Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Review

A comprehensive review of in-pipe robots

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Pipelines are vital infrastructures in oil and gas, water, and sewage transfer, offering a safer and more
In-pipe robots environmentally friendly option compared to other forms of transportation. The use of in-pipe robots for labor-
Robot geometric constraints intensive and hazardous operations, such as inspection, maintenance, and repair of pipelines, has increased
Pipe diameter adaptive mechanisms
in recent years. Some of the major tasks performed by in-pipe robots include the accurate positioning of the
Localization and navigation methods
robot and associated tools inside the pipe for data collection, inspection, and welding. This paper provides
AI-based smart motion
a comprehensive review of various aspects of in-pipe robots, including their geometries, propulsion systems,
kinematic designs, and steering mechanisms. The paper also covers localization and navigation methods utilized
for in-pipe robotics. A study of the advantages and disadvantages of the above mechanisms is presented,
highlighting open research avenues for future advancements in the field.

1. Introduction 2021). They are equipped with various sensors and cameras to perform
detailed inspections of pipelines, providing valuable information about
Robotic technology could facilitate and improve various processes their condition and identifying any potential issues (Choi et al., 2017).
associated with the pipeline industry, including construction, inspec- They can also perform maintenance and repair tasks such as cleaning
tion, repair, and maintenance (Ma et al., 2007; Zhu, 2007; Bekhit et al., and unclogging the pipelines, welding, and replacing damaged sections.
2012; Mateos et al., 2013). However, the pipeline industry has not In addition, in-pipe robots can monitor the condition of pipelines in
benefited much from traditional industrial robots since these robots real-time and conduct various tests, providing up-to-date information
are giant and stationary, requiring work-pieces to be transferred to about their status and allowing for prompt action to be taken in case
the robot’s site. Due to the limited space inside the pipe and the high of any issues (Mirshamsi and Rafeeyan, 2015). Furthermore, in-pipe
operational space required by robots, fine manipulation inside a pipe robots can perform risk assessments of pipelines by evaluating factors
is impossible. New robots operating inside pipes have been developed such as corrosion, cracks, and material degradation. This allows for
and utilized in the last three decades to perform various functions. early detection of potential problems, enabling prompt repairs and
Such robotic systems are gaining popularity in the pipeline industry reducing the risk of failure (Liu and Kleiner, 2013). Using in-pipe robots
because they decrease labor costs, increase the quality of operation,
for risk assessments also minimizes the need for human intervention
and increase safety in the harsh environment of the pipe that normally
and reduces the risk of injury or damage. In-pipe robots can perform
contains hazardous materials and gasses (Wong et al., 2017; Aracil
these tasks with improved efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness com-
et al., 2003).
pared to traditional inspection methods, making them an increasingly
A great deal of research has been conducted on pipeline robots in
important tool for the maintenance and operation of pipelines.
the oil and gas industry (Hashim et al., 2017), sewer and wastewater
Furthermore, technological advancements and the demand for op-
systems (Rome et al., 1999; Tur and Garthwaite, 2010) for challenging
erational safety and efficiency have led to a growing interest in using
tasks such as welding (Nayak and Ray, 2013; Tarn et al., 2007), non-
in-pipe robots. Shukla and Karki (Shukla and Karki, 2016) presented
destruction test (NDT) (Mohammed et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2013a),
inspecting and sampling (Liu and Kleiner, 2013; Ismail et al., 2012), a review of robotic technology in oil and gas fields. They stated that
and cleaning (Zhu et al., 2015; Truong-Thinh et al., 2011). The tasks for most studies in this field are focused on the inspection task, especially
in-pipe robots can be classified into four categories: inspection, testing, developing in-pipe and tank robots. Rome et al. (1999) proposed a
maintenance, and risk assessment, as shown in Fig. 1. In-pipe robots can multi-segmented autonomous sewer robot (MAKRO) that can operate
perform remote inspections, reducing the need for human intervention in sewerage systems for inspecting tasks. They applied several sensors
and minimizing the risk of injury or damage (Kazeminasab et al., and onboard batteries to improve the robot’s performance. Mateos et al.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.T. Kahnamouei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114260
Received 11 February 2023; Received in revised form 15 March 2023; Accepted 18 March 2023
Available online 29 March 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 1. In-pipe robot Tasks.

Fig. 2. Steps of the operating process of in-pipe robots.

Fig. 3. In-pipe robot development.

(2011) presented the Developing Water Loss Prevention (DeWaLoP) in- advanced sensors for more comprehensive inspections. The third gen-
pipe robot for cleaning tasks. Fekrmandi and Hillard (2019) developed eration of in-pipe robots incorporated more sophisticated technology,
an in-pipe robot to perform non-destructive tests inside the pipe. Per- including improved navigation systems, enhanced durability, and the
formed tests on the robot showed that it could operate in various pipe ability to perform more complex maintenance and repair tasks. For
configurations. example, Fig. 4 illustrates a third-generation in-pipe robot used for
An in-pipe robot operating process involves different steps to ensure inspection and NDT tasks (Choi and Ryew, 2002). This robot has an
thorough and efficient inspections and maintenance within pipes. As articulated body system with steering, which is connected to a real-time
depicted in Fig. 2, the process begins with the robot’s setup into the inspection system.
pipe, followed by navigation, inspection, analysis, and potential repairs This paper provides an overview of existing in-pipe robots and
and/or maintenance. The robot may also communicate with the control their significance as engineering machines with numerous applications,
center during its mission, and once the task is completed, it is retrieved, including pipeline inspection and maintenance, which is organized as
and the collected data is used to generate a report. follows. Section 2 discusses typical geometric constraints and relevant
Based on the application domain, in-pipe robots can be classified equations to determine the robot size for operation in curved pipe
into three generations, as shown in Fig. 3. The first generation of in- configurations. Section 3 presents different locomotion mechanisms
pipe robots was simple with limited capabilities and was used for basic that generate proper forces for the robot’s motion inside a pipe. Sec-
inspection tasks. The second generation of in-pipe robots saw signifi- tion 4 describes various pipe diameter adaptive systems for in-pipe
cant improvements, including enhanced mobility and the addition of robots. Section 5 covers various steering systems for navigating robots

2
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of a third generation in-pipe robot with articulated system (Choi and Ryew, 2002).

Fig. 5. Scheme of robot passing through 90◦ elbow and miter joints.

through different pipeline configurations. Section 6 specifically focuses robots have been conducted. Choi and Ryew (2002) calculated the
on localization and navigation methods in in-pipe robotics. suitable size of articulated in-pipe robots for traveling through the 90◦
elbows. They mathematically formalized the length and width range
2. Geometric constraints of in-pipe robot body of the robot for traveling through the 90◦ elbows for two different
cases: (a) When both ends of the robot are outside the elbow (see
Fig. 5(a)), and (b) When both ends of the robot are inside the elbow
The geometric limitations of an in-pipe robot’s body are crucial in
(see Fig. 5(b)). In An et al. (2017), the researchers applied geometric
determining its ability to navigate through pipelines with bends and
design methodology to determine optimal parameters for an in-pipe
obstacles while preserving stability and efficiency. As the pipeline con-
robot without a complex computational process when the robot passes
figurations vary, different design criteria must be taken into account,
through the miter, as shown in Fig. 5(b). They developed equations
including straight lines, elbow branches, and 𝑇 junctions (Choi and
to determine the robot length when a single module robot and two
Roh, 2007; Chen et al., 2011). Incorrect robot design can result in connected modules robots pass through the miter. A summary of the
difficulties in navigating complex configurations, leading to potential equations used to determine robots’ sizes are listed in Table 1.
operational failures, such as getting stuck (Kakogawa et al., 2016; Qiao and Shang (2012) introduced an algorithm based on the
Galajdová et al., 2018). Hence, it is essential to carefully consider geometric relationship between the in-pipe robot and the pipeline to
the size, shape, and flexibility of the robot body to ensure successful computing the relevant elastic legs’ radial variation according to pipe
navigation through pipelines. configuration. In this paper, specifically, the algorithm was deduced for
The size of robots depends on the pipe diameter and curve radius (Li a U-shaped elbow. According to the presented algorithm, the required
et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2015). Choosing a proper robot geometry lengths for elastic front and rear legs were determined at every moment
can decrease energy consumption, and less complex controller (Brown while the robot passed through the elbow. Li et al. (2019) proposed a
et al., 2021). Several works on the geometrical analysis of the in-pipe parameterized method with simulation software to quickly determine

3
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Table 1
Size criterion of the robot to pass through elbows and miters.
Pipe configuration Width Maximum length
Curved pipe (Choi and Ryew, 2002)
√
robot ends outside curve (see Fig. 5a) 0 < 𝑤 ≤ 𝐴 sin 45◦ − 𝐵 ∗ 𝐿 = 2 2(𝐴 − (𝐵 + 𝑤) sin 45◦ )
√
robot ends inside curve (see Fig. 5b) 𝐴 sin 45◦ − 𝐵 < 𝑤 < 𝐷𝑖 𝐿 = 2 𝐴2 − (𝐵 + 𝑤)2
√ ∗∗
Zero-radius branch (An et al., 2017) (see Fig. 5c) – 𝐿 = 2 (𝐷𝑖 + 𝑟)2 − (𝑤 + 𝑅1 )2
∗
𝐴 = (𝑅𝑐 + 𝐷𝑖 ∕2), 𝐵 = (𝑅𝑐 − 𝐷𝑖 ∕2), 𝑅𝑐 is radius of curve, 𝐷𝑖 is pipe diameter, 𝐿 is robot length, 𝑤 is robot width.
∗∗
𝑟 and 𝑅1 are design variables and are shown in Fig. 5b.

Table 2
Papers with focus on in-pipe robot geometry.
Authors Year Methodology Application
Chen et al. (2011) 2011 Applied determine method to establish Long distance inspection
optimum size of modules and connectors
for articulated robot
Kakogawa et al. (2016) 2016 Quasi-static method to determine arm –
length based on curve radius, robot’s
size, and weight
Qiao and Shang (2012) 2012 Compute length of robot’s leg with Inspection
algorithm based on geometric
relationship between robot and pipeline
Li et al. (2019) 2019 Parameterized system to establish Inspection
geometry parameters of robot
Choi and Ryew (2002) 2002 Mathematically formalize length and Nondestruction
width range of robot for passing through & visual testing
the 90◦ elbows
Roh and Choi (2005) 2005 Mathematically determined robot sizes Gas pipelines
and analyze robot motion in elbows and inspection
branches
An et al. (2017) 2017 Systematic geometric design method to Nondestructive
determine sizes and predict its motion testing
on curves, branches, and mites
Li et al. (2018) 2018 Dimension and motion analysis of the Inspection
robot to pass through elbows
Choi et al. (2017) 2017 Monocular camera, position-sensitive Nondestructive testing
sensor and signal processing algorithm
to determine pipe configurations

the geometric parameters of the screw drive in-pipe robot for different operational conditions of the robot (Li et al., 2015a). Various loco-
pipe configurations. They used the ADAMS simulation software and motion methods are available for in-pipe robots, each with distinct
obtained data from the software to design a robot. Li et al. (2018) features that rely on the intended use. These methods are classified
proposed an in-pipe robot structure with the ability to operate in both into two types: wheeled mechanisms (including wheel, tracked wheel,
circular and square pipes and pass through elbows. They analyzed the wall-pressing, and screw types) and non-wheeled mechanisms (such as
necessary criterion for the robot size based on the pipe diameter and pipeline inspection gauges (PIG), walking, and inchworm). Their pros
curve radius. Roh and Choi (2005) analyzed the size of an in-pipe robot and cons are presented in Table 3.
to satisfy the limitations due to pipe configuration. They determined
that if a robot only operates in straight pipelines, its lengths range 3.1. Pipe inspection gauges type robot
from 1 to 1.75 times the pipe diameter, and the width of the robot
is calculated based on the robot propulsion system and the risk of Pipe inspection gauge (PIG) robots are specialized in-pipe robots
collision with the pipe wall. Choi et al. (2017) proposed a sensor-based equipped with various sensors and tools to perform inspection (Li et al.,
navigation robot. They used a position-sensitive sensor and signal- 2015b), and measurement of pipeline conditions, including diameter,
processing algorithm to determine pipe configurations. A summary of thickness, and internal corrosion (Al-Masri et al., 2018; Ogai and Bhat-
studies on in-pipe robot geometries is shown in Table 2. tacharya, 2018). The robot is composed of a cylindrical capsule that
can hold the electronic devices (Bernasconi and Giunta, 2020) and two
3. In-pipe robot propulsion mechanisms rubber discs on each end of the capsule (Dong et al., 2021; Jiang et al.,
2021). Robots passively move along pipelines aided by rubber discs and
In-pipe robots use a variety of propulsion mechanisms to move fluid pressure without an active driving module (Zhu et al., 2015). The
through pipelines, with the choice of mechanism depending on the pressure difference between the ends propels the robot while the rubber
specific requirements and conditions of the inspection task (Ab Rashid discs obstruct fluid flow (see Fig. 6).
et al., 2020; Chattopadhyay et al., 2018). Generally, they should meet PIG robots have a wide range of applications in pipelines, such as
criteria such as large traction, fast motion, and compact size. In ad- leak detection and pipeline monitoring. The versatility and flexibility
dition, some factors impact locomotion system selection for specified of PIG-based in-pipe robots would ensure the safety and efficiency of
robots and applications; for instance, the pipe configurations and ge- pipeline systems. Wu et al. (2019a) proposed a practical method for
ometry constraints (Brown et al., 2021); types of tasks that the robot finding robots in water pipes by utilizing onboard sensors to identify
needs to perform (Deepak et al., 2016); requirements for adaptive leaks. This technique is suitable for PIG-based robots and can detect
and steering mechanisms (Ren et al., 2019); and environmental and damage, corrosion, and other factors causing leaks or failures. Sampath

4
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Table 3
Advantages and disadvantages of in-pipe locomotion systems.
Robot Advantage Disadvantage
PIG Navigate through long and narrow pipelines Poor steer-ability and limited control
Ability to move without active actuator Unable on pipe adjustment
Simple structure Unable to move in non-circular pipe
High body flexibility May damage pipelines during inspection
Inspect pipelines at high speed May not be suitable for large pipelines.
Walking Climbing capability Complex structure
Ability to pass over obstacles Complex control system
High traction and steerable High energy consumption
Able to pipe adjustment Limited maneuverability in tight spaces
Can carry heavy loads Slow movement speed
Wheel Good for fast movement on flat surfaces Limited ability to traverse rough terrain
Simple mechanism Unable on pipe adjustment
Easy to control and maneuver May not be suitable for uneven surfaces
Can carry heavy loads Have difficulty navigating narrow spaces
Track High traction Limited maneuverability in tight spaces
Good for traversing rough terrain Slow movement speed
Can carry heavy loads Not suitable for high-speed inspections
Stable and secure platform
Wall-pressing Able to pipe adjustment Poor steer-ability on branches
Climbing capability Poor performance on uneven surfaces
High stability during movement Complex and big structure
Stable and secure platform Limited ability to carry heavy loads
Inchworm Compact structure Limited and periodic motion
Can traverse rough terrain Low motion speed
Good for navigating through tight spaces Fair steer-ability
Screw High traction and steer-ability Unable to move in non-circular pipe
Ability to move forward and backward Complex structure
High control on speed Poor performance on uneven surfaces
Navigate through long and narrow pipelines May damage pipelines during inspection
Inspect pipelines at high speed May not be suitable of large pipelines

Fig. 6. Scheme of the PIG motion system.

et al. (2021) developed a smart pipeline inspection gauge that used an investigated PIG’s sealing disc to analyze the effect of frictional force
innovative inspection technique combining two advanced methods and for static and dynamic setups. Liu et al. (2020) used the finite element
a specially designed sensor array to detect and estimate defects in three model to study the effect of friction on PIG performance and avoid the
dimensions. PIGs have also been employed to sample fluids and clear blockage problem while it travels through an elbow. Zhang et al. (2017)
pipelines of buildup and debris that could hinder fluid flow Wang et al. proposed a dynamic model to study the PIG vibration behaviors while
(2021b). passing over the girth welds in the pipeline. Shi et al. (2015) proposed
A lot of research has been focused on the dynamic modeling (Zhang an in-pipe robot for the non-destructive test, which is a magnetic flux
et al., 2015; Mirshamsi and Rafeeyan, 2015), control (Tolmasquim leakage technique. The robot can detect magnetic leakages due to the
and Nieckele, 2008; Zhu et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2001), chamfer existence of the defect through magnetic sensors.
size (Hendrix et al., 2018), contact forces (Nieckele et al., 2001), and
friction forces (Zhang et al., 2015, 2020). Mirshamsi and Rafeeyan 3.2. Walking type robots
(2015) studied the dynamic response of PIG on a 2D curve path
and proposed equations for real-time tracking. Nguyen et al. (2001) Walking in-pipe robots provide a unique solution for pipeline in-
introduced a control system to control PIG velocity in the natural spections and maintenance by offering mobility and stability through
gas pipelines based on bypass flow velocity. Hendrix et al. (2018) the use of walking mechanisms, enabling them to traverse complex

5
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 7. Scheme of the walking robot motion.

pipeline configurations with ease (see Fig. 7). Walking locomotion inspection robot with a linkage-type mechanical clutch, featuring three
systems have a high potential for in-pipe robots because they have powered wheel chains, each with a mechanical clutch designed using
high traction, are steerable, and can go through obstacles (Yu et al., a parallel linkage mechanism. Tang et al. (2013) proposed an anti-
2015; Savin and Vorochaeva, 2017). Because they navigate along the rolling system based on the balance between friction forces and the
pipes through multi-degrees of freedom legs (Pfeiffer et al., 2000), they position angle of the legs. Miyagawa and Iwatsuki (2007) proposed a
have high stability on slippery surfaces and can move in inclined and wheeled in-pipe robot using planetary trains, worm gears for driving,
vertical pipes (Savin et al., 2017b). However, the robot’s legs require and active actuators for pressing the wheel against the wall. Suzumori
actuators and motors. Thus, the robot becomes bulky (Verma et al., et al. (1999) created a micro inspection robot for 1-inch pipes that used
2021), requires a complex control system (Savin et al., 2017a), and a CCD camera for inspection and 2 small hands for object manipulation.
consumes more energy than other mechanisms (Neubauer, 1994).
Pfeiffer et al. (2000) proposed an in-pipe walking robot with eight 3.4. Track type robots
legs (four front legs and four rear legs) which can move through hori-
zontal, vertical, and inclined pipes. Savin et al. (2017a) investigated a Caterpillar or track locomotion robots have a similar structure to
four-legged robot, with each leg composed of two links connected with wheeled-type robots that use caterpillar wheels, as shown in Fig. 9.
rotary joints. Neubauer (1994) developed a walking in-pipe robot with Due to the high friction between the pipe and track wheel, these
articulated legs, making it easy for the robot to climb and move through robots have higher traction and are suitable for slippery and rough
the complex pipe configurations. Zagler and Pfeiffer (2003) designed surface pipes. Cui et al. (2018) proposed a four-tracked robot with
an eight-leg walking robot with the ability to climb vertical pipes and a differential mechanism capable of various movements and obstacle-
move through branches. Lu et al. (2015) proposed a walking robot with surmounting. The study also analyzes its step-climbing performance
3SPR/3RPS type parallel manipulator to be able to operate in different by comparing theoretical and measured values. Nagase and Fukunaga
pipe geometries. (2016) developed a novel inspection robot suitable for narrow pipes
with six tracked modules equally spaced on the robot frame. Cai
3.3. Wheel type robots and Dong (2018) applied a linkage mechanism and track locomotion
module for an in-pipe robot with the ability to adjust itself for various
Wheel-type locomotion mechanisms are the most common and sim- pipe diameters. Ciszewski et al. (2014) researched the dynamics of
plest propulsion systems in in-pipe robots (see Fig. 8). Their effi- the tracked-type in-pipe robots and designed a robot with adjustable
ciency in pipeline inspections and maintenance is due to the mobility legs. To improve performance and maneuverability, Bogdan et al.
and stability provided by the wheeled mechanism, enabling successful (2021) built flexible per-segment-cambering track modules to navigate
navigation and preserving functionality while minimizing operational a complex pipe configuration. Tadakuma et al. (2009) proposed a cylin-
failures. The direct connection between the motor and wheel allows for drical tracked robot to produce sideways motion and prevent sideways
precise control of the robot’s speed (Gunatilake et al., 2019; Oya and tilting. Baharuddin et al. (2012) developed a robot for inspecting the
Okada, 2005). Based on the application, wheeled mechanisms come inner wall of the boiler header, in which the robot moves inside the
in various configurations and types, such as wheeled linear (Tătar boiler header and carries the fiber optic camera probe to take the wall
et al., 2012), wheeled snake (Ilg et al., 1997), wheeled triangle (Mateos image.
et al., 2012), four wheels (Lee et al., 2012), wheeled hexagonal (Tang
et al., 2021), magnetic wheels (Tâche et al., 2009), and omnidirectional 3.5. Wall-press type robots
wheels (Dertien et al., 2014).
A lot of research has been conducted on wheeled-type robots Wall-press type robots are the most common mechanisms for in-pipe
(Waleed et al., 2018; Yeh and Weng, 2021). Tang et al. (2021) devel- robots due to their high stability and adaptability with a wide range of
oped a robot with six drive and support wheels to perform in inclined pipe sizes (see. Fig. 10). This mechanism comprises sets of leg modules
and curved pipes. Dertien et al. (2014) designed an inspection robot (three Lee et al., 2016, four Kim et al., 2010, or six legs Li et al.,
with omnidirectional wheels and two V-shape clamping modules that 2020) equally mounted circumferentially on the robot body, which
rotate axially. Waleed et al. (2018) developed an inspection robot with operates in coordination with each other. In addition, because the legs
a hexagonal cross-section chassis, six wheels, and multiple pressure constantly press the pipe wall and all contract or extend with the same
sensors. Kwon et al. (2010) describe a new three-wheeled pipeline amount, the robot has high stability during the motion, with its main

6
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 8. Scheme of wheeled in-pipe robot.

Fig. 9. In-pipe robot with tracked wheel mechanism.

body always in the center of the pipe (Mateos and Vincze, 2012). Both mechanism that can climb inclined pipe at 35 degrees. Wu et al.
wheel and track drive systems can easily pair with this mechanism, (2019b) developed a tracked wall-pressing robot that passes in 45◦ and
named wheeled wall-pressed type (Song et al., 2016; Jain et al., 2021) 90◦ elbows with minimum robot body motion. Horodinca et al. (2002)
and tracked wall-pressed type (Brown et al., 2019; Zhang and Wang, proposed a wheeled wall-pressing screw robot that tilted wheels force
2016), respectively. Tracked wall-pressing robots have more traction the robot forward and guide the wheels to create stability. Kakogawa
forces, but lower speed compared to wheeled wall-pressing robots (Wu et al. (2016) proposed a screw drive wall pressing robot composed of
et al., 2019b; Kwon and Yi, 2012). Also, wheeled wall-pressing screw the front unit for rotating and moving the robot forward, the central
robots (Li et al., 2018; Horodinca et al., 2002) are composed of the unit for steering, and the rear unit for supporting. The robot has the
wheel, wall-pressing, and screw motion mechanisms. The wheeled wall- following motion modes: (a) screw driving, which moves it along the
pressing system provides stable motion on the inclined and vertical pipeline; (b) steering, which allows it to navigate through miter or
pipes, and the screw locomotion system steers the robot to provide curved pipes; and (c) rolling, which enables it to change direction to
traction force. avoid obstacles.
During operation, wall-pressing robots require stabilizing
algorithms to ensure that they remain stable and maintain balance in 3.6. Screw type robots
the pipeline, particularly in the presence of flow disturbances. These
algorithms employ feedback control techniques to adjust the robot’s Screw locomotion mechanisms can effectively move the robot inside
motion and maintain stability. A variety of stabilizing algorithms the pipe (see Fig. 11). The systems have high traction and can move the
applied for in-pipe robots, such as the Linear Quadratic Regulator robot forward and backward through the rotation motion on a spiral
(LQR) (Kazeminasab et al., 2021; Tourajizadeh et al., 2018), the trajectory (Li et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). The robot comprises a
proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller (Zhao et al., 2020), rotor and main body that are connected together to provide motion to
model predictive control (MPC) (Miao et al., 2022), and sliding mode the wheels. The wheels in the rotor section have a pitch angle whose
control (SMC) (Tourajizadeh et al., 2020), and Fuzzy control (Li et al., value determines the amount of motion per rotor cycle (Ren et al.,
2015a; Huang et al., 2009). The selection of the algorithm depends on 2016; Kakogawa and Ma, 2012). Some studies have investigated the
the specific requirements of the robot and the pipeline, as well as the mechanism and dynamics of the screw locomotion in-pipe robots (Li
available sensors and actuators. et al., 2017a, 2008). Jie et al. (2018) designed a screw-driven robot
Mateos and Vincze (2012) developed a wheeled wall-pressing robot with an adaptive system that can pass through elbows without motion
with a centering algorithm and rotating mechanism for cleaning tasks. interference. Ren et al. (2016) developed the robot with individual
Moshayedi et al. (2019) developed a six-wheeled wall-pressing robot control on each driving wheel to adjust the helical angle according
with adaptive linkage to adjust with pipe diameter variations. Song to the robot’s trajectory. Li et al. (2017a) developed a helical drive
et al. (2016) designed a wheeled wall-pressing robot with a telescopic robot to operate in harsh environments and measure pipe diameter

7
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 10. Scheme of the wall-pressing in-pipe robot.

Fig. 11. Wheeled wall-pressing screw in-pipe robot.

and deformations. Tu et al. (2019) analyzed the obstacle crossing and mechanisms and hydraulic systems to deliver continuous motion. Xie
traction efficiency with longitudinal and lateral slips for the passive and et al. (2021) applied the cam-linkage mechanism to double-direction
active screw-type in-pipe robots. Li et al. (2010) proposed the screw- inchworm robots for inspection and cleaning tasks. Qiao et al. (2012)
type robot with self-rescue mode beside the operating mode to avoid developed a robot with a self-locking module to solve maximum static
the obstacle by moving in a reverse direction. friction issues and increase traction ability. A summary of propulsion
mechanisms used in in-pipe robots is listed in Table 4.
3.7. Inchworm type robots
4. Adaptive pipe diameter mechanism
Inchworm locomotion mechanisms have a wide range of appli-
cations in various in-pipe tasks (Fang et al., 2018) because of their To effectively navigate through pipelines with varying geometries,
compactness, high flexibility, and good maneuverability (Jeon et al., in-pipe robots have been developed with adaptive diameter mecha-
2011). As shown in Fig. 12, this mechanism is comprised of the front nisms and steering systems. The geometry of a pipeline may vary
and rear parts with clamping modules and a connector between the because of branches, diameter changes, and uneven inner surfaces.
front and rear parts with a telescopic mechanism. Although inchworm Preliminary in-pipe robots can only perform in specific pipe sizes with
mechanisms are simple with a high traction capacity, they have limited fixed diameters and shapes. To handle variable pipe configurations,
periodic motion due to moving only one part at a time (Liu et al., 2014, adaptive diameter mechanisms, and steering systems have been de-
2013). The self-locking mechanism is one of the primary and challeng- veloped; for instance, handling diverse cross sections (Cai and Dong,
ing parts of the inchworm robot design (Qiao and Shang, 2013). Most 2018; Zhang and Wang, 2016), passing over uneven inner surfaces (Ma-
inchworm robots use wedges to produce the locking force between the teos et al., 2012; Park et al., 2010), and navigating complex pipeline
robot and pipe wall (Qiao et al., 2012). Qiao et al. (2010) introduced configurations (Choi and Ryew, 2002).
the unilateral self-locking mechanism to increase the traction force, In-pipe robots need to contract and retract their legs to adapt to
move quickly in one direction, and lock in the opposite direction. Fang pipe diameter variations. To this end, foldable linkage mechanisms
et al. (2018) proposed the cam-torsional spring self-locking mechanism are commonly used, making it possible for the robot to adjust to
for the continual locomotion of inchworm robots. They used telescopic a wide range of pipes (Tătar et al., 2012, 2007). This mechanism

8
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 12. Scheme of the inchworm robot.

Table 4
Summary of past work in propulsion mechanism in-pipe robot.
Mechanism Authors Year Configurationa Characteristics
Liu et al. (2020) 2020 H V E Describes traveling ability under various friction condition and avoid blockage.
Zhang et al. (2017) 2017 H Analysis effects of Passing over girth welds on dynamic behavior.
PIG Mirshamsi and Rafeeyan (2015) 2015 H C Uses algorithm to simulate long pig motion on 2D curve path.
Nguyen et al. (2001) 2001 H Uses controller to control PIG speed by bypass flow velocity.
Hendrix et al. (2018) 2018 H V Analyses effect of frictional force for static and dynamic setup.
Shi et al. (2015) 2015 H Uses magnetic sensors to detect defects inside and outside pipe wall.
Neubauer (1994) 1994 H V C O Operates in complex pipe and passes over obstacles via articulated legs.
Walking Pfeiffer et al. (2000) 2000 H V I Uses eight legs each of which has two active and one passive joints.
Savin et al. (2017b) 2017 H V C O Uses six legs which are composed of three links connected with rotary joints.
Zagler and Pfeiffer (2003) 2003 H V C O Uses eight legs to operate in sewer system and chemical plants.
Lu et al. (2015) 2015 H V C Used 3SPR/3RPS type parallel manipulator to move front and rear legs.
Okada and Sanemori (1987) 1987 H, V, C, I Uses scissor shape three-wheeled robot with two hinged arms.
Tang et al. (2013) 2013 H Uses anti-rolling mechanism by considering robot weight, payload, and payload offset.
Tang et al. (2021) 2021 H C I Performs in inclined and curved pipes via six drive wheels and six support wheels.
Wheeled Dertien et al. (2014) 2014 H V C I M Uses clamping modules that is composed of omnidirectional wheels and two V-shape.
Waleed et al. (2018) 2018 H E Has hexagonal cross-section chassis, six wheels, and multiple pressure sensor.
Miyagawa and Iwatsuki (2007) 2007 H Uses planetary trains and worm gears to me robot in straight pipelines.
Suzumori et al. (1999) 1999 H V C Uses a micro mechanism to drive robot, and pneumatic actuators to move hands.
Nagase and Fukunaga (2016) 2016 H V E O Cylindrical robot with six rubber track systems to operate in narrow pipes.
Cai and Dong (2018) 2018 H I Moves in various pipe diameters thought installed tracked wheels on a linkage.
Ciszewski et al. (2014) 2014 H V I Operates in ducts, rectangular, and circular pipes via an adaptive positioning module.
Tracked Roman et al. (1993) 1993 H V Performs remotely for non-distinctive testing and inspection.
Bogdan et al. (2021) 2021 H V I E T M Navigates complex pipe via flexible per-segment-cambering track modules.
Tadakuma et al. (2009) 2009 H V I O Has sideways motion via a cylindrical track to prevent tilting and edges sinking.
Baharuddin et al. (2012) 2012 H O Has a fiber optic camera probe for inspecting the boiler header’s wall failure.
Song et al. (2016) 2016 H V I C T Climbs inclined pipe at 35 degrees with the assist of telescopic mechanism.
Moshayedi et al. (2019) 2019 H V C O T Uses adaptive linkage mechanism to adjust with pipe diameter variations.
Wall-press Wu et al. (2019b) 2019 H V E Passes in 45◦ and 90◦ elbows with minimum robot’s body motion.
Mateos and Vincze (2012) 2012 H Apply centering algorithm and rotating mechanism for cleaning tasks.
Horodinca et al. (2002) 2002 H V C Uses articulated part for guiding and creating attraction forces.
Kakogawa et al. (2016) 2016 H V C E T Composed of three units and elastic legs to move in complex configurations.
Qiao et al. (2010) 2010 H Moves in one direction and locked in opposite via a unilateral self-locking mechanism.
Inchworm Fang et al. (2018) 2018 H Delivers continuous motion via a telescopic mechanism and hydraulic system.
Xie et al. (2021) 2021 H Moves in two directions for inspection and cleaning tasks.
Qiao et al. (2012) 2012 H V I Uses a self-locking module to solve maximum static friction and increase traction.
Tu et al. (2019) 2019 H I O Crosses obstacles by longitudinal and lateral slips.
Li et al. (2010) 2010 H I E O Avoids obstacles and getting jammed via a self-rescue module and switching directions.
Screw Ren et al. (2016) 2016 H I C E Passes curved pipes with the assist of variable pitch helical drive.
Li et al. (2017a) 2017 H O Operates in harsh environments and is able to measure pipe diameter and deformations.
Jie et al. (2018) 2018 H C E I Passes through elbows without motion interference.
a
H: Horizontal pipe, V: Vertical pipe, C: Curved pipe, E: Elbow, O: Obstacle, M: Miter, T: T intersection.

highly improves the robot’s dynamic and kinematics performance and 2021). In this mechanism, elastic components, such as springs, are used
increases the robot’s leg stiffness. In the meantime, actuation devices as actuation devices (Liu et al., 2021). The active mechanism is used
provide the required force for linkage systems to contract and retract. for the robot to operate in complex pipeline configurations and needs
According to the applied actuation device, adaptive mechanisms can more control over navigation. Electrical motors are mainly used in this
be passive or active. The passive adaptive mechanisms are used mostly system as actuation devices.
in lightweight robots with simple control mechanisms due to the size Various adaptive linkage mechanisms were described in terms of
and weight restrictions and the ability to move in narrow areas (Nelson, their kinematics in published papers (Tătar et al., 2007). Based on the

9
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Table 5
Comparison of Adaptive Pipe Diameter Mechanisms for In-Pipe Robots.
Mechanisms Advantages Disadvantages
Crank and Slider Simple design and easy to manufacture Limited motion range
Can generate high force and torque May not be suitable for high-speed motions
Can handle large loads May have limited dexterity
Parallelogram Can produce large motion ranges Complex design and difficult to manufacture
Good for applications with high accuracy May have limited dexterity
Can generate high force and torque May not be suitable for high-speed motions
Pantograph Good for applications with compact design Limited motion range
Can generate high force and torque May have limited dexterity
Good for vertical lifting May not be suitable for high-speed movement

Fig. 13. Scheme of the in-pipe robot with slider mechanism for pipe diameter adaptation.

robot’s propulsion mechanism, application, pipe size, and configura- 4.2. Parallelogram mechanism links
tion, different linkage mechanisms were utilized, such as crank and
slider (Henry et al., 2014), parallelogram links (Zhang and Yan, 2007), The parallelogram linkage is one of the most commonly used mecha-
and pantograph links (Choi and Roh, 2007). Their advantages and nisms for in-pipe robots. In this mechanism, propulsion modules mount
disadvantages are listed in Table 5. on the parallelogram leg linkage and force from the actuator in the ac-
tive system (Zhang and Yan, 2007; Xu et al., 2020), as shown in Fig. 14,
4.1. Crank and slider mechanisms and spring force in passive systems (Sibai et al., 2012; Kwon et al.,
2010), change the linkage configuration to adapt the robot with the
The slider-crank mechanism converts the rotation motion of crank pipe diameter. Parallelogram mechanisms always remain parallel with
devices (e.g., screw-nut, ball-screw) to the reciprocating linear mo- the pipe center line; therefore, they press the pipe wall with uniform
tion (see Fig. 13). Due to its high productivity and compactness, it forces (Kwon et al., 2010), and it can overcome the inner obstacles in
is an attractive adaptive mechanism in small in-pipe robots (Tătar pipes (Kakogawa et al., 2014; Kakogawa and Ma, 2019).
et al., 2007; Henry et al., 2014). This mechanism can be compatible Lu et al. (2015) introduced a walking robot with a pipe adaptive
with other mechanisms to deliver optimum efficiency and increase
mechanism. They used a parallel manipulator with 6-foot modules
stability (Vacková et al., 2012).
(three front and three rear) uniformly distributed on the robot’s body
Roh and Choi (2005) designed an adaptive mechanism composed of
circumference. Xu et al. (2016) used a parallelogram mechanism with
two series of slider-crank modules for the front and rear wheels of the
a telescopic umbrella stand to enhance the adaptive system in complex
robot. A ringlike slider harmonizes the wheels’ radial motions, and a
pipe configurations. Xu et al. (2020) designed an in-pipe robot with
stopper in the central shaft limits its axial movement. Li et al. (2018)
track derive systems and an adaptive mechanism in which each leg has
proposed a modified double slider-crank mechanism with a limited
a separate actuator. Sibai et al. (2012) developed an inspection robot
incline angle of 45◦ for a wall-pressing robot to adapt the robot with
with a parallelogram wheeled leg. Each leg was composed of four links,
pipe diameter. Wu et al. (2019b) applied the slider-crank mechanism
a front driving wheel, and an idler rear wheel to increase the robot’s
with a planner mechanism to adjust the moving modules with the pipe
stability by moving inside the pipe. Zhang and Yan (2007) used the
diameter in the in-pipe robot. Moghaddam et al. (2011) developed the
triple track wall-pressing robot with a pipe diameter adaptive system. parallelogram wheeled foot mechanism coupled with the step motor,
They applied the parallel crank and planner mechanisms to adjust the called the adjusting motor, to control the adaptive mechanism.
robot with pipe diameter variation while keeping the track systems
parallel with the pipe centerline. Henry et al. (2014) used a multi- 4.3. Pantograph mechanism links
objective optimization method to determine the best leg mechanism
for an in-pipe robot. They found that the slot-follower mechanism fits Pantograph links are commonly used in in-pipe robots due to their
well for high transmission force efficiency; otherwise, the Crank and high rigidity and efficiency, allowing the robot to move freely and
slider mechanism with 6 bars works well. Jiang et al. (2008) proposed adjust to the shape of the pipe (Kim et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2020).
the walking robot with an adaptive pipe mechanism composed of three As shown in Fig. 15, they are composed of a series of connected
slider-crank and parallelogram modules mounted around the robot parallelograms. Due to their configuration and low link inertia, they
body. require lower energy than other linkage modules. Various types of

10
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 14. Scheme of parallelogram mechanism with ballscrew.

Fig. 15. Scheme of pantograph mechanism links.

pantographs (e.g., scissor mechanism Jain et al., 2021; Bandala et al., central part through the adjustable pantograph linkages. Both the
2019) have been proposed based on the locomotion system, pipe geo- crawler systems and linkages help robot adaptation as the pipe diame-
metric variations, and required leg extension. Pantograph mechanisms ter varies. Kim et al. (2009) proposed a track wall-pressing robot with
move the driving modules in the radial directions; therefore, the robot a pantograph mechanism to adapt the robot with pipe diameter. They
does not experience distortion when crossing uneven surfaces (Tătar used a ball screw and a slider system to transfer the required forces
et al., 2007). to adjust the linkage system with pipe diameter variations. Park et al.
Kakogawa et al. (2014) developed a novel in-pipe robot that can (2010) applied a unique track drive module, which is composed of rear
adapt itself to pipe diameter changes and avoid inner obstacles. Three and frontal tracks along with a scissor pantograph module to adjust
equally spaced parallelogram crawler systems were connected to the the robot based on pipe diameters and uneven surfaces. Bandala et al.

11
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Table 6
Summary of past work in pipe diameter adaptive mechanism in-pipe robot.
Mechanism Authors Year Characteristics
Crank and slider Wu et al. (2019b) 2019 Applied slider-crank system with a planner mechanism.
Moghaddam et al. (2011) 2011 Used parallel-crank and planner mechanisms.
Vacková et al. (2012) 2012 Operates in pipes with diameters from 100 to 200 mm.
Yang et al. (2014) 2014 Applied a motor with a multi-axial gear mechanism.
Henry et al. (2014) 2014 Used crank and slider mechanisms with 6 bars.
Roh and Choi (2005) 2005 Used six slider-crank mechanisms, each with 4 bars.
Li et al. (2018) 2018 Applied double slider-crank mechanism.
Able to adjust robot with circular and square type pipes.
Jiang et al. (2008) 2008 Three slider-crank mechanisms are applied.
Able to adjust the robot with pipe from 270 to 300 mm.
Parallelogram Zhang and Yan (2007) 2007 Used coupled parallelogram mechanism and step motor.
Xu et al. (2020) 2020 Applied track drive and adaptive systems in each leg.
Sibai et al. (2012) 2012 Used linkage with four links and an idler rear wheel.
Kwon et al. (2010) 2010 Used a clutch to switch between drive and retrieval.
Kakogawa et al. (2014) 2014 Applied an underactuated parallelogram system .
Xu et al. (2016) 2016 Used a telescopic umbrella stand and a parallelogram.
Operate in pipes from 90 to 150 mm.
Lu et al. (2015) 2015 Used an in-pipe parallel manipulator with multi-foot.
Able to move in pipes while carrying large loads.
Pantograph Park et al. (2010) 2010 Able to adjust with pipe diameters and uneven surfaces.
Okada and Sanemori (1987) 1987 Optimize system by adding two bars to scissor mechanism.
Kakogawa et al. (2014) 2014 Applied three parallelogram crawlers.
Jain et al. (2021) 2021 Used scissor mechanism with a lead screw and DC motor.
Zhao et al. (2020) 2020 Has three tracked wheels, putters, and pressure sensors.
Bandala et al. (2019) 2019 Three sets of two-stage scissor-hinge mechanisms.
Tătar et al. (2007) 2007 Applied three sets of pantographs, each has two wheels.
Able to adjust with pipes from 140 to 200 mm.
Kim et al. (2009) 2009 Used three pantograph links with tracked wheels.
Able to operate in large pipes from 600 to 800 mm.
Oya and Okada (2005) 2005 Central scissor mechanism to adjust the robot

(2019) developed a tri-legged inspection robot that can adapt to pipe over other steering mechanisms used for in-pipe robots (Roh and Choi,
diameter variations. They used a scissor mechanism in each leg and 2005; Zheng et al., 2017).
a screw system in the robot center which expands and contracts the Kwon and Yi (2012) designed an in-pipe robot with differential
leg assemblies. A summary of pipe diameter adaptive systems used in drive track modules to steer the robot through branches and curved
in-pipe robots is listed in Table 6. pipes. In this mechanism, the velocity distribution in wheels and robot
center while the robot turns right in zero radius branch. Li et al.
5. Steering system (2017b) proposed a screw drive module with a differential angle that
provides the robot roll motion for forward travel and yaw motion for
steering purposes. Kim et al. (2013b) developed a wall-pressing type
The robot steering system is one of the main features of the in-
robot with a differential steering system to pass over an elbow and
pipe robots, enhancing the robot’s motions and improving its perfor-
obstacles inside a pipe. They used a multi-axial differential gear module
mance inside pipelines (Ren et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2010). Due to
to adjust the active wheels’ velocities to travel through an elbow. Roh
pipe configurations, in-pipe robots need to navigate through straight et al. (2009) proposed an in-pipe inspection robot with a differential
pipes (Miyagawa and Iwatsuki, 2007), inclining pipes (Li et al., 2015a), drive module. In addition, clutches between the wheel and the driving
vertical pipes (Kakogawa and Ma, 2012; Muramatsu et al., 2000), com- power system were used, which allowed the robot to choose between
plex geometries (e.g., elbows Brown et al., 2021, 2019, and branched the driving and steering modes (e.g., single steering and differential
and curved pipes Kakogawa and Ma, 2012). In addition, the robots steering) based on the pipe configuration. Li et al. (2017c) developed a
encounter various environmental forces such as drag force due to novel in-pipe robot with a steering system with two rotational degrees
flow (Tourajizadeh et al., 2020), blocking the flow, and difficulty of freedom leading the robot through branches and elbows.
bypassing the potential obstacles in pipes. Therefore, the design of the Front-wheel steering systems use differential mechanisms, which
steering systems depends on the pipe configuration and the operational are mainly used in flat or rectangular body robots in which four wheels
challenges of in-pipe robots, such as uncertainties and disturbances, are located in each corner. In front-wheel systems, the front wheels are
which can be addressed by promising under-actuated systems. In the actively steered, and the rear wheels can be either driven or passive.
meantime, visual system (Li et al., 2008; Hirose and Ohno, 1999), Robots with front-wheel steering are lighter and consume less energy
sensors (Choi et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2019), tracing system (Qi than other robots. However, due to the lack of differential wheel speed,
et al., 2009, 2010), and steering controller (Huang et al., 2009; Toura- the robots have less steerability in elbows and curved pipes than other
jizadeh et al., 2018) enhance steering system functionalities for various steering systems. Kwon et al. (2011) developed a flat inspection robot
conditions and increase the accuracy and the stability of steering with a steering system on which multiple inspection sensors can be
installed. The back wheels are the driving wheels, and the front wheels
motion (Huang et al., 2009). A review of different steering mechanisms
are the steering wheels. The proposed robot can deliver linear motion
for in-pipe robots is presented in the following.
along the pipeline, screw motion to avoid obstacles, and turning motion
to move through the branches.
5.1. Differential drive systems
5.2. Four-wheel steering
Steering systems with differential driving wheels adapt the robot
with various configurations by modulating the driving wheels’ speeds Four-wheel steering (4WS) is a common maneuvering system used
according to the moving direction (Jiang et al., 2008; Yang et al., in in-pipe robots to provide greater control and stability while navi-
2014). Their compactness and simplicity give them a high advantage gating tight turns and curves within pipelines. This type of steering

12
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Table 7
Summary of past work in steering systems in in-pipe robot.
Authors Year Steering Propulsion Adaptive mechanism Application
Kim et al. (2013b) 2013 Differential Wall-pressing Ball-screw slider Inspection
Roh et al. (2009) 2009 Differential Wall-pressing – Inspection
Kwon and Yi (2012) 2012 Differential Wall-pressing Scissors Inspection
Kwon et al. (2011) 2011 Differential Wheel Slider Inspection
Li et al. (2017c) 2017 Differential Wall-pressing Slider –
Oya and Okada (2005) 2005 Four-wheel Wheel Scissors Testing
Li et al. (2018) 2018 Four-wheel Wall-pressing Crank and slider Inspection
Lee et al. (2012) 2012 Four-wheel Wheel – Inspection
Jang et al. (2021) 2021 Articulated Wheel – NDT
Li et al. (2019) 2019 Articulated Wall-pressing – Inspection
Jun et al. (2004) 2004 Articulated Wall-pressing – Inspection
Muramatsu et al. (2000) 2000 Articulated Wheel – Inspection
Kim et al. (2015) 2015 Articulated Wheel – NDT
Fjerdingen et al. (2009) 2009 Articulated Wheel – Inspection
Choi and Ryew (2002) 2002 Articulated Wheel Pantograph Inspection
Kakogawa et al. (2018) 2018 Articulated Wheel – Inspection
Ilg et al. (1997) 1997 Articulated Wheel – Inspection
Li et al. (2017b) 2017 Articulated Wheel – –

involves the independent control of each wheel, allowing the robot to 6. Localization and navigation in in-pipe robotics
adjust its direction and orientation as needed to ensure smooth and
efficient movement through the pipe (Li et al., 2018; Oya and Okada, Localization and navigation are crucial aspects of in-pipe robots,
2005). Oya and Okada (Oya and Okada, 2005) implemented a four- since the robot’s ability to accurately determine its position in the
wheel steering system on an in-pipe robot. For the steering system, they pipe and navigate to the desired location is essential for the success of
installed lightweight servo modules for each wheel, which resulted in a any in-pipe robot application (Kazeminasab et al., 2021; Aitken et al.,
steering range from −𝜋∕2 to 𝜋∕2 rad. Lee et al. (2012) proposed an in- 2021). The selection of the appropriate localization and navigation
pipe robot with an adaptable quad arm mechanism (AQAM) and swivel system depends on the application’s specific requirements, including
hand mechanism (SHM), which was used to adapt the robot to travel the pipe’s size and shape, the required level of accuracy, and the avail-
through branches with zero-radius of curvature and help the robot to ability of sensors and hardware. Localization and navigation methods
avoid bumps by changing its orientation, respectively. The robot has for robots can be categorized based on technology, including sensor-
four steerable arms, in which each wheel can rotate clockwise and based (Brown et al., 2019; Aitken et al., 2021), algorithm-based (Wang
counterclockwise individually. Switching the rotational direction of the et al., 2021a), communication-based (Owojaiye and Sun, 2013), and
wheels allows the robot to travel through the branches. Global Positioning System (GPS) based methods (Song et al., 2016). To
provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each method,
5.3. Articulated steering system we compare them based on accuracy, speed, complexity, reliability, and
cost in Fig. 16.
Articulated in-pipe robots are self-contained machines designed to As shown in Fig. 16, sensor-based and algorithm-based methods
navigate and inspect pipelines and other confined spaces. The robots may be more suitable for in-pipe environments, with algorithm-based
with articulated steering are widely used for long-distance operations methods potentially offering higher accuracy and lower complexity but
because they can carry lots of equipment (e.g., batteries, sensors, cam- higher cost. Communication-based methods may also be used but may
eras) inside the pipe (Choi and Ryew, 2002; Jun et al., 2004). Robots be subject to interference and latency in indoor environments. On the
need a large structure considering all the necessary equipment for the other hand, GPS-based methods may generally perform poorly in pipes
in-pipe robots. However, using large structure robots to operate in due to signal attenuation and multipath propagation.
narrow pipelines is impossible. Multi-unit robots can solve this problem
by offering articulated bodies to carry various systems such as driving, 6.1. Sensor-based methods
control, and battery modules. In addition, the articulated robot has
high adaptability to complicated pipeline configurations (Chen et al., Sensor-based methods, including odometry and inertial measure-
2011; Jang et al., 2021) with good stability for curved pipes and ment units (IMUs), acoustic-based, magnetic induction communication,
branches (Jun et al., 2004). and laser-based methods, are crucial for in-pipe robots to estimate
Articulated robots are split into a front unit that carries robot their position and orientation accurately and reliably. Odometry meth-
locomotion drivers and a rear unit (one Horodinca et al., 2002, or ods (Hansen et al., 2011) estimate the robot’s position and orienta-
several units Choi and Ryew, 2002) that carry the operation equip- tion based on wheel movement or other sensor measurements, while
ment, as shown in Fig. 4. Units are connected through joint modules IMUs (Al-Masri et al., 2018; Aitken et al., 2021) use sensors to de-
such as back-drivable joint mechanisms (Kim et al., 2015), rotational tect acceleration and angular velocity. Acoustic-based methods (Bando
joints (Fjerdingen et al., 2009), universal joints (Horodinca et al., et al., 2016; Worley et al., 2020) use sound waves to determine the
2002), double active universal joints (Choi and Ryew, 2002), twisting robot’s position and orientation by reflecting off pipe walls. Worley
joints (Kakogawa et al., 2018), and flexible joints (Ilg et al., 1997). Jang et al. (2020) present an acoustic echo-based method to locate robots
et al. (2021) developed an articulated robot named MRINSPECT VII+ in pipes using a loudspeaker and microphone. Magnetic induction
for inspecting urban gas pipes. The proposed robot is comprised of communication (Kazeminasab et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020) transmits
driving, battery, NDT, and sensing modules connected through active data between the robot and a base station using magnetic fields to
joints. Kakogawa et al. (2018) proposed an articulated wheeled in-pipe determine the robot’s position. Kazeminasab et al. (2020) proposed
robot with the ability to move forward and backward and produce magnetic induction communication and radio frequency identification
helical motion. They used underactuated twisting joints and a differ- to improve communication in in-pipe robots. Laser-based methods (Lee
ential mechanism to create the spiral motion to change the robot’s et al., 2011) measure distance and create environment maps using
orientation. A summary of steering mechanisms used in in-pipe robots laser range finders. Each method has strengths and weaknesses; we
is listed in Table 7. summarized them in Table 8.

13
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Fig. 16. Comparison of methods for robot navigation in pipes.

Table 8
Advantages and disadvantages of sensor-based methods for robot localization and navigation in in-pipe robotics.
Method Advantages Disadvantages
Odometry Low cost and easy to implement Accumulated errors over time
Accurate in short distances Sensitive to wheel slippage and uneven terrain
Inertial Measurement Accurate and reliable in determining orientation Integration errors accumulate over time
Units Able to determine angular velocity Susceptible to vibration and noise
Low power consumption
Acoustic-based Effective in long, narrow pipes Limited range
Can detect obstacles and leaks Interference from other acoustic sources
Magnetic Induction Can penetrate non-conductive materials Limited range
Communication Can be used in pipes with flowing fluids Interference from other magnetic sources
Laser-based High accuracy and precision High cost
Can create detailed maps of pipe networks Limited range
Requires clear line-of-sight

6.2. Algorithm-based methods sensor-data-fusion method that uses an Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF)
for accurate localization in mobile robots. Particle Filter (Yatim et al.,
Algorithm-based robot localization and navigation involve devel- 2014) estimates the robot’s pose by representing its probability distri-
oping techniques to enable robots to move accurately within their bution, updated by sensor data and resampling for higher accuracy. On
environment (Aitken et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2017). The primary ap- the other hand, SLAM (Yuan et al., 2017; Krys and Najjaran, 2007)
proach is to use algorithms that estimate the robot’s position and map enables a robot to construct a map of its surroundings while localizing
its surroundings. Common algorithms include Kalman Filter, particle itself within that map.
filter, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), artificial intel-
Artificial intelligence (AI) is useful for developing and deploying
ligence (AI), and Fuzzy logic control, providing accurate and reliable
in-pipe robots to smartly navigate complex and often unpredictable
positioning for various applications. It notes that some methods can use
environments (Kazeminasab et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021a). AI al-
multiple technologies; for example, SLAM can use both sensor-based
gorithms can aid these robots in creating maps of their surroundings,
and algorithm-based methods. This review overviews these algorithms’
roles in algorithm-based robot localization and navigation. avoiding obstacles, and determining the most efficient path to their
Siqueira et al. (2016) is a state estimation method that utilizes destination. Additionally, AI can be used for real-time monitoring of
measurements such as position and velocity to estimate the system’s the pipes, allowing the robots to detect and analyze data such as cor-
state. Liu and Krys (2012) investigated using a laser range finder for rosion, blockages, and leaks (Spandonidis et al., 2022). Obtained data
buried water pipe inspection and applied a Kalman filter to reduce can inform maintenance and repair decisions, improving the overall
noise. In cases where the system’s dynamics are nonlinear, the Ex- efficiency and safety of the pipeline. Fuzzy Logic Control (Wu et al.,
tended Kalman Filter (EKF) provides a more precise estimation than 2019b) uses fuzzy logic to decide robot actions based on sensor inputs,
the traditional Kalman filter. Wu et al. (2019a) achieved precise robot enabling navigation in uncertain and dynamic environments. We have
localization using onboard sensors. Anjum et al. (2010) proposed a summarized the strengths and weaknesses of each method in Table 9.

14
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Table 9
Advantages and disadvantages of algorithm-based methods for robot localization and navigation in in-pipe robotics.
Method Advantages Disadvantages
alman Filter Accurate estimation of robot position and velocity Cannot handle nonlinear or non-Gaussian systems
Can handle noisy sensor measurements Accurate dynamic model and measurement are required
Particle Filter Handle nonlinear and non-Gaussian systems Can be computationally expensive
Can estimate the robot’s position and orientation Choice of particles and proposals affects sensitivity
Can handle multiple hypotheses Long-term robot movement can cause particle depletion
Provide a measure of uncertainty in the estimate
SLAM Can build a map of the environment Can be computationally expensive
Can handle unknown or dynamic environments Loop closure detection in large environments is difficult
Can handle multiple sensors and sensor modalities Needs a good initial estimate of robot position and map
Provide a measure of uncertainty in the estimate
Artificial Can handle complex and uncertain environments Can be computationally expensive
Intelligence Can learn from experience and improve over time Model training requires abundant data and time
Can handle multiple modalities of input/output May suffer from overfitting or underfitting problems
Fuzzy Logic Can handle uncertainty and imprecision Rule and function design is subjective and difficult
Control Can handle nonlinear and complex systems Designing a fuzzy system may need expert knowledge
Provide a robust and adaptive control The system may not be explainable or transparent

Table 10
Advantages and disadvantages of communication-based methods for robot localization and navigation in in-pipe robotics.
Method Advantages Disadvantages
Wireless Provide long-range communication Can suffer from interference and noise
Can handle multiple devices and sensors Signal can be affected by obstacles and reflections
Provide high data rates May require high power consumption
Radio-based Provide reliable and accurate communication Can have limited range and bandwidth
Can handle multiple devices and sensors Signal can be affected by obstacles and reflections
Can operate in harsh and noisy environments May require line-of-sight communication
Infrared-based Provide secure and low-interference communication Can have limited range and directionality
Can handle multiple devices and sensors Signal can be blocked by obstacles and reflections
Provide high bandwidth May require line-of-sight communication

6.3. Communication-based methods 7. Conclusion

Communication-based robot localization and navigation leverages Pipes play a crucial role in various industries, including water and
wastewater treatment and chemical processing. Regular maintenance
various communication technologies to estimate the robot’s position
and inspection are necessary to prevent leaks and potential hazards, but
and navigate within the environment. This method is highly effec-
traditional methods are often time-consuming and disruptive. In-pipe
tive in various applications through signal transmission and reception.
robots offer a more efficient and non-invasive solution for inspecting
The most commonly used communication-based methods are wireless, pipes. Such systems are autonomous or remotely operated and can
radio-based, and infrared-based. Wireless communications (Wu et al., perform tasks such as inspection, maintenance, and repair. The use of
2015; Kazeminasab and Banks, 2022) transmit data between the robot in-pipe robots for pipeline inspection and maintenance has grown in
and a base station or other devices, which can be used to determine the popularity due to their numerous benefits over traditional inspection
robot’s position and orientation. Kazeminasab and Banks (Kazeminasab methods. These robots offer improved safety, efficiency, and cost-
and Banks, 2022) propose SmartCrawler, a wireless robot for in-pipe effectiveness. However, several challenges still need to be addressed
missions, with a motion control algorithm and a wireless sensor module to take full advantage of in-pipe robots. A major challenge is an
for communication and navigation. In addition, radio-based meth- accurate navigation in complex pipe systems to be able to effectively
ods (Owojaiye and Sun, 2013) that use radio waves, and infrared-based inspect pipelines through tight turns and navigate around obstacles.
methods (Tapanes, 2001) that utilize infrared signals to communicate Further research and development are needed to improve the naviga-
with a base station are available to determine the robot’s position tion capabilities of in-pipe robots to allow them to navigate even the
and orientation. The advantages and limitations of each method are most complex pipe systems easily. Another challenge is ensuring the
represented in Table 10. durability and reliability of these robots. In-pipe robots must withstand
harsh pipeline conditions, including exposure to high temperatures and
corrosive substances. Improving the durability and reliability of these
6.4. GPS-based methods robots is critical for their widespread adoption and successful use.
Finally, more advanced and sophisticated sensors and cameras would
GPS-based navigation methods are commonly used for above-ground enhance the capabilities of in-pipe robots. These intelligent sensing
robots, but they may not perform well in in-pipe robots due to signal systems would allow for more comprehensive and accurate inspections,
attenuation, and multipath propagation (Bando et al., 2016). Despite improving the overall effectiveness of in-pipe robots. Solving these
these limitations, GPS-based navigation can still be helpful for in-pipe challenges will greatly enhance the capabilities and performance of
in-pipe robots, making them invaluable tools for various operations in
robots, especially when navigating above-ground pipes. To overcome
industrial applications.
the challenges of signal attenuation and multipath propagation in pipes,
GPS-based navigation methods can be combined with other techniques, Declaration of competing interest
such as odometry or inertial navigation systems (Qi et al., 2009;
Chowdhury and Abdel-Hafez, 2016). Thus, in-pipe robots can improve The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
their accuracy and performance by integrating multiple navigation cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
methods, even in challenging environments. influence the work reported in this paper.

15
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Data availability Deepak, B., Bahubalendruni, M.R., Biswal, B., 2016. Development of in-pipe robots for
inspection and cleaning tasks: survey, classification and comparison. Int. J. Intell.
Unmanned Syst.
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Dertien, E., Foumashi, M.M., Pulles, K., Stramigioli, S., 2014. Design of a robot for in-
pipe inspection using omnidirectional wheels and active stabilization. In: 2014 IEEE
Acknowledgments International Conference on Robotics and Automation. ICRA, IEEE, pp. 5121–5126.
Dong, J., Liu, S., Zhang, H., Xiao, H., 2021. Experiment and simulation of a controllable
This work is supported financially by the Natural Sciences and Engi- multi-airbag sealing disc of pipeline inspection gauges (PIGs). Int. J. Press. Vessels
Pip. 192, 104422.
neering Research Council (NSERC), Canada and Mitacs, Canada under
Fang, D., Shang, J., Luo, Z., Lv, P., Wu, G., 2018. Development of a novel self-locking
the Alliance program at Mechatronic System Engineering Department mechanism for continuous propulsion inchworm in-pipe robot. Adv. Mech. Eng. 10
of Simon Fraser University. (1), 1687814017749402.
Fekrmandi, H., Hillard, P., 2019. A pipe-crawling robot using bio-inspired peristaltic
References locomotion and modular actuated non-destructive evaluation mechanism. In: Bioin-
spiration, Biomimetics, and Bioreplication IX, Vol. 10965. International Society for
Optics and Photonics, 1096508.
Ab Rashid, M.Z., Yakub, M.F.M., bin Shaikh Salim, S.A.Z., Mamat, N., Putra, S.M.S.M.,
Fjerdingen, S.A., Liljebäck, P., Transeth, A.A., 2009. A snake-like robot for internal
Roslan, S.A., 2020. Modeling of the in-pipe inspection robot: A comprehensive
inspection of complex pipe structures (PIKo). In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International
review. Ocean Eng. 203, 107206.
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, pp. 5665–5671.
Aitken, J.M., Evans, M.H., Worley, R., Edwards, S., Zhang, R., Dodd, T., Mihaylova, L.,
Galajdová, A., Virgala, I., Kelemen, M., Miková, L., Lipták, T., Kelemenová, T., 2018.
Anderson, S.R., 2021. Simultaneous localization and mapping for inspection robots
Influence of pipe geometric deviation on bristled in-pipe mobile robot locomotion.
in water and sewer pipe networks: A review. IEEE Access 9, 140173–140198.
Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 15 (3), 1729881418775808.
Al-Masri, W.M., Abdel-Hafez, M.F., Jaradat, M.A., 2018. Inertial navigation system of
Gunatilake, A., Piyathilaka, L., Kodagoda, S., Barclay, S., Vitanage, D., 2019. Real-
pipeline inspection gauge. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 28 (2), 609–616.
time 3D profiling with rgb-d mapping in pipelines using stereo camera vision and
An, J., Lee, G., Oh, I., Moon, H., Ryew, S., 2017. Navigation-oriented design for in-pipe
structured IR laser ring. In: 2019 14th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics
robot in recursively divided sampling space with rapidly exploring random tree. J.
and Applications. ICIEA, IEEE, pp. 916–921.
Mech. Sci. Technol. 31 (12), 5987–5995.
Hansen, P., Alismail, H., Rander, P., Browning, B., 2011. Monocular visual odometry
Anjum, M.L., Park, J., Hwang, W., Kwon, H.-i., Kim, J.-h., Lee, C., Kim, K.-s., et al.,
for robot localization in LNG pipes. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on
2010. Sensor data fusion using unscented kalman filter for accurate localization of
Robotics and Automation. IEEE, pp. 3111–3116.
mobile robots. In: ICCAS 2010. IEEE, pp. 947–952.
Aracil, R., Saltarén, R., Reinoso, O., 2003. Parallel robots for autonomous climbing Hashim, A.S., Grămescu, B., Niţu, C., 2017. State of the art survey on using
along tubular structures. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42 (2), 125–134. robots in oil and gas industry. In: International Conference of Mechatronics and
Baharuddin, M.Z., Saad, J.M., Anuar, A., Ismail, I.N., Basri, N.M.H., Roslin, N.S., Cyber-Mixmechatronics. Springer, pp. 177–185.
Mohideen, S.S.K., Jalal, M.F.A., Sahari, K.S.M., 2012. Robot for boiler header Hendrix, M., Graafland, C., van Ostayen, R., 2018. Frictional forces for disc-type pigging
inspection ‘‘LS-01’’. Procedia Eng. 41, 1483–1489. of pipelines. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 171, 905–918.
Bandala, A.A., Maningo, J.M.Z., Fernando, A.H., Vicerra, R.R.P., Antonio, M.A.B., Henry, R., Chablat, D., Porez, M., Boyer, F., Kanaan, D., 2014. Multi-objective design
Diaz, J.A.I., Ligeralde, M., Mascardo, P.A.R., 2019. Control and mechanical de- optimization of the leg mechanism for a piping inspection robot. In: International
sign of a multi-diameter tri-legged in-pipe traversing robot. In: 2019 IEEE/SICE Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in
International Symposium on System Integration. SII, IEEE, pp. 740–745. Engineering Conference, Vol. 46360. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Bando, Y., Suhara, H., Tanaka, M., Kamegawa, T., Itoyama, K., Yoshii, K., Matsuno, F., V05AT08A001.
Okuno, H.G., 2016. Sound-based online localization for an in-pipe snake robot. Hirose, S., Ohno, H., 1999. Design of in-pipe inspection vehicle for 25, 50, 150 pipes.
In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics. In: Proc. of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation. pp.
SSRR, IEEE, pp. 207–213. 2309–2314.
Bekhit, A., Dehghani, A., Richardson, R., 2012. Kinematic analysis and locomotion Horodinca, M., Doroftei, I., Mignon, E., Preumont, A., 2002. A simple architecture for
strategy of a pipe inspection robot concept for operation in active pipelines. Int. in-pipe inspection robots. In: Proc. Int. Colloq. Mobile, Autonomous Systems, Vol.
J. Mech. Eng. Mechatron. 1 (2), 15–27. 61. Citeseer, p. 64.
Bernasconi, G., Giunta, G., 2020. Acoustic detection and tracking of a pipeline Huang, H.-P., Yan, J.-L., Cheng, T.-H., 2009. Development and fuzzy control of a pipe
inspection gauge. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 194, 107549. inspection robot. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 57 (3), 1088–1095.
Bogdan, P.A., Wheadon, J., Klein, F.B., Gianni, M., 2021. Magnetic tracked robot for Ilg, W., Berns, K., Cordes, S., Eberl, M., Dillmann, R., 1997. A wheeled multijoint
internal pipe inspection. In: 2021 European Conference on Mobile Robots. ECMR, robot for autonomous sewer inspection. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE/RSJ
IEEE, pp. 1–6. International Conference on Intelligent Robot and Systems. Innovative Robotics for
Brown, L., Carrasco, J., Watson, S., 2021. Autonomous elbow controller for differential Real-World Applications, Vol. 3. IROS’97, IEEE, pp. 1687–1693.
drive in-pipe robots. Robotics 10 (1), 28. Ismail, I.N., Anuar, A., Sahari, K.S.M., Baharuddin, M.Z., Fairuz, M., Jalal, A.,
Brown, L., Carrasco, J., Watson, S., Lennox, B., 2019. Elbow detection in pipes for Saad, J.M., 2012. Development of in-pipe inspection robot: A review. In: 2012
autonomous navigation of inspection robots. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 95 (2), 527–541. IEEE Conference on Sustainable Utilization and Development in Engineering and
Cai, M., Dong, M., 2018. A novel pipeline inspection robot with two angle-changeable Technology. STUDENT, IEEE, pp. 310–315.
crawler drive modules. In: 2018 IEEE 8th Annual International Conference on Jain, R., Das, A., Mukherjee, A., Ray, D., Karmakar, P., 2021. Experimental performance
CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems. CYBER, IEEE, of robotic inspection system for underground pipelines. J. Inst. Eng. (India) Ser. C
pp. 24–29. 1–21.
Chattopadhyay, P., Ghoshal, S., Majumder, A., Dikshit, H., 2018. Locomotion methods Jang, H., Kim, H.M., Lee, M.S., Song, Y.H., Lee, Y., Ryew, W.R., Choi, H.R., 2021.
of pipe climbing robots: A review. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 11 (4). Development of modularized in-pipe inspection robotic system: Mrinspect VII+.
Chen, J., Chen, T., Deng, Z., 2011. Design method of modular units for articulated in- Robotica 1–24.
pipe robot inspecting system. In: 2011 Second International Conference on Digital Jeon, W., Park, J., Kim, I., Kang, Y.-K., Yang, H., 2011. Development of high mobility
Manufacturing & Automation. IEEE, pp. 389–392. in-pipe inspection robot. In: 2011 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System
Choi, Y.S., Kim, H.M., Mun, H.M., Lee, Y.G., Choi, H.R., 2017. Recognition of pipeline Integration. SII, IEEE, pp. 479–484.
geometry by using monocular camera and PSD sensors. Intell. Serv. Robot. 10 (3), Jiang, S.-y., Jiang, X., Lu, J., Li, J., Lv, X., 2008. Research on a tri-axial differential-drive
213–227. in-pipe robot. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications.
Choi, H.R., Roh, S.-g., 2007. In-pipe robot with active steering capability for moving Springer, pp. 1031–1040.
inside of pipelines. In: Bioinspiration and Robotics Walking and Climbing Robots. Jiang, J., Zhang, H., Ji, B., Yi, F., Yan, F., Liu, X., 2021. Numerical investigation on
IntechOpen. sealing performance of drainage pipeline inspection gauge crossing pipeline elbows.
Choi, H., Ryew, S., 2002. Robotic system with active steering capability for internal Energy Sci. Eng. 9 (10), 1858–1871.
inspection of urban gas pipelines. Mechatronics 12 (5), 713–736. Jie, Z., Man, L., Yi-Hua, D., Li-Tao, Z., 2018. Structure design of spiral driven adaptive
Chowdhury, M.S., Abdel-Hafez, M.F., 2016. Pipeline inspection gauge position estima- pipeline robot under complex conditions. In: 2018 2nd IEEE Advanced Informa-
tion using inertial measurement unit, odometer, and a set of reference stations. tion Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference.
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. B Mech. Eng. 2 (2). IMCEC, IEEE, pp. 1838–1841.
Ciszewski, M., Buratowski, T., Giergiel, M., Małka, P., Kurc, K., 2014. Virtual prototyp- Jun, C., Deng, Z., Jiang, S., 2004. Study of locomotion control characteristics for six
ing, design and analysis of an in-pipe inspection mobile robot. J. Theoret. Appl. wheels driven in-pipe robot. In: 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
Mech. 52 (2), 417–429. and Biomimetics. IEEE, pp. 119–124.
Cui, J., Wang, Y., Li, A., Shao, S., Cai, X., 2018. Design and analysis of tracked Kakogawa, A., Ma, S., 2012. Stiffness design of springs for a screw drive in-pipe robot
robot with differential mechanism. In: 2018 13th IEEE Conference on Industrial to pass through curved pipes and vertical straight pipes. Adv. Robot. 26 (3–4),
Electronics and Applications. ICIEA, IEEE, pp. 829–832. 253–276.

16
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Kakogawa, A., Ma, S., 2019. Robotic search and rescue through in-pipe movement. In: Li, X., Zhang, S., Liu, S., Jiao, Q., Dai, L., 2015b. An experimental evaluation of the
Unmanned Robotic Systems and Applications. IntechOpen, p. 1. probe dynamics as a probe pig inspects internal convex defects in oil and gas
Kakogawa, A., Ma, S., Hirose, S., 2014. An in-pipe robot with underactuated parallel- pipelines. Measurement 63, 49–60.
ogram crawler modules. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Ren, T., Wei, Y., 2014. Optimized inchworm motion planning for a
Automation. ICRA, IEEE, pp. 1687–1692. novel in-pipe robot. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C 228 (7), 1248–1258.
Kakogawa, A., Nishimura, T., Ma, S., 2016. Designing arm length of a screw drive Liu, Z., Kleiner, Y., 2013. State of the art review of inspection technologies for condition
in-pipe robot for climbing vertically positioned bent pipes. Robotica 34 (2), assessment of water pipes. Measurement 46 (1), 1–15.
306–327. Liu, Z., Krys, D., 2012. The use of laser range finder on a robotic platform for pipe
Kakogawa, A., Oka, Y., Ma, S., 2018. Multi-link articulated wheeled in-pipe robot inspection. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 31, 246–257.
with underactuated twisting joints. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Liu, Q., Ren, T., Li, Y., Chen, Y., 2013. Down-hole robots: current status, challenge
Mechatronics and Automation. ICMA, IEEE, pp. 942–947. and innovation. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and
Kazeminasab, S., Aghashahi, M., Wu, R., Banks, M.K., 2020. Localization techniques for Automation. IEEE, pp. 1703–1707.
in-pipe robots in water distribution systems. In: 2020 8th International Conference Liu, C., Wei, Y., Cao, Y., Zhang, S., Sun, Y., 2020. Traveling ability of pipeline inspection
on Control, Mechatronics and Automation. ICCMA, IEEE, pp. 6–11. gauge (PIG) in elbow under different friction coefficients by 3D FEM. J. Nat. Gas
Kazeminasab, S., Banks, M.K., 2022. SmartCrawler: A size-adaptable in-pipe wireless Sci. Eng. 75, 103134.
robotic system with two-phase motion control algorithm in water distribution Liu, X., Zhang, S., Ding, Q., Zhu, X., Chen, S., Wang, Y., 2021. Design of wireless and
systems. Sensors 22 (24), 9666. self-adaptive oil-gas pipeline traction robot. In: 2021 2nd International Conference
Kazeminasab, S., Sadeghi, N., Janfaza, V., Razavi, M., Ziadidegan, S., Banks, M.K., on Artificial Intelligence and Information Systems. pp. 1–6.
2021. Localization, mapping, navigation, and inspection methods in in-pipe robots: Lu, Y., Yu, J., Sui, C., Han, J., 2015. Design of in-pipe 3SPR/3RPS parallel manipulator
A review. IEEE Access. and its kinestatics analysis. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Cyber
Kim, S., Kim, C.H., Bae, Y.-g., Jung, S., 2013a. Development of spiral driven type mobile Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems. CYBER, IEEE, pp.
robot for NDT inspection in small pipes of thermal power plants. In: 2013 13th 42–47.
International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems. ICCAS 2013, IEEE, Ma, Z., Hu, Y., Huang, J., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Chen, M., Zhu, Q., 2007. A novel design
pp. 924–928. of in pipe robot for inner surface inspection of large size pipes. Mech. Based Des.
Kim, D.-W., Park, C.-H., Kim, H.-K., Kim, S.-B., 2009. Force adjustment of an active Struct. Mach. 35 (4), 447–465.
pipe inspection robot. In: 2009 ICCAS-SICE. IEEE, pp. 3792–3797. Ma, K., Schirru, M., Zahraee, A.H., Dwyer-Joyce, R., Boxall, J., Dodd, T.J., Collins, R.,
Kim, J.-H., Sharma, G., Iyengar, S.S., 2010. FAMPER: A fully autonomous mobile Anderson, S.R., 2017. PipeSLAM: Simultaneous localisation and mapping in feature
robot for pipeline exploration. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial sparse water pipes using the Rao-Blackwellised particle filter. In: 2017 IEEE
Technology. IEEE, pp. 517–523. International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. AIM, IEEE, pp.
Kim, H.M., Suh, J.S., Choi, Y.S., Trong, T.D., Moon, H., Koo, J., Ryew, S., Choi, H.R., 1459–1464.
2013b. An in-pipe robot with multi-axial differential gear mechanism. In: 2013
Mateos, L.A., Dominguez, M.R., Vincze, M., 2013. Automatic in-pipe robot centering
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, pp.
from 3D to 2D controller simplification. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
252–257.
on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, pp. 258–265.
Kim, H.M., Yang, S.U., Choi, Y.S., Mun, H.M., Park, C.M., Choi, H.R., 2015. Design of
Mateos, L.A., Sousa, M., Vincze, M., 2011. DeWaLoP—Remote control for in-pipe robot.
back-drivable joint mechanism for in-pipe robot. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International
In: 2011 15th International Conference on Advanced Robotics. ICAR, IEEE, pp.
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IROS, IEEE, pp. 3779–3784.
518–523.
Krys, D., Najjaran, H., 2007. Development of visual simultaneous localization and
Mateos, L.A., Vincze, M., 2012. DeWaLoP in-pipe robot position from visual patterns. In:
mapping (VSLAM) for a pipe inspection robot. In: 2007 International Symposium
Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp. 239–248.
on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation. IEEE, pp. 344–349.
Mateos, L.A., Zhou, K., Vincze, M., 2012. Towards efficient pipe maintenance: DeWaLoP
Kwon, Y.-S., Lee, B., Whang, I.-C., Kim, W.-k., Yi, B.-J., 2011. A flat pipeline inspection
in-pipe robot stability controller. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on
robot with two wheel chains. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
Mechatronics and Automation. IEEE, pp. 1–6.
and Automation. IEEE, pp. 5141–5146.
Miao, X., Zhao, H., Ma, Y., 2022. Perception modeling of in-pipe robot based on
Kwon, Y.-S., Lee, B., Whang, I.-C., Yi, B.-J., 2010. A pipeline inspection robot with
machine learning. In: 2022 11th Electrical Power, Electronics, Communications,
a linkage type mechanical clutch. In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Controls and Informatics Seminar. EECCIS, IEEE, pp. 322–327.
Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, pp. 2850–2855.
Mirshamsi, M., Rafeeyan, M., 2015. Dynamic analysis and simulation of long pig in
Kwon, Y.-S., Yi, B.-J., 2012. Design and motion planning of a two-module collaborative
gas pipeline. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 23, 294–303.
indoor pipeline inspection robot. IEEE Trans. Robot. 28 (3), 681–696.
Miyagawa, T., Iwatsuki, N., 2007. Characteristics of in-pipe mobile robot with wheel
Lee, D.-H., Moon, H., Choi, H.R., 2011. Autonomous navigation of in-pipe working
drive mechanism using planetary gears. In: 2007 International Conference on
robot in unknown pipeline environment. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference
Mechatronics and Automation. IEEE, pp. 3646–3651.
on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, pp. 1559–1564.
Lee, D.-H., Moon, H., Choi, H.R., 2016. Landmark detection methods for in-pipe robot Moghaddam, M.M., Arbabtafti, M., Hadi, A., 2011. In-pipe inspection crawler adaptable
traveling in urban gas pipelines. Robotica 34 (3), 601–618. to the pipe interior diameter. Int. J. Robot. Autom. 26 (2), 135.
Lee, D., Park, J., Hyun, D., Yook, G., Yang, H.-s., 2012. Novel mechanisms and simple Mohammed, M., Nadarajah, V.S., Lazim, N.F.M., Zamani, N.S., Al-Sanjary, O.I.,
locomotion strategies for an in-pipe robot that can inspect various pipe types. Mech. Ali, M.A., Al-Youif, S., 2018. Design and development of pipeline inspection robot
Mach. Theory 56, 52–68. for crack and corrosion detection. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Systems, Process
Li, H., Li, R., Zhang, J., Zhang, P., 2020. Development of a pipeline inspection robot and Control. ICSPC, IEEE, pp. 29–32.
for the standard oil pipeline of China national petroleum corporation. Appl. Sci. Moshayedi, A.J., Fard, S.S., Liao, L., Eftekhari, S.A., 2019. Design and development of
10 (8), 2853. pipe inspection robot meant for resizable pipe lines. Int. J. Robot. Control 2 (1),
Li, Y., Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Li, M., 2017a. Helical-contact deformation measuring method 25.
in oil–gas pipelines. Int. J. Robot. Autom. 32 (1), 1–8. Muramatsu, M., Namiki, N., Koyama, R., Suga, Y., 2000. Autonomous mobile robot in
Li, T., Liu, K., Liu, H., Cui, X., Li, B., Wang, Y., 2019. Rapid design of a screw drive pipe for piping operations. In: Proceedings. 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
in-pipe robot based on parameterized simulation technology. Simulation 95 (7), on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2000)(Cat. No. 00CH37113), Vol. 3. IEEE,
659–670. pp. 2166–2171.
Li, P., Ma, S., Li, B., Wang, Y., 2008. Design of a mobile mechanism possessing driving Nagase, J.-y., Fukunaga, F., 2016. Development of a novel crawler mechanism for
ability and detecting function for in-pipe inspection. In: 2008 IEEE International pipe inspection. In: IECON 2016-42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, pp. 3992–3997. Electronics Society. IEEE, pp. 5873–5878.
Li, T., Ma, S., Li, B., Wang, M., Li, Z., Wang, Y., 2017b. Development of an in-pipe Nayak, N.R., Ray, A., 2013. Intelligent Seam Tracking for Robotic Welding. Springer
robot with differential screw angles for curved pipes and vertical straight pipes. J. Science & Business Media.
Mech. Robot. 9 (5), 051014. Nelson, C.A., 2021. Preliminary design and modeling of a robot for pipe navigation
Li, P., Ma, S., Li, B., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., 2010. Self-rescue mechanism for screw drive with a novel Wheel-Leg architecture. In: ROMANSY 23-Robot Design, Dynamics
in-pipe robots. In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Control: Proceedings of the 23rd CISM IFToMM Symposium 23. Springer, pp.
and Systems. IEEE, pp. 2843–2849. 222–229.
Li, T., Ma, S., Li, B., Wang, M., Wang, Y., 2015a. Fuzzy theory based control method Neubauer, W., 1994. A spider-like robot that climbs vertically in ducts or pipes.
for an in-pipe robot to move in variable resistance environment. Chin. J. Mech. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Eng. 28 (6), 1213–1221. Systems, Vol. 2. IROS’94, IEEE, pp. 1178–1185.
Li, Q., Sun, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, M., Meng, X., 2017c. Development of an in-pipe robot Nguyen, T.T., Yoo, H.R., Rho, Y.W., Kim, S.B., 2001. Speed control of PIG using bypass
with a novel differential mechanism. In: International Conference on Mechanical flow in natural gas pipeline. In: ISIE 2001. 2001 IEEE International Symposium on
Design. Springer, pp. 1079–1097. Industrial Electronics Proceedings (Cat. No. 01TH8570), Vol. 2. IEEE, pp. 863–868.
Li, P., Tang, M., Lyu, C., Fang, M., Duan, X., Liu, Y., 2018. Design and analysis of a Nieckele, A., Braga, A., Azevedo, L., 2001. Transient pig motion through gas and liquid
novel active screw-drive pipe robot. Adv. Mech. Eng. 10 (10), 1687814018801384. pipelines. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 123 (4), 260–269.

17
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Ogai, H., Bhattacharya, B., 2018. Pipe Inspection Robots for Structural Health and Tang, Y., Song, H., Yu, Y., Zhang, J., Hu, W., Guo, X., 2021. Dynamic simulation
Condition Monitoring. Springer. analysis and experiment of large-caliber self-propelled pipeline crawler based on
Okada, T., Sanemori, T., 1987. MOGRER: A vehicle study and realization for in-pipe ADAMS. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 2095, No. 1. IOP Publishing,
inspection tasks. IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 3 (6), 573–582. 012049.
Owojaiye, G., Sun, Y., 2013. Focal design issues affecting the deployment of wireless Tapanes, E., 2001. Fibre optic sensing solutions for real-time pipeline integrity mon-
sensor networks for pipeline monitoring. Ad Hoc Netw. 11 (3), 1237–1253. itoring. In: Australian Pipeline Industry Association National Convention, Vol. 3.
Oya, T., Okada, T., 2005. Development of a steerable, wheel-type, in-pipe robot and pp. 27–30.
its path planning. Adv. Robot. 19 (6), 635–650. Tarn, T.-J., Chen, S.-B., Zhou, C., 2007. Robotic Welding, Intelligence and Automation,
Park, J., Hyun, D., Cho, W.-H., Kim, T.-H., Yang, H.-S., 2010. Normal-force control for Vol. 362. Springer.
an in-pipe robot according to the inclination of pipelines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. Tătar, M.O., Cirebea, C., Mândru, D., 2012. The development of an in-pipe minirobot
58 (12), 5304–5310. for various pipe sizes. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE International Conference on
Pfeiffer, F., Rossmann, T., Loffler, K., 2000. Control of a tube crawling machine. In: Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics. IEEE, pp. 443–448.
2000 2nd International Conference. Control of Oscillations and Chaos. Proceedings Tătar, O., Mandru, D., Ardelean, I., 2007. Development of mobile minirobots for in
(Cat. No. 00TH8521), Vol. 3. IEEE, pp. 586–591. pipe inspection tasks. Mechanika 68 (6).
Qi, H., Ye, J., Zhang, X., Chen, H., 2010. Wireless tracking and locating system for Tolmasquim, S., Nieckele, A., 2008. Design and control of pig operations through
in-pipe robot. Sensors Actuators A 159 (1), 117–125. pipelines. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 62 (3–4), 102–110.
Qi, H., Zhang, X., Chen, H., Ye, J., 2009. Tracing and localization system for pipeline Tourajizadeh, H., Rezaei, M., Sedigh, A., 2018. Optimal control of screw in-pipe
robot. Mechatronics 19 (1), 76–84. inspection robot with controllable pitch rate. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 90 (3), 269–286.
Qiao, J., Shang, J., 2012. Research on pipeline elbow passing for in-pipe robot. Proc. Tourajizadeh, H., Sedigh, A., Boomeri, V., Rezaei, M., 2020. Design of a new steerable
Inst. Mech. Eng. C 226 (5), 1382–1394. in-pipe inspection robot and its robust control in presence of pipeline flow. J. Mech.
Qiao, J., Shang, J., 2013. Application of axiomatic design method in in-pipe robot Eng. Sci. 14 (3), 6993–7016.
design. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 29 (4), 49–57. Truong-Thinh, N., Ngoc-Phuong, N., Phuoc-Tho, T., 2011. A study of pipe-cleaning
Qiao, J.-w., Shang, J.-z., Chen, X., Luo, Z.-r., Zhang, X.-p., 2010. Unilateral self-locking and inspection robot. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
mechanism for inchworm in-pipe robot. J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. 17 (5), Biomimetics. IEEE, pp. 2593–2598.
1043–1048. Tu, Q., Liu, Q., Ren, T., Li, Y., 2019. Obstacle crossing and traction performance of
Qiao, J., Shang, J., Goldenberg, A., 2012. Development of inchworm in-pipe robot based active and passive screw pipeline robots. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 33 (5), 2417–2427.
on self-locking mechanism. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 18 (2), 799–806. Tur, J.M.M., Garthwaite, W., 2010. Robotic devices for water main in-pipe inspection:
Ren, T., Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Ji, S., 2016. Variable pitch helical drive in-pipe robot. Int. A survey. J. Field Robotics 4 (27), 491–508.
J. Robot. Autom. 31, 263–271.
Vacková, M., Trebuňa, F., Virgala, I., Kelemen, M., Kelemenová, T., Prada, E.,
Ren, T., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, Q., 2019. Driving mechanisms, motion, and
Surovec, R., Miková, L., 2012. Intelligent in-pipe machine adjustable to inner
mechanics of screw drive in-pipe robots: A review. Appl. Sci. 9 (12), 2514.
pipe diameter. In: 2012 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Applied Machine
Roh, S.-g., Choi, H.R., 2005. Differential-drive in-pipe robot for moving inside urban
Intelligence and Informatics. SAMI, IEEE, pp. 507–513.
gas pipelines. IEEE Trans. Robot. 21 (1), 1–17.
Verma, A., Kaiwart, A., Dubey, N.D., Naseer, F., Pradhan, S., 2021. A review on various
Roh, S.-g., Lee, J.-S., Moon, H., Choi, H.R., et al., 2009. In-pipe robot based on selective
types of in-pipe inspection robot. Mater. Today Proc.
drive mechanism. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 7 (1), 105–112.
Waleed, D., Mustafa, S.H., Mukhopadhyay, S., Abdel-Hafez, M.F., Jaradat, M.A.K.,
Roman, H.T., Pellegrino, B.A., Sigrist, W., 1993. Pipe crawling inspection robots: an
Dias, K.R., Arif, F., Ahmed, J.I., 2018. An in-pipe leak detection robot with a
overview. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 8 (3), 576–583.
neural-network-based leak verification system. IEEE Sens. J. 19 (3), 1153–1165.
Rome, E., Hertzberg, J., Kirchner, F., Licht, U., Christaller, T., 1999. Towards
Wang, W., Mao, X., Liang, H., Yang, D., Zhang, J., Liu, S., 2021a. Experimental research
autonomous sewer robots: the MAKRO project. Urban Water 1 (1), 57–70.
on in-pipe leaks detection of acoustic signature in gas pipelines based on the
Sampath, S., Chaurasiya, K.L., Aryan, P., Bhattacharya, B., 2021. An innovative
artificial neural network. Measurement 183, 109875.
approach towards defect detection and localization in gas pipelines using integrated
Wang, L., Yan, C., Xu, J., Wang, L., Yan, C., Xu, J., 2021b. Pipeline cleaning. In:
in-line inspection methods. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 90, 103933.
Technology Standard of Pipe Rehabilitation. Springer, pp. 13–20.
Savin, S., Jatsun, S., Vorochaeva, L., 2017a. Modification of constrained LQR for control
Wong, C., Yang, E., Yan, X.T., Gu, D., 2017. An overview of robotics and autonomous
of walking in-pipe robots. In: 2017 Dynamics of Systems, Mechanisms and Machines
systems for harsh environments. In: 2017 23rd International Conference on
(Dynamics). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Automation and Computing. ICAC, IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Savin, S., Jatsun, S., Vorochaeva, L., 2017b. Trajectory generation for a walking in-pipe
Worley, R., Yu, Y., Anderson, S., 2020. Acoustic echo-localization for pipe inspec-
robot moving through spatially curved pipes. In: MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol.
tion robots. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and
113. EDP Sciences, p. 02016.
Savin, S., Vorochaeva, L., 2017. Nested quadratic programming-based controller for Integration for Intelligent Systems. MFI, IEEE, pp. 160–165.
pipeline robots. In: 2017 International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Wu, D., Chatzigeorgiou, D., Youcef-Toumi, K., Ben-Mansour, R., 2015. Node localization
Applications and Manufacturing. ICIEAM, IEEE, pp. 1–6. in robotic sensor networks for pipeline inspection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 12 (2),
Shi, Y., Zhang, C., Li, R., Cai, M., Jia, G., 2015. Theory and application of magnetic 809–819.
flux leakage pipeline detection. Sensors 15 (12), 31036–31055. Wu, Y., Mittmann, E., Winston, C., Youcef-Toumi, K., 2019a. A practical minimalism
Shukla, A., Karki, H., 2016. Application of robotics in onshore oil and gas industry—A approach to in-pipe robot localization. In: 2019 American Control Conference. ACC,
review part I. Robot. Auton. Syst. 75, 490–507. IEEE, pp. 3180–3187.
Sibai, F.N., Sayegh, A., Al-Taie, I., 2012. Design and construction of an in-pipe robot Wu, Z., Wu, Y., He, S., Xiao, X., 2019b. Hierarchical fuzzy control based on spatial
for inspection and maintenance. In: 2012 International Conference on Computer posture for a support-tracked type in-pipe robot. Trans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng. 44
Systems and Industrial Informatics. IEEE, pp. 1–6. (1), 133–147.
Siqueira, E., Azzolin, R., Botelho, S., Oliveira, V., 2016. Sensors data fusion to navigate Xie, Q., Liu, S., Ma, X., 2021. Design of a novel inchworm in-pipe robot based on
inside pipe using Kalman filter. In: 2016 IEEE 21st International Conference on cam-linkage mechanism. Adv. Mech. Eng. 13 (9), 16878140211045193.
Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation. ETFA, IEEE, pp. 1–5. Xu, K., Xu, H., Yu, Q., Wang, Z., Xu, W., 2016. A novel crawling in-pipe robot design.
Song, H., Ge, K., Qu, D., Wu, H., Yang, J., 2016. Design of in-pipe robot In: MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 61. EDP Sciences, p. 04017.
based on inertial positioning and visual detection. Adv. Mech. Eng. 8 (9), Xu, L., Zhang, L., Zhao, J., Kim, K., 2020. Cornering algorithm for a crawler in-pipe
1687814016667679. inspection robot. Symmetry 12 (12), 2016.
Spandonidis, C., Theodoropoulos, P., Giannopoulos, F., Galiatsatos, N., Petsa, A., 2022. Yang, S.U., Kim, H.M., Suh, J.S., Choi, Y.S., Mun, H.M., Park, C.M., Moon, H.,
Evaluation of deep learning approaches for oil & gas pipeline leak detection using Choi, H.R., 2014. Novel robot mechanism capable of 3D differential driving inside
wireless sensor networks. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 113, 104890. pipelines. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Suzumori, K., Miyagawa, T., Kimura, M., Hasegawa, Y., 1999. Micro inspection robot Systems. IEEE, pp. 1944–1949.
for 1-in pipes. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 4 (3), 286–292. Yatim, N., Shauri, R., Buniyamin, N., 2014. Automated mapping for underground
Tâche, F., Fischer, W., Caprari, G., Siegwart, R., Moser, R., Mondada, F., 2009. pipelines: An overview. In: 2014 2nd International Conference on Electrical,
Magnebike: A magnetic wheeled robot with high mobility for inspecting Electronics and System Engineering. ICEESE, IEEE, pp. 77–82.
complex-shaped structures. J. Field Robotics 26 (5), 453–476. Yeh, T.-J., Weng, T.-H., 2021. Analysis and control of an in-pipe wheeled robot with
Tadakuma, K., Ming, A., Shimojo, M., Tadakuma, R., Nagatani, K., Yoshida, K., spiral moving capability. J. Auton. Veh. Syst. 1 (1), 011002.
Iagnemma, K., 2009. Basic running test of the cylindrical tracked vehicle with Yu, X., Chen, Y., Chen, M.Z., Lam, J., 2015. Development of a novel in-pipe walking
sideways mobility. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent robot. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation.
Robots and Systems. IEEE, pp. 1679–1684. IEEE, pp. 364–368.
Tan, X., Sun, Z., Wang, P., Sun, Y., 2020. Environment-aware localization for wireless Yuan, X., Martínez-Ortega, J.-F., Fernández, J.A.S., Eckert, M., 2017. AEKF-SLAM: A
sensor networks using magnetic induction. Ad Hoc Netw. 98, 102030. new algorithm for robotic underwater navigation. Sensors 17 (5), 1174.
Tang, L., Bailey, D., Jones, M., 2013. Rolling prevention mechanism for underground Zagler, A., Pfeiffer, F., 2003. ‘‘MORITZ’’ a pipe crawler for tube junctions. In: 2003
pipe erosion inspection robot with a real time vision system. Int. J. Intell. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 03CH37422),
Mechatron. Robot. (IJIMR) 3 (3), 60–76. Vol. 3. IEEE, pp. 2954–2959.

18
J.T. Kahnamouei and M. Moallem Ocean Engineering 277 (2023) 114260

Zhang, Z., Hu, L., Li, X., Hu, X., 2022. Motion analysis of screw drive in-pipe cleaning Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Sun, H., Jia, Q., 2010. Design and motion analysis of a flexible
robot. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C 09544062211061238. squirm pipe robot. In: 2010 International Conference on Intelligent System Design
Zhang, L., Wang, X., 2016. Stable motion analysis and verification of a radial and Engineering Application, Vol. 1. IEEE, pp. 527–531.
adjustable pipeline robot. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Zhao, W., Zhang, L., Kim, J., 2020. Design and analysis of independently adjustable
Biomimetics. ROBIO, IEEE, pp. 1023–1028. large in-pipe robot for long-distance pipeline. Appl. Sci. 10 (10), 3637.
Zhang, Y., Yan, G., 2007. In-pipe inspection robot with active pipe-diameter adaptability Zheng, J., Liu, M., Jiang, H.-l., Dou, Y.-h., 2017. Design of a self-adaptive pipe
and automatic tractive force adjusting. Mech. Mach. Theory 42 (12), 1618–1631. robot based on multi—axis differential system. In: 2017 IEEE 2nd Information
Zhang, Z., Yang, Y., Hou, J., Gong, Y., 2020. Modeling and simulation on speed Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference. ITNEC,
prediction of bypass pipeline inspection gauge in medium of water and crude oil. IEEE, pp. 1461–1471.
Meas. Control 53 (9–10), 1851–1860. Zhu, C., 2007. In-pipe robot for inspection and sampling tasks. Ind. Robot Int. J.
Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Liu, S., Wang, Y., 2017. Collisional vibration of PIGs (pipeline Zhu, X., Zhang, S., Li, X., Wang, D., Yu, D., 2015. Numerical simulation of contact
inspection gauges) passing through girth welds in pipelines. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. force on bi-directional pig in gas pipeline: At the early stage of pigging. J. Nat.
37, 15–28. Gas Sci. Eng. 23, 127–138.
Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Liu, S., Wang, Y., Lin, L., 2015. Measurement and analysis of Zhu, X., Zhang, S., Tan, G., Wang, D., Wang, W., 2014. Experimental study on dynamics
friction and dynamic characteristics of PIG’s sealing disc passing through girth weld of rotatable bypass-valve in speed control pig in gas pipeline. Measurement 47,
in oil and gas pipeline. Measurement 64, 112–122. 686–692.

19