News
“Smart skin” can identify weaknesses in bridges and airplanes using laser scanner
Recent research results have demonstrated that two-dimensional, on-demand mapping of the accumulated strain on metal structures will soon be a reality thanks to an engineered “smart skin” that’s only a fraction of the width of a human hair. By utilizing the unique properties of single-walled carbon nanotubes, a two-layer film airbrushed onto surfaces of bridges, pipelines, and airplanes, among others, can be scanned to reveal weaknesses in near real-time. As a bonus, the technology is barely visible even on a transparent surface, making it that much more flexible as an application.
Stress-inducing events, along with regular wear and tear, can deform structures and machines, affecting their safety and operability. Mechanical strain on structural surfaces provides information on the condition of the materials such as damage location and severity. Existing conventional sensors are only able to measure strain in one point along one axis, but with the smart skin technology, strain detection in any direction or location will be possible.
How “Smart Skin” Technology is Used
In 2002, researchers discovered that single-wall carbon nanotubes fluoresce, i.e., glow brightly when stimulated by a light source. Later, the fluorescence was further found to change color when stretched. This optical property was then considered in the context of metal structures that are subject to strain, specifically to apply the property as a diagnostic tool. To obtain the fluorescent data, researchers applied the smart skin to a testing surface, irradiated the area with a small laser scanner, and captured the resulting nanotube color emissions with an infrared spectrometer. Finally, two-dimensional maps of the accumulated strain were generated with the results.
The primary researchers, Professors Satish Nagarajaiah and Bruce Weisman of Rice University in Texas, have published two scientific papers explaining the methods used for achieving this technology and the results of its proof-of-principle application. As described in the papers, aluminum bars with holes or notches in areas of potential stress were tested with the laser technique to demonstrate the full potential of their invention. The points measured were located 1 millimeter apart, but the researchers stated that the points could be located 20 times closer for even more accurate readings. Standard strain sensors have points located several millimeters apart.
What Are Carbon Nanotubes?
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are carbon molecules that have been structurally modified into cylinders, or rather, rolled up sheets of carbon atoms. There has been some evidence suggesting that CNTs can be formed via natural processes such as volcanic events. However, to really capitalize on their unique characteristics, production in a laboratory environment is much more efficient.
Several methods can be used for production, but the most widely used method for synthesizing CNTs is chemical vapor deposition (CVD). This process combines a catalyzing metal with a carbon-containing gas which are heated to approximately 1400 degrees Fahrenheit, triggering the carbon molecules to assemble and grow into nanotubes. The resulting formation resembles a forest or lawn grass, each trunk or blade averaging .43 nanometers in diameter. The length is dependent on variables such as the amount of time spent in the high heat environment.
Besides surface analysis, carbon nanotubes have proven invaluable in many research and commercial arenas, their luminescence being only one of many properties that can improve and enable other technologies. Their mechanical tensile strength is 400 times that of steel while only having one sixth the density, making them very lightweight. CNTs also have highly conductive electrical and thermal properties, are extremely resistant to corrosion, and can be filled with other nanomaterials. All of these advantages open up their applications to include solar cells, sensors, drug delivery, electronic devices and shielding, lithium-ion batteries, body armor, and perhaps even a space elevator, assuming significant advances overcome its hurdles.
Next Steps
The nanotube-laced smart skin is ready for scaling up into real-world applications, but its chosen industry may take time to adopt given the general resistance to change in a field with long-standing existing technology. While awaiting embrace in the arena it was primarily designed for, the smart skin has other potential uses in engineering research applications. Bruce Weisman, also the discoverer of CNT fluorescence, anticipates its advantages being used for testing the design of small-scaled structures and engines prior to deployment. Niche applications like these may be the primary entry point into the market for some time to come. In the meantime, the researchers plan to continue developing their strain reader to capture simultaneous readings from large surfaces.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
