Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Comparison of various pipeline monitoring systems

From: Autonomous pipeline monitoring and maintenance system: a RFID-based approach

     Quality on localization    
Project Active/ Sensing Use of Method Efficiency Cost Autonomy Capability  
  passive mode robot      of repairing  
Jin and Edygahi [4] Passive Static No Signal triangulation Fair (sometime complicated) High No No  
Jawhar et al. [23] Passive Static No Wired sensor networks Low (subject to failure) High No No  
PipeNet [6] Passive Static No Signal cross-correlation Fair (not error-free) High No No  
PipeProbe [18] Active Mobile No Beacons + interpolation Low (limited beacons) High No No  
SewerSnort [5] Active Mobile No RSSI-based beacons Fair (subject to drifter speed) High Yes No  
Murphy et al. [3] Active Mobile No RF-based quorum signal Low (depends on detection) High Yes Limited  
GASNET [7] Passive Static No Sensor position Fair (not error-free) High No No  
Meribout [24] Passive Static No Sensors + microphone Fair (not noise-free) High No No  
Sun et al. [25] Passive Static No Sensors + MI waveguide Fair (depends on detection) High No No  
SmartBall [26] Active Mobile No Beacons + acoustic sensor Fair (depends on detection) High Yes No  
KANTARO [15] Active Mobile Yes Robot wheel rotations Low (many slip errors) N/A Yes No  
MAKRO [17] Active Mobile Yes Sewer blueprint based Fair (map may not available) N/A Yes No  
GRISLEE [27] Active Mobile Yes Pipe-joint-location count Low (depends on detection) High No Yes  
EXPLORER [28] Active Mobile Yes EM-sonde Low (depends on detection) High No Yes  
Our system Active Mobile Yes RFID systems High Low Yes Controllable