A literature review of next-generation smart sensing technology in structural health monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advent of computationally efficient smartphones, inexpensive high-resolution cameras, drones, and robotic sensors has brought a new era of next-generation intelligent monitoring systems for civil infrastructure. Vibration-based condition assessment has garnered as a prominent method of evaluating the health of large-scale infrastructure. The use of contact-based sensors for acquiring vibration data becomes uneconomical and tedious due to their instrumentation cost, centralized nature, and densification required to collect sufficient data for system identification of modern complex structures. A need to advance and develop alternative methods for efficient sensing system results in next-generation measurement technology of structural health monitoring. The abundance of handheld smartphones with easily programmable framework has helped in modifying relevant software to acquire vibration data using embedded sensors in the smartphone. The inexpensive cameras have been used to capture images and videos that are utilized to understand the structural behavior with the aid of advanced signal processing techniques. The inaccessible components of structures require noncontact sensors such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or so-called drones and mobile sensors to acquire structural data. To the authors' knowledge, this paper first time presents a comprehensive review of a suite of next-generation smart sensing technology that has been developed in recent years within the context of structural health monitoring. The state-of-the-art methods have been presented by conducting a detailed literature review of the recent applications of smartphones, UAVs, cameras, and robotic sensors used in acquiring and analyzing the vibration data for structural condition monitoring and maintenance.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".