In a research environment, we are taking a lot of efforts to address the challenges associated with true material-integration of intelligent sensing systems. The envisaged application scenarios range from structural health monitoring (SHM) to realization of intelligent object that are to form part of a future Internet of Things. However, besides the promises, there are also hardships linked to performing sensing and data evaluation within the material: These range from the need to adapt components to withstand manufacturing processes to the influence of physically embedded systems on materials performance - the presentation the link below will lead you to outlines some of these points.
I would be interested in your opinion: Do the benefits of material-integration justify the efforts needed to realize it? And if from your point of view this is not the case in general, which individual application scenarios might still do so?
Conference Paper Material-integrated Sensing and Intelligent Systems. A Review.
Dear Dirk
Very Nice Presentation appreciate your effort
In My opinion, for the SHM of composite aircraft structures the best option will be material integration.The supporting facts are
1) once embedded the sensor is protected from the environmental effects and accidents( fall of objects, scratches etc. on surface) that can deteriorate the sensor performance
2)integrated sensor becomes part of the structure and results in better strain transfer
3)The studies conducted by our group showed that embedded of FBG does not deteriorate the structural properties
But I agree with your argument about the efforts need for sensor integration.
Better we can restrict real world applications with sensor integration and lab level or ground level tests we can go ahead with patch or surface bond
Dear Augustin,
thanks for your reply, and thanks for your kind comment on my presentation - I'd be interested in your publications in the field. In any case, let's assume the sensor does not cause much problems (Is this true for all kinds of load cases, including e.g. impact and cyclic?), what if we assume we want to have intelligence integrated, too, and thus additional components for signal and data processing, energy supply, communication, ... ? Will we profit from this if local, distributed data processing provides us with a real-time response on size, location etc. once damage occurs and the ability to reinstate predictive capabilities even for the damaged structure, at a defined level of reliability? And will this profit justify the extra effort?
In that context, in the structures you realized and evaluated, where in space and time is the evaluation of sensor signals done? And is you system capable of adaption once an impact has occurred? Will it thus provide a correct evaluation of, say, a second impact, too?
I'll be looking forward to your and any other replies.
Best regards, Dirk
Obviously I agree with your view, SHM system wil get benefitted by integrated approach.Industry always considers 'profit' interms of economics of the sensor and system along with the benefits it gains out of the technology. second thing ease of use,the technology should be handled by middle skil labour or automated way.I strongly feel We need to think in this direction to see'profit justify the extra effort? '
Dear Augustin,
sure, there must be benefits that outbalance the extra cost that will definitely be there: Due to the integrated systems, due to the more complex build-up of the (then hybrid) material, potentially also due to an increased effort in simulation and layout of such materials and structures based on them.
Main benefits I see are weight reductions facilitated by constant monitoring of structures (this is an aerospace argument, if any) or predictive maintenance (this goes for several application, but is currently mainly being discussed for aerospace and offshore wind energy plans, as far as I know).
In terms of the added cost seen as a drawback, I wonder whether it could be somewhat alleviated by moving from "intelligent structure" to "intelligent material" - the point would be that a material is something that can be "worked" to form different components. If such an approach was possible, cost could be reduced via economy of scale effects.
Best regards,
Dirk
This is a very interesting question. If I can add, multifunctional self-sensing materials can potentially lead to a revolution in SHM of civil structures in terms of (i) durability of sensors' network (for instance cement-based self-sensing nanocomposite have basically the same durability of monitored concrete structures), (ii) extent of sensing volume (that can be increased to its maximum extent epecially if wireless transmission is succesfully applied to self-sensing materials) and (iii) bonding with the monitored structure that in same cases can be hihgly improved with respect to attached sensors. I hope this could be a useful contribution to this interesting discussion.
- Badges
- Science method