Authors : Ayesha Fatima; Mohammed Abbu Bakar

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bddpyyyh

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct1613

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Artificial intelligence, embedded sensing, digital twins and responsive materials are increasingly being explored as ways to create infrastructure that can detect and respond to damage. A warning message or a crack that closes doesn’t prove that the structure has regained its required performance. This review looks at self-healing infrastructure from an engineering-assurance perspective: what needs to be measured what can be inferred, which actions are permissible what needs to be fixed and what needs to be tested before a system can be called fixed. Using the review source and its references the paper separates sensing confidence, diagnosis confidence repair feasibility and recovery evidence as separate considerations. It looks at embedded -electromechanical sensors, fiber-optic and piezoelectric sensing, edge analytics, digital-twin state estimation, AI-based prediction and material-level healing methods. A workflow is suggested that connects a detected problem to an action and then to checks done after the repair. The study finds challenges including outside interference sensors changing over time models not working well in different places repairs not reaching far enough actions that can’t be undone and the difference between a material fixing itself and the whole system working again. The paper ends by saying that safe self-healing should be seen as a claim that needs proof, clear rules and accountable human oversight, in charge—not as something automated.

Keywords : Self-Healing Infrastructure; Structural Health Monitoring; Embedded Sensors; Digital Twins; AI Assurance; Repair Verification; Infrastructure Resilience.

References :

1. B. Mohammed, “The sentient infrastructure paradigm: a review of novel sensors, digital twins, and AI for civil structural health monitoring,” Sensor Review, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1108/sr-10-2025-0822.
2. A. Sivasuriyan, D. S. Vijayan, A. Piętocha, W. Górski, Ł. Wodzyński, and E. Koda, “Advanced sensing and digital monitoring technologies for structural health assessment of civil infrastructure,” Buildings, vol. 16, no. 3, 2026, doi: 10.3390/buildings16030656.
3. M. B. Mane, N. Vijayakuma, P. Sruthi, R. Arulmozhi, and D. Suresh, “Autonomous and resilient smart infrastructure: an AI-driven cyber physical systems framework with deep reinforcement learning and blockchain security,” CompSci & AI Advances, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.69626/cai.2025.0084.
4. U. Mutlu and S. Kaewunruen, “Digitalised predictive maintenance in railways: a systematic review of AI, BIM, and digital twins,” Infrastructures, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.3390/infrastructures11030087.
5. V. Dattani, “Digital twin applications for real-time monitoring of urban infrastructure,” Vidhyayana, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.58213/dg3wfy95.
6. M. K. Pasupuleti, “Self-healing smart infrastructure: programmable materials for autonomous repair and sensing,” International Journal of Academic and Industrial Research Innovations, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.62311/nesx/rp-f32026.
7. U. Author, “Develop an AI-driven fault detection model to autonomously troubleshoot electrical power grids in high-risk offshore oil platforms,” British Journal of Earth Sciences Research, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.37745/bjesr.2013/vol13n21941.
8. F. D. Nuzzo, D. Brunelli, T. Polonelli, and L. Benini, “Structural health monitoring system with narrowband IoT and MEMS sensors,” IEEE Sensors Journal, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3075093.
9. G. Occhipinti et al., “Shake table tests on scaled masonry building: comparison of performance of various micro-electromechanical system accelerometers (MEMS) for structural health monitoring,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 4, 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25041010.
10. N. Golovastikov, N. Kazanskiy, and S. Khonina, “Optical fiber-based structural health monitoring: advancements, applications, and integration with artificial intelligence for civil and urban infrastructure,” Photonics, vol. 12, no. 6, 2025, doi: 10.3390/photonics12060615.
11. T. J. Saravanan, M. Mishra, A. D. Aherwar, and P. Lourenço, “Internet of things (IoT)-based structural health monitoring of laboratory-scale civil engineering structures,” Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s41062-024-01413-9.
12. J. Huang, A. Broekman, G. Markou, and H. Chen, “Framework for a practical and cost-effective IoT-enhanced structural health monitoring and damage diagnostics system with digital twinning,” Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s13349-025-00927-9.
13. X. Yu, Y. Zhao, S. Cui, X. He, Y. Fu, and Q. Yang, “Efficient edge intelligence for onboard data anomaly classification in wireless structural health monitoring using knowledge distillation on low-cost IoT nodes,” Structural Health Monitoring, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1177/14759217251349533.
14. E. H. Fort, P. Blanco-Carmona, F. M. Chavero, A. Torralba, and R. Castro-Triguero, “Low-cost, low-power edge computing system for structural health monitoring in an IoT framework,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 15, 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24155078.
15. S. Almheiri, Z. Mohamed, M. Ragab, A. Alseiari, and N. Almesafri, “Real-time sensor data streaming for deployment in Edge AI for health index construction and remaining useful life prediction,” PHM Society Asia-Pacific Conference, 2026, doi: 10.36001/phmap.2025.v5i1.4646.
16. M. M. A. Rony, “AI-enabled predictive analytics and fault detection frameworks for industrial equipment reliability and resilience,” ASRC Procedia: Global Perspectives in Science and Scholarship, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.63125/2dw11645.
17. Z. Yan et al., “Proactive infrastructure asset health management with a hybrid condition-aware probabilistic approach,” 25th Conference of the Electric Power Supply Industry (CEPSI), Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1109/CEPSI66359.2025.11403733.
18. J. Qi, Z. Chen, Y. Song, J. Xia, and W. Li, “Remaining useful life prediction combining advanced anomaly detection and graph isomorphic network,” IEEE Sensors Journal, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2024.3470231.
19. T. Berghout, E. Bechhoefer, F. Djeffal, and W. H. Lim, “Integrating learning-driven model behavior and data representation for enhanced remaining useful life prediction in rotating machinery,” Machines, vol. 12, no. 10, 2024, doi: 10.3390/machines12100729.
20. X. Li, L. Zhang, T. Tan, X. Wang, X. Zhao, and Y. Xu, “Multi-sensor data fusion and vibro-acoustic feature engineering for health monitoring and remaining useful life prediction of hydraulic valves,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 20, 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25206294.
21. X. Huang, W. Chen, D. Qu, S. Qu, and G. Wen, “Remaining useful life prediction method based on multisensor fusion under time-varying operating conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2024.3378308.