OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 21, Iss. 17 — Aug. 26, 2013
  • pp: 20404–20416
« Show journal navigation

Shear stress sensing with Bragg grating-based sensors in microstructured optical fibers

Sanne Sulejmani, Camille Sonnenfeld, Thomas Geernaert, Geert Luyckx, Danny Van Hemelrijck, Pawel Mergo, Waclaw Urbanczyk, Karima Chah, Christophe Caucheteur, Patrice Mégret, Hugo Thienpont, and Francis Berghmans  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 21, Issue 17, pp. 20404-20416 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.21.020404


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1181 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We demonstrate shear stress sensing with a Bragg grating-based microstructured optical fiber sensor embedded in a single lap adhesive joint. We achieved an unprecedented shear stress sensitivity of 59.8 pm/MPa when the joint is loaded in tension. This corresponds to a shear strain sensitivity of 0.01 pm/µε. We verified these results with 2D and 3D finite element modeling. A comparative FEM study with conventional highly birefringent side-hole and bow-tie fibers shows that our dedicated fiber design yields a fourfold sensitivity improvement.

© 2013 OSA

1. Introduction

The wide adoption of smart materials and structural health monitoring in domains such as material manufacturing, civil engineering, transport, energy production and healthcare stimulates the demand for reliable and dedicated sensors. Typical physical quantities to measure include temperature, pressure or strain. Conventional electromechanical sensors, such as electrical strain gauges, are often perfectly adequate for this task. However, an increasing number of smart sensor applications require the sensor to be read out permanently whilst being embedded in a non-invasive manner in various materials that are often subjected to harsh conditions over long lifetimes. Electromechanical sensors are not always suited for this challenge, as they are usually bulky, they exhibit intrinsic temperature sensitivity, they are vulnerable to electromagnetic interference and they can exhibit a strong signal drift. When traditional sensors fail, optical fiber sensors and more specifically fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors, can provide a solution. FBG sensors feature many advantages over conventional sensors; they are small, flexible and lightweight, they can be multiplexed and allow quasi-distributed sensor configurations, they allow absolute measurements and they have a linear response over a wide temperature and mechanical strain range. These features make FBG sensors highly suitable for integration in a material for smart sensing applications [1

1. A. Cusano, A. Cutolo, and J. Albert, Fiber Bragg grating sensors: Recent advancements, industrial applications and market exploitation (Bentham Science Publishers, 2011).

4

4. G. Luyckx, E. Voet, N. Lammens, and J. Degrieck, “Strain measurements of composite laminates with embedded fibre bragg gratings: criticism and opportunities for research,” Sensors (Basel) 11(1), 384–408 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

Multi-axial (selective) strain sensing remains a challenge for structural health monitoring or tactile sensing applications. Many research efforts focused on axial strain, hydrostatic pressure and transverse strain sensors and there are currently various methods commercially available with a high strain sensing resolution [5

5. C. Martelli, J. Canning, N. Groothoff, and K. Lyytikainen, “Strain and temperature characterization of photonic crystal fiber Bragg gratings,” Opt. Lett. 30(14), 1785–1787 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12]. On the contrary, the detection of shear strain remained mostly unaddressed, and at present no adequate sensor exists that is intrinsically sensitive to shear deformation. Shear stress nevertheless plays a crucial role in the appearance of structural defects such as delamination in laminated composite materials, debonding of adhesive joints or buckling of beams [13

13. R. Khandan, S. Noroozi, P. Sewell, and J. Vinney, “The development of laminated composite plate theories: a review,” J. Mater. Sci. 47(16), 5901–5910 (2012). [CrossRef]

17

17. S. Benyoucef, A. Tounsi, E. A. Adda Bedia, and S. A. Meftah, “Creep and shrinkage effect on adhesive stresses in RC beams strengthened with composite laminates,” Compos. Sci. Technol. 67(6), 933–942 (2007). [CrossRef]

]. In addition, shear stress sensing is also a key feature of tactile sensors, since this parameter provides information on (skin) friction [18

18. H. Yousef, M. Boukallel, and K. Althoefer, ““Tactile sensing for dexterous in-hand manipulation in robotics—A review,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys 167(2), 171–187 (2011). [CrossRef]

,19

19. M. I. Tiwana, S. J. Redmond, and N. H. Lovell, ““A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys. 179, 17–31 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. The absence of shear sensing technology can be attributed to the challenging requirements for a shear stress sensor. Non-intrusive integration capabilities and flexibility are essential features of a shear sensor. Furthermore, high shear sensing resolution is indispensable since shear stress levels in aforementioned structures and applications are typically several orders of magnitude smaller than normal stress. Depending on the specific sensor implementation, different types of shear force sensors have been investigated. A plane-shear strain gage rosette was first demonstrated in [20

20. C. Perry, “Plane-shear measurement with strain gages,” Exp. Mech. 9(19–N), 22 (1969).

]. Current developments of shear stress sensors are based on MEMS technology [21

21. J. W. Naughton and M. Sheplak, “Modern developments in shear-stress measurement,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 38(6-7), 515–570 (2002). [CrossRef]

], including piezo-resistive [22

22. K. Noda, K. Hoshino, K. Matsumoto, and I. Shimoyama, ““A shear stress sensor for tactile sensing with the piezoresistive cantilever standing in elastic material,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys 127(2), 295–301 (2006). [CrossRef]

] or capacitive [23

23. H.-K. Lee, J. Chung, S.-I. Chang, and E. Yoon, “Normal and shear force measurement using a flexible polymer tactile sensor with embedded multiple capacitors,” J. Microelectromech. Syst. 17(4), 934–942 (2008). [CrossRef]

,24

24. K. Sundara-Rajan, A. Bestick, G. I. Rowe, G. K. Klute, W. R. Ledoux, H. C. Wang, and A. V. Mamishev, “An interfacial stress sensor for biomechanical applications,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 23(8), 085701 (2012). [CrossRef]

] shear stress sensors. More recently, Missine et al. [25

25. J. Missinne, E. Bosman, B. Van Hoe, G. Van Steenberge, S. Kalathimekkad, P. Van Daele, and J. Vanfleteren, “Flexible shear sensor based on embedded optoelectronic components,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(12), 771–773 (2011). [CrossRef]

] demonstrated an optoelectronic shear sensor based on measuring the optical power with a photodiode received from a vertical cavity surface-emitting laser facing the photodiode and separated with a deformable transduction layer. Distributed shear force sensing was also proposed by Wang et al. [26

26. W.-C. Wang, W. R. Ledoux, B. J. Sangeorzan, and P. G. Reinhall, “A shear and plantar pressure sensor based on fiber-optic bend loss,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 42(3), 315–325 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] using an array of optical fibers embedded in a flexible polymer foil. Shear or transverse loading of the foil induces macro bending of the fibers which can be observed through intensity attenuations.

Our paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we discuss how a highly birefringent MOF-FBG sensor can detect shear stress in a single lap adhesive joint (SLJ). In section 3 we elaborate on the experimental results that we have obtained when using butterfly MOF-FBG sensors to measure shear stress in an SLJ experiment. We also verify our experimental results with 2D and 3D finite element modeling techniques. Finally, in section 4, we conclude on the shear stress sensing opportunities offered by our dedicated selective strain sensors.

2. Shear stress sensing with highly birefringent optical fiber sensors

To determine the shear stress sensing performance of a butterfly MOF-FBG sensor (Fig. 1
Fig. 1 The butterfly MOF-FBG sensor has an asymmetric air hole topology which induces large deformations in the core region and its GeO2 doped inclusion during fiber fabrication [34]. The contours of the air holes, doped region and cladding are reconstructed in a 2D geometry for FEM simulations in Abaqus.
), we have embedded several of these sensors in a single lap adhesive joint (SLJ). A SLJ is a simple structure for which the shear stress distribution in the adhesive layer is well known and can be described by analytical models [42

42. L. F. M. da Silva, P. J. C. das Neves, R. D. Adams, A. Wang, and J. K. Spelt, “Analytical models of adhesively bonded joints—Part II: Comparative study,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 29(3), 331–341 (2009). [CrossRef]

]. The analysis of Goland-Reissner [43

43. M. Goland and E. Reissner, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. Am. Soc. Eng. 66, A17 (1944).

] is a classic two-dimensional linear elastic method to analyze SLJs and to determine not only the shear stress in the bond layer, but also the peel stress that is induced by the bending moment caused by eccentric loading of the joint. Figure 2(a)
Fig. 2 (a) Configuration of the tested and modeled SLJ with an optical fiber embedded in the centre (x = y = 0) of the adhesive layer. The boundary and loading conditions used for 2D and 3D FEM analyses are indicated. Perfect bonding is assumed at every interface. (b) Shear and peel stress profile along the adhesive bond line (y = 0) in a SLJ according to Goland-Reissner analysis and obtained with 2D FEM modeling of a SLJ configuration as shown in (a). The addition of spacer tabs (which is not considered in the Goland-Reissner model) has a small influence on the stress profile near the edges of the adhesive overlap. (c) The evolution of the shear and peel stress in the centre of the adhesive layer due to tensile loading is nearly linear (R2 > 0.999 and R2 > 0.998, respectively).
shows a SLJ configuration with additional spacer tabs placed at the ends of the adherends to ensure tensile loading along the center line y = 0. Figure 2(b) compares the shear and peel stress profile from Goland-Reissner theory, and that from 2D finite element modeling (see section 3) of the SLJ shown in Fig. 2(a). This profile demonstrates that in the centre of the adhesive layer – at the location of the optical fiber - shear stress is more prominent than peel stress. However, at the edges of the overlap, peel stress will dominate. This peel stress may also initiate joint failure. It is worthwhile mentioning that the Goland-Reissner analysis does not include the decay of shear and peel stress near the edges of the adhesive bond. The nearly linear evolution of the shear and peel stress, with correlation coefficients R2 > 0.999 and R2 > 0.998, respectively, in the centre of the adhesive layer when the tensile loading is increased is shown in Fig. 2(c).

σ1,2=(σx+σy)±(σxσy)2+4τxy22
(4)

The influence of the shear stress component is often neglected when transverse stress sensitivity of a MOF-FBG sensor is being considered. However, when investigating the shear stress sensitivity of these sensors, the contribution of this component is of major importance.

Because of the large asymmetry in the design of the butterfly MOF, the sensitivity of the sensor to transverse load depends on the angular orientation of the MOF with respect to the direction of the load. More specifically, the butterfly MOF-FBG sensor has a sine-like angular dependence of the transverse line load [39

39. C. Sonnenfeld, S. Sulejmani, T. Geernaert, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Microstructured optical fiber sensors embedded in a laminate composite for smart material applications,” Sensors (Basel) 11(12), 2566–2579 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] and transverse strain sensitivity when embedded in a material [47

47. S. Sulejmani, C. Sonnenfeld, T. Geernaert, F. Berghmans, H. Thienpont, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, and H. Bartelt, “Towards micro-structured optical fiber sensors for transverse strain sensing in smart composite materials,” in 2011 IEEE Sensors (2011), pp. 109–112.

]. The transverse strain sensitivity is highest when the transverse load is applied along 90°, which is indicated in Fig. 1 by the y-axis and which is also called ‘slow axis’. When the fiber is loaded along 0°, which corresponds to the x-axis, or so-called ‘fast axis’, the magnitude of the sensitivity is still large, but it will now be negative. When the fiber is transversally loaded along ± 45°, the magnitude of its transverse line loading sensitivity approaches zero. When embedded in a shear loaded adhesive layer along ± 45° (Fig. 2(a).), it will detect the shear load induced transverse strain in the fiber. At the same time, the influence of peel strain on the sensor signal will remain low.

3. Experimental and FEM modeling results

The reflection spectra of the FBG sensors are recorded before and after embedding in a SLJ (Fig. 3(a)
Fig. 3 Sample 1B: (a) SMF-FBG reflection spectra before and after embedding the sensor in the SLJ show minor deformations and a shift toward longer wavelengths due to axial pre-strain. (b) Results from experiments and 3D FEM modeling demonstrate a transverse contraction due to tensile loading of the adhesive layer which transfers a negative axial strain on the fiber. Since the axial strain sensitivity of SMF-FBG sensors is known to be 1.2 pm/µε, we find a good match between 3D FEM results and experiments.
and Fig. 4(a)
Fig. 4 Sample 2A: (a) Butterfly MOF-FBG sensor reflection spectra before and after embedding the sensor in the SLJ show minor deformations and a shift toward longer wavelengths due to axial prestrain. (b) The individual Bragg peaks shift towards lower wavelengths due to tensile loading of the SLJ. From linear fitting the results up to a load of 2 kN, we find that their sensor response is respectively −136.0 pm/kN and −63.5 pm/kN for the Bragg peak 1 and Bragg peak 2. (c) The Bragg peak separation increases due to tensile loading with a sensor response of 67.4 pm/kN. Results from 2D FEM modeling of a SLJ similar to sample 2A are in very good agreement with the experimental results.
). Minor spectral deformations were introduced, but this did not affect the Bragg peak detection. An average shift of 669 ± 9 pm of the Bragg peak wavelengths towards longer wavelengths was detected for all samples. This shift is likely due to axial strain induced during SLJ fabrication when fixing the fiber to maintain its position and angular orientation in the adhesive layer.

The sample is placed in a hydraulic servo-controlled tensile test machine with a load capacity of 100 kN (Instron 8801 [51],) by gripping it at both ends (Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Picture of the SLJ sample placed in the tensile test machine. The optical fiber is also visible.
). A static tensile load is applied at a rate of 0.05 mm/min until failure of the SLJ. During loading, the FBG sensor response is recorded using an FBG interrogator (FBG scan 608 [52],) with a sample frequency of 1 Hz and peak detection resolution of 1 pm.

The SMF-FBG sensor response to tensile load of sample 1B is shown in Fig. 3(b). The results of a linear regression analysis of the response of samples 1A and 1B yielding the sensitivity in pm/kN are given in Table 1. For both samples the Bragg peak wavelength shifts to shorter wavelengths because of tensile loading of the SLJ. This corresponds to an axial compression of the FBG sensor that is induced by transverse contraction of the adhesive layer. This was verified with a 3D FEM model with dimensions corresponding to that of sample 1B and a silica rod located centrally in the adhesive layer to represent an optical fiber. Constraints are applied to the adherends to reproduce a fixed support on the left and a guided support on the right end of the SLJ. A load of maximum 5 kN is applied to the right end. The mesh consists of linear, 3D stress elements. Perfect bonding is assumed at all interfaces. The elastic modulus E and Poisson coefficient ν is respectively 70.0 GPa and 0.33 for the aluminum adherends, 0.47 GPa and 0.385 for the MMA adhesive, and 72.5 GPa and 0.17 for the silica optical fiber. The actual material parameters for the two component MMA structural adhesive were not available. Therefore, an average was made over publicly available material parameters (E and ν) available for similar two-component MMA adhesives [53

53. Pliogrip 1000/1040/1060/1080 Acrylic Adhesive System (Ashland Performance Materials) – Technical datasheet

55

55. A. M. G. Pinto, A. G. Magalhães, R. D. S. G. Campilho, M. F. S. F. de Moura, and A. P. M. Baptista, “Single-lap joints of similar and dissimilar adherends bonded with an Acrylic adhesive,” J. Adhes. 85(6), 351–376 (2009). [CrossRef]

]. Results from 3D structural FEM modeling show that the detected negative Bragg peak shift is indeed because of transverse contraction of the adhesive layer, and results in a (negative) axial strain that is transferred to the optical fiber. Figure 3(b) compares the results of the experiment with those of 3D FEM when using the well-known axial strain sensitivity of SMF-FBG sensors (1.2 pm/µε [3

3. A. Othonos and K. Kalli, Fiber Bragg gratings: Fundamentals and applications in telecommunications and sensing (Artech House, 1999).

,39

39. C. Sonnenfeld, S. Sulejmani, T. Geernaert, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Microstructured optical fiber sensors embedded in a laminate composite for smart material applications,” Sensors (Basel) 11(12), 2566–2579 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

],) to calculate the corresponding Bragg peak shift. We find a very good agreement between experiments and 3D FEM modeling of SMF-FBG sensors embedded in a SLJ.

The butterfly MOF-FBG sensor response of sample 2A is shown in Fig. 4 and the results of a linear regression analysis of that response against applied load is also given in Table 1. For sample 2A, the Bragg peak separation increases because of tensile loading of the SLJ at a rate of 67.4 pm/kN. We limited the linear fit up to 2 kN, since at higher loads the sensor response is no longer linear. This can be attributed to the initiation and growth of cracks at the edge of the adhesive bond. Debonding at the edges will increase the shear stress at the location of the optical fiber. The experimental results were verified using 2D structural FEM modeling of a SLJ model using the same constraints, loading conditions and material properties as mentioned before. The dimensions of the adhesive layer and SLJ were chosen to match that of sample 2A. The 2D model of the butterfly MOF was extracted from its scanning electron micrograph (SEM) as shown in Fig. 1 [47

47. S. Sulejmani, C. Sonnenfeld, T. Geernaert, F. Berghmans, H. Thienpont, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, and H. Bartelt, “Towards micro-structured optical fiber sensors for transverse strain sensing in smart composite materials,” in 2011 IEEE Sensors (2011), pp. 109–112.

]. We have limited the simulations to 2D FEM since the sensing principle of the butterfly MOF-FBG sensor relies on the change of material birefringence which is limited to effects in the xy-plane. Moreover, we obtained a very good agreement between experiments on a SMF-FBG sensor and 3D modeling, which gives us confidence that neglecting stress along the z-direction will not affect the results for the Bragg peak separation. The result from a 2D FEM model of the peak separation is shown in Fig. 4(c) and summarized in Table 1. A sensor response of 69.9 pm/kN is obtained, which agrees well with the experimentally obtained value. For sample 2B, the Bragg peak separation increases at a rate of 71.8 pm/kN. The slightly higher response stems from the thicker bond and from the small off-centre location of the fiber. Both of these effects increase the shear stress at the location of the fiber.

To demonstrate the added value of the butterfly MOF-FBG sensor over other types of highly birefringent fiber with an outer cladding diameter of 125 µm and a doped inclusion in the core region, we have also modeled the sensitivity of a bow-tie and side-hole fiber when embedded in a similar SLJ. We have constructed 2D FEM models of these fibers based on details and dimensions provided by Guan et al. [58

58. R. Guan, F. Zhu, Z. Gan, D. Huang, and S. Liu, “Stress birefringence analysis of polarization maintaining optical fibers,” Opt. Fiber Technol. 11(3), 240–254 (2005). [CrossRef]

] and by Clowes et al. [59

59. J. R. Clowes, S. Syngellakis, and M. N. Zervas, “Pressure sensitivity of side-hole optical fiber sensors,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 10(6), 857–859 (1998). [CrossRef]

]. An overview of the results is presented in Table 2

Table 2. Results of a 2D FEM comparative study of the shear stress sensitivity of different highly birefringent FBG sensors. For completeness, we also present an overview of earlier reported (experimental) sensitivities for the sensitivity to temperature and hydrostatic pressure of these fibers and their transverse strain sensitivity when embedded in a laminated composite material. Sensitivities indicated with * are derived from the polarimetric sensitivity.

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables
. When embedded in a SLJ, the bow tie FBG sensor and side hole FBG sensor yield a shear stress sensitivity of 16.0 pm/MPa and 16.2 pm/MPa, respectively. These shear stress sensitivities are almost 4 times lower than that obtained with a butterfly MOF-FBG sensor, clearly indicating the added value of our dedicated MOF-FBG sensor.

4. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT Grant 101221 and IWT contract 120024), the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme projects ‘SMARTSOCKET’ (FP7-PEOPLE-IAPP-2009 Grant Agreement 251649), the COST TD1001 action ‘OFSeSA’, the Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen), the Methusalem and Hercules Foundations Flanders. The authors also wish to thank the SURF research group at Vrije Universiteit Brussel for their assistance with the fiber cross-section SEM pictures.

References and links

1.

A. Cusano, A. Cutolo, and J. Albert, Fiber Bragg grating sensors: Recent advancements, industrial applications and market exploitation (Bentham Science Publishers, 2011).

2.

F. Berghmans and T. Geernaert, “Optical fiber point sensors” in Advanced Fiber Optics: Concepts and Technology, L. Thévenaz, Ed. (EPFL Press, 2011) pp. 308–344.

3.

A. Othonos and K. Kalli, Fiber Bragg gratings: Fundamentals and applications in telecommunications and sensing (Artech House, 1999).

4.

G. Luyckx, E. Voet, N. Lammens, and J. Degrieck, “Strain measurements of composite laminates with embedded fibre bragg gratings: criticism and opportunities for research,” Sensors (Basel) 11(1), 384–408 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5.

C. Martelli, J. Canning, N. Groothoff, and K. Lyytikainen, “Strain and temperature characterization of photonic crystal fiber Bragg gratings,” Opt. Lett. 30(14), 1785–1787 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

T. Mawatari and D. Nelson, “A multi-parameter Bragg grating fiber optic sensor and triaxial strain measurement,” Smart Mater. Struct. 17(3), 035033 (2008). [CrossRef]

7.

C. Jewart, K. P. Chen, B. McMillen, M. M. Bails, S. P. Levitan, J. Canning, and I. V. Avdeev, “Sensitivity enhancement of fiber Bragg gratings to transverse stress by using microstructural fibers,” Opt. Lett. 31(15), 2260–2262 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8.

T. Geernaert, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, T. Nasilowski, K. Chah, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, W. Urbanczyk, J. Wojcik, W. De Waele, J. Dearieck, H. Terryn, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Transversal load sensing with fiber Bragg gratings in microstructured optical fibers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 21(1), 6–8 (2009). [CrossRef]

9.

E. Chmielewska, W. Urbańczyk, and W. J. Bock, “Measurement of pressure and temperature sensitivities of a Bragg grating imprinted in a highly birefringent side-hole fiber,” Appl. Opt. 42(31), 6284–6291 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

H.-M. Kim, T.-H. Kim, B. Kim, and Y. Chung, “Enhanced transverse load sensitivity by using a highly birefringent photonic crystal fiber with larger air holes on one axis,” Appl. Opt. 49(20), 3841–3845 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

www.tekscan.com

12.

www.hbm.com/en/menu/products/strain-gages-accessories/

13.

R. Khandan, S. Noroozi, P. Sewell, and J. Vinney, “The development of laminated composite plate theories: a review,” J. Mater. Sci. 47(16), 5901–5910 (2012). [CrossRef]

14.

K. Basler, Strength of Plate Girders in Shear (Lehigh University Institute of Research, 1960).

15.

E. Real, E. Mirambell, and I. Estrada, “Shear response of stainless steel plate girders,” Eng. Struct. 29(7), 1626–1640 (2007). [CrossRef]

16.

M. D. Banea and L. F. M. da Silva, ““Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: An overview,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. L J,” Mater. Des. Appl. 223, 1–18 (2009).

17.

S. Benyoucef, A. Tounsi, E. A. Adda Bedia, and S. A. Meftah, “Creep and shrinkage effect on adhesive stresses in RC beams strengthened with composite laminates,” Compos. Sci. Technol. 67(6), 933–942 (2007). [CrossRef]

18.

H. Yousef, M. Boukallel, and K. Althoefer, ““Tactile sensing for dexterous in-hand manipulation in robotics—A review,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys 167(2), 171–187 (2011). [CrossRef]

19.

M. I. Tiwana, S. J. Redmond, and N. H. Lovell, ““A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys. 179, 17–31 (2012). [CrossRef]

20.

C. Perry, “Plane-shear measurement with strain gages,” Exp. Mech. 9(19–N), 22 (1969).

21.

J. W. Naughton and M. Sheplak, “Modern developments in shear-stress measurement,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 38(6-7), 515–570 (2002). [CrossRef]

22.

K. Noda, K. Hoshino, K. Matsumoto, and I. Shimoyama, ““A shear stress sensor for tactile sensing with the piezoresistive cantilever standing in elastic material,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys 127(2), 295–301 (2006). [CrossRef]

23.

H.-K. Lee, J. Chung, S.-I. Chang, and E. Yoon, “Normal and shear force measurement using a flexible polymer tactile sensor with embedded multiple capacitors,” J. Microelectromech. Syst. 17(4), 934–942 (2008). [CrossRef]

24.

K. Sundara-Rajan, A. Bestick, G. I. Rowe, G. K. Klute, W. R. Ledoux, H. C. Wang, and A. V. Mamishev, “An interfacial stress sensor for biomechanical applications,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 23(8), 085701 (2012). [CrossRef]

25.

J. Missinne, E. Bosman, B. Van Hoe, G. Van Steenberge, S. Kalathimekkad, P. Van Daele, and J. Vanfleteren, “Flexible shear sensor based on embedded optoelectronic components,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 23(12), 771–773 (2011). [CrossRef]

26.

W.-C. Wang, W. R. Ledoux, B. J. Sangeorzan, and P. G. Reinhall, “A shear and plantar pressure sensor based on fiber-optic bend loss,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 42(3), 315–325 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27.

S. C. Tjin, R. Suresh, and N. Q. Ngo, “Fiber Bragg grating based shear-force sensor: modeling and testing,” J. Lightwave Technol. 22(7), 1728–1733 (2004). [CrossRef]

28.

A. Candiani, W. Margulis, M. Konstantaki, and S. Pissadakis, “Ferrofluid-infiltrated optical fibers for shear-sensing smart pads,” SPIE Newsroom (2012).

29.

W. L. Schulz, E. Udd, M. Morrell, J. M. Seim, I. M. Perez, and A. Trego, ““Health monitoring of an adhesive joint using a multiaxis fiber grating strain sensor system,” in Proc. SPIE 3586,” Nondestructive Evaluation of Aging Aircraft, Airports, and Aerospace Hardware III, 41–52 (1999). [CrossRef]

30.

J. C. Knight, “Photonic crystal fibres,” Nature 424(6950), 847–851 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

31.

P. S. J. Russell, “Photonic-crystal fibers,” J. Lightwave Technol. 24(12), 4729–4749 (2006). [CrossRef]

32.

W. Urbanczyk, T. Martynkien, M. Szpulak, G. Statkiewicz, J. Olszewski, G. Golojuch, J. Wojcik, P. Mergo, M. Makara, T. Nasilowski, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, in Proc. SPIE 6619, Third European Workshop on Optical Fibre Sensors, “Photonic crystal fibers: new opportunities for sensing,” 66190G–66190G (2007).

33.

O. Frazão, J. Santos, F. Araújo, and L. Ferreira, “Optical sensing with photonic crystal fibers,” Laser Photon. Rev. 2(6), 449–459 (2008). [CrossRef]

34.

T. Martynkien, G. Statkiewicz-Barabach, J. Olszewski, J. Wojcik, P. Mergo, T. Geernaert, C. Sonnenfeld, A. Anuszkiewicz, M. K. Szczurowski, K. Tarnowski, M. Makara, K. Skorupski, J. Klimek, K. Poturaj, W. Urbanczyk, T. Nasilowski, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Highly birefringent microstructured fibers with enhanced sensitivity to hydrostatic pressure,” Opt. Express 18(14), 15113–15121 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

35.

S. Sulejmani, C. Sonnenfeld, T. Geernaert, P. Mergo, M. Makara, K. Poturaj, K. Skorupski, T. Martynkien, G. Satkiewicz-Barabach, J. Olszewski, W. Urbanczyk, C. Caucheteur, K. Chah, P. Mégret, H. Terryn, J. Van Roosbroeck, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Control over the pressure sensitivity of Bragg-grating based sensors in highly birefringent microstructured optical fibers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 24(6), 527–529 (2012). [CrossRef]

36.

T. Geernaert, T. Nasilowski, K. Chah, M. Szpulak, J. Olszewski, G. Statkiewicz, J. Wojcik, K. Poturaj, W. Urbanczyk, M. Becker, M. Rothhardt, H. Bartelt, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Fiber Bragg gratings in Germanium-doped highly birefringent microstructured optical fibers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 20(8), 554–556 (2008). [CrossRef]

37.

T. Geernaert, M. Becker, P. Mergo, T. Nasilowski, J. Wojcik, W. Urbanczyk, M. Rothhardt, C. Chojetzki, H. Bartelt, H. Terryn, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Bragg grating inscription in GeO2-doped microstructured optical fibers,” J. Lightwave Technol. 28(10), 1459–1467 (2010). [CrossRef]

38.

F. Berghmans, T. Geernaert, T. Baghdasaryan, and H. Thienpont, “Challenges in the fabrication of fibre Bragg gratings in silica and polymer microstructured optical fibres,” Laser Photon. Rev. (2013).

39.

C. Sonnenfeld, S. Sulejmani, T. Geernaert, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Microstructured optical fiber sensors embedded in a laminate composite for smart material applications,” Sensors (Basel) 11(12), 2566–2579 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

40.

F. Berghmans, T. Geernaert, S. Sulejmani, H. Thienpont, G. Van Steenberge, B. Van Hoe, P. Dubruel, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, D. J. Webb, K. Kalli, J. Van Roosbroeck, and K. Sugden, “Photonic crystal fiber Bragg grating based sensors: opportunities for applications in healthcare,” in Communications and Photonics Conference and Exhibition, 2011. ACP,” Asia 8311, 1–10 (2011).

41.

G. Luyckx, E. Voet, T. Geernaert, K. Chah, T. Nasilowski, W. De Waele, W. Van Paepegem, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, W. Urbanczyk, J. Wojcik, J. Degrieck, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Response of FBGs in microstructured and bow tie fibers embedded in laminated composite,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 21(18), 1290–1292 (2009). [CrossRef]

42.

L. F. M. da Silva, P. J. C. das Neves, R. D. Adams, A. Wang, and J. K. Spelt, “Analytical models of adhesively bonded joints—Part II: Comparative study,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 29(3), 331–341 (2009). [CrossRef]

43.

M. Goland and E. Reissner, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. Am. Soc. Eng. 66, A17 (1944).

44.

C. M. Lawrence, D. V. Nelson, and E. Udd, “Multiparameter sensing with fiber Bragg gratings,” in Pacific Northwest Fiber Optic Sensor Workshop2872 (1996), 24–31. [CrossRef]

45.

C. M. Lawrence, D. V. Nelson, E. Udd, and T. Bennett, “A fiber optic sensor for transverse strain measurement,” Exp. Mech. 39(3), 202–209 (1999). [CrossRef]

46.

F. Berghmans, T. Geernaert, M. Napierala, T. Baghdasaryan, C. Sonnenfeld, S. Sulejmani, T. Nasiłowski, P. Mergo, T. Martynkien, W. Urbańczyk, E. Bereś-Pawlik, and H. Thienpont, “Applying optical design methods to the development of application specific photonic crystal fibres,” in Proc. SPIE 8550, Optical Systems Design (2012), 85500B.

47.

S. Sulejmani, C. Sonnenfeld, T. Geernaert, F. Berghmans, H. Thienpont, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, and H. Bartelt, “Towards micro-structured optical fiber sensors for transverse strain sensing in smart composite materials,” in 2011 IEEE Sensors (2011), pp. 109–112.

48.

K. Chah, D. Kinet, M. Wuilpart, P. Mégret, and C. Caucheteur, “Femtosecond-laser-induced highly birefringent Bragg gratings in standard optical fiber,” Opt. Lett. 38(4), 594–596 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

49.

www.3ds.com/products/simulia/portfolio/abaqus/

50.

E. Chehura, C.-C. Ye, S. E. Staines, S. W. James, and R. P. Tatam, “Characterization of the response of fibre Bragg gratings fabricated in stress and geometrically induced high birefringence fibres to temperature and transverse load,” Smart Mater. Struct. 13(4), 888–895 (2004). [CrossRef]

51.

www.instron.com

52.

www.fbgs.com

53.

Pliogrip 1000/1040/1060/1080 Acrylic Adhesive System (Ashland Performance Materials) – Technical datasheet

54.

DP-8005 (3M Scotch Weld) – Technical Datasheet.

55.

A. M. G. Pinto, A. G. Magalhães, R. D. S. G. Campilho, M. F. S. F. de Moura, and A. P. M. Baptista, “Single-lap joints of similar and dissimilar adherends bonded with an Acrylic adhesive,” J. Adhes. 85(6), 351–376 (2009). [CrossRef]

56.

M. S. Muller, T. C. Buck, H. J. El-Khozondar, and A. W. Koch, “Shear strain influence on fiber Bragg grating measurement systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 27(23), 5223–5229 (2009). [CrossRef]

57.

W. Urbanczyk, E. Chmielewska, and W. J. Bock, “Measurements of temperature and strain sensitivities of a two-mode Bragg grating imprinted in a bow-tie fibre,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 12(7), 800–804 (2001). [CrossRef]

58.

R. Guan, F. Zhu, Z. Gan, D. Huang, and S. Liu, “Stress birefringence analysis of polarization maintaining optical fibers,” Opt. Fiber Technol. 11(3), 240–254 (2005). [CrossRef]

59.

J. R. Clowes, S. Syngellakis, and M. N. Zervas, “Pressure sensitivity of side-hole optical fiber sensors,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 10(6), 857–859 (1998). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(060.2370) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber optics sensors
(120.3940) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Metrology

ToC Category:
Sensors

History
Original Manuscript: June 24, 2013
Revised Manuscript: August 9, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: August 9, 2013
Published: August 22, 2013

Citation
Sanne Sulejmani, Camille Sonnenfeld, Thomas Geernaert, Geert Luyckx, Danny Van Hemelrijck, Pawel Mergo, Waclaw Urbanczyk, Karima Chah, Christophe Caucheteur, Patrice Mégret, Hugo Thienpont, and Francis Berghmans, "Shear stress sensing with Bragg grating-based sensors in microstructured optical fibers," Opt. Express 21, 20404-20416 (2013)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-21-17-20404


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. A. Cusano, A. Cutolo, and J. Albert, Fiber Bragg grating sensors: Recent advancements, industrial applications and market exploitation (Bentham Science Publishers, 2011).
  2. F. Berghmans and T. Geernaert, “Optical fiber point sensors” in Advanced Fiber Optics: Concepts and Technology, L. Thévenaz, Ed. (EPFL Press, 2011) pp. 308–344.
  3. A. Othonos and K. Kalli, Fiber Bragg gratings: Fundamentals and applications in telecommunications and sensing (Artech House, 1999).
  4. G. Luyckx, E. Voet, N. Lammens, and J. Degrieck, “Strain measurements of composite laminates with embedded fibre bragg gratings: criticism and opportunities for research,” Sensors (Basel)11(1), 384–408 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. C. Martelli, J. Canning, N. Groothoff, and K. Lyytikainen, “Strain and temperature characterization of photonic crystal fiber Bragg gratings,” Opt. Lett.30(14), 1785–1787 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. T. Mawatari and D. Nelson, “A multi-parameter Bragg grating fiber optic sensor and triaxial strain measurement,” Smart Mater. Struct.17(3), 035033 (2008). [CrossRef]
  7. C. Jewart, K. P. Chen, B. McMillen, M. M. Bails, S. P. Levitan, J. Canning, and I. V. Avdeev, “Sensitivity enhancement of fiber Bragg gratings to transverse stress by using microstructural fibers,” Opt. Lett.31(15), 2260–2262 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. T. Geernaert, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, T. Nasilowski, K. Chah, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, W. Urbanczyk, J. Wojcik, W. De Waele, J. Dearieck, H. Terryn, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Transversal load sensing with fiber Bragg gratings in microstructured optical fibers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.21(1), 6–8 (2009). [CrossRef]
  9. E. Chmielewska, W. Urbańczyk, and W. J. Bock, “Measurement of pressure and temperature sensitivities of a Bragg grating imprinted in a highly birefringent side-hole fiber,” Appl. Opt.42(31), 6284–6291 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. H.-M. Kim, T.-H. Kim, B. Kim, and Y. Chung, “Enhanced transverse load sensitivity by using a highly birefringent photonic crystal fiber with larger air holes on one axis,” Appl. Opt.49(20), 3841–3845 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. www.tekscan.com
  12. www.hbm.com/en/menu/products/strain-gages-accessories/
  13. R. Khandan, S. Noroozi, P. Sewell, and J. Vinney, “The development of laminated composite plate theories: a review,” J. Mater. Sci.47(16), 5901–5910 (2012). [CrossRef]
  14. K. Basler, Strength of Plate Girders in Shear (Lehigh University Institute of Research, 1960).
  15. E. Real, E. Mirambell, and I. Estrada, “Shear response of stainless steel plate girders,” Eng. Struct.29(7), 1626–1640 (2007). [CrossRef]
  16. M. D. Banea and L. F. M. da Silva, ““Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: An overview,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. L J,” Mater. Des. Appl.223, 1–18 (2009).
  17. S. Benyoucef, A. Tounsi, E. A. Adda Bedia, and S. A. Meftah, “Creep and shrinkage effect on adhesive stresses in RC beams strengthened with composite laminates,” Compos. Sci. Technol.67(6), 933–942 (2007). [CrossRef]
  18. H. Yousef, M. Boukallel, and K. Althoefer, ““Tactile sensing for dexterous in-hand manipulation in robotics—A review,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys167(2), 171–187 (2011). [CrossRef]
  19. M. I. Tiwana, S. J. Redmond, and N. H. Lovell, ““A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys.179, 17–31 (2012). [CrossRef]
  20. C. Perry, “Plane-shear measurement with strain gages,” Exp. Mech.9(19–N), 22 (1969).
  21. J. W. Naughton and M. Sheplak, “Modern developments in shear-stress measurement,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci.38(6-7), 515–570 (2002). [CrossRef]
  22. K. Noda, K. Hoshino, K. Matsumoto, and I. Shimoyama, ““A shear stress sensor for tactile sensing with the piezoresistive cantilever standing in elastic material,” Sens,” Actuator A-Phys127(2), 295–301 (2006). [CrossRef]
  23. H.-K. Lee, J. Chung, S.-I. Chang, and E. Yoon, “Normal and shear force measurement using a flexible polymer tactile sensor with embedded multiple capacitors,” J. Microelectromech. Syst.17(4), 934–942 (2008). [CrossRef]
  24. K. Sundara-Rajan, A. Bestick, G. I. Rowe, G. K. Klute, W. R. Ledoux, H. C. Wang, and A. V. Mamishev, “An interfacial stress sensor for biomechanical applications,” Meas. Sci. Technol.23(8), 085701 (2012). [CrossRef]
  25. J. Missinne, E. Bosman, B. Van Hoe, G. Van Steenberge, S. Kalathimekkad, P. Van Daele, and J. Vanfleteren, “Flexible shear sensor based on embedded optoelectronic components,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.23(12), 771–773 (2011). [CrossRef]
  26. W.-C. Wang, W. R. Ledoux, B. J. Sangeorzan, and P. G. Reinhall, “A shear and plantar pressure sensor based on fiber-optic bend loss,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev.42(3), 315–325 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. S. C. Tjin, R. Suresh, and N. Q. Ngo, “Fiber Bragg grating based shear-force sensor: modeling and testing,” J. Lightwave Technol.22(7), 1728–1733 (2004). [CrossRef]
  28. A. Candiani, W. Margulis, M. Konstantaki, and S. Pissadakis, “Ferrofluid-infiltrated optical fibers for shear-sensing smart pads,” SPIE Newsroom (2012).
  29. W. L. Schulz, E. Udd, M. Morrell, J. M. Seim, I. M. Perez, and A. Trego, ““Health monitoring of an adhesive joint using a multiaxis fiber grating strain sensor system,” in Proc. SPIE 3586,” Nondestructive Evaluation of Aging Aircraft, Airports, and Aerospace HardwareIII, 41–52 (1999). [CrossRef]
  30. J. C. Knight, “Photonic crystal fibres,” Nature424(6950), 847–851 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. P. S. J. Russell, “Photonic-crystal fibers,” J. Lightwave Technol.24(12), 4729–4749 (2006). [CrossRef]
  32. W. Urbanczyk, T. Martynkien, M. Szpulak, G. Statkiewicz, J. Olszewski, G. Golojuch, J. Wojcik, P. Mergo, M. Makara, T. Nasilowski, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, in Proc. SPIE 6619, Third European Workshop on Optical Fibre Sensors, “Photonic crystal fibers: new opportunities for sensing,” 66190G–66190G (2007).
  33. O. Frazão, J. Santos, F. Araújo, and L. Ferreira, “Optical sensing with photonic crystal fibers,” Laser Photon. Rev.2(6), 449–459 (2008). [CrossRef]
  34. T. Martynkien, G. Statkiewicz-Barabach, J. Olszewski, J. Wojcik, P. Mergo, T. Geernaert, C. Sonnenfeld, A. Anuszkiewicz, M. K. Szczurowski, K. Tarnowski, M. Makara, K. Skorupski, J. Klimek, K. Poturaj, W. Urbanczyk, T. Nasilowski, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Highly birefringent microstructured fibers with enhanced sensitivity to hydrostatic pressure,” Opt. Express18(14), 15113–15121 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. S. Sulejmani, C. Sonnenfeld, T. Geernaert, P. Mergo, M. Makara, K. Poturaj, K. Skorupski, T. Martynkien, G. Satkiewicz-Barabach, J. Olszewski, W. Urbanczyk, C. Caucheteur, K. Chah, P. Mégret, H. Terryn, J. Van Roosbroeck, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Control over the pressure sensitivity of Bragg-grating based sensors in highly birefringent microstructured optical fibers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.24(6), 527–529 (2012). [CrossRef]
  36. T. Geernaert, T. Nasilowski, K. Chah, M. Szpulak, J. Olszewski, G. Statkiewicz, J. Wojcik, K. Poturaj, W. Urbanczyk, M. Becker, M. Rothhardt, H. Bartelt, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Fiber Bragg gratings in Germanium-doped highly birefringent microstructured optical fibers,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.20(8), 554–556 (2008). [CrossRef]
  37. T. Geernaert, M. Becker, P. Mergo, T. Nasilowski, J. Wojcik, W. Urbanczyk, M. Rothhardt, C. Chojetzki, H. Bartelt, H. Terryn, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Bragg grating inscription in GeO2-doped microstructured optical fibers,” J. Lightwave Technol.28(10), 1459–1467 (2010). [CrossRef]
  38. F. Berghmans, T. Geernaert, T. Baghdasaryan, and H. Thienpont, “Challenges in the fabrication of fibre Bragg gratings in silica and polymer microstructured optical fibres,” Laser Photon. Rev. (2013).
  39. C. Sonnenfeld, S. Sulejmani, T. Geernaert, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Microstructured optical fiber sensors embedded in a laminate composite for smart material applications,” Sensors (Basel)11(12), 2566–2579 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. F. Berghmans, T. Geernaert, S. Sulejmani, H. Thienpont, G. Van Steenberge, B. Van Hoe, P. Dubruel, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, D. J. Webb, K. Kalli, J. Van Roosbroeck, and K. Sugden, “Photonic crystal fiber Bragg grating based sensors: opportunities for applications in healthcare,” in Communications and Photonics Conference and Exhibition, 2011. ACP,” Asia8311, 1–10 (2011).
  41. G. Luyckx, E. Voet, T. Geernaert, K. Chah, T. Nasilowski, W. De Waele, W. Van Paepegem, M. Becker, H. Bartelt, W. Urbanczyk, J. Wojcik, J. Degrieck, F. Berghmans, and H. Thienpont, “Response of FBGs in microstructured and bow tie fibers embedded in laminated composite,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.21(18), 1290–1292 (2009). [CrossRef]
  42. L. F. M. da Silva, P. J. C. das Neves, R. D. Adams, A. Wang, and J. K. Spelt, “Analytical models of adhesively bonded joints—Part II: Comparative study,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.29(3), 331–341 (2009). [CrossRef]
  43. M. Goland and E. Reissner, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. Am. Soc. Eng.66, A17 (1944).
  44. C. M. Lawrence, D. V. Nelson, and E. Udd, “Multiparameter sensing with fiber Bragg gratings,” in Pacific Northwest Fiber Optic Sensor Workshop2872 (1996), 24–31. [CrossRef]
  45. C. M. Lawrence, D. V. Nelson, E. Udd, and T. Bennett, “A fiber optic sensor for transverse strain measurement,” Exp. Mech.39(3), 202–209 (1999). [CrossRef]
  46. F. Berghmans, T. Geernaert, M. Napierala, T. Baghdasaryan, C. Sonnenfeld, S. Sulejmani, T. Nasiłowski, P. Mergo, T. Martynkien, W. Urbańczyk, E. Bereś-Pawlik, and H. Thienpont, “Applying optical design methods to the development of application specific photonic crystal fibres,” in Proc. SPIE 8550, Optical Systems Design (2012), 85500B.
  47. S. Sulejmani, C. Sonnenfeld, T. Geernaert, F. Berghmans, H. Thienpont, S. Eve, N. Lammens, G. Luyckx, E. Voet, J. Degrieck, W. Urbanczyk, P. Mergo, M. Becker, and H. Bartelt, “Towards micro-structured optical fiber sensors for transverse strain sensing in smart composite materials,” in 2011 IEEE Sensors (2011), pp. 109–112.
  48. K. Chah, D. Kinet, M. Wuilpart, P. Mégret, and C. Caucheteur, “Femtosecond-laser-induced highly birefringent Bragg gratings in standard optical fiber,” Opt. Lett.38(4), 594–596 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. www.3ds.com/products/simulia/portfolio/abaqus/
  50. E. Chehura, C.-C. Ye, S. E. Staines, S. W. James, and R. P. Tatam, “Characterization of the response of fibre Bragg gratings fabricated in stress and geometrically induced high birefringence fibres to temperature and transverse load,” Smart Mater. Struct.13(4), 888–895 (2004). [CrossRef]
  51. www.instron.com
  52. www.fbgs.com
  53. Pliogrip 1000/1040/1060/1080 Acrylic Adhesive System (Ashland Performance Materials) – Technical datasheet
  54. DP-8005 (3M Scotch Weld) – Technical Datasheet.
  55. A. M. G. Pinto, A. G. Magalhães, R. D. S. G. Campilho, M. F. S. F. de Moura, and A. P. M. Baptista, “Single-lap joints of similar and dissimilar adherends bonded with an Acrylic adhesive,” J. Adhes.85(6), 351–376 (2009). [CrossRef]
  56. M. S. Muller, T. C. Buck, H. J. El-Khozondar, and A. W. Koch, “Shear strain influence on fiber Bragg grating measurement systems,” J. Lightwave Technol.27(23), 5223–5229 (2009). [CrossRef]
  57. W. Urbanczyk, E. Chmielewska, and W. J. Bock, “Measurements of temperature and strain sensitivities of a two-mode Bragg grating imprinted in a bow-tie fibre,” Meas. Sci. Technol.12(7), 800–804 (2001). [CrossRef]
  58. R. Guan, F. Zhu, Z. Gan, D. Huang, and S. Liu, “Stress birefringence analysis of polarization maintaining optical fibers,” Opt. Fiber Technol.11(3), 240–254 (2005). [CrossRef]
  59. J. R. Clowes, S. Syngellakis, and M. N. Zervas, “Pressure sensitivity of side-hole optical fiber sensors,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.10(6), 857–859 (1998). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4 Fig. 5
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited