2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.05.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrical conductivity and piezo-resistive characteristics of CNT and CNF incorporated cementitious nanocomposites under static and dynamic loading

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 120 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
34
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A comparison of the results, in terms of GF, obtained in this work with some papers dealing with strain-sensing cementitious materials are reported in Figure 14. However, a direct comparison is difficult because the strain sensing ability is affected by several parameters: testing mode (compression and tension) [80], load rate [81], conductive filler (CNF, CNT etc) [82], cementitious material (paste, mortar or concrete) [25], etc. Nevertheless, it is evident that the GF for PP/CNT-5 and PP/CNT-7 at 0.20% of strain is higher than the GF of most of the previous published works here used as comparison ( Figure 14) [19,25,80,[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91].…”
Section: Strain-sensing Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A comparison of the results, in terms of GF, obtained in this work with some papers dealing with strain-sensing cementitious materials are reported in Figure 14. However, a direct comparison is difficult because the strain sensing ability is affected by several parameters: testing mode (compression and tension) [80], load rate [81], conductive filler (CNF, CNT etc) [82], cementitious material (paste, mortar or concrete) [25], etc. Nevertheless, it is evident that the GF for PP/CNT-5 and PP/CNT-7 at 0.20% of strain is higher than the GF of most of the previous published works here used as comparison ( Figure 14) [19,25,80,[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91].…”
Section: Strain-sensing Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a direct comparison is difficult because the strain sensing ability is affected by several parameters: testing mode (compression and tension) [80], load rate [81], conductive filler (CNF, CNT etc) [82], cementitious material (paste, mortar or concrete) [25], etc. Nevertheless, it is evident that the GF for PP/CNT-5 and PP/CNT-7 at 0.20% of strain is higher than the GF of most of the previous published works here used as comparison ( Figure 14) [19,25,80,[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]. Moreover, PP/CNT-5 nanocomposites at 0.40% of strain have the highest GF among the compared works ( Figure 14) [19,25,80,[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94].…”
Section: Strain-sensing Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, progress in the field of nanomaterials is an inestimable opportunity to develop new materials, existing among others, nanofibers (CNFs), carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene oxide (GO), which offer a further dimension for interacting with cement and with concrete. The effect of incorporating low dosages of nanomaterials delivers improvements in the hydration, microstructure and mechanical properties of cement-based materials, due to their electrical and chemical properties [18,19]. The main disadvantages of the nanoscale use of these new materials are the lack of binding between the nanoparticles and the cement mixture and the high cost of producing them, although there are more economical options, such as carbon nanoplatelets, which improve watertightness and prevent chloride intrusion [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the piezoresistive response of polymer/CNT composites was investigated under different cyclic loading [23][24][25][26]. However, the time-dependent electrical behavior of polymer/CNT composites was barely investigated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%