PRE2024 3 Group5: Difference between revisions

From Control Systems Technology Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 444: Line 444:
|}
|}


=='''Sensors''' ==
===Hull===
Camera for visual inspection
ultrasonic for thickness measurements
===Rail robot===
Determine position along rail:
Estimate position with encoder on the wheel, this will drift due to slip. Position can be reset with periodic magnets in the rail and hall effect sensors.
===Inspecting robot===
Determine position along line
Determine speed
Determine angle
Determine depth
Might be possible to track these with an imu on the robot, subtracting with an imu on the rail robot to compensate for the movement of the ship. Can work in conjunction with an encoder on the wheels or a mapping to the ship topology for more accurate results (kalman filter)
chains?


<!--== '''Needed Components''' ==
<!--== '''Needed Components''' ==

Revision as of 10:45, 17 March 2025

General Notes

TRIDENT (Tactical Robotic Inspection & Detection for Enhanced Nautical-hull Testing)

Tasks for this week:

  • Luuk - Localization on the hull
  • Anh - Ultra sonic sensor
  • Simon - Use case
  • Anton - Continue writing about the MFL
  • Luca - Physics for the simulation

Group Members

Name Student ID Department Email
Anton Veshnyakov 1866508 Electrical Engineering a.veshnyakov@student.tue.nl
Luuk Kool 1883542 Electrical Engineering l.j.c.kool@student.tue.nl
Anh That Tuan Ton 1816209 Electrical Engineering a.ton.that.tuan.anh@student.tue.nl
Luca Rutz 1781294 Electrical Engineering l.d.rutz@student.tue.nl
Simon van Valkengoed 1881361 Electrical Engineering s.h.v.valkengoed@student.tue.nl

Problem Statement (NEEDS AN UPDATE!!!)

The hull of an ocean-going vessel is subjected to immense forces and the unforgiving conditions of the ocean. As a result, these vessels must undergo hull inspections twice within every five-year period in a dry dock. These regulations originate from the SOLAS convention and are overseen by the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMO[1]. For bulk carriers and oil tankers, an example is Resolution MSC.461(101), which mandates that their hulls be inspected twice every five years in a dry dock, with certain exceptions[2].

A key challenge for shipyards conducting these inspections is the inability to accurately predict how long a vessel will remain in dry dock. This uncertainty stems from what the inspection would uncover, as the extent of necessary repairs remains unknown until the inspection procces is completed. Consequently, it is diffucult for shipyards to efficiently plan and allocate their dry dock facilities.

To mitigate this issue, it would be advantageous for shipyards to conduct preliminary inspections that identify serious structural concerns in advance. This proactive approach would allow shipyards to anticipate potential repair needs, improve scheduling, and optimize dry dock usage.



Deliverable and goals (NEEDS AN UPDATE!!!)

The deliverable of this project will be a simulation of a robot that inspects the hulls of ships. This simulation will include the sensing part of a robot (measure its location and dynamics, measure the hull integrity and process it), but will not include actuators such as wheels or thrusters. The simulation should work for every (smooth) model of a ship hull.

The main goals are:

  • Measure location with suitable precision and map this position on the manifold of the hull.
  • Research non destructive testing for observing a hull underwater.
  • Implement the robot in a simulation software.
  • Find the relevant user requirements and uses.


Planning

Week Tasks
1 Initial group set-up and task planing.
2 Literature research.
Reach out to a specialist in the field.
3 Research subgoals
4 Implement subgoals
5 Implement subgoals
Draw conclusions and possible future improvements.
6 Create the final presentation.
7 Finalize the wiki page.


User Interviews

Damen Group

To better understand what the industry, and thus the users of this product, would want, it was decided to reach out to the Damen Group here in the Netherlands because of their vast knowledge in building, inspecting, and using dry docks.

After reaching out to them we came into contect with Klaas Kuper how is a Area Sales Manger of the Netherlands, Poland and the baltic states. Mr Kuper kindly answerd our questions via the email and invited us for a teams meating which we gladly accepted.

Below

Answers on the questions that where send to Damen.

Question Answers
How often are ship hull inspections needed, and what types of inspections are required? On average A seagoing vessel is docked 2 times every 5 years. Sometimes one of the dockings can be a so called in water survey.

          Type of class survey’s:

Periodical surveys:

  • Annual survey for class confirmation is intended for establishing that the ship complies to a sufficient degree with the conditions of class, as well as for checking the operation of machinery, devices and installations covered by the requirements of the Rules for the Classification and Construction of Sea-Going Ships.
  • Intermediate survey shall be carried out either at or between the second and third annual surveys. Items, which are additional to the items to be surveyed at annual surveys, may be surveyed either at or between the second and third annual survey.
  • Special survey for class renewal is intended for determining whether the ship's technical condition and structural and composition modifications of its items comply with the requirements of the RS rules. Special survey shall be carried out at 5-year intervals to renew the class.
  • Survey of the outside of the ship's bottom shall be carried out to verify whether the technical condition of the following items complies with the requirements of the RS rules:
    • underwater hull;
    • sea inlets, bottom and side valves;
    • underwater parts of rudder and steering gears;
    • shafting, propellers and active means of the ship's steering (AMSS);
    • parts of navigational equipment in the underwater hull;
    • other items of technical supervision, which survey shall normally be carried out with the ship in a dry dock.

https://english.ilent.nl/topics/seagoing-vessels

https://rs-class.org/en/services/classification-surveys/#:~:text=Classification%20surveys%20of%20various%20purpose,retainment%20and%20confirmation%20of%20the

How expensive are hull inspections, and what factors influence the cost? Depends on the scope and the age of the vessel. At a new vessel the scope is limited. If the vessel gets older more items need inspection.
What are the most expensive or least reliable parts/methods to inspect? Hull thickness measurement.

https://www.mme-group.com/nl/scheepvaart/

https://www.mme-group.com/nl/maritieme-surveys/ultrasone-diktemetingen-utm/

What are the most challenging areas of the hull to inspect and why? Flat bottom. Due to groundings. Ballast tanks (inside the hull) due to corrosion
What are the most commonly used methods for ship inspections today? Drydocking or divers.
How often are divers used for inspections, and what are the risks involved? Only for intermediate or bottom survey. Risk that damages are missed / mis interpretated
What are the most common defects found during hull inspections, and how are they

detected?

Dents, cracks, punctures, cavitation etc. visually or by 3D measurement.

Users requirements summery (NEEDS AN UPDATE)

After talking to various companies in the field of ship construction and maintenance, the following requirements were formulated for the different users.

The shipyards:

  • Cost effective system.
  • Corrosion detection.
  • bio foliage observation.
  • superficial and inner metallurgical fracture observation.

The ship owner:

  • Time-effective to the point that it does not disrupt the normal shipping process.
  • That the test are Non destructive.

State of the art

(state of the art concepts and robots go here)

Sources:

Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) detection

Fig. 1: Magnetic flux lines in a closed magnetic circuit. [3]

Today, the main energy sources that most people rely on, such as gas and oil, are being transported using pipes running in all kinds of environments. It is crucial to maintain the structural integrity of the pipes as a leak can potentially cause a catastrophe. However, it is impossible to inspect hundreds of thousands of kilometers of pipes visually, both due to the sheer size of them and also due to the fact that some of them run under ground or under water. To tackle this problem, engineers came up with a robot that can enter a pipe and scan it from the inside, looking for potential abnormalities. One of the main tools to accomplish this task is using the Magnetic Flux Leakage technique. Since most pipes are built out of steel, which is ferromagnetic, meaning it conducts magnetic fields within itself, it is possible to recognize a defect in the pipe by measuring the magnetic field that passes through a certain point in a pipe[4]. In a similar manner, this technology can be used on the hulls of ships since they are also made of ferromagnetic materials, usually steel and steel alloys. Since the idea of using MFL for ships is quite novel, little research has been done on implementing the system on a robot or similar machine to carry out the inspection. As a result, we base our research on models and experiments that have been conducted on land based objects, such as pipes and train rails. The assumption here is that using the equations that govern those models and experiments, it is possible to adjust the technique to be used under water.

What is Magnetic Flux Leakage?

In order to understand what magnetic flux leakage is and how it can be useful for detecting cracks and metal defects, we first need to understand the concept of magnetic flux in general. Magnetic flux is the measure of the total magnetic field passing through a given area. Mathematically, magnetic flux is defined as : Φ = B · A · cos(θ), where B is the magnetic field strength [Tesla], A is the area [m2], and cos(θ) is the angle between the area and the magnetic field. Magnetic flux is measured in units of Weber and can be created by magnets that are put in-line with the ferromagnetic material, or by using current carrying wires that induce a magnetic field as can be seen in Fig. 1. While most of the magnetic flux is following the shape of the ferromagnetic material, some of it will jump through the gaps that are present in the loop, which is called leakage or fringing. As can be seen in Fig. 1, a surface defect, such as a crack, will cause some of the flux to "leak" or take a different path than the straight line it should usually follow. Small amounts of leakage also happen in the gaps between the flux producing yoke and the specimen itself but those can be neglected as we assume that the yoke would be in full contact with the ship body.

MFL application in the industries

Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) detection is one of the most popular methods of inspection of structures made out of ferromagnetic materials. It is a nondestructive testing technique which uses magnetic sensitive sensors to detect the magnetic leakage field of defects on both the internal and external surfaces of given structures. [5] The inspection of those structure is often important due to the safety and health risk that small fatigue cracks can cause, especially when talking about oil and gas pipes, or the tanks of a oil carrier ship. IN addition to fatigue cracks, MFL can be used to detect such things as corrosion, erosion and metal loss, although there are more reliable and easier methods to go about detecting those defects. For the pipeline reliant industries, MFL is useful as it can be mounted on a special robot that goes inside the pipe and by suing the MFL can detect defects both on the inside and outside of the pipe without requiring a direct human access to the entirety of the pipe. In the train industry, MFL can be used to detect early-stage fatigue cracks on the wheels, which is crucial for the safety of the train and its passengers, as broken wheels can lead to derailments and catastrophic consequences.[3]

Influence of crack orientation on MFL

Fig. 2: MFL scan results of a crack from different angles. [6]

Due to the 3D nature of our world, cracks can be created and then propagate in different direction in the material. When using one MFL sensor it is sometimes hard or impossible to get a strong enough leakage so that it can be detected by the sensor. Additionally, even when using a linear arrangement of of sensors it is still not enough if the crack is perpendicular to the sensor array. [6] As stated in the research paper [6], it is advised to use a circular sensor array in order to achieve the best crack detection and orientation. Figure 2 demonstrates the different digitalized read-outs from the MFL sensor with relation to the angle of the crack to the sensors. The difference of the crack detection as a result of its orientation is explained by the following equation: B' = B · cos(β), where B' is the resulting magnetic flux density across the crack, B is the original flux density, and β is the crack's relative angle with respect to the magnetization direction. Additionally, it has been shown that deeper or wider cracks result in stronger leakage fields, as well as changing the amplitude and spatial distribution of the signal, which makes FML highly suitable for detecting cracks. [7]

Surface Crack Size Estimation Based on Quantification and Decoupling of Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Signals of Circular Array Sensors | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

Composite magnetic flux leakage detection method for pipelines using alternating magnetic field excitation - ScienceDirect - has some info on how the orientation of the crack affects the readout and some math to support it.

Internal inspection method for crack defects in ferromagnetic pipelines under remanent magnetization - ScienceDirect - has info about using MFL and RMFL (remnant magnetic flux leakage) so can be used as supporting evidence or as a completely different way to detect cracks.

Detection of crack on a mild steel plate by using a magnetic probe incorporating an array of fluxgate sensors - ScienceDirect - simple explanation of how to use MFL to detect cracks and defects in metals (has some math equations)

Theory and Application of Magnetic Flux Leakage Pipeline Detection - PMC - the name speaks for itself. Has a nice picture/diagram to visualize the leakage field in every axis.

A Review of Magnetic Flux Leakage Nondestructive Testing - PMC - has a good paragraph of sensing methods

Current applications

Sharck HR for SCC and surface-breaking cracks assessment | Eddyfi

Swift M MFL Pipeline Corrosion Mapping | Eddyfi

Enhanced localized MFL detection

Pulsed Magnetic Flux Leakage Measurement Using Magnetic Head and Tunneling Magnetoresistance for Defect Detection | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

Can also use the train source

Simulation of Enhanced FML

Pulsed magnetic flux leakage techniques for crack detection and characterisation - ScienceDirect

Non-destructive inspection using ultrasound system

One of the most representative non-destructive testing methods for the inspection of ship hull is the Ultrasonic Testing. In general, this method utilizes the propagation of ultrasonic waves to detect cracks or deformation in a solid body. Within this method, various techniques were developed[8]:

  1. Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement (UTM): UTM is a non-destructive technique that measures the local thickness of a structure by analyzing the difference in arrival times between direct and reflected waves. This method requires ultrasonic sensors to be in direct contact with the hull surface, which must be cleaned of coatings, corrosion, and biofouling. The final measurement locations are chosen based on a comprehensive survey to ensure they represent the average hull condition.
  2. Pulse-Echo Ultrasonic Testing (PEUT): PEUT is used to analyze internal defects within a structure. It employs a system where one sensor generates and receives ultrasonic waves. By examining the maximal amplitude and velocity of echoes reflected by defects, the size, location, and nature of the defects can be determined. This technique is commonly used for inspecting hull welds, constituent materials, and measuring thickness.
  3. Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT): PAUT is advantageous for complex structures as it uses an array of ultrasonic elements to focus and scan the area of interest without moving the probe. By controlling each element in the array, the energy of the wavefront can be bent, deflected, and focused to produce cross-sectional images of defects, making it easier to analyze intricate structures.
  4. Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing (GWUT): GWUT is designed for long plate-like structures and uses guided ultrasound waves, such as Lamb waves, to detect and locate defects at remote locations. These waves can propagate over significant distances with minimal attenuation and energy loss, making them suitable for inspecting thin-wall structures. However, GWUT may not be applicable to curved structures or those with varying geometries.
  5. Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Ultrasonic Testing: TOFD determines the position and size of defects by measuring the time of flight of ultrasonic pulses rather than the amplitude of the reflected signal. This method uses a pair of ultrasonic probes, with the transmitter emitting a pulse and the receiver picking it up. If a crack is present, the waves are diffracted from the crack tip, allowing the size of the crack to be calculated.
  6. Air-Coupled Ultrasonic Testing (ACUT): ACUT uses air as the coupling medium instead of traditional liquid couplants like water or gel. This non-contact method eliminates the drawbacks of contact ultrasonic testing, making it more efficient for health monitoring and non-destructive testing. ACUT is particularly suitable for inspecting large-scale hulls made of metal or composite materials.

In this project, the ultrasonic transducers are implemented to measure the thickness loss of the ship hull due to corrosion. There exists three main principle of ultrasonic thickness measurement: resonance method, Lamb Law method and pulse reflection method. In the first method, by emitting ultrasonic waves of varying frequencies onto a workpiece, resonance occurs when the thickness equals a multiple of half the wavelength[9]. This method achieves high accuracy (≤0.1mm) with smooth surface finishes, which is not always the case for ship hull due to biofouling. For the second one, Lamb waves occur when ultrasonic frequency relates to both incident angle and workpiece thickness. They excel at measuring thin materials. However, when Lamb wave modes propagate in a fluid medium, they may suffer leakage by mode conversion into the fluid at a radiation angle dictated by Snell's law[10]. Lastly, the pulse echo method sends ultrasound through homogeneous materials, with propagation time proportional to thickness. This method works on rougher surfaces, making it versatile for various material conditions. The main drawback of this method comes from the complexity of signal processing caused by the attenuation of some composite sound[11]. One method to solve such problem has been studied. For this method, the system employs four key approaches to improve accuracy: Extracting peak echo signal values to minimize amplitude fluctuations from noise; Using differential circuits with zero-crossing comparators to effectively isolate peak echo signals; Measuring time between echo signals via dual peak detection, eliminating the need to measure ultrasonic propagation in the probe. The pulse reflection method extracts secondary echo signals for analysis, requiring minimal surface quality. This allows measurement of materials with rough, concave, or painted surfaces while maintaining good echo signal quality[11]. Furthermore, thermal compensation for high accuracy thickness loss due to corrosion measurement has also been researched[12], WIP!!!

Logbook

Week 1
Name Total Time (Hours) Work Description
Anton Veshnyakov 7 Attended lecture (3h), Organized and structured the wiki page (1h), Group meeting (1h), Organizing the planning chart (1h), Research of problem statement and objectives (1h)
Luuk Kool 7 Attend lecture (3h), search for papers (1h) / meeting (1h)/ research sensors(2h)
Anh That Tuan Ton 5 Searched for relevant articles (1h), research paper (4h)
Luca 2 meeting (1h), research on needed components (1h)
Simon 5 meeting, reading about non-destructive inspection techniques for ship inspection.
Week 2
Name Total Time (Hours) Work Description
Anton Veshnyakov 10 Meeting with group and company research (4h), Research of relevant literature (4h), Second group meeting (2h),
Luuk Kool 8 Meeting with group (4h), meet again (1h), read papers (3h)
Anh That Tuan Ton 7 Meeting with group (4h), research for additional company (1h), second group meeting (2h)
Luca Meeting with group (4h), messaging companies (1h)
Simon 9 meeting with group (4h), communicating with the company Damen (1h) research for the cost of the actual inspections of the ships (4h)
Week 3
Name Total Time (Hours) Work Description
Anton Veshnyakov 18 Meeting with group (4h), Robot simulation software research (4h), Meeting with simulation researcher (2h), Second meeting with the group (2h), Research and summery of MFL (6h)
Luuk Kool 4 Meeting with group (4h)
Anh That Tuan Ton 12 Meeting with group (4h), second meeting with group (2h), research on ultrasonic testing methods (4h), study other state of the art papers (2h)
Luca Meeting with group(4h), getting familiar with gazebo (3h), creating a 3d model for the robot(1h)
Simon
Week 4
Name Total Time (Hours) Work Description
Anton Veshnyakov 9 Meeting with group (3h), research and writing about MFL (6h)
Luuk Kool
Anh That Tuan Ton
Luca Meeting with group (3h), working on movelment in gazebo(4h), do a force analysis of the robot(1h)
Simon
Week 5
Name Total Time (Hours) Work Description
Anton Veshnyakov
Luuk Kool
Anh That Tuan Ton
Luca
Simon
Week 6
Name Total Time (Hours) Work Description
Anton Veshnyakov
Luuk Kool
Anh That Tuan Ton
Luca
Simon
Week 7
Name Total Time (Hours) Work Description
Anton Veshnyakov
Luuk Kool
Anh That Tuan Ton
Luca
Simon


Articles summary

https://tuenl-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/personal/a_ton_that_tuan_anh_student_tue_nl/Documents/Documents/Year%203/Quartile%203/0LAUK0/Article%20summary.docx?d=w072622aab5a34691aa5c9248b16dc866&csf=1&web=1&e=gP4b5P

Simulation software

Simulink 3D animation can be used. This system can interact in Unreal Engine.

Documentation:

https://nl.mathworks.com/products/3d-animation.html https://nl.mathworks.com/help/driving/unreal-engine-scenario-simulation.html https://nl.mathworks.com/videos/series/using-unreal-engine-with-simulink.html https://nl.mathworks.com/help/vdynblks/ug/customize-scenes-using-simulink-and-unreal-editor.html


Gazebo can also be used for simulations. It is open source. https://gazebosim.org/home

Bibliography

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [2]

  1. ↑ International Maritime Organization. (n.d.). Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). IMO. Retrieved March 15, 2025, from https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MSC-Default.aspx
  2. ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE. (2019). RESOLUTION MSC.461(101) (adopted on 13 June 2019) AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE ENHANCED PROGRAMME OF INSPECTIONS DURING SURVEYS OF BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS, 2011 (2011 ESP CODE). https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MSCResolutions/MSC.461(101).pdf
  3. ↑ Jump up to: 3.0 3.1 E. Li, Y. Chen, Z. Yuan and J. Wang, "Train Wheel Magnetic Flux Leakage Testing Method Based on Local Magnetization Enhancement," in IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1-9, 2023, Art no. 6002409, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2023.3251393.
  4. ↑ Y. Long et al., "A Novel Crack Quantification Method for Ultra-High-Definition Magnetic Flux Leakage Detection in Pipeline Inspection," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 16, pp. 16402-16413, 15 Aug.15, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2022.3190684.
  5. ↑ Shi Y, Zhang C, Li R, Cai M, Jia G. Theory and Application of Magnetic Flux Leakage Pipeline Detection. Sensors (Basel). 2015 Dec 10;15(12):31036-55. doi: 10.3390/s151229845. PMID: 26690435; PMCID: PMC4721765.
  6. ↑ Jump up to: 6.0 6.1 6.2 W. Gong, M. F. Akbar, G. N. Jawad and F. Zhang, "Surface Crack Size Estimation Based on Quantification and Decoupling of Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Signals of Circular Array Sensors," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 16752-16762, 15 May15, 2024, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2024.3379401.
  7. ↑ Feng B, Wu J, Tu H, Tang J, Kang Y. A Review of Magnetic Flux Leakage Nondestructive Testing. Materials (Basel). 2022 Oct 20;15(20):7362. doi: 10.3390/ma15207362. PMID: 36295427; PMCID: PMC9610001.
  8. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :0
  9. ↑ Shi Yiwei. Ultrasonic detection[M]. Beijing: Mechanical Industry Press, 2005:94-96.
  10. ↑ Y. Roh and B. T. Khuri-Yakub, "Finite element analysis of underwater capacitor micromachined ultrasonic transducers," in IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 293-298, March 2002, doi: 10.1109/58.990939.
  11. ↑ Jump up to: 11.0 11.1 J. Pan, F. Chen, Z. Song and Y. Feng, "Ultrasonic Pulse Reflection Method of Thickness Measurement System based on FPGA," 2020 5th International Conference on Mechanical, Control and Computer Engineering (ICMCCE), Harbin, China, 2020, pp. 2224-2228, doi: 10.1109/ICMCCE51767.2020.00482.
  12. ↑ J. C. Adamowski, F. Buiochi, M. Tsuzuki, N. Pérez, C. S. Camerini and C. Patusco, "Ultrasonic measurement of micrometric wall-thickness loss due to corrosion inside pipes," 2013 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), Prague, Czech Republic, 2013, pp. 1881-1884, doi: 10.1109/ULTSYM.2013.0479.
  13. ↑ Ferreira, C.Z., Yuri, G., Conte, C., Avila, J.P., Pereira, R.C., Morais, T., & Ribeiro, C. (2013). UNDERWATER ROBOTIC VEHICLE FOR SHIP HULL INSPECTION: CONTROL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE.
  14. ↑ Cardaillac, Alexandre & Skjetne, Roger & Ludvigsen, Martin. (2024). ROV-Based Autonomous Maneuvering for Ship Hull Inspection with Coverage Monitoring. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems. 110. 10.1007/s10846-024-02095-2.
  15. ↑ Negahdaripour, Shahriar & Firoozfam, Pezhman. (2006). An ROV Stereovision System for Ship-Hull Inspection. Oceanic Engineering, IEEE Journal of. 31. 551 - 564. 10.1109/JOE.2005.851391.
  16. ↑ A. F. Ali and M. R. Arshad, "Ship Hull Inspection using Remotely Operated Vehicle," 2022 IEEE 9th International Conference on Underwater System Technology: Theory and Applications (USYS), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2022, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/USYS56283.2022.10072609. keywords: {Underwater cables;Visualization;Remotely guided vehicles;Prototypes;Inspection;Sensors;Safety;Remotely Operated Vehicle;Ship Hull Inspection;Unmanned Underwater Vehicle},
  17. ↑ Li, J., He, Y., Tao, W. (2025). Design and Implementation of a Modular Underwater Brush-Clearing Robot and Its Observation Module. In: Pham, D.T., Lei, Y., Lou, Y. (eds) Mechanical Design and Simulation: Exploring Innovations for the Future. MDS 2024. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7887-4_35
Retrieved from "https://dsdwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2024_3_Group5&oldid=130730"