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 | |