Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Piezoresistive in-situ strain sensing of composite laminate structures

Michael C. Koecher, John H. Pande, Scott Merkley, Sam Henderson, David T. Fullwood ⇑, Anton E. Bowden
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA

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

Article history: Various methods have been developed to monitor the health and strain state of carbon fiber reinforced
Received 30 October 2013 polymers, each with a unique set of pros and cons. This research assesses the use of piezoresistive sensors
Received in revised form 23 September for in situ strain measurement of carbon fiber and other composite structures in multidirectional lami-
2014
nates. The piezoresistive sensor material and the embedded circuitry are both evaluated. For the piezo-
Accepted 24 September 2014
Available online 12 October 2014
resistive sensor, a conductive nickel nanocomposite sensor is compared with the piezoresistivity of the
carbon fiber itself. For the circuit, the use of carbon fibers already present in the structure is compared
with the use of nickel coated carbon fiber. Successful localized strain sensing is demonstrated for several
Keywords:
A. Carbon fiber
sensor and circuitry configurations. Numerous engineering applications are possible in the ever-growing
A. Smart materials field of carbon-composites.
A. Nano-structures Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Electrical properties

1. Introduction
Carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) possess a unique set of
material properties that include high strength-to-weight ratio, low
thermal expansion, and good fatigue characteristics; these benefits
have led to rapid expansion in numerous areas of engineering
[1–3]. Given the various loading conditions and environments that
this relatively new material has to endure, there is a pressing need
for a wide range of structural health and condition monitoring
solutions. A monitoring solution that includes instantaneous strain
sensing could provide useful feedback for control, actuation and
data logging functions.
This paper discusses the development of piezoresistive sensing
solutions for carbon fiber structures. Of particular interest is the
embedded circuitry that enables the sensing of local strain in a
component via connection to an external resistance meter. The
two in-situ piezoresistive sensors that are evaluated are 1. embed-
ded nickel nanostrand (NiN) nanocomposites and 2. neat prepreg
carbon fiber. For the connecting circuitry, nickel coated carbon
fibers and carbon fiber prepreg alone are compared as pseudo-
wires to the piezoresistive sensor; the probing configuration of
the external meter is also considered. Envisaged applications
include strain and health monitoring of structural members, as
well as the sensing of deflection in compliant components such
as sports equipment and actuation devices. For control and data
logging purposes. Actual engineering components might include
⇑ Corresponding author at: 435 CTB, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602,
USA. Tel.: +1 801 422 6316.
E-mail address: dfullwood@byu.edu (D.T. Fullwood).
bridge decks, composite beams, wind turbine blades, golf clubs,
compliant mechanisms, etc. The reported examples of a tensile
specimen, a beam under bending, and a carbon-fiber pressure ves-
sel, illustrate uses of the methodology that could be adapted for
various engineering applications.
1.1. Current strain sensing methods
Various methods exist for measuring strain in carbon fiber
structures. Fiber Bragg gratings, using embedded fiber optics mea-
sure strain [4,5], and other exotic and novel methods (e.g. [6–8])
are making tremendous progress towards providing a suite of solu-
tions that will no longer be confined to expensive laboratory
situations.
More traditional methods include strain gauges composed of
thin metal films [9]. The advantages of these types of gauges are
that they are fairly simple to install, low cost, and have proved to
be successful through years of use in industry. However, metal foils
also have a very limited strain range, and because these gauges are
adhered to the surface they are susceptible to damage. Further-
more, wires must be routed across or though the structure to carry
the required signal to the monitoring unit.
Carbon fiber is itself piezoresistive by nature, and can thus act
as a strain gauge [10–12]. However, transverse plies in a multidi-
rectional laminate largely short circuit the piezoresistive response
of the carbon fiber structure [13]. The issue of routing circuitry to
the point of interest must also be considered for this approach. Car-
bon nanotubes [14,15], carbon black [16], and nickel nanostrands
[17]. This paper will focus on nickel nanostrand composites due

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.09.029
1359-8368/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.C. Koecher et al. / Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541
to their extremely large piezoresistive effect. Johnson et al. discov-
ered that directly embedding a nickel nanostrand patch into unidi-
rectional carbon fiber laminates yielded a significant piezoresistive
response [18,19]. However, when the same method was applied to
multidirectional laminates the signal quickly short-circuited and
no piezoresistive effect was found. To measure piezoresistivity in
multidirectional CFRP layups, a nickel nanostrand nanocomposite
was insulated in fiberglass to resolve the short-circuiting issue,
and embedded between the layers of carbon fiber. This method
not only proved successful for measuring strain but also for detect-
ing damage to the structure. However, due to the large stress con-
centrations induced by the embedded insulated patch, the strength
of the composites was severely compromised.
The current paper will evaluate methods to measure strain in
multidirectional carbon fiber laminates without significantly alter-
ing the strength of the carbon fiber structure. Piezoresistive sens-
ing material will compose of either the carbon fiber structure
itself, or local regions of nano-composite with nickel nanostrands
added to the matrix. The signal path to the monitoring system will
be generated using only the carbon fiber or using embedded nickel
coated carbon fibers (NCCF). These coated fibers are at least three
times more conductive than bare carbon fiber [20] thus reducing
the amount of noise in the piezoresistive signal. The optimized
configuration of probes for detecting the composite strain will be
evaluated, and the resultant methodology will be tested in an
engineering situation: a cylindrical carbon fiber pressure vessel.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Nickel nanostrands (NiNs) display a high strand aspect ratio and
a bifurcated structure that allows conductivity of a nanocomposite
to be obtained at small volume fractions of nanostrands [21].
When combined with a polymer matrix they form a piezo-resistive
material that has been used as the basis for strain sensors [22].
The piezoresistivity of such nanocomposites has been most suc-
cessfully modeled using percolation theory and a quantum tunnel-
ing mechanism [23,24]. With a sufficiently large volume fraction of
conductive filler material nanojunctions will form between filler
particles in which electrons can tunnel through the insulating bar-
rier. Once this occurs an electrical network is created through the
nanocomposite and it becomes conductive. The resistivity of a
nanojunction can be calculated using Eq. (1):
2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
h 4p 2mk
q ¼ 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp s ð1Þ
e 2mk h
where h is the Planck constant (J s), e is the electron charge (C), m is
the electron mass (kg), k is the tunneling barrier height (J), and s is
Fig. 1. SEM images (from left to right) of nickel nanostrands and nickel coated carbon fiber (NCCF used courtesy of Nathan Hansen, Conductive Composites Company).
535
the distance between particles (m) [17]. Thus the resistivity of a
nanojunction is a function of the inter-particle distance, s. As a
nanocomposite is strained s will change and a piezoresistive signal
is obtained.
Another novel material, nickel coated carbon fiber (NCCF), is
tested as the basis for the sensor circuitry in this paper. Carbon
fiber receives a uniform coating of nickel through a chemical vapor
deposition process. These coated fibers are much more conductive
than bare carbon fiber and are often used to aid in electrical shield-
ing in carbon fiber structures [25]. Both the nickel nanostrands and
the nickel coated carbon fiber were produced and provided by Con-
ductive Composites Company (Heber, Utah). The structure of these
materials can be seen in the SEM images depicted in Fig. 1. Along
with these novel materials, a traditional unidirectional carbon fiber
prepreg is used as the structural material that is to be monitored:
ZR6-P35, provided by Zoltek.
Components with various pre-preg layups were created to
determine the capability and limitations of the embedded conduc-
tive materials for in situ strain sensing. For initial sensor evalua-
tion, laminates were formed in configurations suitable for tensile
testing. Each carbon fiber laminate was composed of layers of pre-
preg cut to 250 mm  25 mm. Woven fiber glass tabs were
adhered to the ends of the carbon fiber samples to insulate the
sample from the metal grips of the tensile tester and ensure that
these did not interfere with the signal.
Each sample consisted of a sensor patch location and a sensor
patch material. The patch location refers to the area that strain is
to be measured and the patch material was either prepreg embed-
ded with NiNs or simply the carbon fiber prepreg itself. To limit
variation and guarantee uniformity in the samples with embedded
nanostrands, 0.02 g of nickel nanostrands were filtered through a
60 mesh screen (250 lm) before being placed in a patch area of
19 mm by 12 mm. For carbon fiber and NiN patches the [0] direc-
tion (prepreg oriented parallel to the applied strain) and [90] direc-
tion (prepreg oriented transverse to the applied strain) were
evaluated as the sample was strained in the direction of its length.
As mentioned previously, the use of NCCF was assessed as a
means of forming the sensor circuit. The alternative to NCCF was
to allow the signal to carry along the carbon fibers in the prepreg
itself. It was hypothesized that the NCCF would better control
the signal flow and limit scatter and short-circuiting across the
cross plies of prepreg. Thus nickel coated carbon fiber was embed-
ded onto the surface of various samples and compared to control
samples with no embedded materials. Fig. 2 is an example of a
sample with embedded nanostrands and nickel coated carbon
fiber. As can be seen in Fig. 2 a small gap was placed between NCCF
bundles at the patch location. The gap in the NCCF was required to
ensure the signal traveled through the carbon fiber or NiN patch at
the patch location. Table 1 shows the various sample configura-
tions tested. Also included in Table 1 are signal-to-noise ratio
536 M.C. Koecher et al. / Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541

significant as compared to the resistance of the component [26].

In this method a known current is passed through the outer probes
and a voltage is read between the inner probes. Since no current is
passing through the inner probes there is no contact resistance. A
National Instruments NI 9219 multifunctional module was set up
for four probe resistance readings for these tests. A constant cur-
rent of 500 lA was applied to the outer probes while a voltage
was read across the inner probes. Using Ohms law an output of
resistance was obtained.
Three different configurations of probing to measure the piezo-
resistive change at the patch location were evaluated in this
Fig. 2. [90,0,0,90] Laminate with embedded NiNs and NCCF (gray lines). A small research. In the first method, referred to as the ‘‘collinear’’ probing
piece of carbon fiber is placed over the NiN patch to prevent inadvertent dispersion
method, four collinear probes were placed on the carbon fiber sam-
of the NiNs during curing.
ple to eliminate contact resistance. For the second method the
probes were placed in a ‘‘box’’ configuration. The box configuration
Table 1 is similar to the collinear method except there are two pseudo-
Tensile sample configurations that were tested and their accompanying signal-to- wires instead of four and each wire has two probes on it. In
noise ratio (SNR) results. the final method, referred to as ‘‘longitudinal’’ probe method, the
Sample Material Patch SNR Standard probes were place on each side of the patch. In each method the
deviation pseudo-wires consist of either the conductive carbon fiber prepreg
A [0,90]s Carbon fiber Carbon fiber [0] 0.86 0.28 or the embedded NCCF. Fig. 3 depicts the difference between the
B [0,90]s Carbon fiber NiN 2.16 0.21 three probing methods.
C [90,0]s Carbon fiber Carbon fiber [90] 17.90 1.44 Samples were cyclically loaded in tension in an Instron tensile
D [90,0]s Carbon fiber NiN 4.32 0.05
E Woven fiberglass Carbon fiber [90] 14.50 0.90
tester to a prescribed strain of 0.30% at a rate of 0.1 Hz in order
F Woven fiberglass [90] and NiN 80.54 1.93 to determine the feasibility of each configuration as in situ strain
sensing for multidirectional carbon fiber laminates. Three point
bending tests were also performed on select samples using sup-
(SNR) results which will be discussed in the results section. Fiber- ports 12.5 cm apart with a 10 mm vertical displacement of the
glass samples were also prepared and tested in order to test a wedge to determine the piezoresistive changes due to tension
piezoresistive patch (of either carbon fiber/NiNs or carbon fiber and compression. During loading the resistance measurements
alone) in non-conductive structures. Patches consisting of nanost- were sampled at a rate of 100 Hz and a moving average of 10
rands and carbon fiber were embedded in the fiberglass structure was used to improve signal smoothness.
to compare the piezoresistivity of the carbon fiber and the NiN
patch. Four samples were made for each configuration and typi-
cally five measurements were taken on each sample (as described 3. Results and discussion
in Section 2.2) to produce the statistics reported later.
3.1. Tensile tests
2.2. Method
3.1.1. Nickel coated carbon fiber
The four probe resistance measurement method was used to To determine the feasibility of using NCCF as pseudo-wires to
measure the piezoresistive signal at a point remote from the the piezoresistive patch it was first necessary to determine if
desired strain measurement; this is a common method to piezoresistive properties exist in NCCF. If the NCCF display a piezo-
eliminate contact resistance readings when contact resistance is resistive response, this will confuse the signal expected from the

Fig. 3. (a) Transverse collinear probe method, (b) box probe method, and (c) longitudinal probe method. In each method the gray lines represent the circuit path using either
the carbon fiber strands from the structure or embedded NCCF. EX+ and EX are the input and output current probes while HI and LO are the voltage reading probes.
 M.C. Koecher et al. / Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541 537

Fig. 4. Comparison of the piezoresistivity of carbon fiber to the more conductive

NCCF.

sensor. Tensile tests were performed on carbon fiber and NCCF and
compared in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the NCCF is much more con-
ductive than carbon fiber and does not exhibit piezoresistive prop-
erties. This suggested that using NCCF as pseudo-wires to the patch
does not contribute to the piezoresistive signal, and one can be
confident that the strain being measured is precisely located at
the patch location.

3.1.2. Circuit and probing methods

A wide variety of tests were performed on samples with various
probing configurations (see Fig. 3) with results reported in Table 2.
The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated and used as a metric
in the laboratory to quantitatively compare the piezoresistive sig-
nal between samples. A larger SNR correlated to a higher quality
piezoresistive signal. In general, it was observed that a SNR value
lower than about 0.30 suggested that there is no distinguishable
signal that can be correlated to strain; an ideal SNR for non-labora-
tory situations has not been determined. Comparing Tests 3, 4, and
9 to Tests 5, 6, and 8, respectively, it can be seen that using embed-
ded NCCF as pseudo-wires allow for a stronger piezoresistive signal
Fig. 5. Comparison of piezoresistive signals obtained from (a) sample A and (b)
at greater distances than just using carbon fiber prepreg. It can also sample C from Table 1.
be seen in Table 2 that the longitudinal probing method allowed
for remote probing of the piezoresistive sensor at greater distances.
It is of note that the longitudinal probing method also yielded more
consistent repeatable results. Thus, each subsequent sample was oriented in the [0] direction. In Fig. 5b the carbon fibers on the sur-
tested using the longitudinal probing method. face are oriented in the [90] direction while the NCCF are oriented
in the [0] direction. Thus it can be seen that when the carbon fiber
3.1.3. Sensor tests is oriented parallel to the NCCF the piezoresistive signal does not
Each sample in Table 1 was subsequently probed using the lon- have a strong correlation to the strain, but when carbon fibers
gitudinal method. Fig. 5 shows the results obtained from tensile and NCCF are oriented transverse to one another the piezoresistiv-
tests performed on samples A and C. Each of these samples con- ity relates well to strain. It is further confirmed in Fig. 6 that when
sisted of a carbon fiber patch with different carbon fiber orienta- the carbon fiber and NCCF are oriented parallel to one another no
tions. In Fig. 5a the carbon fiber on the surface and NCCF are correlation between the piezoresistive signal and strain is found.

Table 2
SNR calculations for various samples with different probing methods.

Test number Orientation NiN patch NCCF Probe method Distance (cm) SNR Standard deviation
1 [0,90,0,90] No No Parallel collinear NA 0.0518 0.043
2 Transverse collinear NA 0.8767 0.099
3 Yes No Box 2.5 3.0018 1.202
4 4 0.1454 0.022
5 Yes 2.5 6.2408 2.448
6 7.5 0.4556 0.049
7 [90,0,0,90] Yes Yes Longitudinal 4 0.5099 0.196
8 14 0.4818 0.068
9 No 14 0.2534 0.032
538 M.C. Koecher et al. / Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541
Fig. 6. Comparison of piezoresistive signals obtained from (a) sample B and (b)
sample D.
From Fig. 5 it has been shown that the piezoresistivity of the
neat carbon fiber prepreg can be exploited to determine the per-
cent strain in a multidirectional laminate carbon fiber structure.
Also, NCCF can be used as pseudo-wires to a patch location thus
allowing strain measurement at a specific location while remotely
probing from the patch location.
Sample B and sample D are similar to sample A and sample C
except a NiN patch is included rather than using the neat carbon
fiber as a patch. These samples were tested to determine how a
NiN patch affects the piezoresistive signal (which has resulted in
good results for other authors for long-range strain gauges) [27].
The results from Fig. 6 yield similar results to those in Fig. 5. This
suggests that using a NiN patch does nothing to improve upon
the piezoresistive signal. Thus the relative orientation of carbon
fiber in the laminate and the use of NCCF has more of an effect than
using a NiN patch.
To further investigate the effect of the NiNs on the piezoresis-
tive signal samples E and F were tested and the results can be seen
in Fig. 7. Each sample has a piezoresistive signal that strongly cor-
relates to the strain which again shows that a NiN patch does little
to affect the piezoresistive signal. Table 1 shows a calculation for
the signal-to-noise (SNR) of each sample. It is of interest to note
that the signals obtained in Fig. 7 have less noise than those in
Figs. 5 and 6. This can be attributed to the fact that even though
the NCCF is much more conductive than carbon fiber, the signal
will slightly scatter across the carbon fiber thus adding noise to
Fig. 7. Comparison of fiberglass samples (a) E and (b) F.
the overall signal in the carbon-fiber laminate samples. In samples
E and F the fiberglass is completely insulating and there is minimal
scatter in the signal and the amount of noise is dramatically
decreased.
3.2. Bending tests
A [90,0,0,90]s carbon fiber laminate with NCCF embedded on
the top and bottom surfaces was placed in bending to evaluate
the variation of piezoresistivity due to compressive and tensile
strain across a single component. From Fig. 8a, increasing the dis-
placement of the wedge caused a compressive strain on the top
surface and a decrease in resistance was obtained. The opposite
is true on the bottom surface; the tensile strain increased with dis-
placement and an increase in resistance was obtained. This test
demonstrates the ability to measure varying strain at different
points in a sample using the NCCF circuits to pin-point the mea-
surement site.
The three point bending test was also conducted on fiberglass
Sample E from Table 1. Similar results were obtained and can be
seen in Fig. 9. The fiberglass sample once again yielded a higher
signal-to-noise ratio of 24.76 as compared to the 6.79 signal-to-
noise ratio of the carbon fiber, which further suggests that there
is some signal loss due to the conductive nature of the carbon fiber.
3.3. Failure tests
The results so far demonstrate that it is feasible to use NCCF to
sense strain at a remote distance from a probing location in a sam-
ple in either tension or compression. For this to be a useful method
 M.C. Koecher et al. / Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541
Fig. 8. Three point bending tests on a [90,0,0,90]s carbon fiber laminate with NCCF
embedded on the (a) top surface and (b) bottom surface.
Fig. 9. Three point bending test results from Sample E.
to measure strain in a carbon fiber structure it is important to
know how embedding this NCCF material affects the strength of
the carbon fiber structure. Samples were embedded with NCCF
and NiNs in various positions, and loaded to failure according the
539
Table 3
Failure tests results.
Embedded NiNs/NCCF No NiNs/NCCF Total
Failure stress (MPa) 9578 9445 9511
Standard deviation 364 1179 875
Strain to failure (%) 1.75 2.01 1.88
Standard deviation 0.42 0.59 0.53
ASTM D3039 standard. These results were compared with samples
of the same layer orientation without embedded NiNs or NCCF.
Table 3 shows stress to failure for various samples with and with-
out embedded NiNs and NCCF.
Embedding NiNs and NCCF in the middle or top layer of a car-
bon fiber laminate showed no significant effect on the failure
stress. Thus it appears that the embedded NCCF and NiNs do not
create significant stress concentrations in the bulk structure, and
these materials can be used without compromising the integrity
of the carbon fiber structure.
3.4. Application
As a proof of concept a cylindrical pressure vessel was fabri-
cated to show the feasibility and advantages of using nickel coated
carbon fiber as pseudo-wires to allow remote sensing of piezoresis-
tive carbon fiber patches. Three layers of roll-wrapped carbon fiber
prepreg were laid around a cylindrical 15 cm diameter mandrel.
The two interior layers were wrapped with the fibers aligned in
the longitudinal (axis) direction while the outer layer was aligned
in the hoop direction. Bundles of nickel coated carbon fiber were
placed in the longitudinal direction on the outer surface and in
the hoop direction on the interior of the pressure (see Fig. 10). A
second set of longitudinal NCCF bundles were embedded on the
opposite side for redundancy in the sensor setup. This arrangement
ensured that at each sensor patch location the carbon fibers and
NCCF were oriented transverse one relative to another to enable
the best possible piezoresistive signal to be obtained as found in
Figs. 5 and 6. Once cured, caps were adhered to both ends to seal
the pressure vessel.
The pressure vessel was pressurized using distilled water to pre-
vent electrical short circuiting and alleviate safety concerns with
pressurized air. The vessel was pressurized using an Ametek M&G
T-65 twin seal pressure pump while resistance measurements were
simultaneously being recorded. Results for longitudinal strain on
the outside surface can be seen in Fig. 11. As the pressure increased
the longitudinal strain increased and an increase in the resistance
was obtained. The pressure vessel was rapidly depressurized and
accordingly the resistance dropped. Thus, as expected, with a ten-
sile strain in the longitudinal direction the piezoresistive signal is
positive.
Fig. 10. Pressure vessel design (gray lines represent NCCF bundles). The gap
between each NCCF bundle is transverse to the carbon fiber thus allowing for
piezoresistive readings.
540 M.C. Koecher et al. / Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541
Fig. 11. Longitudinal strain measurement in pressure vessel. The vessel was
pressurized to 552 kPa and then rapidly depressurized starting at approximately
12 s.
Fig. 12. Strain reading on inside surface of pressure vessel. Pressure reached a max
of 827 kPa at approximately 17 s.
The results measuring the hoop strain on the interior surface
can be seen in Fig. 12. It was assumed that as the pressure
increased there would be a tensile strain in the hoop direction
and thus a positive piezoresistive signal would be obtained, yet
the results show a negative piezoresistive signal with increasing
stress. These results are being attributed to the compression of
the longitudinal carbon fibers in the radial direction. As the pres-
sure increased the carbon fibers were compressed into intimate
contact with one another creating a lower resistance (see
Fig. 13). Unfortunately, the data recording was interrupted before
complete depressurization and subsequently the vessel was dam-
aged so a return of the resistance reading to its unpressurized state
was not seen. Yet, the results still indicate a negative piezoresistive
signal in the hoop direction.
From the resistance measurements obtained it is evident that
using NCCF as pseudo-wires to a patch location can facilitate
remote strain measurements in a carbon fiber structure. Measuring
Fig. 13. Pressure causes the fibers to compress into one another thus lowering the
resistance in the hoop direction.
Fig. 14. Extreme piezoresistive changes when failure occurs (gray region) suggest
that failure can be detected in a carbon fiber structure.
longitudinal strain creates a positive piezoresistive signal while
measuring hoop strain yields negative piezoresistivity.
Further loading the pressure vessel above 827 kPa caused the
vessel to start failing. Resistance measurements were taken on
both longitudinal bundles and the hoop bundle as the pressure
vessel began to fail. In Fig. 14 it can be seen as the fibers began
to delaminate and break large resistance changes were detected.
It is evident that this method of strain measurement could be used
to detect failures within a carbon fiber component. The different
amplitudes of resistance changes between the three locations
could suggest the location of where failure began.
4. Conclusions
Embedded nickel nanostrands and nickel coated carbon fiber
were evaluated as tools for in-situ strain sensing in a multidirec-
tional carbon fiber laminate. Tests were conducted via altering of
the strain sensor patch and the connecting circuitry. Previous
research has used the piezoresistivity of directly embedded nickel
nanostrand nanocomposites to measure strain in unidirectional
layup. Testing a variety of strain sensor configurations has shown
that directly embedding nickel nanostrands into a multidirectional
laminate is ineffective for strain measurement and does little to
improve upon the piezoresistivity of the carbon fiber.
Carbon fiber’s piezoresistivity is a good measure of strain, and
thus a valid strain sensor, but if the carbon fiber is also used as
the current carrier to a probe location, the probing location must
be extremely close to the area where strain is to be measured to
allow a discernible electrical signal to be obtained. The more con-
ductive nickel coated carbon fiber does not have the same piezore-
sistive properties as carbon fiber and hence is a better choice for
supplying a circuit from the sensor area to the probe location.
Using NCCF as the connecting circuitry provides pseudo-wires to
remotely measure the strain at a desired location without piezore-
sistivity in the circuit affecting the signal. It has been shown that
the best results are obtained when the NCCF circuit is oriented
perpendicular to the carbon fibers that are in the sensor region.
Furthermore the optimal probe geometry involves the four-probe
longitudinal method. Future work will be performed to determine
if embedding the NCCF circuit between layers of a laminate can
accurately determine strain from arbitrary positions within a
sample.
Samples embedded with nickel coated carbon fiber and nickel
nanostrands were loaded to failure in tension to determine the
adverse effects these materials have on the strength of the carbon
fiber. It has been shown that the embedded materials do not
 M.C. Koecher et al. / Composites: Part B 69 (2015) 534–541
significantly alter the strength of the structure. Thus, using embed-
ded NCCF is a safe, easy way to remotely measure strain within a
carbon fiber structure without compromising structural integrity.
In addition to tensile and bending tests of laminates, a pressure
vessel was built as a proof of concept application of remote strain
sensing using embedded nickel coated carbon fiber for the con-
necting circuit. When pressurized, longitudinal and hoop strain
were detected. Longitudinal strain yielded positive piezoresistive
results while hoop strain yielded negative piezoresistive results.
It was also found that when the pressure vessel began to fail, the
failure was detectable through an extreme change in the resistance
reading. The tests illustrate the potential for applying such an
approach in a wide range of engineering applications for health
monitoring, strain sensing and control of composite components.
The distance between the location of measured strain and the
probe location is modest in the tests (up to 14 cm); the ability to
place the probes at much greater distances from the location of
interest is desirable, and may be increased with further optimiza-
tion of the method. However, for many applications a surface probe
at similar distances from the strained location may be acceptable.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported, in part, by a National Science Founda-
tion Grant, Contract Number: CMMI-1235365.
References
[1] Gibson RF. Principles of composite materials mechanics. 2 ed. Boca Raton: CRC
Press; 2007.
[2] Strong AB. Fundamentals of composites manufacturing: materials, methods,
and applications. 2 ed. Dearborn: Society of Manufacturing Engineers; 2008.
[3] Roberts T. The Carbon Fibre Industry Worldwide 2008–2014. MTP; 2009.
[4] Kim H-S, Yoo S-H, Chang S-H. In situ monitoring of the strain evolution and
curing reaction of composite laminates to reduce the thermal residual stress
using FBG sensor and dielectrometry. Compos B Eng 2013;44(1):446–52.
[5] Ling H-Y, Lau K-T, Su Z, Wong ET-T. Monitoring mode II fracture behaviour of
composite laminates using embedded fiber-optic sensors. Compos B Eng
2007;38(4):488–97.
[6] Fu T, Liu Y, Lau K-T, Leng J. Impact source identification in a carbon fiber
reinforced polymer plate by using embedded fiber optic acoustic emission
sensors. Compos B Eng 2014;66:420–9.
[7] Habib F, Martinez M, Artemev A, Brothers M. Structural health monitoring of
bonded composite repairs – a critical comparison between ultrasonic Lamb
wave approach and surface mounted crack sensor approach. Compos B Eng
2013;47:26–34.
541
[8] Caminero MA, Lopez-Pedrosa M, Pinna C, Soutis C. Damage monitoring and
analysis of composite laminates with an open hole and adhesively bonded
repairs using digital image correlation. Compos B Eng 2013;53:76–91.
[9] Tuttle M, Brinson H. Resistance-foil strain-gage technology as applied to
composite materials. Exp Mech 1984;24(1):54–65.
[10] Wang X, Fu X, Chung DDL. Strain sensing using carbon fiber. J Mater Res
1999;14(3):12.
[11] Xiaojun W, Chung DDL. Continuous carbon fibre epoxy-matrix composite as a
sensor of its own strain. Smart Mater Struct 1996;5(6):796.
[12] Wang X, Chung DDL. Self-monitoring of fatigue damage and dynamic strain in
carbon fiber polymer-matrix composite. Compos B Eng 1998;29(1):63–73.
[13] Angelidis N, Wei CY, Irving PE. The electrical resistance response of continuous
carbon fibre composite laminates to mechanical strain. Compos A Appl Sci
Manuf 2004;35(10):1135–47.
[14] Park J-M, Kim P-G, Jang J-H, Wang Z, Kim J-W, Lee W-I, et al. Self-sensing and
dispersive evaluation of single carbon fiber/carbon nanotube (CNT)–epoxy
composites using electro-micromechanical technique and nondestructive
acoustic emission. Compos B Eng 2008;39(7–8):1170–82.
[15] Pham GT, Park Y-B, Liang Z, Zhang C, Wang B. Processing and modeling of
conductive thermoplastic/carbon nanotube films for strain sensing. Compos B
Eng 2008;39(1):209–16.
[16] Stübler N, Fritzsche J, Klüppel M. Mechanical and electrical analysis of carbon
black networking in elastomers under strain. Polym Eng Sci
2011;51(6):1206–17.
[17] Johnson O, Gardner C, Seegmiller D, Mara N, Dattelbaum A, Rae P, et al.
Multiscale model for the extreme piezoresistivity in silicone/nickel nanostrand
nanocomposites. Metall Mater Trans A 2011;42(13):3898–906.
[18] Johnson OK, Gardner CJ, Fullwood DT, Adams BL, Hansen G, Hansen N. The
colossal piezoresistive effect in nickel nanostrand polymer composites and a
quantum tunneling model. Comput, Mater Continua 2010;15(2):24.
[19] Johnson TM, Fullwood DT, Hansen G. Strain monitoring of carbon fiber
composite via embedded nickel nano-particles. Compos B Eng 2013;43:
1155–63.
[20] Hansen G. The roles of nanostrands and nickel coated fibers in electrically
conductive composites design. In: Proceedings of 37th ISTC. Seattle, WA,
Conference October 31–November 3, Conference; 2005.
[21] Hansen N, Adams DO, DeVries KL, Goff A, Hansen G. Investigation of
electrically conductive structural adhesives using nickel nanostrands. J
Adhes Sci Technol 2011;25(19):2659–70.
[22] Hyatt T, Fullwood D, Bradshaw R, Bowden A, Johnson O. In: Proulx T, editor.
Nano-composite sensors for wide range measurement of ligament strain
experimental and applied mechanics, vol. 6. New York: Springer; 2011. p.
359–64.
[23] Zhou JF, Song YH, Zheng Q, Wu Q, Zhang MQ. Percolation transition and
hydrostatic piezoresistance for carbon black filled poly(methylvinylsilioxane)
vulcanizates. Carbon 2008;46(4):679–91.
[24] Meilikhov EZ. Giant piezoresistivity of nanocomposites with the tunnel
conductivity. Sens Actuators, A 2009;153(2):187–90.
[25] Composites C. Nickel Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) Coated Fibers; 2011.
[26] Yoshimoto S, Murata Y, Kubo K, Tomita K, Motoyoshi K, Kimura T, et al. Four-
point probe resistance measurements using PtIr-coated carbon nanotube tips.
Nano Lett 2007;7(4):956–9.
[27] Johnson TM, Fullwood DT, Hansen G. Strain monitoring of carbon fiber
composite via embedded nickel nano-particles. Compos: Part B
2012;43:1155–63.