A Report to the National Science Foundation

National Workshop on Future Sensing Systems

“Living, Nonliving, and Energy Systems”

Lake Tahoe, Granlibakken Conference Center August 26-28, 2002

NSF, DARPA, NIH, DOE, NIST, NASA, AFOSR, ONR, ARO, ARL, NRL, NSWCCD

Written by:

Steven D. Glaser

Professor, College of Engineering

University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720

glaser@ce.berkeley.edu

David Pescovitz

Science Writer

130 Gates Street

San Francisco, CA 94110

www.pesco.net

ContentsPreface ........................................................................................................................................... ivExecutive Summary.........................................................................................................................11. Introduction.................................................................................................................................5

1.1 Workshop Rationale.................................................................................................51.2 Workshop Goals.......................................................................................................51.3 Background and Organization .................................................................................7

2. Research Needs, Opportunities, and Directions for Future Growth of the NSF Research Portfolio in Sensor Technologies .....................................................................................................9

2.1 Cost .......................................................................................................................112.2 Ease-of-Use............................................................................................................132.3 Applications ...........................................................................................................142.4 System Design ......................................................................................................162.5 Data Management and Interpretation ....................................................................182.6 Sensor Networks ....................................................................................................192.7 Test Beds................................................................................................................20

3. Programmatic Needs of Participating Governmental Agencies ...............................................223.1 NSF ........................................................................................................................223.2 NIST.......................................................................................................................233.3 NIH ........................................................................................................................243.4 AFRL .....................................................................................................................253.5 MITI.......................................................................................................................25

4. Some Recommendations and Mechanisms for Structuring Interdisciplinary and Interagency Coordination on Joint Sensor Systems Research Initiatives and Stimulating Cooperation Among Academic, Industry, and Federal Researchers ...............................................................................26

4.1 Vertical Integration of Skills ..................................................................................264.2 Research Initiatives................................................................................................274.3 Role of the Private Sector ......................................................................................274.4 Projects Spawned from workshop .........................................................................294.5 Success of Workshop Format.................................................................................30

Appendix 1: Feedback from Participants ...................................................................................31Appendix 2: Workgroup Assignments........................................................................................33Appendix 3: Attendees ...............................................................................................................34Optional Appendix 4:Speaker’s Presentations ........ www.ce.berkeley.edu/Programs/Geoengineering/sensors

Optional Appendix 5:Workshop Transcripts............ www.ce.berkeley.edu/Programs/Geoengineering/sensors

iii

PrefaceWe would like to thank the members of the workshop steering committee for all their help

and guidance. We would like to give special thanks to Shih Chi Liu, Program Director, Sensors Technology Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, National Science Foundation. Without his vision and organization this workshop never would have happened. He was frank and honest at every turn. We also want to thank Filbert Bartoli and Alison Flatau for their help and wisdom.

Organizers:

Steven GlaserDept. Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, Berkeley

Kris Pister Dept. Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of California, Berkeley

Steering Committee:Rahmat Shoureshi, ChairDean, School of Engineering & Computer ScienceUniversity of Denver

Ephrahim Garcia, Co-ChairSibley School Mech & Aero Engr, Cornell UniviversityFormerly, director, Defense Sciences Office, DARPA

James AlbusSenior NIST Fellow, Intelligent Systems Div.National Institute of Standards & Technology

Barry AlexiaVice Pres., Corp. and Business DevelopmentArdesta Corp.

Gary AndersonUS Army Research Office (ARO)Research Triangle Park

Fu-Kuo Chang Dept. of Aero/AstroStanford University

Dean ColeDirector, Advanced Medical Tech. ProgramMedical Sciences DivisionU.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE), Germantown

Donna DeanDirector, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of Health,

Deborah EstrinComputer Science DepartmentDirector, LECSUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Joan PallixProject Manager, Resilient Systems & Opera-tionsNASA Ames Research Center

Michel Sultan Group Leader, Sensor Technologies,Delphi Automotive, Inc.

David TennenhouseVice President, Director of ResearchIntel Corp.

Michael ToddDepartment of Structural EngineeringUniversity of California, San Diego Formerly, Head, Fiber Optic Smart Structures, Naval Research Lab

V.K. VaradanDept. Eng. Science and Electrical Eng.Director, Center for the Engineering of Elec-tronic and Acoustic Materials and DevicesPenn State University

iv

1

Executive SummaryThe National Workshop on Future Sensing Systems was held in Lake Tahoe, California,

August 26-28, 2002, sponsored by the Sensors Technology Program for the NSF Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS), with co-sponsorship from DARPA, NIH, DOE, NIST, NASA, AFOSR, ONR, ARO, ARL, and NRL. The scope of this workshop encompassed discussions of research needs, current and emerging technologies, and efficacious partnerships required to develop and implement future sensing systems. The workshop was planned to stimulate synergistic ideas and directions generated by industrial, scientific and government participants, and to start planning a long-term road map for R&D projects related to emerging needs and technologies. Furthermore, this workshop started strategic partnerships among industry, scientific community, and government agencies that are developing innovative and cross-pollinating sensor systems capable of converting raw data into useful information about myriad environments

Recent technological advancements in materials science, micro fabrication of MEMS (microelectromechanical systems), and bioengineered systems have made the dream of inexpensive, powerful, ubiquitous sensing a readily achievable reality. Examples range from truly smart airframes and self-evaluating buildings and infrastructure for natural hazard mitigation to large-scale weather forecasting and self-organizing energy systems. A common thread running through these, and all other applications of ubiquitous sensing, is the vast amounts of data generated, and a need to have the ubiquitous sensor networks process this data in order to return decisions and information. Sensor networks become a dynamic organism far more powerful and user-friendly than the traditional view of a sensor as a widget, an individual component that needs to be deployed, programmed, and interrogated. Therefore, the convergence of sensor technologies, communications, and computing has the potential to overcome barriers of time, scale, materials and environment.

The workshop was designed to push the community to share and work together, not study the current state of the art. This gathering was not a place for the participants to give formal presentations about their research successes. The participants drove this workshop. The ideas, the concepts, and the research directions outlined in this report were decided by all the participants.

First and foremost, the report outlines the road map for future sensor research from the point of view of the participants. A handful of key technological research thrusts emerged:

• MEMS-based sensors, particularly with networking capabilities, are the future. These are the devices the organizers assumed to be used by all the workshop attendees, and therefore are the focus within this report.

2

• The sensors and system technology must be inexpensive enough to be utilized in great numbers. Further research is necessary to identify the best design and related materials and fabrication approaches suited for parallel assembly and encapsulation in a foundry at an affordable cost. These challenges demand collaboration between electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, materials scientists, and, of course, representatives from the myriad disciplines who ultimately will use the devices. In order to develop useful sensors, it is critical to first understand the physics of the parameters to be measured.

• The arena of wireless (RF) sensor nodes generated the most technical interest and creative thought at the workshop. A generic wireless sensor platform contains several key components, each with its own set of unique design challenges: an antenna, a power supply, a transceiver, signal processing, and a microprocessor running the sensing and networking software. There are many research opportunities in the area of RF MEMS, ranging from high Q resonators and low-loss switches to tunable components enabling the bandwidth and center frequency of the radio to be changed in situ.

• The systems must be easy to deploy, configure, and maintain so that researchers from disciplines other than computer science or electrical engineering can benefit from their use.

• Practical applications must be identified through the combined efforts of the people who build the technology and those who will ultimately use the data.

• A multitude of system design challenges, from power to wireless transmission of data, must be surmounted.

• The massive amounts of data that sensors gather must be manageable and interpretable to have any value - the user wants information, not numbers. One approach is to synthesize our design models with the data to be collected--sensing is a link between the real world and an abstract world. This synthesis leads to adaptive data interrogation systems where the interpretive section of the loop can tell the sensor system to record on a different granularity or measure different variables.

• Data interpretation requires knowledge of the uncertainties involved in taking the measurement. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Hardware solutions must include auto-calibration so that rational estimates of uncertainty can be made. System solutions must include sensor output validation with independent measurements and predictive modeling.

• The key characteristics of sensor networks---ad hoc, multi-hop, robust, and low-power, to name a few--must be defined and built based on the requirements of the intended application. Smart devices that self-assemble into networks open up a paradigm that the research community is not necessarily familiar with, and requires moving beyond the idea of a sensor as a single little

3

instrument that measures one thing. Determination of optimal physical locations becomes an important open issue - where must a sensor be placed to accurately measure what is requested? How must the physical interface between sensor and structure be constructed? Will the data will be used for increasing basic understanding of some phenomena or for monitoring change of state?

• Test beds must be built early and often so that unknown constraints and hurdles of these complex systems can be revealed and repaired in-situ. An effective test bed should demonstrate a practical and complete sensing network, including robust wireless communications and long-lived power sources. These test beds should be used to tackle meaningful, but solvable problems. If the network is indeed the sensor, utmost importance must be placed on putting entire networks through their paces. The hardware and software researchers must collaborate with the individuals who actually will use the data in the course of the research. Again, a cross-disciplinary approach and vertical integration of skills is the only way this is possible.

• It is necessary to get understanding and support for programs in sensing system technology from all stakeholders in infrastructure security and maintenance. This can include insurance companies, engineering societies and organizations, owners, and industry, as well as national, state and local government organizations. On a larger scale, strategic scenarios (e.g. infrastructure security and maintenance, homeland defense) are needed in order to get practical support from the government and public for a major sensing system initiative. Many real-world sensing system problems involve retrofit of existing structures, machinery, and equipment. As a result, technologies suitable for retrofit should be emphasized.

• To ensure that new sensors are developed to address important needs and are useful and affordable, it is suggested that user groups involved in important applications (academic disciplines, national labs, etc.) be involved both in writing requests for proposals for new sensing system developments, and in evaluation of the proposals. Perhaps the most manageable method would be the formation of small teams of 3-5 researchers to develop integrated sensor systems from sensor node to web notification information transfer. The funding agencies should support the entire span of the system's packaging from first principles to final operation.

The workshop was a coup in cross-disciplinary collaboration. The workshop attendees represented an amazing mix of disciplines, with an even mix of electrical, mechanical, and civil engineers, as well as chemists and computer scientists. Other fields included seismology, mining, aerospace, material science, physics, and engineering mechanics. Experimentalists and theoreticians were well represented. Twelve of the attendees hailed from foreign countries. There were representatives from government agencies, funding and technology consumers, multiple national laboratories, both small and large business, and academia. The participants agreed that this kind of cross-pollination is absolutely mandatory to sensor research. Indeed, perhaps the

4

greatest opportunities for researchers can be found in the overwhelming need to integrate sensing technologies with the major technological thrust areas of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the environment. The path to success in sensor research is through the vertical integration of science, technology, industries, operators, and owners. Time and again, the participants stressed that this cross-disciplinary approach to research--between academia, industry, and Federal agencies--and a vertical integration of skills should be the foundation for structuring research initiatives.

The workshop spawned numerous collaborations, proposals, and plans for future sensor research. It also proved that there are far more commonalities than differences in the challenges faced by a wide variety of researchers from the sensor community at large. Perhaps most importantly though, the workshop helped foster the strategic and targeted growth of that nascent community.

This report represents our best effort to accurately convey the information and opinion that emerged during those two exciting days in Lake Tahoe.

5

1. Introduction1.1 Workshop Rationale

The National Workshop on Future Sensing Systems was a vehicle to start researchers on the road to integrating the possibilities in development by the many disciplines working in the common space. In the past, advances have often been duplicated amongst the different disciplines and end users due to lack of communication. An example is the desire of the structural engineering community to develop a custom sensor when commercial off the shelf (COTS) devices already exist that can fill 99% of researchers' desires for a few cents each. The scope of this workshop encompassed discussions of research needs, current and emerging technologies, and efficacious partnerships required to develop and implement future sensing systems. The workshop was planned to stimulate synergistic ideas and directions generated by industrial, scientific, and government participants, and to start planning a long-term road map for R&D projects related to emerging needs and technologies. Furthermore, this workshop aimed to encourage strategic partnerships among industry, scientific community, and government agencies that are developing innovative and cross-pollinating sensor systems capable of converting raw data into useful information about myriad environments.

The workshop fulfilled broad, widespread needs of government, industry, civil society, and academia, and was sponsored by the Sensors Technology Program for the NSF Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS), with co-sponsorship from DARPA, NIH, DOE, NIST, NASA, AFOSR, ONR, ARO, ARL, and NRL. In addition, industry was directly involved so that future sensor systems will have large markets, hence low cost and increased deployment.

1.2 Workshop Goals

The principle deliverables of the National Workshop on Future Sensing Systems were as follows:

1. Produce a report to aid in charting research needs, opportunities, and directions for future growth of the NSF research portfolio in sensor technologies.

2. Provide, as a resource to the CMS community, information about industrial and federal agencies' programmatic interests, scopes, budgets, etc. for basic and applied research on sensors, sensing materials, and systems-level sensor integration issues.

3. Provide recommendations and suggest mechanisms for structuring interdisciplinary and interagency coordination on joint sensor systems research initiatives.

4. Stimulate increased domestic and international cooperation among academic, industry and Federal researchers through exchange of ideas, interests, and program information, and suggest new ways to initiate collaborations.

6

The workshop itself is the first step towards fulfilling the fourth task. The discussion forums brought a wide variety of researchers involved in sensor research to the table, literally. During meals, presentations, and free time, participants began to note the underlying interests they all share. They took steps to rise above the traditional, superficial differences that often keep researchers from myriad fields from collaborating as a matter of course. The workshop attendees represented an amazing mix of disciplines, with an even mix of electrical, mechanical, and civil engineers, as well as chemists and computer scientists. Other fields included seismology, mining, aerospace, material science, physics, and engineering mechanics. Experimentalists and theoreticians were well represented. Twelve of the attendees hailed from foreign countries. There were representatives from government agencies, funding and technology consumers, multiple national laboratories, both small and large business, and academia.

There were a variety of different agendas for the attendees. The goals in organizing the workshop were to facilitate people with different backgrounds working together, and fostering examination of what they share in common. Through the formal and, equally important, informal discussions, individuals had the opportunity to think about sensor applications broadly, or focus deeply on specific technical hurdles. These conversations sparked numerous ideas and possible solutions. For this reason alone the workshop was an exciting, interesting experience for everyone.

NSF had goals, chiefly to produce a report to help form the directions of the new initiatives in sensing. NSF wanted to provide a resource to help the community realize what different sources of funding, programs, and mechanisms are in place to aid research in sensors. In addition to increased domestic cooperation, the NSF particularly wanted to increase cooperation with research entities from the EU, Japan, China, NZ, and other countries. Finally, each participant had goals that might be very different from the NSF's goals or the organizers' goals.

Table 1: Affiliations of the attendees

Academic Discipline

civil engineering: 28 electrical engineering: 26

mechanical engineering: 26 computer science: 9

chemical engineering/chemistry: 9 biomedical: 8

Employment Discipline

government: 29 academia: 73 (students: 15)

research laboratories: 15 industry: 10

7

1.3 Background and Organization

The workshop was designed to push the community to share and work together, not study the current state of the art. This gathering was not a place for the participants to give formal presentations about their research successes. There are ample venues for this, and all can read the published literature.

The rule of engagement: All attendees were considered equal. That simple rule underlies most of the points shown in Fig. 1. At the university, professors are each supposed to each be the world's foremost expert in some arcane topic. However at the conference, the participants were encouraged to ask questions about areas in which they may not have much background.

There was a variety of deliverable to provide our sponsors and community, some of which were suited for a formal setting, and some not. As a result, the workshop had a variety of formats. The first day of the workshop was devoted to presentations about technologies that might lead the research for the next decade. The speakers were asked to selflessly present a little of what is possible today, and a lot of what the community might strive towards. The talks were meant to expand minds, and be a learning experience for everyone (the speakers included), so that the participants had a common place to begin discussions.

The participants drove this workshop. In the break-out sessions, everyone had a say, and everyone's say is included in this report, whether the authors agree with it or not. It is not the job of the organizers to write down what they thought, because that could have been done without going through the effort of holding a workshop. A continuous record of discussion was taken by a court reporter and augmented by students taking notes in the breakout sessions. But the ideas, the concepts, and the research directions outlined in this report were decided by all the participants.

Granlibakken is a mountain resort, and requires informality. Dress, therefore, will be informal - no jackets, ties, suits, etc. are allowed

All workshop participants are equal

No question is dumb or stupid

All disciplines are created equal, and none are closer to truth than another

We are all equally clueless about the true nature of the universe (no participant has “the answer”)

All aspects of “knowledge” is needed to solve our problems, so no area of knowledge present at the workshop is inherently more relevant than others

Count to 10 before making assumptions about other’s motivation

Fig. 1 Rules of engagement for the Sensors workshop

8

This was the participants' chance to help control, or at least influence, what the NSF is going to do regarding sensor research and how they are going to do it.

Although there was a broad mix of academic disciplines represented at the workshop (see Table 1), the participants, individually and in the working groups, overwhelmingly proposed civil and mechanical applications. This report, therefore, is heavily biased toward civil and mechanical applications. The organizers believe most participants were not comfortable discussing biomedical and chemical sensors and applications in any great detail due to their unfamiliarity with the fields. Civil applications are close to everyone’s daily life and served as a handy common point for discussions. For details on chemical sensors, see Prof. Jiri Janata’s Web site for the "New Challenges of Chemical and Biological Sensing" National Science Foundation Workshop (http://www.chemistry.gatech.edu/sensingforum-02/).

In the afternoon, many attendees participated in an organized raft trip down the Truckee River, as well as informal hikes. These activities allowed the participants to get to know each other, and open discussions between people from different disciplines on the “gee whiz” topics they were all exposed to. Following lunch were several hours of free time in the beautiful surroundings to allow the participants to think and digest what they had learned. There were two panel/open discussion sessions: Venture Capitalist and Industrial View of Investment in Sensor Technology Research, and Formation of Research Partnerships. The workshop closed with a session entitled Agencies' Presentations on New Initiatives in Sensor Systems.

Fig. 2 Art Janata presenting “Microsensors for Toxic Gases”

9

Much time was spent in “small” (about 20 participants) discussion groups, to which participants were assigned so that all could benefit from the great diversity of backgrounds and knowledge to be shared. The topics of the breakout groups were:

• Data integration -- how to handle and most efficiently use the vast volumes of data that will be generated by future implementations of ubiquitous sensing

• Smart devices and self-assembling networks--how to use this new paradigm, how to comprehend previously impractical applications

• Integration of new sensing and communication technologies into practice--COTS and research

• Symbiotic synthesis of constructive modeling, interpretation, and sensing

• From physics to useful and affordable sensors

All groups also had to make the case that research spending for advanced technologies for civil infrastructure (in its broadest sense) is cost effective.

2. Research Needs, Opportunities, and Directions for Future Growth of the NSF Research Portfolio in Sensor Technologies

In the past, sensors have tended to be specification-driven replacements for electromechanical devices, components built for high-volume applications (e.g. pressure sensors, airbag accelerometers) that end up as commodities driven toward very low costs. Sensors are

Fig. 3 Working group on Data Integration

10

now evolving toward systems for addressing high-level, problem-driven needs and applications. Sensors are becoming solutions rather than devices. Common characteristics of sensing systems include integration of multiple sensors, multiple system concepts/approaches, autonomous operation, flexibility, onboard intelligence, and the growing use of wireless interfaces.

The present push in sensors and sensor systems is to make extensive use of MEMS-based devices. MEMS, or micro-electromechanical systems, are micron-scale sensing devices built using the etching technologies devised for manufacturing integrated circuits. The promise of MEMS, circa 1980, is co-located sensing, actuation, measurement, signal processing, computation, and communication based on the IC manufacturing paradigm. The reality, circa 2002, is very limited progress toward either systems-on-a chip or systems–in-a-package. Technical barriers include the fact that co-fabrication is presently difficult, making on-chip solutions expensive, and the fact that packaging technologies are just emerging for sensors other than inertial and optical devices. Economic issues include lack of truly high-volume applications that would establish the infrastructure, and a lack of industry-wide standards.

Co-fabricating electronics and microstructures is not easy. For example, mixed MEMS and complimentary metal oxide circuitry (CMOS) is a “boutique processes," making it quite expensive. The "MEMS first, CMOS last" approach requires that you have, or control, your own CMOS fabrication facility, e.g. Sandia and Analog Devices. The "CMOS first, MEMS last" approach might be the best approach, but high thermal requirements for MEMS fabrication makes it difficult not to cook the CMOS in the process.

The automotive, aerospace, petroleum, chemical, biological, nuclear, military, and civil users need devices that can operate under high temperatures subject to intense vibrations and corrosive

AnalogMux/

Amp/ADC

Power Management

EPROM

µController

RAM

Data Compensation

Power Interface

Wireless Interface

Bus Interface

MicroController

Bus Interface

Set Points

AnalogInterface

Sensors

Actuators

Microinstrument

Fig. 4 Example of a sensor system: Environmental Monitoring System, senses many parameters, e.g. temperature, humidity, airspeed/direction, gases, chemical vapors, etc.

11

and abrasive media, and perhaps high radiation. Silicon, the basic building block of MEMS, is not desirable for harsh environments because electrical properties degrade above 350C and mechanical properties degrade above 650C. Silicon is also susceptible to radiation damage and etched by corrosive chemicals.

However, the rate of advancement in MEMS sensors is astounding, with thousands of new commercial devices coming to market every month. There are many advances in networking IT, driven in part by DARPA (i.e., the NEST project). Given the present and future possibilities, and the very low cost offered by mass production, MEMS-based sensors, particularly with networking capabilities, are the future. These are the devices the organizers assumed to be used by all the workshop attendees, and therefore are the focus within this report.

2.1 Cost

In order for the benefits of ubiquitous sensing to be truly realized, the sensors themselves must be inexpensive enough for researchers to actually deploy them in great numbers. This is true whether the intended applications are smart airframes, office buildings that self-evaluate structural integrity for natural hazard mitigation, or animal habitats where the ecosystem must be carefully monitored to provide environmental insights. “Usefulness” and “affordability” must be judged in the context of the needs of applications and users. Needs for new useful and affordable sensors are being driven in part by the development of the additional technologies required for low-cost distributed sensor networks, specifically wireless communications, low power electronics, and power sources. To meet the needs of low-cost distributed sensing networks, sensors may need to be smaller, lower-power, simpler, and lower-cost than existing sensor technologies can provide.

While bulk production would certainly lower the cost of sensors, the key to dramatically reducing the price is merging MEMS and electronics onto the same substrate. Following the path of ICs, batch fabrication emerged in the 1980s. The reality though is that while batch fabrication methods have rapidly improved, systems-on-a-chip are still in their infancy, limited to so-called boutique processes where each step is married together for a specific chip and a specific application. The small number of manufactured pieces results in high cost per piece. Following the natural analog of the IC industry, only devices with a large perceived market will become commercially available at a very low price. Researchers in all disciplines should therefore closely examine their options in commercially-available off-the-shelf devices.

According to several workshop participants, a modular process for sensor fabrication is one way to keep costs down. As briefly mentioned in the previous section of this report, many researchers are investigating fabricating MEMS first followed by CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor), traditional integrated circuit technology. Others take the opposite

12

approach, integrating gyroscopes or optical MEMS onto CMOS devices. Materials like silicon germanium alloys are ideal for this purpose as they provide strong bonding, high quality, and can be deposited on the CMOS at much lower temperatures. Packaging the sensors to protect them from the potentially harsh environments where they will be deployed presents another fabrication problem. The packaging must protect the electronics at the same time allowing the sensors to take unobstructed measurements. The sensors themselves must also be capable of some level of automatic calibration in the field where dust or other substances can coat the sensing elements. While often neglected, packaging could become as large a challenge as device fabrication itself. This is certainly true for the IC industry. Doing a proper job of packaging requires a systems approach, with vertical integration of all levels of designers and users.

Another aspect of cost is the price of system integration, costs over and above the price of a sensor chip. The first step to reducing the price is the transformation from sensor to instrument, the integration and processing of several sensors at a given location. It was pointed out that building systems involves a certain amount of work that might not be considered part of “basic research” for a given discipline. This attitude needs to change. Here again vertical integration of the various skills needed to construct and operate a sensing system needs to happen from the project inauguration. Honda's team-based effort to construct its highly instrumented auto-adaptive engine is a quintessential success story of good vertical integration of skills.

Fig. 4 Roger Howe presenting “Trends in Integration Technologies for MEMS”

13

In the case of sensors, further research is necessary to identify the best design and related materials and fabrication approaches suited for parallel assembly and encapsulation in a foundry at an affordable cost. These challenges demand collaboration between electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, materials scientists, and, of course, representatives from the myriad disciplines who ultimately will use the devices. Indeed, cutting costs is a multidimensional problem that must be solved if sensors are to be distributed en masse for the applications discussed by the workshop participants.

2.2 Ease-of-Use

Not only must the sensors be inexpensive, they must be easy to configure and deploy. This problem is two-fold. The first challenge is developing hardware that can easily be configured to suit the needs of the application. Modularity of the sensing components is one possibility. While entire systems-on-a-chip can reduce cost, niche applications will require a very specific configuration of sensors. To that end, a communication/computation platform or separate platform segments could be manufactured in bulk. Then, a selection of sensors could be connected to the communication/computation platform to satisfy the sensing requirements of the particular application. This would not necessarily result in the most seamless, elegant, "perfect" solution. However, this approach would be the most empowering to the end users, freeing them from sole-source hardware solutions.

The extreme flexibility offered by sensor systems based largely on reconfigurable software is a double-edged sword. There is a near-infinite variety of detailed applications that can be addressed and number of possible system reactions to events. The power of this variety is matched by the difficulty in low-level programming of such sensing devices. The learning curve has proved to be very steep for users interested in real applications. In addition, the software/operating systems are still in their infancy, and there is significant difficulty in developing stable and reliable applications for any user. Perhaps one immediate solution is for the software developers to write simplified toolboxes of commands commonly used for instrumentation and experimentation. In actuality, a set of commands for this purpose would be quite compact because there is great commonality among expected experimental users.

If the systems are to be deployed in remote environments--uninhabited nature preserves or inside a building’s walls, for example--the networks themselves must be self-configuring. Firstly, if the sensors are to be deployed in the thousands, hand-configuration is simply not practical. Techniques are being considered that “virally” configure and program the sensors with new software, injecting new code into the network and letting it proliferate from sensor to sensor.

Additionally, the architectures of these future sensing networks are quite different than familiar network architectures like that of the Internet. The real world is noisy and unpredictable.

14

Tight power constraints may require that the sensor’s radio is almost always off, switching on only to transmit or receive data in short bursts. This means that the network itself cannot transmit much information about its own configuration or health. What is left is a probabilistic connectivity model. As a result of only having partial information about the network as a whole and the individual sensors themselves, new network algorithms are required.

2.3 Applications

Applications of sensing span nearly every engineering and scientific discipline. Civil engineers are particularly interested in instrumenting structures to monitor stability after earthquakes and other extreme events, and also as tools for structural health prognostication for the built infrastructure. If the sensors are inexpensive and robust enough, they can literally be installed inside the walls of a structure to gather data about how seismic waves move up a building.

NASA researchers are interested in furthering structural health prognostication to monitor space operation vehicles, in particular a vehicle’s thermal protection system. The aim here is to electronically inspect a vehicle’s structure so that it can return to space within twenty-four hours of landing, far speedier than the six months it takes currently to turn around the Space Shuttle. To do this, high temperature sensors are required. A similar effort is underway to develop a system that detects structural “hot spots” in an aircraft body that may suffer from corrosion or cracking. Embedding sensors within the structure of the aircraft could eliminate the high-cost and time necessary to de-skin a wing to inspect it.

Mark Derriso of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base presented related problems identified by the Air Force that are common to many engineering applications. Currently, satellite structures are made almost exclusively of composites, primarily carbon fiber-reinforced thermosetting polymers. In addition to their high specific stiffness and strength, carbon fiber composites have the great advantage of possessing extremely low coefficients of thermal expansion. Thus, they are used in antenna structures, sensor supports, and optical benches. It is well-known that residual stresses inherent in the laminate due to cool-down from the curing temperature, as well as the stresses caused by thermal cycling in orbit, can initiate and propagate microcracks which results in dimensional instability. The availability of sensors that can be embedded would allow for the monitoring of the initiation and growth of microcracks over the life of the spacecraft. By using a sensor array, the location and size of the micro-crack can be ascertained and, using mechanics of laminated materials (Lamb wave theory), the effect of the micro-cracks on distortion of the structure can be determined. Such information is invaluable for determining the effect of such behavior on critical satellite operational parameters, such as pointing accuracy. Note that this is

15

applicable to anyfiber-reinforced composite (FRC) structure, on Earth, in the atmosphere, or in space.

For military satellite and spacecraft applications, a distributed array of acoustic emission and displacement sensors would have the capability of identifying and locating damage created in composite spacecraft structures by directed energy beam weapons. The localized heat generated causes spallation, delamination, and micro-cracking within the layers comprising the composite. By employing an embedded MEMS-based sensor array, such damage can be quickly detected and located. In addition, a map of the resulting displacements, easily generated using suitable algorithms, could be used to back-calculate the energy of the impinging beam. Such "sensor-packed" surfaces can only be incorporated in primary and secondary satellite structures when they are small MEMS devices of the type proposed here. Otherwise, they could potentially interfere with the very structural and mechanical integrity of the spacecraft they are monitoring.

Fortunately, powerful advances in materials, new sensors, electronic communication, and information processing can be brought to bear on nondestructive evaluation of structural condition. Consider the following scenario:

Embedded sensors are installed at major load points in a critical bridge. Onboard intelligence discerns normal structural deterioration and meaningful damage, since not all crack growth in concrete is dangerous or avoidable. Sensors report the location and kinematics of damage during/after an earthquake, allowing rapid, accurate structural health determination. Public safety is assured as unseen structural damage is identified.

One of the earliest non-engineering disciplines at the forefront of sensing technology applications was biology. A large variety of chemical and biological sensors have been developed. Many of these devices are directly relevant to a large part of the engineering community, e.g. geo-environmental, but have largely gone ignored. This is an area where improved communication and joint research efforts could have tremendous benefit. Sensors are currently being tested in tree canopies to monitor the microclimates at varying heights in forests. Meanwhile, Intel Research is involved in a collaboration to deploy hundreds of sensor nodes on an uninhabited island off the cost of Maine to monitor an elusive species of nesting seabirds. Similar sensor and data manipulation technologies can aid environmental scientists in understanding how contaminants travel through soil.

As sensing technology is improved, myriad other applications arise. Portable chemical and biological sensor arrays are in development to detect chemical and biological weapons “on the spot” in airports and other high-risk facilities. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is calling for sensors to be integrated into drill bits to analyze rocks on Earth and other planet, perhaps even to detect

16

biological markers that signify the presence of extraterrestrial life. Instrumented drill bits could also aid crime investigators in determining if bodies are buried in concrete or walls. In addition to instrumenting equipment with sensors to expand its functionality, sensors would also be useful for equipment monitoring itself. For example, outfitting high-value machinery, from HVAC chillers to jet engines, could aid technicians in diagnosing the state of the system and predicting the expected longevity of its components.

While these are clearly niche applications, they reveal the breadth of sensor research possibilities.

2.4 System Design

In order to develop useful sensors, it is critical to first understand the physics of the parameters to be measured. Only then can appropriate sensors, with the necessary operability, be developed. In fact, many sensing problems and needs are chemical in nature, and require understanding of the chemistry of the parameters to be measured. Physics and chemistry are also important for the development of other components of distributed wireless sensing systems and networks, such as power sources, and radio frequency (RF) or optical communications.

Table 2: Some examples of application areas

Health monitoring of civil infrastructure, bridges, buildings, pipelines

Effects of extreme events in infrastructure

Security monitoring of critical infrastructure

Distributed environmental monitoring systems

Search and rescue systems

Process control

Biomedical monitoring

Homeland security

Supply-chain management

Smart buildings

Inventory tracking

Traffic monitoring/control

Energy-use monitoring/control

Aircraft/spacecraft structural health and control

17

The arena of wireless (RF) sensor nodes generated the most technical interest and creative thought at the workshop. A generic wireless sensor platform contains several key components, each with its own set of unique design challenges: an antenna, a power supply, a transceiver, signal processing, and a microprocessor running the sensing and networking software. The entire device must be robust, cost-effective, and potentially quite small. All of these are major sensor design challenges. There are many research opportunities in the area of RF MEMS, ranging from high Q resonators and low-loss switches to tunable components enabling the bandwidth and center frequency of the radio to be changed in situ.

It must be noted that wireless is not always the only or best solution for a given set of problems. RF uses great amounts of power compared to MEMS-based sensors and modern microcontrollers (MCUs). There are problems insuring privacy of the data transmission that have not yet been satisfactorily addressed. The quality of low power RF transmission is quite variable and susceptible to seemingly insignificant changes in surroundings. Such variables include orientation of antenna, distance from antenna to structural elements, proximity of water-bearing bodies, fog, etc. Data transmission rates over low power RF networks are often quite limited compared to the simplest wired bus. A single receiver can only receive one signal at a time, making true real-time operation impossible. A solution is for each sensor node to have permanent buffer memories and package the data to be sent into time-stamped, error-corrected packets to be transmitted in turn. This transmission could occur in pseudo real-time if the bandwidth is sufficient for rapid downloading of multiple sequential data streams. Accurate time synchronization in the network is then required.

Another issue often ignored is that it is impossible to transmit information-carrying RF signals through earth materials. Simple substitution of the relevant properties into the Maxwell equations and applicable equations from information theory will show that a wavelength long enough to travel, for instance, 100 meters through soil or rock, will have a frequency too low to carry any information.

Numerous approaches to powering tiny sensors are being considered. Power requirements depend greatly on the application. For example, a sensor on a missile would only draw power for a very short period of time. On the other hand, a sensor network to monitor a building’s structural health would ideally be self-sustaining for a decade or more. Batteries may be suitable for some applications. Solar power supplies can be effective in well-lit environments. Progress is also being made in power-scavenging--using piezoelectric techniques to convert ambient motion, the vibration of HVAC ducts for example, to generate power. Battery life and energy density are expected to improve with time. However, battery improvements have not kept pace with the rest of the electronics industry.

18

2.5 Data Management and Interpretation

Data is valuable only if it is used. Given thousands of sensor devices, what will researchers do with all the data that's streaming in? Who is going to look at it all? For example, how much data does NASA throw away every day that nobody has ever looked at? To manage the firehose of data, sensor network researchers might look at data integration in a broad sense, processing and concentrating the data locally within the network. In the end, the user wants information, not numbers. One approach is to synthesize our design models with the data to be collected--sensing is a link between the real world and an abstract world. The user can then predict through simulations the expected system properties and whether the data interrogation is correct. This synthesis leads to adaptive data interrogation systems where the interpretive section of the loop can tell the sensor system to record on a different granularity or measure different variables. In any instance some aspects of the system--sensors or model--will be system independent while others will be system specific.

"The systems that we develop in the next 10 years will fall short of their potential if... developments in (information and decision systems) are not being studied at the same time." (Bartoli)

Data collected by sensor networks is multi-dimensional. A single sensor can gather data about temperature, humidity, light, and a host of other variables. With power and bandwidth at a premium, embedding some local processing capabilities within the sensor networks is desirable. For example, the temperature data gathered from numerous sensors could be fed into one or more other sensors on the network for processing. A weighted average could then be calculated and transmitted to the user, significantly reducing the amount of data flying around the network. Furthermore, database systems must enable researchers to query the sensor network as a user-friendly virtual database rich with raw information about the real world.

Consider this scenario:

A massive corporate campus is equipped with motes in every room keeping a constant vigil on light and sound. One use for the sensor network would be to locate unoccupied conference rooms by checking for noise or if the lights are on. Using a classic database system, the administrator of the sensor network would have to write several hundred lines of computer code to collect the light and sound information from every mote, coordinate how that data hops across the network, aggregate the readings, and forward all of the information to a PC that determines which rooms are occupied. Once written, the software would have to be installed in every mote across the campus.

19

Experimental sensor network databases like TinyDB (Intel Research/UC Berkeley) enable a user to gather the information he or she desires by posing a simple query in a familiar database language. TinyDB's declarative query language allows the user to describe the desired data--the average noise level in a building, for example--without having to tell the software how to acquire that data. The data processing is embedded in the network.

" Starting out from the fact that you have these severe constraints, you have this very noisy environment, you’re always working with partial information, the kinds of algorithms you need to employ at the lowest level are quite different.” (Culler)

At its most fundamental level, data interpretation requires knowledge of the uncertainties involved in taking the measurement. Perhaps because of the youth of the field, quantification of error and uncertainties in a sensor network has been neglected. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Hardware solutions must include auto-calibration so that rational estimates of uncertainty can be made. System solutions must include sensor output validation with independent measurements, thorough integration of sensors, and predictive modeling.

2.6 Sensor Networks

The dream of sensor networks is described well by David Culler of UC Berkeley: Spread thousands of wireless sensor nodes casually over an arbitrary area of interest. The sensors then self-organize into a network conveying arbitrary information from any point to any other at whatever bandwidth is demanded. All the while, the sensors operate at incredibly low energy usage (i.e., off most of the time), running for years on small batteries and harvested energy. They're extremely responsive in times of key activity, without ever bothering the deployer about design considerations, intended usage, faults, or constraints.

Right now, there is no ad-hoc, multi-hop, robust, low-power network that meets all these “requirements," and getting there is a difficult challenge. However, there is a host of interesting and important research that is moving sensor networks toward a more realistic version of Culler's scenario. Meanwhile, real applications can be achieved along the way , enabling the technology to evolve in response to actual, rather than perceived demands.

Smart devices that self-assemble into networks open up a paradigm that the research community is not necessarily familiar with. The paradigm of sensor networking allows engineers and scientists to move beyond the idea of a sensor as a single little instrument that measures one thing to a system of many small nodes working cooperatively. Once the sensing problem is looked at as a system, the determination of optimal physical locations becomes an important open issue. Where must a sensor be placed to accurately measure what is requested? How must the physical interface between sensor and structure be constructed? The user must decide up front whether the

20

data will be used for increasing basic understanding of some phenomena or for monitoring any change of state.

Due to inherent and severe constraints, the networking component of future sensor networks will look very different from the power-hungry, sparsely-instrumented IT world. Sensor network constraints include noisy environments, dynamic situations, and user access to only partial information. Low power consumption requirements mean that the radio is rarely on. However, the self-organized and distributed nature of the network provides opportunity to work across layers of abstraction, and presents a rich set of open problems.

In the huge realm of sensor research, applications define the valid assumption sets for network design and guide the front of progress. Data traffic within the network can be any-to-any, all-to-one, one-to-all, or a collection of sub-paths. Data rates can be a steady low-bandwidth steam of readings/findings, bursts of data, or periodic logs. Duration, or system lifetime, can be years (hazard alarm), months (field season), or minutes. The available infrastructure will vary tremendously among applications or within a single application. Other variables include options and constraints in power, base-stations, distribution (all fixed, all mobile, or a mixture), time synchronization, localization, and proximity. For generality and flexibility, the network should be able to handle heterogeneous data and account for time delays and system latencies. A sensor network also allows a trade-off to be made between utilizing more, less accurate sensors. For instance stacking several $8 accelerometers at a single location might yield the same accuracy as a single $800 device, a savings of two orders of magnitude.

“The systems in order to be unattended have to be self-configuring. So from a computer scientist perspective who is involved in doing internet-related design for many years, this is a very different context and you can't just take a lot of the technology that we've developed that works quite well in the context of internet and the distributed systems you all use at home and assume that they'll apply here..." (Estrin)

Already, humidity sensors, barometric sensors, and dozens of other measurement devices can be bought off the shelf. If these devices are integrated with a receiver and microcontroller, their usefulness dramatically increases. The sum of the sensor data is much more than the data each sensor provides. Suddenly, valuable information can be pumped from the network instead of massive amounts of raw data. At this point, the network becomes the sensor.

2.7 Test Beds

It was universally agreed that developing well-documented test beds should be the top priority of NSF and the other funding organizations. An effective test bed should demonstrate a

21

practical and complete sensing network, including robust wireless communications and long-lived power sources. These test beds should be used to tackle meaningful, but solvable problems.

If the network is indeed the sensor, utmost importance must be placed on putting entire networks through their paces. While some early experiments can be conducted in a laboratory environment, most of the hurdles in building a working system can only be revealed, and repaired, by deploying it in-situ. Workshop participants focused on such diverse problems as chemical sensing, seismic stability, and environmental monitoring all stressed the necessity of field studies. A sensor dropped in a burrow to monitor the activity of nesting birds is of no use if the birds chew through its circuitry. A solar-powered sensor network in a corn field isn't helpful if there's less sunlight than expected. The goal of researchers then is to identify real world applications where sensor networks may provide value and actually deploy those networks, even on a small scale. That way, the participants agreed, the hardware and software can be put through its paces.

However, it's not enough to gather data that engineers find interesting. The hardware and software researchers must collaborate with the individuals who actually will use the data in the course of their research. Again, a cross-disciplinary approach and vertical integration of skills is the only way this is possible. Sensor network researchers must team up with integrative biologists, chemical engineers, structural engineers, physicists, etc. in order to find out what kind of data they want to see from a particular network. Then, once the hardware and software kinks of

Fig. 5 GeoEngineering affinity table

22

the network are worked out in the field, the data must be studied to establish its accuracy as compared to data collected using other methods of observation.

A sample of test beds in development or operation include:

• A sensor network of "motes" peppering a remote island off Maine to aid in the study of the nesting patterns of petrels. (Intel Research/UC Berkeley)

• A 65-sensor mote grid deployed in a vineyard to guide irrigation and planting. (King Family Farms/Intel Research/AgCanada)

• Seismometers installed on the San Andreas Fault to calculate the depth of the fault, locate accumulating stress, and potentially improve earthquake prediction. (UCLA Center for Embedded Networked Sensing)

• A sensor network on the historic Masada mountaintop palace in Israel to aid in determining why the massive limestone building blocks are shifting and cracking. (UC Berkeley)

• Bridge monitoring wired sensor arrays. (UI-Chicago)

• Monitoring of tunnel wall deformations, London Underground. (MIT)

• A variety of installations to explore structural health prognostication data gathering and analysis techniques. (LANL)

3. Programmatic Needs of Participating Governmental Agencies3.1 NSF

Dr. Filbert Bartoli, chair of the NSF's sensors working group, presented the NSF Sensors initiative. His working group contains members from each of the six divisions within the Engineering Directorate. The broad interest in new sensor technologies across NSF has led to a multi-year solicitation in sensor and sensor network research. The intent is to address sensing and sensors on both a component and system level for data gathering, information management, decision-making, and action.

The primary goal of the NSF is to advance fundamental knowledge of sensors and sensor systems, in any application area, with some particular thrust areas listed in table. 3.1. The approach presented focused on three categories. The first is new sensors and sensor components, the second is systems and networks, and the third is interpretation and use of sensed data. Of these three areas, sensor networks will clearly be the immediate growth area. A prudent reader will note that this view conforms to the traditional disciplines of electrical engineering, computer science,

23

civil, and mechanical engineering. The emphasis is not necessarily on establishing multidisciplinary research through specific applications.

3.2 NISTThe National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is primarily a research

organization but funds extramural research through the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The mission of ATP is "to accelerate the development of innovative technologies for broad national benefits through partnerships with the private sector." The ATP has an annual budget in the tens of millions of dollars, with an average project receiving $1 million per year for up to three years. The investigators own the intellectual property, and ATP helps integrate the business and technical aspects of the concept. The review of the proposal is judged on a 50% technical and 50% business-plan basis. The technical aspect must show a high amount of innovation above the present state of the art, but be based on sound physics backed up by preliminary data. The business plan must show broad economic benefits on a national scale, and make a solid case that ATP is the best source of funding to develop and grow the business.

When initiated, ATP was focused on large corporations that could match the NIST grants with millions of their own dollars. In recent years there has been a change of focus to include small firms and university researchers who want to undertake commercializing very innovative

Table 3: Some interest areas for NSF sensor initiatives

MEMS sensors

Sensor networks

Packaging

Data visualization

Distributed sensing

Sensor security

Information and decision systems

Very broadband wireless communications

Integration of ubiquitous computing

Intelligent sensors and data self-management

New sensor functionalities and improved performance

Integration of sensors into engineered systems

Integration of sensed data into the decision-making process

24

technologies. The segment of ATP most relevant to the sensor community is the Smart Advanced Materials and Structural Systems. After 9-11, there has been an active effort to fund research relevant to homeland security, an area in need of new and cost-effective sensing technology.

3.3 NIH

An extremely large source of funding for advanced research is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH has more than 27 funding entities and an annual budget of $27,000,000,000 (billion!) of which 85% goes to funding extramural research. The engineering community has traditionally ignored NIH funding, and, in fairness, the NIH has ignored the engineering community. An attempt to bring expertise in physics, engineering, material science, and mathematics into the biomedical arena has led to the forming of the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), the goals of which are to develop fundamentally new knowledge, foster new technologies, facilitate cross-cutting research, and nurture a new generation of researchers able to reach across traditional disciplinary boundaries.

The NIH proposal process is a bit more "onerous" than NSF, since the proposed work must be presented as a hypothesis to be proved, with some direct connection to biomedical problems and realities. However, the 2003 budget for NIBIB is $271 million. NIBIB currently is interested in four main approaches: hypotheses testing, novel designs, specific problems, and new technologies. The initial thrust areas are biomaterials, biosensors, nanoscience, bioinformatics, biomedical imaging, and image guided therapies and intervention. The director of NIBIB would very much like to see proposals from the engineering sensors community. The program is new

Fig. 6 Donna Dean, Fil Bartoli, Daniel Flaherty, and Esin Gulari at the opening reception

25

and acting director Dr. Donna Dean is refreshingly open to unique methods and goals. As Dr Dean said several times at the workshop, "There is a lot NIBIB does not know."

3.4 AFRL

The federal government is possibly the largest owner of manufactured infrastructure, with a large percentage comprised of military assets. In particular, the Air Force has many serious performance and maintenance issues involving aircraft. Major Mark Derriso of the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson AFB presented some current and future needs for new and advanced sensor systems. In particular, there is a need for structural health monitoring and prognosis, a need reiterated by speakers from Los Alamos, JPL, the European Community, and many other workshop participants. This research has major commonalities across all the engineering application areas and is ripe for interdisciplinary work. Examples include field testing of bonded repairs to FRP structures, and localizing zones of fracture and corrosion growth. This research is important to the transportation infrastructure community as well as to aerospace engineers and biomedical personnel. Some other areas of concern to the Air Force that are of direct interest to sensor researchers include high-temperature sensors of most kinds, high-reliability sensors, optimization of sensor systems to minimize weight, and reliable wireless technology. These problems involve common aspects and should attract the talents of sensor engineers from the public and private sector. These are real and challenging problems that must be answered with reliable, cost effective solutions.

3.5 Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan

Dr. Yoshikazu Goto of the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry also provided workshop participants with an interesting and informative look at MITI's needs related to sensor research. In particular, MITI hopes to spur interest in the maintenance of existing infrastructure and plants as opposed to building new structures. As a maturing economy, Japan must find a way to prosper by meeting society's daily needs in a sustainable way (as opposed to unbridled growth). This includes environmental restoration and preservation, public health and safety, and extending the usable lifetime of existing infrastructure. These issues are relevant to Europe and North America as well. As mentioned by virtually every speaker, sensors could play a pivotal role in Japan's restoration and preservation plans.

MITI believes that the greatest funding opportunities for researchers is to be gained by realizing the overwhelming need to integrate sensing technologies with the major technological thrust areas of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the environment. To this end, test beds become a vital way to come to standardization of data, acquisition, and sharing, as does vertical integration of science, technology, industries, operators, and owners. Both of these areas were discussed in depth at the conference and outlined in this report.

26

4. Some Recommendations and Mechanisms for Structuring Interdisciplinary and Interagency Coordination on Joint Sensor Systems Research Initiatives and Stimulating Cooperation Among Academic, Industry, and Federal Researchers

4.1 Vertical Integration of Skills

One of the conference goals was to make a case for vertical integration. There is a traditional model of funding where individuals, perhaps electrical or mechanical engineers, ask for money to develop a single device. In the end, that sensor was developed in isolation and rarely reaches the laboratories of those who would use it for real applications. Prof. Jiri Janata talked about 30,000 papers on chemical sensors being published each year, yet very few such sensors are available to an interested user. What if these pieces were developed with some vertical input up front?

To ensure that new sensors are developed to address important needs and are useful and affordable, it is suggested that the user groups involved in important applications (academic disciplines, national labs, etc.) be involved both in writing requests for proposals for new sensing system developments, and in evaluation of the proposals. It is desirable to get understanding and support for programs in sensing system technology from all stakeholders in infrastructure security and maintenance. This can include insurance companies, engineering societies and organizations, owners, and industry, as well as national, state and local government organizations. Strategic scenarios (e.g. infrastructure security and maintenance and homeland defense) are needed in order to get practical support from the government and public for a major sensing system initiative.

Again, if these devices are developed in isolation, nobody will use them. This workshop revealed that every aspect of sensor research--from device design to application development--requires the skills of a variety of individuals if any real world value is to be expected. For example, the development and optimal integration of a wireless sensor takes knowledge of RF, networking, MEMS design, programming, and whatever field of study that the sensor data is expected to inform. None of these pieces is more important than the other.

With the traditional model of funding, the pieces can be completed individually but they will exist in distant parts of the world, or different buildings on a university campus, and will not result in a system that's truly useful. Another area ripe for research is the synthesis of modeling interpretation with sensing. Think of the synergistic research benefits if the modeler sits down with someone who actually measures things? The experimentalist would have a better idea what needs to be measured to be useful to the model, and the modeler would have a more accurate understanding of what constitutes a model that could work in the real world. Multi-disciplinary teams of dedicated researchers working toward a shared goal are the key to bringing the future sensor networks described in this report from the lab bench into the real world.

27

4.2 Research Initiatives

It is desirable to gain understanding and support for programs in sensing system technology from all stakeholders in infrastructure security and maintenance. This can include insurance companies, engineering societies and organizations, owners, and industry, as well as national, state and local government organizations. Inside the US, champions within many government and industry organizations are needed in order to support a major initiative in sensing systems: DOT, DOE, DOD, GSA, and NASA. Test beds can bring developers and users together, and demonstrate the feasibility and the economics of new sensing systems. An effective test bed should demonstrate a practical and complete sensing network, including robust wireless communications and long-lived power sources. These test beds should address challenging, meaningful, but achievable problems. On a larger scale, strategic scenarios (e.g. infrastructure security and maintenance, homeland defense) are needed in order to get practical support from the government and public for a major sensing system initiative. Many real-world sensing system problems involve retrofit of existing structures, machinery and equipment, and technologies suitable for retrofit should be emphasized.

To ensure that new sensors are developed to address important needs and are useful and affordable, it is suggested that user groups involved in important applications (academic disciplines, national labs, etc.) be involved both in writing requests for proposals for new sensing system developments, and in evaluation of the proposals. Perhaps the most manageable method would be the formation of small teams of 3-5 researchers to develop integrated sensor systems from sensor node to web notification information transfer. The funding agencies should support the entire span of the system's packaging from first principles to final operation.

Problems of maintaining and securing infrastructure are common between the US, Europe and Japan. International cooperation would be valuable, and should be encouraged. Government agencies that could be involved include the European Science Foundation, and METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry in Japan). The workshop served as a platform for U.S. - E.U. cooperation to move beyond pleasant conversations. Several joint U.S. - Japan sensor meetings also began to take shape during the workshop.

4.3 Role of the Private Sector

Although the NSF focuses on university research, the private sector plays a vital role in sensor research and development. In fact, sensors would not be widely and inexpensively available if they were not manufactured by the private sector. Both small businesses and large industries are key to sensor proliferation. Small businesses are often closely tied to academic researchers, and are agile enough to take new ideas to market quickly. Examples include Crossbow, Dust Inc., and MicroStrain. Given the enormous capital investment required to build

28

and operate a MEMS fabrication facility, the strength and power of large industry is often required to bring research to fruition. Examples in the MEMS-based sensor field include Honeywell, Analog Devices, and Delphi. The workshop featured a panel discussion with representatives of small businesses, large industries, and venture capitalists.

Most of the academic research in sensors involves fabrication or novel designs to solve a particular problem not solved by a commercial product. Often though, the unique sensors designed in academia could be of use to other researchers and engineers. Most small business start-ups in sensors grow out of these kinds of situations. Several participants who discussed the business of sensor networks outlined the importance of identifying potential products and possible markets. A distinction was made between a dream and a pragmatic, realistic path for commercialization.

A successful business plan has a thought-out focus and path where the end goal is helping a client solve a real, not merely perceived, problem. Often, the simplest solution is the best, most cost effective, and marketable. The speakers forcefully emphasized that a start-up should focus on specific client needs. Casting a net over too wide a market leads to lack of focus and a hopeless dilution of staff and resources. A successful business plan identifies the customer base as well as the technology base. It should always be remembered that only about 10% of high technology start-ups are successful. For those that do succeed, the biggest challenge becomes growth and stability over the long-term.

At the workshop, two suggested approaches to financing new firms emerged. One is to develop an idea or product and then try to acquire funding from venture capitalists or corporate incubators. The other is to start out very lean, working hard for little remuneration, and plow all proceeds back into building the company. Each approach has positives and negatives. A good VC can bring advanced business skills to the table along with important relationships throughout the industry. They can supply an impartial point of view. These services come at a cost though, often much more than half the company's stock and the loss of IP rights by the inventors. Independently bootstrapping a firm involves tremendous sacrifices by the founders and employees, and might not be an option for innovators with, for example, family responsibilities.

The workshop participants came to broad agreement that there needs to be a smoothly operating and realistic system whereby the research migrates from the university to industry (i.e., fund research, identify start-ups, or integrate with existing applications). One way is to promote "people exchanges" between academia and industry (internships for faculty) to have more effective technology transfer, but a mechanism must be found to make the exchanges more practical and used than GOALI and SBIR types of programs

29

4.4 Projects Spawned from workshop

An informal survey of participants several months after the workshop highlights the event's success in inspiring new collaborations, proposals, and further research on the topics covered. The following are a sample of those:

Prof. Rich Claus, Virginia Tech: "Our university interviewed two of the participants of the workshop for possible faculty jobs here at Virginia Tech. Wrote three proposals with organizations represented at the workshop, in part based generally on topics presented or discussed. Did a small project and wrote a conference paper concerning an item that came up during one of the breakout sessions."

Prof. Carl Haas, University of Texas: "We ended up writing the attached proposal to NSF, which is a collaborative effort between EE, CE, and Arch E to develop multi-tiered ad hoc network technology for construction state sensing. The unique part is how it would be used to track 3D position of construction objects. Thank you for creating the environment and experience that got this effort off the ground."

Yoshikazu Goto, PhD, Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI): METI and NSF jointly hosted 'METI-NSF workshop on Sensing System: Opportunities and Challenges in Application to Management of the Infrastructures."

Prof. Norbert Meyendorf, University of Dayton: "We submitted a proposal to the NSF program. I had a lot of discussions with my colleges from Germany. They are in the process of developing a Fraunhofer Sensor Center. Especially the network aspect was new for them. Some joint activities are in progress. I was involved in the preparation of Kroening's plenary talk at the SPIE Symposium on Smart Structures and NDE in March in San Diego. The workshop was important for the concept of the talk. The Center for Materials Diagnostics in Dayton is intensifying the sensor activities. And of course, I made a lot of important contacts."

Prof. Steven L. McCabe, University of Kansas: "At NSF/CMS we are working on a new solicitation for providing funding for NEES research. A prominent feature of this imitative is strongly encouraging the inclusion of secondary research projects in the mix of work within each proposal. These are intended to be sensors and other non-load carrying items that 'go along for the ride.' This is a direct result of the workshop - and hopefully will result in a great deal of cooperative work on both the structural and nonstructural systems."

Prof. Kristofer Pister, UC Berkeley, Dust Inc.: "Attending the Future Sensing Systems workshop provided some of the inspiration for me to create Dust Inc., a startup company working to commercialize the research done in part under NSF funding on the Smart Dust and TinyOS projects."

30

Prof. R. Edward Minchin Jr., University of Florida: "Barry Alexia and I have scheduled a meeting with a Penn State professor to take the next step in writing a proposal or two for the NSF SBIR Program. I met Barry at our Lake Tahoe workshop and we began discussions there. I also cultivated another relationship that will hopefully lead to some proposals. Please let me know when the next one of those will take place. I'm very interested in attending."

4.5 Success of Workshop Format

We believe that the workshop was a success for many reasons. Perhaps most important is the way researchers from very different backgrounds worked and communicated so well with each other. If it can be done at a workshop, it can be done at an NSF proposal review panel. As can be gleaned from the comments in section 5.2 and Appendix 1, the participants thought the workshop was a tremendous learning experience. This single event has led to the founding of new companies and submission of proposals that did not exist before the workshop.

The workshop provided an opportunity for researchers from different countries to converge in a relaxed and informative environment. For example, there was a strong interaction between NSF program directors and their counterparts from Europe, hopefully leading to joint research

Fig. 7 Our after-dinner speaker

31

that's been too long in the talking stage. There was real dialogue between industrial and academic researchers, with both sides of the research coin gaining insight into the needs and realities of the other.

For the organizers, perhaps the defining moment came on Wednesday during the presentation of the fifth breakout group. The presenter, who had stated on numerous occasions that he "hated" civil and mechanical engineering, presented a thorough and thoughtful discussion of structural health monitoring and prognostication of a bridge's stability. The presentation was given with feeling and passion.

Appendix 1: Feedback from Participants

The following is a sample of unsolicited comments from the participants about the success

of the workshop:

"What a nice event: great people, great place, great food... just GREAT! During those 2+

days I did my share of thinking and listening, and this will have a direct impact in an

upcoming proposal." - Prof. J. Carlos Santamarina, Georgia Institute of Technology

“I enjoyed the meeting and the opportunity to meet many participants with expertise that

may help my activity in the future and of course learn about the potential programs that may

appear in the pipeline." - Yoseph Bar-Cohen, Senior Research Scientist and Group Leader,

NDEAA Technologies, JPL

"Good conference and much good discussion!" - Donna J. Dean, Ph.D., Acting Director,

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health

"Thanks again for organizing this workshop. The presentations were very good and it was

a great opportunity for me to meet several key people. I hope it leads to the geotech

community getting more involved in sensor R&D." - Prof. Bruce Kutter, Dept. of Civil

Engineering, University of California, Davis

"Remember, multi-dimensional sensors are the next wave in sensor development and we

will need to be able to collect, integrate, reduce, transmit, store and evaluate this type of data.

Because of this workshop, I met a number of people that I hope to team with in the future." -

Herbert H. Hill, Professor of Chemistry, Washington State University

32

" Thank you for your valuable effort on organizing this workshop. This is an impressive

experience to me." - Tzu-Yang Yu, Graduate student, MIT

" I think that the workshop was a great success! I enjoyed very much the multi-

disciplinary aspect of it and the contacts I made. You did an excellent job!" - Prof. Joel P.

Conte, Dept. of Structural Engineering, University of California at San Diego

"I personally learned a lot from (the workshop) and will hopefully be able to take

advantage of the information when formulating new research and application ideas..! I met a

number of old friends as well as many new colleagues. I had meaningful discussions with

them about emerging sensor technologies and especially applications." - Prof. Sibel Pamukcu,

Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng., Lehigh University

"It was a great 'mini sabbatical for thought.'" - Prof. Robert L. Clark, Director, Center for

Biologically Inspired Matls. and Material Systems, Duke University

"It was very well organized and informative." - Prof. Xiangwu (David) Zeng, Dept. of

Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University

" I found the workshop to be very valuable, informative, and a great place to develop new

contacts in this field." - Jerome (Jay) F. Jakubczak, Deputy Director for Defense Program

Microsystems Applications, Sandia National Laboratories

"Congratulations on an excellent trend setting workshop." - Prof. Ahmed Elgamal,

Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego

"Congrats on a well-executed contribution to the community." - Deborah Estrin, Director,

Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, University of California, Los Angeles

Dat

a in

tegr

atio

nS

mar

t dev

ices

and

se

lf-as

sem

blin

g ne

twor

ks

Inte

grat

ion

of n

ew

sens

ing

and

com

mun

icat

ion

tech

in

to p

ract

ice

Sym

biot

ic s

ynth

esis

of

cons

titut

e m

odel

ing,

in

terp

reta

tion,

and

se

nsin

g

From

phy

sics

to u

sefu

ll an

d af

ford

able

sen

sors

Bajc

syF.

-K.

Chan

gAlexi

aFa

rrar

Hoc

ker

Ber

ndA

ktan

Als

haw

abke

hA

rms

And

erso

nB

ernh

ard

Civ

era

Blo

omqu

ist

Bar

toli

Bal

agur

uB

ohrin

ger

Con

teC

lark

Ber

rill

Bar

-Coh

enC

ulle

rC

rave

roD

erris

oD

oolin

Cas

ciat

iFa

rave

lliD

ean

Duw

elEs

trin

Cla

usFl

atau

Feng

Elga

mal

Gro

sse

Dub

eyH

illFe

rsch

wei

ler

Gha

ndeh

ari

Livi

ngst

onFr

eric

hsH

orto

nH

aas

Gul

ari

Mag

onet

teG

arci

aH

utch

inso

nH

ines

Hie

rold

McC

abe

Got

oK

apan

iaJa

nata

Kud

vaM

ole

Har

dyK

utte

rM

artin

Liu

Mos

siH

owe

O’C

onno

rM

eyen

dorf

Min

chin

Palli

xJa

kubc

zak

Pete

r Cha

ngN

guye

nN

elso

nSa

ntam

arin

aK

irem

idjia

nR

aoPa

muk

cuSa

ilor

Shou

resh

iO

ppen

heim

Sam

ehSh

elto

nSh

eaha

nSi

nha

Opp

enhe

imSc

hultz

Shke

lSi

ngh

Tom

izuk

aPi

nes

Smith

Smar

rSu

gano

Tran

Pist

erW

ang

Taya

Wol

frum

Vija

y Va

rada

nSh

rout

Zeng

Vasu

Var

adan

Wu

Zhan

gG

oeth

als &

Fla

herty

Wu

& K

imZh

ang

& Y

uA

nder

son

& C

how

anda

disa

iR

avin

dran

& R

uiz-

Sand

oval

33

Appendix 2: Work group assignments

34

Prof. A. Emin AktanDrexel University215-895-6135 www.di3.drexel.edu

Barry M. Alexia, PhD. VP, Corporate & Business Development Wireless & RFMEMS Ardesta, LLC www.ardesta.com

Prof. Akram N. Alshawabkeh Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering 360 Huntington Ave Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115

Gary L. Anderson US Army Research Office P. O. Box 12211 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Kimberly Anderson Graduate Research Associate Colorado School of Mines 2401 East St. Apt. 205 Golden, CO 80401

Steven W. Arms President, CEO MicroStrain, Inc. 310 Hurricane Lane, Suite 4 Williston, VT 05495-2082 www.microstrain.com

Ruzena Bajcsy Professor and Director of CITRIS 665 Soda Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720

P.N.Balaguru, Ph.D. Program Director, Infrastructure Materials and Structural Mechanics, Div. Civil and Mechanical Systems National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Suite 545 Arlington,VA 22230

Dr. Filbert J. Bartoli Program Director, Electronics, Photonics and Device Technologies Integrative Systems Program Elect. and Comm. Systems Division National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 675 Arlington, VA 22230 www.eng.nsf.gov

Prof. Jennifer T. Bernhard University of Illinois, UC Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1406 W. Green St., MC 702, Urbana, IL 61801 www.ece.uiuc.edu/fachtml/bernhard

John Berrill Dept of Civil Engineering Univ of Canterbury PB 4800 Christchurch 8009, New Zealand www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/

David Bloomquist Dept. Civil and Coastal Engineering 124 Yon Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 352 392-0914

Prof. Karl F. Bohringer University of Washington, Dept. Electrical Engineering www.ee.washington.edu/faculty/karl

Prof. Fabio Casciati Dept. of Structural Mechanics University of Pavia via Ferrata 1 - 27100 Pavia - Italy

Prof. Fu-Kuo Chang Dept. of Aero/Astro Durand 385 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305

Vorapat Chowanadisai Graduate Student Researcher 485 Davis Hall, University of California Berkeley, CA 94720

Prof. Pierluigi Civera Dipartimento di Elettronica Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 I-10129 Torino

Prof. Richard O. Claus Fiber Optics Research Center Virginia Tech , Mail Code 0356, Blacksburg, VA 24061 www.ece.vt.edu/faculty/claus.html

Prof. Robert L. Clark Director, Center for Biologically Inspired Matls. and Material Systems Duke University Box 90300 Durham, NC 27708-0300 http://mems.egr.duke.edu/ASASlab/

Yoseph Bar-Cohen Senior Research Scientist and Group Leader, NDEAA Technologies JPL (82-105) 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109-8099 http://ndeaa.jpl.nasa.gov

Prof. Joel P. Conte University of California at San Diego Dept. of Structural Engineering 258 SERF Building La Jolla, CA 92093 http://www.structures.ucsd.edu

Masantonio Cravero C.S. Fisica Rocce e Geotecnologie CNR c/o Dip.to Georisorse e Territorio, Politecnico di Torino C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24 10129 TORINO, ITALY

Appendix 3. Attendees

35

Prof. David Culler 627 Soda Hall, University of California Berkeley CA 94720-1776

Donna J. Dean, Ph.D. Acting Director, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering National Institutes of Health, Bldg 31, Room 1B37, MSC 2077, 31 Center Drive Bethesda, MD 20892-2077 www.nibib.nih.gov

Mark M. Derriso Electronics Engineer AFRL/VASM 2790 D. Street WPAFB, OH 45433

David Doolin Dept. of Civil Engineering 440 Davis Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720

Dr. Madan Dubey Research Physical Scientist US Army Research Lab SEDD, AMSRL-SE-RL 2800 Powder Mill Rd Adelphi, MD 20783

Amy E. Duwel Sr. Techncial Staff, MEMS Group Draper Laboratory MS37, 555 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139 www.draper.com

Prof. Ahmed Elgamal University of California, San Diego Department of Structural Engineering SERF Blng Rm. 255, MC-0085 La Jolla, CA 92093-0085

Deborah Estrin Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing Boelter Hall, Box 951596 Los Angeles CA 90095-1596 http://lecs.cs.ucla.edu/estrin

Prof. Lucia Faravelli Dept. of Structural Mechanics University of Pavia via Ferrata 1 - 27100 Pavia - Italy

Chuck Farrar Technical Staff Member MS T-006 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545 www.lanl.gov/projects/damage_id

Prof. Maria Feng University of California Dept. of Civil Engineering E4139 Engineering Gateway Irvine, CA 92697-2175

Daniel Flaherty Graduate Research Associate Colorado School of Mines 2401 East St. Apt. 205 Golden, CO 80401

Alison Flatau Dynamic Systems & Control Program Sensor Technologies for Civil & Mechanical Systems Program National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd., room 545 Arlington, VA 22230

Michael Frerichs Managing Director Smart Structures LLC. 233 N. Garrard Rantoul, IL 61866 www.smartstructuresllc.com

Prof. Masoud Ghandehari Polytechnic University Civil Engineering Dept. Six Metrotech Center, Brooklyn NY, 11201

Prof. Steven D. Glaser Dept. of Civil Engineering 440 Davis Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 www.ce.berkeley.edu/~glaser

Jan Goethals Undergraduate Researcher Dept. of Civil Engineering 440 Davis Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720

Yoshikazu Goto, Ph.D Director, International Projects Promotion Office, Manufacturing Industries Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (government of Japan) Kasumigaseki 1-3-1, Chiyoda-ku, TOKYO, JAPAN, 100-8901

Dr. Christian Grosse Institute of Construction Materials University of Stuttgart Pfaffenwaldring 4 D - 70569 Stuttgart Germany

Esin Gulari Acting Assistant Director for Engineering National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 505 Arlington, VA 22230

Prof. Carl Haas Dept. of Civil Eng., The Universoty of Texas www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/haas/

36

J. (Jim) E. Hardy Leader, Sensor and Instrument Research Group ORNL P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6004 www.ornl.gov/engineering_science_technology/sms/smsgrp.html

Christofer Hierold Professor for Micro- and Nanosystems ETH Zentrum, CLA H9 Tannenstr. 3 CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland

Herbert H. Hill Professor of Chemistry Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164

Dr. G. Benjamin Hocker Honeywell Laboratories 12001 State Highway 55 Plymouth, MN 55441-4799

Mike Horton President, Crossbow Technology 41 Daggett Drive San Jose, CA 95134 www.xbow.com

Prof. Roger T. Howe EECS Dept., 231 Cory Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-1770 www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~howe

Tara C. Hutchinson, Ph.D., P.E. University of California Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering 4130 Engineering Gateway Irvine, CA 92697

Jerome (Jay) F. Jakubczak Deputy Director for Defense Program Microsystems Applications Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800, MS 1080 Albuquerque, NM 87185-1080 www.sandia.gov/mems/sensors/sensor_about.html

Prof. Jiri (Art) Janata School of Chemistry and Biochemistry Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0400 www.chemistry.gatech.edu/faculty/janata/j_janata.html

Dr. Rakesh K. Kapania Professor, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering 215 Randolph Hall Virginia Tech. Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0203 http://www.aoe.vt.edu/aoe/faculty/kapfac.html

Prof. Anne S. Kiremidjian Civil and Environmental Engineering Terman 238 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4020

Yong Yook Kim Graduate Assistant Virginia Tech 2000 Foxhunt Ln. Apt. I, Blacksburg, VA 24060

Dr. Jayanth N. Kudva Manager, Structures Technology Development Nothrop Grumman Dept. 9L11/W2 One Hornet Way El Segundo, CA - 90245

Prof. Bruce Kutter Dept. of Civil Engineering University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616

Shih Chi Liu, Ph.D. Program Director, Sensors Technology Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd. Suite 545 Arlington VA 22230 www.eng.nsf.gov/cms/About_CMS/DSC/dsc.htm

Richard A. Livingston, Ph.D. Office of Infrastructure R&D, HRDI Federal Highway Administration 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean VA 22101

Georges Magonette Head of Structural Mechanics Laboratory, ELSA Unit Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) European Commission - Joint Research Centre I - 21020 Ispra, Italy

Dr. Steven L. McCabe Professor and Chair Dept. of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering University of Kansas 2006 Learned Hall 1530 West 15th Street Lawrence, KS 66045 http://ceae.ku.edu

Stephen J. Martin Deputy Director for National Security & Sensors Sandia National Laboratory PO Box 5800, MS/1425, Albuquerque, NM 87185

37

Norbert Meyendorf, Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil 1899 Baldwin Dr. University of Dayton Centerville, OH, 45459

Dr. Bernd Michel Head of MicroMaterials Center Berlin Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration(IZM) Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 D-13355 Berlin Germany www.micromaterialscenter.com

Dr. Andrew Mole ARUP 901 Market Street, Suite 260 San Francisco CA 94103 www.arup.com/advancedtechnology

Priscilla P. Nelson, Division Director Division of Civil and Mech. Systems National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 545 Arlington, VA 22230 www.eng.nsf.gov/cms

Prof. R. Edward Minchin Jr. University of Florida P.O. Box 116580 Gainesville, FL 32611-6580

Prof. Karla Mossi Mechanical Engineering Virginia Commonwealth University P.O. Box 843015 Richmond, Virginia 23284-3015 http://www.vcu.edu/egrweb/people/faculty/me/mossi.html

Prof. Ruaidhri M. O'Connor, ScD Dept. Civil & Env. Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 1-174 Cambridge, MA 02139

Prof. Irving J. Oppenheim Dept. Civil and Env. Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 www.ce.cmu.edu/~ijo/

Joan Pallix Project Manager, Resilient Systems & Operations NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035 MS 269-1

Prof. Sibel Pamukcu Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng. Lehigh University Brthlehem, PA 18015 www.lehigh.edu/~incee/people/pamukcu.html

Prof. Darryll Pines University of Maryland Dept. of Aerospace Engineering 3154 Martin Hal College Park, MD 20742-3015

Prof. Kris Pister 497 Cory Hall University of California Berkeley CA 94720 www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~pister

Prof. Vittal S. Rao Director, Intelligent Systems Center 321 Engineering Research Lab University of Missouri-Rolla

Vibha Ravindran Research Assistant 3707, Plaza Drive Penn State University State College, PA 16801

Michael J. Sailor Prof. Chemistry and Biochemistry University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive, m/c 0358 La Jolla, CA 92093-0358 http://chem-faculty.ucsd.edu/sailor/

Ahmed Sameh Professor of Computer Science Purdue University 1398 CS Building West Lafayette, IN 47907 www.cs.purdue.edu

Manuel Ruiz Sandoval Dept. Civil Engi. and Geol. Sciences 156 Fitzpatrick Hall University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0767

Prof. J. Carlos Santamarina Georgia Institute of Technology 790 Atlantic Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355 404-894-7605

Prof. Arturo E. Schultz Dept. of Civil Engineering 500 Pillsbury Dr. SE #238 Minneapolis, MN www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/schultz

Prof. Thomas C. Sheahan Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng. Northeastern University 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 www.coe.neu.edu/~tsheahan

Prof. Robert D. Shelton Loyola College 4501 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21210 http://itri2.org/s/

Prof. Andrei M. Shkel Director, UCI MicroSystems Laboratory 4208 Engineering Gateway Building University of California - Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3975 http://mems.eng.uci.edu

38

Dr. Rahmat A. Shoureshi Associate V.P., Tech Transfer Director of NSF Biomedical, Electric Power, and Robotic Research Centers Colorado School of Mines Golden, CO 80401

Prof. Thomas R, Shrout 150 Materials Research Lab Penn State Univeristy University Park, Pa 16802

Steven Shladover PATH Program University of California 1357 South 46th Street, Building 452 Richmond, CA 94804

Mahendra P. Singh Preston Wade Professor of Engineering Dept. Eng. Science and Mechanics Virginia Tech 305 Norris Hall Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

Prof. Subhash C. Sinha Director, Nonlinear Systems Research Laboratory Department of Mechanical Engineering 202 Ross Hall Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 36849 www.eng.auburn.edu/department/me/faculty/sinha

Larry Smarr Director, Cal-(IT)2 UC San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive –0405 La Jolla, CA 92093-0405 www.calit2.net

Ken Smith Research Professor University of Nevada Reno; Seismolab MS 174 Reno, Nevada 89557

Takahiro Sugano Head, Structural Dynamics Division Port and Airport Research Institute 3-1-1, Nagase, Yokosuka, Kanagawa 239-0826 JAPAN www.pari.go.jp

Minoru Taya Center for Intelligent Materials and Systems Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Washington Box 352600 Seattle, WA 98195-2600

Prof. Norman C. Tien Co-Director, BSAC University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616-5294

Prof. Masayoshi Tomizuka Dept of Mechanical Engineering Univ of California Berkeley, CA 94720-1740 www.me.berkeley.edu/faculty/tomizuka

Janet M. Twomey NSF Program Officer National Science Foundation, ENG/DMII 4201 Wilson Blvd, Rm 550 Arlington, VA 22230 www.eng.nsf.gov/dmii/Message/EDS/MES/mes.htm

Chandra Ullagaddi Mechanical Engineer 301-227-0292 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER Code 653, Bldg 19, Rm: 217 9500 MacArthur Blvd West Bethesda, MD-20817

Vasundara V. Varadan Division Director - Electrical & Communication Systems The National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard; Room 675 Arlington, VA 22230 http://www4.esm.psu.edu/research/centers/ceeam/

Prof. Vijay K. Varadan Dept. Eng. Science and Electrical Eng. Director, Center for the Engineering of Electronic and Acoustic Materials and Devices 212 Earth and Engineering Sciences Building Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

Tzu-Yang Yu Graduate student MIT 77 Mass Ave. 1-290 Cambridge, MA02139

Prof. Ming Wang Dept. of Civil and Material Engineering 2081 ERF University of Illinois, Chicago Chicago, IL, 60607-7023

Fan (Fanny) Wu Ph.D student (post defense) Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305

Dr. H. Felix Wu Program Manager Advanced Technology Program National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 4730 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4730 http://www.atp.nist.gov

39

Edward J. Wolfrum, Ph.D. Senior Chemical Engineer National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard MS#3322 Golden, CO 80401

Prof. Xiangwu (David) Zeng Dept. of Civil Engineering 10900 Euclid Avenu Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio 44106

Prof. Dong Zhang School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;

Ying Zhang Dept. of Civil Engineering UC Berkeley 485 Davis Hall Berkeley, CA 94720