A Review of Passive Wireless Sensors for Structural Health Monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless sensors for Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) is an emerging new technology that promises to overcome many disadvantages pertinent to conventional, wired sensors. The broad field of SHM has experienced significant growth over the past two decades, with several notable developments in the area of sensors such as piezoelectric sensors and optical fibre sensors. Although significant improvements have been made on damage monitoring techniques using these smart sensors, wiring remains a significant challenge to the practical implementation of these technologies. Wireless SHM has recently attracted the attention of researchers towards un-powered and more effective passive wireless sensors. This article presents a review of some of the underlying technologies in the field of wireless sensors for SHM - with a focus on the research progress towards the development of simple, powerless, yet effective and robust wireless damage detection sensors. This review examines the development of passive wireless sensors in two different categories: (1) use of oscillating circuits with the help of inductors, capacitors and resistors for damage detection; and (2) use of antennas, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags and metamaterial resonators as strain sensors for wireless damage monitoring. An assessment of these electromagnetic techniques is presented and the key issues involved in their respective design configurations are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it