Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC

Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

Design of experiment on smart materials: tensile test on

3D printed composites reinforced with continuous carbon fiber and
resistivity detection
Imi Ochana1,2,a *, François Ducobu2, Mohamed Khalil Homrani2, and
Anthonin Demarbaix1
1
Science and Technology Research Unit, Haute Ecole Provinciale de Hainaut Condorcet,
Boulevard Solvay 31, 6000 Charleroi, Belgium
2
Machine Design and Production Engineering Lab, Research Institute for Science and Material
Engineering, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium
a
[email protected]

Keywords: Additive Manufacturing, Smart Materials, Design of Experiment

Abstract. Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) refers to the process of continuously assessing the
condition of materials and structures to detect damage, degradation, or performance changes over
time. It uses sensors integrated into materials to monitor their behavior, enabling a better
understanding of aging and structural integrity, which is particularly important in industries relying
on advanced manufacturing methods. The aim of this study is to investigate the integration of SHM
within additive manufacturing by exploring the relationship between the mechanical and electrical
properties of Continuous Carbon Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic Polymer composites. By
embedding monitoring capabilities directly into the manufacturing process, this research seeks to
overcome challenges related to material performance monitoring in industrial applications.
Specimens compliant with ASTM D638 were fabricated using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)
with coextrusion technology, which exposed the reinforcing carbon fibers at their ends for
resistivity measurements. Carbon fiber’s electrical conductivity is leveraged to study variations in
resistivity under mechanical stress. Three key variables were examined: carbon fiber filling
patterns (U-shaped and W-shaped), the number of fiber layers, 2 or 4, and matrix filling densities,
10% or 30%. Tensile tests, conducted at 0.05 mm/s with a maximum tensile force of 2500 N,
measured elongation, Young's modulus, resistivity and Gauge Factor (GF). The results provide
critical insights into SHM integration in additive manufacturing.
Introduction
Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) refers to a set of techniques to continuously assess the
condition of materials and structures to detect potential damage, signs of degradation, or changes
in performance over time. This field plays a key role in preventing structural failures and
optimizing the lifecycle of materials [1]. Its importance is particularly pronounced in critical
sectors such as aerospace, energy, and civil infrastructure, where reliability and structural safety
are paramount. In these domains, progress in advanced manufacturing, especially additive
manufacturing (AM), enables the production of complex and highly customized structures but also
poses challenges in ensuring their long-term integrity [2]. Recent advances in SHM technologies
have significantly improved the ability to monitor the integrity of materials and structures in real-
time. Modern SHM systems leverage integrated sensors, such as strain gauges, fiber optic sensors,
and piezoelectric devices, to collect high-resolution data on structural behavior under various
conditions [3,4]. These systems, combined with advancements in data processing and analysis,
including machine learning and predictive algorithms, enable early detection of potential issues
and provide actionable insights to prevent failures. Real-time monitoring capabilities are

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of
this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. Published under license by Materials
Research Forum LLC.

49
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

particularly valuable in applications requiring rapid responses, such as aerospace and civil
infrastructure, where safety and performance are critical [5].
Recent studies have also explored the potential of additive manufacturing, particularly Fused
Deposition Modelling (FDM), for creating materials with integrated monitoring capabilities. FDM
is a 3D printed method based on material extrusion for polymers and fiber-reinforced composites.
Demarbaix et al. [2] investigated the use of a composite material, consisting of continuous carbon
fibers as reinforcement embedded within a Polyamide (PA) matrix, in additive manufacturing via
coextrusion FDM technology. They demonstrated that carbon fibers improve mechanical
properties and provide electrical signals for detecting deformation and defects. The study found
that fiber placement significantly affects electrical properties, with fiber-matrix adhesion being
reliable during the elastic phase but less so after plastic deformation. Ryan et al. [6] investigated
the use of conductive filaments in the FDM process, noting that while these materials enable
electrical functionality, they often compromise mechanical performance. To address this
challenge, the authors recommend combining conductive polymers with a secondary polymer to
enhance both conductivity and mechanical properties, providing a balanced approach to material
design. Melnykowycz et al. [7] developed carbon black/polycaprolactone (PCL) filaments as strain
sensors for wearable applications, such as detecting finger motion in gloves. They found that
carbon black/TPE monofilaments with a 0.3 mm diameter provided superior signal strength,
precision, and stability compared to larger diameters and commercial sensors. The study concluded
that these filaments are ideal for continuous strain monitoring in high-deformation wearable
systems. Lopes et al. [8] studied strain-sensing in epoxy-based nanocomposites enhanced with
carbon nanomaterials like reduced graphene oxide (rGO) and carbon nanofibers (CNFs). The rGO
composites showed higher stability, while CNFs created new conductive pathways under strain.
The study also explored integrating these nanocomposites into carbon fiber-reinforced polymers
(CFRP) for structural health monitoring. While promising electrical signal variations were
observed, challenges in transferring sensing capabilities due to CFRP’s electrical conductivity
were noted. The research highlights the potential of rGO and CNF nanocomposites for damage
detection in advanced materials. Kim et al. [9] developed a method for fabricating multiaxial force
sensors using dual-nozzle FDM. They combined Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) for structure
and carbon nanotubes for sensing. This approach allows simultaneous fabrication of both parts,
eliminating extra assembly. The sensors, integrated into 3D-printed parts, detect force through
resistance changes in three axes. The study highlights the impact of additive manufacturing
anisotropy on signal recovery and demonstrates these sensors as a cost-effective, customizable
solution for real-time force measurement. Gonçalves et al. [10] developed Polyether Ether Ketone
(PEEK) based nanocomposite filaments for additive manufacturing by incorporating multi-walled
carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and graphene nanoplatelets (GnPs). This improved electrical
conductivity for FDM applications while preserving mechanical properties. The study highlighted
the role of GnPs in enhancing conductivity and noted challenges in maintaining conductivity
during processing. Their work demonstrates the potential of optimizing filler ratios to create
advanced materials with integrated monitoring capabilities.
One promising development in AM is the use of continuous carbon fiber-reinforced
thermoplastic polymers. These composites combine the flexibility and processability of
thermoplastics with the exceptional strength-to-weight ratio and stiffness of carbon fibers [11].
Furthermore, the reinforcement of thermoplastics with continuous carbon fibers introduces new
possibilities for designing smart materials capable of monitoring their own structural health. Such
materials are highly desirable in industries where durability, safety, and performance are critical.
An additional advantage of carbon fibers lies in their intrinsic electrical conductivity, which can
be harnessed to enable real-time monitoring capabilities. By integrating this property into the
additive manufacturing process, it becomes possible to embed SHM directly within the material

50
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

itself. This approach eliminates the need for external sensors, reducing complexity and enhancing
the material's overall functionality. Combining additive manufacturing with the conductive
properties of carbon fibers thus represents a significant step toward creating intelligent materials
with built-in SHM capabilities. These materials can continuously provide feedback on their
structural integrity, addressing challenges related to material aging and performance degradation
in advanced industrial applications [8].
This study uses a Design of Experiment (DoE) which focuses on key variables such as
continuous fiber filling patterns, the number of fiber layers, and matrix density. Tensile tests are
conducted to determine the mechanical properties, specifically Young's modulus and yield strength
(Re0.2), while the initial resistance (R0) and gauge factor (GF) are measured under mechanical
stress to evaluate the material's electrical behavior. The GF is defined in Eq. 1 as the ratio of the
relative change in electrical resistance to the relative elongation:
∆𝑅𝑅
𝑅𝑅0
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = ∆𝐿𝐿 , (1)
𝐿𝐿0

where ∆R the change in resistance, R0 the initial resistance (in Ω), ∆L the change in length, and L0
(in m) is the initial length [12]. For this study, the GF is considered only in the linear portion of
the strain-resistance relationship. This ensures that the calculation relies on a well-understood,
stable, and reversible material behavior, which improves the reliability and accuracy of the
measurements. By analyzing the interactions between these responses, the study aims to optimize
both the mechanical and electrical performance of the composites, enabling the seamless
integration of SHM into the additive manufacturing process.
Method
The specimens used in this study were fabricated following the ASTM D638 type I standard for
tensile testing [13]. These specimens were made of continuous carbon fiber-reinforced
thermoplastic composites, with a PA matrix. The fabrication process was carried out using the
Anisoprint Composer A4, a 3D printer that employs FDM with coextrusion technology. This
method enabled the integration of continuous carbon fibers within the PA matrix, arranged in
superimposed layers to ensure continuous connectivity throughout the specimen. This arrangement
allowed all fibers within each layer to be electrically connected, facilitating reliable resistivity
measurements by exposing the fiber ends for electrical connectivity [14].
Each factor of the DoE was analyzed at two levels, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Studied factors of DoE, including the M320 reference configuration for baseline
comparisons.

The carbon fiber filling patterns, illustrated in Fig. 1, were evaluated with a U pattern
representing the low level and a W pattern representing the high level.

51
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

Figure 1 – Continuous carbon fiber pattern inside the specimen.

The number of carbon fiber layers varied between two, corresponding to the low level, and four,
corresponding to the high level. Similarly, the matrix density was controlled at 10% for the low
level and 30% for the high level. A reference specimen family, named M320, was introduced to
serve as the midpoint of these studied factors. This reference configuration features three
continuous carbon fiber layers arranged sequentially, with a matrix density of 20%. In this setup,
each fiber path traverses three times, forming a distinctive M pattern, as shown in Fig. 1. The M320
configuration provides a balanced baseline for comparing the effects of the studied factors across
their respective levels.
The variation of the studied parameters provided essential insights into their contribution to the
mechanical and electrical behavior of the materials, enabling a better understanding of their
potential applications in structural health monitoring and sensor technologies. The study involved
eight distinct specimen families, with three identical specimens fabricated per family to ensure
repeatability and statistical reliability, systematically evaluating the effects of the studied factors
and their interactions.
Given that the total length of carbon fiber filament passing through each specimen remains
constant, similar mechanical properties are expected for specimen families with the same total
number of fiber paths. For instance, the W210 family, which contains a total of 8 carbon fiber
paths with a matrix density of 10%, is anticipated to exhibit mechanical properties comparable to
the U410 family, which also contains 8 fiber paths. Likewise, the W230 family and the U430
family, both containing also 8 fiber paths, should display analogous mechanical behavior. This
prediction is based on the assumption that the mechanical strength and stiffness are primarily
governed by the total fiber content within the specimens, regardless of the specific fiber
arrangement pattern.
The tensile tests, shown in Fig. 2, were conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of the
fabricated specimens, including Young's modulus E and yield strength Re0.2. These tests were
performed using a Zwick/Roëll Z2.5 universal testing machine under controlled conditions. The
testing speed was set at 0.05 mm/s, and the maximum tensile force applied during the experiments
was limited to 2500 N to ensure consistent measurements across all specimen configurations. Each
specimen was securely clamped between the grips of the testing machine, ensuring proper
alignment to prevent off-axis loading. The force was gradually applied until the specimen failed,
and the resulting stress-strain data were recorded for analysis. The superimposed arrangement of
the carbon fiber layers was designed to enhance the mechanical integrity of the composite and
maintain connectivity between fibers across layers, ensuring uniform stress distribution. These
measurements provided critical insights into the mechanical behavior of the composites under
uniaxial tensile stress, helping to identify the impact of different fiber filling patterns, the number
of carbon fiber layers, and matrix density on the overall performance.

52
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

Figure 2 – Tensile test setup, showing the specimen held in the grips of the testing machine with
the forces applied along its longitudinal axis.
To assess the electrical behavior of the carbon fiber-reinforced composites, resistivity
measurements were conducted from the tensile tests. The exposed ends of the continuous carbon
fibers in the specimens were utilized to establish electrical connections. The connectivity of the
fibers across all superimposed layers ensured that resistivity measurements represented the
collective contribution of all layers. Test clips were attached directly to these exposed fibers, as
depicted in Fig. 3, to ensure consistent electrical contact.

Figure 3 – Electrical resistivity measurement setup, highlighting the test clips connections and
the specimen.
An initial current of 1 mA was injected into the specimens using a precision power supply,
while a multimeter Keithley DMM6500 was used to record the voltage drop across the fibers.
From these data, the electrical resistivity was calculated for each specimen configuration. The
uniform connectivity across the fiber layers allowed for accurate resistivity measurements and
ensured that the electrical properties were representative of the entire composite structure. The
variations in resistivity provided insight into the potential of carbon fiber composites to act as
sensors for deformation and damage detection.
Results and Interpretations
The studied factors and their levels, as well as the interactions between the factors, were analyzed
to evaluate their combined effects on the responses. The responses were categorized into
mechanical and electrical domains. The mechanical responses included the Young’s modulus E
and the 0.2% offset yield strength Re0.2%, both of which provide critical information on the
stiffness and strength of the composites. The electrical response focused on the initial electrical
resistance R0 and the gauge factor GF, which reflects the sensitivity of the material to deformation
and is an essential parameter for strain sensing applications.
A mathematical model was established to describe the relationship between the factors and the
measured responses. The factorial model for the three studied factors is expressed in Eq. 2.

53
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

y = 𝑎𝑎0 + 𝑎𝑎1 𝑥𝑥1 + 𝑎𝑎2 𝑥𝑥2 + 𝑎𝑎3 𝑥𝑥3 + 𝑎𝑎12 𝑥𝑥1 𝑥𝑥2 + 𝑎𝑎13 𝑥𝑥1 𝑥𝑥3 + 𝑎𝑎23 𝑥𝑥2 𝑥𝑥3 + 𝑎𝑎123 𝑥𝑥1 𝑥𝑥2 𝑥𝑥3 (2)

In this model, y represents the predicted response, such as E, Re0.2%, R0, or GF. The variables
x1, x2, and x3 correspond to the coded values of the studied factors, namely the carbon fiber filling
patterns, the number of carbon fiber layers, and the matrix density, respectively. The parameter a0
is the intercept, while a1, a2, and a3 denote the main effects of each factor. The interaction effects
between the factors are captured by the coefficients a12, a13, a23, and a123.
The coefficients of the model, as summarized in Table 2, provide valuable insights into the
relative significance and direction of influence of each factor and their interactions. Positive
coefficients indicate a direct relationship, where increasing the level of a factor results in an
increase in the response. Conversely, negative coefficients reflect an inverse relationship.
Table 2 – Table of Effects of DoE.
Effects a0 a1 a2 a3 a12 a13 a23 a123
E [MPa] 2514.2 268.33 329.60 28.23 -49.66 -119.55 54.58 78.81
Re0,2 [MPa] 35.50 2.870 5.228 1.218 0.748 -1.180 -0.527 0.665
R0 [Ω] 31.70 6.35 -6.98 0.21 -2.21 0.42 -0.59 0.37
GF [/] 0.529 0.001 0.014 -0.009 -0.038 -0.011 0.015 -0.063

This model enables the prediction of material responses, such as E, Re0.2%, R0 and GF, for any
combination of factor levels without the need for additional experiments. As a result, it
significantly reduces the time and effort associated with experimental testing while providing a
framework for analyzing the behavior of the materials.
The tensile test experiments provided valuable insights into the mechanical and electrical
responses of the specimens, as detailed in Table 3. Regarding the mechanical properties, a clear
progressive increase in Young’s modulus was observed, ranging from a minimum value of 1595
MPa to a maximum of 3171 MPa. This trend aligns with expectations, as the carbon fiber content
and matrix density increase progressively across the specimen families. The yield strength values
exhibited a standard deviation of 6.75 MPa, reflecting moderate variability across the tested
specimens.
Table 3 – Mechanical and electrical responses of the tensile tests.

When comparing families with the same number of carbon fiber filaments and identical matrix
density within a single specimen, specific trends emerged. For instance, families W210 and U410
exhibited an average difference of 9% in their yield strength values, while families W230 and
U430 demonstrated a slight average difference of 3%. These findings confirm that the arrangement
of carbon fibers, whether distributed across two or four layers, has a minimal impact on the yield
strength values. In terms of electrical responses, the initial resistance R0 showed significant
variation between specimen families. The lowest average R0 value, 19 Ω, was recorded for the
U430 family, whereas the W230 family displayed the highest average value of 48 Ω. This

54
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

represents an average difference of 60% for specimens with the same number of carbon fiber
filaments but different distributions. The difference is explained by Pouillet’s law, defined by Eq.
3, as the pathway length for the W configuration is longer than for the U configuration, leading to
higher resistivity.
𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌
𝑅𝑅0 = 𝑆𝑆
, (3)

where ρ is the resistivity (in Ωm), l (in m) is the length of the resistive element, and S (in m2) is
the cross-section of the resistive element.
Finally, the GF, calculated from the linear portion of the resistance-strain relationship and
detailed in Table 4, along with its correlation coefficient R², generally exhibited high consistency
with an average R² of 0.99 and a variation of up to 2% in most cases. However, certain anomalies,
highlighted in Table 4, were observed. In the U230 family, only specimen U230.3 provided
reliable measurements, with a GF of 0.92 and an R² of 0.96. Similarly, in the U410 family, the
only coherent result was obtained for specimen U410.2, which showed a GF of 0.57 and an R² of
0.97. For the W410 family, a single valid result was recorded with a GF of 2.31 and an R² of 0.98.
Lastly, for the W430 family, only one consistent value was obtained, with a GF of 0.94 and an R²
of 0.97.
Table 4 – GF and correlation coefficients R² where highlighted cases indicate anomalies.
Specimen U210 U210 U210 U230 U230 U230 W210 W210 W210 W230 W230 W230
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
GF 0.79 0.61 0.49 / 0.70 0.93 0.51 0.46 0.58 0.64 0.60 0.49
R2 0.99 0.99 0.97 / 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97

Specimen U410 U410 U410 U430 U430 U430 W410 W410 W410 W430 W430 W430
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
GF 0.91 0.57 / 0.90 0.76 0.83 2.32 0.09 0.35 0.94 0.23 0.24
R2 0.84 0.97 / 0.98 0.99 0.95 0.98 0.44 0.42 0.97 0.73 0.52

These results underscore the variability in specific specimen families and highlight the need for
further analysis of these anomalies. Particular attention should be given to ensuring proper
adhesion between the carbon fibers and the matrix, and post-treatment processes could be
considered to improve the consistency of the results.
The following analysis examines how the studied factors influence the Young's modulus E, the
0.2% offset yield strength Re0.2, the initial electrical resistance R0, and the gauge factor GF. The
factors considered in the experiments include the carbon fiber filling patterns, the number of
carbon fiber layers, and the matrix density. For each graph, the magnitude and direction of each
factor's effect are determined by observing the slope of the corresponding line.

55
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4 – (a) Graph of effects on E; (b) Graph of effects on Re 0.2; (c) Graph of effects on R0;
(d) Graph of effects on GF.
The carbon fiber filling patterns have a noticeable impact on the mechanical and electrical
properties. For Young's modulus, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a), optimizing the filling patterns increases
E from 2,250 MPa to 2,800 MPa, corresponding to an improvement of 23%. Similarly, as shown
in Fig. 4(b), the yield strength increases from 33 MPa to 38.5 MPa, representing a 16% gain. For
the initial electrical resistance, Fig. 4(c) shows that changes in filling patterns cause an increase
from 25 Ω to 38 Ω, reflecting a significant rise of 35%. However, for the gauge factor, Fig. 4(d)
reveals only a minimal increase from 0.529 to 0.531, which corresponds to a negligible
improvement of 0.3%.
The number of carbon fiber layers has the most pronounced influence across all properties. As
shown in Fig. 4(a), increasing the fiber layers raises Young's modulus from 2,200 MPa to 2,850
MPa, which corresponds to a substantial enhancement of 23%. For yield strength, as illustrated in
Fig. 4(b), this parameter increases Re0.2 from 30 MPa to 41 MPa, representing an improvement
of 27%. Regarding the initial electrical resistance, Fig. 4(c) shows a significant reduction from
39Ω to 25 Ω, corresponding to a decrease of 36%. For the gauge factor, as seen in Fig. 4(d), the
increase is moderate, from 0.515 to 0.545, reflecting a small gain of 5.5%.
The matrix density has a comparatively smaller effect on the composite's properties. For
Young's modulus, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a), E increases only slightly, from 2,450 MPa to 2,500
MPa, representing a modest gain of 2%. A similar trend is observed for yield strength, as shown
in Fig. 4(b), where Re0.2 increases from 34.5 MPa to 37 MPa, reflecting a modest improvement
of 7%. For the initial electrical resistance, Fig. 4(c) reveals that the matrix density has a negligible
impact, with R0 increasing marginally from 31.5 Ω to 32 Ω, representing a very small change of

56
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

1.6%. Interestingly, for the gauge factor, Fig. 4(d) shows a decrease from 0.538 to 0.520,
corresponding to a reduction of 3.4%.
The objective of this experimental plan is to identify the optimal combination of factors to
achieve a composite material that balances mechanical and electrical performance. Carbon fiber
filling patterns and the number of fiber layers emerge as the key factors influencing the composite's
properties. The filling patterns primarily affect mechanical strength and electrical resistance, while
the fiber layers exhibit a dominant impact across all parameters, particularly in enhancing stiffness
and reducing resistance. In contrast, matrix density plays a minor role, with limited influence on
most properties except for a slight negative impact on the gauge factor.
Conclusions
This study explored the integration of SHM into additive manufacturing by analyzing the
mechanical and electrical behavior of continuous carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic
composites. The results demonstrate that the number of fiber layers is the most influential factor,
leading to significant improvements in mechanical performance, including a 23% increase in
Young’s modulus and a 27% rise in yield strength. The fiber filling patterns (U-shaped and W-
shaped) also contributed positively, though to a lesser extent, while the matrix density showed
negligible influence on stiffness and strength.
In terms of electrical responses, the U-shaped filling pattern produced lower initial resistance
R0 compared to the W-shaped configuration, consistent with shorter conductive pathways. Adding
more fiber layers further reduced R0 by 36%, underscoring the importance of fiber quantity in
enhancing electrical conductivity. While the GF displayed slight improvements with increasing
fiber layers, matrix density had a small but negative effect. Variability and anomalies observed in
certain specimen families highlight the need for further optimization of the manufacturing process
to ensure consistent and reliable measurements.
In conclusion, this study confirms that optimizing the fiber quantity and arrangement is key to
improving both the mechanical and electrical properties of carbon fiber composites, paving the
way for the effective integration of SHM in additive manufacturing. Future work will focus on
addressing observed inconsistencies and expanding the scope of SHM applications to improve
material performance monitoring in industrial settings.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Région Wallonne for supporting this research as part of the
SKYWIN ICOM2C3D research project under grant 8820.
References
[1] S. Metaxa, K. Kalkanis, C. S. Psomopoulos, S. D. Kaminaris, and G. Ioannidis, “A review
of structural health monitoring methods for composite materials,” in Procedia Structural
Integrity, Elsevier B.V., 2019, pp. 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2020.01.046
[2] A. Demarbaix, I. Ochana, J. Levrie, I. Coutinho, S. S. Cunha, and M. Moonens, “Additively
Manufactured Multifunctional Composite Parts with the Help of Coextrusion Continuous Carbon
Fiber: Study of Feasibility to Print Self-Sensing without Doped Raw Material,” Journal of
Composites Science, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 355, Aug. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7090355
[3] S. Nauman, “Piezoresistive Sensing Approaches for Structural Health Monitoring of
Polymer Composites—A Review,” Jun. 01, 2021, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
(MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/eng2020013
[4] A. M. L. Lanzolla, F. Attivissimo, G. Percoco, M. A. Ragolia, G. Stano, and A. Di Nisio,
“Additive Manufacturing for Sensors: Piezoresistive Strain Gauge with Temperature

57
Material Forming - ESAFORM 2025 Materials Research Forum LLC
Materials Research Proceedings 54 (2025) 49-58 https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903599-6

Compensation,” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 17, Sep. 2022.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178607
[5] I. Y. Lee, J. Jang, and Y. Bin Park, “Advanced structural health monitoring in carbon fiber-
reinforced plastic using real-time self-sensing data and convolutional neural network
architectures,” Mater Des, vol. 224, Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111348
[6] K. R. Ryan, M. P. Down, N. J. Hurst, E. M. Keefe, and C. E. Banks, “Additive
manufacturing (3D printing) of electrically conductive polymers and polymer nanocomposites
and their applications,” Jul. 01, 2022, Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esci.2022.07.003
[7] M. Melnykowycz, B. Koll, D. Scharf, and F. Clemens, “Comparison of piezoresistive
monofilament polymer sensors,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1278–1294, Jan. 2014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s140101278
[8] C. Lopes et al., “Smart Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites for Damage Sensing
and On-Line Structural Health Monitoring Applications,” Polymers (Basel), vol. 16, no. 19, p.
2698, Sep. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16192698
[9] K. Kim, J. Park, J. hoon Suh, M. Kim, Y. Jeong, and I. Park, “3D printing of multiaxial
force sensors using carbon nanotube (CNT)/thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) filaments,” Sens
Actuators A Phys, vol. 263, pp. 493–500, Aug. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2017.07.020
[10] J. Gonçalves et al., “Electrically conductive polyetheretherketone nanocomposite filaments:
From production to fused deposition modeling,” Polymers (Basel), vol. 10, no. 8, Aug. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym10080925
[11] C. Pandelidi, S. Bateman, S. Piegert, R. Hoehner, I. Kelbassa, and M. Brandt, “The
technology of continuous fibre-reinforced polymers: a review on extrusion additive
manufacturing methods,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06837-6
[12] X. Yao, C. Luan, D. Zhang, L. Lan, and J. Fu, “Evaluation of carbon fiber-embedded 3D
printed structures for strengthening and structural-health monitoring,” Mater Des, vol. 114, pp.
424–432, Jan. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.10.078
[13] ASTM D638, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics 1”.
https://doi.org/10.1520/D0638-14
[14] Read on https://anisoprint.com/ the 28th July 2024.

58