3.1.1. Uniform Mixing of Conductive Materials
Traditional spinning techniques, such as wet spinning, dry spinning and melt spinning, are the most common methods to prepare a 1D stretchable conductive composite materials; they mix the conductive filler and the elastic matrix directly and uniformly, and then extrude it through the spinneret hole to a coagulating bath to form the composite fiber. Li et al. uniformly mixed Gr into SBS and prepared SBS/Gr composite fiber flexible strain sensors by a simple wet-spinning method, and the Gr content had a significant impact on the morphology, mechanical properties and electromechanical properties of the composite fiber (
Figure 1) [
70]. The fiber with the 5 wt% graphene content has a wide working strain, which reaches 100%. However, its sensitivity increases with the increase in strain, and the sensitivity within 50% strain is changeable at different stretching speeds. He et al. proposed multiwalled carbon nanotube/thermoplastic polyurethane (MWCNT/TPU) fibers by wet spinning [
71]. The gauge factors (GF) of the MWCNT/TPU fiber are about 550 and 2800 in the strain ranges of 1 to 4% and 5 to 100%, respectively. The strain of the MWCNT/TPU fibers decreases significantly under large hysteresis after multiple stretching–releasing cycles, indicating poor sensing repeat stability. At the same time, the influence of different weight ratios of MWCNTs to TPU on the mechanical and electrical properties of composite fibers has been studied. It was found that the concentration and arrangement of MWCNT would change the working strain range and GF of the sensor [
72]. Wang et al. manufactured a fiber strain sensor with a wide response range (320%) and a fast response time (<200 ms) based on MWCNTs and TPU by a simple wet-spinning method [
39]. However, the electrical response of the MWCNT/TPU strain sensor decreased slightly in the initial stage when multiple stretching–releasing cycles were carried out at 100% strain, and it exhibited unstable sensitivity at the same time. To improve the conductivity and the stability of the conductive network, hybrid conductive fillers have been used to achieve a composite synergistic effect to prepare strain-sensing fibers. For instance, Zhang et al. demonstrated a highly conductive AgNW/MWCNT/TPU composite fiber by wet spinning, in which MWCNTs were regarded as the sensitive materials and silver nanowires were used to improve electrical conductivity [
73]. When the contents of AgNWs reached the optimal amount (3%), the working strain range was 254%, and the conductivity was 0.0803 S/cm (
Figure 2). Compared with single-filler composite fibers, the increase in AgNWs improves the conductivity and working strain range of the composite fiber, but its sensitivity decreases. In the case of a strain range of 50–150%, the relative resistance change of the sensor continues to decrease in stretching–releasing tests within 1000 s, showing poor stability.
Figure 1. ΔR/R0–strain curve and GF–strain curve of SBS-xGr composite fiber with different graphene contents. (a,d) SBS-1Gr composite fiber; (b,e) SBS-3Gr composite fiber; (c,f) SBS-5Gr composite fiber [70].
Figure 2. (
a) Suspension preparation process; (
b) AgNW/MWCNT/TPU spinning process; (
c) the relative change resistance–strain curve of the fiber strain sensor with different AgNW contents [
73].
3.1.2. Selective Localization of Conductive Materials
The conductive network was also designed by controlling the distribution of the fillers, such as selective positioning in multiple phases to form a co-continuous structure or a sea-island structure. In this case, the conductivity of the composite is improved by forming a double or triple permeation structure in the polymer matrix. The selective positioning of the fillers at the interface of the co-continuous polymer structure can further reduce the filler content, which is required to form the continuous conductive network. Zhou et al. used the coaxial wet-spinning method and post-treatment process to prepare the thermoplastic elastomer/single-walled carbon nanotube (TPE/SWCNT) ribbon coaxial fiber with good stretchability and high sensitivity (
Figure 3a) [
38]. The strain sensor composed of this fiber has a GF of 48 at 0–5% strain and a GF of 425 at 20–100% strain; a linear change cannot occur in in the full strain range. Tang et al. designed a stretchable core sheath fiber using a one-step coaxial wet-spinning assembly method, in which a high-stretch polymer elastomer Ecoflex wrapped CNT/Ecoflex composite material [
74]. Similar to traditional cables, the outer insulating sheath effectively avoids short circuits and the falling off of conductive fillers. At the same time, it can have good conductivity under a low permeability threshold (0.74 vol%). Strain sensors made of this fiber achieve a high sensitivity of 1378 under 300% strain and show high durability under 100% strain, but they exhibit low sensitivity in a small strain range, non-linear resistance change and obvious overshoot behavior. Yue et al. demonstrated a highly stretchable TPU-CB@TPU fiber strain sensor with a porous core–sheath structure through the coaxial wet-spinning method (
Figure 3b,c) [
37]. Due to the countercurrent diffusion and coagulation of the solvent, this fiber has a porous structure with a wide strain range. The highest GF is 28,084 when the strain is 204%. However, its sensitivity is not large enough in a small strain range, and the resistance change gradually declines over multiple cycles of stretching. A coaxial fiber with an outer layer of MXene/PU composite and an inner layer of PU was prepared by Seyedin et al. [
75]. Compared with the non-coaxial composite fiber, the coaxial fiber shows a larger strain range, a smaller data drift, and an improvement in the cyclic stability of the sensor response. Gao et al. fabricated a coaxial stretchable composite fiber with a double-layer hollow structure (
Figure 3d), in which the conductive outer layer has a CNT/TPU composite as the sensitive area, and the insulating inner layer is made of pure TPU with a hollow core to serve as a flexible support [
76]. The prepared composite fiber (TPU-8CNT@TPU) has an ultralow percolation threshold (0.17 wt%), good durability, and small compression deformation that can be detected. With an increase in the stretching speed, the relative resistance differently changes under the same strain. Additionally, there is an obvious shoulder phenomenon, which may disturb signal identification in an accurate strain monitoring. However, the reason for this shoulder phenomenon is still not clear. The mainstream is attributed to the competition between the destruction and reconstruction of CNT conductive networks in the fiber, which needs further verification.
Figure 3. (
a) The image of a typical coaxial fiber stretched from 0 to 250% strain and relaxed after unloading; D and Lc are the average crack spacing and the average crack opening displacement, respectively [
38]. (
b) Fiber cell structure evolution process (
c) Schematic diagram of the TCTF preparation process [
37]. (
d) Schematic diagram of TPU-8CNT@TPU structure [
76].
The characteristics of various fiber-based strain sensors prepared by spinning technology are summarized in
Table 4. In general, the preparation of stretchable conductive composite fibers as strain sensors by mixing conductive materials and spinning is a process technology that can be produced on a large scale and is widely used in industry. However, the addition of conductive filler will enhance the rigidity of the elastic matrix, and shrink the tensile strain range of the fiber, which leads to the narrow working strain range of the fiber sensor. On the contrary, if the amount of conductive material is too low, the conductivity of the composite fiber will also limit its working strain range. Therefore, there is a paradox between the conductivity and the working strain range of the stretchable conductive fiber, which needs to be balanced. According to the percolation theory [
60,
77,
78,
79,
80,
81], the content of conductive materials in stretchable conductive composites has a percolation threshold. When the percolation threshold is exceeded, the polymer elastomer changes from an insulator to a conductor, and the conductivity increases with the increase in the content of conductive materials. When the content is near the percolation threshold, the sensitivity of the material is at its greatest [
82]. Therefore, it is still a huge challenge to achieve a high strain range and high sensitivity at the same time for conductive composite fibers. In addition, there is a limit on the production costs of practical commercial applications with the increase in conductive fillers. To reduce the permeation threshold while achieving high conductivity, different strategies have been studied [
50,
83,
84], such as functionalizing conductive fillers’ surfaces, increasing the aspect ratio of fillers, controlling the arrangement of fillers, and using different mixture of fillers. However, such permeation-based composite strain sensors rarely exhibit good linearity. When the composite fiber is stretched, its resistance is mainly caused by changes in geometry and tunnel theory [
37,
39,
85]. With an increase in tunneling distance and the destruction of the conductive path, the resistance of composites increases significantly during the tensile process. The maximum GF usually occurs when the conductive material content is close to the permeation threshold. Other shortcomings of strain sensors made of composite fibers include hysteresis, fatigue and so on, which are mostly due to the viscoelasticity and elastic recovery rate of composite fibers.
Table 4. Characteristics of conductive composite fiber-based strain sensors prepared by spinning technology.
Structure |
Substrate |
Sensitive Materials |
Breaking Stress and Strain |
Conductivity |
Strain Range |
GF |
Repeatability |
Linearity |
Response Time |
Ref. |
Monofilament |
SBS |
Gr |
10.16 MPa; 910.83% |
N/A |
100% |
10,083.98 (73–100%) |
2500 (20%) |
N/A |
N/A |
[70] |
Monofilament |
TPU |
MWCNTs |
28 MPa; 320% |
N/A |
100% |
2800 (5–100%) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
[71] |
Monofilament |
SIBS |
P3HT |
11.4 MPa; 975% |
0.38 S/cm |
770% |
20 (12.25%) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
[86] |
Monofilament |
TPU |
MWCNTs/ AgNWs |
32.49 MPa |
0.803 S/cm |
250% |
13 (50–150%) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
[73] |
Ribbon and coaxial |
TPE |
SWCNTs |
N/A |
N/A |
100% |
425 (100%) |
3250 (20–100%) |
R2 = 0.98 (20–100%) |
N/A |
[38] |
Core–sheath |
Ecoflex |
CNTs |
N/A |
N/A |
330% |
1378 (330%) |
>10,000 (100%) |
N/A |
>300 ms (100%) |
[74] |
Porous |
TPU |
CB |
2.15 MPa |
N/A |
380% |
28,084 (204%) |
11,000 (60%) |
N/A |
200 ms |
[87] |
Coaxial |
PU |
MXene |
20.3 GPa |
N/A |
152% |
238 (50%) |
1000 (50%) |
N/A |
N/A |
[75] |
Hollow |
TPU |
CNTs |
2.92 MPa; 476% |
N/A |
>350% |
1344.1 (200%) |
10,000 (100%) |
N/A |
167 ms |
[76] |