Stress monitoring capability of magnetostrictive Fe

Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 22421 (2022) Cite this article

589 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Many structural health monitoring (SHM) techniques have been investigated for damage detection in woven glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminates. Recently, the GFRP composites integrated with sensors have received attention because the composite material can transmit information about the structural condition during operation. Magnetostrictive materials are considered as feasible candidates to realize the contactless SHM techniques by exploiting the Villari effect, but the theoretical modeling to correlate a magnetostrictive response with structural conditions is a critical issue. In this study, the analytical procedure considering the mechanics of materials and electromagnetism was proposed to model the magnetic induction by the Villari effect of magnetostrictive GFRP laminates under bending. The magnetostrictive Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composites were then developed, and the four-point bending tests were carried out to evaluate the fabricated composites’ stress monitoring capability. The magnetic flux density behavior corresponded to the bending stress fluctuation. The maximum magnetic flux density change was 70.7 mT subjected to the peak bending stress of 158 MPa. The analytical solutions showed reasonable agreement with the experimental results. The applied stress and measured magnetic flux density were correlated by the theoretical models. Thus, these results suggest an important step in realizing the novel contactless SHM technique utilizing magnetostrictive materials.

Woven glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminates exhibit the features of thermal insulation, electrical insulation, and excellent mechanical properties, and are good materials for superconducting devices for use in the fusion reactor, such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)1. However, the application of FRP laminates is prone to be limited due to their complex damage and failure morphologies, for example, interlaminar failure2,3. Hence, it has been required to assess the damage state and predict the remaining service life for safe operation4.

Structural health monitoring (SHM) is required to maintain safety protocols for these structural components during service5. Many researchers have studied various SHM techniques, for instance, the frequency method6, Lamb waves7, and acoustic emission8. However, a versatile technique for all conditions, situations, and applications has not been created because every developed technique has their own advantages, limitations, and scope of application9. Currently, the composites embedded with sensors have been broadly recognized as one of the SHM technologies since the composite material can inform the structural health by itself. Fiber optic sensors in composite structures have received attention due to their distinctive advantages10. Sánchez et al.11 have monitored the full manufacturing process of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) embedded with optical fiber sensors and evaluated the distributed residual strain profile. The GFRP feasibility with optical backscatter reflectometer based on Rayleigh scatter has been explored12. Okabe et al.13 have demonstrated that the sensing capability of chirped fiber Bragg grating to identify crack locations in CFRP laminates. Electrical resistance measurement has been investigated since the damage and the electrical resistance in CFRP composites can be coupled14. The impact damage on continuous carbon fiber/epoxy composite laminates has been evaluated by electrical resistance measurement, and the sensitivity of the technique was more effective than that of ultrasonic methods15. The correlation between the interlaminar shear behavior and electrical resistance responses of woven CFRP composite laminates in a cryogenic environment has been discussed numerically and experimentally16,17. Takeda and Narita18 have reported the crack propagation monitoring of bonded CFRP composite joints with carbon nanotube/epoxy adhesive layer under Mode I loading. Piezoelectric materials can be utilized as both passive and active sensors bonded to a composite structure19. CFRP composites embedded with piezoelectric ceramics have been characterized to discuss the real-time SHM ability20,21. Hwang et al.22 have characterized a piezoelectric GFRP composite laminate including a mixture of piezoelectric powder and epoxy resin for an impact sensor. Smart woven fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite laminates composed of woven piezoelectric fabric, which acts as a sensor and a reinforcement, have exhibited a direct relationship between the applied load and the sensor signal23. Wang et al.24 have suggested the novel polarization process of the piezoelectric CFRP composites and characterized the piezoelectric property.

Magnetostrictive materials have been employed for sensor or energy harvesting applications by exploiting the Villari effect, which is generally described as the change in magnetization of ferromagnetic materials when subjected to applied stress25. Hence, unlike other composites embedded with SHM sensor, magnetostrictive FRP composites are expected to realize the FRP structures’ contactless monitoring because the magnetic field change caused by magnetostrictive materials can be picked up as voltage change using a coil or a Hall probe. Terfenol-D (Tb1−xDyxFe2) is known as a giant magnetostrictive material. Kubicka et al.26,27 have reported the preparation and characterization of CFRP embedded with Terfenol-D particles. Additionally, other researchers have studied magnetostrictive polymer composites for SHM applications28,29,30,31. Fe–Co alloy (Fe29Co71) exhibits ductility and good workability; therefore, Fe–Co wires have been implanted in epoxy resin to invent original magnetostrictive epoxy composite materials utilizing the high aspect ratio of Fe–Co wires32,33,34,35. The studies have mainly investigated the magnetostrictive response to compressive stress. Lately, Katabira et al.36,37 have developed FRP composites embedded with Fe–Co wires and investigated the effects of the composite design on the self-sensing capability under bending loading. The composite design using Fe–Co wire is easy to control the magnetization direction because of the strong columnar crystals, and this feature has possibility to eliminate the need for application of a bias magnetic field. Figure 1 shows the magnetostrictive behavior and stress monitoring procedure of GFRP composite embedded with Fe–Co fibers (Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composite) under bending load P. Bending stress \(\sigma_{{\text{f}}}\) generates stress tensor \(\sigma_{ij}^{{\text{f}}}\) in Fe–Co fibers, which induces magnetic flux density \({\varvec{B}}^{{\text{f}}}\) by the Villari effect. A magnetic field is then induced around the composite, which is expressed as magnetic flux density \({\varvec{B}}^{{\text{e}}}\) in the air in Fig. 1. The superscripts f and e represent the quantities inside and outside the Fe–Co fibers, respectively. One of the critical issues of the contactless assessment is estimating magnetic flux density in Fe–Co fibers from monitored magnetic flux density around magnetostrictive FRP composites. The correlation between magnetic responses and structural conditions must also be considered based on a theoretical model of the composite structure. However, literature studies about these issues are sparse and inconclusive.

Magnetostrictive behavior and stress monitoring procedure of Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composite under bending load.

In this study, an analytical procedure based on the mechanics of materials and electromagnetism was proposed to devise an approach to understand the correlation between magnetostrictive responses and structural conditions under bending. Then, the Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composites were fabricated. Four-point bending tests were conducted to investigate the stress self-sensing capability, utilizing the Villari effect of the magnetostrictive GFRP composites. Three Hall probes were introduced to evaluate the magnetic field distribution's change around the specimens during four-point bending tests.

The basic equations for magnetostrictive material are outlined here. Consider the coordinate system o-xyz. The z-axis coincides with the easy axis of the magnetization. The constitutive equations are given by

where \(\varepsilon_{xx}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\varepsilon_{yy}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\varepsilon_{zz}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\varepsilon_{yz}^{{\text{f}}} = \varepsilon_{zy}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\varepsilon_{zx}^{{\text{f}}} = \varepsilon_{xz}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\varepsilon_{xy}^{{\text{f}}} = \varepsilon_{yx}^{{\text{f}}}\) are the components of the strain tensor, \(\sigma_{xx}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\sigma_{yy}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\sigma_{zz}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\sigma_{yz}^{{\text{f}}} = \sigma_{zy}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\sigma_{zx}^{{\text{f}}} = \sigma_{xz}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(\sigma_{xy}^{{\text{f}}} = \sigma_{yx}^{{\text{f}}}\) are the components of the stress tensor, \(H_{x}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(H_{y}^{{\text{f}}}\), and \(H_{z}^{{\text{f}}}\) are the components of the magnetic field intensity vector, \(B_{x}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(B_{y}^{{\text{f}}}\), and \(B_{z}^{{\text{f}}}\) are the components of the magnetic flux density vector, \(s_{11}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(s_{33}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(s_{44}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(s_{66}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(s_{12}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(s_{13}^{{\text{f}}}\) are the elastic compliances at constant magnetic field, \(d_{15}^{{\prime}{\text{f}}}\), \(d_{31}^{{\prime}{\text{f}}}\), and \(d_{33}^{{\prime}{\text{f}}}\) are the magnetoelastic constants, and \(\mu_{11}^{{\text{f}}}\) and \(\mu_{33}^{{\text{f}}}\) are the magnetic permeabilities at constant stress, respectively. Usually, Fe–Co fiber is manufactured by drawing. It is assumed that the easy axis of the magnetization is along the length direction and that the longitudinal (33) magnetostrictive deformation mode is dominant. Hence, the constants \(d_{15}^{{\prime}{\text{f}}}\), \(d_{31}^{{\prime}{\text{f}}}\), and \(d_{33}^{{\prime}{\text{f}}}\) are

where \(d_{15}^{{\text{f}}}\), \(d_{31}^{{\text{f}}}\), and \(d_{33}^{{\text{f}}}\) are the piezomagnetic constants, and \(m_{33}^{{\text{f}}}\) is the second-order magnetoelastic constant. Here, we focus on the Fe–Co fiber and consider a one-dimensional model because the magnetostrictive behavior in the z-direction is dominant. The constitutive Eqs. (1) and (2) of Fe–Co fiber become

Here, it is assumed that the component of the magnetic field intensity vector is omitted because a bias magnetic field was not applied on the specimen38.

Figure 2a shows the Fe–Co fiber of length L and diameter d. The magnetic flux density is induced due to the normal stress along the length (z-)direction (easy axis). Then, the Fe–Co fiber (Fig. 2a) is assumed to have two magnetic charges, ± q, at both ends (Fig. 2b). The magnetic charge due to the Villari effect is assumed to be equal to the amount of the magnetic flux in the z-direction \({\phi_{z}^{\text{f}}}\) through the magnetostrictive fiber's cross-section, i.e.,

where S = πd2/4 is the cross-sectional area of the Fe–Co fiber. Let us now consider the coordinate system, o-xyz, as shown in Fig. 2c, whose origin is positioned at the center of the magnetic charges. The magnetic flux densities at the arbitrary point A(0, y, 0) in space induced by magnetic charge + q and − q are, respectively, given by:

where r is the distance between the magnetic charge and the arbitrary point A. Here, z-component of the magnetic flux density at the arbitrary point A(0, y, 0), shown in Fig. 2d, can be expressed as:

where

(a) The Fe–Co fiber and the magnetic flux density, (b) the magnetic charges, (c) magnetic flux density induced by two magnetic charges at point A, and (d) z-component of the magnetic flux density induced by magnetic charges at point A.

Therefore, we have

From Eq. (10), the magnetic flux density \(B_{z}^{{\text{f}}}\) in the Fe–Co fiber will be estimated by the measurement of magnetic flux density \(B_{z}^{{\text{e}}} \left( {0,y,0} \right)\). Here, it is assumed that the estimated magnetic flux density uniformly distributes between the magnetic charges. The value of \(B_{z}^{{\text{e}}}\) changes with an external load. Hence, from the above analysis, we can predict the stress in Fe–Co fiber by monitoring the magnetic induction's variation through the magnetostrictive fiber.

Next, we consider a simply supported five layered composite beam of thickness h, width b with four GFRP layers, and one magnetostrictive layer under bending moment M(Z) as shown in Fig. 3a. The origin of the global coordinate system, O-XYZ, is at the center of the upper surface of the composite beam, the X-axis is in the width direction, and the Y- and Z-axes are in the thickness and length direction, respectively. The bending moment M(Z) is induced by the bending load, P. For simplicity, it was assumed that the magnetostrictive layer consists of n Fe–Co fibers and epoxy matrix; where n is the number of Fe–Co fibers. The magnetostrictive layer is the second layer of the composite beam. The position of the neutral plane YN is not the center of the composite beam because of the asymmetric structure, which can be expressed as:

where (E33)i and Ai = bhi are the Young's modulus and cross-sectional area of the ith layer, respectively, and hi is the thickness of the ith layer. The Young's moduli of the magnetostrictive layer and GFRP layer are (E33)2 = 1/\(s_{33}^{{\text{M}}}\) and (E33)1 = (E33)3 = (E33)4 = (E33)5 = 1/\(s_{33}^{{\text{G}}}\), respectively. The superscripts M and G denote the magnetostrictive layer and GFRP layer, respectively. If the distance between the neutral plane and the center plane of the jth layer is Y′ = Yj − YN, the normal stress in the jth layer can be expressed as:

where the moment of inertia of cross-sectional area of ith layer is given by:

Image of a five layered composite beam with four GFRP layers and one magnetostrictive layer; (a) overview, edge view, and cross-sectional view, and (b) magnetostrictive layer.

Especially, the stress in the magnetostrictive layer is obtained as:

We focus on the magnetostrictive layer as shown in Fig. 3b. The strain tensor component \(\varepsilon_{ZZ}^{{\text{m}}}\) for the epoxy matrix is given by

where \(\sigma_{ZZ}^{{\text{m}}}\) is the stress tensor component, and \(s_{33}^{{\text{m}}}\) is the elastic compliance of the epoxy matrix. The superscript m denotes the epoxy matrix. When Fe–Co fiber and epoxy matrix are perfectly bonded, the strain of the magnetostrictive fiber is:

Hence, the average stress \(\sigma_{ZZ}^{0}\) acting on the cross-sectional area of the magnetostrictive layer can be given by

where vf = nπd/4b is the volume fraction of the Fe–Co fiber. In this condition, the Young's modulus of the magnetostrictive layer is \(\left( {E_{33} } \right)_{2} = v^{{\text{f}}} /s_{33}^{{\text{f}}} + \left( {1 - v^{{\text{f}}} } \right)/s_{33}^{{\text{m}}}\). In the global coordinate system, O-XYZ, the origin of the coordinate system o-xyz is (0, Y2, 0), and the x-, y-, and z-axes are parallel to the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively. When the average stress \(\sigma_{ZZ}^{0}\) in Eq. (17) is equal to the normal stress \(\left( {\sigma_{ZZ} } \right)_{2}\) in Eq. (14) using Eqs. (4), (15), and considering condition (16), the stress acting on the Fe–Co fibers can be obtained as:

By substitution of Eq. (18) into Eq. (5), the magnetic flux density \(B_{Z}^{{\text{f}}}\) in the Fe–Co fiber of the composite beam under bending moment can be calculated, which allows us to correlate the external load to the inverse magnetostrictive response. Table 1 lists the material properties used in this study.

Finally, the magnetic flux density of Fe–Co fiber under maximum bending stress was discussed. Figure 4a shows the bending moment diagram of four-point bending test, in which the blue line denotes the general bending moment diagram. The bending moment is given by:

(a) Bending moment diagram of four-point bending test, and (b) Schematic view of four-point bending test and Fe–Co fiber magnetization.

The normal stress for Fe–Co fibers depends on the bending moment. Therefore, the amount of the magnetization of Fe–Co fibers in the specimen is different on the coordinate Z as shown in Fig. 4b. To simplify the calculation, the corrected length, L′, was then introduced such that the total amount of the magnetization does not change, and the bending moment is constant. In other words, in Fig. 4a, the area surrounded by the red line is equal to the area surrounded by the blue line. Hence, the corrected length was obtained as

Substituting L′ for L into Eq. (10), the magnetic flux density of Fe–Co fiber, \(B_{Z}^{{\text{f}}}\), was calculated using the experimental values, |Y|, \(B_{Z}^{{\text{e}}} \left( {0, Y,0} \right)\), and YA = Y2 – Y.

The specimens were fabricated using GFRP prepregs (EGP-87 LA18BR, SPIC Corporation, Japan) with a plain weave and magnetostrictive Fe–Co fibers (K-MP70, Tohoku Steel Co. Ltd., Japan) with 100 μm diameters, and the composition of the Fe–Co fibers was Fe29Co71. Figure 5 shows the microstructure of the Fe–Co fiber. The Fe–Co fiber's saturation magnetization, Ms, residual magnetization, Mr, and coercivity, Hc, were 1.44 MA/m, 0.31 MA/m, and 6.24 kA/m, respectively. Figure 6 shows the specimen preparation's scheme. The system of rectangular Cartesian coordinate O-XYZ is introduced such that the origin of the system is at the center of the upper surface and the X-, Y-, and Z-axes are along the direction of the specimen's width, thickness, and length, respectively. Four GFRP prepregs and Fe–Co fibers were laminated followed by curing for 2 h at 130 ºC. The Fe–Co fibers were located on the second layer of the laminate and the distance from the upper surface, Y2, was 0.1875 mm. The number of Fe–Co fibers, n, was 5, 10, 20, and 37. The Fe–Co fibers were closely spaced at the center of the laminate's width since the measured magnetic flux density will decrease if the Fe–Co fibers are equally spaced. After curing, a laminate was cut and polished so that the specimen's length, l, width, b, and thickness, h, became 40, 7.5, and 0.65 mm, respectively. The warp direction of GFRP prepreg and the longitudinal direction of Fe–Co fibers are parallel to the Z-axis, and the fill direction is parallel to the X-axis. Therefore, the prepared specimens can be assumed to be a five-layered composite of which the magnetostrictive layer is located on the second layer.

Microstructure of Fe–Co fiber with 100 μm diameters.

Specimen preparation's scheme.

Four-point bending tests were carried out using Autograph (AG-50kNXD, Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). Figure 7a shows the experimental setup of the four-point bending test. The load and support spans were L1 = 12 and L2 = 34 mm, respectively. Three Hall probes (HG-302C, Asahi Kasei Microdevices Corporation, Japan) were positioned above the specimens to measure the magnetic flux density change \(B_{Z}^{{\text{e}}}\) in the longitudinal (Z-)direction as shown in Fig. 7b. The distance between the specimen surface and the center of the Hall probe, |Y|, was 5, 9, and 13 mm, respectively (shown in Fig. 7c). Figure 7d shows a four-point bending test program. The specimens were loaded under stress control at a rate of 5 MPa/s, and the maximum load was approximately 150 MPa. Four-point bending tests were carried out to evaluate the reproducibility of inverse magnetostrictive responses corresponding on bending load without a bias magnetic field. All the analog signals, which are load, P, and load point displacement, δ, from Autograph, and voltage, V, from Hall probes were simultaneously collected by the data logger (NR-500 series, KEYENCE Corporation, Japan). The magnetic flux density, \(B_{Z}^{{\text{e}}}\), was computed by multiplying the measured voltage from a Hall probe with the coefficient, 0.8 mT/mV, obtained from the data sheet of the Hall probe.

(a) Experimental setup of four-point bending test, (b) sketch of magnetic flux density distribution caused by external bending load, (c) the Hall probes’ position for measurement of magnetic flux density distribution, and (d) four-point bending test program.

The bending stress at the bottom surface σf = σZZ(0, h, 0) and the magnetic flux density change \(B_{Z}^{{\text{e}}} \left( {0, Y,0} \right)\) are plotted in Fig. 8 as a function of the time t for the specimen with 37 Fe–Co fibers. The magnetic flux density's behavior corresponded to the bending stress fluctuation. As expected, the variation of the magnetic flux density change decreased with an increase in the distance between the specimen's surface and the Hall probe's center. At the end of a cycle, the bending stress almost became 0 MPa; however, the magnetic flux density did not return to the initial value. This result can be understood since the residual magnetization of the Fe–Co fiber affects the behavior. The residual magnetization will be an important problem for sensor applications; however, the reproducible behavior of the magnetic flux density's change was observed under the bending stress. The similar results were obtained for the specimens with 5, 10, and 20 Fe–Co fibers. These results indicate that Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composites can monitor bending stress. Table 2 shows the maximum change of the magnetic flux density \(B_{{Z,{\text{max}}}}^{{\text{e}}}\) of all specimens. Here, the maximum change of the magnetic flux density was calculated by taking the difference between the peak value and the end of cycle value. The result of the specimen with 37 Fe–Co fibers was the largest of all specimens.

Bending stress and magnetic flux density change versus time for the specimen with 37 Fe–Co fibers.

Table 3 lists the calculated values of the magnetic flux density of Fe–Co fiber \(B_{Z}^{{\text{f}}} \left( {0,Y_{2} ,0} \right) = B_{z}^{{\text{f}}} \left( {0,0,0} \right)\) by Eq. (10) and magnetic charge q by Eq. (6) under maximum bending stress. Here, n Fe–Co fibers closely spaced at the center of the magnetostrictive layer's width were assumed as one Fe–Co fiber with length, L′, and cross-sectional area, S = πnd2/4, and the single fiber was located at the center of the magnetostrictive layer (single magnetic rod model). The magnetic charges, + q and − q, are placed at (0, Y2, L′/2) and (0, Y2, − L′/2), respectively. Figure 9 shows the schematic of a modeled single Fe–Co fiber and arbitrary point A. Figure 10 gives a plot of the magnetic flux density change in the air with the distance between the specimen surface and the Hall probe's center showing the calculated values and the experimental data for all specimens. The dots are the average values obtained by the experimental data at |Y|= 5, 9, and 13 mm. The dashed lines were plotted by substituting the values in Table 3 to Eq. (10). The trend is sufficiently similar between the calculation and the experiment. This result implies that the suggested model is useful, and that the Fe–Co fiber's magnetic flux density can be predicted during the four-point bending test by monitoring the variation of the magnetic induction around the Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composites with a Hall probe. The magnetic charges q in Table 3 will be discussed later.

Schematic of modeled Fe–Co fiber and arbitrary point A.

Magnetic flux density change versus the distance between the specimen surface and the Hall probe's center.

Figure 11a illustrates the scheme of estimating the Fe–Co fibers’ magnetostrictive response under the bending moment from the bending load (Calculation 1) and the measured magnetic flux density (Calculation 2). Figure 11b shows the magnetic flux versus the number of Fe–Co fibers. The dashed line denotes the calculated data \({\phi_{z}^{\text{f}}}\) based on the composite beam model consisting of one magnetostrictive layer and four GFRP layers. The magnetic flux increases with increase in the number of Fe–Co fibers. The line represents the good agreement with the dots q from Table 3 when the magnetoelastic constant \(d^{\prime\rm{f}}_{33}\) is assumed as 900 × 10−12 m/A. When the applied bending stress is assessed using a coil or a Hall probe, the amount of magnetic flux is important because it affects the difficulty of monitoring magnetic flux density in space. This result implies the validity of the composite beam model and single magnetic rod model to correlate the external bending load in relation to the magnetostrictive response. In other words, the analytical procedure was proposed to monitor bending stress σf from magnetic flux density Be in space, as shown in Fig. 1.

(a) Scheme of estimation of magnetic flux in Fe–Co fibers, and (b) magnetic flux versus the number of Fe–Co fibers.

This study focused on establishing the novel models to correlate an inverse magnetostrictive response and a bending stress. The Fe–Co fiber was assumed to have two magnetic charges at both ends, and the magnetic charges virtually induced the magnetic field in the air. The five-layered composite beam with four GFRP layers and one magnetostrictive layer was considered under bending. The magnetostrictive layer consisted of n Fe–Co fibers and an epoxy matrix. To devise the analytical procedure using the proposed models, we fabricated the Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composites and performed four-point bending tests. The stress monitoring capability was also investigated. The magnetostrictive response of the Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composites was calculated by using the composite beam and single magnetic rod models, which take into account the Villari effect. During the four-point bending tests, the magnetic flux density outside the Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composite specimen was monitored, using three Hall probes with different distances from the specimen's surface. The magnetic flux density behavior corresponded to the bending stress fluctuation. The maximum magnetic flux density change was 70.7 mT subjected to the peak bending stress of 158 MPa. The composite beam and single magnetic rod models also predicted the distributions of the magnetic flux density around the various magnetostrictive composites with different numbers of Fe–Co fibers, which were in good agreement with the experimental results. In addition, the magnetoelastic constant was predicted, and the relationship between the bending stress (or load) and magnetic flux was successfully obtained. This study can be exploited to realize the contactless SHM technique utilizing the magnetostrictive materials because the theoretical procedure enables to predict a bending stress in a structure through monitoring magnetic flux density in the free space.

The stress monitoring method is an important step for the realization of damage/fracture sensing. In the future work, the relationship between an inverse magnetostrictive response and the fracture behavior of Fe–Co fiber/GFRP composites will be discussed in detail.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Mitchell, N. et al. Status of the ITER magnets. Fusion Eng. Des. 84, 113–121 (2009).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Liu, P. F., Chu, J. K., Liu, Y. L. & Zheng, J. Y. A study of the failure mechanisms of carbon fiber/epoxy composite laminates using acoustic emission. Mater. Des. 37, 228–235 (2012).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Schwab, M., Todt, M., Wolfahrt, M. & Pettermann, H. E. Falure mechanism based modelling of impact on fabric reinforced composite laminates based on shell elements. Compos. Sci. Technol. 128, 131–137 (2016).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Qing, X. P., Beard, S. J., Kumar, A., Chan, H.-L. & Ikegami, R. Advance in the development of built-in diagnostic system for filament wound composite structures. Compos. Sci. Technol. 66, 1694–1702 (2006).

Article Google Scholar

Ahmed, O., Wang, X., Tran, M.-V. & Ismadi, M.-Z. Advancements in fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials damage detection methods: Towards achieving energy-efficient SHM systems. Compos. B. Eng. 223, 109136 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Kim, H. Y. Vibration-based damage identification using reconstructed FRFs in composites structures. J. Sound Vib. 259, 1131–1146 (2003).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Su, Z., Ye, L. & Lu, Y. Guided Lambs waves for identification of damage in composite structures: A review. J. Sound Vib. 295, 753–780 (2006).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Haman, Z., Godin, N., Fusco, C., Doitrand, A. & Monnier, T. Acoustic emission signal due to fiber break and fiber matrix debonding in model composite: A computational study. Appl. Sci. 11, 8406 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Amafabia, D.-A.M., Montalvao, D., David-West, O. & Haritos, G. A review of structural health monitoring techniques as applied to composite structures. SDHM Struct. Durab. Health Monit. 11(2), 91–147 (2017).

Google Scholar

Sante, R. D. Fiber optic sensors for structural health monitoring of aircraft composite structures: Recent advances and applications. Sensors 15, 18666–18713 (2015).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Sánchez, D. M., Gresil, M. & Soutis, C. Distributed internal strain measurement during composite manufacturing using optical fibre sensors. Compos. Sci. Technol. 120, 49–57 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

Souza, G. & Tarpani, J. R. Distributed fiber optics sensing applied to laminated composites: Embedding process, strain field monitoring with OBR and fracture mechanisms. J. Nondestr. Eval. 39, 77 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Okabe, Y., Tsuji, R. & Takeda, N. Application of chirped fiber Bragg grating sensors for identification of crack locations in composites. Compos. A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 35, 59–65 (2004).

Article Google Scholar

Wen, J., Xia, Z. & Choy, F. Damage detection of carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites via electrical resistance measurement. Compos. B. Eng. 42, 77–86 (2011).

Article Google Scholar

Wang, S., Chung, D. D. L. & Chung, J. H. Impact damage of carbon fiber polymer-matrix composites, studied by electrical resistance measurement. Compos. A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 36, 1707–1715 (2005).

Article Google Scholar

Shindo, Y., Takeda, T., Narita, F. & Fukuzaki, T. Interlaminar shear and electrical resistance responses of woven-carbon-fiber-reinforced-polymer composite laminates at cryogenic temperatures from cyclic short beam shear tests. J. Test. Eval. 42, 1–8 (2014).

Article Google Scholar

Takeda, T., Shindo, Y., Fukuzaki, T. & Narita, F. Short beam interlaminar shear behavior and electrical resistance-based damage self-sensing of woven carbon/epoxy composite laminates in a cryogenic environment. J. Compos. Mater. 48, 119–128 (2014).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Takeda, T. & Narita, F. Fracture behavior and crack sensing capability of bonded carbon fiber composite joints with carbon nanotube-based polymer adhesive layer under mode I loading. Compos. Sci. Technol. 146, 26–33 (2017).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Santoni-Bottai, G. & Giurgiutiu, V. Damage detection at cryogenic temperatures in composites using piezoelectric wafer active sensors. Struct. Health Monit. 11, 510–525 (2012).

Article Google Scholar

Andreades, C., Mahmoodi, P. & Ciampa, F. Characterization of smart CFRP composites with embedded PZT transducers for nonlinear ultrasonic applications. Compos. Struct. 206, 456–466 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Tuloup, C., Harizi, W., Aboura, Z. & Meyer, Y. Structural health monitoring of polymer-matrix composite using embedded piezoelectric ceramic transducers during several four-points bending tests. Smart Mater. Struct. 29, 125011 (2020).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Hwang, M. Y. & Kang, L.-H. Characteristics and fabrication of piezoelectric GFRP using smart resin prepreg for detecting impact signals. Compos. Sci. Technol. 167, 224–233 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hofmann, P., Walch, A., Dinkelmann, A., Selvarayan, S. K. & Cresser, G. T. Woven piezoelectric sensors as part of the textile reinforcement of fiber reinforced plastics. Compos. A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 116, 79–86 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Wang, Z., Kurita, H., Nagaoka, H. & Narita, F. Potassium sodium niobate lead-free piezoelectric nanocomposite generators based on carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer electrodes for energy-harvesting structures. Compos. Sci. Technol. 199, 108331 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Narita, F. & Fox, M. A review on piezoelectric, magnetostrictive, and magnetoelectric materials and device technologies for energy harvesting applications. Adv. Eng. Mater. 20, 1700743 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Kubicka, M., Mahrholz, T., Kühn, A., Wierach, P. & Sinapius, M. Magnetostrictive properties of epoxy resins modified with Terfenol-D particles for detection of internal stress in CFRP. Part 1: Materials and processes. J. Mater. Sci. 47, 5752–5759 (2012).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Kubicka, M., Mahrholz, T., Kühn, A., Wierach, P. & Sinapius, M. Magnetostrictive properties of epoxy resins modified with Terfenol-D particles for detection of internal stress in CFRP. Part 2: Evaluation of stress detection. J. Mater. Sci. 48, 6578–6584 (2013).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Haile, M. A., Hall, A. J., Yoo, J. H., Coatney, M. D. & Myers, O. Detection of damage precursors with embedded magnetostrictive particles. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 27, 1567–1576 (2016).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Adelsberg, N., Weber, Y., Yoffe, A. & Shilo, D. Wireless thin layer force sensor based on a magnetostrictive composite material. Smart Mater. Struct. 26, 065013 (2017).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Na, S. M., Park, J. J., Jones, N. J., Werely, N. & Flatau, A. B. Magnetostrictive whisker sensor application of carbon fiber-Alfenol composites. Smart Mater. Struct. 27, 105010 (2018).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Leong, Z. et al. Magnetostrictive sensor for composite damage detection and wireless structural health monitoring. IEEE Trans. Magn. 55, 4003006 (2019).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Narita, F. Inverse magnetostrictive effect in Fe29Co71 wire/polymer composites. Adv. Eng. Mater. 19, 1600586 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Narita, F. & Katabira, K. Stress-rate dependent output voltage for Fe29Co71 magnetostrictive fiber/polymer composites: Fabrication, experimental observation and theoretical prediction. Mater. Trans. 58, 302–304 (2017).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Katabira, K., Kimura, N., Yamazaki, T. & Narita, F. Evaluation of the inverse magnetostrictive effect in heat-treated Fe-Co wire/polymer composites. Mater. Des. Process. Commun. 1, e81 (2019).

CAS Google Scholar

Yamazaki, T., Katabira, K., Narita, F., Furuya, Y. & Nakao, W. Microstructure-enhanced inverse magnetostrictive effect in Fe–Co alloy wires. Adv. Eng. Mater. 22, 2000026 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Katabira, K., Yoshida, Y., Masuda, A., Watanabe, A. & Narita, F. Fabrication of Fe–Co magnetostrictive fiber reinforced plastic composites and their sensor performance evaluation. Materials 11, 406 (2018).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Katabira, K., Kurita, H. Y., Yoshida, Y. & Narita, F. Fabrication and characterization of carbon fiber reinforced plastics containing magnetostrictive Fe-Co fibers with damage self-detection capability. Sensors 19, 4984 (2019).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Engdahl, G. Handbook of Giant Magnetostrictive Materials (Academic Press, 2000).

Google Scholar

Download references

The authors would like to acknowledge Tohoku Steel Co. Ltd. for providing the Fe–Co fibers.

The work was supported by the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Young Scientists under Grant No. 20J21413. The authors would like to thank the support of this work by JSPS, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) under Grant No. 22H00183.

Department of Materials Processing, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Aoba-Yama 6-6-02, Sendai, 980-8579, Japan

Kenichi Katabira

Department of Frontier Sciences for Advanced Environment, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, Aoba-Yama 6-6-02, Sendai, 980-8579, Japan

Tomoki Miyashita & Fumio Narita

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

K.K.: Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – Original draft, Funding acquisition; T.M.: Investigation, Visualization; F.N.: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Correspondence to Kenichi Katabira or Fumio Narita.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Katabira, K., Miyashita, T. & Narita, F. Stress monitoring capability of magnetostrictive Fe–Co fiber/glass fiber reinforced polymer composites under four-point bending. Sci Rep 12, 22421 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25792-0

Download citation

Received: 17 August 2022

Accepted: 05 December 2022

Published: 27 December 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25792-0

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.