Self-Sensing Cementitious Composites: Review and Perspective

Abstract

Self-sensing concrete (SSC) has been vastly studied for its possibility to provide a cost-effective solution for structural health monitoring of concrete structures, rendering it very attractive in real-life applications. In this review paper, comprehensive information about the components of self-sensing concrete, dispersion methods and mix design, as well as the recent progress in the field of self-sensing concrete, has been provided. The information and recent research findings about self-sensing materials for smart composites, their properties, measurement of self-sensing signal and the behavior of self-sensing concrete under different loading conditions are included. Factors influencing the electrical resistance of self-sensitive concrete such as dry-wet cycle, ice formation and freeze thaw cycle and current frequency, etc., which were not covered by previous review papers on self-sensing concrete, are discussed in detail. Finally, major emphasis is placed on the application of self-sensing technology in existing and new structures.

Keywords: cementitious composites; damage detection; electrical resistivity; self-sensing; structural health monitoring.

Figure 1

Three mixing procedures. Reproduced with permission from [34], Elsevier, 2019.

Figure 2

Fixing the style and layout of electrodes in self-sensing concrete; (a,b): electrodes attached on the surface; (c–f): embedded mesh, perforated plate or loop electrode. Reproduced with permission from [4], Elsevier, 2015.

Figure 3

The fractional change in longitudinal resistance (thicker line) and longitudinal strain (thinner line) versus time for four-probe with embedded stainless-steel foils and four-probe connected on top [37].

Figure 4

Variation of the electrical resistivity with change of functional filler concentration. Reproduced with permission from [44], Elsevier, 2014.

Figure 5

Self-sensing concrete under monotonic. Reproduced with permission from [51], Journal of Applied Physics, 2019.

Figure 6

Self-sensing concrete under impact load. Reproduced with permission from [51], Journal of Applied Physics, 2019.

Figure 7

Self-sensing concrete under monotonic tension. Reproduced with permission from [51], Journal of Applied Physics, 2019.

Figure 8

Self-sensing concrete under flexure. Reproduced with permission from [51], Journal of Applied Physics, 2019.

Figure 9

Factors influencing the electrical resistivity.

Figure 10

Impact of the fiber length on the sample in CFRC. Reproduced with permission from [39], Elsevier, 2005.

Figure 11

Variation in resistivity with temperature (a) plain cement mortar and (b) cement mortar incorporated with 3 mm carbon fibers. Reproduced with permission from [57], McCarter et al., 2007.

Figure 12

Strain during compressive testing up to failure at loading rates of (a) 0.144, (b) 0.216 and (c) 0.575 MPa/s versus (A) fractional change in resistivity and (B) stress. Reproduced with permission from [63], Elsevier, 2002.

Figure 13

Resistivity of saturated and dry specimens. Reproduced with permission from [65], IOP Publishing Ltd., 2020.

Figure 14

(a) Below zero temperature variation; (b) above zero temperature variation. Reproduced with permission from [68], Elsevier, 1998. Reproduced with permission from [69], University of British Columbia, 2008.

Figure 15

The fractional change in resistivity during temperature variation. Reproduced with permission from [70], Elsevier, 2002.

Figure 16

Change in conductivity versus frequency during loading process. Reproduced with permission from [71], Demirel et al., 2006.

Figure 17

Structures of different precursors of carbon fibers. Reproduced with permission from [80], Elsevier, 2015.

Figure 18

Variation of fractional change in resistance versus deflection at loading and unloading stage in the 1st loading cycle: (a) compression side surface resistance; (b) through-thickness resistance; (c) tensile side surface resistance; and (d) oblique resistance. Reproduced with permission from [40], Elsevier, 2006.

Figure 19

CFRC strengthened RC beam design. Reproduced with permission from [72], Elsevier, 2008.

Figure 20

Variation of fractional change in electrical resistance versus load ratio for various CFRC layer thickness: J-2 (30 mm), J-3 (60mm) and J-4 (90 mm). Reproduced with permission from [72], Elsevier, 2008.

Figure 21

The fractional variation in electrical resistance versus time during repeated flexural loading: (a) at first 5 cycles; (b) at last 5 cycles. Reproduced with permission from [72], Elsevier, 2008.

Figure 22

Schematic diagram of a CF–GFRP rod [73]. Modified for explanation.

Figure 23

(a) Surface texture of BCR; (b) Cross-section of distributed carbon fiber: A—carbon fiber; B—matrix. Reproduced with permission from [85], Hindawi, 2014.

Figure 24

(a) Concrete beams with and without CFRP strengthening; (b) detailed loading setup. Reproduced with permission from [74], MDPI, 2018.

Figure 25

Load with displacement for different types of specimens. Reproduced with permission from [74], MDPI, 2018.

Figure 26

The image of carbon fiber textile. Reproduced with permission from [75], MDPI, 2015.

Figure 27

External load with a deflection for the 3 types of beams: without strengthening, with CFRP strengthening and with textile sensor strengthening. Reproduced with permission from [75], MDPI, 2015.

Figure 28

Relationship between resistance and strain with time for three types of cement pastes with 0.5%, 1% and 2% CNF concentration. Reproduced with permission from [10], Elsevier, 2014.

Figure 29

(a) Response of HNCS during the hammer impact test; (b) response-decaying curves for three sensors during the test. Reproduced with permission from [29], IOP Publishing Ltd., 2020.

Figure 30

Schematic representation of CNT/CNF growing process. Reproduced with permission from [96], Elsevier, 2013.

Figure 31

Potential fields of application.

Figure 32

Structural health monitoring system using smart bricks. Reproduced with permission from [97], García-Macías E. et al., 2019.