core is expected to be a low
fication for improving the performance of existing auxetic structures
dielectric property structure for the absorption of microwave radiation.
by incorporating novel auxetic-strut into the existing honeycomb struc-
Chiral and hexagonal honeycombs prepared from a shape memory alloy
tures. The study of in-plane uniaxial compression loading behaviour of
ribbon material find applications in thermally activated adaptive and
regular honeycomb, re-entrant auxetic honeycomb, locally reinforced
deployable structures [185,186]. Production methods for fabricating
auxetic-strut structure and a hybrid structure of combining regular
auxetic foams of polyurethane, thermoplastic (silicone rubber) and
honeycomb/auxetic-strut structure was carried out. Fused deposition metallic (copper) have been developed. Fig. 19 shows the contorted
modelling (FDM) was employed to fabricate five types of unit cell struc- three-dimensional re-entrant topology of auxetic polyurethane as com-
tures and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) as the base material. pared to general convex cell structure [186]. Auxetic foam displays
A 250 kN Material Testing setup was used for the compression test double-curved curvature, higher resilience, hardness, shear resistance,
at a displacement rate of 2 mm/min. The specimens were tested till fracture toughness. The foams show good promise as a core material
50% strain. The different structures exhibited elastic–plastic behaviour, for sandwich panels.
although the auxetic strut design displayed enhanced response to in- Imbalzano et al. [30] carried out a numerical investigation on
plane loading. Fig. 17 shows the different cell structures characterized sandwich panels composed of auxetic cellular cores and metal facets.
by compression tests. Johnson-Cook law was used to model the response of the composite
Zetix™ helical-auxetic fibre technology is emerging as one of the materials at high strain rates. The parameters considered during the
advanced shielding materials in the blast and ballistic protection [183]. study were effective Poisson’s ratio, material properties, the thickness
The fabric consists of auxetic yarns, wrapped with a high strength cord of facet, and the diameter of the unit cell truss member. The impulsive
in a 𝑍 or 𝑆 twist [184]. The fabric is woven by weft insertion across the energy absorbed by the auxetic composite panels with plastic deforma-
warp, making the weft fibres take up the tensile loads. When pressure is tion was twice that of monolithic panels. The maximum displacement
applied, the auxetic yarns deform, opening up minute pores on the fab- of the rear facet was reduced by about 30% compared to monolithic
ric surface, in turn absorbing the peak pressures from the shock or blast panels.

20
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

Fig. 17. Different Cell structures used in core construction [175].

Fig. 18. Different types of metallic-based meta-materials [176].

21
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

cellular or fabric forms, resulting in high performing hybrid armours

capable of delivering dual protection from ballistic impact as well as
different types of blast events.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Anand Pai: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,

Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization. Chandrakant R. Kini: Writing – review & editing,
Validation, Supervision. Satish Shenoy B.: Writing – review & editing,
Validation, Supervision, Methodology.

Declaration of competing interest

Fig. 19. Three-dimensional re-entrant topology of auxetic polyurethane [187].
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
5. Conclusion and future scope
References
The post-world war period has seen significant progress in the
shielding materials used for blast and ballistic protection. The transition [1] S. Tasdemiroglu, Ballistic Spall Liner, Google Patents, 1987, US Patent 4, 664,
from monolithic materials to multi-layered sandwich materials consist- 967.
[2] E. Courtney, A. Courtney, M. Courtney, Shock tube design for high intensity
ing of hybridized polymer, ceramic and metallic materials has attracted
blast waves for laboratory testing of armor and combat materiel, Def. Technol.
a significant emphasis recently. 10 (2) (2014) 245–250, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2014.04.003.
Multi-layered composite laminates have been extensively developed [3] S.G. Kulkarni, X.-L. Gao, S. Horner, J.Q. Zheng, N. David, Ballistic helmets–their
for protection against different types of the blast and ballistic events, design, materials, and performance against traumatic brain injury, Compos.
with combination of various material classes, culminating in superior Struct. 101 (2013) 313–331.
[4] Y. Wen, C. Xu, Y. Jin, R.C. Batra, Rifle bullet penetration into ballistic gelatin,
response. With the blended advantage of metallic, fibre reinforced
J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 67 (December 2016) (2017) 40–50, http:
polymers, and hybrid foam cores, these configurations offer excel- //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.11.021.
lent reduction in blast overpressures, impact resistance to shrapnel, [5] T. Rahimzadeh, E.M. Arruda, M.D. Thouless, Design of armor for protection
formidable shock dissipation with minimal deformation thus providing against blast and impact, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 85 (2015) 98–111, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2015.09.009.
adequate protection to the system being safeguarded. In multi-layered
[6] R. Zalosh, New developments in explosion protection technology, Fire Emerg.
materials the harder layers (metallic) were preferred on the incident Serv. Asia (2005).
side and the proximal side, while softer layers (foams and FRPs) [7] Y.C. Chen, D.H. Smith, D.F. Meaney, <i>in-vitro</i> approaches for studying
were sandwiched in-between. For the harder layers, metallic alloys blast-induced traumatic brain injury, J. Neurotrauma 26 (6) (2009) 861–876,
of aluminium (2024, 5052, 5954, 7075, 5A 06) and steel (Weldox® http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/neu.2008.0645.
[8] J. Liu, A. Singh, H. Lee, T. Tay, V. Tan, The response of bio-inspired helicoidal
460E, Mars® 300, DH 36, Domex® , Armox® 440 T, SS 304) have seen laminates to small projectile impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 142 (2020) 103608.
popular usage. The softer layers play an important role in shock energy [9] E. Noda, Explosion-Proof Enclosure, Google Patents, 2007, US Patent App.
absorption. The thickness of the layers can be functionally graded for 11/540, 618.
maximum energy absorption and minimal transmission to the structure [10] A.I. Fayed, Y.A. Abo El Amaim, D.H. Elgohary, Enhancing the performance
of cordura and ballistic nylon using polyurethane treatment for outer shell
being protected. On the inner side of the multi-layered materials, high-
of bulletproof vest, J. King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci. (xxxx) (2021) 4–11, http:
performance fibres like ultra-high molecular weight polyethene, aramid //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2021.02.001.
and ballistic nylon have been widely for ballistic backing. Since spall [11] S. Liu, X. Cheng, Y. Wen, X. Zhang, A new motion model of rifle bullet
failures accompany the blast events, for spall protection, polyurea penetration into ballistic gelatin, Int. J. Impact Eng. 93 (2016) 1–10, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.02.003.
coatings on the outer surface are an option, although susceptible to
[12] N.R. Council, et al., Opportunities in Protection Materials Science and
abrasion by shrapnel and debris. Technology for Future Army Applications, National Academies Press, 2011.
The development of novel high energy explosives, improvised det- [13] N. Standard, 0108.01: Ballistic Resistant Protective materials, US Department
onation methods, with far more destructive capabilities would pose of Justice. National Institute of Justice, 1985.
several challenges to material designers. The future of the shielding [14] J. Eriksen, NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG 2920): ballistic test
method for personal armour materials and combat clothing, Brussels: NATO
materials relies on how well the materials address the following issues: Stand Agency, 2003.
[15] A. McIntosh, Mil-std-398 military standard: Shields, operational for ammunition
1. Impedance matching/grading of different layers in the sand- operations, criteria for design of and tests for acceptance, Army Defense
wich panel, to mitigate the overpressure and absorption of Ammunition Center and School Savanna IL, 1991.
shock impulse created by the shockwaves from ballistic im- [16] S. Jang, H.J. Choi, Integrated design of blast resistance panels and materials,
Compos. Struct. 102 (2013) 154–163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
pact/blastwaves respectively
2013.02.016.
2. Mechanisms of mitigation or absorption of impact from ballistic [17] P.O. Krehl, History of Shock Waves, Explosions and Impact, Springer-Verlag
and blast events Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, p. 1288.
3. Spall resistance of the sandwiched panels so that the secondary [18] R. Brun, Shock Wave Science and Technology Reference Library, Vol. 3,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Les Pennes Mirabeau, 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.
damage due to the spall fragments can be eliminated
1007/978-3-540-77080-0.
4. Deflection and deformation mechanics of the various layers of [19] R. Weinheimer, Properties of selected high explosives, Int. Pyrotech. Semin. 16–
the sandwich panels 21 July (July) (2002) 37, http://www.psemc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/
5. Mitigation and Dissipation of maximum possible energy from the 04/Properties-Selected-High-Explosives.pdf.
[20] J.P. Agrawal, J.E. Field, Recent trends in high-energy materials, Prog. Energy
ballistic impact/blast waves so as to minimize the damage to the
Combust. Sci. 24 (1) (1998) 1–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1285(97)
Target Structure 00015-4.
[21] L. Davison, Fundamentals of Shock Wave Propagation in Solids, Springer-Verlag
The forthcoming days may well see an amalgamation of conven- Berlin Heidelberg, Tijeras, 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74569-
tional materials (positive Poisson’s ratio) with auxetic metamaterials in 3.

22
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

[22] C. Qi, S. Yang, L.J. Yang, Z.Y. Wei, Z.H. Lu, Blast resistance and multi-objective [52] F. Zhu, G. Lu, A review of blast and impact of metallic and sandwich structures,
optimization of aluminum foam-cored sandwich panels, Compos. Struct. 105 Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 7 (2007) 92–101.
(2013) 45–57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.04.043. [53] M.Y. Yahya, W.J. Cantwell, G.S. Langdon, G.N. Nurick, The blast behavior of
[23] I. Sochet, D. Gardebas, S. Calderara, Y. Marchal, B. Longuet, Blast wave fiber reinforced thermoplastic laminates, J. Compos. Mater. 42 (21) (2008)
parameters for spherical explosives detonation in free air, Open J. Saf. Sci. 2275–2297, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021998308094968.
Technol. 1 (2) (2011) pp–31. [54] M.Y. Yahya, W.J. Cantwell, G.S. Langdon, G.N. Nurick, The blast resistance of
[24] J. Shin, A.S. Whittaker, D. Cormie, Tnt equivalency for overpressure and a woven carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy composite, J. Compos. Mater. 45 (7)
impulse for detonations of spherical charges of high explosives, Int. J. Prot. (2011) 789–801, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021998310376103.
Struct. 6 (3) (2015) 567–579. [55] J.E. Field, S.M. Walley, W.G. Proud, H.T. Goldrein, C.R. Siviour, Review of
[25] Y.L. Ning, Y.G. Zhou, Shock tubes and blast injury modeling, Chinese J. experimental techniques for high rate deformation and shock studies, Int.
Traumatol. - English Ed. 18 (4) (2015) 187–193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ J. Impact Eng., vol. 30, (7) 2004, pp. 725–775, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
j.cjtee.2015.04.005. ijimpeng.2004.03.005.
[26] S. Chung Kim Yuen, G.N. Nurick, G.S. Langdon, Y. Iyer, Deformation of thin [56] J.L. Comtois, M.R. Edwards, M.C. Oakes, The effect of explosives on polymer
plates subjected to impulsive load: Part III – an update 25 years on, Int. matrix composite laminates, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 30 (3) (1999)
J. Impact Eng. 107 (2017) 1339–1351, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng. 181–190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-835X(98)00172-9.
2016.06.010. [57] M. Hebert, C.E. Rousseau, A. Shukla, Shock loading and drop weight impact
[27] C.E. Needham, Blast Waves, Springer International Publishing, London, 2010, response of glass reinforced polymer composites, Compos. Struct. 84 (3) (2008)
pp. 87–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05288-0, 199–208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.07.002.
[28] W.B. Benedick, C.J. Daniel, Explosion Containment Device, Google Patents, [58] E. Wang, N. Gardner, A. Shukla, The blast resistance of sandwich composites
1977, US Patent 4, 055, 247. with stepwise graded cores, Int. J. Solids Struct. 46 (18–19) (2009) 3492–3502,
[29] M.P. Sheyka, A.B. Altunc, M.M. Reda Taha, Multi-objective genetic topological http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.06.004.
optimization for design of blast resistant composites, Appl. Compos. Mater. 19 [59] R.W. McCoy, C.T. Sun, Fluid-structure interaction analysis of a thick-section
(5) (2012) 785–798, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10443-011-9244-5. composite cylinder subjected to underwater blast loading, Compos. Struct. 37
[30] G. Imbalzano, P. Tran, T.D. Ngo, P.V.S. Lee, A numerical study of auxetic (1) (1997) 45–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(97)00081-0.
composite panels under blast loadings, Compos. Struct. 135 (2016) 339–352, [60] P. Wanchoo, H. Matos, C.E. Rousseau, A. Shukla, Investigations on air and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.09.038. underwater blast mitigation in polymeric composite structures – A review,
[31] S. Tasdemiroglu, Ballistic spall liner, M, (5) 1990, pp. 3–7, http://dx.doi.org/ Compos. Struct. 263 (January) (2021) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
10.1074/JBC.274.42.30033.(51). 2020.113530.
[32] L. Davison, Y. Horie, R. Graham, Shock Wave and High Pressure Phenomena, [61] M. Assarar, W. Zouari, R. Ayad, H. Kebir, J.M. Berthelot, Improving the
Springer International Publishing, New York, 2008, URL http://link.springer. damping properties of carbon fibre reinforced composites by interleaving flax
com/content/pdf/10.1007/3-540-29315-9.pdf. and viscoelastic layers, Composites B 152 (July) (2018) 248–255, http://dx.doi.
[33] L. Maiz, W.A. Trzciński, M. Szala, J. Paszula, K. Karczewski, Studies of confined org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.010.
explosions of composite explosives and layered charges, Cent. Eur. J. Energetic [62] A.S. Wineman, K.R. Rajagopal, Mechanical Response of Polymers: An
Mater. 13 (4) (2016) 957–977. Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[34] S. Park, J. Beak, K. Kim, Y.-J. Park, Study on reduction effect of vibration [63] M.A. Abtew, F. Boussu, P. Bruniaux, C. Loghin, I. Cristian, Ballistic impact
propagation due to internal explosion using composite materials, Int. J. Concr. mechanisms – A review on textiles and fibre-reinforced composites impact
Struct. Mater. 15 (1) (2021) 1–20. responses, Compos. Struct. 223 (November 2018) (2019) 110966, http://dx.
[35] V. Ponomarev, I. Ponomaryov, Blast Compression Wave Absorbing Device, vol. doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.110966.
2, (12) 2007. [64] T. Jankowiak, A. Rusinek, K.M. Kpenyigba, R. Pesci, Ballistic behavior of steel
[36] I. Palley, G.A. Harpell, M.W. Gerlach, Blast Resistant and Blast Directing sheet subjected to impact and perforation, Steel Compos. Struct. 16 (6) (2015)
Assemblies, 2002, p. 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.(73), arXiv:arXiv:1208. 595–609.
5721. [65] A. Pai, R. Divakaran, S. Anand, S.B. Shenoy, Advances in the whipple shield
[37] I. Palley, A. Harpell, M.W. Gerlach, Blast Resistant and Blast Directing Contain- design and development:: A brief review, J. Dyn. Behav. Mater. (0123456789)
ers and Methods of Making, vol. 2, (12) 2011, pp. 12–15, http://dx.doi.org/ (2021) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40870-021-00314-7.
10.1016/j.(73), arXiv:arXiv:1208.5721. [66] N.K. Bourne, The relation of failure under 1D shock to the ballistic performance
[38] T.R. Oxenreider, J.I. Heiser, Explosion resistant battery cover design, 1988. of brittle materials, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (8) (2008) 674–683, http://dx.doi.
[39] M. Geibl, D. McDonald, M. Hays, EXPLOSION resistant VENT CAP, 128, 1993. org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.08.001.
[40] R. Rajendran, K. Narasimhan, Deformation and fracture behaviour of plate [67] D. Sherman, D.G. Brandon, The ballistic failure mechanisms and sequence in
specimens subjected to underwater explosion-a review, Int. J. Impact Eng. 32 semi-infinite supported alumina tiles, J. Mater. Res. 12 (5) (1997) 1335–1343,
(12) (2006) 1945–1963, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2005.05.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/JMR.1997.0182.
[41] P. Wanchoo, H. Matos, C.E. Rousseau, A. Shukla, Investigations on air and [68] T.J. Dawson, Metal, matrix-fiber composite armor, 1974, pp. 22–25.
underwater blast mitigation in polymeric composite structures – s review, [69] M. Vives, Ballistic Protection Armor, 1993.
Compos. Struct. 263 (January) (2021) 113530, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [70] S.M. Khalili, K. Malekzadeh, A. Davar, P. Mahajan, Dynamic response of
compstruct.2020.113530. pre-stressed fibre metal laminate (FML) circular cylindrical shells subjected
[42] A. Arias, J.A. Rodríguez-Martínez, A. Rusinek, Numerical simulations of impact to lateral pressure pulse loads, Compos. Struct. 92 (6) (2010) 1308–1317,
behaviour of thin steel plates subjected to cylindrical, conical and hemispherical http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.012.
non-deformable projectiles, Eng. Fract. Mech. 75 (6) (2008) 1635–1656, http: [71] A.G. Dietz, F.E. Mooney, Material for Absorption of Kinetic Energy of Missiles,
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.06.005. Google Patents, 1954, US Patent 2, 697, 054.
[43] R.E. Musante, J.D. Morrow, Active Spall Suppression Armor, United States, [72] F.S. Lyons, J.A. Mears, Lightweight Armor with a Durable Spall Cover, vol. 1,
1990. (12) 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/634067.634234.
[44] G. Ben-Dor, Shock Wave Reflection Phenomena, Second, Springer US, New [73] R.M. Brown, P.E. Turner, Spaced Armor, 1985, pp. 0–4, http://dx.doi.org/10.
York, 2007, p. xiii, 342, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71382-1. 1145/634067.634234.
[45] H. Kolsky, Stress Waves in Solids, vol. 1098, Courier Corporation, 1963. [74] D.R. Hartman, Ballistic Materials, United States, 1989.
[46] D. Grady, The spall strength of condensed matter, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 36 (3) [75] J. Pepin, Structural Sandwich Panel with Energy-Absorbing Material Pierced By
(1988) 353–384. Rigid Rods, (19) 1989.
[47] R.C. Hibbeler, Engineering Mechanics: Statics, vol. 1, Pearson Educación, 2004. [76] J.N. Pepin, Structural Sandwich Panel with Energy-Absorbing Material Pierced
[48] L. Cao, S. Lu, S. Laflamme, S. Quiel, J. Ricles, D. Taylor, Performance- By Rigid Rods, 1992.
based design procedure of a novel friction-based cladding connection for blast [77] T. Bø rvik, M. Langseth, O.S. Hopperstad, K.A. Malo, Ballistic penetration of
mitigation, Int. J. Impact Eng. 117 (November 2017) (2018) 48–62, http: steel plates, Int. J. Impact Eng. 22 (1999) 855–886.
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.03.003. [78] T. Bùrvik, O.S. Hopperstad, T. Berstad, M. Langseth, Numerical simulation
[49] L. Cao, S. Laflamme, D. Taylor, J. Ricles, Simulations of a variable friction of plugging failure in ballistic penetration, Int. J. Solids Struct. 38 (2001)
device for multihazard mitigation, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (12) (2016) 1–14, http: 6241–6264.
//dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001580. [79] R.C. Fu, J. Fales, Lightweight Ballistic Resistant Rigid Structural Panel, 2004,
[50] A.E. El-Sisi, A. Saucier, H.A. Salim, J.M. Hoemann, Experimental and numerical http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.(73), arXiv:arXiv:1208.5721.
evaluation of reinforced concrete walls retrofit systems for blast mitigation, [80] J. López-Puente, A. Arias, R. Zaera, C. Navarro, The effect of the thickness
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 33 (2) (2019) 04018113, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/ of the adhesive layer on the ballistic limit of ceramic/metal armours. An
(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001265. experimental and numerical study, Int. J. Impact Eng. 32 (1–4) (2005) 321–336,
[51] Y. Gong, L. Cao, S. Laflamme, J. Ricles, S. Quiel, D. Taylor, Numerical http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2005.07.014.
verification of variable friction cladding connection for multihazard mitiga- [81] C.Y. Tham, Reinforced concrete perforation and penetration simulation using
tion, J. Vib. Control 27 (1–2) (2021) 82–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ AUTODYN-3D, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 41 (14) (2005) 1401–1410, http://dx.
1077546320923933. doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2004.08.003.

23
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

[82] C.Y. Tham, Numerical and empirical approach in predicting the penetration [106] M. Schenk, S.D. Guest, G.J. McShane, Novel stacked folded cores for blast-
of a concrete target by an ogive-nosed projectile, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 42 resistant sandwich beams, Int. J. Solids Struct. 51 (25–26) (2014) 4196–4214,
(14–15) (2006) 1258–1268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2006.06.011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.07.027.
[83] A. Rusinek, J.A. Rodriguez-Martinez, A. Arias, J.R. Klepaczko, J. Lopez-Puente, [107] A. Rajamani, R. Prabhakaran, Response of composite plates to blast loading,
Influence of conical projectile diameter on perpendicular impact of thin steel Exp. Mech. 20 (7) (1980) 245–250.
plate, Eng. Fract. Mech. 75 (2008) 2946–2967, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [108] H.W. Sandusky, V.D. Moore, Effectiveness of transparent shields in protecting
engfracmech.2008.01.011. explosive operations personnel, Tech. rep., Naval Surface Warfare Center, Silver
[84] F. Coghe, N. Nsiampa, L. Rabet, G. Dyckmans, Experimental and numerical Spring, MD, 1994, p. 22.
investigations on the origins of the bodywork effect (k-effect), Trans. ASME, J. [109] N.A. Fleck, V.S. Deshpande, The resistance of clamped sandwich beams to
Appl. Mech. 77 (September) (2010) 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4001692. shock loading, Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech. 71 (3) (2004) 386–401, http:
[85] F.S. Lyons, J.A. Mears, G.C. Weedon, K.C. Harding, C. Lisa Owen, P.A. Russell, J. //dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1629109.
Mitchell, Ballistic-resistant panel including high modulus ultra high molecular- [110] N.J. G.N. Nurick, G.S. Langdon, Y. Chi, Behaviour of sandwich panels subjected
weight polyethylene tape, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.(73), arXiv:arXiv: to intense air blast- part 1: Experiments, Compos. Struct. 91 (2009) 433–441.
1208.5721. [111] M. Amini, J. Isaacs, S. Nemat-Nasser, Investigation of effect of polyurea on
[86] S.N. Monteiro, T.L. Milanezi, L.H.L. Louro, E.P. Lima Jr., F.O. Braga, A.V. response of steel plates to impulsive loads in direct pressure-pulse experiments,
Gomes, J.W. Drelich, Novel ballistic ramie fabric composite competing with Mech. Mater. 42 (6) (2010) 628–639, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.
kevlar™ fabric in multilayered armor, Mater. Des. 96 (2016) 263–269. 2009.09.008.
[112] X. Huang, Explosion-Proof Material and Its Processing Method, Google Patents,
[87] D. Garcia-Gonzalez, A. Rusinek, T. Jankowiak, A. Arias, Mechanical impact
2011, US Patent 8, 002, 136.
behavior of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK), Compos. Struct. 124 (2015) 88–99,
[113] H. Liu, Z.K. Cao, G.C. Yao, H.J. Luo, G.Y. Zu, Performance of aluminum foam-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.12.061.
steel panel sandwich composites subjected to blast loading, Mater. Des. 47
[88] D. Garcia-Gonzalez, M. Rodriguez-Millan, A. Rusinek, A. Arias, Investigation
(2013) 483–488, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.003.
of mechanical impact behavior of short carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK com-
[114] F. Zhang, ShockWave Science and Technology Reference Library, vol. 6,
posites, Compos. Struct. 133 (2015) 1116–1126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Springer International Publishing, Alberta, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
compstruct.2015.08.028.
978-3-540-68408-4.
[89] L. Gilson, L. Rabet, A. Imad, D. Kakogiannis, F. Coghe, Development of a
[115] J. Sousa-Martins, D. Kakogiannis, F. Coghe, B. Reymen, F. Teixeira-Dias,
numerical model for the ballistic penetration of Fackler gelatine by small
Behaviour of sandwich structures with cork compound cores subjected to blast
calibre projectiles, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 225 (2) (2016) 375–384, http:
waves, Eng. Struct. 46 (2013) 140–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
//dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2016-02640-9.
2012.07.030.
[90] J.D. Hogan, L. Farbaniec, D. Mallick, V. Domnich, K. Kuwelkar, T. Sano, J.W. [116] N.R. Yun, D.H. Shin, S.W. Ji, C.S. Shim, Experiments on blast protective systems
McCauley, K.T. Ramesh, Fragmentation of an advanced ceramic under ballistic using aluminum foam panels, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 18 (7) (2014) 2153–2161,
impact: Mechanisms and microstructure, Int. J. Impact Eng. 102 (2017) 47–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0092-3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.12.008. [117] X. Jin, Z. Wang, J. Ning, G. Xiao, E. Liu, X. Shu, Dynamic response of
[91] Y. Zhao, Y. Sun, R. Li, Q. Sun, J. Feng, Response of aramid honeycomb sandwich structures with graded auxetic honeycomb cores under blast loading,
sandwich panels subjected to intense impulse loading by mylar flyer, Int. J. Composites B 106 (2016) 206–217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.
Impact Eng. 104 (2017) 75–84. 2016.09.037.
[92] G. Kechagiadakis, F. Coghe, L. Gilson, The development of a bullet simulating [118] N. Mehreganian, L. Louca, G. Langdon, R. Curry, N. Abdul-Karim, The
projectile for body armor testing, Proc. - 30th Int. Symp. Ballist. Ballist. 2017 2 response of mild steel and armour steel plates to localised air-blast loading-
(February 2022) (2017) 2288–2298, http://dx.doi.org/10.12783/ballistics2017/ comparison of numerical modelling techniques, Int. J. Impact Eng. 115 (2018)
17016. 81–93.
[93] E. Palta, M. Gutowski, H. Fang, A numerical study of steel and hybrid armor [119] S.C.K. Yuen, A. Butler, H. Bornstein, A. Cholet, The influence of orientation of
plates under ballistic impacts, Int. J. Solids Struct. 136–137 (2018) 279–294, blast loading on quadrangular plates, Thin-Walled Struct. 131 (2018) 827–837.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.12.021. [120] K. Osnes, S. Dey, O.S. Hopperstad, T. Bø rvik, On the dynamic response of
[94] E. Palta, H. Fang, D.C. Weggel, Finite element analysis of the Advanced Combat laminated glass exposed to impact before blast loading, Exp. Mech. 59 (7)
Helmet under various ballistic impacts, Int. J. Impact Eng. 112 (October 2017) (2019) 1033–1046, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11340-019-00496-1.
(2018) 125–143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.10.010. [121] A. Hussein, P. Heyliger, H. Mahmoud, Blast response of a thin oriented strand
[95] E. Palta, H. Fang, On a multi-scale finite element model for evaluating ballistic board wall, Eng. Struct. 201 (May) (2019) 109835, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
performance of multi-ply woven fabrics, Compos. Struct. 207 (April 2018) j.engstruct.2019.109835.
(2019) 488–508, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.09.080. [122] T. Zhou, P. Zhang, W. Xiao, J. Liu, Y. Cheng, Experimental investigation on
[96] T. Fras, C.C. Roth, D. Mohr, Dynamic perforation of ultra-hard high-strength ar- the performance of PVC foam core sandwich panels under air blast loading,
mor steel: Impact experiments and modeling, Int. J. Impact Eng. 131 (November Compos. Struct. 226 (2019) 111081.
2018) (2019) 256–271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.05.008. [123] I.D. Elgy, S.D. Clarke, B.J. Fuller, A.D. Barr, D.W. Armstrong, M.T. Gant, J.J.
[97] L. Gilson, A. Imad, L. Rabet, F. Coghe, On analysis of deformation and Keirl, G.C. Porter, I.D. Softly, A. Tyas, Deformation of Armox 440T plates
damage mechanisms of DYNEEMA composite under ballistic impact, Compos. subject to buried explosive charge detonations: A benchmark for appliqué
Struct. 253 (March) (2020) 112791, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct. systems, Int. J. Impact Eng. 150 (January) (2021) 103819, http://dx.doi.org/
2020.112791. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103819.
[124] R. Lane, B. Craig, W. Babcock, Materials for blast and penetration resistance.,
[98] L. Gilson, L. Rabet, A. Imad, F. Coghe, Experimental and numerical char-
AMPTIAC Q. 6 (4) (2002) 39–45.
acterisation of rheological properties of a drop test response of a ballistic
[125] C.C. Ng, S.H. Chew, G.P. Karunaratne, S.A. Tan, S.L. Loh, Flexible and Rigid
plastilina, Forensic Sci. Int. 310 (2020) 110238, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Faced MSE Walls Subject To Blasting, 2000, pp. 322–336,
forsciint.2020.110238.
[126] M.P. Byfield, Behavior and design of commercial multistory buildings subjected
[99] A. Caçoilo, R. Mourão, F. Teixeira-Dias, A. Azevedo, F. Coghe, R.A. Valente,
to blast, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 20 (4) (2006) 324–329, http://dx.doi.org/
Modelling ballistic impact on military helmets: The relevance of projectile
10.1061/(asce)0887-3828(2006)20:4(324).
plasticity, Def. Technol. 17 (5) (2021) 1699–1711, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
[127] J.E. Crawford, S. Lan, Blast barrier design and testing, Structures ASCE 2006
j.dt.2020.09.011.
(2006) 1–10.
[100] K. Kośla, P. Kubiak, M. Łandwijt, W. Urbaniak, A. Kucharska-Jastrza̧bek,
[128] T. Hause, Advanced functionally graded plate-type structures impacted by blast
Fragment-resistant property optimization within ballistic inserts obtained on
loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 38 (5) (2011) 314–321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
the basis of para-aramid materials, Materials (Basel). 15 (6) (2022) 2314,
j.ijimpeng.2010.11.006.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15062314.
[129] N. Dinh Duc, N.D. Tuan, P. Tran, T.Q. Quan, Nonlinear dynamic response and
[101] A. Cherniaev, I. Telichev, Sacrificial bumpers with high-impedance ceramic vibration of imperfect shear deformable functionally graded plates subjected
coating for orbital debris shielding: A preliminary experimental and numerical to blast and thermal loads, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 24 (4) (2017) 318–329,
study, Int. J. Impact Eng. 119 (2018) 45–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2016.1142024.
[102] P. Zhang, K. Xu, M. Li, Z. Gong, G. Song, Q. Wu, Y. Cao, D. Tian, Z. Yu, [130] A. Karakoti, S. Pandey, V.R. Kar, Blast analysis of functionally graded sandwich
Study of the shielding performance of a Whipple shield enhanced by Ti-Al-nylon plates, Mater. Today Proc. 46 (xxxx) (2021) 7871–7874, http://dx.doi.org/10.
impedance-graded materials, Int. J. Impact Eng. 124 (2019) 23–30. 1016/j.matpr.2021.02.561.
[103] A. Sakurai, On the propagation and structure of a blast wave, II, J. Phys. Soc. [131] A. Karakoti, S. Pandey, V.R. Kar, Nonlinear transient analysis of porous
Japan 9 (2) (1954) 256–266. functionally graded material plates under blast loading, Mater. Today Proc.
[104] C. Boyars, D.J. Edwards, Bomb Blast Attenuator, 1984, pp. 29–32. 46 (xxxx) (2021) 8111–8113, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.051.
[105] U. Nyström, K. Gylltoft, Numerical studies of the combined effects of blast [132] J.E. Gulbierz, C.F. Bohan, Anti-Spall Lightweight Armor, 1973.
and fragment loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 36 (8) (2009) 995–1005, http: [133] J.P. Moskowitz, Ballistic armor with spall shield containing an outer layer of
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.02.008. plasticized resin, (19) 1988, pp. 2–6.

24
A. Pai, C.R. Kini and Satish Shenoy B. Thin-Walled Structures 179 (2022) 109664

[134] H.A. Tansill, Explosion-Resistant Fuel Tank Device, 1986. [161] R.T. Tang, H.M. Wen, Predicting the perforation of ceramic-faced light armors
[135] R.L. Fenton, R. Brandt, Fuel tank vaporization and explosion resistant apparatus subjected to projectile impact, Int. J. Impact Eng. 102 (2017) 55–61, http:
and improved filler mass, 1990. //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.11.008.
[136] J.P. Bennett, W.P. Hargett, Explosion resistant reinforced container assemblies [162] A. Healey, J. Cotton, S. Maclachlan, P. Smith, J. Yeomans, Understanding the
for materials to be microwave heated, United States, 1996. ballistic event: methodology and initial observations, J. Mater. Sci. 52 (6)
[137] S.M. Fingerhut, R.L. Fingerhut, Explosion Resistant Aircraft Cargo Container, 2, (2017) 3074–3085, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-0594-0.
(12) 2002. [163] B. Stinson, L. Stinson, Explosion and Fire Extraction Safety Garment, 2009.
[138] H.W. Reynolds, Explosion Resistant Waste Container, Google Patents, 2006, US [164] R. Yahaya, S.M. Sapuan, M. Jawaid, Z. Leman, E.S. Zainudin, Effect of layering
Patent 7, 014, 059. sequence and chemical treatment on the mechanical properties of woven kenaf-
[139] W. Schmidt, D.M. Swain, Explosion Resistant Waste Container, 2005, http: aramid hybrid laminated composites, Mater. Des. 67 (2015) 173–179, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1037/t24245-000, arXiv:0403007. //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.11.024.
[140] H.J. Fleisher, E.M. Weinstein, Method and apparatus for minimizing blast [165] R. Yahaya, S. Sapuan, M. Jawaid, Z. Leman, E. Zainudin, Effect of fiber
damage caused by an explosion in aircraft Cargo Bay, United States, 1998. orientations on the mechanical properties of neaf-aramid hyrid composites for
[141] R. McCoy, C. Sun, Fluid-structure interaction analysis of a thick-section com- spall-liner application, Def. Technol. 12 (2016) 52–58.
posite cylinder subjected to underwater blast loading, Compos. Struct. 37 (1) [166] P. Mallick, Fiber-Reinforced Composites, CRC Press, New York, 2007, http:
(1997) 45–55. //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.09.002.
[142] A. Schiffer, V.L. Tagarielli, The response of rigid plates to blast in deep [167] M.E. Smirlock, W.A. Ribich, J. Marinaccio, B.E. Sawaf, Survivability
water: Fluid-structure interaction experiments, Proc. R. Soc. 468 (2145) (2012) Enhancement, (19) 1992.
2807–2828, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2012.0076. [168] J. Zhou, U. Heisserer, P.W. Duke, P.T. Curtis, J. Morton, V.L. Tagarielli,
[143] D.J. Hall, Examination of the effects of underwater blasts on sandwich com- The sensitivity of the tensile properties of PMMA, Kevlar® and Dyneema® to
posite structures, Compos. Struct. 11 (2) (1989) 101–120, http://dx.doi.org/10. temperature and strain rate, Polymer (Guildf). 225 (December 2019) (2021)
1016/0263-8223(89)90063-9. 123781, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2021.123781.
[144] A.P. Mouritz, D.S. Saunders, S. Buckley, The damage and failure of GRP [169] T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta, J. Ramsay, Blast loading and blast effects on
laminates by underwater explosion shock loading, Composites 25 (6) (1994) structures – s overview, Electron. J. Struct. Eng. (Special Issue: Loading on
431–437, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-4361(94)90099-X. Structures (2007)) (2007) http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.
[145] K. Cichocki, Effects of underwater blast loading on structures with protective 94-96.77.
elements, Int. J. Impact Eng. 22 (6) (1999) 609–617, http://dx.doi.org/10. [170] G.N. Greaves, A.L. Greer, R.S. Lakes, T. Rouxel, Poisson’s ratio and modern
1016/S0734-743X(99)00012-3. materials, Nature Mater. 10 (11) (2011) 823–837, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
[146] A.P. Mouritz, Ballistic impact and explosive blast resistance of stitched com- nmat3134.
posites, Composites 32 (5) (2001) 431–439, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359- [171] M. Turkyilmazoglu, Air blast response of compaction foam having a deformable
8368(01)00015-4. front face panel incorporating fluid structure interactions, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 105
[147] G.J. McShane, V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, The underwater blast resistance of (2016) 340–347, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.11.010.
metallic sandwich beams with prismatic lattice cores, Trans. ASME, J. Appl. [172] Y. Zhao, Q. Sun, J. Feng, R. Li, Y. Sun, Internal-structure-model based
Mech. 74 (2) (2007) 352–364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2198549. simulation research of aramid honeycomb sandwich panel subjected to intense
[148] Z. Wei, K.P. Dharmasena, H.N. Wadley, A.G. Evans, Analysis and interpretation impulse loading, Eng. Fract. Mech. 204 (2018) 1–14.
of a test for characterizing the response of sandwich panels to water blast, Int. J. [173] V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck, High strain rate compressive behaviour of alu-
Impact Eng. 34 (10) (2007) 1602–1618, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng. minum alloy foams, Int. J. Impact Eng. 24 (3) (2000) 277–298, http://dx.doi.
2006.09.091. org/10.1016/S0734-743X(99)00153-0.
[149] M. Li, C. Bai, M. Shi, Y. Wei, H. Zhou, Y. Shen, Experimental study of the [174] J. Shan, S. Xu, L. Zhou, D. Wang, Y. Liu, M. Zhang, P. Wang, Dynamic fracture
compressive performance of life jacket use polyurethane foam for blast wave of aramid paper honeycomb subjected to impact loading, Compos. Struct. 223
protection, Adv. Mater. Res. 463–464 (2012) 457–462, http://dx.doi.org/10. (2019) 110962.
4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.463-464.457. [175] A. Ingrole, A. Hao, R. Liang, Design and modeling of auxetic and hybrid
[150] P. Ren, W. Zhang, Underwater shock response of air-backed thin aluminum honeycomb structures for in-plane property enhancement, Mater. Des. 117
alloy plates: An experimental and numerical study, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 500 (2017) 72–83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.12.067.
(PART 18) (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/500/18/182034. [176] L. Ai, X.L. Gao, Metamaterials with negative Poisson’s ratio and non-positive
[151] A. Hawass, H. Mostafa, A. Elbeih, Multi-layer protective armour for underwater thermal expansion, Compos. Struct. 162 (2017) 70–84, http://dx.doi.org/10.
shock wave mitigation, Def. Technol. 11 (4) (2015) 338–343, http://dx.doi.org/ 1016/j.compstruct.2016.11.056.
10.1016/j.dt.2015.04.006. [177] M. Mir, M.N. Ali, J. Sami, U. Ansari, Review of mechanics and applications of
[152] S. Avachat, M. Zhou, Compressive response of sandwich plates to water-based auxetic structures, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014 (2014) 1–18, http://dx.doi.org/
impulsive loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 93 (2016) 196–210, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1155/2014/753496.
10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.03.007. [178] A.C. Brańka, D.M. Heyes, K.W. Wojciechowski, Auxeticity of cubic materials
[153] L. Ren, H. Ma, Z. Shen, Y. Wang, K. Zhao, Blast resistance of water-backed under pressure, Phys. Status Solidi Basic Res. 248 (1) (2011) 96–104, http:
metallic sandwich panels subjected to underwater explosion, Int. J. Impact Eng. //dx.doi.org/10.1002/pssb.201083981.
129 (96) (2019) 1–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.02.009. [179] J. Dagdelen, J. Montoya, M. De Jong, K. Persson, Computational prediction of
[154] H. Matos, C. Javier, J. LeBlanc, A. Shukla, Underwater nearfield blast per- new auxetic materials, Nature Commun. 8 (1) (2017) 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/
formance of hydrothermally degraded carbon–epoxy composite structures, 10.1038/s41467-017-00399-6.
Multiscale Multidiscip. Model. Exp. Des. 1 (1) (2018) 33–47, http://dx.doi.org/ [180] M. Bruggi, V. Zega, A. Corigliano, Synthesis of auxetic structures using
10.1007/s41939-017-0004-6. optimization of compliant mechanisms and a micropolar material model, Struct.
[155] M.F. Ashby, D. CEBON, Materials selection in mechanical design, Le J. de Multidiscip. Optim. 55 (1) (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1589-
Physique IV 3 (C7) (1993) C7–1. 9.
[156] Y. Liu, H. Hu, A review on auxetic structures and polymeric materials, Sci. Res. [181] D. Attard, D. Calleja, J.N. Grima, Out-of-plane doming behaviour from
Essays 5 (10) (2010) 1052–1063. constrained auxetics, Smart Mater. Struct. 27 (1) (2017) 015020.
[157] B. Tahenti, F. Coghe, R. Nasri, M. Pirlot, Armor’s ballistic resistance simulation [182] P. Hook, Use of auxetic fibers, United States, 2011.
using stochastic process modeling, Int. J. Impact Eng. 102 (2017) 140–146, [183] F. Bozdoğan, S. Üngün, E. Temel, G. Mengüç, Textiles used for ballistic
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.12.009. protection, their properties and ballistic performance tests, Tek. Ve Mühendis
[158] G.L. D. Karagiozova, G.N. Nurick, Behaviour of sandwich panels subject to 22 (98) (2015) 84–103.
intense air blasts- Part 2: Numerical simulation, Compos. Struct. 91 (2009) [184] V. Kapsali, Biomimetic approach to the design of textiles for sportswear
442–450. applications, in: Textiles for Sportswear, Elsevier, 2015, pp. 77–94.
[159] K.P. Dharmasena, H.N.G. Wadley, Z. Xue, J.W. Hutchinson, Mechanical response [185] A. Alderson, K. Alderson, Auxetic materials, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. G 221 (4)
of metallic honeycomb sandwich panel structures to high-intensity dynamic (2007) 565–575.
loading, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (9) (2008) 1063–1074, http://dx.doi.org/10. [186] M. Sanami, N. Ravirala, K. Alderson, A. Alderson, Auxetic materials for sports
1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.06.008. applications, Procedia Eng. 72 (2014) 453–458, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
[160] F.H. K.B. Lausaund, B.B. Johnson, D.B, Rahbek, Surface treatment of alumina proeng.2014.06.079.
ceramic for improved adhesion to a glass fibre-reinforced polyester composite, [187] W. Yang, Z.-M. Li, W. Shi, B.-H. Xie, M.-B. Yang, Review on auxetic materials,
Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 63 (2015) 34–45. J. Mater. Sci. 39 (10) (2004) 3269–3279, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JMSC.
0000026928.93231.e0.

25