Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Review

A review of ground-based robotic systems for the characterization of nuclear T

environments
Ioannis Tsitsimpelisa,∗, C. James Taylora, Barry Lennoxb, Malcolm J. Joycea
a
Lancaster University, Engineering Department, Lancaster, LA1 4YW, United Kingdom
b
School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The use of ground-based robotic systems for the characterisation of nuclear environments is reviewed. Almost
Nuclear robotics since the dawn of the nuclear energy industry, man has somewhat inadvertently created environments in which
Nuclear environments characterisation access has been constrained primarily due to the risk posed by extreme levels of radiation exposure but also due
to space constraints, and because of toxic and combustible atmospheres. Robotic systems pose an ideal solution
to some of these difficulties, removing the need for humans to access such places and frequently providing data
on the state of such places that would not otherwise be available. However, each of these requirements is often
very different in terms of the specification of a given robot, and the detailed characteristics of a given harsh
environment can pose significant challenges even for the most robust of platforms. Furthermore, such devel-
opments can be expensive in terms of cost and development time. These issues notwithstanding, robotic solu-
tions to nuclear challenges are reaching a level of maturity where their use is destined to add significant value.
This paper considers the salient developments in ground-based solutions from the era preceding the Three Mile
Island accident, through Chernobyl and on to the present day and, in particular, the needs of Fukushima Daiichi
as attentions turn to this complex robotic suite of challenges.

1. Introduction replace humans on a wider range of work tasks in radiation environ-

During the second half of the 20th century, mankind reaped the
rewards of several, far-reaching scientific discoveries that took place in
the first half, amongst which was the control of the nuclear chain re-
action for generating electricity. Due to its high energy density and thus
relatively small requirement for fuel, nuclear power has been exploited
extensively. In addition, it has mandated improvements in the robust-
ness of materials that are used in nuclear facilities, and this has led to
extended performance and increased safety margins. In this regard,
advances in materials science and engineering have since been applied
to a wide range of nuclear related tasks, which span from the infra-
structure of a reactor and ancillary buildings through to the processes
by which they are decommissioned. For example, static- and monorail-
type, tele-operated machines have been in use since the dawn of nuclear
energy to handle operations safely in areas of extreme radiation ex-
posure and to manage contaminated materials (Hamel and Martin,
1983; Wehe et al., 1989); while a number of mobile prototypes were
available during the 1960s (Clark, 1961; Huffman, 1962).
With microprocessor technology flourishing in the mid-70s, re-
searchers envisioned diverse but feasible robotic designs that could
ments, including inspection, maintenance, and repair. At the same time,
civil nuclear power plants were erected in Europe and North America
on a scale never repeated since, and hence it made sense to design and
build embracing robotic technology for these purposes.
In 1979, the need for advanced robotic capability became an im-
perative because the reactor meltdown that took place in Unit 2 at
Three Mile Island meant that several tasks had to be undertaken re-
motely, complementing the use of long-handled tools and what were
then novel vision systems. The first ever radiation survey robot, for
these purposes, was deployed in the basement of the unit four years
later, in what is regarded as a landmark in the nuclear industry. Seven
years after the Three Mile Island accident, the catastrophic accident
that took place in Chernobyl resulted in a strategy to entomb the af-
fected plant in sand and clay to limit the extent of ongoing radioactive
emissions, and reshaped the interest in the concept of using mobile
robots in place of people for nuclear accident response applications.
The technological improvements over the next two decades have
driven the design and implementation of highly sophisticated systems,
with robotics gaining more and more popularity in mainstream com-
mercial fields, such as entertainment, transport and medicine. It was

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: i.tsitsimpelis@lancaster.ac.uk (I. Tsitsimpelis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.10.023
Received 23 May 2018; Received in revised form 9 October 2018; Accepted 29 October 2018
Available online 12 November 2018
0149-1970/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
perhaps only when the Fukushima accident occurred, that we were
reminded that current robotic technology was not as readily deployable
as was commonly expected. Moreover, the unique circumstances that
were revealed following the accident generated the demand for specific,
fundamental technological advances. Therefore, in this respect, the
requirements associated with Fukushima are a touchstone in this era for
the capability of robotic and artificial intelligence in nuclear clean-up,
just as Three Mile Island was thirty-nine years ago. The technology that
will result from this decommissioning process is expected to prevent
and/or minimize the ramifications of a nuclear accident, while the
experience gained will likely benefit the overall safety of current and
future nuclear power plants. For example, robotic systems that can
provide information about unknown (geometrically and en-
vironmentally) areas can be highly beneficial; for they may simplify
scheduled work tasks in intact environments; in terms of navigation and
environment characterisation.
This article discusses the development of terrestrial robots for ap-
plications that relate to nuclear power plants, by bringing together
various designs available in the literature, exploring the current situa-
tion and future directions, and summarizing the design requirements
that should be satisfied to yield new generation robots. The following
section presents the background and motivation for developing mobile
robotic platforms for nuclear applications. Section 3 summarizes ro-
botic designs from the 1990s onwards, and Section 4 discusses the
significance of these developments and presents a set of requirements
that are common for all nuclear-related robots; current, prominent re-
search questions that have yet to be answered are discussed. Finally,
Section 5 presents the concluding remarks of this review.
2. Background
The broader motivation for developing remotely-controlled robots
relates to work tasks in inaccessible and hazardous environments; a
number of such robots were developed between the late 50s and mid-
70s. For example, the Hughes Mark II Mobot and an underwater
crawler, RUM, were state of the art remote handling vehicles, equipped
with various tools and manipulators (Clark, 1961). The former and two
other compact vehicles (Little Ranger, Koelsch) were also considered in
a 1962 technical report on the design of remote handling for the NERVA
(Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) project that was active
at the time in USA (Huffman, 1962; Ledbetter and Paper, 1969). In the
UK, between 1972 and 1979, various robotic vehicles that stemmed
from the efforts of the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEBG)
were being evaluated for routine operations at various nuclear power
stations (Friend et al., 1988). These were tracked vehicles developed to
recover debris and provide visual and radiation information.
The primary incentives for developing remotely-controlled robots in
the nuclear industry came from the needs to minimize the exposure of
workers to radiation, and improve overall productivity. As an example,
Fig. 1 shows the 250 days average (labour hours per day) during normal
operation of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), with routine inspection
work tasks causing the majority of overall exposure (Fujii et al., 1976).
The authors argue candidly that tasks such as inspecting for steam/
water leakage, valve opening, instrument reading, machine vibration,
temperature and overheating, and parts loosening are all dependent on
human senses, and propose that the same can be achieved by deploying
a mobile platform that carries relevant sensing capabilities.
The proposed concept was that the motion of a mobile platform is
controlled by an operator. The platform is equipped with several sen-
sors that feed back to a processing unit and to the operator via a con-
sole. The information received is for example, temperature, vibration,
radiation, sound and vision. This is depicted by the right-hand side
block diagram in Fig. 2. When compared with the block diagram on the
left-hand side, which was published 40 years later (Sarkar et al., 2016),
one may see that the broader concept hardly differs, and hence a fun-
damental set of requirements still applies to this day.
110
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
Fig. 1. Approximate length of work tasks per day under radiation and in a
control room (Fujii et al., 1976).
By contrast, dynamic changes have taken place on a subsystem
level, including processing speed, overall size and weight of electronics
and sensors, the incorporation of semi-autonomous capabilities, and
there have been widespread advances in communications. Another
contrast with the current state-of-the-art is the unique circumstances
that have been unveiled due to degradation of irradiated parts of nu-
clear facilities, and with a great number of them getting closer to the
end of their life-cycle. For instance, out of the 455 reactors that are
currently operational, 325 were commissioned between 1968 and 1991
(World Nuclear Association, 2017a); long before relevant mobile ro-
botic systems found widespread use in the industry. Today's circum-
stances relate mainly to the working environments in which autono-
mous systems are required to function. For instance, the H-canyon air
exhaust tunnels at Savannah River have degraded significantly over
time, with concrete pieces having collapsed, standing water being
present at different parts, and with friable, alpha contamination and
high beta and gamma doses (Robinson and Smith Jr., 2004). Essen-
tially, the same environments are now more hostile and hence the
constraints of today's robots are inevitably different in terms of system,
performance and implementation requirements.
2.1. TMI-2 post-accident robots
Following the accident at Three Mile Island, in 1979, access to the
reactor was heavily constrained for the first two years due to the risk of
exposure to such an extent that, eight years later, access to the base-
ment was still only possible via remotely-controlled platforms
(Schwartz and Meininger, 1987a). The facilities that were decontami-
nated included the Diesel Generator building, the Auxiliary building,
the Fuel Handling building, the reactor containment building, and the
Unit-2 reactor itself (Brooksbank and Armento, 1980). The diesel gen-
erator building was the least contaminated and was a practice area for
the approach that would follow on the other facilities, i.e. the use of
decontaminants. By that point, mobile platforms that were developed
explicitly for TMI-2 addressed tasks like inspection, decontamination,
and dismantling. In total, three different robots were used in the clean-
up process: ROVER, LOUIE I, and LOUIE II (Schwartz and Meininger,
1987b). The ROVER (Remote Reconnaissance vehicle, RRV, Fig. 3) was
essentially a remotely-operated multi-tool on six wheels, with cap-
abilities including environmental monitoring, video transmission,
sampling, and decontaminating. Two of these were deployed in the
basement of Unit 2, with radiation levels ranging between 25 mSv h−1
to 10 Sv h−1, and a third was used for training and equipment testing
purposes. LOUIE I (Fig. 4) was a small, light duty, (primarily) surveying
robot, which carried out radiation measurements in areas where the
I. Tsitsimpelis et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124

Fig. 2. Two robotic operational block diagrams separated by 40 years. Left (Sarkar et al., 2016), right (Fujii et al., 1976).

Fig. 3. One of the RRVs that were deployed in the basement of TMI-2 (Gelhaus Fig. 4. LOUIE I: a light duty robot that was deployed in spaces that the RRV-1
and Roman, 1990). would not physically fit (Reilly et al., 1985).

111
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
Fig. 5. The SURVEYOR robot, 1985 (Gelhaus and Roman, 1990).
RRV could not physically reach, and in cubicles with radiation ranging
between 10 and 30 Sv h−1 (Reilly et al., 1985; Unknown, 1984). LOUIE
II, on the other hand, was deployed specifically for the purposes of
cutting pieces of concrete.
In the mid-90s, personnel at the Nine Mile Point nuclear station
evaluated mobile robotic solutions that could be beneficial in terms of
cost and safety for the radwaste retrofit project that had started a few
months before. A publication from that period (Kniazewyc et al., 1986)
presents some of the commercial and research concepts that were ex-
amined by R&D personnel. The first one, SURVEYOR (Fig. 5), was a
commercial two-tracked tetherless vehicle with the ability to climb 45°
stairs, pass through water of 15 cm in depth, and overcome obstacles up
to 23 cm in height.
The ROCOMP was a similar robot, designed to detect radiation,
sample air and obtain smear samples, and to undertake mechanical
tasks. Partial navigation autonomy was also integrated in this system.
MF3 was a heavy duty tethered, four-tracked platform with the ability
to climb 45° stairs, turn around a 120-cm radius, overcome 60 cm high
obstacles, and pass through gaps of 90 cm in width. The RRV, which
was designed for use in Unit 2 at Three Mile Island, was also assessed.
Other robots that were evaluated include KLUGE, which was designed
to be a tool caddy, HERMAN (for lifting and dragging heavy objects),
ODEX-1 (with novel at the time, six-legged mobility capability), ROD
(for decontamination and dismantling), and SURBOT, a small-size en-
vironmental surveying robot. Their assessment suggested that SURVE-
YOR and an underwater robot satisfy the requirements for further
testing in actual work environments.
Several other research investigations and advances took place
around the world in the 1980s, with most effort focusing on the im-
provement of subsystems. For example, the problem of local and global
positioning is a common theme among static and mobile robots, while
mapping methods were also being developed (Berry et al., 1983). In
addition, testing of locomotion methods that deviate from the classic
wheeled and tracked ones also began; see e.g. the ODEX-1 robot (Hamel
and Martin, 1983) and the hybrid locomotion robot (Ichikawa et al.,
1983). Most significantly, the use of robotics started to receive wider
attention in the nuclear industry. For example, the US Department of
Energy (DOE) produced a report which summarised the various robotic
technology needs in nuclear power plants (US Department of Energy,
112
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
1985). Of high priority were considered aspects such as sensors for
mapping and the recognition of objects, intelligence for on-the-fly de-
cision making, the interface between operator and robot, and accessi-
bility. This technology evaluation of decommissioning presented the
elements of what is now perhaps considered current practice, including:
surveys, decontamination, dismantling and waste packaging. It char-
acterised the process of decommissioning as non-routine coinciding
with the development of specialist systems at that time. Furthermore, it
stated that nuclear facilities were not built to accommodate decom-
missioning as a major design objective and suggested plant modifica-
tions, amongst which were a) access for survey and work robots, and b)
contamination monitoring systems. The proposed technological trajec-
tory was also clear. For example, the need of technological advances in
radiation resistance of mechanical and electronic equipment, robot
sensing, mobility and navigation, and data transmission from radio-
active areas was suggested. Moreover, programmes that were initiated
at the same time in Japan and France are cited.
Regarding Japan, in 1983, an eight-year nuclear robotics develop-
ment fund ($ 80M) was put forward. The plan included a four year
period for the conceptual design, development and testing of the pro-
totype, with a focus on reliability, radiation-resistance and environment
response technologies. Some updates on the progress of this are high-
lighted a few years later (Miyazawa et al., 1986; Shinohara and
Tachikawa, 1989), with crawler, four-legged, and other robot types
reported to be at an experimental stage; and with one robot known as
AMOOTY featuring ‘star’ wheels to enable it to climb stairs. A further
nuclear plant robot was developed and demonstrated successfully, as a
result from this national program fund (Konaka, 1991). It weighed
three quarters of a ton, and was equipped with a four-legged platform
and a multi-fingered manipulator; it could travel on 30° stairs and
overcome obstacles up to 20 cm in height. Communication was estab-
lished via optical fibre and power was provided by means of a tether.
In their contribution, Gelhaus and Meieran (1986), list 68 available
at the time mobile robotic platforms, 33 of which were primarily de-
veloped for nuclear missions, while the rest were modified to operate in
nuclear related areas. A comprehensive review paper that discusses the
advances of robotics in nuclear power plants between 1985 and 1989
describes, in particular, the status of nuclear robotics following the
TMI-2 accident (Gelhaus and Roman, 1990). Advances reported in this
work include robots devised for cleaning (fuel pool, flange), inspection
(steam generator, radwaste drum storage area, reactor pressure vessel,
water intake tunnels), repair, and object retrieval; amongst which the
RRV that was used in TMI-2, the SURVEYOR that was mentioned earlier
for the Nine Mile Point power plant, and several mini rovers and water-
submersible robots. In addition, limitations in terms of autonomous
navigation methods, radiation hardening, maintenance, failure re-
covery, and the design of robot-friendly nuclear plants were discussed.
By 1991, 44 utility companies had used robotic devices to minimize the
exposure of their staff to radiation (Roman, 1991). The investment in
the technology by power plants continued to increase (e.g. Hope Creek
and Salem invested $1.5M between 1987 and 1991, and achieved
$3.7M in savings (Roman, 1991)) rendering robotics significant in new
nuclear power plant designs.
2.2. Chernobyl post-accident robots
By contrast, and influenced at least in part by the magnitude and
actions following Chernobyl, the related discussion in the literature
from around that period is less prominent. The accident took place in
1986, destroying the reactor and various segments of the building en-
velope (Kurnosov et al., 1988). Immediate responses to the accident
included sending two tele-operated robots (STR-1) on the roof to clean
up the debris but they were disabled by the effects of radiation exposure
soon after, with the remainder of the task completed by people working
short shifts in what was an extreme environment in terms of exposure.
I. Tsitsimpelis et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124

Another robot, KLAN, was reported to be developed for dosimetric re-

connaissance, rubble clearing and decontamination (Potemkin et al.,
1992).
The magnitude of the damage was such that shielding of the sur-
rounding environment had to take place as quickly as possible, whilst
additional issues of great importance needed addressing; for instance,
to monitor the core's behaviour, to employ a ventilation system to
prevent explosions, and to eliminate the possibility of a self-sustaining
chain reaction. One report outlines how those issues were addressed
(Kurnosov et al., 1988). The shielding structure comprised a total of
400000 m3 of concrete, 7300 tons of metal structures, and 90000 m3 of
sand.
Nine years after the accident, it was reported that the structural
integrity of the sarcophagus was declining, with an estimated 1200 m2
of breaks in the roof and walls (Rowland et al., 1995). The primary
concern was that an earthquake could trigger the release of radioactive
dust clouds. Sending robots to remove the fuel masses and repair
structural damages was the only way forward. The latter publication
reported on a collaborative effort between the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, the Ukraine Academy of Sciences, the Research
Institute of Mechanical Problems, and the Chernobyl Engineering
Support Centre, to develop a heavy duty radiation hardened robot. The
report addressed the work philosophy and specification requirements
for the project.
One very informative piece of literature for Unit-4 of Chernobyl was
produced in 1997 (Carteret et al., 1997). The needs assessment that was
carried out included the state of the facilities addressed, a summary of
requirements, an evaluation of the implementation plan, as well as a list
of potentially useful robotic systems. Those were typically classified as
characterisation, excavation, dismantlement, and manipulator arms.
Regarding characterisation, the idea was to use systems that had al-
ready proved to work in hazardous environments, with exemplary ro-
bots including the Mobile Automation Characterisation System (MACS)
and the Remote Characterisation System (RCS) robots developed by the
US Department of Energy; and the NOMAD (developed by NASA). The
MACS was equipped with 6 NaI detectors, laser-based navigation and
automated surveying capability, whilst the RCS could undertake sub-
surface mapping but its GPS based navigation system would allow only
exterior operations. The NOMAD could avoid obstacles automatically
and provide high quality images.
The Pioneer (Fig. 6) is one robot reported in the literature to assess
the structural integrity of the sarcophagus within the Chernobyl nuclear
power plant and to generate a 3D map of the facility. In order to
withstand the radiation levels, some of its core components would be
tethered outside the area of operation, while on-board components
were typically shielded by thin lead (e.g. 1.25 cm covering the cameras)
(Abouaf, 1998; Denmeade, 1998; Maimone et al., 1998).
Overall, the events at TMI-2 and Unit 4 of Chernobyl established the
1980s as a decade where serious investment on nuclear robotics took
place; this being in accordance with investments on nuclear power
plants around the world, e.g. from France, USA, UK, and Japan. For
example, by 1992, Japan already had 42 commercial power plants
generating 30% of the country's electricity (Yamamoto, 1992). In the
meantime, between the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, and also
as a result of the development of systems associated with the clean-up
of nuclear legacy facilities, robotic technology evolved significantly.
However, those advances were not enough to prevent the escalation of
events after electric power was lost (Ishikawa, 2015) that resulted in
core damage to units 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant.
3. Terrestrial characterisation robots from the early 1990s to the
present day
During the 1990s, robots were developed for a wide variety of ap-
plications, reaching out not only to industry but also to domestic users;
Fig. 6. Pioneer 1, the reconnaissance system that characterised the Chernobyl
Unit 4.
for instance, lawnmowers and cleaning robots started to reach a com-
mercial level of functionality and reliability for the first time i.e. beyond
the cutting-edge technology that had been developed for military and
space applications. In the civil and construction industries, semi-auto-
matic mobile robotic systems were being adopted as a means of im-
proving efficiency, quality and safety. Example prototypes in various
application areas included: driverless off-road transporters; floor
grinding robots; hydraulic manipulators for site assembly of block
walls; devices for automatic cleaning or inspection of tunnel walls; and
hydraulic excavators (Bradley and Seward, 1998; Gu et al., 2004;
Shaban et al., 2008). As pointed out by Katz et al. (2008), the chal-
lenges associated with unstructured environments such as these, are a
consequence of the high-dimension of the problem, including robotic
perception of the environment, motion planning and manipulation, and
human-robot interactions (Chen et al., 2011; Gonzalez and Iagnemma,
2017; Ishida et al., 2012; Lacroix et al., 2002; Russell, 2001; Saeedi
et al., 2016).
In the nuclear industry, research and development in this area is
also significant. In the USA for example, around 30 utility companies
had used robots for more than 60 work tasks (Mann, 1992). Climbing
robots were developed for use in areas such as the main steam tunnel
rooms, feedwater heat exchangers, radwaste buildings and so on. In
Spain, Briones et al., 1994, presented a prototype modular robot (Ro-
bicen) that was able to traverse walls by means of vacuum suction cups,
and was equipped with a sensory system with feed back to the operator
console via a communication cable. This robot was equipped with air
and point temperature, humidity, distance, and radiation sensors, along
with audio, video and illumination features. All signal processing was
undertaken on the sensory module via an Intel 8051 microprocessor,
while a second one handled the motion process. The latter was con-
trolled manually by the operator. The robot was reasonably small with
dimensions 600 × 320 × 300 mm and a mass of 30 kg. However, its
load capacity was reduced significantly when travelling on walls (i.e.,
75 kg on the floor, 10 kg on a wall).
Follow-up developments included Robicen II and III (Savall et al.,
1999; Serna et al., 1998). The improved design of the former allowed
shifting between horizontal and vertical movement on its own, while
the latter weighed ∼10 times less than its predecessors, travelled with

113
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
approximately twice the speed, and had minimal on-board signal pro-
cessing, thus reducing its susceptibility to the risk of radiation damage.
All three of the aforementioned robots were built as part of an in-
dustrial-academic project for the Spanish nuclear market.
A further series of climbing robots from the 1990s are the ROBUG II,
III, and IV (Galt et al., 1997; Luk et al., 1999, 1996, 1991). ROBUG II
was a four-legged robot with the ability to climb vertical walls. ROBUG
III was produced via the European Commission's Teleman program
which was initiated in response to the needs of the Chernobyl accident.
It was designed to walk and climb, drag 100 kg payloads on both floors
and walls, access small openings and climb over obstacles. Other design
features include the ability to walk on curved and rough/friable sur-
faces. The platform is a spider-like 800 × 600 × 600 mm structure
comprising eight articulated legs. For both ROBUG III and IV, in-
telligent motion control is addressed by employing genetic algorithms,
artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. For example, even though the
robot is tele-operated, the eight legs follow a pre-programmed sequence
to move, i.e. to travel forward. The Teleman program also sought to
produce reliability models that would report upon radiation induced
robot failures (Lauridsen et al., 1996). With respect to ROBUG III, the
same article presents estimated radiation induced failure results, and
reports that with radiation hardened components it would be able
tolerate doses above 1 kGy. ROBUG IV was developed as part of the
project funded by the European Strategic Program in Research in In-
formation Technology (ESPRIT).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) pursued the research and
development of robotic systems through the ORNL Centre for
Engineering Systems Advanced Research. A particularly relevant pub-
lication at that time reports on their advances (Mann, 1992). The la-
boratory had two mobile robot prototypes (HERMIES-IIB and HER-
MIES-III), based on which research was undertaken on fuzzy logic
control, path planning, high performance computing, and machine
learning. HERMIES-III was evaluated for surface contamination surveys
of waste containers. Novel functions that encouraged autonomy were
tested, including navigation, obstacle avoidance, waste container image
identification and end-effector positioning for the radiation detector. In
total, 27 on and off-board processing units were utilised for the robot.
Another report of this decade suggests that mobile robots can be very
useful for routine inspection and maintenance tasks (Fujii et al., 1992).
As a case study, it considers potential areas of deployment in advanced
liquid metal reactors (GE-ALMR), including their geometry, radiation
and other environmental conditions; while a proposed tetherless mobile
robot with advanced obstacle avoidance is presented. The robot com-
bined sonar and infrared sensor data, vision and laser range sensing for
navigation, and object recognition via charge-coupled device tech-
nology (CCD) cameras.
Fault identification and action techniques are also important within
the framework of improving the robustness of mobile platforms. One
study focuses on fail-safe operations to ensure that in the case of loss of
control, no damage is caused to the work environment and the robot
itself (Tso and Backes, 1993). A logic gate fault tree analysis was de-
veloped to identify incorrect robot operation, and safety diagnostics for
emergency robot motion shutdown. The study discusses such opera-
tions in regard to a dual arm manipulator, yet this is immediately
pertinent to mobile platforms that carry out surveying tasks in nuclear
environments. Another study further elaborates on this aspect by pre-
senting various possibilities of reliability and safety assessment (Langen
and Baum, 1995). Examples address optimisation, including software
supervision, pre-programmed routines that block the robot going into
undesirable areas, inherent diagnostic checks, and transition to re-
dundant autonomy (fully tele-operated if necessary).
Increased flexibility of terrestrial robots is reflected by design
forethought that enables them to traverse within and over complex pipe
networks. Pipe inspection tasks are reported to have accounted for 33%
of utility robotic activities in 1993 (Roman and Pellegrino, 1993). Such
robots are thus being developed to provide a cost-efficient way of
114
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
surveying pipes that are not immediately accessible (i.e. buried).
Roman and Pellegrino, 1993, discuss features that are desirable on such
types of robots. Considerations include quality image viewing, variable
lights, reliable mobility, fail-safe manual retrieval, mobility and en-
vironment sensors, and user-friendly operator interfaces; while future
versions are envisioned to be miniaturised with the ability to travel
across any pipe-related terrain and to sample and repair in addition to
surveillance. The overview cited above reports on pipe-crawling and
other types of robot that were tested between 1990 and 1991, for en-
vironmental, fossil fuel, hydroelectric, nuclear, gas and water utilities.
Regarding the nuclear industry, pipe crawlers were reported as having
been developed for the inspection of a) concrete-lined service water
lines (Brunswick and Indian Point Station-11 nuclear stations), b) air
inlets to check for blockages and operation of valves (McGuire nuclear
station), c) heat exchanger tube sheets (Beaver Valley nuclear power
plant) and d) canopy seal welds on reactor head control rod drive
mechanisms (Zion nuclear power plant).
Gamma-ray imaging systems for use on mobile robots are also being
researched with one particular study (Redus et al., 1994) combining a
video camera and gamma radiation detector to afford simultaneous
location and identification of radioactive sources in the photon energy
range of 0.1–1.5 MeV. It was anticipated that this system could visualise
radioactivity distribution with a 6° angular resolution and collimation
was used to enable positional information to be obtained. The SWAMI
(Stored Waste Autonomous Mobile Inspector) was a semi-autonomous
tetherless mobile robot that was developed for the inspection of waste
drums (Fulbright and Stephens, 1995). The control system was re-
sponsible for the correct operation of the robot subsystems, e.g. navi-
gation and positioning, video, radiation detection, and drum barcode
recognition etc. The mobile platform was off-the-shelf (Transitions
Research Corporation, Helpmate) and had been employed previously in
hospitals areas. The barcode reader would identify which waste drums
had been inspected, whilst the video subsystem comprised six cameras,
strobe lights and video compression hardware. Radiation monitoring
included sensitivity to alpha and beta radiation in alarm or count mode,
while positioning was achieved via rotating lasers. All these systems
were integrated on board via Versa Module Europa (VME) cards that
utilised the Motorola 68030 architecture.
A novel planetary (three-wheel assembly) wheel system was im-
plemented on KAEROT, a robot designed for maintenance and inspec-
tion tasks (Kim et al., 1995). The purpose of this novel means of loco-
motion was to provide a more stable navigation on stairs and over
obstacles. Related studies presented path planning and automated stair
climbing algorithms that were developed for these purposes, with ex-
perimental results suggesting that greater motion stability had been
achieved. Kaerot/m2 was designed for the inspection of pressure tubes
in Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR). It utilised a radiation
hardened 8051 processor and it featured fail-safe functionalities to
ensure its retrieval (Kim et al., 1999). The third version of this robot
(Kaerot/m3) was based on a crawling platform, and was modified for
the Korean Hydraulic Nuclear plant to withstand a 100 kg payload,
allowing it therefore to carry appropriate tooling for emergency stop
valve manipulation (Seungho et al., 2010).
In 1998, Perret reported on the state of the LMF robot that was
being manufactured at the time by a private company (Cybernetix, for
KHG GmbH) (Perret, 1998). The robot was developed to withstand up
to 10 KGy of radiation. Useful considerations are presented such as the
technical issues that relate to a) the choice of motors; for example,
thermal motors use up air and hence filters are needed to prevent
contamination, b) stability, especially when traversing along stairs of
different steepness, c) choice of locomotion, d) choice of communica-
tion means, e) radiation tolerance, f) user-friendliness of control soft-
ware and g) overall size and capability of the robot. The LMF robot was
developed to travel on four tracked wheels, with the ability to cross
trenches and obstacles as wide and high as 40 cm. The power supply
was fitted into the robot by means of a battery pack with a hydraulic
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
arm also mounted on it. Communication was established by either radio
link or by a 100-m umbilical. A Siemens 88C166W addressed all pro-
cessing, while multiplexing and other features such as a stand-by mode
in case of transmission loss were also incorporated. Another study
utilised the LMF to carry a rotating 3D laser scanner with the focus to
undertake 3D mapping of nuclear environments (Roennau et al., 2010).
The results of a ten-year research programme on tele-robotics for
the Spanish nuclear industry were presented in 2003 (Iborra et al.,
2003). The motivation for this stems primarily from reducing personnel
exposure but it also highlights the fact that standard service robots can
minimize the uncertainty in scheduling nuclear maintenance services
due to the intermittent use of human resources (as workers who have
reached the maximum allowed radiation dose cannot work in radiation
areas for a certain amount of time). Their results mostly highlight static
robots that are useful in areas such as those associated with the steam
generator, reactor cavity, reactor vessel and head, but also present two
mobile robots: the inspection and retrieving vehicle (IRV) and the
cleaning and retrieving vehicle (CRV). Both can operate underwater
and inside pipes. However, the mobile platform is based on tracks, and
hence both may be used in terrestrial work tasks as well.
The Savannah River Technology Centre (SRTC) has long had several
mobile robots for carrying out various tasks. They were either devel-
oped in house or modified from existing designs. A technical report that
dates back to 1995 presents the robots that were used for these pur-
poses (Teese, 1995). The first investigation of mobile robots at SRTC
took place in 1986, with the Autonomous Laboratory Vehicle with
Autonomous Navigation (ALVIN). A Cybermotion K2A was employed as
its base and it was further modified in an ad-hoc manner for prototyping
purposes. SIMON was an improved version of the aforementioned
MACS (developed by US DOE and considered for Chernobyl), in terms
of navigation and processing depth. A worm robot equipped with a
plasma-arc cutting torch was used for the modification of the ventila-
tion system piping. In particular, it was desired to divert the exhaust air
from a plutonium handling facility to a sand filter system. On account of
the robot's capabilities, costly shutdown of the facility followed by
excavations to allow personnel access was prevented. SWAMI-II was
reportedly used for waste drum inspections. It incorporated laser sen-
sors that could identify and characterise structural condition such as
bulges, dents etc. Finally, a wall crawler was developed for various
nuclear applications. For instance, at the Savannah River Site, it was
utilised to produce wall thickness maps of High Level Waste tanks.
Further contributions of SRTC are outlined in 1996 by Lewis and Teese,
with mentions to the aforementioned waste tank crawler and CRADA, a
small diameter pipe crawler.
In 2003, researchers from the SRTC deployed a sacrificial mobile
robot to investigate the environment of the H-Canyon exhaust tunnels,
which had not been accessed since they were built in the 1950s
(Robinson and Smith Jr., 2004). The purpose of the inspection was to
identify potential leakage locations and to assess structural integrity, as
high gamma-radiation levels were reported in areas where there was
the risk that airborne contamination could be released. The robot was
designed to be able to access a 0.09 m2 opening, and traverse 12 m
along a 3 × 3 m tunnel. It was controlled remotely (i.e. without au-
tonomous functionality) and a rotating camera was utilised to identify
leakage points and to inspect piping and the general structure of the
tunnel. A similar type of robot was developed and tested in 2009
(Minichan et al., 2011). A basic requirement for this mission was for the
robot to cover a much longer area (length up to 120 m). In this tra-
jectory, efforts were made to reduce the size of the tether by using an
Ethernet-based communication system. A third crawler under test was
also presented in the same publication. This was a four wheel crawler
with a Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) camera, which was being assessed in
mockup areas of the air tunnel. In 2014, SRS deployed a fourth in-
spection vehicle. It had a custom scissors lift in order to carry our duct
inspection along the tunnel. The mission ended when it tipped over.
Due to that, a recovery vehicle was deployed in 2015 but it was decided
115
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
eventually to continue the inspection of the tunnel for a further 55 m
from the jammed robot (Gilliam et al., 2015; Kriikku et al., 2015; Tibrea
et al., 2015).
A snake-type robot was utilised in Ringhals Reactor no 1, in Sweden,
to repair a leakage coming from the pipes that are part of the control
rod drive mechanism located below the reactor vessel (Buckingham and
Anscombe, 2005). For this purpose, an exact replica was developed to
ensure that the snake robotic arm was able to complete its mission
successfully. Although the arm was fixed to a monorail structure, its
ability to reach and repair areas that were meant to be inaccessible
throughout a facility's lifecycle renders it of interest to future applica-
tions where it may be able to navigate more freely.
Cortez et al., 2007, present a miniature (5.5 cm) robot, called
Khepera II, which was equipped with a very small radiation sensor to
identify locations associated with high radiation levels (other relevant
studies include Cortez et al., 2009, 2008). This project implemented an
interesting, automated sequential nuclear search strategy that focuses
on the distribution of radioactivity within a large area. The adopted
strategy involves moving the platform on a predefined planar grid and
the use of a radiation sensor to identify the absence or presence of a
radiation source on a statistical basis. Luk et al., 2006, review in their
work the robots they developed, i.e. the NERO (nuclear electric robot
operator), SADIE (Sizewell A duct inspection equipment), ROBUG-II,
and Roboslave series robots. This included remarks on their perfor-
mance in nuclear tasks, as well as advantages and limitations.
One study presented an approach where two mobile robots are
utilised for various uses within a power plant (wired and wireless) (Ma
et al., 2014). The wired version can provide power supply to the
wireless robot, and it can also be used as a charging station, whilst the
wireless robot goes into the power plant and mounts several repeaters
to allow wireless communication. The latter is also designed to go to the
top floor and release balloons equipped with cameras to provide visual
information. This is a six-track, crawler-type machine, with four arm
tracks and two tracks below the chassis. An interesting feature found
here relates to the monitoring of the positioning of the arms with
minimal electronics. In particular, a potentiometer-like configuration is
mounted around the arm tracks so that when they are moving, a brush
wipes the potentiometer surface, achieving monitoring of position in a
low-cost and accurate manner. The material of the chassis is aluminium
alloy 7075 (aerospace, radiation tolerant); it weighs 56 kg and its size is
812–1198 × 644 × 222 mm.
Guan et al., 2014 presented a two legged, five-degree-of-freedom,
wall-climbing robot that uses suction cups. It is equipped with a
camera, a dosimeter, a humidity sensor and a wireless video trans-
mitter. The navigation system utilises signals from a distance sensor, an
inclinometer and a pressure sensor. The embedded control system in-
corporated a ST Microelectronics microcontroller (STM32F103) based
on an ARM core. The robot's mass is 1.1 kg, its size is 245 × 100 × 100
mm and was evaluated for its navigation and obstacle avoidance cap-
abilities.
More recently, Dong et al., 2016, presented a waterproof, tracked-
wheel robot that incorporates stair-climbing capability via additional
swing arm tracks. The main body houses the battery, the motors, and
wireless communication equipment. The latter is housed in a separate
segment of the body to avoid electromagnetic interference due to the
power device. Radiation protection is provided by means of cadmium-
selenium shell on the camera of the robot, a tungsten/silicon resin
shielding strap over the internal electric components of the body, and
silvered paper on the wiring. Swing arm posture and motion control is
included in a human-machine interface. The authors include the de-
velopment of an algorithm for the control of the robot's motion. No
information is given about the sensors that are utilised in the system. Its
size is 860 × 556 × 345 mm.
A mobile robot equipped with a scintillation detector for surveying
an area with gamma radiation is outlined by Miller et al. (2015). The
detector is surrounded by a lead sheath so that only the incident
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
Fig. 7. The RESCUER robot (Guzman et al., 2016).
radiation is detected. Moreover, it provides a full 180° rotation to for-
mulate directional profiles. The motivation behind this setup was to
identify the direction of nearby radiation sources. The chassis is a
Lynxmotion 4, on which a rotating platform is mounted. A lanthanum
bromide (LaBr3) detector is connected to a Hamamatsu R6231 photo-
multiplier tube and the controller is a Lynxmotion Bot board II with a
BasicAtom Pro 28 processor.
RESCUER is a robot that is designed for the detection of aggressive
agents and for sampling, but also for human rescue scenarios (Fig. 7)
(Guzman et al., 2016). An important feature that relates to the robotic
systems reviewed in this article is the development of a method to
decontaminate the robot after its mission, so that any risk that resident
contamination might have posed to workers in terms of radiation ex-
posure is removed. This includes applying an additional coating to the
body of the robot in order to optimise decontamination. The robot
shown in Fig. 7 features a multi-sensory system, mapping capability and
a human-machine interface that also allows for semi-autonomous op-
eration. Its chassis is halogen-free and radiation hard. The structure is
made up of polycarbonate stainless steel, AISI 304 BA (Fe/Cr18/Ni10).
Navigation includes the utilisation of flipper absolute encoders and a
differential global positioning system. It is further equipped with a front
bumper to push obstacles and it can be fitted with either wheels or four
tracks. For sampling, a gripper and a sampling container are in-
corporated.
Another accident investigation robot is reported to have two and
four-legged locomotion capability (Kim and Jang, 2016). Its body
structure has been designed in such a way so that most of the weight is
to the back of the robot, which is curved. Hence, in the event of a fall, it
will fall behind and damage would be minimised. For positioning, the
authors used landmark localisation, which employs barcode stickers at
Fig. 8. RICA robotic platform with gamma camera on the left and manipulator arm on the right (Ducros and Hauser, 2017).
116
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
various points within the containment. This limits its usefulness fol-
lowing an accident since the facility must have those barcode stickers
mounted, a priori. However, future nuclear facilities that do employ this
method in the first place may lower the complexity of the navigation
task.
A novel characterisation robot was recently presented by Ducros
and Hauser (2017). The RICA robot weighs 80 kg and its size is
570 × 430 × 330 mm. It is developed and used for characterizing nu-
clear environments by locating and measuring the levels that radio-
active sources yield. It is split in two, one being the motion part, which
is essentially a chassis with polymer tracks. The upper part comprises
two cases, with the first one containing two CCD cameras for front and
rear view; white LEDs to provide illumination and a motor that moves a
gamma radiation camera. The other part contains the electronic circuits
and communication platform. It can be set up with different toolkits
depending on the purpose, i.e. for sampling it uses a mechanical arm
whereas for mapping it uses the gamma camera (see Fig. 8). Shielding
of the latter is done with tungsten alloy, which increases the overall
weight by 17 kg. The camera detects energies between 50 keV and
2 MeV. The radiation dosimeter is based on a Geiger-Mueller tube
(6150 AD5, Saphymo) and the gamma spectrometer is based on a
CdZnTe crystal. The power supply and signal acquisition is undertaken
via a single, hardened 100 m coaxial cable. All the electronics were test-
irradiated (rates of 1.8, 2.1, and 3.10 Gy h−1) and its performance was
evaluated by 20 3-h long missions in an actual nuclear environment.
More recently, a novel and modular approach was presented, ad-
dressing inspection tasks at hard to reach areas, such as the SRS H-
Canyon exhaust tunnel (Voyles et al., 2017). The approach involves the
integration of two robotic components. The first one, MOTHERSHIP
(Modular Omnidirectional Terrain Handler for Emergency Response,
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
Fig. 9. Mothership and modular snake cooperating during an inspection de-
monstration (Voyles et al., 2017).
Serpentine and Holonomic for Immediate Placement), comprises 2-D
tread modules that are expandable to form as many links as desired.
The treads are arranged discretely on the outer surface of a hollow
cylinder, whilst the driving module incorporates a novel ring gear
system. The CMU modular snake robot comprises 1 degree-of-freedom
(DOF) modules which can be configured in various ways, depending on
the movement patterns one wishes to carry out. The latter is attached to
MOTHERSHIP, and its end effector may facilitate sensing instruments
and manipulators (Fig. 9).
4. Discussion
Mobile robotic systems for nuclear applications have been in use for
almost half a century, whilst arguably the most significant technolo-
gical advances have taken place in the last two decades. High-perfor-
mance computing has increased the reliability and accuracy of in-
strumentation, and new materials have been formulated to increase the
radiation tolerance of electronic and mechanical components. These
advances have helped to reduce the time that personnel are exposed to
radiation, they have decreased the need for manual labour in con-
taminated environments and have enabled access to previously in-
accessible, confined and oxygen-limited spaces (Bloss, 2010; Bogue,
2011; Gelhaus and Roman, 1990). Furthermore, thanks to these ad-
vances, robotic system designers now have a vast number of options to
choose from when tailoring a robot to a particular mission. These in-
clude for example, its size, its locomotion mechanism, the instruments
and tools it may carry, its human-machine interface (HMI), its control
flow, navigation, diagnostics and data processing.
In turn, this allows for the emergence of new and/or the optimisa-
tion of existing features. For instance, one study proposed a tethered
contactless means of powering robots from several km, with the aim
being to prevent the power cable from getting tangled up (Choi et al.,
2012). Recently, another study presented a novel gamma imaging and
source localisation approach, integrating data from a Compton gamma
camera and LIDAR sensors (Lee et al., 2018).
Equally extensive research activities on the other hand, do not focus
on a specific robotic mission, yet they present cutting-edge research in
order, for example, to increase the radiation resistance of mechanical
and electronic components as well as to improve computing reliability.
Examples include undertaking irradiation tests on optical fibres
(Coenen and Decreton, 1993), position sensing using laser systems
(Decreton, 1995), and other sensory components, communication, ca-
bling and connector (Diggins et al., 2015; Garreau et al., 2013; Han
et al., 2015; Kuwahara et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2018; Sharp and
117
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
Decreton, 1996; Sinclair and Chertov, 2015; Van Duy et al., 2015;
Zhang et al., 2013). Similarly, high end computing is also regarded as
greatly important (Bagatin et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2016; Nancekievill
et al., 2016; Ostler et al., 2009; Schmidt et al., 2012; Sterpone et al.,
2005; Wu et al., 2011). Furthermore, global advances have already
proved to be beneficial for the robotic community. For instance, the
Robotic Operating System (ROS), is an open source middleware that
was developed at Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, which
simplified greatly all aspects that relate to the remote control of a robot.
ROS is now used widely in both industry and academia.
In this regard, two features stand out. Firstly, it is clear that, even
though the concept has remained unchanged in the sense that a robot
undertakes a series of pre-specified tasks and does not completely re-
move the humans from the control loop, robotic subsystems have
evolved in a step-change manner. In addition, it has been shown re-
peatedly that the technology exists to enable robots to function in
nearly every area of nuclear reactors. As such, part of the problem
potentially lies in the lack of attention directed towards their estab-
lishment in the nuclear industry. The following takes the Fukushima
case as an example.
4.1. Pre-and-post-Fukushima robots: the gap
It was not possible to avert the progression of the accident in
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant via the use of robotic systems
that might have been pre-programmed to act as a last resort because, if
they did exist, they were not available. Soon after the reactors in Units
1–3 were damaged, the priorities were to restore cooling of the reactor
systems and to limit the release of radioactivity, most of which origi-
nated from Unit 2 and ground debris arising as a result of the hydrogen
explosions in Unit 3 and its propagation to Unit 4 (World Nuclear
Association, 2017b). An international effort has since began with tasks
following a survey-decontamination approach, with the ultimate goal
being to locate the fuel debris, recover it and package it in waste con-
tainers thus allowing full decommissioning of the site to progress. Al-
though several terrestrial, underwater and heavy-duty robots have been
deployed throughout the last seven years since the accident, it is per-
haps surprising that most of these were not readily available or suitable
to aid the clean-up activity.
About a decade before the accident, a series of emergency response
robots were developed in Japan, motivated by the criticality accident
that took place in a fuel processing unit in Tokaimura, in 1999. The
development of the robots was supported and funded by the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). One of these robots,
namely SWAN, was presented in 2002 (Hosoda et al., 2002). The robot
was developed to use a manipulator for preventing disasters by opening
and closing valves. Using a transformable crawler mechanism, three
cameras for vision, one for manipulator point-of-view, and a variety of
tools and sensors, it had the capacity to traverse on 40° slopes, open and
close doors; and sample smear, gas and reactor water. Semi-autonomy
was incorporated by available control algorithms that are activated
optionally for traversing on stairs and over obstacles. For these pur-
poses, inclination and proximity sensor data are used in control loops.
The robot was successfully tested in a mock-up reactor environment.
Another article of that period presents the Remote Surveillance
Squads (RESQs, as shown in Fig. 10) (Kobayashi et al., 2002). These
robotic units were developed specifically to survey contaminated lo-
cations, by means of radioactivity, environmental, and image data
collection. More specifically, one lightweight wheeled (RESQ-A) and
two heavy duty tracked (RESQ-B/C) vehicles were developed. RESQ-A
and B performed surveying tasks while RESQ-C was equipped with tools
for cutting, cleaning, and sampling.
Another accident preparedness project was developed by Mitsubishi
in 2002 (Isozaki and Nakai, 2002). Two heavyweight robots, MARS-A
and MARS-T were designed to open and close doors and valves, as well
as cleaning, whilst the latter was integrated with decontamination
I. Tsitsimpelis et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124

Fig. 10. RESQs A to C, from left to right(Kobayashi et al., 2002).

capability by means of spraying water. Their platforms enable them to

traverse on 40° slopes, 1 m landing depth and they could operate for a
few hours in environments of up to 10 Sv h−1.
SMERT-M and SMERT-K are robots developed by TOSHIBA in 2002
(Yuguchi and Satoh, 2002). The former navigates on a retractable
crawler mechanism and is equipped with a multi-axial arm, an ele-
vating mechanism that carries the sensor unit and a dedicated frame for
carrying SMERT-K. The sensor unit can detect gamma rays and neu-
trons, as well as humidity, temperature, oxygen and hydrogen con-
centration levels; while its CCD and infrared cameras are radiation
hardened. The SMERT-K is a wheel-type robot that is used to do quick,
preliminary inspections. Both robots can operate either wired or wire-
less, while two extension cable drums are used which also act as
wireless hubs if needed. The robots were evaluated in mock-up en-
vironments, although no information is available with respect to their
levels of autonomy.
The RaBOT was also developed following the Tokaimura accident
(Oka and Shibanuma, 2002). It was designed to operate in extreme
radiation environments (reportedly up to 105 Sv) and comprised dual,
articulated manipulators and four crawlers. Its sacrificial parts were the
CCD cameras and control boards, which were modular and could be
replaced remotely when needed.
A study in 2012 summarizes various aspects following one year of
using emergency response robots at Fukushima Daiichi (Kawatsuma
et al., 2012). It is reported that most of the robots that were built fol-
lowing the 1999 accident, were either not fit for undertaking a mission
(due to physical constraints and/or lack of maintenance), or several
modifications had to be done. For example, the RESQ robots could not
be repaired due to critical information being lost, while the size of the
MoniRobo-1 robot was deemed too heavy and at risk of damaging the
surrounding infrastructure. In order to deal with this setback, JAEA
modified one Brokk-40 (JAEA-1), and two RESQ-A robots (JAEA-2/3).
JAEA-3, which is seen in Fig. 11, was modified for undertaking gamma
ray imaging on various floors of the reactor buildings, and was de-
ployed in Unit-2 six months after the accident.
To date, several robots have operated in various levels of all the
affected units at Fukushima, many of which were reconnaissance type.
These are indeed fundamental robots, because decommissioning and
any other work planning can go ahead as the environment is uncovered,
especially in terms of the recognition and localisation of radioactive
sources and levels. The first robots to undertake reconnaissance tasks
were two Packbots and TALON, which were donated by USA to un-
dertake radiation mapping and cleaning. Other robots that did similar
investigations the same year were JAEA-3 (Modified RESQ-A) and
Quince, which was redesigned to operate reliably in the presence of
radiation (Kawatsuma et al., 2017, 2012; Nagatani et al., 2011; Rohmer
et al., 2010). A fascinating blog describing the initial deployment of
robots at Fukushima-Daiichi was written by one of the nuclear opera-
tors working at the site (Guizzo, 2011).
Later versions of Quince were deployed from 2012 onwards.
Between 2012 and 2014, two robots were used for investigation of the
Fig. 11. JAEA-3 with gamma imaging system (Kawatsuma et al., 2012).
torus room in Units 2–3; the Four-legged walking robot in Unit 2, and
the Survey Runner (see Fig. 13) in Unit 3. The former was designed to
walk along the cat walk of the torus room and comprised a smaller unit,
which was deployed to enter and investigate narrow spaces on top of
the suppression chamber and the vent pipes. Another investigation
robot was employed to operate from the upper part of the suppression
chamber, extending a camera to underwater locations in order to seek
leaking spots (Hitachi GE tele-runner). Frigoma was put to use in 2013
to collect information about the ambient dose rate and survey the area
near the access point of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV). The
High-access investigation robot surveyed the upper spaces of all reactor
buildings, specifically in the upper space of the 1st floor. The Kanicrane
is a robot that similarly investigated the upper areas of the 1st floor of
all units. Rosemary and Sakura are two robots that were used together
to provide information about the status of the 2nd and 3rd floors of all
units. This small investigation device, essentially a tiny, tracked wheel
robot fitted with a smartphone, was used in Unit 3 for initially in-
vestigating the PCV equipment hatch. Kinoshita et al., 2014, describe
applications that were developed in response to the accident, including
a novel gamma camera with pan/tilt and shutter mechanisms, mounted
on a tracked wheel vehicle; it was deployed in Unit-3 to detect hot
spots. Other reported advances in the same article relate to the remote
control of robots, decontamination approaches, and treatment of con-
taminated water.
The two most recent robots, namely PMORPH (Shape Changing
Robot, see Fig. 12), and SCORPION were developed to fit through a 100
m diameter pipe that gives access to the interior of the PCV of Unit 1. At
least three PMORPHS were used, encountering radiation doses between
3 and 17 Svh−1. The SCORPION was the latest robot that attempted to
investigate the PCV interior of Unit 2, and the seventh to be abandoned.

118
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
Fig. 12. PMORPH series robot used inside the PCV of Unit-1 (Tepco, 2017).
Fig. 13. Survey runner robot, used for leakage inspections (Tepco, 2017).
SCORPION survived unexpectedly less time than was expected, after
encountering radiation levels of 650 Svh−1 (radiation resistance, 1000
Gy). All the aforementioned robots, and e.g the two shown in Fig. 12
and Fig. 13. are outlined on TEPCO's website (Tepco, 2017).
4.2. Recommendations for robotic design requirements
Most relevant research works that propose novel functionalities, or
present the results of these, describe various factors that form the basis
for system design and development. Common are descriptions and
figures on the geometry of a targeted area, and environmental
Fig. 14. Exemplary robot system and subsystems.
119
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
conditions, followed by proposed and/or developed solutions. Some
representative examples are: "Narrow path with sharp corners" (Fujii
et al., 1976), ''Positioning sensor to accurately stop the vehicle at inspection
position'' (Nakayama et al., 1983), ''Manipulation of varying loads
0–25 Kg'' (Kniazewyc et al., 1986), ''Sample floor sludge'' (Schwartz and
Meininger, 1987a), ''Inspect valve orientation'' (Gelhaus and Roman,
1990), ''Use optical wheel encoders and proximity sensors staggered for
different depths to determine passing doorways or external architecture''
(Roman, 1991), ''Obstacle avoidance using sonar and infrared sensors''
(Fujii et al., 1992), ''Eddy current to locate welds in pipes'' (Roman and
Pellegrino, 1993), ''Incorporate fail-safe diagnostics'', ''Collision-free navi-
gation down a narrow aisle of storage drums'' (Fulbright and Stephens,
1995), ''Drag 100 kg payload horizontally'' (Luk et al., 1996), ''Cross
400 mm wide trenches'' (Perret, 1998), ''Multiplexing to keep umbilical link
flexible and light'' (De Geeter et al., 1999), ''Direction compensation using a
gyroscope sensor'' (Hosoda et al., 2002), ''Sense oxygen and hydrogen
density'' (Yuguchi and Satoh, 2002), ''Withstand airflow rates of 10 miles
per hour'' (Robinson and Smith Jr., 2004), ''Non-wireless communication
was required'' (Nagatani et al., 2011).
Even though the requirements that underlie these descriptions are
usually laid out textually in an ad-hoc manner, it is presumed that in
most cases the developers will have based their solution on a concise
and systematic set of requirements. There are several approaches to
produce such a set, and equally several starting points. For instance,
one may typically start by answering questions that relate to the mis-
sion's environment and trade-off capabilities, such as determining
whether their robotic system will be sacrificial or desired to be re-
trieved. The former and latter will indeed form plenty of requirements.
For instance, the benefit of creating a sacrificial robot is that one may
develop a low cost working prototype in order to test features such as
mapping algorithms and advanced navigation. On the other hand, a
robot that is intended to be reused may need heavy shielding to protect
the sensors and electronics, whereas extra computing functionality may
be required to ensure that radiation does not induce large errors in
instrumentation measurements.
Analytical system design approaches can be very helpful as they will
help categorise these requirements and uncover their in-between de-
pendencies. Proposed solutions will be usually checked against the
latter and will define the global and local features of the robotic system.
Virk, 2003, for example, discusses the importance of modularity (i.e.
breaking down a robotic system to several subsystems), through the
CLAWAR project (Climbing and Walking Robots), which aims to bring
forward open design protocols for the robotic community. The project
includes twenty technical tasks carried out by institutions and private
companies, and spanned from identifying common to special require-
ments, tailored to a specific industry's needs. Another approach ad-
dressed the practical design of robots in radioactive environments, by
giving emphasis on the electronic components level (Oomichi et al.,
2007).
Regardless of the approach taken, it is useful to break the robotic
system down into subsystems. The exemplar shown in Fig. 14 corre-
sponds to a conceptual robotic system split into five broad (but not
definitive) subsystems, comprising: the mechanical design, the sensing
I. Tsitsimpelis et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124

Table 1
An outline of the characterisation robots that were reported in this review along with their primary purpose and operating area where specified. Although inevitably
incomplete, this table is representative of the usefulness of characterisation robots for in-situ waste segregation and decommissioning planning. In communication
column: T: tethered, W: wireless. The operating area indicates at least one application for these robots, while variants of each may also have different means of
locomotion and interface to the operators.
Robot Operating areas Size (L x W x H, mm)/Mass (Kg) Communication Locomotion Traversing terrain Year

Three Mile Island Unit-2, USA

RRV-1 Reactor basement 1270 × 734 x 483 T Six wheels Water 305 mm/35° 1984
181–453 slopes
LOUIE I Aux. building cubicles - T Two Rough 1963
- Tracks
(Gelhaus and Meieran, 1986; Schwartz and Meininger, 1987b)

Chernobyl, Ukraine
KLAN Sarcophagus - W Tracks 1986
-
MACS Unit 4 shelter - W Wheels Flat 1995
-
RCS Outdoor areas - W Wheels Rough 1996
-
NOMAD Unit 4 shelter 2400 × 2400 x 2400 W Wheels Rough 1996
550
Pioneer Sarcophagus 1219 × 914 x 914 T Tracks 45° slopes 1997
500
(Abouaf, 1998; Cabrol et al., 2001; Carteret et al., 1997; Cragg and Hu, 2003; Potemkin et al., 1992; Teese, 1995)

Tokaimura, Japan
RESQ-A Mock-up reactor areas 580 × 400 x 550 W/T Four wheels Slight inclines/small 2001
50 obstacles
RESQ-B/RESQ-C 1500 × 660 x 550 W/T Tracks Stairs 2001
540(B)/650(C)
SMERT-M 760 × 600 x 1370 W/T Tracks 40° slopes 2002
250
SMERT-K - x 430 × 590 W/T Wheels Slight inclines 2002
26
(Kobayashi et al., 2002; Yuguchi and Satoh, 2002)

Fukushima Daiichi
Packbot Units Floor inspections 686–889 × 406–521 × 178 W Tracks All terrain 2002
11
JAEA-3 Unit 2 gamma imaging 400 × 580 x 550 T Four wheels Slight inclines/small 2011
50 obstacles
Quince Unit 2–3 floors/gas ducts 1110 × 480 x 420 W/T Six tracks Rough/60° slopes 2011
27
Survey-runner Torus room 505–755 × 510 x 830 T Four tracks obstacles 235mm/45° 2012
45 slopes
Tele-runner Suppression chamber 600 × 500 x 800 Tracks Slight inclines 2015
100
Frigoma Near PCV 650 × 490 x 750 W Four tracks obstacles 430mm/45° 2012
38 slopes
st
Rosemary 1 to 3rd floor, all units 700 × 500 x 170 W Four tracks Rough/60° slopes 2013
45
Sakura 1st to 3rd floor, all units 500 × 390 x 220 T Six tracks Rough/60° slopes 2013
32
Kanicrane 1st floor, all units 2360 × 700 x 1430 T Two tracks - 2014
1250
PMORPH 1 PCV Unit-1 220 × 290 x 95 T Tracks Narrow/grating surfaces 2015
10
PMORPH 2 PCV Unit-1 316 × 286 ×93 T Tracks Narrow/grating surfaces 2016
10
SCORPION Unit-2 260 × 90 x 220 T Tracks Narrow/grating surfaces 2016
5
(Kawatsuma et al., 2017; Nagatani et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2008; Tepco, 2017; Yamauchi, 2004)

Savannah River, USA

SIMON Floors – W Three wheels Flat 1990
136
Inspection crawler 1 H-Canyon exhaust air tunnel - T Two tracks Standing water/slight 2003
- curbs
Inspection crawler 2 H-Canyon exhaust air tunnel - T Two tracks Standing water/slight 2009
- curbs
Inspection crawler 3 H-Canyon exhaust air tunnel - T Four wheels Standing water/slight 2014
- curbs
Recovery crawler H-Canyon exhaust air tunnel - T Four wheels Standing water/slight 2015
- curbs
(Dudar et al., 1991; Gilliam et al., 2015; Minichan et al., 2011; Peterson and Ward, 1995; Robinson and Smith Jr., 2004; Teese, 1995; Tibrea et al., 2015, 2011)

(continued on next page)

120
I. Tsitsimpelis et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124

Table 1 (continued)

Robot Operating areas Size (L x W x H, mm)/Mass (Kg) Communication Locomotion Traversing terrain Year

Various
SURVEYOR Drum waste storage 1143 × 572 x 521 W Two tracks Water 152 mm/ 1985
150 obstacles 229 mm
ROCOMP Multi-purpose 1372 × 711 x 457 W Two tracks Stairs 1986
113
SURBOT Multi-purpose - Three wheels Water 76 mm/obstacles 1985
181 38 mm
Robicen Main steam tunnel/Feedwater heat 690 × 360 x 320 T Three suction legs Walls 1994
exchanger/Waste storage building 22
Robicen II 920 × 200 x 350 T Suction legs Walls 1994
24
Robicen III 290 × 160 x 250 T Four suction legs Walls 1997
2.5
ROBUG II Generally unstructured environments 1000 × 700 x −17 T Four suction legs Walls/flat 1985
ROBUG III 800 × 600 x 600 T Eight suction legs Walls/Rough 1995
-
ROBUG IV 1000 × 1020 x 1140 T Eight suction legs Walls/flat 1998
55
HERMIES III Waste storage surfaces 1600 × 1300 x 1900 T wheels Flat 1989
1230
Kaerot/m2 Pressure tubes in PHWR - T Four tracks Stairs 2003
-
SADIE Ducts 640 × 400 x 180 T Suction feet Walls 1997
-
RICA Fuel retreatment/Waste storage 570 × 420 x 330 T Two tracks Rough/slight slopes/ 2016
80 obstacles
MOTHERSHIP/modular Waste storage - T Track modules Rough/narrow 2016
snake -

(Briones et al., 1994; Fischetti, 1985; Galt et al., 1997; Gelhaus and Meieran, 1986; Gelhaus and Roman, 1990; Luk et al., 1996, 1991; Mann, 1992; Reister et al.,
1991; Serna et al., 1998; Seungho et al., 2010; Voyles et al., 2017; White et al., 1998).

capabilities, diagnostics, communication, and electronics. A similar
design basis was specified for the CLAWAR project, comprising the
mechanical design, sensors, actuators, computing hardware/software,
and communications protocol.
A systematic investigation by breaking further down the subsystems
such as the ones depicted in Fig. 14 is good practice as it may predict
and prevent critical errors that would otherwise become apparent
during development and testing.
An exemplary investigation may be undertaken using the Holistic
Requirements model (Burge, 2011). This model facilitates a number of
tools that can be combined in order to derive and satisfy all the desired
requirements of the main system and subsystems. A typical categor-
ization is splitting the requirements into (i) functional i.e. what are the
system's functionalities, (ii) implementation i.e. how will those func-
tionalities be achieved, and (iii) performance i.e. how well will the
functionalities carry out their tasks. Furthermore, system requirements
will determine vital features of the system. All these requirements may
be derived through various tools and/or interviews and previous ex-
periences, and solution analysis may be applied to ensure compatibility
at all levels. The level of detail for satisfying the requirements of each
subsystem depends on what the developers and users wish to achieve.
For instance, for a scenario where the aim is to build a sensing instru-
ment, one would proceed to satisfy a basic set of requirements for the
embracing technology (i.e. by purchasing off the shelf components)
with respect to the targeted area of operation, while most of the focus
(e.g. down to material level) would be given on the subsystems of the
sensing instrument.
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this article was to review the development and
utilisation of terrestrial robotic systems for nuclear environments, by
considering how demand has been generated and also reviewing their
evolution to date. The main findings are that there is a lot of experience
with using robotics in the nuclear industry which indicates that the
technology exists and yet opportunities remain where there is the need
for a robotic solution but a suitable candidate does not yet exist. The
example of Fukushima Daiichi is a specific case where a number of
requirements fall into this category.
Section 2 provided the key background information of the emer-
gence of mobile robotic solutions, which primarily related to enhance
the workers' health and safety, but also landmark events, such as the
Three Mile Island accident. Section 3 presented various robotic systems
in literature from the 1990s up to date, which indicated the vast
amount of research that has taken place, but also the fact that most
systems are not universal, i.e. unique requirements are found in most
applications. Section 4 considered why the maintenance of robotic so-
lutions and their preventive application could be of great benefit to the
nuclear industry and public safety, and the potential for system design
to lead the maturity of this key application area of 21st century robotic
capability was considered. Table 1 summarizes some of the character-
isation robots that are available in the literature and mentioned in this
review.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the support of UK Research and Innovation via the
TORONE consortium, grant reference EP/P018505/1. This work is in
part supported by the EPSRC project EP/R02572X/1. Malcolm J. Joyce
acknowledges the support of the Royal Society via a Wolfson Research
Merit Award.
References
Abouaf, J., 1998. Trial by fire: teleoperated robot targets chernobyl. IEEE Comput. Graph.
Appl. 18, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.689654.
Bagatin, M., Gerardin, S., Paccagnella, A., 2017. Space and terrestrial radiation effects in
Flash memories Radiation effects in recon fi gurable FPGAs. Semicond. Sci. Technol.
32, 1–8.
Berry, R., Loebakka, K., Hall, E., 1983. Sensors for mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the
3rd Conference on Robot Vision and Sensory Controls, pp. 584–588.

121
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
Bloss, R., 2010. How do you decommission a nuclear installation? Call in the robots. Ind.
Robot An Int. J. 37, 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/01439911011018902.
Bogue, R., 2011. Robots in the nuclear industry: a review of technologies and applica-
tions. Ind. Robot An Int. J. 38, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01439911111106327.
Bradley, D.A., Seward, D.W., 1998. The development, control and operation of an au-
tonomous robotic excavator. J. Intell. Rob. Syst. 21, 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1007932011161.
Briones, L., Bustamante, P., Serna, M.A., 1994. Robicen: a wall-climbing pneumatic robot
for inspection in nuclear power plants. Robot. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 11,
287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/0736-5845(95)00005-4.
Brooksbank, R.E., Armento, W.J., 1980. Post-accident Cleanup of Radioactivity at the
Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station. Oak Ridge, TN (United States). https://doi.
org/10.2172/5647059.
Buckingham, R., Anscombe, R., 2005. Snaking around in a nuclear jungle. Nucl. Future 1,
254–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/01439910510582246.
Burge, S., 2011. The Systems Engineering Tool Box.
Cabrol, N.A., Chong-Diaz, G., Stoker, C.R., Gulick, V.C., Landheim, R., Lee, P., Roush,
T.L., Zent, A.P., Lameli, C.H., Iglesia, A.J., Arrerondo, M.P., Dohm, J.M., Keaten, R.,
Wettergreen, D., Sims, M.H., Schwher, K., Bualat, M.G., Thomas, H.J., Zbinden, E.,
Christian, D., Pedersen, L., Bettis, A., Thomas, G., Witzke, B., 2001. Nomad Rover
field experiment, Atacama Desert, Chile 1. Science results overview. J. Geophys. Res.
E Planets 106, 7785–7806. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JE001166.
Carteret, B.A., Holliday, M.A., Jones, E.D., 1997. Needs Assessment for Remote Systems
Technology at the Chornobyl Unit 4 Shelter. Richland, WA. https://doi.org/10.
2172/567492.
Chen, S., Li, Y., Kwok, N.M., 2011. Active vision in robotic systems: a survey of recent
developments. Int. J. Robot Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364911410755.
Choi, S.Y., Yoo, S.J., Lee, K.J., Rim, C.T., 2012. Wireless power system design for mobile
robots used in nuclear power plants. In: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society
Spring Meeting, pp. 2011–2012.
Clark, J.W., 1961. MOBOTRY: the new art of remote handling. IRE Trans. Veh. Commun.
10, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/IRETVC1.1961.207464.
Coenen, S., Decreton, M., 1993. Feasibility of optical sensing for robotics in highly
radioactive environments. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 40, 851–856. https://doi.org/10.
1109/23.256673.
Cortez, R.A., Papageorgiou, X., Tanner, H.G., Klimenko, A.V., Borozdin, K.N.,
Priedhorsky, W.C., 2007. Experimental implementation of robotic sequential nuclear
search. In: 2007 Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation. MED.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MED.2007.4433797.
Cortez, R.A., Papageorgiou, X., Tanner, H.G., Klimenko, A.V., Borozdin, K.N., Lumia, R.,
Priedhorsky, W.C., 2008. Smart radiation sensor management. IEEE Robot. Autom.
Mag. 15, 85–93.
Cortez, R.A., Tanner, H.G., Lumia, R., 2009. Distributed robotic radiation mapping. In:
Experimental Robotics. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, pp. 147–156.
Cragg, L., Hu, H., 2003. Application of mobile agents to robust teleoperation of internet
robots in nuclear decommissioning. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Technol. 2, 1214–1219.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2003.1290838.
De Geeter, J., Decreton, M., Colon, E., 1999. Challenges of telerobotics in a nuclear en-
vironment. Robot. Autonom. Syst. 28, 5–17.
Decreton, M., 1995. Position sensing in nuclear remote operation. Measurement 15,
43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2241(94)00035-6.
Denmeade, T., 1998. A pioneer's journey into the sarcophagus. Nucl. Eng. Int. 43, 18.
Diggins, Z.J., Mahadevan, N., Herbison, D., Karsai, G., Barth, E., Reed, R.A., Schrimpf,
R.D., Weller, R.A., Alles, M.L., Witulski, A., 2015. Range-finding sensor degradation
in gamma radiation environments. IEEE Sensor. J. 15, 1864–1871.
Dong, P., Wang, X., Xing, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, M., 2016. Design and control of a tracked
robot for search and rescue in nuclear power plant. ICARM 2016 - 2016 Int. Conf.
Adv. Robot. Mechatronics 330–335. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARM.2016.7606941.
Ducros, C., Hauser, G., 2017. RICA: a tracked robot for sampling and radiological char-
acterization in the nuclear field. J. Field Robot. 34, 583–599.
Dudar, E., Teese, G., Wagner, D., 1991. SIMON: a mobile robot for floor contamination
surveys. In: Westinghouse Computer Symposium, pp. 1–11.
Fischetti, M.A., 1985. Robots do the dirty work: some walk, some roll as they go about
their tedious, hazardous chores in nuclear-power plants. IEEE Spectr 22, 65–73.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.1985.6370621.
Friend, D.B., Ellis, M., James, D.W., 1988. The moving vehicle checks, and having
checked, moves on: an overview of the use of mobile inspection vehicles within the
CEGB. In: Remote Techniques for Inspection and Refurbishment of Nuclear Plant,
pp. 1–6.
Fujii, M., Kimura, T., Sadakane, K., 1976. A robotic approach to reduction of personnel
radiation exposure in nuclear power plants. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 13, 462–464.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.1976.9734056.
Fujii, Y., Wehe, D.K., Weymouth, T.E., Borenstein, J., 1992. Mobile robotics in future
nuclear reactor environments. In: Nucl. Sci. Symp. Med. Imaging Conf. 1992., Conf.
Rec. 1992. IEEE, pp. 678–680. https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.1992.301391.
Fulbright, R., Stephens, L.M., 1995. SWAMI: an autonomous mobile robot for inspection
of nuclear waste storage facilities. Aut. Robots 2, 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00710858.
Galt, S., Luk, B.L., Cooke, D.S., Collie, A.A., 1997. A tele-operated semi-intelligent
climbing robot for nuclear applications. Control 118–123.
Garreau, A., Cuisin, C., Hamichi, B., 2013. Telecom & energy supplying system for robots
in nuclear environment. In: 2013 IEEE Int. Symp. Safety, Secur. Rescue Robot. SSRR.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SSRR.2013.6719316.
Gelhaus, F., Meieran, H., 1986. Currently available mobile teleoperators and their ap-
plicability to radiological emergencies. In: Foltman, A.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
122
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
Workshop on Requirements of Mobile Teleoperators for Radiological Emergency
Response and Recovery, pp. 65–104.
Gelhaus, F.E., Roman, H.T., 1990. Robot applications in nuclear power plants. Prog. Nucl.
Energy 23, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-1970(90)90012-T.
Gilliam, B.J., Ray, J., Giddings, B., 2015. Inspection and assessment of the H-canyon
ventilation system At the Savannah River site. In: Waste Management Symposia. WM
Symposia (WMS), Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pp. 1–14.
Gonzalez, R., Iagnemma, K., 2017. Slippage estimation and compensation for planetary
exploration rovers. State of the art and future challenges. J. Field Robot. 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21761.
Gu, J., Taylor, J., Seward, D., 2004. Proportional-integral-plus control of an intelligent
excavator. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 19, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8667.2004.00334.x.
Guan, D., Yan, L., Yang, Y., Xu, W., 2014. A small climbing robot for the intelligent
inspection of nuclear power plants. In: ICIST 2014 - Proceedings of 2014 4th IEEE
International Conference on Information Science and Technology, pp. 484–487.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIST.2014.6920522.
Guizzo, E., 2011. Fukushima Robot Operator Writes Tell-all Blog [WWW Document].
https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/fukushima-robot-
operator-diaries (accessed 3.27.18).
Guzman, R., Navarro, R., Ferre, J., Moreno, M., 2016. RESCUER: development of a
modular chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear robot for intervention, sam-
pling, and situation awareness*. J. Field Robot. 33, 931–945. https://doi.org/10.
1002/rob.21588.
Hamel, W.R., Martin, H.L., 1983. Robotics-related technology. In: Casasent, D.P., Hall,
E.L. (Eds.), The Nuclear Industry. Robotics and Robot Sensing Systems, pp. 97–107.
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.937933.
Han, Y., Luan, W., Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., 2015. Protection of electronic devices on nuclear
rescue robot: passive thermal control. Appl. Therm. Eng. 101, 224–230. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.02.116.
Hosoda, Y., Yamamoto, H., Hattori, M., Sakairi, H., Iwamoto, T., Oowada, M., Kanno, A.,
Saitou, Y., 2002. “SWAN”: a robot for nuclear disaster prevention support. Adv.
Robot. 16, 485–488. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855302320535782.
Huffman, S.A., 1962. Designing for Remote Handling. U.S. Department of Energy.
https://doi.org/10.2172/4226209.
Iborra, A., Pastor, J.A., Álvarez, B., Fernández, C., Fernández Meroño, J.M., 2003. Robots
in radioactive environments. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 10, 12–22. https://doi.org/
10.1109/MRA.2003.1256294.
Ichikawa, Y., Ozaki, N., Sadakane, K., 1983. A hybrid locomotion vehicle for nuclear
power plants. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., Communications in Computer and
Information Science SMC- 13, 1089–1093. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1983.
6313182.
Ishida, H., Wada, Y., Matsukura, H., 2012. Chemical sensing in robotic applications: a
review. IEEE Sensor. J. 12, 3163–3173. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2012.
2208740.
Ishikawa, M., 2015. A Study of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident Process. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55543-8.
Isozaki, Y., Nakai, K., 2002. Development of a work robot with a manipulator and a
transport robot for nuclear facility emergency preparedness. Adv. Robot. 16,
489–492. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855302320535791.
Katz, D., Kenney, J., Brock, O., 2008. In Workshop on Robot Manipulation: Intelligence in
Human Environments at Robotics: Science and Systems. Citeseer 1–6.
Kawatsuma, S., Fukushima, M., Okada, T., 2012. Emergency response by robots to
Fukushima-Daiichi accident: summary and lessons learned. Ind. Robot 39, 428–435.
Kawatsuma, S., Mimura, R., Asama, H., 2017. Unitization for portability of emergency
response surveillance robot system: experiences and lessons learned from the de-
ployment of the JAEA-3 emergency response robot at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plants. ROBOMECH J 4, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40648-017-0073-7.
Kim, B.S., Kim, S.H., Lee, J., 1995. Automatic stair-climbing algorithm of the planetary
wheel type mobile robot in nuclear facilities. J. Korean Nucl. Soc. 27, 661–669.
Kim, J.S., Jang, Y.H., 2016. Development of stable walking robot for accident condition
monitoring on uneven floors in a nuclear power plant. Nucl. Eng. Technol. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.10.004.
Kim, S., Jung, S.H., Kim, C.H., 1999. Preventive maintenance and remote inspection of
nuclear power plants using tele-robotics. In: IEEE Int. Conf. On Intelligent Robotics
Systems, pp. 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1999.813070.
Kinoshita, H., Tayama, R., Kometani, Y., Asano, T., Kani, Y., 2014. Development of new
technology for Fukushima Daiichi. Nuclear Power Station Reconstruction 63,
183–190.
Kniazewyc, B.G., Irving, J.T., Long, D.C., Wagoner, H., 1986. The implication of remote
technology for decontamination activities. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Midyear
Topical Symposium Health Physics Society, pp. 261–270.
Kobayashi, T., Miyajima, K., Yanagihara, S., 2002. Development of remote surveillance
squads for information collection on nuclear accidents. Adv. Robot. 16, 497–500.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156855302320535818.
Konaka, M., 1991. National project on advanced root technology in Japan. In: Fifth
International Conference on Robots in Unstructured Environments, 91. ICAR. IEEE,
pp. 24–30.
Kriikku, E.M., Hera, K.R., Marzolf, A.D., Phillips, M.H., 2015. H-Canyon Recovery
Crawler.
Kurnosov, V.A., Bagryanskii, V.M., Moiseev, I.K., 1988. Entombment of Chernobyl’ unit 4.
Sov. At. Energy 64, 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01123591.
Kuwahara, T., Tomioka, Y., Fukuda, K., Sugimura, N., Sakamoto, Y., 2012. Radiation
effect mitigation methods for electronic systems. In: 2012 IEEE/SICE International
Symposium on System Integration, SII 2012, pp. 307–312.
Lacroix, S., Mallet, A., Bonnafous, D., Bauzil, G., Fleury, S., Herrb, M., Chatila, R., 2002.
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
Autonomous rover navigation on unknown terrains: functions and integration. Int. J.
Robot Res. 21, 917–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364902021010841.
Langen, A., Baum, W., 1995. Reliability and safety for mobile robots in hostile environ-
ment. IFAC Proc 28, 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)46990-4.
Lauridsen, K., Christensen, P., Kongso, H.E., 1996. Assessment of the reliability of robotic
systems for use in radiation environments. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 53, 265–276.
Ledbetter, D.L., Paper, P., 1969. NERVA -Contributing Today and Tomorrow 1.
Lee, M., Hanczor, M., Chu, J., He, Z., Michael, N., Whittaker, R., 2018. 3-D Volumetric
Gamma-ray Imaging and Source Localization with a Mobile Robot. Waste
Management Symposia, pp. 1–13.
Lewis, W.I.I., Teese, G.D., 1996. Robotics and Remote Systems Developments and
Applications. FY96. Revision 1.
Lin, Y., Zwolinski, M., Halak, B., 2016. A low-cost, radiation-hardened method for pi-
peline protection in microprocessors. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst. 24,
1688–1701.
Liu, B., Huang, W., Ao, Y.-Y., Wang, P.-C., An, Y., Chen, H.-B., 2018. Dose rate effects of
gamma irradiation on silicone foam. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 147, 97–102. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2017.11.016.
Luk, B.L., Collie, a a, Billingsley, J., 1991. Robug II : an intelligent wall climbing robot.
Proc. 1991 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 2342–2347. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ROBOT.1991.131752.
Luk, B.L., Collie, A.A., Piefort, V., Virk, G.S., 1996. Robug III: a tele-operated climbing and
walking robot. UKACC Int. Conf. Control. Control 96 (1996), 347–352. https://doi.
org/10.1049/cp:19960577.
Luk, B.L., Galt, S., Cooke, D.S., Hewer, N.O., 1999. Intelligent walking motions and
control for a legged robot. In: European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, pp.
4756–4761.
Luk, B.L., Liu, K.P., Collie, A.A., Cooke, D.S., Chen, S., 2006. Tele-operated climbing and
mobile service robots for remote inspection and maintenance in nuclear industry. Ind.
Robot 33, 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/01439910610659105.
Ma, J., Luo, J., Pu, H., Peng, Y., Xie, S., Gu, J., 2014. Design , simulation and manu-
facturing of a tracked robot for nuclear accidents. In: 2014 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics. IEEE ROBIO, pp. 1828–1833 2014.
Maimone, M., Matthies, L., Osborn, J., Rollins, E., Teza, J., Thayer, S., 1998. A photo-
realistic 3-D mapping system for extreme nuclear environments: chornobyl. In:
Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, pp. 1109–1112.
Mann, R.C., 1992. CESAR Robotics and Intelligent Systems Research for Nuclear
Environments.
Miller, A., Machrafi, R., Mohany, A., 2015. Development of a semi-autonomous direc-
tional and spectroscopic radiation detection mobile platform. Radiat. Meas. 72,
53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2014.11.009.
Minichan, R., Fogle, R., Marzolf, A., 2011. H-canyon air exhaust tunnel inspection vehicle
development. In: ANS EPRRSD - 13th Robotics & Remote Systems for Hazardous
Environments • 11th Emergency Preparedness & Response, pp. 11.
Miyazawa, T., Suzuki, K., Fujie, H., Fujii, M., Asai, T., Sugimoto, H., 1986. Intelligent
robots for nuclear power plant inspection and surveillance. J. At. Energy Soc. Japan/
At. Energy Soc. Japan 28, 994–1002. https://doi.org/10.3327/jaesj.28.994.
Nagatani, K., Kiribayashi, S., Okada, Y., Tadokoro, S., Nishimura, T., Yoshida, T.,
Koyanagi, E., Hada, Y., 2011. Redesign of rescue mobile robot Quince - toward
emergency response to the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
station on march 2011. In: 9th IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and
Rescue Robotics. SSRR, pp. 13–18. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/SSRR.2011.
6106794.
Nakayama, R., Kubo, K., Sato, K., Taguchi, J., 1983. Development of nuclear power plant
automated remote patrol system. IFAC Proc 16, 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1474-6670(17)62646-6.
Nancekievill, M., Watson, S., Green, P.R., Lennox, B., 2016. Radiation Tolerance of
Commercial-off-the-shelf Components Deployed in an Underground Nuclear
Decommissioning Embedded System.
Nielsen, C.W., Gertman, D.I., Bruemmer, D.J., Hartley, R.S., Walton, M.C., 2008.
Evaluating robot technologies as tools to explore radiological and other hazardous
environments. 12th Top. Meet. Robot. Remote Syst. Hazard. Environ 9.
Oka, K., Shibanuma, K., 2002. Development of a radiation-proof robot. Adv. Robot. 16,
493–496. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855302320535809.
Oomichi, T., Isozaki, Y., Kojima, M., 2007. Practical design of robots operating in ra-
diation environments. Adv. Robot. 21, 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1163/
156855307780108286.
Ostler, P.S., Caffrey, M.P., Gibelyou, D.S., Graham, P.S., Morgan, K.S., Pratt, B.H., Quinn,
H.M., Wirthlin, M.J., 2009. SRAM FPGA reliability analysis for harsh radiation en-
vironments. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56, 3519–3526.
Perret, J., 1998. Service robots for nuclear safety: new developments by CYBERNETIX. In:
Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat.
No.98CH36146). IEEE, pp. 2106–2109. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1998.
680631.
Peterson, K.D., Ward, C.R., 1995. The Stored Waste Autonomous Mobile Inspector
(SWAMI).
Potemkin, E., Astafurov, P., Osipov, a., Malenkov, M., Mishkinyuk, V., Sologub, P., 1992.
Remote-controlled robots for repair and recovery in the zones of high radiation le-
vels. In: Proc. 1992 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom, pp. 80–82. https://doi.org/10.
1109/ROBOT.1992.220331.
Redus, R., Squillante, M., Gordon, J., Knoll, G., Wehe, D., 1994. A combined video and
gamma ray imaging system for robots in nuclear environments. Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Res. A 353, 324–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(94)
91667-5.
Reilly, J.K., McIntosh, T.W., Northey, L.M., GaTanto, J.J., Osterhoudt, T.R., Thompson,
123
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
J.D., 1985. Processing and Removal of the Three Mile Island Makeup and Purification
System Resins.
Reister, D.B., Jones, J.P., Butler, P.E., Beckerman, M., Sweeney, F.J., 1991. HERMIES-III
ROBOT. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2562–2567.
Robinson, C.W., Smith Jr., R.H., 2004. To Boldly Go where No Planners Have Ever,
Savannah River Site (US).
Roennau, A., Liebel, G., Schamm, T., Kerscher, T., Dillmann, R., 2010. Robust 3D scan
segmentation for teleoperation tasks in areas contaminated by radiation. IEEE/RSJ
2010 Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. IROS 2010 - Conf. Proc. 2419–2424. https://doi.
org/10.1109/IROS.2010.5648926.
Rohmer, E., Ohno, K., Yoshida, T., Nagatani, K., Konayagi, E., Tadokoro, S., 2010.
Integration of a sub-crawlers’ autonomous control in Quince highly mobile rescue
robot. In: 2010 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration. IEEE, pp.
78–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/SII.2010.5708305.
Roman, H.T., 1991. Robots cut risks and costs in nuclear power plants. IEEE Comput.
Appl. Power 4, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/67.85957.
Roman, H.T., Pellegrino, B.A., 1993. Pipe crawling inspection robots: an overview. IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers. 8, 576–583. https://doi.org/10.1109/60.257076.
Rowland, M.S., Holliday, M.A., Karpachov, J.A., Ivanov, A., 1995. Proposed Radiation
Hardened Mobile Vehicle for Chernobyl Dismantlement and Nuclear Accident
Response.
Russell, R.A., 2001. Survey of robotic applications for odor-sensing technology. Int. J.
Robot Res. 20, 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/02783640122067318.
Saeedi, S., Trentini, M., Seto, M., Li, H., 2016. Multiple-robot simultaneous localization
and mapping: a review. J. Field Robot. 33, 3–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.
21620.
Sarkar, U., Saini, S.S., Swaroop, T.T., Sreejith, P., Kumar, R., Ray, D.D., 2016.
Development of a mobile robot for remote radiation measurement. In:
Communications in Computer and Information Science, pp. 65–73. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-10-2845-8_6.
Savall, J., Avello, A., Briones, L., 1999. Two compact robots for remote inspection of
hazardous areas in nuclear power plants. In: Proc. 1999 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot.
Autom, pp. 1993–1998. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1999.770400.
Schmidt, A.G., Walters, J.P., Zick, K.M., French, M., Keymeulen, D., Aranki, N., Klimesh,
M., Kiely, A., 2012. Applying radiation hardening by software to fast lossless com-
pression prediction on FPGAs. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings.
Schwartz, F.L., Meininger, R.D., 1987a. TMI Cleanup techniques applicable to decom-
missioning. In: 1987 International Decommissioning Symposium. IAEA International
Nuclear Information System (INIS), pp. IV101–IV108.
Schwartz, F.L., Meininger, R.D., 1987b. TMI-2 Experience with remote operations tech-
nology. In: 1987 International Decommissioning Symposium, pp. VI14–VI28.
Serna, M.A., Avello, A., Briones, L., Bustamante, P., 1998. ROBICEN: a pneumatic
climbing robot for inspection of pipes and tanks. In: Experimental Robotics V Lecture
Notes in Control and Information Sciences, pp. 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BFb0112973.
Seungho, K., Seung, H.J., Sung, U.L., Chang, H.K., Ho, C.S., Yong, C.S., Nam, H.L., Kyung,
M.J., 2010. Application of robotics for the nuclear power plants in Korea. In: 2010 1st
International Conference on Applied Robotics for the Power Industry. CARPI 2010.
Shaban, E.M., Ako, S., Taylor, C.J., Seward, D.W., 2008. Development of an automated
verticality alignment system for a vibro-lance. Autom. ConStruct. 17, 645–655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.11.002.
Sharp, R., Decreton, M., 1996. Radiation tolerance of components and materials in nu-
clear robot applications. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 53, 291–299.
Shinohara, Y., Tachikawa, K., 1989. Highlights of the technical status of nuclear robotics
in Japan. In: IAEA Proceedings, Robotics and Remote Maintenance Concepts for
Fusion Machines, Karlsruhe, 1988. IAEA, pp. 103–111.
Sinclair, A.N., Chertov, A.M., 2015. Radiation endurance of piezoelectric ultrasonic
transducers - a review. Ultrasonics 57, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2014.
10.024.
Sterpone, L., Violante, M., Rezgui, S., 2005. An experimental analysis of hardening
techniques for SRAM-based FPGAs. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on
Radiation and its Effects on Components and Systems. RADECS, pp. J51–J54.
Teese, G.D., 1995. Robotics and Automation Activities at the Savannah River Site: a Site
Report for SUBWOG 39F. Aiken, SC. . https://doi.org/10.2172/113808.
Tepco, 2017. Tepco [WWW Document]. URL http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommision/
principles/robot/index-e.html (accessed 9.27.18).
Tibrea, S., Nance, T., Kriikku, E., 2011. Robotics in hazardous environments- real de-
ployments by the Savannah River national lab. J. South Carolina Acad. Sci. 9, 5–8.
Tibrea, S., Reid, L., Kriikku, E., 2015. Robotic challenges and deployments in an active
fume exhaust tunnel. In: 2nd Workshop on Robotics and Automation in Nuclear
Facilities.
Tso, K.S., Backes, P.G., 1993. A fail-safe tele-autonomous robotic system for nuclear fa-
cilities. Robot. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 10, 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0736-5845(93)90005-5.
Unknown, 1984. TMI Moves One Step Closer to Cleanup with Head Removal.
US Department of Energy, 1985. Robotics and Nuclear Power. Report by the Technology
Transfer Robotics Task Team. Science and Technology (NE). https://doi.org/10.
2172/5680548.
Van Duy, N., Toan, T.H., Hoa, N.D., Van Hieu, N., 2015. Effects of gamma irradiation on
hydrogen gas-sensing characteristics of Pd-SnO2 thin film sensors. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 40, 12572–12580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.07.070.
Virk, G.S., 2003. CLAWAR modularity for robotic systems. Int. J. Robot Res. 22, 265–277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364903022003010.
Voyles, R., Abbaraju, P., Choset, H., Ansari, A., 2017. Novel serpentine robot combina-
tions for inspection in hard-to-reach areas of damaged or decommissioned structures.
In: Waste Management Symposia, pp. 1–15.
I. Tsitsimpelis et al.
Wehe, D.K., Lee, J.C., Martin, W.R., Mann, R.C., Hamel, W.R., Tulenko, J., 1989.
Intelligent robotics and remote systems for the nuclear industry. Nucl. Eng. Des. 113,
259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(89)90077-0.
White, T., Hewer, N., Luk, B.L., Hazel, J., 1998. The design and operational performance
of a climbing robot used for weld inspection in hazardous environments. Proc. 1998
IEEE Int. Conf. Control Appl. (Cat. No.98CH36104) 1, 451–455. https://doi.org/10.
1109/CCA.1998.728489.
World Nuclear Association, 2017a. World nuclear facts [WWW Document]. URL http://
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures.aspx (accessed 9.
24.18).
World Nuclear Association, 2017b. Fukushima Accident [WWW Document]. URL http://
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/
fukushima-accident.aspx (accessed 3.27.17).
Wu, L., Han, X., Zhao, Y., Liu, Z., Yu, F., Stanley, L.C., 2011. Design and implementation
124
Progress in Nuclear Energy 111 (2019) 109–124
of a programming circuit in radiation-hardened FPGA. J. Semiconduct. 32.
Yamamoto, S., 1992. Development of inspection robot for nuclear power plant. In:
Proceedings 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp.
1559–1566. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1992.220030.
Yamauchi, B.M., 2004. PackBot: a versatile platform for military robotics brian. In:
Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.538328.
Yuguchi, Y., Satoh, Y., 2002. Development of a robotic system for nuclear facility
emergency preparedness — observing and work-assisting robot system. Adv. Robot.
16, 481–484. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855302320535773.
Zhang, T., Wang, T., Zhao, Q., 2013. Gamma Ray irradiation test of motion control
components of nuclear emergency rescue robot. In: 2013 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, pp. 2118–2123. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ROBIO.2013.6739782.