Original Article

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems

and Structures
1–7
Smart sensing layer for the detection Ó The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
of damage due to defects in a sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X14554138

laminated composite structure jim.sagepub.com

Muhammad A Nasir1, Hina Akram1, Zaffar M Khan2, Masood Shah1, Saad

Anas3, Zeeshan Asfar3 and Saad Nauman4,5

Abstract
A smart sensing layer based on polystyrene and carbon nanoparticles has been developed. It has been deposited on the
composite specimens for real-time, in situ monitoring of structural health. The strain response of the smart sensing layer
has been recorded for composite laminates using different defect configurations (notch spacing). Numerical simulations
of the stress–strain concentration have been carried out in order to determine the state of strain at the smart sensing
layer, in the presence of different notch configurations. It has been observed that the sensing layer detects well the pres-
ence of large deformations and damage due to defects in the structure, with clearly defined peaks at the points of struc-
tural damage.

Keywords
Sensor, structural health monitoring, composites, smart layer

Introduction system would be to integrate sensors in the structure at

Composite materials have found wide applications as
structural materials in various applications ranging
from fairly mundane such as household products and
as construction material to the high end such as com-
plex surgical implants, high-performance sports equip-
ment, and components in aerospace vehicles and in
airplanes. The wide spectrum of applications manifests
the inherent advantage of composites to tailor the prop-
erties to the intended application area according to the
performance, weight, and cost constraints. This advan-
tage has a downside as well, that is, the lack of consis-
tent material models and performance criteria that can
be used for most if not all the composites. This is due
to the heterogeneous nature of composite materials,
strong dependence of properties on the manufacturing
process, and post-processing/curing conditions and
relative novelty of composites as structural materials in
high-performance applications.
Owing to the above-mentioned constraints, it is of
utmost importance in composite material parts to be
able to monitor their performance in situ and in real
time. This paradigm of monitoring the state of a struc-
tural integrity, onset of flaws/damage, and strain his-
tory mapping is often referred to as ‘‘structural health
monitoring’’ (SHM) (Balageas et al., 2006; Sohn et al.,
2004). An integral part of any online in situ monitoring
critical positions much like human nervous system
(Chang et al., 2011). Traditional monitoring techniques
involve acoustic emission monitoring (Finlayson et al.,
2001), ultrasonic sensors (Chang, 1998; Lynch and Loh,
2006), and vibration monitoring techniques (Doebling
et al., 1996; Zou et al., 2000). These techniques are diffi-
cult to implement in in situ manner and costly and cum-
bersome to be integrated inside a sophisticated part
especially when weight savings are a critical feature of
modern structures especially in aerospace and automo-
tive sectors.
A solution to this difficulty is readily offered by the
smart composite materials that can be described as
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Engineering and
Technology, Taxila, Taxila, Pakistan
2
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Institute of Space
Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
3
School of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, National University
of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
4
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Institute of Space
Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
5
University of Lille Nord of France, ENSAIT, GEMTEX, Roubaix, France
Corresponding author:
Saad Nauman, University of Lille Nord of France, ENSAIT, GEMTEX,
Roubaix 59100, France.
Email: saadnauman@hotmail.com

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on January 2, 2015

2 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
materials with integrated self-sensing property. There
are several approaches of achieving that; one way is to
utilize self-sensing in carbon composite materials where
conductive carbon fibers within pockets of insulating
resin act as percolation networks, allowing electrical
current to flow through them (Abry et al., 1999, 2001).
In case of strains and/or onset of damage, these perco-
lation networks are broken resulting in an increase in
resistance of the percolation path between the electro-
des. This change in electrical resistance can be regis-
tered for SHM. One obvious disadvantage is that this
type of self-sensing approach cannot be used in the case
of non-conducting fibrous systems such as glass and
aramid fibers. Another disadvantage is difficulty in
localizing damage as any defect will change global
resistance of the structure and no localized response
can be expected. Moreover, in multilayered composite
structures such as laminates or three-dimensional (3D)
woven composites, any damage having layered config-
uration at its origin such as interlaminar shear cannot
be explicitly detected.
Another approach of engineering smart composite
materials is to incorporate conductive fillers inside the
composites during manufacturing. These fillers can be
in the form of micro- or nanoparticles, fibers, or nano-
tubes (Johnson et al., 2012; Li et al., 2008). These fillers
can be either incorporated inside the matrix by disper-
sing them using standard dispersion methods (Li et al.,
2014; Thostenson and Chou, 2006) or can be used to
make a smart filament (Nauman et al., 2011a, 2011b,
2012; Risicato et al., 2014; Sebastian et al., 2014) or
reinforcement (Hecht et al., 2007) which can be then
impregnated with resin using traditional resin impreg-
nation techniques. Both these approaches rely on the
monitoring of electrical resistance of percolation net-
works which are formed between the conductive fillers.
As expected, these percolation networks are altered
and broken upon application of deforming forces and
due to the onset of damage. Therefore, electrical resis-
tance mapping of these percolation networks can serve
as an effective method of in situ SHM of composite
structures.
The principle of charge transfer through these perco-
lation networks is based on the ‘‘tunnel effect’’ which
states that an electron when faced with a potential bar-
rier whose potential energy is greater than its kinetic
energy can still ‘‘hop’’ across the potential barrier with-
out the input of energy (Gurney and Condon, 1929).
This is because of the dual nature of sub-atomic parti-
cles predicted by quantum theory of mechanics.
According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, an
electron’s probability of moving from one side of a
physical barrier to another one is greater than 0. When
an electron wave encounters a non-conductive polymer
film, which in a composite acts as a potential barrier,
instead of instantly going to 0, the wave starts to decay
exponentially within the potential barrier. If the wave is
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on January 2, 2015
unable to reach a value equal to 0 by the time it reaches
the other end of the barrier, then there is a finite prob-
ability of an electron finding itself on the other side of
the barrier. When this happens, the electron is said to
have tunneled through the non-conductive barrier. This
phenomenon is known as the tunnel effect.
In order to invoke tunnel effect, composites have to
be fabricated having the volume concentration of nano-
fillers lying in the critical range known as ‘‘percolation
threshold.’’ At volume concentrations of nanofillers
greater than the percolation threshold, the composite
becomes entirely conductive and is redundant for use in
sensing applications where high sensitivity is desired.
At concentrations that are lower than the percolation
threshold concentrations, the composite is completely
insulating, as it does not allow electrons to tunnel from
one site to another due to their mutual distance.
Whereas for volume concentrations of conductive fillers
lying within the percolation threshold, a sudden and
rapid drop in resistivity is observed. This is because of
the formation of conductive paths that allow electron
hopping or tunneling from one filler site to another
known as percolation networks.
The present research work has been carried out with
the aim of optimizing tunnel effect sensors for defect
detection property in laminated composite structures.
For this purpose, the response of the sensor has been
recorded for smooth specimens and in the presence of a
notch. A low-cost coating material made from thermo-
plastic polymer dissolved in a suitable solvent and dis-
persed with carbon nanoparticles (CNPs) has been
used to fabricate sensors. These sensors are in fact a
smart layer which can be deposited on a composite
structure at any area of interest. The main advantages
of the proposed sensing layer for SHM are its low cost
and simple manufacturing. These smart sensing layers
can be easily deposited at any area of interest. Another
advantage is fairly high sensitivity of the sensing layer
to applied strains. The goal in this article is to deter-
mine whether the sensor reacts to the stress–strain con-
centration due to the notch or gives an averaged strain
response for the whole sensor. The stress–strain con-
centration due to the notch is determined through
numerical simulation.
Materials and methods
Smart sensing layer
Polystyrene (PS) beads were weighed in a beaker on a
laboratory-grade analytical balance having precision of
0.02 mg. Prior to that, the PS was dried in a vacuum
oven at 70°C to remove any moisture. Benzene was
added in the beaker (5 mL/g Benzene, of total weight of
PS and CNPs). Beaker with PS and benzene was placed
on a hot plate and heated at 50°C along with continu-
ous stirring for 7 h. CNPs (Printex L6 supplied by
Nasir et al.
Figure 1. GFRP-laminated composite specimens with smart
sensing layer in the center.
GFRP: glass fiber–reinforced polymer.
Degussa) were weighed (35% of PS weight) and added
to the same beaker. This weight percentage is based on
previous research on similar particles and ensures opti-
mal quantum tunneling (Nauman et al., 2011a, 2011b,
2012). It was then followed by 24 h of continuous stir-
ring at nominal speed. This ensured complete dispersion
of CNPs in PS. All the steps were performed at ambient
conditions of moisture and pressure.
Composites’ fabrication
For the purpose of making the composite specimens,
eight plies of plain woven glass fabric (Interglass 92110)
were used as the reinforcement. The epoxy resin used
was Araldite LY5052 in conjunction with the hardener
Aradur 5052. This is a low-viscosity resin transfer
molding (RTM)-grade resin system supplied by the
resin manufacturer HuntsmanÒ. Vacuum-assisted resin
transfer molding (VARTM) was used for resin infu-
sion. The post-cured multi-ply composite sheets were
cut to form 10 specimens of 300 mm 3 25 mm each as
shown in Figure 1. All these specimens were coated
with the PS/CNP sensing layer in the center (Figures 1
and 2).
Specimens’ configuration
The 10 specimens were divided into three sets of speci-
mens with different notch configurations. The first set
consists of smooth specimens with a layer of PS/CNP
coating. The second set had two holes of 1.5-mm dia-
meter drilled along a horizontal axis, through the speci-
men at 7-mm separation. These acted as stress raisers
by directly affecting the PS/CNP sensing layer strain.
The third set had the same configuration as above with
12-mm separation between the holes, in order to reduce
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on January 2, 2015
3
Figure 2. Specimen dimensions with configuration of smooth
and notched specimens with smart sensing layer in the center.
Extensometer attached with specimen for tensile test as well.
the stress concentration. Specimen details are shown in
Figure 2.
The strain was also measured using an extensometer
inside the gauge length to compare with the PS/CNP
coating response. All the tensile tests were carried out
at a rate of 1 3 1023 s21. The smart sensing layer in
the smooth specimen is expected to experience uniform
deformation throughout the gauge section. However,
for the notched specimens, a strain concentration is
deemed to be established at the smart sensing layer. It
will be shown, later on, that the smart coating on 7-mm
notched specimen can sense only one strain peak while
the same coating on 12-mm notched spacing will see
two strain peaks along the axial length of the specimen.
Data acquisition
Electrical connections were made at the end of sensing
layer on the composite specimen surface by connecting
fine copper wire using silver-loaded conducting paint
supplied by RS Components Ltd to reduce contact
resistance. The length of the wires was kept same for all
the specimens to reduce connection resistivity error.
Data acquisition module Keithley KUSB-3100 was
used in conjunction with the Wheatstone bridge, for
data acquisition from the smart sensing layer. The sen-
sing layer served as the unknown resistance in the
Wheatstone bridge. The data acquisition module
Keithley KUSB 3100 allows data conversion from ana-
log to digital format and data logging directly onto the
computer where it can be manipulated and processed
for further information extraction and graphical dis-
play. The electrical resistance measuring method is
essentially the two-probe method. An instrumentation
amplifier along with low-pass filters was employed for
data linearization, amplification, and noise suppression.
Numerical simulation
The loading conditions and the resultant stresses and
strains were first determined using numerical simulation
4 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

Table 1. Elastic constants of the specimen.

E1 E2 E3 n12

18 GPa 18 GPa 4 GPa 0.24

Figure 3. Meshing of composite specimen in the presence of

7-mm apart holes.

in the ABAQUS/Standardä software. The specimen

was modeled as a two-dimensional (2D) composite shell
of 2-mm thickness with dimensions shown in Figure 2.
The partitions have been created in such a fashion that
the area representing the smart sensing layer can be
meshed separately. The simulation is carried out with-
out taking into account the effect of the smart sensing
layer. Considering the mechanical properties and thick-
ness of PS, the coating would have a maximum of 0.5%
contribution to the stresses achieved in the specimens.
This is within the dispersion of the data received by the
sensor and thus is not considered for the simulation.
The meshing was performed in such a way that the
area of interest (smart sensing layer) had a fine mesh
(Figure 3). The mesh area was made up of 6656 A
four-node bilinear plane stress quadrilateral, reduced
integration, hourglass control (SPS4R) elements. The Figure 4. (a) Contour path to calculate peak strain on edge of
sensing layer zone had 1200 elements with an average smart sensing layer in 7-mm notch spacing specimen and (b)
size of 0.1 mm. variation in strain along contour.
The values of the elastic constants are given in
Table 1.
The analysis was carried out for elastic conditions The strain distribution along an axial line is plotted
only. The tensile test was simulated in 100 steps up to for the 7-mm notch spacing specimen in Figure 4(a)
the fracture strain (determined by experimentation). and (b) and that with 12-mm notch spacing is given in
Strain data were obtained for a path passing through Figure 5(a) and (b).
the outermost periphery of the ‘‘smart sensing layer’’ The contour plots in Figure 4(a) and 5(a) show the
mesh. The strain distribution along this path gives an strain concentration produced as a result of the holes.
indication of the strain concentration on the smart sen- The thick red line shows the left edge of the sensor.
sing layer. (It will be discussed later with reference to This edge is the part that undergoes the highest value
Figures 4 and 5 in the later section.) The results of the of strain. In the 7-mm notch spacing (Figure 4(a)), the
smooth specimen show no concentration and thus have edge of the sensor experiences a single peak in strain
not been presented here. concentration. The same contour is shown for 12-mm
notch spacing in Figure 5(a). In this case, the left edge
of the sensor experiences two peaks in strain
Experimental results and discussion concentrations.
The strain response of the smart sensing layer in the It can be deduced from Figures 4(b) and 5(b) that
smooth specimen and in the presence of notches has for a specific value of applied stress, peak of strain var-
some unique features. To explain them better, we will iation in the smart sensing layer zone is almost 50%
first take a look at the results of the numerical simula- higher in the 7-mm notch spacing specimen, while it is
tion to be able to understand the strain response. only 10% higher for the one with 12-mm notch spacing.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on January 2, 2015

Nasir et al.
Figure 5. (a) Contour path to calculate peak strain on edge of
smart sensing layer in 12-mm notch spacing specimen and (b)
variation in strain along contour.
Considering the normalized resistance response of the
smart sensing layer, the absolute values of dR/R cannot
be regarded as an absolute measure of strain. However,
from a qualitative stand point, the smart sensing layer
seems to be able to detect damage in the material in an
efficient manner.
Figure 6 depicts the stress–strain-normalized resis-
tance plot for smooth (un-notched) specimen with
smart sensing layer. It is evident that the su is around
460 MPa, while nominal strain at fracture ‘‘eu’’ value
stands at 0.0147. The smart sensing layer seems to fol-
low the composite deformation in a nonlinear fashion
for almost 50% of the loading range. However, at the
start of damage, as shown by the change in slope of the
stress–strain curve, the resistivity rises quickly and the
sensor seems to follow the deformation in a more linear
fashion. This trend goes right up to the final rupture.
Figure 7 shows the stress–strain-normalized resis-
tance plot for the specimen with 12-mm notch spacing.
We know that the nominal strain at fracture eu for the
composite material is around 0.0147. Due to the
notches, the strain concentration would be three times
as that of the smooth specimen. Thus, any damage
around the notch should start at one-third of the
applied strain on the smooth specimen. This is indeed
the case as seen in Figure 7. A sharp change in the
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on January 2, 2015
5
Figure 6. Tensile stress–strain diagram compared with dR/R–
strain diagram for an un-notched specimen.
slope of the stress–strain curve is seen at a nominal
strain of 0.005 ’ 1/3eu. Before this knee, the resistivity
variation is nonlinear with respect to the applied strain.
With the onset of damage at e = 0.005 (at the edges of
the notches), a sharp increase in resistivity is seen.
After this point, the resistivity response is linear with
the applied strain. Another jump in resistivity can be
seen, probably due to damage initiation at the other
notch; however, the stress–strain diagram does not
detect this. After the second jump, the sensor responds
very accurately to the damaged composite structure,
following the stress–strain curve accurately right up to
the final fracture.
In order to further study the effect of damage, on
the sensor response, the notches were made closer to
the sensor with 7-mm separation between them. The
test results are presented in stress–strain-normalized
resistance plot for the specimen in Figure 8. Notch
spacing of 7 mm represents the presence of notches
1 mm beyond the sensor boundary. As can be seen
from Figure 4(b), the strain concentration increases
with the applied strain by 50%. The tensile tests on the
specimens show a similar trend as for the 12-mm notch
spacing. Initially, the smart sensing layer has a non-
linear response to strain. At the first instance of damage
at e = 0.005, the characteristic jump in resistivity can
be seen. Then, the zone of linear response can be seen.
After that, as we know the strain in this case is 50%
higher at the sensor edge, one can see the effect of this
in the response of the smart sensing layer in the form of
a much higher slope as compared to the specimen with
12-mm notch spacing. The slopes can be compared
because we have fixed the starting and end points of the
stress–strain and resistivity–strain curves. In the zone of
higher damage progression, the correlation between the
sensor and stress–strain curve is very good up to frac-
ture of the smart sensing layer.
6 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
Figure 8. Tensile stress–strain diagram compared with dR/R–
strain diagram for the specimen with 7-mm notch spacing: (a)
nonlinear response for initial loading with no damage, (b) mostly
linear response to partially damaged specimen, (c) damage
progression in zone of high strain concentration, (d) good
correlation of sensor response in zone of damage progression,
(e) knee in stress–strain curve indicating damage initiation and
corresponding spike in sensor response, and (f) sensor fracture.
Conclusion
The strain response of a smart sensing layer, developed
for SHM, based on PS/CNPs has been observed in the
presence of defects. Numerical simulation was carried
out in order to estimate the effect of strain concentra-
tion on the smart sensing layer. It was found out that
the sensing layer reacts well to the presence of defects
or stress raisers in the structure. The principal response
characteristics are listed below.
The tensile test of a smooth specimen is character-
ized by the initial nonlinear response of sensing layer,
followed by a linear response. It is believed that the lin-
ear response follows a certain amount of damage in the
matrix of the composite. Even if the damage is pro-
duced at a distance from the sensor, the resistivity
response shows it by a jump or peak in the curve. If,
however, this damage occurs closer to the sensor, the
peak in the smart sensing layer response is amplified.
The sensing layer shows a linear response to the applied
strain in the specimen after a certain amount of damage
has occurred. We believe that this damage is mostly
limited to the matrix cracking. In the linear region of
the sensor response, the load is principally borne by the
fibers. When the damage progresses, that is, the fibers
break, the sensor records this as well, perfectly follow-
ing the stress–strain curve right up to the complete frac-
ture of the specimen. It would be interesting to
normalize the absolute value of the change in resistivity
so that this sensor could be used as a strain gauge as
well as a damage detection tool.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on January 2, 2015
Figure 7. Tensile stress–strain diagram compared with dR/R–
strain diagram for a specimen with 12-mm notch spacing: (a)
spike in sensor response undetected by the stress–strain curve,
(b) nonlinear response for initial loading with no damage, (c)
linear response to partially damaged specimen, (d) knee in
stress–strain curve indicating damage initiation and
corresponding spike in sensor response, (e) good correlation of
sensor response in zone of damage progression, and (f) sensor
fracture.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Abry JC, Bochard S, Chateauminois A, et al. (1999) In situ
detection of damage in CFRP laminates by electrical resis-
tance measurements. Composites Science and Technology
59(6): 925–935.
Abry JC, Choi YK, Chateauminois A, et al. (2001) In-situ
monitoring of damage in CFRP laminates by means of
AC and DC measurements. Composites Science and Tech-
nology 61(6): 855–864.
Balageas D, Fritzen C-P and Guemes A (2006) Structural
Health Monitoring. Wiley: USA.
Chang F-K (1998) Structural Health Monitoring: Current Sta-
tus and Perspectives. CRC Press: USA.
Chang F-K, Markmiller JFC, Yang J, et al. (2011) Structural
health monitoring. In: SB Johnson, T Gormley, S Kessler, et
al. (eds) System Health Management: With Aerospace Appli-
cations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 419–428.
Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, et al. (1996) Damage
Identification and Health Monitoring of Structural and
Mechanical Systems from Changes in their Vibration Char-
acteristics: A Literature Review. Los Alamos, NM: Los
Alamos National Laboratory.
Nasir et al.
Finlayson RD, Friesel M, Carlos M, et al. (2001) Health mon-
itoring of aerospace structures with acoustic emission and
acousto-ultrasonics. Insight 43(3): 155–158.
Gurney RW and Condon EU (1929) Quantum mechanics and
radioactive disintegration. Physical Review 33(2): 127.
Hecht DS, Hu L and Gruner G (2007) Electronic properties
of carbon nanotube/fabric composites. Current Applied
Physics 7(1): 60–63.
Johnson TM, Fullwood DT and Hansen G (2012) Strain
monitoring of carbon fiber composite via embedded nickel
nano-particles. Composites Part B: Engineering 43(3):
1155–1163.
Li C, Thostenson ET and Chou T-W (2008) Sensors and
actuators based on carbon nanotubes and their compo-
sites: a review. Composites Science and Technology 68(6):
1227–1249.
Li W, He D, Dang Z, et al. (2014) In situ damage sensing in
the glass fabric reinforced epoxy composites containing
CNT-Al2O3 hybrids. Composites Science and Technology
99(0): 8–14.
Lynch JP and Loh KJ (2006) A summary review of wireless
sensors and sensor networks for structural health monitor-
ing. Shock and Vibration Digest 38(2): 91–130.
Nauman S, Cristian I and Koncar V (2011a) Simultaneous
application of fibrous piezoresistive sensors for
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on January 2, 2015
7
compression and traction detection in glass laminate com-
posites. Sensors 11(10): 9478–9498.
Nauman S, Cristian I and Koncar V (2012) Intelligent carbon
fibre composite based on 3D-interlock woven reinforce-
ment. Textile Research Journal 82(9): 931–944.
Nauman S, Lapeyronnie P, Cristian I, et al. (2011b) Online
measurement of structural deformations in composites.
IEEE Sensors Journal 11(6): 1329–1336.
Risicato J-V, Kelly F, Soulat D, et al. (2014) A complex
shaped reinforced thermoplastic composite part made of
commingled yarns with integrated sensor. Applied Compo-
site Materials 1–18.
Sebastian J, Schehl N, Bouchard M, et al. (2014) Health mon-
itoring of structural composites with embedded carbon
nanotube coated glass fiber sensors. Carbon 66: 191–200.
Sohn H, Farrar CR, Hemez FM, et al. (2004) A Review of
Structural Health Monitoring Literature: 1996–2001. Los
Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Thostenson ET and Chou TW (2006) Carbon nanotube net-
works: sensing of distributed strain and damage for life
prediction and self healing. Advanced Materials 18(21):
2837–2841.
Zou Y, Tong L and Steven GP (2000) Vibration-based
model-dependent damage (delamination) identification
and health monitoring for composite structures—a review.
Journal of Sound and vibration 230(2): 357–378.