Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Creating in-situ polymeric layer based on photocuring for various

construction applications
Lihua Li a, Zhangshuai Geng a, Jie Huang b,⇑, Henglin Xiao a, Yaoyao Pei a, Yan Liu c
a
School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Environment, Hubei University of Technology, Wuhan 430068, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
c
College of Energy and Resources, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Creating polymeric layer using photocuring for construction usage.

Determining proportioning of photocurable admixture.

Testing the created polymer layer for strength and permeability.

Determining the effects of photoinitiator and carbon black on curing time.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Polymeric materials in different forms have been widely used as a construction material for many dec-
Received 22 May 2020 ades. These polymers are primarily made of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl alcohol, or polyester
Received in revised form 12 November 2020 with inclusion of antioxidants, plasticizers, fillers, carbon blacks, and lubricants to improve their perfor-
Accepted 15 November 2020
mance. Nowadays, various polymers have been installed in the field serving as reinforcement, separation,
Available online 3 December 2020
drainage, filtration, barrier, dust control, erosion control, or even landscaping. This study seeks to create
an in-situ polymeric layer based on the photocuring principle, which can be used as a temporary barrier
Keywords:
for many applications, such as temporary water detention liner, material separation, contaminant cover-
Photocuring
Polymerization
age and dust control. In the study, the liquid acrylic monomers were polymerized/crosslinked by pho-
Photoinitiator tocuring with the participation of photoinitiator that released radicals to trigger polymerization and
Polymeric layer crosslinking. The study showed that with 1–3% carbon black and 1–5% photoinitiator the cured polymer
Tensile strength had a suitable tensile strength and permeability to act as polymeric barriers in construction sites for most
Permeability of temporary usage. Both carbon black and photoinitiator had a noticeable influence on photocuring time,
i.e., lower carbon content and/or higher photoinitiator content led to faster polymerization. The test data
also showed that carbon black content had much less impact on tensile strength and permeability, com-
pared with photoinitiator content. It appeared 2% photoinitiator was optimal, which resulted in the high-
est strength and least permeability. This study proved that the photocuring-based polymerization would
be a viable method to create in-site polymeric layer at construction sites.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction made into various composite materials, such as synthetic fiber-

Polymer of various types has always been an important con-
struction material and has been used with concrete to form a com-
posite material or used by itself to serve an independent function
[1–3]. In recent two decades, the polymeric materials, primarily
polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl alcohol, and polyester, are
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lilihua466@163.com (L. Li), 276915562@qq.com (Z. Geng),
jie.huang@utsa.edu (J. Huang), axiao-henglin@163.com (H. Xiao), yaoyao.bae@
foxmail.com (Y. Pei), liuyan08@cdut.cn (Y. Liu).
reinforced (cement) composites (FRC), fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP), and polymer concrete (PC) [4–6]. The inclusion of polymer
not only improves the properties, such as ductility, resistance to
harsh environment, performance under dynamic loading, but also
represents an environment-friendly material with less carbon foot-
print in production [7–9]. Meanwhile, polymer has also been used
by itself, serving an independent function for various civil engi-
neering applications [10,11]. According to the 2019 statistic data,
the use of polymer by itself in construction exceeded 9 billion US
dollars with a projected annual increase of 10% from 2019 to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121732
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732

2029, majority of which is called ‘‘geosynthetics”, representing the
vast variety of polymers used in construction, especially earth
works. Such polymer, i.e., geosynthetics, are made into forms of
mesh, membrane, fabrics, blocks, etc., which are called geomem-
brane, geogrid, geotextile, geofoam, geomat, etc., serving the func-
tionality of reinforcement, filtration, separation, drainage, erosion
control, barrier, and protection [12].
Among the versatile functions of polymers in construction, sep-
aration and barrier are two important ones widely needed for civil,
environmental and coastal engineering projects [12]. Separation
can be achieved by different forms of geosynthetics such as tex-
tiles, grids and membranes, while barrier can only be achieved
by membranes that are continuous polymer sheets. Polymeric
membranes are tailored and seamed in the field using various
seaming techniques, which in general are time consuming and
require experienced crew as well as sophisticated inspection
equipment [13–16].
Even though a lot of polymers with high industrial standard of
quality are available to meet the vastly different needs of applica-
tions in constructions, engineering needs are sometimes still not
well met. For instance, the existing polymer used in earth works
(i.e., geosynthetics) needs open construction space, installation
equipment (seaming and connection) and substantial space for
construction personnel [12,17]. In addition, existing polymer is
manufactured with a fixed width, which often needs to be tailored,
and then seamed to meet the requirement of a project. Therefore,
in-situ creation of polymeric barrier could be a viable approach
to circumvent some of the issues encountered in polymer installa-
tion, such as layout, seaming and inspection and provide a conve-
nient solution for temporary applications in the construction sites
to save construction costs. In-situ polymeric layer may not be as
high-quality as manufactured polymers, but it provides the flexi-
bility for construction for special circumstances, such as limited
accessibility, corrugated/uneven surface, steep slope for dust con-
trol, water detention, and contaminant coverage.
Different spraying-on approaches have been explored to create
in-situ polymer in different sectors of industry, which are summa-
rized in Table 1. In addition to what are listed in Table 1, in recent
years a number of new methods of spraying-on coating have been
developed, such as plasma, wire arc, flame, and high velocity oxy-
fuel [18–20]. However, all these discussed spraying-on methods
are primarily developed to create a thin polymeric layer for deco-
ration, corrosion prevention, dust and moisture control, printing,
painting and lubrication [21–23]. The thickness of these formed
polymeric sheet is usually less than 100 lm and unsuitable for
usage in harsh construction sites [24,25]. Polymerization and/or
crosslinking using resinous materials and their hardener catalysts
seem to be the only plausible method to create in-situ polymer
for construction sites. Resinous materials use compounds, such
as epoxies, urethanes, polyester, phenolic foams or elastomers, to
form polymers in soil/rock voids for water control purposes [26–
30]. However, the toxicity of resinous materials and catalysts or
hardeners ranges from causing skin diseases to being carcinogenic
or neurotoxic, which has led to a few fatal incidents; therefore, this
method has been banned in many countries [29]. In addition, the
pot life and curing time of resinous materials often make their
application difficult in the field. (Note: pot life of resin – the
amount of time that a resin will remain in liquid state.)
The latest development in photocuring, especially, invention of
photoinitiators, may provide a viable solution to create in-situ
polymer layers in a large scale for construction applications. More
importantly, by selecting appropriate raw materials for photocur-
ing, the method could be environment-friendly since it does not
use any volatile organic compounds (VOC) and the materials used
in a photocurable formula are harmless to human beings. As a mat-
ter of fact, photocuring has been used in dental restoration and
drug delivery [31–33].
2. Chemical principle of photocuring
2.1. Polymer curing
The scientific basics of this study are related to polymer chem-
istry, especially polymer curing. Polymer curing refers to the chem-
ical reactions of forming polymer materials from precursors (for
example, monomers, oligomers or resin), which includes polymer-
ization and crosslinking. The process that monomers or oligomers
are linked to form macromolecular chains (resin) is called poly-
merization as illustrated by Fig. 1(a) [34,35]. If the monomers or
oligomers have multiple functionalities (functionality: the number
of covalent bonds that a monomer/oligomer molecule in a macro-
molecule can form with other reactants), the formed macromolec-
ular chains can be further transversely bonded by covalent or ionic
bonds. This process is called crosslinking as shown in Fig. 1(b).
However, if the monomers/oligomers are not multifunctional, the
formed polymer will contain macromolecular chains that are not
crosslinked by covalent or ionic bonds and, consequently, interact
with each other by van der Waals forces [12].

Table 1
Common spraying-on methods.

Methods Materials Principles Disadvantage (s) Representative references

Warm spray Resin or elastomer Coating/lining are formed by the high-velocity
Need heat Kuroda et al. (2008);
power impact of warm solid powder particles
Thin layer Pawlowski (2008)
Gas dynamic cold spray Resin or elastomer Particles are accelerated to very high speeds and
Apply only to rigid Papyrin et al. (2007);
power impact the substrate to form a coating. surface Moridi et al. (2014)

Thin layer
Polymerization and Resin and epoxy with Chemical polymerization/crosslink reactions Hazardous materials for Warner (2004);American
crosslinking by hardener or hardener or catalyst human and environment Chemistry Council (2013)
catalyst
Solvent-based Mixture of resin and The mixture is sprayed and the coalescent
Thin layer TMTURI (1994);Joseph
coalescent evaporates to form coating.
Hazardous VOC (2010)
content
Water-based Resin emulsion Evaporation of water
Thin layer UNEP (1998)

Slow process

Susceptible to frost
damage
Fusion Bond Epoxy The surface is heated above the fusion
Thin layer Ward et al. (1983); Puff
temperature.
High temperature (1996)

2
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al.
Fig. 1. Polymerization and cross-linking: (a) polymerization (Averill and Eldredge 2012); and (b) cross-linking (modified from Callister 2006).
2.2. Photocuring
As one of the polymer curing methods, photocuring refers to the
polymer curing process driven by energy from light, which
includes ‘‘photopolymerization” (the polymerization process dri-
ven by energy from light) and ‘‘photocrosslinking” (the crosslink-
ing process driven by energy from light) [36–38].
The chemical reaction of photocuring is initiated by a photoini-
tiator that converts the light energy into chemical energy. When
the spectrum of the light overlaps with the needed spectrum of
the photoinitiator, the photoinitiator absorbs the energy and
decomposes into radicals or ions [34,38]. Photocuring with radicals
is often preferred over ionic photocuring because of its fast reac-
tion, chemical stability, low cost, and versatility [38,39]. For radical
photocuring, the reactive species, R, namely, the released radicals
from the photoinitiator, adds to a monomer (M) by opening the
p-bond to form a new radical, as illustrated by the chemical reac-
tion below [34–36].
Initiation: R  þM ! RM
The process is repeated as monomers are successively added to
form a macromolecular chain as illustrated below.
Propagation: RMn  þM ! RMnþ1 
The process is terminated when a macromolecular chain is
formed with R at both of its ends as illustrated below.
Termination: RMnþ1  þRMnþ1  ! RM2ðnþ1Þ R
As aforementioned, if the monomers and oligomers have multi-
ple functionalities, the formed macromolecular chains will be fur-
ther crosslinked to form a two-dimensional (2D) or even three-
dimensional (3D) interlinked structure as shown in Fig. 1(b) [40].
The whole process of the photocuring is illustrated in Fig. 2. Since
in general polymerization is the primary reaction of polymer cur-
ing, this paper uses ‘‘polymerization” to refer to both polymeriza-
tion and crosslinking.
Fig. 2. Process of photocuring.
3
Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732
3. Materials, and photocuring procedure
3.1. Raw materials
Since the objective of this study was to explore the possibility of
creating in-situ polymeric layer for construction usage, only the
most essential raw materials were used, which included photocur-
able monomers, photoinitiator and carbon black. Carbon black is
not a reactant of photocuring but is used to block ultraviolet
(UV) to improve the durability of the product if the produced poly-
mer will be used in the outdoor environment.
For this study, acrylate-based unsaturated monomers (i.e., mul-
tifunctional methacrylate monomers) and the corresponding radi-
cal photoinitiator within the upper spectrum of UV were
thoughtfully selected for the following reasons: (1) they have high
reactivity [41,42]; (2) they can be cured into polymer with good
properties, such as chemical stability; (3) there are various
acrylate-based precursors available to meet the demands, such as
different viscosities and pigments [42]; and (4) acrylate-based pre-
cursors account for more than 90% of precursors used for photocur-
ing [43–45]. Thus, using acrylate-based monomers is representative
and will make the results of this study meaningful to majority of the
photocurable precursors. The raw materials are listed in Table 2 and
shown Fig. 3. The properties of monomer and photoinitiator are pro-
vided in Table 3. The monomer is a liquid under room temperature
and has a very low viscosity, which makes it flowable like water.
This is an outstanding advantage as a potential spraying-on method.
The selected photoinitiator can be triggered to release radicals by
UV light with a wavelength 250–360 nm. Even though there are
many kinds of photoinitiators available, which can be triggered by
light of vast spectrums, i.e., from infrared to ultraviolet, UV light
became the choice of this study because it has the least possibility
to be interfered by natural lighting.
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732

Table 2 Table 3
Raw materials of this study. Properties of monomers and photoinitiators.

Raw materials Chemical name/formula Monomers Photoinitiator

3
Photocurable monomers Acrylic family unsaturated monomer Density (kg/m ): 1050Molar mass Density (kg/m3): 1146Molar mass
(CH2CHCOOH-R) (g/mol): 72.06Boiling point (g/mol): 316.3Boiling point (°C):
Photoinitiator TPO photointiator(C22H21P02) (°C):141Melting point 456Melting point (°C):144.5 ~ 147UV
Carbon black carbon black powder with particle (°C):14Viscosity (cP at 25 °C): spectrum:Color: slightly
size of 2.6 lmsize 1.149Color: transparentSmell: yellowishSmell: none
slightly undesirable odor

3.2. Photocuring procedure
The photocuring was conducted in a lab under a temperature of
20 ± 5 °C and a humidity of 60 ± 10%. The procedure of the test pri-
marily included the following steps:

The acrylic monomers were mixed with pre-determined
amount of photoinitiator and carbon black using an electrical
mixer at a mixing rate 30 resolution per minutes for 30 min
as shown in Fig. 4(a);

Fig. 3. Raw materials: (a) unsaturated monomers, (b) photoinitiator, and (c) carbon black.

4
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al.
Fig. 4. Specimen preparation: (a) mixing; (b) lining; and (c) conditioning.

The mixture was then poured into a mold, which was linered
with PE sheet to facilitate separation after curing as shown in
Fig. 4(b);

The mixture was exposed to UV lighting for a given time at a
specific intensity to trigger the photocuring;

The cured polymer sheet was taken out of the mold and set at
the lab environment for a few days as shown in Fig. 4(c); and
5
Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732

The specimens were tested for their tensile strength and
permeability.
Curing is the process of polymerization and crosslinking once
radicals become available after exposure to UV radiation, which
usually takes a few hours depending on the UV intensity and avail-
ability photoinitiator. The curing does not require special condition
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732

except avoiding further exposure to UV radiation. The procedure is Table 4

schematically shown in Fig. 5. The photocuring was conducted for Proportioning table.

mixtures prepared according to the proportioning shown in Table 4, NO. Carbon black (%) Photoinitiator (%) Monomers
i.e., the carbon black content varied from 1% to 3% with 1% incre- 1 1% 1% 98%
ment each time while photoinitiator varied from 1% to 5% with 2 1% 2% 97%
1% increment each time. For each of the proportioning, six replicas 3 1% 3% 96%
were prepared to allow production of at least six specimens, which 4 1% 4% 95%
5 1% 5% 94%
permitted repetition of each tensile strength and permeability test 6 2% 1% 97%
at least three times to ensure the repeatability. 7 2% 2% 94%
The high-pressure mercury UV lamp used in this study emitted 8 2% 3% 95%
UV of length 365 nm at an intensity of 250 W, as shown in Fig. 6. 9 2% 4% 94%
10 2% 5% 97%
The wavelength of 365 nm is within the upper most range of UV
11 3% 1% 94%
spectrum, i.e., nearly the longest wavelength in UV spectrum, 12 3% 2% 95%
which made it least hazardous if accidental exposure occured. 13 3% 3% 94%
The setup of the photocuring assembly is shown in Fig. 7, in which 14 3% 4% 93%
the UV light source emitted light beams parallel to the surface of 15 3% 5% 92%

liquid to mitigate sudden and uneven reaction at the beginning.

Once exposed to UV lighting, the photoinitiators absorbed photons
and then started to release radicals that maintained the chain reac-
tion discussed in the section of Photocuring. Due to the existence of
carbon black, only the surficial photoinitiators had chance to
receive photons from UV beam and, consequently, generate radi-
cals for the chain reaction. Thus, the photocuring started from
the surface and then extended throughout the whole mass by add-
ing more and more precursors to the macro-molecular chain until
another radical was encountered or precursors were completely
depleted. As a result, the photocuring process lasted from minutes
to hours depending on available photoinitiators that were
impacted by the percentage of the photoinitiator and the percent-
age of carbon black in the mixture. Higher percentage of photoini-
tiators meant more photoinitiators at the surface, which
accelerated the reaction. In contract, lower percentage of carbon
black might also make the reaction fast as the UV beam would have
higher chance to penetrate some depth into the mixture to utilize
more photoinitiators.
After photocuring, a circular specimen was retrieved from the
mold as shown in Fig. 4(c), which had a rather rough surface due
to splashing during the reaction. Sandpapers were used to smooth
the surface as much as possible to allow a more accurate measure-
ment of thickness and then calculation of the strength. The circular
Fig. 6. UV light for photocuring.

Fig. 5. Outline of the experiments.

6
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al.
30
Mixture of materials
Fig. 7. Photocuring assembly.
Fig. 8. Specimens for testing: (a) tensile test; and (b) permeability test.
specimen was then trimmed and tailored to different sizes: straps
for tensile test and circular ones for permeability tests as shown in
Fig. 8. Enough specimens were prepared so that each of the test can
be repeated at least three times.
4. Testing and procedures
The tensile and permeability tests were performed in an indoor
lab environment. As aforementioned, for each type of polymer as
indicated in Table 4, three specimens for both tensile and perme-
ability tests were prepared to allow repeating each of the tests
three times.
4.1. Tensile test
Tensile testing was performed according to ASTM D638 at the
multifunctional testing machine with automatic control. The test-
ing machine consisted of two clamps with a width of 100 mm,
which could be adjusted to accommodate a specimen with length
from 50 mm to 300 mm. The maximum stroke of the machine was
100 mm. The 2 mm thick specimens were cut into a dimension of
160 mm  6 mm. Excluding the clamp length, the real testing
length of the specimen was 65 mm for tests. The specimen was
tested under a displacement-controlled mode with a constant rate
of 5 mm/min until rupture occurred as shown in Fig. 9. The testing
Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732
Power
UV lamp
rate (i.e., 5 mm/min) was selected based on the ASTM D638 consid-
ering the rigidity of the material and maximum allowable test
duration.
4.2. Permeability test
The permeability test was performed on an automated perme-
ability apparatus as shown Fig. 10, which is widely used for geoma-
terials. The apparatus consisted of a triaxial chamber and three
tubing systems to regulate the confining pressure and the water
pressure at the two ends of the specimen. The different hydraulic
gradient can be created by adjusting the water pressures at the
two ends. The test procedure includes:

Tailoring the specimen into 70 mm in diameter and 2 mm in
thickness;

Submerging the specimen for an hour to eliminate any possible
trapped air bubbles;

Placing in the specimen in the test chamber and applying cham-
ber pressure of 35 kPa; and

Applying a pressure head of 15 kPa for permeability tests.
The test system consisted of automatic data acquisition and
data process module, so the permeability could be automatically
calculated. For this test, the pressure head was remained constant
7
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732

Fig. 9. Tensile testing: (a) testing setup; and (b) ruptured specimen.

Fig. 10. Permeability test assembly: (a) specimen installation; (b) application of chamber; and (c) test in progress.

8
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al.
Fig. 11. Time of photocuring.
Table 5
Reaction time of different proportioning (minutes).
Mean/Standard deviation (minutes)
Photoinitiator (%) Carbon (%)
1 2
1 156/23 176/19
2 83/8 127/9
3 132/33 123/27
4 118/14 131/28
5 107/27 12,718
and the permeability reading was acquired once for each hour until
difference between two consecutive readings became less than 5%.
5. Results and discussion
As the first study of this kind, this study not only focused on the
properties of the created in-situ polymer layer but also on the pho-
tocuring process that was observed during the reaction in the lab.
Both qualitative and quantitative data are presented and discussed
in this section.
5.1. Time of photocuring
The photocuring was triggered as soon as the mixture was
exposed to UV beam of a certain spectrum, which was 365 nm
for this study. The time of photocuring was the duration from
the starting of UV lighting to the complete formation of polymeric
sheet. As discussed previously, due to the blockage of carbon black
on UV lighting the chemical can only start from surface and then
propagate into depth. Thus, the depletion of liquid mixture at the
bottom of the mold was used as an indication of completion of
photocuring. The recorded time for the chemical reaction is pre-
sented in Fig. 11. Since the determination of full curing depended
on visual observation, the recorded time of each test and their
standard deviations are presented in Table 5. In general, with
higher content of photoinitiator, the time needed for the reaction
became shorter. In contrast, with higher content of carbon black,
the time needed for the reaction became longer. This is attributable
to the available radicals released by the photoinitiators. As it has
been explained previously, only the photoinitiators that received
UV lighting participated in the chemical reaction and the remain-
der remained un-used. Due to the presence of carbon black, only
the surficial photoinitiators or the near-the-surface photoinitiators
had chance to receive photons from UV beam and, consequently,
release radicals. Intuitively, higher content of photoinitiators pro-
vided more photoinitiators for the reaction. The lower content of
carbon black might be able to make the UV lighting available to
some of the photoinitiators that were not located on the surface.
Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732
However, the data also disclosed the impact of photoinitiators
and carbon black on the reaction time was rather complicated
and there seemed to be an optimum content of photoinitiator
and carbon black to achieve the shortest reaction time. For exam-
ple, 2% photoinitiators made the photocuring fastest when carbon
black varies from 1% to 3% with this phenomenon most pro-
nounced at 1% carbon black. As a matter of fact, some studies in
chemistry have revealed that the high photoinitiator content may
make the overall chemical reaction go slow or even never be able
to complete. For the chemical dynamics point of view, the reaction
is greatly influenced by the mobility of the radicals. With high con-
tent of photoinitiators in the mixture, photoinitiator release a great
amount of radicals at beginning, which triggers chemical reaction
to form macro-molecular chain by keeping adding monomers into
the chains. Then, the viscosity of liquid monomers rapidly reduces,
which greatly in return reduces the mobility of remaining radicals
and the reaction slows down significantly. If the content of pho-
toinitiators is too high, the liquid may become a gel because a con-
siderable portion of monomers are unreacted due to lack of
accessibility of radicals. The dynamics of chemical reaction is a
3
very complicated matter in chemistry and the dynamics of pho-
191/21 tocuring has not been thoroughly studied in chemistry. Therefore,
139/17
147/15
influential factors on creating in-situ polymer through photocuring
141/20 needs to be further studied with more focus on chemical dynamics
151/18 in the future.
5.2. Tensile strength and tensile stiffness
The tensile tests were performed on a universal testing machine
with automatic control and data acquisition. The clamp span was
65 mm and the width of specimens was 6 mm. The specimens cre-
ated with different carbon black and photoinitiator contents were
tested at the same room temperature 20 ± 5 °C and the results are
presented hereafter in Fig. 12 and Table 6. Under tension, the spec-
imens experienced three phases: approximately linear increase to
peak strength, non-linear decrease to residual strength and rupture
at ultimate strength. It seemed that the transition from linear
increase to non-linear decrease was abrupt.
For the three different carbon black contents (i.e., 1%, 2% and
3%), it appeared that 2% photoinitiator led to the highest tensile
strength and tensile stiffness and least elongation. This finding is
consistent with the measurement of the photocuring time as
shown in Fig. 11. Figs. 11 and 12 jointly suggest that the optimum
photoinitiator be probably 2% if the carbon content varies from 1%
to 3%, which is also summarized in Table 6 for an easy comparison.
Higher content of photoinitiator made the produced macro-
molecular chains shorter but they had higher possibility of forming
cross links due to the greater availability of radicals. Thus, there
were two contradicting effects on the strength: shorter chains
make strength lower but more crosslinks make strength higher.
Consequently, it can be concluded that neither very low nor very
high photoinitiator content (dosage) was good for the strength of
the cured polymer. In addition, all the obtained polymer demon-
strated excellent ductility. During the test, the specimen showed
salient necking phenomenon as shown in Fig. 9. The peak strength
was achieved at 15%20% strain and the ultimate elongation ran-
ged from 40% to 70%. Table 6 also shows that the carbon content
of 1%3% seemed not to have significant impact on the strength
if sufficient time was given for curing; however, the strength at
rupture seemed to be approximately proportional to their peak
strength as shown in Fig. 12. By assuming a linear increase in the
first phase of the tension curves in Fig. 12, the tensile stiffness
can be calculated, which is presented in Table 7. Similar with the
conclusions drawn for the peak strength, the tensile stiffness of
all specimens seems to be insensitive to the carbon content but
9
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732

Table 7
Tensile stiffness at peak strength (kN/m).

Mean/Standard deviation (kN/m)

Photoinitiator (%) Carbon (%)
1 2 3
1 19.29/0.77 19.73/0.77 20.97/3.07
2 51.30/5.02 53.29/7.04 48.13/2.52
3 33.39/1.68 30.70/1.32 39.49/9.63
4 25.84/5.96 29.83/1.48 30.48/4.00
5 22.94/3.97 22.96/2.03 25.11/4.31

Fig. 13. Permeability of photocured specimens.

that 2% photoinitiator was optimal, which makes permeability in

the magnitude of 1012 m/s. At the same time, carbon black
showed a moderate impact on the permeability. The optimum pho-
toinitiator content at 2% was attributable to the fact that too low or
too high photoinitiator content reduce the possibility of form a
uniform high-quality polymeric material. When the photoinitiator
was in low supply, the number of released radicals were reduced
and thus the degree of polymerization/crosslinking should be
reduced. In contrast, when photoinitiator was in large supply, a
lot of radicals were released, which would be primarily on the sur-
face due to UV exposure. As a result, photocuring would go rapidly
on surface but reduced the mobility of the radicals to hinder the
Fig. 12. Tensile test: (a) 1% carbon black, (b) 2% carbon black, and (c) 3% carbon
photocuring below the surface. In general, the photoinitiator shall
black. be in an appropriate supply to create polymerization/crosslinking
and avoid unbalanced reaction. The low permeability confirms that
the created photocured polymer can be used a barrier in the con-
Table 6 struction site for many different purposes, such as water control
Peak tensile strength (kN/m) at different carbon and photoinitiator contents.
and/or detention, dust control.
Mean/Standard deviation (kN/m)
Photoinitiator (%) Carbon (%) 6. Conclusions
1 2 3
This study focuses on validating a potential approach to create
1 2.25/0.27 2.42/0.12 2.67/0.56
2 5.33/0.20 5.08/0.36 5.17/0.14
in-site polymeric barrier that can be used as a temporary replace-
3 4.83/0.27 4.33/0.22 4.50/0.11 ment of traditional fabricated polymeric layers in the field for some
4 3.83/0.15 4.00/0.18 3.67/0.12 applications. Based on the tests completed on the chemical reac-
5 2.5/0.2 3.17/0.12 2.92/0.12 tion, tensile strength, and permeability, the proposed approach
appears to be feasible and practical. The major findings of this
study are:
sensitive to the photoinitiator content and the maximum value
was achieved at 2% photoinitiator.
1–5% photoinitiator and 1–3% carbon black used in this study
appear to be suitable as they can produce cured polymer with
5.3. Permeability acceptable strength and permeability.

The contents of carbon and photoinitiator have vastly different
The permeability of all specimens is summarized in Fig. 13. effects on the curing time. Higher carbon content makes the
Constantly, the permeability is within the range of 1011 and curing slower, while higher photoinitiator content has an oppo-
1012 m/s. The trend shown in the figure reinforces the assertion site effect. It is worth noting that the curing time does not
10
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al.
change much when the photoinitiator is higher than 2%. For all
the proportionings used in study, the curing was completed
within 3 h and could be as short as about an hour.

The tensile tests disclose that the photoinitiator has profound
impact the peak and residual strength as well as tensile stiff-
ness. For all the test completed, 2% photoinitiator is the opti-
mum, which results in the highest peak and residual strengths
and greatest tensile stiffness. At the same time, the elongation
at rupture is the least when photoinitiator is 2%.

All the specimens demonstrate good ductility: the peak tensile
strength is reached at 15–20% strain and ultimate tensile
strength is reached at 40 – 70% strain.

According to this study, the thickness control of the created
polymer layer may be a challenge, if there is strict requirement
on the uniformity. Therefore, in the future statistical study may
be needed to assess the uniformity of the created polymer.

This created polymer is targeted for short term applications. If
used in extended periods, such as years or decades, the long-
term durability shall be thoroughly evaluated.

The study did not investigate the impact of UV source on the
reaction, which may be the greater variable in the construction
site. The distance from the UV source and the relative angle
with respect to the UV source will influence the number of pho-
tons reaching the liquid surface and, consequently, influence
the chemical reaction. A practical protocol is needed before
the in-situ polymer can be created in the construction site with
acceptable quality variation.
In this study, a single source of UV lighting was used, i.e., the
intensity of UV did not vary during the tests. Thus, the effect of UV
lighting was not assessed, which could be a study point in the future.
In summary, this study has validated that the proposed in-situ poly-
meric layer has properties that are suitable for barrier applications in
construction site. The cost of such polymeric layer is expected to be
higher than manufactured polymeric layers as the price of photocur-
able monomers and photoinitiator is higher than resins used to pro-
duce existing polymeric layers. However, the cost can be
significantly brought down if it becomes widely used. In addition,
creating in-situ polymeric layer in the construction site can be
time- and labor-saving, which can reduce the construction cost.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lihua Li: Conceptualization, Methodology. Zhangshuai Geng:
Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation. Jie Huang: Conceptu-
alization, Methodology. Henglin Xiao: Writing - review & editing.
Yaoyao Pei: Writing - review & editing. Yan Liu: Writing - review
& editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
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.
Acknowledgement
The authors appreciate the financial support provided by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No.
51778217, 51678224), the Hubei Provincial Science Foundation
for Distinguished Young Scholars (No. 2018CFA063), Hubei Central
Special Fund for Local Science and Technology Development
(2019ZYYD053, 2018ZYYD005) and the National Key R&D Program
of China (No. 2016YFC0502208).
11
Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732
References
[1] L.C. Hollaway, P.R. Head, Advanced polymer composites and polymers in the
civil infrastructure, Adv. Polym. Compos. Poly. Civ. Infr. 336 (2001), https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-008043661-6/50014-0.
[2] L.C. Hollaway, The evolution of and the way forward for advanced polymer
composites in the civil infrastructure, Constr. Build. Mater. 17 (2003) 365–378,
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-0618(03)00038-2.
[3] M. Soutsos, P. Domone, Construction Materials Their Nature and Behaviour,
CRC Press, Fifth Edition. (2017) 820, 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00088-3.
[4] H. Abdel-Fattah, M.M. El-Hawary, Flexural behavior of polymer concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 13 (1999) 253–262, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618
(99)00030-6.
[5] J.G. Teng, L. Lam, Behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete, Struct. Eng. 130 (11) (2004) 1713–1723, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:11(1713).
[6] J.M.L. Reis, Fracture and flexural characterization of natural fiber-reinforced
polymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006) 673–678, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.02.008.
[7] K.S. Rebeiz, D.W. Fowler, D.R. Paul, Recycling plastics in polymer concrete
systems for engineering applications, Polym.-Plast. Tech. Eng. 30 (8) (1991)
809–825, https://doi.org/10.1080/03602559108021008.
[8] F. Cortés, G. Castillo, Comparison between the dynamical properties of polymer
concreteand grey cast iron for machine tool applications, Mater. Des. 28 (5)
(2007) 1461–1466, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2006.03.012.
[9] X. Zhao, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Wu, Experimental study on effect of resin matrix in
basalt fiber reinforced polymer composites under static and fatigue loading,
Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2020) 673–678.
[10] G. Pohl, Textiles, Polymers and Composites for Buildings, 1st Edition,
Woodhead. Publ. 512 (2010), 10.1016/B978-1-84569-397-8.50018-2.
[11] R.W. Sarsby, Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering 312 (2007), https://doi.org/
10.1159/000075014.
[12] R. Koerner, Design with Geosynthetics, 6th Edition. 1 (2) (2012) 508 .
[13] D. Roche, Landfill failure survey: a technical note. Engineering Geology and
Waste Disposal, Eng. Geology. Special. Publ. 11 (1996) 379–380, https://doi.
org/10.1144/GSL.ENG.1996.011.01.48.
[14] V. Nosko, T. Andrezal, T. Gregor, P. Ganier, Senor damage detection system
(DDS) – the unique geomembrane testing method, Geosynthetics: Application,
Design. Constr. Balkema. Rotterdam, The Netherlands. (1996) 743–748.
[15] R.K. Rowe, H.P. Sangam, C.B. Lake, Evaluation of an HDPE geomembrane after
14 years as a leachate lagoon liner, Can. Geotech. J. 40 (3) (2003) 536–550,
https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-019.
[16] L. Giusti, A review of waste management practices and their impact on human
health, Waste Manage. 29 (8) (2009) 2227–2239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2009.03.028.
[17] R. Holtz, B. Christopher, R. Berg, Geosynthetic Design, and Construction
Guidelines, Publication No. FHWA HI-95-038, Federal Highway
Administration. (1998) 460.
[18] S. Paulussen, R. Rego, O. Goossens, D. Vangeneugden, K. Rose, Plasma
polymerization of hybrid organic–inorganic monomers in an atmospheric
pressure dielectric barrier discharge, Sfc. C. Tech. 200 (1–4) (2005) 672–675,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2005.02.134.
[19] F. Leroux, C. Campagne, A. Perwuelz, L. Gengembre, Fluorocarbon nano-coating
of polyester fabrics by atmospheric air plasma with aerosol, Appl. Sfc. Sci. 254
(13) (2008) 3902–3908, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2007.12.037.
[20] D. Bémer, R. Régnier, L. Subra, B. Sutter, M.T. Lecler, Y. Morele, Ultrafine
particles emitted by flame and electric arc guns for thermal spraying of metals,
A. W. Exp. H. 54 (6) (2010) 607–614, https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meq052.
[21] R. Lambourne, T.A. Strivens, Paint and Surface Coatings: Theory and Practice,
CRC, 1999, p. 800.
[22] J.J. Licari, Coating Materials for Electronic Applications: Polymers, Processing,
Reliability, Testing (Materials and Processes for Electronic Applications),
William Andrew Inc. (2003) 545.
[23] Y. Pauleau, P. Barna, Protective Coatings and Thin Films: Synthesis, Springer,
Characterization and Applications, 2013, p. 684.
[24] D.K. Ward, External and internal pipeline coatings in Arabian Gulf area,
Proceedings 5th International Conference on Internal and External Protection
of Pipes, 1983.
[25] S. Kuroda, J. Kawakita, M. Watanabe, H. Katanoda, Warm spraying—a novel
coating process based on high-velocity impact of solid particles, Sci. Tech. Adv.
Mat. 9 (3) (2008) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1088/1468-6996/9/3/033002.
[26] G.S. Littlejohn, Chemical grouting - 1, Ground. Eng. 18 (2) (1985) 13–16.
[27] G.S. Littlejohn, Chemical grouting - 2, Ground. Eng. 18 (2) (1985) 23–28.
[28] G.S. Littlejohn, Chemical grouting - 3, Ground. Eng. 18 (2) (1985) 29–34.
[29] R.H. Karol, Chemical Grouting and Soil Stabilization, CRC Press, 3rd edition,
Chemical Grouting and Soil Stabilization. (2003) 584.
[30] J. Warner, Practical Handbook of Grouting: Soil, Rock, and Structures, John
Wiley and Sons, 2004, p. 700.
[31] M.J.M. Abadie, A. Parfait, M. Rouby, Study on the photoreactivity of dental
composites. 1. Influence of temperature and oxygen, Eur. Polym. J. 30 (3)
(1994) 399–412.
[32] J.W. Stansbury, S.H. Dickens, Determination of double bond conversion in
dental resins by near infrared spectroscopy, Dental. Mat. 17 (1) (2001) 71–79,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00062-2.
L. Li, Z. Geng, J. Huang et al.
[33] H. Nakayama, I. Kaetsu, K. Uchida, S. Sakata, K. Tougou, T. Hara, Y. Matsubara,
Radiation curing of intelligent coating for controlled release and permeation,
Rad. Phys. Chem. 63 (3) (2002) 521–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-806X
(01)00594-1.
[34] G. Odian, Principles of Polymerization. 4th Edition, Wiley-Interscience. (2004)
812.
[35] P. Hiemenz, T.P. Lodge, Polymer Chemistry, 2nd Edition,., CRC Press, 2007, p.
587.
[36] G. Oster, N. Yang, Photopolyerization of vinyl monomers, Chem. R. 68 (2)
(1968) 125–151, https://doi.org/10.1021/cr60252a001.
[37] J.P. Fouassier, Photoinitiation, photopolymerization, and photocuring:
fundamentals and applications, IEEE. Elec. Inst. Mag. Hanser Gardner Publ.
(1995) 388.
[38] D. He, H. Susanto, M. Ulbricht, Photo-irradiation for preparation, modification
and stimulation of polymeric membranes, Pro. Polymer. Sci. 34 (1) (2009) 62–
98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2008.08.004.
[39] C. Decker, Photoinitiated crosslinking polymerization, Pro. Polymer. Sci. 21 (4)
(1996) 593–650, https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6700(95)00027-5.
12
Construction and Building Materials 273 (2021) 121732
[40] C. Decker, Light-induced crosslinking polymerization, Polym. Int. 1141–1150
(2002).
[41] L.J. Mathias, S.H. Kusefoglu, A.O. Kress, S. Lee, J.R. Wright, D.A. Culberson, S.C.
Warren, R.M. Warren, S. Huang, D.R. Lopez, J.E. Ingram, C.W. Dickerson, M.
Jeno, R.J. Halley, R.F. Colletti, G. Cei, C.C. Geiger, Multifunctional acrylate
monomers, dimers and oligomers: applications from contact lenses to wood-
polymer composites, Makromolekulare Chemie Macromol. Sympos. 51 (1)
(1991) 153–167, https://doi.org/10.1002/masy.19910510113.
[42] Christian Decker, The use of UV irradiation in polymerization, Polym. Int. 45
(2) (1998) 133–141.
[43] J. Lange, Viscoelastic properties and transitions during thermal and UV cure of
methacrylate resin, Polym. Eng. Sci. 39 (9) (1999) 1651–1660, https://doi.org/
10.1002/pen.11559.
[44] K.K. Baikerikar, M.L. Tulchinsky, J. Argyropoulos, UV curable, liquid diacrylate
monomers based on (cis, trans)-1, 3/1, 4-cyclohexanedimethanol, Landslides.
7 (2010) 175–188, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-009-9185-1.
[45] R.D. Kulkarni, M.E. Chaudhari, S. Mishra, UV cure acrylate monomers:
synthesis, analysis and storage, Pigment. Resin. Tech. 42 (1) (2013) 53–67,
https://doi.org/10.1108/03699421311288760.