Sensors and Actuators A 263 (2017) 391–397

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sensors and Actuators A: Physical

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sna

Thin-film flexible sensor for omnidirectional strain measurements

Daniel Zymelka a,∗ , Takahiro Yamashita b , Seiichi Takamatsu c , Toshihiro Itoh a,c ,
Takeshi Kobayashi b
a
NMEMS Technology Research Organization, Chiyoda, Tokyo 101-0026, Japan
b
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8564, Japan
c
Department of Human and Engineered Environment Studies, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8561, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Conventional strain sensors are both precise and inexpensive, but can only effectively measure strain
Received 20 September 2016 in one specific direction. In this paper, we report an omnidirectional flexible strain sensor that operates
Received in revised form 21 April 2017 regardless of the orientation of its installation with respect to the direction of the applied strain. The
Accepted 27 May 2017
performance of the developed device was compared to that of conventional foil strain gauges and it was
Available online 8 July 2017
demonstrated that, in contrast to the conventional devices, the omnidirectional strain sensor developed
here shows almost uniform sensitivity at various installation angles.
Keywords:
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Strain measurement
Omnidirectional sensor
Screen printing
Temperature compensation
Printed electronics

1. Introduction in some applications, other applications require omnidirectional

Strain measurement is an important aspect of materials testing.
These measurements enable the durability of the materials under
analysis to be determined along with detection of potential fail-
ures in the engineering structures under test under the influence of
various types of mechanical deformations, including stress, torque,
pressure, and vibration. Strain sensors are widely used for this pur-
pose. The principle of operation of these sensors is based on the
conversion of mechanical forces into a change in an electrical sig-
nal that can be measured using a dedicated measurement system.
In terms of the output signals generated, strain sensors can gener-
ally be divided into electrically resistive [1–5], piezoresistive [6–9],
capacitive [10–12], and piezoelectric [13,14] types. Among the elec-
trically resistive sensors, conventional foil sensors are most widely
used because of their relatively low cost and good reliability. Note
that in this paper, the term “conventional sensors” is used to refer to
commercially available uniaxial strain sensors, which are generally
made from constantan alloy.
One drawback of these conventional sensors is that they can
only effectively measure the strain in one specific direction. The
user must always define the measurement orientation. While it
is desirable to measure strain selectively in a single direction
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: daniel.zymelka@aist.go.jp (D. Zymelka).
sensing, e.g., crack detection systems, or simply require monitoring
of the maximum strain levels in various types of engineering struc-
tures. Inappropriate orientation of these sensors with respect to
the applied strain always results in very high measurement errors
[15,16]. For the latter types of applications, a sensor that enables
uniform detection of cracks or any other mechanical deformations,
regardless of their directions, is required.
Because of the difficulties involved in performing accurate strain
measurements at different sensor orientation angles, this work
has focused on the development of an omnidirectional strain sen-
sor. This type of device will enable measurements that are more
accurate than those of the conventional sensors, regardless of the
direction of its installation. To the best of the authors knowledge,
no such sensors have been demonstrated to date. Usually, if omni-
directional sensing is required, rosette-type strain gauges are used.
However, this requires the use of three individual sensors, and
thus requires more inputs into the data acquisition system. Here,
in contrast to the rosette strain gauge solution, we demonstrate
the concept of a single sensor structure that enables omnidirec-
tional strain measurements while using only two inputs into the
data acquisition system.
One of the most challenging steps in strain sensor development
is materials selection, which defines the final characteristics of the
sensor (e.g., strain sensitivity, linearity, the temperature coefficient
of resistance). Conventional strain sensors are principally made
of constantan, a copper–nickel alloy, which is etched on a poly-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2017.05.040
0924-4247/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
392 D. Zymelka et al. / Sensors and Actuators A 263 (2017) 391–397
imide foil. Constantan is commonly used because the fabricated
sensors demonstrate sufficient sensitivity and, most importantly,
a low temperature coefficient of resistance, which, if high, could
significantly affect the sensor output signal.
In this work, strain sensors were fabricated using the screen
printing method. This method enables a simple and reliable fabri-
cation process that is suitable for prototyping of designed devices.
Because printable constantan inks are not commercially available
at present, alternative sensor materials had to be selected. Accord-
ing to previously reported results for the development of printed
strain sensors, the most frequently used sensor materials are:
silver [1,2,17–20], graphite [2,4,21,22], carbon nanotubes (CNTs)
[23–26], poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate
(PEDOT:PSS) [27–29], and their composites [7,30,31]. In this paper,
materials selection was conducted based on the required pro-
cessing conditions, printability and the expected properties of the
fabricated sensors. From the materials mentioned above, graphite
paste was selected because it exhibits sufficiently high strain sen-
sitivity and excellent printability, and requires simple, low-cost
processing. While high sensitivity to temperature variations was
expected of this material [1,2,4,32], graphite paste is suitable for
evaluation of the proposed omnidirectional strain sensor concept
at a selected constant temperature. Nevertheless, we will show that
despite the use of materials that are characterized by their high
temperature coefficient of resistance, the developed strain sensors
can be used in practical applications when an appropriate temper-
ature compensation method is implemented.
2. Sensor development
2.1. Design of the sensor
The shape of the sensor that was developed in this project dif-
fers from that of conventional strain gauges. In contrast to the
linear structure of conventional sensors, the omnidirectional sen-
sor shown in Fig. 1 has a symmetrical design that enables more
uniform sensing at various sensor orientations. Rather than use the
conventional uniaxial active grid, the new sensor has 16 active ele-
ments (“arms”) that make it sensitive along eight different axes. The
axes are inclined with respect to one another at an angle of 22.5◦ .
The active elements (i.e., the arms or the grid), unlike the terminals
and end loops, are the parts of these sensors that have the greatest
effect on their sensitivity, i.e., the electrical resistance change of the
sensor under mechanical deformation.
To enable comparison of the developed sensor with a conven-
tional uniaxial sensor, both devices had the same length or diameter
of 10 mm. The number of arms used (16) was mainly limited by the
desired sensor geometry. It will be possible to design a sensor with
more arms within the same sensor diameter if the inner radius can
be enlarged, which would then provide more space to implement
additional sensing arms. However, the lengths of these arms would
have to be shorter. It is important to know that these strain sen-
sors measure an average strain value that corresponds to the area
covered by the active elements. For this reason, the sensor was
designed in such a way that the arms all had a maximum possible
length that lay within the defined sensor diameter.
2.2. Fabrication steps
A schematic illustration of the fabrication steps required for the
proposed sensor is shown in Fig. 2. First, the thermosetting graphite
paste (Asahi Chemical Research Laboratory FTU-16R) was screen
printed onto a 50 ␮m poly(ethylene naphthalate) (PEN) substrate.
A stainless steel mesh (Asada Mesh HS-D 650/14) was used for this
high-resolution printing process.
The printed patterns were then cured in a conventional con-
vection oven at 150 ◦ C for 30 min according to the instructions
provided by the graphite paste manufacturer. The fabricated omni-
directional strain sensor is shown in Fig. 3.
After completion of the curing process, the sensors were then
attached to an object to be tested (in this study, a metal plate)
using cyanoacrylate adhesive. To ensure the electrical connection of
the sensor to a data acquisition system, thin electrical wires were
attached to the sensor using a silver epoxy conductive adhesive.
Finally, the sensors were laminated to protect them from dust and
moisture using ordinary poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) self-
adhesive laminating sheets. The final electrical resistance of the
fabricated device was approximately 200 k.
2.3. Experimental setup
A 2-mm-thick, 700-mm-long and 120-mm-wide metal plate
was installed on a rigid support, as shown in Fig. 4. Three printed
sensors and three conventional sensors were attached to the plate
close to the support edge. Maximum strain levels were expected
in this location. To evaluate each sensor’s performance depend-
ing on its direction of installation, the sensors were attached with
three different orientations: 0◦ , 45◦ and 90◦ . Distances between the
support edge and the sensors were 5 cm, measured from their geo-
metric centers. The opposing edge of the plate was mounted on a
tensile test machine that moved the plate up and down, causing it
to bend, and resulting in the generation of various strains that were
measured by the sensors.
The sensors were all individually connected to quarter Wheat-
stone bridge circuits (Fig. 5). All the Wheatstone bridges were
connected in parallel to a single 2.5 V power supply. The output
voltage was measured using a 24-bit analog input module (NI-9238,
National Instruments). The data acquisition process was controlled
using a specifically prepared computer program.
3. Sensor evaluation
3.1. Sensitivity to applied strain
The electrical resistance of the sensors that are attached to the
metal plate varies with the degree of axial bending. To determine
the sensitivity of these sensors, the relative change in resistance
( R
R0
) was measured as a function of mechanical strain (ε). The sen-
sitivity is then defined using the so-called gauge factor (GF), which
is expressed using the following formula:
R/R0
GF = (1)
ε
Because the conventional strain sensors are calibrated and are
relatively stable, the conventional sensor that was installed fur-
ther along the plate (at an angle of 0◦ ) was used to provide a
reference measurement that gives the most accurate strain mea-
surement among the six sensors that were attached to the plate.
This sensor was then used to calibrate the developed omnidirec-
tional sensors. The measured strain values are generally very small,
and thus the measurements are typically expressed as microstrains
(strain ×10−6 ).
Based on the output of the reference sensor, a maximum strain
of approximately 285 microstrains was generated in the proximity
of sensors during the calibration process. The collected results are
shown in Fig. 6. Within the analyzed strain range, the sensors show
linear responses with no hysteresis. The average GF of the three
omnidirectional sensors was calculated to be 3.37 ± 0.08. When the
GF error is analyzed, it should be noted that the developed sensors
were installed at different orientations. Additionally, in this experi-
ment, the omnidirectional sensor that was set at the angle of 0◦ was
 D. Zymelka et al. / Sensors and Actuators A 263 (2017) 391–397 393

Fig. 1. Schematic design of a conventional strain gauge (left) and the design of the proposed omnidirectional sensor (right).

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the sensor fabrication process.

Fig. 3. Fabricated omnidirectional strain sensor.

attached to the plate at a distance of 7 mm from the reference sen- if the omnidirectional sensors were calibrated individually using
sor. The omnidirectional sensors that were set at angles of 45◦ and the reference sensors that were installed in their proximity. How-
90◦ were installed at distances of 28 mm and 58 mm from the refer- ever, the calculated sensitivity and measurement error are both
ence sensor, respectively. The GF error could probably be reduced acceptable.
394 D. Zymelka et al. / Sensors and Actuators A 263 (2017) 391–397

Fig. 4. Experimental setup used for analysis of the developed sensors when set at three different installation angles.

1.2x10-3
Tensile
1.0x10-3 Return
Linear fit
8.0x10-4
ΔR/R0

6.0x10-4

4.0x10-4

2.0x10-4

0.0
Fig. 5. Schematic illustration of strain sensor connected to a quarter Wheatstone 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
bridge circuit.
-6
Strain x10
3.2. Evaluation of strain measurement accuracy dependence on
Fig. 6. Calibration curve of omnidirectional strain sensor installed at an angle of 0◦
sensor orientation with respect to the applied strain orientation.

The developed sensors were evaluated in both static and

dynamic strain measurements using the experimental setup that
was described in Section 2.3. In these experiments, we compared
the measured output signals from the groups of conventional and
omnidirectional sensors.
Dynamic strain measurements
For the dynamic strain measurements, five similar bending
cycles of up to approximately 285 microstrains were applied.
The bending of the metal plate was varied at a constant rate of
300 mm/min using the tensile test machine. The collected results
are shown in Fig. 7. These results demonstrate the significant
dependence of the signals measured by the conventional sensors on
the direction of their installation. The output voltage from the con-
ventional sensor that was installed at the angle of 45◦ was reduced
by about 60% when compared with that from an identical sensor
that was installed further along the plate with the main strain orien-
 D. Zymelka et al. / Sensors and Actuators A 263 (2017) 391–397
Conventional
strain sensors
Omnidirectional
printed sensors
1.2x10-3
0o 45o 90o
1.0x10-3
8.0x10-4
6.0x10-4
ΔR/R0
-4
4.0x10
-4
2.0x10
0.0
-4
-2.0x10
0 100 200 300 400
Time, s
Fig. 7. Relative change in resistance during dynamic strain measurements. Conven-
tional and omnidirectional sensors were installed at three different orientations.
The registered maximum values correspond to an applied strain of approximately
285 × 10−6 that was oriented along the metal plate.
tation (i.e., at the angle of 0◦ ). Additionally, the conventional sensor
that was oriented at an angle of 90◦ produced negative output volt-
age values. This phenomenon is ascribed to the Poisson ratio. The
conventional sensor, when oriented at 90◦ , is much longer in the
direction perpendicular to the applied strain. Because the conven-
tional sensors exhibit maximum sensitivity in one direction only (in
this case, perpendicular to the applied strain), the sensor measures
the compressive forces related to the Poisson ratio. This explains
the measured negative values.
In contrast to the conventional sensors, the outputs from the
developed omnidirectional sensors are almost the same across the
entire experiment. The registered data confirm the suitability of the
proposed omnidirectional sensors for performing dynamic strain
measurements.
Static strain measurements
The static strain measurements were intended to evaluate and
compare the accuracy and the measurement precision of the two
types of sensors at a constant strain level. We also provide the calcu-
lated errors relative to the reference value that was measured using
the conventional sensor at the angle of 0◦ when the other sensors
were installed at different angles. In contrast to the previous mea-
surement results (Fig. 7), the output voltages were converted into
strain values based on the calibration curve (Fig. 6).
During this experiment, the metal plate was bent and held in
position for a few seconds. According to output of the reference
sensor, the applied strain was approximately 223 microstrains. The
collected results are shown in Fig. 8. Between the 3rd and the 8th
seconds of the measurement period, the average strain values and
the corresponding standard deviation values were calculated for
each individual sensor. The results are given in Table 1.
On the basis of these calculated standard deviations, we see that
the conventional sensors offer slightly better precision of measured
output signal than the omnidirectional sensors that were made
from graphite paste. However, when the measured strain values
are analyzed with respect to the reference sensor, the omnidirec-
tional sensors show much greater accuracy. The measured strain
values from the conventional sensors oriented at 45◦ and 90◦ were
reduced by approximately 60% and 120%, respectively. In contrast,
in the case of the omnidirectional sensors, the measured values
were more uniform and the errors in the values measured using
the reference sensor were significantly lower.
395
280
0˚ 45˚ 90˚
240
200
Strain x10-6
160 Omnidirectional
printed sensors
120
80
Conventional
40 strain sensors
0
-40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, s
Fig. 8. Static strain measurement characteristics when using conventional and
omnidirectional sensors installed at various angles. The relative change in each
sensors resistance was converted into a strain based on the calibration curve (Fig. 6).
Because the conventional sensors are designed to measure
strain precisely along a single selected direction, it is obvious that
they will perform better along their grid directions (see Fig. 1).
However, the results presented here disqualify the use of conven-
tional strain sensors from applications in which the orientation of
the applied strain is unknown. In such cases, the rosette configura-
tion that enables the strain direction to be identified can be used.
However, the rosette configuration is composed of three individual
sensors and thus requires at least six inputs into the data acquisi-
tion system. The sensor that is demonstrated in this work enables
omnidirectional strain measurements without specifying the strain
direction, but in contrast to the rosette approach, this sensor only
requires two inputs into the data acquisition system.
3.3. Temperature sensitivity
Graphite is known to be highly sensitive to temperature changes
and has a negative temperature coefficient of resistance. In the sen-
sor structures in this work, the graphite particles were embedded
in a thermosetting resin; the temperature dependence of the devel-
oped sensors was thus unknown and an analysis of the temperature
sensitivity was carried out.
During the experiment, the measurement system that was
described above was used. The sensors to be analyzed were
attached to a short metal plate and were located inside an envi-
ronmental test chamber (Espec SH-221). The relative change in
resistance was then measured as a function of measured temper-
ature. The experiment was performed over the temperature range
from −10 ◦ C to 40 ◦ C, where the temperature was increased at a
constant rate of 2 ◦ C per min.
The results shown in Fig. 9 indicate that the developed sensor
made from the graphite paste is extremely sensitive to temper-
ature change when it is connected to the quarter Wheatstone
bridge circuit (Fig. 5). This electrical circuit limits the use of
the graphite-based sensors to measurements at a constant tem-
perature. However, we show that this high sensitivity to the
temperature change can be reduced if an appropriate temperature
compensation scheme is implemented, e.g., the full Wheatstone
bridge circuit shown in Fig. 10. In this configuration, four omni-
directional sensors were placed inside the environmental test
chamber. One of the sensors was considered to be the active
element (strain sensor) and the other three were only used to com-
pensate for the effects of the temperature change.
The collected results show that when the full Wheatstone
bridge circuit is implemented, the temperature sensitivity of these
396 D. Zymelka et al. / Sensors and Actuators A 263 (2017) 391–397

Table 1
Results of static strain measurements performed using conventional and omnidirectional strain sensors that were installed at various angles with respect to the reference
sensor orientation. Calculations were performed using data that were registered between the 3rd and 8th seconds of the experimental characteristics shown in Fig. 8.

Sensor type Conventional Omnidirectional

Orientation 0◦ (ref. sensor) 45◦ 90◦ 0◦ 45◦ 90◦
Average strain and 222.8 ± 0.9 89.3 ± 0.8 −44.9 ± 0.6 223.1 ± 2.0 206.9 ± 2.6 214.2 ± 2.5
standard deviation (×10−6 )
Percentage error from – 59.9% 120.1% 0.1% 7.1% 3.9%
strain measured by the
reference sensor

1.0x10-1 that in the case of an unknown strain orientation, the devel-

Graphite paste (quarter W. bridge) oped device enables much more accurate measurements of both
Graphite paste (full W. bridge)
8.0x10-2 dynamic and static strain than the conventional linear sensors.
Despite the high sensitivity of the sensor material to temperature
6.0x10-2 change, this effect can be reduced by implementing the sensors
ΔR/R0

using the full Wheatstone bridge circuit. These results demon-

strate the potential of screen-printed graphite pastes for use in
8.0x10-4
cost-effective fabrication of these strain sensors.
6.0x10-4 While the sensor demonstrated in this work was made from a
4.0x10-4 screen-printed graphite-based paste, the same device can be fab-
ricated using various other materials and methods. When other
2.0x10-4
materials that show low temperature coefficients of resistance are
0.0 used, the performances of the resulting sensors may be even better
-10 0 10 20 30 40 than those demonstrated here.
o The developed sensor can be used in a diverse array of appli-
Temperature, C
cations, and particularly in applications where prediction of the
Fig. 9. Resistance–temperature relationships of printed graphite-based omni-
correct sensor installation direction is difficult, e.g., in crack detec-
directional sensors when connected in quarter- and full-Wheatstone-bridge tion systems or in the monitoring of maximum strain levels in
configurations. different types of engineering structures. Additionally, an arrange-
ment of these omnidirectional sensors in the form of an array
may enable more accurate strain distribution measurements. Such
devices would be particularly helpful in large-area health monitor-
ing of civil structures, such as bridges, tunnels and buildings.
Future research will be oriented towards detailed optimization
of the sensor structure, i.e., in terms of the number and length of
the active elements required with respect to the sensor diameter.

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted within the framework of the “Road

Infrastructure Monitoring Systems” (RIMS) project of the New
Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization
(NEDO).

References

Fig. 10. Schematic illustration of full-Wheatstone-bridge circuit. In practical strain
measurements, only the “active sensor” should be exposed to the applied strain.
Sensors R1 , R2 and R3 are only used to complete the bridge and should not be exposed
to the mechanical deformation.
graphite-based sensors can be reduced significantly to a level that
enables their practical application at a variety of temperatures.
In this work, however, all the experiments that were related to
the strain measurements and the calibration of the developed
sensors were performed at room temperature. Therefore, no com-
pensation was required for the temperature variations and all
demonstrated measurements were registered using the quarter
Wheatstone bridge circuit (Fig. 5).
4. Conclusions
The principal goal of this work was to evaluate the general con-
cept of the proposed omnidirectional strain sensor. It was shown
[1] G.I. Hay, P.S.A. Evans, D.J. Harrison, D. Southee, G. Simpson, P.M. Harrey,
Characterization of lithographically printed resistive strain gauges, IEEE Sens.
J. 5 (5) (2005) 864–871.
[2] G.I. Hay, D.J. Southee, P.S.A. Evans, D.J. Harrison, G. Simpson, B.J. Ramsey,
Examination of silver–graphite lithographically printed resistive strain
sensors, Sens. Actuators A 135 (2) (2007) 534–546.
[3] J. Rausch, L. Salun, S. Griesheimer, M. Ibis, R. Werthschutzky, Printed resistive
strain sensors for monitoring of light-weight structures, Proc. SPIE 7982
(2011) 79820H.
[4] A. Bessonov, M. Kirikova, S. Haque, I. Gartseev, M.J.A. Bailey, Highly
reproducible printable graphite strain gauges for flexible devices, Sens.
Actuators A 206 (2014) 75–80.
[5] G. Saggio, F. Riillo, L. Sbernini, L.R. Quitadamo, Resistive flex sensors: a survey,
Smart Mater. Struct. 25 (1) (2016) 1–30.
[6] P. Alpuim, S.A. Filonovich, C.M. Costa, P.F. Rocha, M.I. Vasilevskiy, S.
Lanceros-Mendez, C. Frias, A.T. Marques, R. Soares, C. Costa, Fabrication of a
strain sensor for bone implant failure detection based on piezoresistive doped
nanocrystalline silicon, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 354 (19-25) (2008) 2585–2589.
[7] Alamusi, N. Hu, H. Fukunaga, S. Atobe, Y. Liu, J. Li, Piezoresistive strain sensors
made from carbon nanotubes based polymer nanocomposites, Sensors 11
(11) (2011) 10691–10723.
[8] W. Obitayo, T. Liu, A review: carbon nanotube-based piezoresistive strain
sensors, J. Sensors 2012 (2012) 1–15.
 D. Zymelka et al. / Sensors and Actuators A 263 (2017) 391–397
[9] J. Zhao, C.L. He, R. Yang, Z.W. Shi, M. Cheng, W. Yang, G.B. Xie, D.M. Wang, D.X.
Shi, G.Y. Zhang, Ultra-sensitive strain sensors based on piezoresistive
nanographene films, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101 (6) (2012) 063112.
[10] K.I. Arshak, D. McDonagh, M.A. Durcan, Development of new capacitive strain
sensors based on thick film polymer and cermet technologies, Sens. Actuators
A 79 (2) (2000) 102–114.
[11] A. Arshak, K. Arshak, D. Morris, O. Korostynska, E. Jafer, Investigation of TiO2
thick film capacitors for use as strain gauge sensors, Sens. Actuators A 122 (2)
(2005) 242–249.
[12] J. Li, J.P. Longtin, S. Tankiewicz, A. Gouldstone, S. Sampath, Interdigital
capacitive strain gauges fabricated by direct-write thermal spray and ultrafast
laser micromachining, Sens. Actuators A 133 (1) (2007) 1–8.
[13] T. Yamashita, H. Okada, T. Itoh, T. Kobayashi, Manufacturing process for
piezoelectric strain sensor sheet involving transfer printing methods, Jpn. J.
Appl. Phys. 54 (10) (2015) 10ND08.
[14] T. Yamashita, S. Takamatsu, H. Okada, T. Itoh, T. Kobayashi, Ultra-thin
piezoelectric strain sensor array integrated on a flexible printed circuit
involving transfer printing methods, IEEE Sens. J. 16 (24) (2016) 8840–8846.
[15] S.T. Tung, Y. Yao, B. Glisic, Sensing sheet: the sensitivity of thin-film
full-bridge strain sensors for crack detection and characterization, Meas. Sci.
Technol. 25 (7) (2014) 1–14.
[16] Y. Yao, B. Glisic, Detection of steel fatigue cracks with strain sensing sheets
based on large area electronics, Sensors 15 (4) (2015) 8088–8108.
[17] A. Moorthi, B.B. Narakathu, A.S.G. Reddy, A. Eshkeiti, H. Bohra, M.Z. Atashbar,
A novel flexible strain gauge sensor fabricated using screen printing, 2012
Sixth Int. Conf. Sensing Technol. (ICST) (2012) 765–768.
[18] D. Zhao, T. Liu, M. Zhang, R. Liang, B. Wang, Fabrication and characterization
of aerosol-jet printed strain sensors for multifunctional composite structures,
Smart Mater. Struct. 21 (11) (2012) 1–8.
[19] O. Kravchuk, M. Reichenberger, Properties and long-term behavior of
nanoparticle based inkjet printed strain gauges, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron.
27 (10) (2016) 10934–10940.
[20] H. Lee, B. Seong, H. Moon, D. Byun, Directly printed stretchable strain sensor
based on ring and diamond shaped silver nanowire electrodes, RSC Adv. 5
(36) (2015) 28379–28384.
[21] X. Liao, Z. Zhang, Q. Liao, Q. Liang, Y. Ou, M. Xu, M. Li, G. Zhang, Y. Zhang,
Flexible and printable paper-based strain sensors for wearable and large-area
green electronics, Nanoscale 8 (26) (2016) 13025–13032.
[22] H. Song, J. Zhang, D. Chen, K. Wang, S. Niu, Z. Han, L. Ren, Superfast and
high-sensitivity printable strain sensors with bioinspired micron-scale cracks,
Nanoscale 9 (3) (2017) 1166–1173.
[23] T. Yamada, Y. Hayamizu, Y. Yamamoto, Y. Yomogida, A. Izadi-Najafabadi, D.N.
Futaba, K. Hata, A stretchable carbon nanotube strain sensor for
human-motion detection, Nat. Nanotechnol. 6 (5) (2011) 296–301.
[24] B. Thompson, H.S. Yoon, Aerosol printed carbon nanotube strain sensor, Proc.
SPIE 8346 (2012) 83461C.
[25] T. Yamada, Y. Yamamoto, Y. Hayamizu, A. Sekiguchi, H. Tanaka, K. Kobashi,
D.N. Futaba, K. Hata, Torsion-sensing material from aligned carbon nanotubes
wound onto a rod demonstrating wide dynamic range, ACS Nano 7 (4) (2013)
3177–3182.
[26] F. Michelis, L. Bodelot, Y. Bonnassieux, B. Lebental, Highly reproducible,
hysteresis-free, flexible strain sensors by inkjet printing of carbon nanotubes,
Carbon 95 (2015) 1020–1026.
[27] V. Correia, C. Caparros, C. Casellas, L. Francesch, J.G. Rocha, S.
Lanceros-Mendez, Development of inkjet printed strain sensors, Smart Mater.
Struct. 22 (10) (2013) 1–10.
397
[28] B. Thompson, H.S. Yoon, Aerosol-printed strain sensor using PEDOT:PSS, IEEE
Sens. J. 13 (11) (2013) 4256–4263.
[29] M. Borghetti, M. Serpelloni, E. Sardini, S. Pandini, Mechanical behavior of
strain sensors based on PEDOT:PSS and silver nanoparticles inks deposited on
polymer substrate by inkjet printing, Sens. Actuators A 243 (2016) 71–80.
[30] J.T. Muth, D.M. Vogt, R.L. Truby, Y. Menguc, D.B. Kolesky, R.J. Wood, J.A. Lewis,
Embedded 3D printing of strain sensors within highly stretchable elastomers,
Adv. Mater. 26 (36) (2014) 6307–6312.
[31] S. Harada, W. Honda, T. Arie, S. Akita, K. Takei, Fully printed highly sensitive
multifunctional artificial electronic whisker arrays integrated with strain and
temperature sensors, ACS Nano 8 (4) (2014) 3921–3927.
[32] J. Jurgens, P.E. Patterson, Development and evaluation of an inexpensive
sensor system for use in measuring relative finger positions, Med. Eng. Phys.
19 (1) (1997) 1–6.
Biographies
Daniel Zymelka received his M.E. in materials science from the Jagiellonian Uni-
versity in 2008 and Ph.D. in the same field from the École Nationale supérieure des
mines de Saint-Étienne in 2012. Following this, he joined the Microelectronics Cen-
ter of Provence (2011) and the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and
Technology (2015) as a postdoctoral researcher. He is currently employed at the
NMEMS Technology Research Organization. His research activity mainly concerns
the development of flexible sensors, instrumentation, and materials processing for
printed electronics.
Takahiro Yamashita received his M.E. and Ph.D. in precision engineering from the
University of Tokyo in 2007 and 2012, respectively. After working as a researcher
at BEANS Laboratory, he became a research scientist at the National Institute
of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) in 2013.He is currently a
researcher at the Research Center for Ubiquitous MEMS and Micro Engineering
(UMEMSME), AIST.
Seiichi Takamatsu received his B.E., M.E., and Ph.D. in mechano-informatics from
the University of Tokyo in 2003, 2005, and 2009, respectively. His graduate work
concerned conductive-polymer based MEMS devices. In 2009 he joined the National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) and in 2015 he
became an associate professor at the University of Tokyo. He focuses on organic
material-based large-scale microsystems.
Toshihiro Itoh received his B.E., M.E., and Ph.D. in precision engineering from the
University of Tokyo in 1988, 1990, and 1994, respectively. He was an associate pro-
fessor at the Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology (RCAST) at the
University of Tokyo from 1999 to 2007. He established a network MEMS group in
AIST in 2007 and joined the BEANS project as the leader of the Macro BEANS Center
in 2008. After working as the deputy director of the Research Center for UMEMSME,
AIST, he became a professor at the University of Tokyo in 2015. His research inter-
ests are in MEMS technologies for wireless sensor network nodes and large-area
(macro) devices.
Takeshi Kobayashi received his B.S. and M.S. in materials science from the Univer-
sity of Tokyo, and he received his Ph.D. in the same field from the same university in
2002. He then worked as a researcher at the National Institute of Advanced Indus-
trial Science and Technology (AIST). He is currently the leader of one of the research
teams at UMEMSME. His research interests include piezoelectric MEMS devices and
their application to wireless sensor networks.