| Literature DB >> 22163755 |
Camille Sonnenfeld1, Sanne Sulejmani, Thomas Geernaert, Sophie Eve, Nicolas Lammens, Geert Luyckx, Eli Voet, Joris Degrieck, Waclaw Urbanczyk, Pawel Mergo, Martin Becker, Hartmut Bartelt, Francis Berghmans, Hugo Thienpont.
Abstract
Fiber Bragg gratings written in highly birefringent microstructured optical fiber with a dedicated design are embedded in a composite fiber-reinforced polymer. The Bragg peak wavelength shifts are measured under controlled axial and transversal strain and during thermal cycling of the composite sample. We obtain a sensitivity to transversal strain that exceeds values reported earlier in literature by one order of magnitude. Our results evidence the relevance of using microstructured optical fibers for structural integrity monitoring of composite material structures.Entities:
Keywords: Fiber Bragg grating; carbon fiber reinforced polymer; strain field monitoring
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22163755 PMCID: PMC3231601 DOI: 10.3390/s110302566
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.(a) Scanning electron microscope micrograph of a cross-section of the studied MOF and close up of the core region. (b) Bragg grating spectrum inscribed in the fiber core.
Figure 2.(a) Wavelength shift of the Bragg peaks versus transversal line load for one particular fiber orientation. The red solid lines represent the linear fit. (b) Transverse line load sensitivity plotted against angle of rotation for FBG in the fiber. The dashed vertical lines indicate the maximum values.
Figure 3.Comparison between experimental (EXP) and simulated values (FEA): sensitivity of the wavelength separation versus fiber orientation.
Figure 4.(a) Transversal cross-section of the composite samples at the grating location. (b) Spectrum of the Bragg grating sensor before and after embedding in composite materials.
Figure 5.Responses of the embedded FBGs during the cooling phase; the temperature variation is indicated with arrows. (a) Change in Bragg peak separation versus temperature. (b) Change in Bragg peak wavelength versus temperature.
Figure 6.(a) Axial load set-up. (b) Peak wavelength changes versus axial strain.
Axial strain sensitivity of FBGs sensors embedded in [02, 902]2S lay-up composite.
| Fast axis | 1.22 ± 0.03 |
| Slow axis | 1.21 ± 0.02 |
| Peak separation | −0.01 ± 0.01 |
Figure 7.(a) Transverse load set-up. (b) Peak wavelength changes versus transversal strain.
Transversal strain sensitivity of the MOF.
| Fast axis | 0.26 ± 0.05 |
| Slow axis | 0.10 ± 0.02 |
| Peak separation | −0.16 ± 0.03 |
Figure 8.Transversal strain response of a conventional HB fiber of bow-tie type (HBF) and of the MOF2 embedded in unidirectional laminate compared with the response of MOF1 integrated in a cross-ply configuration (the sensitivity plots of MOF2 and HBF are overlaying each other).
Figure 9.(a) 1/8 of the laminate structure meshed and close-up of MOF1. (b) Strain in the out-of-plane direction for MOF1.
Figure 10.Comparison between the composite configurations. (a) MOF1 embedded in cross-ply laminate (experimental (EXP) and modeling (FEA)) and unidirectional laminate (modeling). (b) MOF1 and MOF2 in cross-ply laminate (modeling results).