Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-023-01689-8
Design and analysis of a carbon nanotube‑based strain
gauge via multiscale modeling
G. Arana · A. Mora · I. Pérez · F. Avilés
Received: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 30 June 2023 / Published online: 24 July 2023
© Springer Nature B.V. 2023
Abstract The gauge factor of strain gauges depends
on several factors such as the geometry of the gauge
and the piezoresistive properties of the materials used.
Herein, the piezoresistive response of a strain gauge
comprising a network of carbon nanotubes (CNTs)
deposited over a polyimide (Kapton) substrate is the-
oretically and experimentally investigated. Two com-
putational approaches are used, namely, a continuous
finite element model and a multiscale model com-
prising two dimensional scales. The finite element
model is a simplified model which simulates the CNT
grid as a continuous solid. The multiscale approach
utilizes a resistor network model to simulate the
change in electrical resistance of the CNT grid with
strain and uses such effective electrical resistance as
an input of the finite element model. It is found that
the gauge factor increases with increased number of
end loops, decreasing grid width, and decreasing the
end loop height. Both modeling approaches agree
with the observed experimental tendencies. The mul-
tiscale approach is more realistic and accounts for
effects occurring at the micro and nanoscales, such
Supplementary Information The online version
contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11012-​023-​01689-8.
G. Arana · A. Mora · I. Pérez · F. Avilés (*)
Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, Unidad de
Materiales, Calle 43 No. 130 x 32 y 34, Col. Chuburná de
Hidalgo, 97205 Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico
e-mail: faviles@cicy.mx
as electron tunneling. The gauge factors predicted by
this model were moderately higher than the measured
values, given some idealizations of the model.
Keywords Carbon nanotube deposit · Strain
gauge · Finite element · Multiscale simulation ·
Piezoresistivity · Carbon nanotubes
1 Introduction
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are nanomaterials with
extraordinary mechanical and electrical properties.
To utilize these properties, CNTs have been used
as fillers of polymeric nanocomposites as well as in
CNT arrays or buckypapers, either free-standing or
deposited over different substrates [1–3]. An impor-
tant characteristic of these materials is their piezore-
sistivity, which is defined as the reversible change in
electrical resistance when the material is strained. In
CNT-based materials, piezoresistivity is mainly gov-
erned by three parameters, viz. changes of the perco-
lated CNT network, changes in the number of contact
points between individual CNTs, and changes in the
distances between individual CNTs, which in turn
affect the tunneling resistance [4, 5]. The piezore-
sistivity of CNT-based materials is exploited for the
development of strain sensors. Strain sensors are used
in a wide variety of fields such as biomedicine, struc-
tural health monitoring, robotics, experimental stress
analysis, and transducer manufacturing, among many
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1718
others [6–10]. The most commonly used strain sensor
are metallic strain gauges [6, 9–11]. The popularity of
this type of sensor stems from its relatively low cost,
ease of use, accuracy, and versatility [3, 6, 10, 11].
However, a major downside of these sensors is that
they present low gauge factors (GFs), between 2 and
2.5, which limits their sensitivity and applicability [6,
12, 13]. This is because, in the case of metals, the pie-
zoresistivity depends mostly on dimensional changes
(geometrical effect), while changes in the electrical
resistivity of the metal may be negligible [4, 6–9].
They also show low electrical resistances (from 30
Ω to 3 KΩ), temperature dependence of their electri-
cal resistance [3], and are only suitable for measuring
strains below 5% [14]. To overcome the downsides of
metallic gauges, CNT arrays (either free-standing or
deposited over a substrate) and CNT/polymer nano-
composites have been studied as strain sensors [2,
3, 14–19]. They can render higher sensitivity than
metallic strain gauges [5, 18, 20]. Moreover, they
often render good processability, flexibility, enhanced
thermal stability, and relative low cost [6].
In spite of the existent research on CNT arrays and
CNT/polymer nanocomposites, their piezoresistive
behavior is still not fully understood, and there are
no accurate models which allow a full understanding
or prediction of their response [6]. Multiscale mod-
eling shows great potential addressing these issues,
shedding light on the mechanisms, saving time and
resources, and reducing the number of experiments
required [21]. They also allow to investigate the com-
plicated multiscale and multiphysics phenomena that
affects piezoresistivity [22]. Many researchers have
carried out computational simulations and experi-
ments to investigate CNT-based materials [7, 10, 16,
17, 20, 23–27]. Among them, Lee at al [1]. proposed
a two-dimensional percolation model of a CNT film
to obtain its piezoresistive properties, leading to a GF
of around 1.3. They validated their model experimen-
tally by characterizing a CNT-Pluronic buckypaper
specimen. Huang et al. [2] fabricated a flexible strain
sensor consisting on a CNT film between two layers
of parylene-C, obtaining GFs two times higher than
those of commercial gauges. Lee et al. [3] designed
and fabricated gauges based on a CNT film spray-
deposited on a polyimide substrate; they tested dif-
ferent grid geometries and found that the sensitiv-
ity increased with the number of end loops and film
thickness, reaching GFs up to 16. Gooding et al. [7]
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
used finite element (FE) simulations to calculate the
electrical resistance of a three-dimensionally printed
graphenic sheets/polylactic acid strain sensor. They
simplified their model by considering the grid made
of graphenic sheets as a continuous solid (i.e., indi-
vidual graphenic sheets were not modeled), consid-
ering only geometrical effects. Their FE model was
able to estimate the electrostatic properties of the
strain gauges, although the predicted electrical resist-
ance differed from the measured one. Han et al. [18]
fabricated a strain sensor with carbon black/polydi-
methylsiloxane and used FE simulations to study the
effects of grid geometry on the GF. Their approach
also considered the grid as a continuous material with
constant resistivity, so only dimensional changes of
the sensor were accounted for. Chen et al. [28] devel-
oped a coupled electromechanical model of CNT/pol-
ymer nanocomposites to simulate their piezoresistive
response. To achieve this goal, the electrical resist-
ance of a CNT network was calculated using a Monte
Carlo algorithm. Then, a FE model was implemented
to simulate the changes of the CNT network under
strain and the results were fed back to the Monte
Carlo algorithm to obtain the electrical resistance of
the strained composite.
Most computational studies on the piezoresistiv-
ity of CNT-based materials focus only on the material
response rather than on the response of a geometri-
cally complex strain-sensing device, such as a strain
gauge. Multiscale modeling simulations may greatly
assist in the design of such strain-sensing devices,
and there are only a few works exploiting a combined
modeling-experimental approach [5, 23]. Further-
more, models with an analytical basis allow to read-
ily conduct parametric analysis and clearly investigate
cause-effect relationships [29, 30].
Therefore, in this study, multiscale computational
simulations of strain gauges based on CNTs deposited
on a thin polyimide substrate are developed to study
their piezoresistive response and the effect of varying
the grid geometry on the GF. The initial FE model
considers the CNT grid on top of the polyimide sub-
strate as a continuous solid with effective properties,
bypassing the detailed simulation of individual CNTs.
This allows to simulate the global piezoresistive
response due solely to geometric effects, i.e., initially
ignoring the changes in the electrical resistivity of
the CNT deposit. Then, a resistor network submodel
is used at the microscale to update the electrical
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
Fig. 1  Schematic of the
modeling process. On
the left, an unstrained
gauge with a certain CNT
arrangement. On the right,
a strained gauge with CNTs
rearranged. Dimensions
in mm
resistivity of the continuous grid in the FE model at
each strain step, thus obtaining a multiscale model.
These simulations assist in designing the geometry
and analyzing the response of a strain gauge at the
nano- (junction resistor), micro- (CNT resistor), and
macroscales (strain gauge). Simulation results are
compared with selected experiments.
2 Multiscale modeling
2.1 Modeling approach
A finite element model of the gauge was con-
structed to simulate strain application and current
flow through the conductive path of the gauge. The
FE model considers the grid of CNTs as a continu-
ous homogeneous solid, i.e., individual CNTs are not
simulated in the FE approach. In a first (geometric,
macroscopic) FE model, the resistivity of the CNT
deposit was deemed constant and therefore only geo-
metrical changes of the solid conductive grid influ-
ence the change in electrical resistance. Therefore,
in this initial model changes in the gauge factor are
solely due to geometrical effects of the grid. In order
to simulate the internal changes in resistivity of the
CNT deposit comprising the grid of the strain gauge,
the resistivity of this first model was updated at each
strain level using a multiscale approach. For this
purpose, a second (multiscale) model of the electri-
cal behavior of the CNT deposit was developed to
1719
account for the change in CNT-to-CNT electrical
resistance due to strain. This second model is hierar-
chical and contains as a first step an “electrical resis-
tors network submodel”, which comprises a repre-
sentative volume element (RVE) of the CNT deposit
that makes up the gauge subjected to strain, see insets
of Fig. 1. In this second model, at each strain step the
resistivity of the CNT deposit is obtained from the
microscale submodel comprising individual CNTs, by
considering a deformed RVE and updating the CNT
volume fraction. Then the resistivity of the continu-
ous (CNT) grid in the FE model is updated using the
one obtained from the submodel, and gauge factors
are computed from the FE model. A schematic of the
process can be seen in Fig. 1, being ρ0 the unstrained
resistivity and ρ1 the strained resistivity, where the
strained state implies a change in the CNT positions.
CNT rearrangement leads to a change in the effective
material’s resistivity, as depicted in Fig. 1. Finally,
the changes of electrical resistance as a function of
strain are used to calculate the gauge factor (GF).
Dimensions shown in Fig. 1 are nominal dimen-
sions and were taken as the baseline ones for paramet-
ric sensitivity analyses further conducted. The electri-
cal resistance of the gauge was calculated at specific
axial strain (εx) values. For the FE simulations that
only considered geometric changes (FE model, first
model), the effective electrical resistance of the gauge
was calculated at εx = 0.075%, 0.15%, 0.3% and 2%,
given the linear behavior of the change in electrical
resistance with strain. The strains under study for the
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1720
Fig. 2  Finite element model of a strain gauge (nominal dimen-
sions shown in Fig. 1). An equivalent electric circuit where the
CNT deposit is represented by the electrical resistance (R) is
shown to the right
simulations with updated electrical resistivity ranged
from εx = 0–2%, in 0.5% intervals. In this second
model (multiscale model), for each strained state a
resistivity was calculated from the resistor network
submodel. The resistivity of the elements comprising
the electrically insulating substrate was constant, and
they do not contribute to the GF results.
2.2 Finite element model of the strain gauge
The geometry of the conductive grid (i.e., the CNT
deposit in Fig. 2) used to actively measure strain in
a strain gauge, is commonly of a serpentine geome-
try, but its exact geometrical details and dimensions
may vary depending on the application. Commercial
metallic strain gauges have long, straight, and narrow
segments to reduce the undesired influence of lateral
strains and typically have multiple turns to increase
the effective length of the grid. These turns are the
sections that connect the straight segments and are
called end loops (EL), see Fig. 2. Herein, the geom-
etry of the simulated gauges is inspired in that of a
standard unidirectional metallic gauge. The nominal
design shown in Figs. 1 and 2 has a commercial poly-
imide (Kapton) as backing material with an overall
height and width of 8 mm and 4 mm, respectively,
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
a CNT grid width (GW) of 0.3 mm, end loop height
(LH) of 1.5 mm and 3 end loops (see Fig. 1). Sev-
eral designs (FE models, Fig. 2) of strain gauges were
investigated based on the nominal design and vary-
ing GW, LH and EL. These geometric variables were
studied by varying only one of the nominal dimen-
sions at the time and keeping the others constant. GW
varied from 0.1 to 0.5 mm in steps of 0.1 mm; LH
was considered as 0.3 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.9 and 1.5 mm;
the investigated EL were 1, 3, 5, and 7. Thus, the par-
ametric analysis of GW, LH and EL comprised eleven
strain gauges, namely, the nominal design and ten
variations.
A plane stress two-dimensional electro-mechan-
ical FE model was constructed using the software
ANSYS APDL 17.0 (Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, USA).
Eight-node quadrilateral elements “PLANE223”
(linear interpolation) with an average of 0.05 mm in
size were used. The element provides structural (lin-
ear elastic) and electrostatic capabilities. An image
of the meshed gauge is shown in Fig. 2. For illustra-
tive purposes, the elements shown in Fig. 2 are three
times larger than those actually used in the final
(converged) model. A convergence analysis (see sec-
tion S1 of supplementary material) was performed
to ensure that the results are independent of the ele-
ment size. In order to simulate the deformation of the
gauges, a vertical displacement was applied to the top
and bottom edges of the model in Fig. 2, according
to the desired axial strain (εx). In order to avoid free
body motion, the vertical center line was constrained
in the y-direction. A voltage (V) of 10 V was applied
to one end of the grid and 0 V to the other end, to
generate a current flow (I) through the conductive
grid (CNT deposit). The gauge consists of two mate-
rials, the Kapton substrate (backing material) and the
CNT deposit (blue serpentine grid in Fig. 2, consid-
ered as a continuous solid) bonded to the electrically
insulating substrate (see Fig. 2.). The material proper-
ties used in the simulations were directly measured,
calibrated from dedicated measurements, or obtained
from the literature, as will be discussed in Sect. 2.4
(see Table 1). It was assumed that the thin (micromet-
ric) layer of CNT deposit was perfectly bonded to the
thicker Kapton substrate and that it does not modify
the stiffness of the substrate. Therefore, in the FE sim-
ulations, the section of the model corresponding to
the grid was given the Kapton’s elastic modulus and
in-plane Poisson’s ratio (𝜈xy), but its own electrical
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
properties (see Sect. 2.4). Two models were con-
ducted, one with constant resistivity (FE model) for
the continuous CNT grid and the second one (multi-
scale model) with an electrical resistivity that changes
with strain (obtained from the submodel). For the FE
model, all elements had a constant resistivity, i.e.,
only geometric changes due to strain affect the GF
of the solid and continuous grid. In other words, the
change in resistivity of the bundles of CNTs making
the deposit due to strain was not calculated directly
from the FE model. To simulate the changes in the
resistivity of the array of CNTs due to strain, a second
model was performed in which the electrical resistiv-
ity of the conductive grid was updated at each strain
step with values obtained from the electrical resistors
network submodel (see Sect. 2.3). Thus, in this multi-
scale model changes in both, geometry and grid resis-
tivity, affect the computation of the GF.
For the simulations with variable resistivity, the
grid’s electrical resistance (R) was calculated at
strains ranging from 0 to 2% in 0.5% intervals. For
the simulations that only considered geometric
changes, the resistances were calculated at 0.075%,
0.15%, 0.3% and 2% strain. The electrical resistance
(R) was calculated via Ohm’s law as [31],
V
R= (1)
I 2.3 Electrical resistors network submodel
where V is the applied voltage (10 V) and I is the
resulting effective electrical current flowing through
the grid. The effective electrical current was obtained
from the definition of current density in a conductor
of uniform cross-sectional area, i.e. [31],
I The centerline of the cylindrical CNTs is discretized
J= (2)
A into n + 1 points defining n segments of length lS each
where A is the cross-sectional area of one straight
segment in the grid and J is the effective current den-
sity of the same straight segment. The effective (vol-
ume average) current density was calculated as,
∑n
ψi Ji
J = ∑i=1 (3)
n
ψ i, i ∈ {x, y, z}. The face lying on the xy plane is con-
i=1 i
where n is the number of elements that make up one
straight segment of the gauge, 𝜓 i and Ji are the vol-
ume and current density of element i, respectively.
The cross-sectional area was calculated considering
Poisson’s contraction as [9],
1721
(4)
( )( )
A = t0 − 𝜖x 𝜈xz t0 w0 − 𝜖x 𝜈xy w0
where t0 is the initial thickness of the CNT deposit
(t0 = 1.36 μm, according to measurements of gauges
to be discussed), w0 is the initial width of the straight
section (which varies for each gauge design, see
Fig. 2), νxz is the transverse Poisson’s ratio of the
CNT deposit, and νxy is the in-plane Poisson’s ratio
of the Kapton substrate. It should be noted that the
in-plane Poisson’s ratio of the CNT deposit is con-
sidered the same as that of its Kapton substrate
(νxy = 0.34) because of the perfect bonding assump-
tion. On the other hand, at the transverse (out-of-
plane, z) direction the CNT deposit has a free bound-
ary condition and such an effective Poisson’s ratio
is deemed to be that of the CNT deposit, νxz = −0.2
[32]. The fractional change of electrical resistance
(ΔR/R0 = (R−R0)/R0, where R0 is the electrical resist-
ance at zero strain) was calculated for every strain
step and used to define a gauge factor such as [9],
𝛥R∕R0
GF = (5)
𝜖x
GFs for the investigated gauges were obtained
from the slope of the ΔR/R0 vs. εx plots.
A submodel based on a network of electrical resistors
was used to calculate the effective electrical resistance
of an RVE of the CNT deposit at each level of applied
strain. For this, three-dimensional cylindrical repre-
sentations of CNTs were generated for the submodel.
[33]. These segments may have different orientations
to obtain CNTs with different degrees of curliness. An
example of a discretized CNT as seen over the xy plane
is shown in Fig. 3a. CNTs are generated inside an RVE
with the shape of a cuboid of size lRVEx y z
× lRVE × lRVE ,
where lRVE is the length of the cuboid along direction
i
sidered as the bottom face of the RVE and represents
the polymer substrate where CNTs are deposited. To
generate a CNT, the first point of the discretization,
P0, is randomly generated on the xy plane within the
RVE. Then, the z-coordinate of P0 is calculated so
that the corresponding CNT is either at the bottom of
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1722
Fig. 3  Generation of CNT
network for the submodel.
a Representation of a CNT
on the xy plane, b first point
of a CNT placed on the xy
plane, c first point of a CNT
placed above an existing
CNT (point with label S),
d point Pi of a CNT placed
over point S that belongs
to another CNT, e segment
Pi−1 Pi of a CNT needs
to be rotated smoothly as
there are no other points
below point Pi. Points S and
T belong to two different
CNTs
the RVE (lying on the xy plane, Fig. 3b) or lying over
an existing CNT (Fig. 3c, where point S belongs to
another CNT). Thus, points are placed as if they were
laying on the xy-plane or on another CNT, to simulate
CNTs being deposited on a solid substrate. To gener-
ate any subsequent point Pi, an angle 𝜔i is randomly
generated. When i = 1, 𝜔1 follows a uniform distribu-
tion in [0, 2π]. When i ≥ 2, 𝜔i follows a normal distri-
bution in the interval [-α, α], where α ≤ π/2. The value
of α determines the extent that each CNT segment may
bend. Then, each new Pi is generated such that segment
Pi−1 Pi is initially parallel to the xy plane and makes an
angle 𝜔i with the extension of the previous segment in
their projection on the xy plane, as shown in Fig. 3a.
When i = 1 there is no previous segment, so in this case
the segment P0 P1 makes an angle 𝜔1 with the x-axis, as
in Fig. 3a. Angle 𝜔1 has a different distribution than 𝜔i
for i ≥ 2 because there is no previous segment to limit
its value and, thus, may have any orientation. Next,
segment Pi−1 Pi is rotated perpendicular to the plane
xy such that the following conditions are met: (a) Pi
lies over an existing CNT or the xy plane (see Fig. 3d,
where point S belongs to another CNT); (b) segment
Pi−1 Pi and the extension of the previous segment make
an angle smaller than π/2. This is because, following a
previous work [33], π/2 is the largest angle that CNTs
are allowed to bend. In case neither of these two condi-
tions is met, the procedure is as follows. Let θ be the
angle that segment Pi−2 Pi−1 forms with the xy-plane, as
shown in Fig. 3e (points S and T belong to two different
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
CNTs). Then, segment Pi−1 Pi is rotated an angle θ/2
– Δ. Here, the term Δ is used to ensure segment Pi−1 Pi
rotates even in the case θ is zero or close to zero. Oth-
erwise, if θ is zero (or close to zero), segment Pi−1 Pi
would remain in (or close to) its initial position parallel
to the xy plane. Rotation of segment Pi−1 Pi is carried
out using a small angle, i.e., θ/2 – Δ, to obtain a smooth
bending of CNTs. A value of Δ = π/10 is used here.
Finally, points are generated until the required volume
(or weight) fraction of CNTs is reached.
The CNT volume fraction in the RVE used in the
submodel was 0.34 (34% v/v), which is the maximum
volume fraction allowed by this approach. This volume
fraction targets the experiments discussed herein. In
order to show the similarity between the CNT network
generated by the electrical resistors network submodel
and the experiments, Fig. 4 shows an example of a net-
work generated with this submodel (left), compared to
an actual scanning electron microscopy image of the
CNT grid (right). The left image in Fig. 4 was gener-
ated using the data from the submodel and the open
source visualization software ParaView (Kitware Inc.,
Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico). The net-
work generated by the submodel in Fig. 4 consists of
CNTs of 3 μm in length and radius of 15 nm, accord-
ing to the actual multiwall CNTs used in the experi-
ments. The RVE has a side length of 4.5 μm and height
of 1.36 μm (same height as the actual CNT deposit).
Similarities in the morphology of both networks are
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
Fig. 4  Comparison of
a CNT deposit obtained
from the submodel (left)
and a scanning electron
microscopy image of the
experimental CNT deposit
(right)
observed, showing the strong capabilities of the sub-
model introduced herein to simulate curved CNTs and
capture the densely packed architecture of the CNT
deposit. In general, the optimum CNT concentration for
piezoresistive sensing applications is expected to be just
above electrical percolation [4, 30]. The investigation of
such an optimal concentration for the densely packed
CNT arrays discussed herein falls beyond the scope of
this work.
The electrical resistivity of the RVE is assumed
to be the same as that of the CNT network, and is
subsequently used as input effective property of the
continuous grid in the FE model. Thus, the electri-
cal resistance of the CNT network is calculated in the
submodel to obtain its electrical resistivity. For this
purpose, the network of CNTs is turned into a net-
work of electrical resistors. Two types of electrical
resistors are considered, viz. CNT resistors and junc-
tion resistors.
A CNT resistor, RCNT, comes from the intrinsic
electrical resistance of a CNT and its electrical resist-
ance is calculated as [9].
lCNT 𝜌CNT
RCNT = (6)
2
𝜋rCNT
where 𝜌CNT is the CNT resistivity, lCNT is the CNT
length and rCNT its radius. Notice that the choice of
a solid or hollow cross section for the CNT has no
significant influence in the numerical calculation of
the GF. This is partly because the inner radius of the
CNT is just a few nanometers, which yields only a
small difference in the cross-sectional areas assum-
ing solid or hollow cylinders. Furthermore, the
1723
junction resistance is typically much higher than the
CNT electrical resistance, which further diminishes
the influence of the assumption of solid or hollow
cross-sectional area. Other authors have compared
the assumption of solid and hollow cylinders for the
cross section of CNTs, finding negligible differences
in electrical conductivity [34]. Thus, we have consist-
ently assumed a solid cylinder for the cross section of
the CNTs for both, the calibrated resistivity and the
calculated electrical resistance.
The boundary conditions used for the submodel
were the application of a voltage difference of 10 V to
each pair of opposite faces of the submodel along the x-
and y-directions. That is, 10 V were applied to all CNTs
connected to one (x or y) edge face of the RVE and all
CNTs connected to the opposite edge face were con-
nected to a ground node, i.e., 0 V.
A junction resistor comes from the transfer of elec-
trons between two contiguous CNTs, either by direct
contact or by tunneling of electrons. A junction resistor
is added when two contiguous CNTs are separated less
than a cutoff distance (dt), which is taken as dt = 1.8 nm
[35]. Figure 5 depicts a CNT (labeled C ­ NT2) with junc-
tions with two contiguous CNTs (labeled ­CNT1 and
­CNT3) and the equivalent resistor network. The value
of the junction resistance is calculated by the exponen-
tial equation presented by Hu et al. [20] as,
h2 d
�
4𝜋d √
�
RJ = exp 2m𝜆 (7)
√
AT e2 2m𝜆 h
where e and m are the charge (1.602176565 × ­10−19 C)
and mass (9.10938291 × ­10−31 kg) of the electron, h is
the Planck’s constant (6.62606957 × ­10−34 ­kgm2/s), d
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1724
Table 1  Input values for Parameter
the simulations
Initial resistivity of CNT deposit (𝜌M,Ωm)
Kapton elastic modulus (GPa)
Kapton resistivity (Ωm)
Kapton Poisson’s ratio (νxy)
Transverse Poisson’s ratio of the CNT deposit (νxz)
CNT resistivity (𝜌CNT , Ωm)
Height barrier (λ, eV)
CNT length (µm)
CNT radius (nm)
is the distance separating the CNTs, AT is the junc-
tion’s cross-sectional area (approximated as the area
of two CNT crossed at a 90° angle [35]), and λ is the
height of the potential barrier. For cases were the
CNTs are in contact, the van der Waals equilibrium
distance is used in Eq. (7), i.e. d = 0.34 nm.
After the CNT network is turned into a network
of electrical resistors, the equivalent resistance
of the resistor network, Req, is obtained using the
direct electrifying algorithm [36]. Then, the electri-
cal resistivity of the RVE is calculated as [9].
AReq
𝜌i = (8)
i
lRVE
where 𝜌i is the electrical resistivity of the RVE, lRVE
i
is the RVE’s side-length along the direction in which
𝜌i is measured, and A is the RVE’s cross sectional
area. It is noted that the equivalent electrical resist-
ance may be anisotropic along the x- and y-directions.
Thus, equivalent electrical resistances and resistivi-
ties are calculated for the x- and y-directions. Flow
of electricity along the z-direction is not considered
as the RVE length along that direction is too small.
Fig. 5  Transformation of a CNT network into a resistor net-
work
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
Value Reference
3.341 × 10−4 Measured
2.71 Measured
1.0 × 10 17 [37]
0.34 [37]
− 0.20 [32]
4.10 × 10−5 Calibrated
0.1 Calibrated
3 [38]
15 [38]
Thus, 𝜌z is not considered here and i in Eq. (8) refers
to either x or y.
Simulations were performed in RVEs that were
found to be large enough to ensure convergence
and isotropy in the calculated resistivities (see Sec-
tion S2 for the convergence study of the submodel).
The RVEs chosen for the simulations have the same
height as the actual CNT deposit of the experiments
(i.e., 1.36 μm) and a square base with side-length
lRVE = 2.5lCNT , i.e., lRVE = lRVE = lRVE . Note that
xy x y xy
these RVE dimensions are used for zero strain. In
addition, CNTs are generated until the RVE is fully
packed, which in our simulations corresponded to a
volume fraction of 0.34.
For each value of strain applied, the RVE dimen-
sions are updated considering linear elastic defor-
mation and Poisson’s effect (see Table 1 for elastic
constants). The amount of CNTs is kept constant
as the RVE is deformed. Thus, the CNT volume
fraction is updated at each value of applied strain
and the effective resistivity of the RVE at each
stain level is computed. Ten simulations were per-
formed for each strain step (from 0 to 2% in 0.5%
intervals). Resistivities along x- and y-directions
of the ten simulations were averaged to obtain the
x- and y-resistivities of the RVE, 𝜌x and 𝜌y , respec-
tively. Given that both were numerically )similar, the
average RVE resistivity, 𝜌avg = 𝜌x + 𝜌y ∕2 , is used
(
as the updated resistivity in the FE model for each
level of strain.
2.4 Materials data input
Experiments were conducted to define key input
parameters of the model and to calibrate input val-
ues such as the barrier height, which are difficult to
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
measure directly. Input values used in the models
are summarized in Table 1. The initial resistance
of the CNT deposit was measured from a rectan-
gular deposit which is 0.3 mm wide, 3.2 mm long
and with a mean height of 1.36 μm (measured with
atomic force microscopy) over a Kapton substrate.
With these parameters, the mean initial resistivity
(𝜌M ) of the CNT deposit was measured. The elastic
modulus of the Kapton film was measured from uni-
axial tensile tests. The Poisson’s ratio and resistivity
of the Kapton film was obtained from the supplier’s
datasheet. The CNT resistivity (𝜌CNT ) and the height
barrier (λ) were calibrated as described in Section S3.
3 Experimental procedures
The fabrication of the strain gauges started by dis-
persing acid-oxidized CNTs in chloroform via 15 min
mechanical stirring and 30 min ultrasonic dispersion
in a conventional bath (70 W, 42 kHz). The dispersed
CNTs were then spray-deposited over 0.127 mm thick
Kapton polyimide substrates and dried in an oven at
120 °C. An automated engraving machine was used
to remove unwanted areas of the deposited CNTs,
obtaining the desired serpentine-shape of the strain
gauges.
The nominal design (used as reference) comprises
3 loops, 1.5 mm end loop height and 0.3 mm width
of the straight sections, as shown in Fig. 1. For the
experimental investigation of the variation of geo-
metrical parameters, one parameter was varied at
the time. The number of loops tested were 3 and 5
and the width of the straight section of the grid con-
sidered were 0.3 and 0.5 mm. The end loop widths
tested were 0.3 and 1.5 mm.
The gauge factor was obtained from tensile testing
of the gauges at εx ≤ 1% with simultaneous strain and
electrical resistance measurements. The tests were
conducted in a Shimadzu® AGS-X universal testing
machine (Kyoto, Japan) with a crosshead machine
displacement of 2 mm/min (8.3%/min). The electri-
cal resistance was measured using a multifunction
switch/measure unit model 34980A from Keysight
(Santa Rosa CA, USA). Five replicates were tested
for each configuration. The GF was obtained from
the linear slope of the piezoresistive response using
strains between 0.1 and 0.9%.
1725
Fig. 6  FE-predicted current density for constant grid resistiv-
ity corresponding to the nominal design of the strain gauge
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Finite element model using constant grid
resistivity
A parametric study of the grid geometry was under-
taken simulating the eleven gauge designs described in
Sect. 2.2. The resistivities of the Kapton substrate and
CNT deposit is included in Table 1. Figure 6 shows
the resulting current density map predicted by the FE
simulations corresponding to the nominal design of
the gauge (Fig. 1), where the CNT grid is deemed a
solid continuous material with a constant electrical
resistance. It is observed that the current density (J )
is uniform at the straight segments of the gauge, and
gradients are present at the corners of the end loops.
The uniformity of J at the straight sections allows to
reliably obtain the electric current (I) flowing through
the gauge using Eq. (2). Notice that the current density
flowing through the farthest section of the end loops is
two orders of magnitude smaller than the one circulat-
ing through the straight sections of the grid.
Considering constant grid electrical resistivity, the
fractional change of electrical resistance (ΔR/R0) as a
function of strain (εx) showed a linear response for all
eleven gauge designs, and the GF was computed from
the slope of (ΔR/R0) vs. εx. Depending on the geome-
try of the gauge, the GFs ranged from 0.817 to 1.088,
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1726
Fig. 7  Parametric analysis of gauge factor (GF) and initial electrical resistance (R0) obtained from the FE model using constant grid
electrical resistance. a Number of end loops, b grid width, c end loop height
with initial electrical resistances ranging from 7.17 kΩ
to 37.1 kΩ, see Fig. 7. The changes in GF caused by
the parameters GW and EL were small. Increasing the
number of end loops slightly increased R0 and the GF
(Fig. 7a), the former being due to a longer path for elec-
trons. The increase in GF is likely due to the increased
number of straight sections, where current flows par-
allel to strain. Decreasing the grid width caused an
increase in GF as well as in R0, Fig. 7b. This is due to
the narrowing of the cross-sectional area. Similarly,
using continuous FE simulations, Gooding et al. [7]
predicted a small increase in GF with a decrease in
grid width for three-dimensionally printed graphene/
polylactic acid strain gauges. Han et al. [18] predicted
an increase in GF with an increase of the number of
end loops for carbon black/polydimethylsiloxane strain
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
gauges, although constant grid resistivity was assumed
in both works. In contrast, increasing LH significantly
increased the GF, considerably more than when varying
either GW or EL. Increasing LH form 0.3 to 1.5 mm
increases the GF in 23.8%. Increasing LH also slightly
decreased R0, see Fig. 7c. The reduction in R0 comes
from an increase in the cross-sectional area of the end
loops. However, since most of the electric current con-
centrates near the inner part of the end loop (see Fig. 6),
the increase in cross-sectional area has a small impact
on R0. Therefore, increasing the end loop height up to
1.5 mm is a sound strategy to increase the GF.
When the dimension of GW is similar to that of
LH, the sensitivity to transversal strains increases
[39], which explains the decrease in GF with increas-
ing GW and decreasing LH. Under tensile axial strain,
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
Fig. 8  Results of the RVE 3.40
resistor network submodel
3.39
as a function of applied
strain. a Average resistivity 3.38
ρavg (10- 4 Ωm)
(𝜌avg), b number of junction
points 3.37
3.36
3.35
3.34
0.0
there is a positive change of electrical resistance in
sections of the gauge where the current flows paral-
lel to the axial (x) strain. Concomitantly, due to the
Poisson effect of the substrate, a small compressive
strain in the transverse direction (y) should develop.
In sections of the gauge where the current flows in the
transverse direction, the changes of electrical resist-
ance are expected to be negative. Because of these
opposite effects, when measuring the resistance of the
gauge the change of electrical resistance is smaller
(i.e., GF is lower) than if the end loops were wider
than the grid width. This matches findings by Fu et al.
[39] and Chung et al. [40], who observed that having
similar LH and GW hinders the important discrimina-
tion between axial and transversal strains. Therefore,
it is recommended to use a narrow grid width in com-
bination with significantly longer end loops, to obtain
higher GFs.
The changes in grid geometry also influence R0,
which in turn may also influence the GF. In particu-
lar, for carbon nanostructured materials, it is known
that increasing R0 tends to increase the GF [2]. For
EL and GW, there is a tendency of increasing the GF
with increasing R0, see Fig. 7a and b. However, for
LH the GF decreases as R0 (slightly) increases, but
the change in R0 for LH = 0.3 mm and LH = 1.5 mm
is small (1 kΩ, i.e. 6.8% decrease). This suggests that
for some parameters (such as for LH) the geometry of
the gauge can have an impact on the GF that is domi-
nant over the influence of R0.
4.2 Multiscale simulations using grid resistivity
calculated by the submodel
Figure 8a shows the average RVE resistivity (𝜌avg,
obtained as described in Sect. 2.3) as a function of
1727
8.54
Number of junction points (x10 5)
8.52
8.50
8.48
8.46
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 8.44
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
εx (%) εx (%)
(a) (b)
the axial strain applied. The RVE resistivities along
the x- and y-directions (𝜌x and 𝜌y, respectively) were
numerically similar (see Figure S2.1), and thus the
average is shown. The resistivity shown at zero strain
is the measured resistivity of the CNT deposit, 𝜌M
(see Table 1). It is observed that the average RVE
resistivity increases nearly linearly as strain increases.
However, this increase is small (~ 0.4% for every
0.5% increase in εx), as changes in resistivity are
observed in the third significant digit. This increase
in resistivity is attributed to a reduction in the num-
ber of conductive paths formed inside the RVE as
its volume increases with strain. That is, when the
RVE is strained, its volume increases but the amount
of CNTs remains the same, leading to an effective
reduction of the CNT volume fraction. This reduction
in the volume fraction results in an effective reduced
number of conductive paths, which in turn results in
higher resistivity of the RVE.
Figure 8b plots the number of CNT junction
points (Fig. 5) as a function of the applied strain, as
predicted by the submodel. Each CNT-to-CNT junc-
tion is deemed to contribute with two junction points
(see Fig. 5). The results plotted are the average and
standard deviation of 10 simulations. The scattering
bars are somewhat large, because for each of those
10 simulations the CNT network is randomly gener-
ated. In spite of the dispersion, it is seen that the ini-
tial average number of junction points (~ 8.492 × ­105)
tends to lower values as the strain is applied, i.e. as
the RVE is enlarged in the x-direction. A reduction
in the number of contact points means less number
of conductive paths, which influences the increase
in resistivity with strain observed in Fig. 8a. In addi-
tion, upon strain application, the CNT-to-CNT dis-
tances change within the grid where CNTs tend to
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1728
Fig. 9  Fractional change of electrical resistance as a function
of strain for the nominal gauge design (shown in Fig. 1)
be separated further apart. This is reflected in Fig. 8a
in the increase of resistivity of the RVE and also in
Fig. 8b as some CNTs become separated beyond the
tunneling cutoff distance and thus the number of con-
tact points is reduced.
In the literature, it has been argued that the sensi-
tivity of a CNT-based material cannot be explained
from geometrical changes only [5, 41]. To gain more
insight on this issue, results obtained from the model
that only considers geometrical changes (FE model)
are compared with the results of the model that con-
siders both geometrical and resistivity changes (mul-
tiscale model). Figure 9 shows the fractional change
of electrical resistance (ΔR/R0) as a function of strain
(𝜖x ) predicted by the FE model with constant grid
resistivity (shown as “FE”) and by the multiscale
model (i.e., using the submodel to account for varia-
ble resistivity and FE), for the nominal gauge design.
The GF in the multiscale model depends not only
on the geometric changes of the grid, but also on the
change in its electrical resistivity. It is observed that
the increase in resistivity with strain predicted by the
multiscale model exceeds the increase in electrical
resistance caused by geometrical changes. Because of
this, the sensitivity of the gauge (GF) increases while
maintaining a nearly linear response with strain. A
similar piezoresistive response was observed for all
gauge designs. The GFs of all gauge designs pre-
dicted by the FE model were between 0.81 and 1.09
depending on the design. For the multiscale model,
the GFs ranged from 1.60 to 1.87, which corresponds
to an average increase of around 79%.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
4.3 Comparison to experimental results
The GFs obtained from the FE (constant grid resis-
tivity) and multiscale models are compared to experi-
mental results in Fig. 10. Given the versatility of the
modeling approaches, the modeling predictions cover
a wider range of results than the selected experiments
conducted. The experiments confirm the modeling
predictions regarding the trends of the three geo-
metrical parameters investigated. The GF increases
as the number of end loops increases, the loop height
increases, and the grid width decreases.
The experimental results show higher GFs than
the FE simulations assuming constant grid resistiv-
ity. This is because the simpler FE model does not
consider any contribution from the changes of elec-
trical resistivity of the CNT grid with strain. That is,
the results of the FE model in Fig. 10 consider the
grid as a continuous solid of constant resistivity and
the piezoresistivity predicted is only due to geometri-
cal changes of such a continuous grid upon straining.
Therefore, the difference between the FE predictions
and measurements of GF can be attributed to micro
and nanoscale phenomena not accounted for in the FE
model, such as CNT-to-CNT contact resistance and
tunneling [17, 20]. For example, for the nominal con-
figuration depicted in Fig. 1 (EL = 3, GW = 0.3 mm,
LH = 1.5 mm) the FE predicted GF is 1.01 and the
measured one is 1.26. Assuming that the FE model
properly captures the geometric effect of the piezore-
sistive tests, then the geometric contribution of the
GF is 80.1%, and the intrinsic material properties var-
iation accounts for the remaining 19.9%.
As GW becomes smaller (0.2 mm), the geomet-
ric contribution to the GF decreases (76.9%). This
behavior is attributed to the increased contribution of
the straight segments to the total electrical resistance.
A similar trend is seen when adding more end loops;
for EL = 5 the geometric contribution predicted by
FE is 74.7% of the measured GF. Similarly, reducing
LH to 0.3 mm yields a geometric contribution of only
67.5%. Furthermore, such a small LH is not recom-
mended because it could increase the undesired trans-
verse sensitivity [39, 42]. Notice that the configura-
tions that lower the geometric contribution implicitly
increase the inherent material contribution (change
in resistivity at the nano- and microscales), and thus
tend to increase the GF. This means that, at a given
strain, the resistance change due to changes in the
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
Fig. 10  GFs predicted by
the FE model, multiscale
model, and measured, as a
function of the geometric
parameters shown in Fig. 2.
a Number of end loops,
b grid width, c end loop
height
CNT-to-CNT resistivity could be as important as the
one caused by geometrical changes of the grid.
The multiscale simulations predict the high-
est GFs, meaning that the CNT-to-CNT resistivity
changes add to the change in electrical resistance
caused by the geometrical changes. The overpredic-
tions of the multiscale modeling may be due to sev-
eral factors connected with the model idealization.
The model assumes perfect stress/strain transfer, but
in practice it is known that the strain transfer from the
Kapton substrate to the CNT deposit is not perfect,
see e.g. [43, 44]. Strain transfer from CNT to CNT
within the grid may also present some shear lag, see
e.g. [45], and that is also not accounted for in the
multiscale model. The actual variability in the length
of the CNTs may also be a contributing factor [30],
as well as differences with the exact volume fraction
of the deposit. The length of the CNTs employed in
the experiments comply with a lognormal distribution
between 0.88 and 4.3 μm [38]. However, in the mul-
tiscale simulations CNTs of 3 μm were used. There
are also some limitations and idealizations from the
viewpoint of the fabrication of the CNT-based strain
1729
gauges. For example, the definition of thickness and
edge of the CNT deposit could have slight variations
throughout the gauge at the microscale, which could
hinder the sensitivity to some extent [46]. In contrast,
the FE model assumes a perfectly homogeneous grid
thickness and perfectly straight edges of the CNT
grid. It also experimentally challenging to manufac-
ture gauges with very narrow GW, although the mod-
eling predictions suggest that this practice increases
the GF.
5 Conclusions
A multiscale modeling strategy was implemented to
simulate the piezoresistive response of a strain gauge
made of a CNT deposit, investigating the main geo-
metrical parameters that affect its response. Serpen-
tine-shaped gauge designs with different number of
end loops, grid width, and end loop height were simu-
lated and tested. The combined modeling and testing
strategy allowed to study the influence of such geo-
metrical parameters on the piezoresistive sensitivity
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1730
(gauge factor, GF) of the gauges. The most influential
variable is the end loop height; changing it from 0.3
to 1.5 mm increased the GF by 12.3% (as obtained
by the multiscale model). The GF increases as the
number of end loops increases, the end loop height
increases, and the grid width decreases. The gauge
dimensions that yielded the highest GFs correspond
to a grid width of 0.1 mm, a loop height of 1.5 mm
and 7 end loops. Thus, when designing a strain sens-
ing device with serpentine geometry, to obtain higher
GFs it is recommended to have a small grid width and
sufficiently long loop height, which also diminishes
the transverse sensitivity of the gauge.
Comparison between experiments and two mod-
eling strategies showed that the piezoresistive
response of the strain gauge is dominated by changes
in geometric parameters of the gauge’s grid upon
strain application (around 65–80%), but the inherent
changes of resistivity of the CNT deposit also play
an important role. As the grid width reduces and the
number of loops increases, the geometric contribution
to the GF decreases, which increases the piezoresist-
ive sensitivity. The multiscale model predicted higher
GFs than the constant resistivity FE model, and the
experimental results fell in between. This is attrib-
uted mainly to the fact that the simplified FE model
does not account for changes in the CNT grid resis-
tivity, and the more detailed multiscale model does
not account for imperfect load transfer (CNT-to-CNT
and substrate-CNT). In spite of those limitations, the
experiments confirmed the trends of the modeling
predictions and provided confidence for offering use-
ful gauge design guidelines based on modeling. The
geometry of the grid in carbon nanostructure-based
strain gauges plays an important role that would allow
tailoring strain sensing devices to increase their sen-
sitivity without significantly changing their manufac-
turing process.
Acknowledgements Special thanks go to Miguel Ángel Riv-
ero Ayala for his help in fabricating the gauges. Authors would
like to thank MBA Leonidas Andrade of DuPont for kindly pro-
viding the Kapton HN sheets for this research free of charge.
Funding The research leading to these results received fund-
ing from the Office of Naval Research Global (ONRG), under
Award Number N62909-19-1-2119. CONACYT (Mexico)
awarded the postdoctoral fellowship of Angel Mora (CVU
#1047921), the research assistantship of Ivan Perez (CVU
#1008770), and the MS scholarship granted to Gabriel Arana
(CVU #951153).
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
Declarations
Conflict of interest Authors declare no known conflict of in-
terest.
References
1. Lee BM, Loh KJ (2017) Carbon nanotube thin film
strain sensors: comparison between experimental tests
and numerical simulations. Nanotechnology 28:155502.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1361-​6528/​aa6382
2. Huang Y-T, Huang S-C, Hsu C-C et al (2012) Design
and fabrication of single-walled Carbon Nanonet flexible
strain sensors. Sensors 12:3269–3280. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​s1203​03269
3. Lee D, Hong HP, Lee CJ et al (2011) Microfabrication
and characterization of spray-coated single-wall carbon
nanotube film strain gauges. Nanotechnology 22:455301.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0957-​4484/​22/​45/​455301
4. Avilés F, Oliva-Avilés AI, Cen-Puc M (2018) Piezoresist-
ivity, strain, and damage self-sensing of polymer compos-
ites filled with Carbon Nanostructures. Adv Eng Mater
20:1701159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​adem.​20170​1159
5. Hu B, Hu N, Li Y et al (2012) Multi-scale numerical sim-
ulations on piezoresistivity of CNT/polymer nanocompos-
ites. Nanoscale Res Lett 7:402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
1556-​276X-7-​402
6. Garcia JR, O’Suilleabhain D, Kaur H, Coleman JN
(2021) A simple model relating gauge factor to Filler
Loading in Nanocomposite strain sensors. ACS Appl
Nano Mater 4:2876–2886. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​
acsanm.​1c000​40
7. Gooding J, Mahoney J, Fields T (2017) 3D printed strain
gauge geometry and orientation for embedded sensing.
In: 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural
dynamics, and materials conference. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia
8. Hoffmann K (1989) An introduction to measurement
using strain gages. Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik
GmbH, Darmstadt
9. Kobayashi AS (1993) Handbook on experimental
mechanics. VCH, Weinheim
10. Gouldstone C, Wu Y, Gouldstone A (2007) The geomet-
ric contribution to gauge factor of patterned lines on sub-
strates. Strain 43:306–310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1475-​
1305.​2007.​00353.x
11. Younis NT, Kang B (2011) Averaging effects of a strain
gage. J Mech Sci Technol 25:163–169. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s12206-​010-​1020-1
12. Lee BM, Loh KJ (2015) A 2D percolation-based model
for characterizing the piezoresistivity of carbon nanotube-
based films. J Mater Sci 50:2973–2983. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10853-​015-​8862-y
13. Pang C, Lee G-Y, Kim T et al (2012) A flexible and highly
sensitive strain-gauge sensor using reversible interlocking
of nanofibres. Nat Mater 11:795–801. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1038/​nmat3​380
Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732
14. Amjadi M, Yoon YJ, Park I (2015) Ultra-stretchable and
skin-mountable strain sensors using carbon nanotubes–
Ecoflex nanocomposites. Nanotechnology 26:375501.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0957-​4484/​26/​37/​375501
15. Kang D-K, Kim C-W, Yang H-I (2017) Thermal effects
on nonlinear vibration of a carbon nanotube-based mass
sensor using finite element analysis. Phys E Low-Dimens
Syst Nanostruct 85:125–136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
physe.​2016.​08.​019
16. Ren X, Chaurasia AK, Oliva-Avilés AI et al (2015) Mod-
eling of mesoscale dispersion effect on the piezoresistivity
of carbon nanotube-polymer nanocomposites via 3D com-
putational multiscale micromechanics methods. Smart
Mater Struct 24:065031. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0964-​
1726/​24/6/​065031
17. Xu S, Rezvanian O, Zikry MA (2013) Electro-mechanical
modeling of the piezoresistive response of carbon nano-
tube polymer composites. Smart Mater Struct 22:055032.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0964-​1726/​22/5/​055032
18. Han C-J, Chiang H-P, Cheng Y-C (2018) Using micro-
molding and stamping to fabricate conductive polydi-
methylsiloxane-based flexible high-sensitivity strain
gauges. Sensors 18:618. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​s1802​
0618
19. Wang X, Li B, Zhang D et al (2021) Strain monitoring
using carbon nanotube buckypaper sensor on composite
repaired structure. Appl Phys A 127:935. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s00339-​021-​05099-z
20. Hu N, Karube Y, Yan C et al (2008) Tunneling effect in
a polymer/carbon nanotube nanocomposite strain sen-
sor. Acta Mater 56:2929–2936. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
actam​at.​2008.​02.​030
21. Odegard GM (2018) Computational Multiscale mode-
ling—nanoscale to macroscale. Comprehensive composite
materials II. Elsevier, pp 28–51
22. Zeng Q, Qin Y (2018) Multiscale modeling of hybrid
machining processes. Hybrid machining. Elsevier, pp
269–298
23. Bao WS, Meguid SA, Zhu ZH, Meguid MJ (2011) Mod-
eling electrical conductivities of nanocomposites with
aligned carbon nanotubes. Nanotechnology 22:485704.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0957-​4484/​22/​48/​485704
24. Xia X, Du Z, Zhang J et al (2022) Modeling the impact of
glass transition on the frequency-dependent complex con-
ductivity of CNT-polymer nanocomposites. Mech Mater
165:104195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​mechm​at.​2021.​
104195
25. Luo J, Peng L-M, Xue ZQ, Wu JL (2005) Total energy of
charged carbon nanotubes and single-electron tunneling.
Phys E Low-Dimens Syst Nanostruct 27:26–31. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​physe.​2004.​09.​019
26. Ansari R, Hassanzadeh-Aghdam MK (2017) Microme-
chanical characterizing elastic, thermoelastic and viscoe-
lastic properties of functionally graded carbon nanotube
reinforced polymer nanocomposites. Meccanica 52:1625–
1640. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11012-​016-​0512-1
27. Oliva-Avilés AI, Alonzo-García A, Zozulya VV et al
(2018) A dielectrophoretic study of the carbon nanotube
chaining process and its dependence on the local electric
fields. Meccanica 53:2773–2791. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11012-​018-​0869-4
1731
28. Chen X, Alian AR, Meguid SA (2020) Coupled electro-
mechanical modeling of piezoresistive behavior of CNT-
reinforced nanocomposites with varied morphology and
concentration. Eur J Mech A/Solids 84:104053. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eurom​echsol.​2020.​104053
29. Haghgoo M, Ansari R, Hassanzadeh-Aghdam MK, Nan-
kali M (2022) A novel temperature-dependent percola-
tion model for the electrical conductivity and piezoresis-
tive sensitivity of carbon nanotube-filled nanocomposites.
Acta Mater 230:117870. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​actam​
at.​2022.​117870
30. Haghgoo M, Ansari R, Kazem Hassanzadeh-Aghdam M
et al (2022) Analytical formulation of the piezoresistive
behavior of carbon nanotube polymer nanocomposites:
the effect of temperature on strain sensing performance.
Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 163:107244. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​compo​sitesa.​2022.​107244
31. Ellingson S (2018) Electromagnetics. VT Publishing,
Blacksburg
32. Hall LJ, Coluci VR, Galvão DS et al (2008) Sign change
of Poisson’s ratio for Carbon Nanotube Sheets. Science
(80-) 320:504–507. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​11498​
15
33. Mora A, Han F, Lubineau G (2018) Estimating and under-
standing the efficiency of nanoparticles in enhancing the
conductivity of carbon nanotube/polymer composites.
Results Phys 10:81–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rinp.​
2018.​05.​019
34. Seidel GD, Puydupin-Jamin A-S (2011) Analysis of clus-
tering, interphase region, and orientation effects on the
electrical conductivity of carbon nanotube–polymer nano-
composites via computational micromechanics. Mech
Mater 43:755–774. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​mechm​at.​
2011.​08.​010
35. Li C, Thostenson ET, Chou T-W (2007) Dominant role
of tunneling resistance in the electrical conductivity
of carbon nanotube–based composites. Appl Phys Lett
91:223114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​28196​90
36. Li C, Chou T-W (2007) A direct electrifying algorithm for
backbone identification. J Phys A Math Theor 40:14679–
14686. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1751-​8113/​40/​49/​004
37. DuPont de Nemours I (2019) DuPont™ Kapton® HN. In:
Wilmington, USA. https://​www.​dupont.​com/​conte​nt/​dam/​
dupont/​amer/​us/​en/​ei-​trans​forma​tion/​public/​docum​ents/​
en/​EI-​10206-​Kapton-​HN-​Data-​Sheet.​pdf. Accessed 19
Apr 2021
38. Avilés F, May-Pat A, Canché-Escamilla G et al (2016)
Influence of carbon nanotube on the piezoresistive behav-
ior of multiwall carbon nanotube/polymer composites.
J Intell Mater Syst Struct 27:92–103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​10453​89X14​560367
39. Fu X, Al-Jumaily AM, Ramos M et al (2019) Stretchable
and sensitive sensor based on carbon nanotubes/polymer
composite with serpentine shapes via molding technique.
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 30:1227–1241. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​09205​063.​2019.​16276​49
40. Chun S, Choi Y, Park W (2017) All-graphene strain sen-
sor on soft substrate. Carbon 116:753–759. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​carbon.​2017.​02.​058
41. Oliva-Avilés AI, Avilés F, Seidel GD, Sosa V (2013)
On the contribution of carbon nanotube deformation to
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 1732 Meccanica (2023) 58:1717–1732

piezoresistivity of carbon nanotube/polymer compos- Mater Struct 15:737–748. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0964-​

ites. Compos Part B Eng 47:200–206. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1726/​15/3/​009
1016/j.​compo​sitesb.​2012.​09.​091 46. Bu L, Steitz J, Kanoun O (2010) Influence of processing
42. Xu W, Allen MG (2013) Deformable strain sensors based parameters on properties of strain sensors based on carbon
on patterned MWCNTs/polydimethylsiloxane composites. nanotube films. In: 2010 7th international multi-confer-
J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 51:1505–1512. https://​doi.​ ence on systems, signals and devices. IEEE, pp 1–6
org/​10.​1002/​polb.​23361
43. Yang T, Han E, Wang X, Wu D (2017) Surface decoration Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
of polyimide fiber with carbon nanotubes and its appli- to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
cation for mechanical enhancement of phosphoric acid- affiliations.
based geopolymers. Appl Surf Sci 416:200–212. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apsusc.​2017.​04.​166
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
44. Arana G, González-Díaz MO, Castillo-Atoche A, Avilés
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
F (2023) Improving adhesion between polyimide surface
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
and carbon nanotube arrays for strain-sensing devices.
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
Mater Today Commun 34:105008. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
1016/j.​mtcomm.​2022.​105008
and applicable law.
45. Kang I, Schulz MJ, Kim JH et al (2006) A carbon nano-
tube strain sensor for structural health monitoring. Smart

Vol:. (1234567890)
13