Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 275–281

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

A preliminary study of the application of the strain-self-sensing smart

geogrid rib in expansive soils
Gang Bi, Shaohua Yang, You Wu, Yijie Sun, Hongzhong Xu *, Bingkun Zhu, Chunxia Huang,
Suqian Cao
College of Transportation Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211816, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Flexible conductive materials are widely used in structural health monitoring; it is also known in geotechnical
Smart geogrid rib engineering. In this preliminary study, a strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib was proposed to monitor the
Strain-self-sensing induced strain by wetting-drying cycles of the expansive soil. After the calibration, a physical modeling test was
Flexible conductive film
conducted with the smart geogrid rib reinforced in expansive soils under three wetting-drying cycles. Results
Expansive soil
Wetting-drying
demonstrated: that the smart geogrid rib was capable of self-sensing its strain; the strain self-sensed by the smart
geogrid rib was in good agreement with that measured by FBG strain sensors before cracks were generated; it
could capture the crack propagation of expansive soils during wetting-drying cycles by the discrepancy compared
to FBG sensors. Further study will be continued for the mechanism of the geogrid instead of the geogrid rib and
the application to real-time monitoring of the performance of the geosynthetic expansive soil slopes.

1. Introduction
As geosynthetics become widespread globally, it becomes increas­
ingly vital to ensure that geosynthetics offer a satisfactory level of
serviceability through health monitoring and timely measures to pre­
vent catastrophic failures and costly repairs due to inadequate perfor­
mance arising from uncertainties in construction practice, material
properties, environmental effects, site conditions, and loading condi­
tions (Hatami et al., 2009). A series of monitoring methods were pro­
posed for this purpose, such as X-rays, digital imagery, and tomographic
techniques (Vangla and Gali, 2014); however, these methods were not
efficiently applied in the field on a large scale due to the limitation of the
monitoring scope or accuracy (Cui et al., 2019a).
Over the years, due to advantages over traditional transducers (e.g.,
strain gauges, inclinometers), including high precision and online
monitoring, fiber optic sensing technology has been developed for
monitoring internal deformation in geo-structures (Zhang et al., 2020).
In recent years, a new geosynthetic material called sensor-enabled
geogrid was developed by integrating the fiber Bragg grating (FBG)
sensors into the geogrid for real-time monitoring (Cui et al., 2019b;
Kongkitkul et al., 2008; Sun et al., 2014, 2016, 2017, 2020; Wang et al.,
2019; Zhang et al., 2016). However, the FBG sensor was limited due to
the significant strain in expansive soil slopes or slopes at the initial
accelerating stage of the failure (Chaduvula et al., 2022; Hong et al.,
2021; Wang et al., 2021).
A new approach was taken in this study to adopt the flexible
conductive material (Hatami and Grady, 2011, 2016; Smith et al.,
2015). Carbon materials (Yazdani et al., 2014, 2019) have superior
qualities such as good electrical conductivity, structural flexibility, high
chemical and thermal stability, lightweight, and potential mass pro­
duction, enabling them to be promising candidate materials. Excluding
in the field of geotechnical engineering (Hatami et al., 2014; Yazdani
and Hatami, 2016; Yazdani et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d), in the
past decade, flexible conductive materials were attracting wide atten­
tion due to their potential applications in monitoring, for example,
flexible wearable electronics for human health care systems (Wang
et al., 2019), structural health monitoring (Azhari and Banthia, 2012;
Ding et al., 2013, 2019; Dong et al., 2020; Han et al., 2015; Yoo et al.,
2018).
In contrast, flexible conductive materials were mixed into the con­
crete to continuously monitor the crack, which may not work efficiently
due to the uneven mixture. In this study, the geogrid rib was coated with
the flexible conductive material, which made it capable of sensing its
strain and then evaluating the state of geosynthetic reinforced slopes.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gbi@njtech.edu.cn (G. Bi), 2011607881@qq.com (S. Yang), 1067018083@qq.com (Y. Wu), sunnju@njtech.edu.cn (Y. Sun), hzhxu@njtech.edu.
cn (H. Xu), 2572940667@qq.com (B. Zhu), chunxiahuang@njtech.edu.cn (C. Huang), 18114707326@163.com (S. Cao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.10.005
Received 3 April 2022; Received in revised form 29 September 2022; Accepted 10 October 2022
Available online 21 October 2022
0266-1144/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Bi et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 275–281

This article was organized in the following order: firstly, the prin­ ( )2
ciple of the strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib was introduced; then, Ṙ = παεW
|e|
− 1
/
2 ∗ [1 + ε(1 − 2υ)] + ε(1 − 2υ) (6)
the mechanical behavior of the smart geogrid rib coated with the flexible e0
conductive film was calibrated in the laboratory; furtherly, a physical
model was built to apply the strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib in the when the strain is small, the high order of ε2 is ignored,
expansive soil, three wetting-drying cycles were conducted, and the ( )2
|e| /
normalized change in resistance and the strain for the reinforced Ṙ = παεW − 1 2 + ε(1 − 2υ) (7)
expansive soil and the strain of the Unreinforced expansive soil were e0
measured and compared; in the last section results and findings based on
Eq. (7) can be simplified to
this study were concluded. It should be noted only one geogrid rib was
adopted in this study; thus, it is a preliminary study. Further investiga­ Ṙ = ε/K (8)
tion will continue for the geogrid and the final application of monitoring
the performance of the geosynthetic expansive soil slopes. Or

K Ṙ = ε (9)
2. Principle
where,
The flexible conductive film (FCF) is fabricated with the carbon black K is named the calibration factor of the smart geogrid rib that rep­
particle (diameter 15 μm) embedded into the polymer resin. Initially, it resents the conversion from the normalized change in resistance of the
is conductive, and its resistance increases if stressed (Fathi et al., 2012). FCF to the strain of the geogrid rib.
If the geogrid rib is coated with the FCF, it becomes capable of
self-sensing its strain. 3. Calibration
In general, the resistance of the smart geogrid rib coated with the FCF
is expressed in the following equation: The smart geogrid rib coated with the FCF was calibrated before the
ρL application in expansive soils. A model with the dimension 100 cm (L)
R= (1) *20 cm (W)*8 cm (H) was built for the calibration (Fig. 1). The
A
dimension of the geogrid rib was 60 cm (L)*1.8 cm (W)*0.3 cm (H). The
where R is the resistance, ρ is the resistivity, L is the length coated with calibration was conducted in an incubator with a temperature of 35 ±
the FCF, and A is the cross-section area of the geogrid rib. 1 ◦ C. Two wetting-drying cycles were performed. Drying was first per­
Given, formed in each cycle.
The flexible conductive material was mixed with the coagulant at the
L
=1 + ε (2) ratio of 10:1, and then it was brushed on the top surface of the geogrid
L0
rib. Because the average change of the resistance of the coated length
And, was measured, the coated FCF was divided into several segments to
increase the precision, which was done at some locations by fixing it to
A 1
= (3) the geogrid rib with the sliver conductive adhesive. In this case, the
A0 (1 − υε)2
average change of the resistance of the segment instead of the whole
coated length was measured. Fiber Bragg grating (FBG) strain sensors
where,
were attached to the bottom surface of the geogrid rib. The expansive
ε is the strain of the geogrid rib corresponding to the pullout direc­
soil adopted for this study was located in Nanjing, China. The expansive
tion, υ is the Poisson’s Ratio, L0 is the initial length, and A0 is the initial
soil obtained from the field was crushed and dried, and the part passing
cross-section.
the sieve #5 (less than 4 mm) was adopted for the study. Physical
Then, by ignoring the high order of ε2 and ε3, the normalized change
properties or parameters were shown in Tables 1–3.
in resistance Ṙ will be,
Results of the calibration were plotted in Fig. 2. It showed the linear

R − R0 ρ ρ ρ − ρ0
Ṙ = = (1 + ε)(1 − υε)2 − 1 ≈ [1 + ε(1 − 2υ)] − 1 = [1 + ε(1 − 2υ)] + ε(1 − 2υ) (4)
R0 ρ0 ρ0 ρ0

trending, which demonstrated that the FCF could measure the strain of
where R0 is the initial resistance and ρ0 is the initial resistivity. the geogrid rib. A slight discrepancy at the 2nd wetting was due to the
According to the quantum-mechanical tunnel effect theory, mechanism of the FBG sensor and the smart geogrid rib. It should be
( )2 noted the FBG sensor measured the change of strain only at one point
ρ − ρ0 /
≈ παεW
|e|
− 1 2 (5) instead of the average change of the resistance. The calibration was
ρ0 e0 repeated under two different temperatures to investigate the impact, as
plotted in Fig. 3. It seemed the influence due to the limited temperature
where,
variation was minimal.
According to the calibration in Fig. 2, the calibration factor of the
e is the voltage, α and e0 are the material parameters of the geogrid
smart geogrid rib K in Eq. (9) was 15 for the swelling behavior and 11 for
rib, and W is the width between graphite particles in the FCF.
the shrinking behavior. The value of K during the 1st wetting-drying
cycle was suggested; after cracks were generated during wetting-
Substitute Eq. (5) to Eq. (4); it will yield,
drying cycles, it would change because the proposed method
measured the average strain, possibly including one or more cracks.

276
G. Bi et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 275–281

Fig. 1. Model for the calibration of the smart geogrid (unit: cm).

Table 1
Physical properties of the expansive soil.
Montmorillonite Illite % Kaolinite % Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
% % %

87.4 4.3 8.5 22.9 55.5

Specific Gravity Optimum Maximum Dry Free Natural

Moisture Density g/cm3 Expansion Moisture
Content % Rate % Content %

2.7 17.5 1.45 80 13.3

Table 2
Parameters of FBG strain sensors.
Wave Range Precision Dynamic Range Frequency Channels

1510–1590 nm 1pm 50 dB 1 Hz 8 Fig. 3. The impact of temperature on the smart geogrid coated with the FCF.

4. Smart geogrid rib reinforced in expansive soils

Table 3
Physical properties of the geogrid (before coating). The physical modeling test was performed to verify the strain-self-
Density kg/m3 Tensile Strength MPa Elongation at break % sensing smart geogrid rib mechanism. The dimension was 60 cm (L)
*8 cm (W)*8 cm (H), and it was divided into two equal zones (Fig. 4).
0.95 125 2.5
The left zone was the strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib reinforced in
expansive soils, while the right zone was the unreinforced expansive
soil. The dimension of the smart geogrid rib with 30 cm (L)*1.8 cm (W)
*0.3 cm (H). FBG sensors were located every 5 cm from the left edge of
the model (e.g. 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55). The six locations for
the sliver conductive adhesive on the smart geogrid rib were 2.5, 7.5,
12.5, 17.5, 22.5, and 27.5; thus, the measured segment of the average
resistance change corresponds to the location of FBG sensors. Three
wetting-drying cycles were performed. Drying was first performed in
each cycle. The wetting cycle sustained 2 h, and the drying cycle sus­
tained 18 h. The expansive soil was the same as that for the calibration.
The soil was remolded and passed the No. 5 sieve (4 mm).
Results were plotted in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. In both figures, the result
under the 1st drying/wetting cycle, the 2nd drying/wetting cycle, and
the 3rd drying/wetting cycle corresponded to the upper row, the middle
row, and the bottom row, respectively; the normalized change in resis­
tance, the strain of the geogrid rib reinforced expansive soil, and the
strain of unreinforced expansive soil corresponded to the left column,
Fig. 2. Strain versus the rate of change of the resistance. the middle column, and the right column, respectively. To be consistent,

277
G. Bi et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 275–281

Fig. 4. Physical modeling test for smart geogrid reinforced in expansive soils (unit: cm).

Fig. 5. Strain of the reinforced expansive soil versus that of the unreinforced expansive soil during three times drying.

the middle and right columns adopted the same y-scale. In addition, the
strain for the geogrid rib reinforced expansive soil under the latter two
cycles was magnified to identify.
To note, the drying was conducted first in each cycle. During the 1st
drying, the expansive soil started to shrink; however, due to the het­
erogeneity, the soil’s shrinking rate at some locations was faster, and it
would induce the tension strain (positive) in the adjacent soil. For
example, there was a tension strain (crack) at the segment from 17.5 cm
to 22.5 cm in the reinforced expansive soil, as shown in the upper row
and the middle column of Fig. 5. Regarding the unreinforced expansive
soil, a crack should be generated near the location of 45 cm, as shown in
the upper row and the right column of Fig. 5.
Further, during the 1st wetting, where cracks were generated in the
1st drying, compression strains were induced by the adjacent soil’s
swelling, and the compression strain was quite small. This was the same
for the geogrid rib reinforced expansive soil and the unreinforced
expansive soil. New cracks were generated at other locations due to the
swelling behavior. It was located at the segment from 7.5 cm to 12.5 cm

278
G. Bi et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 275–281

Fig. 6. Strain of the reinforced expansive soil versus that of the unreinforced expansive soil during three times wetting.

Fig. 7. Crack propagation during wetting-drying cycles.

in the reinforced expansive soil, and it was close to 55 cm in the unre­
inforced expansive soil, as shown in the upper row of Fig. 6.
During the 2nd drying, a third crack was generated for the geogrid
rib reinforced expansive soil. No more cracks were generated for the
unreinforced expansive soil because the previous cracks were very large.
These were all cracks generated during the study. This was demon­
strated by the same pattern in the 2nd wetting-drying cycle and the 3rd
wetting-drying cycle in Fig. 6. The expansive soil was free to shrink and
swell due to the previously generated cracks; thus, no more cracks were
generated. The propagation of the crack during wetting-drying cycles
was plotted in Fig. 7. It should be noted that the smart geogrid rib self-
sensed the average change of the resistance of each 5 cm, while the FBG
sensor measured the strain change at one point. To note, one of the FBG
sensors was not working during the 3rd wetting-drying cycle.
In general, the shrink-swelling deformation of the expansive soil was
reduced by the smart geogrid rib based on the comparison shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. It was also supported by the crack width shown in Fig. 7.
To furtherly interpret the reinforcement provided by the smart
geogrid rib, the amplitude of the strain was derived:
Δε = εmax − εmin (10)
Where Δε was the amplitude of the strain, εmax was the maximum strain,
εmin and was the minimum strain.
Because one of the FBG sensors was broken in the 3rd wetting-drying
cycle, only the first two cycles were included in Fig. 8. Nevertheless, it

279
G. Bi et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 275–281

methods as long as more cracks were generated by more wetting-drying

cycles. If no more cracks were generated by increasing wetting-drying
cycles, the difference would not continue to grow.
Conversely, the difference of strains measured between the two
methods increased with wetting-drying cycles, which indicated there
were (new) cracks generated. Thus, the proposed strain-self-sensing
smart geogrid rib could detect crack propagation.

5. Conclusions

As geosynthetics became widespread globally, it became increas­

ingly vital to ensure that geosynthetics offered a satisfactory level of
serviceability through health monitoring. Flexible conductive materials
were widely used in structural health monitoring; however, it was rarely
known in geotechnical engineering. In this preliminary study, a new
Fig. 8. The amplitude of the strain versus time. strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib was proposed. It was fabricated
with the coating of flexible conductive films. The principle of the smart
demonstrated that the smart geogrid rib restricted the shrink-swelling geogrid rib was introduced. The strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib was
deformation. calibrated before applying to reinforce the expansive soil. A physical
As plotted in Fig. 4, FBG sensors were also installed in the reinforced modeling test was conducted with three wetting-drying cycles to verify
expansive soil; the average strain along the geogrid rib was compared the strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib application. Several important
between two measurements (e.g., FBG sensors and self-sensing smart findings were below:
geogrid rib). Again, they were in good agreement, as plotted in Fig. 9.
A comparison of the strain measured by two methods was by the a) The strain due to the shrink-swelling behavior of expansive soils was
equation below: linear with the normalized change in resistance measured by the
⃒ ⃒ smart geogrid rib;
⃒εS − εF ⃒
δ = ⃒⃒ ⃒ ∗ 100% (11) b) The strain self-sensed by the smart geogrid rib was in good agree­
εF ⃒ ment with that measured by FBG strain sensors before cracks were
generated;
where δ was the relative difference, εS was the strain based on the strain- c) After cracks were generated, there was a discrepancy between the
self-sensing smart geogrid rib, and εF was the strain based on FBG smart geogrid rib and FBG strain sensors, which indicated the smart
sensors. geogrid rib well sensed the crack propagation of expansive soils
The result is attached in Table 4—data from the two methods during wetting-drying cycles;
matched each other. The relative difference increased a little bit with
cycles. To note, FBG sensors measured the strain at one point, while the
strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib measured the average strain every
5 cm long. Thus, before the 1st crack was generated during wetting- Table 4
Comparison of the strain measured by both methods.
drying cycles, the difference between the two methods was relatively
small. After the 1st crack and more and more cracks were generated, Relative 1st 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd
FBG sensors very likely measured the strain at the point without cracks, Difference % drying wetting drying wetting drying wetting

while the strain-self-sensing smart geogrid rib possibly measured the Maximum 7.12 12.17 11.56 13.28 13.55 14.12
average strain every 5 cm long, including one or more cracks. This Minimum 0.29 0.45 2.27 0.69 4.61 3.26
Average 3.45 7.75 7.27 9.54 10.13 12.68
discrepancy would result in an increasing difference between the two

Fig. 9. Average strain along with the geogrid comparison between FBG sensors and smart geogrid.

280
G. Bi et al.
d) The smart geogrid rib well restricted the shrink-swelling deformation
compared to that of the unreinforced expansive soil;
The temporary conclusion was drawn herein based on the pre­
liminary study of the smart geogrid rib. Further study will continue for
the complete geogrid before applying the strain-self-sensing geogrid to
monitor the performance of the geosynthetic expansive soil slopes (e.g.,
the failure initiation).
Additional information
The authors declare no competing interests.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the funding provided by the Natural Science
Foundation of China (41877244, 41702315) and the Natural Science
Foundation of Fujian, China (2020J05068).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.10.005.
References
Azhari, F., Banthia, N., 2012. Cement-based sensors with carbon fibers and carbon
nanotubes for piezoresistive sensing. Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (7), 866–873.
Chaduvula, U., Viswanadham, B., Kodikara, J., 2022. Centrifuge model studies on
desiccation cracking behaviour of fiber-reinforced expansive clay. Geotext.
Geomembrances 50 (3), 480–497.
Cui, X., Li, J., Su, J., et al., 2019a. Effect of Temperature on mechanical performance and
tensoresistivity of a new sensor-enabled geosynthetic material. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31
(6), 04019060.
Cui, X., Wang, Y., Liu, K., et al., 2019b. A simplified model for evaluating the hardening
behavior of sensor-enabled geobelts during pullout tests. Geotext. Geomembranes 47
(3), 377–388.
Ding, Y., Chen, Z., Han, Z., et al., 2013. Nano-carbon black and carbon fiber as
conductive materials for the diagnosing of the damage of concrete beam. Construct.
Build. Mater. 43, 233–241.
Ding, Y., Liu, G., Hussain, A., et al., 2019. Effect of steel fiber and carbon black on the
self-sensing ability of concrete cracks under bending. Construct. Build. Mater. 207,
630–639.
Dong, W., Li, W., Wang, K., et al., 2020. Self-sensing capabilities of a cement-based
sensor with layer-distributed conductive rubber fibers. Sensor Actuator Phys. 301,
111763.
Fathi, A., Hatami, K., Grady, B., 2012. Effect of carbon black structure on low-strain
conductivity of polypropylene and low-density polyethylene composites. Polym.
Eng. Sci. 52 (3), 549–556.
Han, B., Zhang, L., Sun, S., et al., 2015. Electrostatic self-assembled carbon nanotube
nano carbon black composite fillers reinforced cement-based materials with
multifunctionality. Composites Part A 79, 103–115.
Hatami, K., Grady, B.P., 2011. Sensor-enabled Geosynthetic Material and Method of
Making and Using the Same. U.S. Patent No. 7,975,556. United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.
281
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 275–281
Hatami, K., Grady, B.P., 2016. Sensor-enabled Geosynthetic Material and Method of
Making and Using the Same. Chinese Patent Number, ZL201180071627.
Hatami, K., Grady, B.P., Ulmer, M., 2009. Sensor-enabled geosynthetics: use of
conducting carbon networks as geosynthetic sensors. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
135 (7), 863–874.
Hatami, K., Hassanikhah, A., Yazdani, H., et al., 2014. Tensoresistive PVC coating for
sensor-enabled geogrids. Invited Paper. ASCE J. Nanomech. Micromech. Spec. Issue
Mech. Nanocompos. Nanostruct. 4 (4), A4013016/1–A401301614.
Hong, C., Yang, Q., Sun, X., 2021. A theoretical strain transfer model between optical
fiber sensors and monitored substrates. Geotext. Geomembranes 49 (6), 1539–1549.
Kongkitkul, W., Hirakawa, D., Tatsuoka, F., 2008. Residual deformation of geosynthetic-
reinforced sand in plane strain compression affected by viscous properties of
geosynthetic reinforcement. Soils Found. 48 (3), 333–352.
Smith, B.E., Yazdani, H., Hatami, K., 2015. Three-dimensional imaging and quantitative
analysis of dispersion and mechanical failure in filled nanocomposites. Composites
Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Elsevier 79, 23–29.
Sun, Y., Cao, S., Xu, H., et al., 2020. Application of distributed fiber optic sensing
technique to monitor the stability of a geogrid-reinforced model slope. Int. J.
Geosyn. Ground Eng. 6 (29).
Sun, Y., Shi, B., Zhang, D., et al., 2016. Internal deformation monitoring of slope based
on BOTDR. J. Sens., 9496285
Sun, Y., Xu, H., Gu, P., et al., 2017. Application of FBG sensing technology in the stability
analysis of geogrid-reinforced slope. Sensors 17 (3), 597.
Sun, Y., Zhang, D., Shi, B., et al., 2014. Distributed acquisition, characterization and
process analysis of multi-field information in slopes. Eng. Geol. 182, 49–62.
Vangla, P., Gali, M., 2014. Image-segmentation technique to analyze deformation
profiles in different direct shear tests. Geotech. Test J. 37 (5), 828–839.
Wang, C., Xia, K., Wang, H., et al., 2019a. Advanced carbon for flexible and wearable
electronics. Adv. Mater. 31 (9), 1801072.
Wang, H., Chen, R., Liu, Q., et al., 2019b. Soil-geogrid interaction at various influencing
factors by pullout tests with applications of FBG sensors. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (1),
04018342.
Wang, Z., Kang, W., Wang, J., et al., 2021. An unsupervised clustering-based
sectionalized displacement reconstruction method for smart geogrids integrated with
fiber Bragg grating sensors. Construct. Build. Mater. 286 (7), 122924.
Yazdani, H., Ghasemi, H., Wallace, C., et al., 2019. Mechanical properties of carbon
nanotube-filled polyethylene composites: a molecular dynamics simulation study.
S2. In: Polymer Composites, Society of Plastics Engineers, 40. Wiley,
pp. E1850–E1861.
Yazdani, H., Hatami, K., 2016. Sensor-enabled geogrids for stabilization and
performance monitoring of earth structures: state of development, 4. In:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 2. Springer. -37: 7p
(December).
Yazdani, H., Hatami, K., Grady, B.P., 2016a. Sensor-enabled geogrids for performance
monitoring of reinforced soil structures. ASTM J. Test. Eval. 44 (1), 391–401.
Yazdani, H., Hatami, K., Khosravi, E., et al., 2014. Strain-sensitive conductivity of carbon
black-filled PVC composites subjected to cyclic loading. In: CARBON, 79. Elsevier,
pp. 393–405.
Yazdani, H., Smith, B.E., Hatami, K., 2016b. Electrical conductivity and mechanical
performance of multiwalled CNT-filled polyvinyl chloride composites subjected to
tensile load. In: Applied Polymer Science, 133. Wiley, 29.
Yazdani, H., Smith, B.E., Hatami, K., 2016c. Multi-walled carbon nanotube-filled
polyvinyl chloride composites: influence of processing method on dispersion quality,
electrical conductivity and mechanical properties. Composites Part A: Applied
Science and Manufacturing, Elsevier 82, 65–77.
Yazdani, H., Smith, B.E., Hatami, K., 2016d. Multiscale 3D dispersion characterization of
carbon nanotube-filled polymer composites using microscopic imaging and data
mining. In: Milne, W.I., Cole, M., Mitura, S. (Eds.), Chapter 6, Carbon
Nanotechnology. One Central Press, Manchester, UK, pp. 135–158.
Yoo, D., Kim, S., Lee, S., 2018. Self-sensing capability of ultra-high-performance concrete
containing steel fibers and carbon nanotubes under tension. Sensor Actuator Phys.
276, 125–136.
Zhang, C., Zhu, H., Bin, S., 2016. Role of the interface between distributed fiber optic
strain sensor and soil in ground deformation measurement. Sci. Rep. 6, 36469.
Zhang, L., Shi, B., Zhang, D., et al., 2020. Kinematics, triggers and mechanism of
Majiagou landslide based on FBG real-time monitoring. Environ. Earth Sci. 79, 200.