587
1 INTRODUCTION
Maritime transport has weathered the whirlwind of
the deadly COVID‐19 pandemic amidst a myriad of
challenges which have prompted significant
disruptions in seaborne trade. For example, to avert
theimpactsofborderclosuresandtravelrestrictions
on the performance of routine statutory inspections
and classification surveys, some flag states and
classificationsocietieshaveresortedtotheapplication
ofremoteinspectiontechniques inlieuoftraditional
in‐personinspections/surveystoestablishcompliance
whileeasingtheknock‐oneffectsofthelockdown[1‐
6].However,theuseofremoteinspectiontechniques
hadbeen introducedby afew classification
societies
prior to the global outbreak of the COVID‐19
pandemic, as an alternative means of crediting
statutoryinspections/classsurveystherebyaimingto
optimise and automate existing inspection/ survey‐
related tasks and processes [7]. As a result, the
number of inspections/ surveys credited by remote
techniques has increased sharply since
2016,
especially among members of the International
AssociationofClassificationSocieties(IACS)[8,9].
Application of Virtual Reality for Remote Ship
Inspections and Surveys – A Systematic Review
A.M.Sheriff,M.Anantharaman,R.Islam&H.O.Nguyen
UniversityofTasmania,Launceston,Australia
ABSTRACT: The use of virtual reality for the establishment of compliance is a potential game‐changer in
enabling real‐time remote inspections/ surveys of vessels. When provided with high‐speed internet access,
robotsorremote‐controlledinspectionvehiclessuchasdrones,crawlers,unmannedaerialvehicles(UAVs),
and
so on, may be equipped with remote inspection technologies (RITs), and smart optical cameras and sensor
suites in conjunction with wearable technologies, and smart/ mobile devices, to carry out an aerial and
underwater virtual assessment of the coating condition of the steel structural members of the vessel while
transmitting
thedatainreal‐timeornearreal‐time,viacollaborativesoftware.Toeasethetravelrestrictionsand
borderclosurespromptedbytheCoronavirus(COVID‐19),thesenoveltechnologieshavebeenintroducedby
someflagstatesandclassificationasalternativestotraditionalin‐personstatutoryinspections/classsurveys.
Thisstudyaims
toemployasystematicliteraturereview(SLR)approachto(1)classifytheprofilesofexisting
publicationsrelatedtoremoteinspections/surveys,(2)highlightthekeythematicareasbeingdiscussedwithin
the domainofremoteinspections/surveysand identifytasksand processesthat may requirevirtual reality
application.Tothebest
ofourknowledge,thefindingshaverevealedthatthereisnoexistingSLRpaperrelated
totheapplicationofremoteinspectiontechniquesinshipinspections/surveys.However,thereviewretrieved
28primarystudiesfromthefollowingdatabases:Scopus,WebofScience,ScienceDirect,andGoogleScholar.
Basedontheresults,various
studieshaveproposedmultifarioussolutionstoovercomingtheexistingtechnical
andregulatorybarrierstothemassdeploymentofthesecutting‐edgetechnologies.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 3
September 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.03.10
588
Conventionally, seagoing vessels are operated
within the hostile ocean environment which poses
threatstothestructuralintegrityofthehullandother
steelstructuralmembersonboard[10].Inaccordance
with the relevant IMO conventions and regulations,
vesselsengagedininternationalvoyagesarerequired
to maintain seaworthiness. As such, the
IMO has
made it mandatory for ships to undergo periodic
inspectionstosatisfycomplianceinadditiontothose
carriedbytheclassificationsocieties[11].
As such, the introduction of remote inspection
techniques serves as a possible proxywhichmayor
maynotrequiresurveyors’accessonboardthevessel.
Moreover,
the introduction of remote inspection
techniques has the potential to mitigate inspection‐
relatedriskswhileimprovingefficiencyandlowering
cost and required time. [12]. To this objective, RITs
havebeendeployedtoassessthestructuralintegrity
of the hull and other steel structural members both
belowthewaterlineandinhard
‐to‐accesszones.
Hence,thisreviewseekstocontributetothewider
academic discourse in the following ways. First,
conductathematicreviewofremoteshipinspection/
survey to identify and classify current publications
available within the broader literature, as well as to
appreciatethetrendsinremoteinspectiontechniques.
Second,highlightthemainthematicareastoidentify
the progress and potential gaps. Lastly, identify
activitiesandprocessesthatrequiretheuseofvirtual
realityinremoteinspections/surveys.
Furthermore, this study has been undertaken in
accordancewiththeguidelinesestablishedby[13]to
answer the research questions. Though originally
intended
for the field of software engineering, this
guideline highlights a gradual approach to
thoroughly understanding the trends based on
primary studies while publishing the findings
appropriately.
Therefore, the remainder of this SLR paper has
beenstructuredintothefollowingsections.Insection
two, a background to remote surveys is briefly
discussed.In sectionthree,theresearch method and
the approach to data collection and synthesis are
described.Sectionfoursummarisesthekeyfindings,
along with the discussions provided. Last of all, in
sectionfive,theconclusionandfutureresearchwork
arebrieflysummarised.
2 BACKGROUND
The term remote inspection/ survey refers
to the
examinationundertakenorpartiallycarriedoutbyan
attending surveyor without access on board, to
establishwhethertheshipanditsequipmentcomply
with applicable conventions and regulations of the
IMO, statutory requirements of the Flag State
administration, and the minimum standards
establishedbytheclassificationsociety[14].
According to [15, 16], remote surveys can be
integrated with RITs such as drones, remotely
operated vehicles (ROVs), aerial robots or robotic
crawlers, that are specifically designed with
multifarious features to obtain desired capabilities
such as capturing still images and live‐streamed
videos.Also,RITscanbecombinedwithmobileand
wearable devices to enable the collection,
transmission, and processing of high‐quality and
elaborateinspectiondatainreal‐timeoroffline[17].
Moreover,amongthecriticismsincludethelackof
astandardtoestablishequivalency betweenremote‐
assisted surveys and those undertaken with
surveyors’ access on board [7], the absence
of a
harmonized code of conduct to guide ethical
practices, as well as the nonexistence of a robust
regulatory framework to build trust among
stakeholders, while providing a safety net for
shipowners, especially in terms of liability, data
management, governance, and protection, among
others[15,18‐20].
In addition, the International
Transport Workers’
Federation(ITF)hasraisedthealarmabouttheuseof
the seafarers in collaboration with the attending
surveyor to carry remote inspections/ surveys on
board the vessel, thereby terming it as imposing an
additionalburdenonthecrewwhohavenorelevant
trainingin thatregard [21]. Therefore,
these barriers
needtobeaddressedbytherelevantstakeholders.
Apart, different RITs have been used mainly to
visuallyassessthecoatingconditionofstructuralsteel
membersonboardthevessel.Forexample,remotely
operatedvehicles(ROVs)canbedeployedtovisually
inspectthehull’sconditionbelowthe waterline[22],
UAVs
or drones, fitted with cameras, are more
suitable for collecting still images or live‐streamed
footage, especially from hard‐to‐access zones of the
vessel such as places located at heights, enclosed
spaces, cargo holds, tanks, and so on [12, 23, 24],
robotic crawlers can be deployed to inspect the
hull
condition both underwater and above the waterline
[25], and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs)
canbedeployedtominimisehullfoulingandenergy
consumption while enhancing safety [16, 26, 27].
UnlikeROVsandcrawlers,UAVslackthecapabilities
to conduct non‐destructive testing and thickness
gauging [25]. Still, when equipped with
localisation
andvision‐basedsensingdevices,UAVs canoperate
autonomouslyinenvironmentswherethereislimited
GlobalPositioningSystem(GPS)signals [28].So,the
use of remote‐assisted surveys has the potential to
optimise maintenance and inspection‐related tasks
and save time and cost while minimising risks to
surveyors.
3
METHODOLOGY
ThissectionpresentsthemethodsadoptedinthisSLR
paper. Using a step‐by‐step approach, the review
seeks toidentifythe profiles of publicationsfocused
on the use of remote inspection techniquesto credit
ship inspections/ surveys, and related processes and
tasksthatrequiretheapplicationofvirtualreality,
as
wellastoidentifythedirectionoffutureresearch.The
studyisundertakeninaccordancewiththeguidelines
proposedby[29].
589
3.1 ResearchQuestions
Aspartofthereviewprotocol,weinitiallycarriedout
some preliminary searches from previous studies.
relevant to the topic, to identify the most used
terminologies and synonyms in remote inspection
techniques and properly formulate our research
questions. Based on these searches, we have refined
our research
questions to mainly address the
following.
RQ1: How are publications focusing on the use of
remoteinspection/surveyofshipsorganised?
3.2 RQ2:Whatarethekeythematicareasbeing
discussed?
RQ3: Which related tasks/ processes require the
applicationofvirtualreality?
3.3 SearchStrategy
Todefineoursearchstring,
westartedbyreviewing
severalrelatedstudies[7,15,18‐20,25]andcombine
differentkeywordstorefineoursearchstrings.
To avoid the omission of important publications,
westartedoffbyusingthesynonymsofthekeywords
toformulateourresearchquestions.Next,wedefined
our search query for virtual
reality and remote
surveys/inspectionsasillustratedinTable1.
3.4 InclusionandExclusionCriteria
AsillustratedinTable1,thecriteriafortheinclusion
andexclusionof papersrestrict theselectionprocess
to consider studies that have been peer‐reviewed
withinthecontextofvesselinspection/survey.Also,
we
setourexclusioncriteriatorestrict thefollowing
types of studies: papers that are not peer‐reviewed,
primary studies that are not available in English, as
wellaspapersthatwerepublishedpriorto2016.
Table1.Inclusionandexclusioncriteria
________________________________________________
Inclusion Description
Criteria
________________________________________________
I1 Primarystudiesthatarepeer‐reviewed.
I2 PapersthatarepublishedinEnglish.
I3 Papersthatarepublishedfrom2016‐2023
________________________________________________
Exclusion Description
Criteria
________________________________________________
E1 Papersthatarenotrelatedtothetopic.
E2 Papersarenotavailableinfulltext.
E3 Papersthatarenotpresentingremoteinspection.
techniques.
________________________________________________
3.5 SelectionProcess
As shown in Figure 1, we have filtered the selected
studiesinthefollowingstepsbasedontheinclusion
andexclusioncriteria(showninTable1).
3.6 QualityAssessment
Duringtheselection,wetriedtominimisetherisksof
bias due to human errors prior to reviewing
and
validating the primary studies. Also, by considering
the quality of the selected publications, the research
questions have been formulated to ensure validity
whileadheringtotheguidelinesadoptedby[29].To
evaluate the quality of the selected papers, we
consultedmethodsadoptedby[30‐32].
3.7 ThreatstoValidity
To
validate and understand the review process, this
SLRpaperfollowstheguidelinesadoptedby[13,29].
First,searcheswere randomly conductedin orderto
refinethekeywordswhiledefiningtheinclusionand
exclusion criteria. To this aim, the primary author
conductedtheaforementionedtaskswhilethereview
protocolwasvalidated
bythesecondaryauthors.
Furthermore,duringthesearchprocess,wenoted
the following observations. First, we noticed that
thereisnoexistingsystematicliteraturereviewpaper
availablewithinthedomainofremoteshipinspection
andsurveys.Also,we noticedthatthere isonly one
extant primary study[25] thatfocuses on
theuse of
virtual reality in remote inspections/ surveys.
However, other application areas of virtual reality
mentionedin theindexeddatabasesselected forthis
review are mostly focused on ship design and
offshoreengineering[33‐35].
4 RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
In this section, the findings of this SLR paper have
been briefly summarised. In line with the approach
adoptedby[29],23publicationsoutofthetotalof28
primary studies have been reviewed and analysed.
For each question, we have presentedtheimportant
findings, discussedthem,and summarized the most
relevantpoints.Thus,theseresultsimplythatthereis
an
increasinginterestinremoteinspectiontechniques.
Inaccordancewithourselectioncriteriaandbased
on the method proposed by [13], we restricted our
searchtoincludeonlypeer‐reviewedpapersavailable
in journals and conferences. Notwithstanding, only
oneoftheprimarystudiesfocusedontheapplication
ofvirtualrealityin
remotesurveys(QR2).Thislackof
primarystudiescanbepartlyattributedtothenovelty
ofthisresearchfield.
590
Figure1.Selectionprocess
4.1 RQ1:Howarethepublicationsfocusedontheremote
inspection/surveyofshipsdistributed?
We intend to answer this research question by
identifying the selected publications based on the
year,types,toppeer‐reviewedjournals,andthemost
activeresearcherswiththeiraffiliatedinstitutionsand
countries. By investigating the involvement
of
individualresearchersandtheiraffiliatedinstitutions,
weaimedtoidentifywhichresearchersandcountries
have more interest in remote inspection techniques.
Researchinterestinremoteinspectiontechniqueshas
increased sharply during the last few years,
particularlyamongresearcherswhoareaffiliatedwith
European and Asian institutions. In Figures 5‐
6, the
geographic distribution of the selected primary
studiesispresented.
4.1.1 ProfilesandDistributionofprimarypublications
The selected publications have been summarised
in the following figures. Figures 1‐4 illustrate the
distribution of primary studies by year, type, and
peer‐reviewed journal/ conference. Results indicate
thatresearchinterestin
remoteinspectiontechniques
has increased sharply during the last few years,
particularlyamongresearcherswhoareaffiliatedwith
European and Asian institutions. In Figures 5‐6, the
geographic distribution of primary studies is
presented.
Based on our findings, remote inspection
techniques are gaining significant popularity in
academia and industry. For
example, 16 of the 28
selected primary studies (57%) related to remote
inspections/ surveys have been published from 2016
onwards.Also,wefoundthat64 percent(%)ofthe
selected publications have been peer‐reviewed in
journalswhile36percent(%)ofpublished.Moreover,
it is worth noting that
the most active researchers
within the domain of remote ship inspection are
mostlyaffiliatedwithEuropeaninstitutionsfollowed,
byAsianinstitutions.
4.1.2 NumberofPublications
Figure1.Publicationperyear
4.1.3 TypesofPublication
Figure2.Publicationpertype
Figure3.Publicationperjournalcontribution
591
4.1.4 Researchers’Affiliations
Figure4.Publicationperinstitutionalaffiliation
Figure5.Publicationpergeographicaffiliation
4.2 RQ2:Whatarethekeythematicareasbeing
discussed?
Inthissection,weaimtoidentifyandsummarisethe
most important themes regarding remote inspection
techniques. The general information about the key
thematicareashasbeensummarizedinFigure6.Asa
result,only23outofthe28primary
studieshavebeen
consideredforfurtherdiscussion.
4.3 RQ3:Whichrelatedtasks/processesrequirethe
applicationofvirtualreality?
In this section, the application areas of virtual
realization have been reviewed and summarized.
Based on our findings, there are fewer publications
related to this topic. Out of the 28 primary
studies
reviewed,onlyonepaperhasfocusedonit.However,
thefew primarystudies on theuse ofvirtual reality
arewithinthedomainofshipdesign.
Overall,asillustratedinFigure6,oftheselected25
publications,30percent(30%)aremainlyfocusedon
thedesignofremoteinspection
vehicles,20 percent
(20%) are focused on the related challenges and
drawbacks,followedby18percent(18%)arefocused
on the optimization of robotic platform/ detection
tool, 16 per cent (16%) are focused on control
software, 13 per cent (13%) are focused on the
detection algorithm, while only
3 per cent (3%) are
focused on the application areas of virtual reality,
smartdevices,wearabletoolsandmobiledevices.In
general,resultsfrom thesestudieshaverevealed the
growing interest among researchers within the
domain of remote inspection techniques which
demonstratesthedirectionoffutureresearch.
Figure6.Thematicareas
Based on the findings from the selected
publications [10‐12,15‐20,22,23,25,37‐50], the use of
remote inspection techniques to credit inspections/
surveysofvesselsisanemergingresearchdomain.As
such, existing primary studies related to remote
inspection techniques are mostly focused on the
design and optimization of the current detection
hardware of remote inspection vehicles proposing
various optical devices such as high‐definition
cameras and sensor suits such as ultrawide‐band
(UWB), aimed at enhancing their capabilities to
navigate,localiseandmanoeuvrerobustly,especially
when entering or exiting hard‐to‐access and GPS‐
deniedareasofthevessel.
Moreover, to
improve the quality of the images
capturedfromthedefectivesteelstructuralmembers
of the hull and other parts of the vessels, the
modification of the control software, the
reconstruction of the hull into a three‐dimensional
view (3D), the reconfiguration of the detection
algorithms using multifarious programming
languages, machine learning,
and deep learning
conceptshavebeenextensivelyhighlightedinsomeof
the papers.Hence, most of the primary studies
selected for this review have proposed different
detection hardware, control software and detection
algorithms, as well as various concepts and
approaches aimed at reducing inspection/ survey‐
related hazards, cost, and time
while improving the
scope and quality of the images and live‐streamed
videos collected during visual inspections of the
coatingconditionofthevessel.
Furthermore, of the selected publications for this
review,fewerstudies(only3%)havementionedthe
relatedtasks/processesthatrequiretheapplicationof
virtualrealityin
creditingremoteinspections/surveys
in real‐time or near real‐time. Thus, based on the
resultsofthereviewedpublications,theuseofremote
inspection techniques on board the vessel, to credit
inspections/ surveys in real‐time via collaborative
software is yet to become reality due to underlying
technicalchallenges
suchaslowinternetconnectivity.
Notwithstanding, several of the studies cited in
this SLR have highlighted the enormous benefits
associatedwiththedeploymentofremoteinspection
techniques and their overlying challenges. For
592
example, some papers have mainly highlighted the
existing technical and regulatory gaps and have
proposed methods to overcome them. Among the
benefits emphasised include the use of remote
inspection techniques as a possible replacement for
conventional in‐person inspections/ surveys to
improve inspection outcomes while mitigating
inspection‐relatedhazardsand
loweringtherequired
timingandassociatedcosts.
Contrastingly,noneofthepublicationsselectedfor
this review has mentioned the prospects and
challengesinvolvingtheuseofseafarerstocarryout
survey/ inspection‐related tasks.As such, one of the
keyissuesbeingdiscussedintheexistingliteratureis
played by
the seafarers as representatives of the
shipowners during remote inspections/ surveys. By
dint of the novelty of the topic, the role of the
seafarers is yet to be clearly defined. Regarding
performingremoteinspections/surveysonboardthe
vessel in conjunction with the attending surveyor
without access on board the vessel,
it is critical to
define the role and training needs of seafarers, who
are integral team players, to prevent fatigue due to
additional workload, thereby leading to precarious
workingconditions.Lastly,basedontheresultsofthe
reviewedpapers,anothermajorchallengethathasnot
received coverage is the lack
of procedure and
mechanism to ensure trust and transparency,
especially during the inspection and transmission of
databetweenthecrewandtheshore‐basedpersonnel.
5 CONCLUSIONSANDFUTUREWORK
In this SLR paper, the use of remote inspection
techniques and the application of virtual reality to
relatedtasks/processeshave
beenpresented.Tothis
objective, we identified the most relevant primary
studies usingfour digital databases. Beforehand, we
startedbydefiningtheresearchgoal,formulatingthe
researchquestions,anddefiningkeywordsandsearch
strings, as well as specifying the inclusion and
exclusioncriteria.
Based on the search strategy used within
the
chosenindexeddatabases,thefindingshaverevealed
thatuptodate,thereisnoexistingSLRpaperrelated
to the use of remote inspection techniques to credit
vessels’ inspections/ surveys or the application of
virtual reality in related activities/ procedures. In
other words, these results suggest that this specific
research
areahasnotgainedmuchattentionfromthe
wider literature. Presumably, being the first SLR
studytobeconductedwithinthisfield,weaimedto
collateandsynthesizetherelevantprimarystudiesin
a meaningful way to guide the direction of future
research.AsindicatedinSection4.1,theresults
show
that this field is increasingly becoming popular
amongresearchersinrecentyears.
Moreover, a decisive point in Section 4.2 is the
integration of remote inspection technologies in
conjunction with high‐resolution optics, wearable
tools, smart technologies, and mobile devices to
improve existing inspection activities and tasks. In
addition to optimising
the designs of the detection
platforms, existing studies are mostly focused on
improving the quality of still images captured and
live videos streamed,aswell as those of thecontrol
software. Thus, future research efforts must focus
more on overcoming the existing techno‐regulatory
barriers to accelerate the mass adoption
of these
nascenttechnologies.
Notwithstanding, another conclusive point in
Section4.3istheuseofvirtualrealitytoenablereal‐
timeremoteinspection/surveywithouttheattending
surveyor accessing the vessel. As such, the lack of
standardstoestablishequivalencebetweentraditional
and remote‐assisted inspections/ surveys, and the
underlyingtechnical
andtechnologicalconstraintsare
potential barriers. Also, as mentioned in section 4.3,
only 3 per cent of the 23 publications collated and
synthesized mentioned tasks/ processes that require
the useofvirtual realitywithintherealm of remote
ship inspection/ survey. Therefore, future research
and development efforts must be directed
to bridge
thesegaps,somethingthatishighlyrecommendedin
variousprimarystudies.
Lastly, the use of the ship crew to proxy on the
shipowner’s behalf during remote inspections/
surveys has beenextensivelyhighlighted insomeof
the studies including peer‐reviewed articles and the
grey literature. For example, in section
4.2, some
papers have emphasized the need for closing the
existing techno‐regulatory gaps related to the
adoption of remote inspection technologies in
crediting statutory inspections/ classification surveys
using harmonised and standardized protocols to
guidetheinspectiontasksandprocesses,developing
and test the performance of RITs, establish training
centres
for the qualification and competency of the
relevant stakeholders. Nonetheless, none of the
studies cited in this SLR has made mentioned the
trainingandcompetencylevelsrequiredbyseafarers
incarryingoutremoteinspections/surveysonboard
thevessel.Furthermore, whenusing theseafarersto
represent theowners, there is a
need to define their
roleandtrainingneedsproperlywhileensuringthat
the collection and transmission of data remain
transparent particularly when undertaking statutory
inspectionsto validate compliance. Therefore,future
research must be focused on defining the roles and
training requirements for seafarers to partake in the
implementation of remote
inspections/ surveys on
boardthevessels,backedbyaregulatoryframework
to ensure transparent inspection and data‐sharing
practicesbetweenseafarersandshore‐basedstaffare
conductedappropriately.
REFERENCES
[1]IACS.ʺIACSPublishesUnifiedRequirementonRemote
Classification Surveys.ʺ IACS.
https://iacs.org.uk/media/7738/iacs‐remote‐surveys‐
information‐paper.pdf(accessed.
[2]L. Carballo Piñeiro, M. Q. Mejia Jr, and F. Ballini,
ʺBeyond COVID‐19: the future of maritime transport,ʺ
WMUJournalofMaritimeAffairs,vol.20,no.2,pp.127‐
133,2021.
[3]
A.Oyenuga,ʺPerspectivesontheimpactoftheCOVID‐
19 pandemic on the global and African maritime
transport sectors, and the potential implications for
Africa’s maritime governance,ʺ WMU Journal of
MaritimeAffairs,vol.20,no.2,pp.215‐245,2021.
593
[4]UNCTAD,ʺReview of Maritime TransportʺUnited
Nations Commission on Trade and Development,
31/January 2020 2019. Accessed: 09/02/2023. [Online].
Available: https://unctad.org/system/files/official‐
document/rmt2019_en.pdf
[5]UNCTAD,ʺReview of Maritime Transport,ʺ United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
125,126,127,128,133,142, 18/11/2021 2021. Accessed:
31/01/2023. [Online]. Available:
https://unctad.org/webflyer/review‐maritime‐transport‐
2021
[6]UNCTAD,ʺReview of Maritime
Transportʺin
ʺNavigatingStormyWaters,ʺUnitedNationsConference
on Trade and Development, 11/2022 2022. Accessed:
12/28/2022. [Online]. Available:
https://unctad.org/system/files/official‐
document/rmt2022_en.pdf
[7]L.Poggi,C.M.Rizzo,T.Gaggero,M.Gaiotti,E.Ravina,
and Ieee,ʺAssessment of ship robotic inspections,ʺ in
25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging
Technologies and Factory Automation
(ETFA), Vienna,
AUSTRIA, Sep 08‐11 2020, in IEEE International
Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory
Automation‐ETFA, 2020, pp. 1491‐1498. [Online].
Available:<GotoISI>://WOS:000627406500241.[Online].
Available:<GotoISI>://WOS:000627406500241
[8]DNV.ʺPosidonia 2016: DNV GL performs first drone
production survey.ʺ
https://www.dnv.com/services/drone‐surveys‐the‐safer‐
and‐smarter‐way
‐103018(accessed05/02/2023,2023).
[9]Seadrone.ʺClass Societies and Remote Inspection
Techniques.ʺ Seadrone.
https://seadronepro.com/blog/class‐societies‐steady‐
march‐to‐remote‐inspection‐technologies‐and‐
techniques(accessed13/01/2023,2023).
[10]J. Albiez et al.,ʺRepeated close‐distance visual
inspections with an AUV,ʺ in MTS/IEEE Oceans
Conference, Monterey, CA, Sep 19‐23 2016, 2016,
doi:
10.1109/oceans.2016.7761099.[Online].Available:<Goto
ISI>://WOS:000399929000105
[11]F. M. Shah, T. Gaggero, M. Gaiotti, and C. M. Rizzo,
ʺCondition assessment of ship structure using robot
assisted 3D‐reconstruction,ʺShip Technology Research,
vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 129‐146, Sep 2021, doi:
10.1080/09377255.2021.1872219.
[12]F. Bonnin‐Pascual andA.Ortiz,ʺ
Onthe useof robots
andvisiontechnologiesfor the inspectionofvessels:A
surveyonrecentadvances,ʺOceanEngineering,vol.190,
p. 106420, 2019/10/15/ 2019, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106420.
[13]S. Keele,ʺGuidelines for performing systematic
literature reviews in software engineering,ʺ ed:
Technical report, ver. 2.3 ebse technical report. ebse,
2007.
[14]
IACS,ʺAnnualReview2021,ʺInternationalAssociation
of Classification Societies, 11/2022 2021. Accessed:
12/28/2022. [Online]. Available:
https://iacs.org.uk/about/iacs‐annual‐
review/#:~:text=2021%20Annual%20Review%20includes
%20a,Remote%20Survey%20and%20Cyber%20Resilienc
e
[15]A. Pastra, N. Schauffel, T. Ellwart, and T. Johansson,
ʺBuilding a trust ecosystem for remote inspection
technologies in ship hullinspections,ʺ Law,Innovation
andTechnology,vol.14,no.2,pp.
474‐497,2022.
[16]S.Hong,D.Chung,J.Kim,andIeee,ʺDevelopmentofa
Hover‐Capable AUV System for Automated Visual
Ship‐Hull Inspection and Mapping,ʺ in Conference on
OCEANS, Anchorage, AK, Sep 18‐21 2017, in Oceans‐
Ieee, 2017. [Online]. Available: <Go to
ISI>://WOS:000455012000247.[Online].Available:<Goto
ISI>://WOS:000455012000247
[17]J. Pray and K. McSweeney,ʺIntegration of wearable
technologyforinspectiontasks,ʺinOffshoreTechnology
Conference,2018:OnePetro.
[18]T.M.Johansson,D.Dalaklis,andA.Pastra,ʺMaritime
roboticsandautonomoussystemsoperations:Exploring
pathways for overcoming international techno‐
regulatorydatabarriers,ʺJournalofMarineScienceand
Engineering,vol.
9,no.6,p.594,2021.
[19]L.Poggi,T.Gaggero,M.Gaiotti,E.Ravina,andC.M.
Rizzo,ʺRecent developments in remote inspections of
ship structures,ʺ International Journal of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering, vol. 12, pp. 881‐
891,2020.
[20]L.Poggi,T.Gaggero,M.Gaiotti,E.Ravina,
andC.M.
Rizzo,ʺRoboticinspectionofships:inherentchallenges
and assessment of their effectiveness,ʺ Ships and
OffshoreStructures,vol.17,no.4,pp.742‐756,2022.
[21]ITF,ʺBeyond the Limit: How Covid‐19 corner‐cutting
places too much risk in the international shipping
system,ʺ inʺBeyond the Limit of
remote Inspectionsʺ
International Transport Workers’ Federation Maritime
SafetyCommittee,UnitedKingdom,09/20202020,vol.8.
Accessed: 12/29/2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.itfglobal.org/sites/default/files/node/news/f
iles/ITF%20MSC%20Report%20September%202020_Bey
ond_the_limit_v8.pdf
[22]F. Bonnin‐Pascual and A. Ortiz,ʺA Flying Tool for
SensingVesselStructureDefectsUsingImageContrast‐
BasedSaliency,ʺIeeeSensorsJournal,vol.16,no.15,pp.
6114‐
6121,Aug2016,doi:10.1109/jsen.2016.2578360.
[23]F.Bonnin‐Pascual,A.Ortiz,E.Garcia‐Fidalgo,andJ.P.
Company‐Corcoles,ʺA reconfigurable framework to
turnaMAVintoaneffectivetoolforvesselinspection,ʺ
Robotics andComputer‐Integrated Manufacturing, vol.
56,pp.191‐211,Apr2019,doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2018.09.009.
[24]R. Y. Brogaard,
M. Zajaczkowski, L. Kovac, O. Ravn,
and E. Boukas,ʺTowards UAV‐Based Absolute
Hierarchical Localization in Confined Spaces,ʺ in IEEE
International Symposium on Safety, Security, and
Rescue Robotics (SSRR), Khalifa Univ, ELECTR
NETWORK, Nov 04‐06 2020, in IEEE International
Symposium on Safety Security and Rescue Robotics,
2020, pp. 182‐
188. [Online]. Available: <Go to
ISI>://WOS:000651056800033.[Online].Available:<Goto
ISI>://WOS:000651056800033
[25]F.Wen,J.Pray,K.McSweeney,andH.Gu,ʺEmerging
inspection technologies–enabling remote
surveys/inspections,ʺ in Offshore Technology
Conference,2019:OnePetro.
[26]S.Hong,D.Chung,J.Kim,Y.Kim,A.Kim,andH.K.
Yoon,ʺIn‐water visual ship
hull inspection using a
hover‐capableunderwatervehiclewith stereovision,ʺ
Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 531‐546,
2019.
[27]M. Kalimuthu, R. Parween, Z. S. Saldi, P.
Veerajagadheswar, and M. R. Elara,ʺDesign and
development of a 3D printed hydroblasting robot,ʺ
MaterialsToday:Proceedings,vol.
70,pp.470‐476,2022.
[28]Z.Fangetal.,ʺRobustautonomousflightinconstrained
and visually degraded shipboard environments,ʺ
JournalofFieldRobotics,vol.34,no.1,pp.25‐52,2017.
[29]B.Kitchenham,O.P.Brereton,D.Budgen,M.Turner,J.
Bailey,andS.Linkman,ʺSystematicliteraturereviewsin
software engineering–a systematic literature review,ʺ
Informationandsoftwaretechnology,vol.51,no.1,pp.
7‐15,2009.
[30]A. Ahmad et al.,ʺA systematic literature review on
using machine learning algorithms for software
requirementsidentificationonstackoverflow,ʺSecurity
andCommunicationNetworks,vol.2020,pp.1‐19,2020.
[31]L.
M.Kmet,L.S.Cook,andR.C.Lee,ʺStandardquality
assessment criteria for evaluating primary research
papersfromavarietyoffields,ʺ2004.
[32]N.Sánchez‐Gómez,J.Torres‐Valderrama,J.A.García‐
García, J. J. Gutiérrez, and M. Escalona,ʺModel‐based
software design and testing in blockchain smart
contracts:
A systematic literaturereview,ʺ IEEEAccess,
vol.8,pp.164556‐164569,2020.
594
[33]M.Jezetal.,ʺASharedImmersiveVirtualEnvironment
for Improving Ship Design Review,ʺ in 19th
International Conference on Ships and Maritime
Research (NAV), Trieste, ITALY, Jun 20‐22 2018, 2018,
pp.770‐777,doi:10.3233/978‐1‐61499‐870‐9‐770.[Online].
Available:<GotoISI>://WOS:000567876300090
[34]C. T. Li
et al.,ʺREAL‐TIME SIMULATION OF HULL
STRUCTURE USING FINITE ELEMENT IN VIRTUAL
REALITYAPPLICATIONS,ʺin40thASMEInternational
ConferenceonOcean, Offshore andArcticEngineering
(OMAE),ElectrNetwork,Jun21‐302021,2021.[Online].
Available:<GotoISI>://WOS:000881651500038.[Online].
Available:<GotoISI>://WOS:000881651500038
[35]M. OʹByrne, B. Ghosh,
F. Schoefs, and V. Pakrashi,
ʺApplications of Virtual Data in Subsea Inspections,ʺ
JournalofMarineScienceandEngineering,vol.8,no.5,
May2020,Artno.328,doi:10.3390/jmse8050328.
[36]F. Bonnin‐Pascual, E. Garcia‐Fidalgo, J. P. Company‐
Corcoles, and A. Ortiz,ʺMUSSOL: A Micro‐Uas to
SurveyShip
CargohOLds,ʺRemoteSensing,vol.13,no.
17,Sep2021,Artno.3419,doi:10.3390/rs13173419.
[37]M. Walter, F. Hover, and J. Leonard,ʺSLAM for ship
hull inspection using exactly sparse extended
information filters,ʺ 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐s2.0‐
51649115879&doi=10.1109%2fROBOT.2008.4543408&par
tnerID=40&md5=3a473a91d02cb42240a333a6c4c8415a.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐s2.0‐
51649115879&doi=10.1109%2fROBOT.2008.4543408&par
tnerID=40&md5=3a473a91d02cb42240a333a6c4c8415a
[38]V. Alexandropoulou, T.
Johansson, K. Kontaxaki, A.
Pastra, and D. Dalaklis,ʺMaritime remote inspection
technology in hull survey & inspection: A synopsis of
liabilityissuesfromaEuropeanUnioncontext,ʺJournal
ofInternationalMaritimeSafety,EnvironmentalAffairs,
andShipping,vol.5,no.4,pp.184‐195,2021.
[39]F. Bonnin‐Pascual, E. Garcia‐
Fidalgo, J. P. Company‐
Corcoles, and A. Ortiz,ʺMUSSOL: A Micro‐Uas to
SurveyShipCargohOLds,ʺRemoteSensing,vol.13,no.
17,Sep2021,Artno.3419,doi:10.3390/rs13173419.
[40]F.Bonnin‐PascualandA.Ortiz,ʺAnovelapproachfor
defect detection on vessel structures using saliency‐
related features,ʺ Ocean
Engineering, vol. 149,pp. 397‐
408,2018.
[41]W.J.Chan,P.Y.Wu, A.B.Azam,andY. Cai,ʺWhen
VRmeetsUnderwaterRobots:CreatinganUnderwater
Hull Cleaning Simulator,ʺ 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2‐
s2.85146048802&doi=10.1109%2fISMAR‐
Adjunct57072.2022.00082&partnerID=40&md5=4736aa8f
72601bbee9bc525e1f7c3f9c.
[42]Y.‐S.Han,J.Lee,J.Lee,W.Lee,andK.
Lee,ʺ3DCAD
data extraction and conversion for application of
augmented/virtual reality to the construction of ships
and offshore structures,ʺ International Journal of
ComputerIntegratedManufacturing,vol.32, no. 7,pp.
658‐668,2019.
[43]S.Hong,D.Chung,J.Kim,Y.Kim,A.Kim,andH.K.
Yoon,ʺIn‐water
visual ship hull inspection using a
hover‐capableunderwatervehiclewith stereovision,ʺ
Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 531‐546,
2019.
[44]M. Kalimuthu, R. Parween, Z. S. Saldi, P.
Veerajagadheswar, and M. R. Elara,ʺDesign and
development of a 3D printed hydroblasting robot,ʺ
MaterialsToday:
Proceedings,vol.70,pp.470‐476,2022.
[45]C. T. Li et al.,ʺREAL‐TIME SIMULATION OF HULL
STRUCTURE USING FINITE ELEMENT IN VIRTUAL
REALITYAPPLICATIONS,ʺin40thASMEInternational
ConferenceonOcean, Offshore andArcticEngineering
(OMAE),ElectrNetwork,Jun21‐302021,2021.[Online].
Available:<GotoISI>://WOS:000881651500038.[Online].
Available:<GotoISI>://WOS:000881651500038
[46]S. Reed, J. Wood, J. Vazquez, P.‐Y. Mignotte, and B.
Privat,ʺAsmartROVsolutionforshiphullandharbor
inspection,ʺ in Sensors, and Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) Technologies
forHomelandSecurityandHomelandDefenseIX,2010,
vol.7666:SPIE,pp.535‐
546.
[47]E. Stensrud, A. Torstensen, D.‐B. Lillestøl, and K.
Klausen,ʺTowardsRemoteInspectionsofFPSOʹsUsing
Drones Instrumented with Computer Vision and
Hyperspectral Imaging,ʺ in Offshore Technology
Conference,2021:OnePetro.
[48]Y.Wu,X.Ta,R.Xiao,Y.Wei,D.An,andD.Li,ʺSurvey
of underwater robot
positioning navigation,ʺ Applied
OceanResearch,vol.90,p.101845,2019/09/01/2019,doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.06.002.
[49]Q.Zhang,J.Zhang,A.Chemori,andX.Xiang,ʺVirtual
submerged floating operational system for robotic
manipulation,ʺComplexity,vol.2018,pp.1‐18,2018.
[50]J. Zhou, W. Li, H. Fang, Y. Zhang, and F. Pan,ʺ
The
HullStructureandDefectDetectionBasedonImproved
YOLOv5 for Mobile Platform,ʺ in Chinese Control
Conference, CCC, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2851404
53115&doi=10.23919%2fCCC55666.2022.9902288&partne
rID=40&md5=1b4d12a4930df4eecc1c4ad72067697c
