In this study, smart multifunctional composites (SMC) were developed to enable state estimation of structures in terms of the deformations at distributed locations due to applied loads and temperature gradients. The SMC was composed of a carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite plate and an embedded microfabricated sensor network of densely distributed strain gauges. The microfabricated sensor network, with serpentine signal wires connecting the sensing elements, was manufactured on a 100 mm diameter silicon wafer using integrated circuit batch processing techniques. The robustness of the SMC was investigated and verified through shape estimation under mechanical loads and temperature gradients applied to the SMC. The mechanical load was applied to the SMC with fixed boundaries on four edges. The temperature gradient was applied to the SMC with simple supports on the four corners of the SMC plate by applying a uniform temperature on one side while controlling the temperature of the other side close to the room temperature. The results show that the SMC provides the shape of the deformed structure under loads with high resolution. Moreover, a numerical analysis of the SMC implemented in ABAQUS demonstrates a close correlation between the estimated deformed shape and the simulated structure allowing the potential establishment of a digital twin. The SMC can be customized based on different requirements and applications by selecting the type, number, and locations of the sensors. The shape and state of the structure obtained from the SMC during operation can be used for online control, autonomy, decision-making, and maintenance.
StaszewskiWJTomlinsonGBollerC, et al.Health Monitoring of Aerospace Structures. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2004.
2.
IversonDL. System health monitoring for space mission operations. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, March 2008. IEEE, pp. 1–8.
3.
RochaHSemprimoschnigCNunesJP. Sensors for process and structural health monitoring of aerospace composites: a review. Eng Structures2021; 237: 112231.
4.
OrificiACThomsonRSDegenhardtR, et al.A finite element methodology for analysing degradation and collapse in postbuckling composite aerospace structures. J Composite Materials2009; 43(26): 3239–3263.
5.
YeYYangQYangF, et al.Digital twin for the structural health management of reusable spacecraft: a case study. Eng Fracture Mech2020; 234: 107076.
6.
De OliveiraMAMonteiroAVVieira FilhoJ. A new structural health monitoring strategy based on PZT sensors and convolutional neural network. Sensors2018; 18(9): 2955.
7.
IrvingPESoutisC (eds). Polymer Composites in the Aerospace Industry. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK, 2019.
8.
ZhangJHuangJLiangW, et al.A correction method of estimating the pointing error for reflector antenna. Shock and Vibration2018: 2018: 3262869.
9.
DuZCHouHFWangZG, et al.Thermal deformation isolation for satellite platforms via flexible connections. Int J Precision Eng Manufacturing2017; 18(12): 1821–1832.
10.
YoonHJCostantiniDMLimbergerHG, et al.In situ strain and temperature monitoring of adaptive composite materials. J Intell Material Systems Structures2006; 17(12): 1059–1067.
11.
DziendzikowskiMNiedbalaPKurnytaA, et al.Structural health monitoring of a composite panel based on PZT sensors and a transfer impedance framework. Sensors2018; 18(5): 1521.
12.
IhnJBChangFK. Pitch-catch active sensing methods in structural health monitoring for aircraft structures. Struct Health Monit2008; 7(1): 5–19.
13.
SiLLiZ. Online structural state assessment for aerospace composite structures using an acousto-ultrasonics-based multi-damage index identification approach. Struct Health Monit2020; 19(6): 1790–1807.
14.
SiLBaierH. Real-time impact visualization inspection of aerospace composite structures with distributed sensors. Sensors2015; 15(7): 16536–16556.
15.
De LucaAPerfettoDDe FenzaA, et al.Guided waves in a composite winglet structure: numerical and experimental investigations. Compos Structures2019; 210: 96–108.
16.
QiuLLiuMQingX, et al.A quantitative multidamage monitoring method for large-scale complex composite. Struct Health Monit2013; 12(3): 183–196.
17.
QiuLLinXWangY, et al.A mechatronic smart skin of flight vehicle structures for impact monitoring of light weight and low-power consumption. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 144: 106829.
18.
QiuLDengXYuanS, et al.Impact monitoring for aircraft smart composite skins based on a lightweight sensor network and characteristic digital sequences. Sensors2018; 18(7): 2218.
19.
WangYQiuLLuoY, et al.A piezoelectric sensor network with shared signal transmission wires for structural health monitoring of aircraft smart skin. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 141: 106730.
20.
LawrenceCMNelsonDVBennettTE, et al.An embedded fiber optic sensor method for determining residual stresses in fiber-reinforced composite materials. J Intelligent Material Systems Structures1998; 9(10): 788–799.
21.
LeeDGMitrovicMFriedmanA, et al.Characterization of fiber optic sensors for structural health monitoring. J Composite Materials2002; 36(11): 1349–1366.
22.
ShivakumarKEmmanworiL. Mechanics of failure of composite laminates with an embedded fiber optic sensor. J Composite Materials2004; 38(8): 669–680.
23.
LiHNLiDSSongGB. Recent applications of fiber optic sensors to health monitoring in civil engineering. Eng Structures2004; 26(11): 1647–1657.
StewartACarmanGRichardsL. Health monitoring technique for composite materials utilizing embedded thermal fiber optic sensors. J Composite Materials2005; 39(3): 199–213.
26.
RamakrishnanMRajanGSemenovaY, et al.Overview of fiber optic sensor technologies for strain/temperature sensing applications in composite materials. Sensors2016; 16(1): 99.
27.
WuZQingXPChangFK. Damage detection for composite laminate plates with a distributed hybrid PZT/FBG sensor network. J Intell Mater Syst Structures2009; 20(9): 1069–1077.
28.
GaoZZhuXFangY, et al.Active monitoring and vibration control of smart structure aircraft based on FBG sensors and PZT actuators. Aerospace Sci Tech2017; 63: 101–109.
29.
RomanoFCiminelloMSorrentinoA, et al.Application of structural health monitoring techniques to composite wing panels. J Compos Mater2019; 53(25): 3515–3533.
30.
WangBZhongSLeeTL, et al.Non-destructive testing and evaluation of composite materials/structures: a state-of-the-art review. Adv Mechanical Engineering2020; 12(4): 1687814020913761.
31.
GuptaRMitchellDBlancheJ, et al.A review of sensing technologies for non-destructive evaluation of structural composite materials. J Composites Sci2021; 5(12): 319.
32.
LanzaraGSalowitzNGuoZ, et al.A spider‐web‐like highly expandable sensor network for multifunctional materials. Adv Mater2010; 22(41): 4643–4648.
SalowitzNGuoZRoyS, et al.Recent advancements and vision toward stretchable bio-inspired networks for intelligent structures. Struct Health Monit2014; 13(6): 609–620.
35.
GuoZKimKSalowitzN, et al.Functionalization of stretchable networks with sensors and switches for composite materials. Struct Health Monit2018; 17(3): 598–623.
36.
GuoYSchützSVaghiA, et al.Stand-alone stretchable absolute pressure sensing system for industrial applications. IEEE Trans Ind Electron2017; 64(11): 8739–8746.
37.
HuaQSunJLiuH, et al.Skin-inspired highly stretchable and conformable matrix networks for multifunctional sensing. Nat Communications2018; 9(1): 1.
38.
ChenXTopacTSmithW, et al.Characterization of distributed microfabricated strain gauges on stretchable sensor networks for structural applications. Sensors2018; 18(10): 3260.
39.
ChenXMaxwellLLiF, et al.Design and integration of a wireless stretchable multimodal sensor network in a composite wing. Sensors2020; 20(9): 2528.
40.
WangYQiuLLuoY, et al.A stretchable and large-scale guided wave sensor network for aircraft smart skin of structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit2021; 20(3): 861–876.
41.
RansomEChenXChangFK. Design of a robust tool for deploying large-area stretchable sensor networks from microscale to macroscale. Sensors2022; 22(13): 4856.
42.
HuWCenteaTNuttS. Effects of material and process parameters on void evolution in unidirectional prepreg during vacuum bag-only cure. J Compos Mater2020; 54(5): 633–645.
43.
GangloffJJJr.CenderTAEskizeybekV, et al.Entrapment and venting of bubbles during vacuum bag prepreg processing. J Compos Mater2017; 51(19): 2757–2768.
44.
McIlhaggerAArcherEMcIlhaggerR. Manufacturing processes for composite materials and components for aerospace applications, Polym Composites Aerospace Industry, 2020, 1. 59–81.
