LiDAR-Based Structural Health Monitoring: Applications in Civil Infrastructure Systems
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
As innovative technologies emerge, extensive research has been undertaken to develop new structural health monitoring procedures. The current methods, involving on-site visual inspections, have proven to be costly, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and highly subjective for assessing the safety and integrity of civil infrastructures. Mobile and stationary LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) devices have significant potential for damage detection, as the scans provide detailed geometric information about the structures being evaluated. This paper reviews the recent developments for LiDAR-based structural health monitoring, in particular, for detecting cracks, deformation, defects, or changes to structures over time. In this regard, mobile laser scanning (MLS) and terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), specific to structural health monitoring, were reviewed for a wide range of civil infrastructure systems, including bridges, roads and pavements, tunnels and arch structures, post-disaster reconnaissance, historical and heritage structures, roofs, and retaining walls. Finally, the existing limitations and future research directions of LiDAR technology for structural health monitoring are discussed in detail.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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