MARCH 2016 XU ET AL.

597

Review of Underwater Cable Shape Detection

CHUNYING XU, JIAWANG CHEN, AND DONGXU YAN

Ocean College, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

JIAN JI
Zhejiang Marine Development Research Institute, Zhoushan, China

(Manuscript received 9 June 2015, in final form 20 January 2016)

ABSTRACT

Underwater cables play vital roles in marine engineering because they provide power and communication
connections from the shore to an increasing number of sea installations. To ensure the system is operating
reliably and continuously, it is necessary to detect the shapes of underwater cables in real time. However, this
task is difficult to accomplish because the underwater cables are located in a dynamic and complicated subsea
environment, which can cause changes in position, depth, and visibility.
In this report, the current development of underwater cable shape detection methods, including visual,
acoustic, magnetic detection, and multisensor fusion detection, and the advantages and disadvantages are
described and analyzed. Furthermore, the disadvantages of these methods are addressed, which, based on
survey platforms with high cost, include a long detection period and the failure to reveal emergencies. Then,
the need to construct a simple and reliable system to detect the shapes of underwater cables is highlighted, and
one possible solution based on bend sensors embedded in underwater cables is discussed.

1. Introduction The remainder of the report is organized as follows.

Section 2 introduces recent developments in detecting
Underwater cables are key equipment used for ocean
underwater cable shapes. Section 3 provides a detection
research, marine engineering, and communication. They
concept based on bend sensors embedded in underwater
connect topside and subsea facilities, providing power,
cables. Last, section 4 concludes the paper.
pulling forces, and underwater communication for ma-
rine equipment, marine drag systems, and mooring
systems (Szyrowski et al. 2013a,b). However, because of 2. Underwater cable shape detection methods
working in rough and dynamic underwater conditions
A common method used to reduce the risks of un-
with flow and wave scouring, underwater cables are
derwater cable shapes and faults is periodical mainte-
prone to bending, warping, or even breaking. Several
nance and inspection. Generally, the applied techniques
cable-damaging events that disrupted system perfor-
can be classified into visual, acoustic, and magnetic de-
mance can be found in Carter et al. (2014, 2012) and
tection using the sensing device (Szyrowski et al. 2013a,b;
Talling et al. (2013). Therefore, it is extremely important
El-Fakdi and Carreras 2013). Remotely operated vehicles
to detect the shapes of underwater cables in real time, to
(ROVs) and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs)
confirm cable errors or breakage promptly, and even to
are commonly used survey platforms in which sensing
predict potential failures based on relative factors, such
devices are located.
as movements, bend, and wind (Brown et al. 2011).
Underwater cable detection consists of cable search-
ing and tracking. Cable searching is the first step in de-
termining the cable location. Tracking is the motion and
Corresponding author address: Jiawang Chen, Ocean College,
Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou 310058, measurement along the cable (Bagnitsky et al. 2011). In
China. this report, because of the advantages and the devel-
E-mail: arwang@zju.edu.cn opment of multisensor fusion detection, the detection

DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0112.1

Ó 2016 American Meteorological Society

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC
598 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY
FIG. 1. ROV detection system: (left) the ROV with a camera (Ishizu et al. 2012) and (right) the
controller for the robot (redrawn from Shibata et al. 2010).
methods can be divided into four groups: visual, acous-
tic, magnetic, and multisensor fusion.
a. Visual detection
In visual detection, underwater scenes are captured by
video cameras. Useful information is extracted from the
captured images, which then guides the operation of
underwater robots (Kuhn et al. 2015; Ortiz et al. 2011;
Jordán et al. 2011; Ortiz and Antich 2009; Lee et al. 2012;
Sakagami et al. 2013). Figure 1 presents an example of
the structure of an ROV detection system–mounted
camera (Ishizu et al. 2012). The ROV is controlled by an
operator using a joystick with the help of images cap-
tured by a mounted video camera.
High-quality images play an important role in visual
detection; however, they are difficult to obtain. First,
because of insufficient ambient light under water, the
visibility is poor. Thus, a carried light source can be used
to solve the problem; however, most commercial un-
derwater vehicles cannot maintain a clear and uniform
illumination because of the changes in depth (El-Fakdi
and Carreras 2013). Second, the images of underwater
objects appear blurred due to spatial attenuation and
backscatter of the optical waves (Szyrowski et al. 2013a).
Third, the motion of the vehicle and the disturbance of
the underwater environment increase the difficulty in
detection. High-resolution cameras can obtain high-
quality images of the objects; however, underwater ve-
hicles must remain sufficiently close to the targets in
external disturbances, such as waves (Sakagami et al.
2013). Particularly in muddy and deeper conditions, the
visibility of objects becomes poorer, and the underwater
vehicles must move closer. Fourth, after the cables have
laid on the seabed for a period of time, they are covered
by rocks and sediment, thus becoming invisible. Figure 2
illustrates a few instances of when the appearance of the
cable is difficult to detect (Ortiz et al. 2011).
The image processing algorithm is another important
factor. An image processing procedure for the online
VOLUME 33
detection of underwater cable–like targets can be found
in Drews et al. (2012) and Kuhn et al. (2015). The image
assists operators in implementing detection tasks by
controlling the distance between the target and the
ROV. The entire process can be separated into nine
stages, as depicted in Fig. 3 (Drews et al. 2012; Kuhn
et al. 2015). Figure 4 presents the corresponding results
(Kuhn et al. 2015).
Underwater images can have blurring, low-contrast,
and nonuniform illumination, thus increasing the com-
plexity of processing. The edge information of the un-
derwater cables in the images needs to be retained
because the detection is based on the contrast between
the target and the background (Asif and Arshad 2006).
Common image processing methods for underwater
images include the Hough transform, Kalman filters,
and particle filters. Asif and Arshad (2006) used the
Hough transform to detect and draw the boundary of the
underwater pipeline and Kalman filtering to estimate
the state of the underwater cables or pipelines over time.
Isaacs and Goroshin (2010) noted that the Hough trans-
form is one of the best tools for recognizing straight
lines. Although the Hough transform can determine the
existence of the cable, it fails to provide integrity in-
formation, such as the length of a straight-line segment.
Particle filters, based on a multidimensional and multi-
modal probability density function, can effectively
handle the ambiguity caused by underwater environ-
ments. The algorithm can sequentially estimate the
likelihood of the cable’s pose, including position and
orientation. In fact, for each frame in the image se-
quence, the parameters of the probability density func-
tion for the prior cable, which are updated by the
observation model, are used to predict the next frame.
Last, the most probable cable pose is determined using
the resulting density. The advantages of particle filters
allow them to be applied more widely than other ap-
proaches; however, the computation is considerable
(Ortiz and Antich 2009; Ortiz et al. 2011).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC
MARCH 2016 XU ET AL. 599

FIG. 2. Examples of cable appearances: (a) cable over a sandy background, (b) cable partially covered in sand,
(c) cable nearly covered completely by marine vegetation, (d) cable nearly covered completely in sand, (e) cable
with partial occlusions, and (f) surrounded by distracting features (Ortiz et al. 2011).

Several studies noted that it is difficult to detect un-
derwater cables using only visual detection because it
cannot provide consistently reliable image data for ca-
ble recognition (El-Fakdi and Carreras 2013; Inzartsev and
Pavin 2008). Furthermore, visual detection can be used
only at limited distances and is unable to detect
buried cables.
b. Acoustic detection
Acoustic detection uses sound to determine the dis-
tance and direction of objects, and it is able to detect
buried targets because sound can penetrate the seabed
(Szyrowski et al. 2013a). Sonar is a widely used method
for acoustic location. Underwater cable–like object de-
tection requires high-resolution sonar, including syn-
thetic aperture sonar (SAS), side-scan sonar (SSS), and
biosonar (Capus et al. 2010; Mandhouj et al. 2012; Zhou
et al. 2015).
Biosonar has two comparative advantages compared
to the side-scan sonar. First, the wide frequency band
allows for a considerably smoother beam profile and
continuous detection, even when the cable passes be-
neath the vehicle. Second, propagation is more effective
in the available range of low frequencies, even for
wavelengths higher than 25 m (Pailhas et al. 2011).
Furthermore, Capus et al. (2010) concluded that the bio-
inspired wideband sonar is able to detect cables with a
diameter of 25 mm or less, and different cable types can
be distinguished based on the scattering theory for thin
cylindrical shells.
The acoustic detection results are affected by the
following factors. First, sediment reverberation limits
the performance of the sonar. Because the detector has
no hardware time-varying gain (TVG) correction, the
background reverberation varies markedly over the so-
nar swath (Pailhas et al. 2011). To assess the impact of

FIG. 3. Image processing algorithm (redrawn from Kuhn et al. 2015).

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC

600 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY
FIG. 4. Image processing states: (a) original image resized, (b) grayscale, (c) edge detection, (d) dilate, and
(e) parallel lines (Kuhn et al. 2015).
seabed reverberation on cable detection, Capus et al.
(2010) performed tank experiments with coarse sedi-
ments and determined that (i) as the sediment becomes
rougher, the reverberation level becomes higher; and
(ii) the reverberation noise level is primarily affected
by the grazing angle, that is, the angle of a sonar pulse
contacting and moving across the seabed. In rough
sediments, a lower grazing angle provides better re-
sults. Furthermore, another tank experiment (Brown
et al. 2011) indicated that the detection results are af-
fected by the cable curvature, tank wall returns, am-
bient noise sources, and disturbances in the sediment
surface. Last, image processing is another vital factor
(Villar et al. 2014). The acoustic data must be promptly
processed to ensure effective detection. The sonar
images include noise primarily due to the complexity
of the marine environment and the existence of sus-
pended particles (Mandhouj et al. 2012). Before ap-
plication, noise must be eliminated from the sonar
images. Therefore, methods for improving postdetection
filtering and noise suppression are proposed to minimize
the noise (Capus et al. 2010). The methods are typically
classified into two categories: spatial filtering and
transform-domain filtering (Mandhouj et al. 2012). An
experimental example of the comparison between the
original acoustic images obtained using a side-scan
sonar in Brazil and the processing results is illustrated
in Fig. 5 (Villar et al. 2014).
VOLUME 33
It is difficult to use acoustic detection to detect cables
in shallow water, especially in coastal regions due to
reverberation and the acoustic image noise. Pei et al.
(2010) noted that man-made refuse or structures in
coastal regions may cause false alarms when only using
the acoustic sensor (Pei et al. 2010).
c. Magnetic detection
Underwater cables can be detected using sensing
magnetic or electromagnetic fields because they are
typically constructed from ferromagnetic and current-
conducting materials (Szyrowski et al. 2013b). Magnetic
detection can effectively detect buried underwater
power cables, reducing false alarms and improving
accuracy (Pei et al. 2010; Szyrowski et al. 2013b). It
is based on two principles: (i) an electric current produces
a magnetic field (electromagnetism); and (ii) a changing
magnetic field induces voltage (electromagnetic induc-
tion) (Wang et al. 2011). In practical applications, passive
and active magnetic detections are two methods used
to sense electromagnetic fields. The passive method
detects physical magnetic properties of underwater
cables without strengthening its signal; thus, it is suit-
able for detection in complex waters. The active method
is based on electromagnetic induction, which is not suit-
able for long-distance underwater cable detection due to
its rapid attenuation (Szyrowski et al. 2013b; Zhou et al.
2009, 2015).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC
MARCH 2016 XU ET AL. 601

FIG. 5. Experimental results for abstract cell averaging (ACA) constant false alarm rate (CFAR): (a) the original
preprocessed image, (b) the detected pipeline, and (c) the detection points (Villar et al. 2014).

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC

602 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY
FIG. 6. Cable tracking control loop (redrawn from Jacobi and Karimanzira 2013).
Based on the characteristics of the magnetic anomaly,
the magnetic anomaly gradient can be used to detect the
location of and track the underwater pipeline (Liu et al.
2013). Wu and Yao (2015) used the magnetic gradient and
gravity gradient anomalies induced by an underwater ob-
ject to estimate the relative changes in distance between
an underwater object and the underwater vehicle.
Generally, a magnetic device mounted on the ROVs
or AUVs must remain close to the targets due to the
rapid attenuation of the magnetic signals and the various
sources of noise interference (Szyrowski et al. 2015). A
method based on particle filters was proposed to esti-
mate the distribution of magnetic fields on the sea sur-
face offshore and to localize the underwater cables. The
method must be able to reduce the effect of noise coming
from other various sources, such as the engines of the
surveying boat. A small platform equipped with magnetic
sensors and particle filters was used to detect a buried
cable in the Baltic Sea, and the results indicated that the
method was feasible for offshore use and provided an
alternative to a driver or a remotely operated platform.
This method effectively reduces the cost of magnetic
detection; however, the magnetic noise and rapid atten-
uation of magnetic signal propagation limit practical ap-
plications in deep sea conditions (Szyrowski et al. 2015).
d. Multisensor fusion detection
Different detection methods have their own advantages
and disadvantages. Thus, instead of single-sensor processing,
TABLE 1. Comparison of four underwater cable detection methods
Method Advantages
Visual detection Less sensitive to noise
Cannot detect buried cables
Acoustic detection Long distance
Magnetic detection Long distance
Can detect buried cables
Multisensor detection More reliable and accuracte
VOLUME 33
multisensor data fusion appears to be more suitable
(Zhou et al. 2015). The primary goal is to combine the
information from the multisensors and form a compre-
hensive evaluation over time (Dong et al. 2015). This
method improves the reliability and accuracy of de-
tection because it is a refinement information process for
judgment and a self-improvement of information pro-
cessing. The primary controlling structure based on the
fusion method for cable and pipeline location detection
is depicted in Fig. 6 (Jacobi and Karimanzira 2013).
Tang et al. (2013) described an algorithm based on the
multisensor information fusion estimation theory and
the dynamic Bayesian network inference. The method
first fuses and then filters. Furthermore, this method can
smooth the missing data and the fuzzy data, and estimate
the underwater target motion state. Dong et al. (2015)
noted that there are three types of structures in the data
fusion: centralization, distribution, and mixing. The
centralization structure assembles data, which are then
processed. It requires a high-performance processor,
especially for large data. The distribution structure
processes the data based on the sensor’s rule, makes a
decision, and then gathers the decisions into the fusion
center for the final decision-making. This structure is
robust, and the tracking precision is lower than that in
the centralization structure. Furthermore, the mixing
structure is a mixture of the centralization and distri-
bution structures. It has the advantages of both struc-
tures; however, the calculation is large.
Disadvantages Need survey platform?
High risk of error Yes
A short distance
More sensitive to background noise Yes
More sensitive to background noise Yes
Higher costs Yes
Larger computation
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC
MARCH 2016 XU ET AL.
FIG. 7. System diagram: detection system using an ROV’s umbilical cable as an example. MCU
is for microcontroller unit. ADC is for analog-to-digital converter.
Xu et al. (2012) described a method that used a
forward-looking sonar, a signal camera, and ultra-
sonic proximate sensor fusion detection for under-
water multitarget identification and positioning. The
targets can be detected by the sonar from a long dis-
tance; when the targets were at a distance of 5 m,
they can be identified and roughly positioned by
integrating the sonar and camera image information;
for a range of 2 m, the camera image and the ultra-
sonic proximate sensor data fusion are used to
achieve multitarget identification and accurate
positioning.
In another study, an AUV known as Ocean Server
Iver3 was used to detect a buried pipeline in the Portage
Waterway. The AUV included mounted digital imaging,
digital 3D side-scan sonar, and acoustic Doppler current
profilers. Experience indicates that the range of the
camera is considerably shorter than the underwater so-
nar. Furthermore, it is indicated that using multisensor
fusion could augment the detection of underwater ca-
bles (Mitchell et al. 2014).
e. Comparative assessment
To provide a clear idea of the current shape detection
methods for underwater cables, the advantages and
disadvantages are compared. Visual detection not only
suffers from a high risk of error but also can be used only
for a limited distance, and the acoustic and magnetic
603
sensors are often too sensitive to background noise, as
indicated in Table 1.
From Table 1, it is important to note that the methods
introduced herein are based on the survey platform,
such as ROVs or AUVs, which are considerably ex-
pensive and fail to detect the entire cable in real time or
predict potential danger in time. Furthermore, sensing
and survey devices are power consumers, and the size of
the sensors and devices is significant. An ROV requires
an umbilical cable to connect to the support ship; thus, it
has the risk of entanglement due to the floatability of the
umbilical cable. Additionally, El-Fakdi and Carreras
(2013) noted that ROVs require substantial cost and
time to detect cables of any length due to their low
speed. Compared to ROVs, AUVs cost less because
they do not require a tether cable between the vehicle
and the support ship (Maki et al. 2012). However, AUVs
are limited by their onboard batteries and fuel cells,
which provide propulsion power. Hence, AUVs are not
suitable for long-range tasks.
One possible solution to these limitations is a more
reliable and economical monitoring system that involves
the use of an array of sensors embedded into the cables
to perform online observations of the system’s dynamic
response. The observations are then analyzed to de-
termine the shape status of the underwater cables and
to provide a timely warning when risks or potential
dangers exist.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC
604 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY
3. Bend sensors for underwater cable shape
detection
The characteristics of bend sensors are measuring
curvature, long mechanical durability, electric stability,
and low noise (Saggio 2014), which can be used for
underwater cable shape detection. There are three
common types of bend sensors: conductive ink based,
fiber-optic, and conductive fabric/polymer based. They
are widely applied in industrial and medical devices
because of their flexibility and portability (Cxnull 2011).
Conductive ink–based bend sensors have been used in
robots and data gloves (Saggio et al. 2009; Saggio 2014).
The advantages of fiber-optic sensors are high sensitivity
and antielectromagnetic interference ability (Zhou et al.
2012). They have been used in various applications to
measure bends and twists, such as robots and motion
capture systems (China SouVR Co., Inc. 2008).
The development and applications of bend sensors
provide the basis for underwater cable shape detection.
Using an ROV’s umbilical cable as an example (Fig. 7),
bend sensors are arranged along the longitudinal to
measure the bend and twist of underwater cables. Data
acquired from the sensors are sent to a computer via a
serial port, and a three-dimensional shape reconstruc-
tion algorithm can then be designed to depict the shape
and position in near–real time, thus providing the user
with visual feedback and predicting any potential danger
in time.
4. Conclusions
Underwater cables have become more important in
recent years. Global communications and power distri-
bution networks are dependent on these cables. There
are four primary methods for underwater cable shape
detection, including visual detection, acoustic detection,
magnetic detection, and multisensor fusion detection.
Furthermore, researchers use filtering and signal pro-
cessing to reduce background noise and extract an in-
put from the signal source. To tackle the problem of
detecting the edges of long-length cables, tools such as
the Hough transform and particle filters are used. For
position prediction and tracking, tools such as Kalman
filters are used.
Despite the diversity of methods and advances
achieved, the current methods have limitations. Both
visual and acoustic detection have problems in detecting
underwater cables covered by underwater growth. Vi-
sual detection requires enough light and is limited by
underwater visibility, that is, as the water becomes
deeper, detection becomes more difficult. Conversely,
acoustic detection is not suitable for shallow-water or
VOLUME 33
coastal regions. Magnetic detection is widely used for
detecting buried underwater cables. Furthermore, the
rapid attenuation of electromagnetic waves in seawater
and noise are major challenges. Multisensor fusion de-
tection can maximize its advantages and minimize its
disadvantages, thus improving accuracy and enlarging
the application. However, methods typically based on
ROVs/AUVs are costly and fail either to determine
problems promptly or to predict the potential danger of
underwater cables due to winds or knots in a timely
manner. Therefore, a reliable and cost-effective system
for both shape detection and danger prediction for un-
derwater cables is still needed.
In future studies, the authors aim to improve the methods
by overcoming their limitations. One possible solution is
to arrange sensors on underwater cables to allow users to
assess their state and safety, thus minimizing the possi-
bility of failure occurrence and operation cost.
Acknowledgments. This study was funded by Project
51004085, supported by the National Science Foundation
of China, and the Program for Zhejiang Leading Team
of S&T Innovation (2010R50036). The authors thank
the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and valuable
comments, which strengthened this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Asif, M., and M. R. Arshad, 2006: An active contour and Kalman
filter for underwater target tracking and navigation. Mobile
Robots: Towards New Applications, A. Lazinica, Ed., INTECH,
373–392, doi:10.5772/4699.
Bagnitsky, A., A. Inzartsev, A. Pavin, S. Melman, and M. Morozov,
2011: Side scan sonar using for underwater cables & pipelines
tracking by means of AUV. 2011 IEEE Symposium on Un-
derwater Technology and Workshop on Scientific Use of Sub-
marine Cables and Related Technologies, IEEE, 1–10,
doi:10.1109/UT.2011.5774119.
Brown, K., C. Capus, Y. Pailhas, Y. Petillot, and D. Lane, 2011: The
application of bioinspired sonar to cable tracking on the
seafloor. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., 2011, 484619,
doi:10.1155/2011/484619.
Capus, C., Y. Pailhas, K. Brown, and D. Lane, 2010: Detection
of buried and partially buried objects using a bio-inspired
wideband sonar. Oceans 2010, IEEE, 1–6, doi: 10.1109/
OCEANSSYD.2010.5603675.
Carter, L., J. D. Milliman, P. J. Talling, R. Gavey, and R. B. Wynn,
2012: Near-synchronous and delayed initiation of long run-out
submarine sediment flows from a record-breaking river flood,
offshore Taiwan. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L12603, doi:10.1029/
2012GL051172.
——, R. Gavey, P. Talling, and J. Liu, 2014: Insights into submarine
geohazards from breaks in subsea telecommunication cables.
Oceanography, 27 (2), 58–67, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2014.40.
China SouVR Co., Inc., 2008: Measurand ShapeWrap III. Accessed
20 October 2015. [Available online at http://en.souvr.com/
product/200712/264.html.]
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC
MARCH 2016 XU ET AL.
Cxnull, 2011: Flexion. [Available online at http://www.sensorwiki.org/
doku.php/sensors/flexion.]
Dong, Y., G. Zhang, X. He, and J. Tang, 2015: Information fusion in
networked underwater target detection. Oceans 2015—Genova,
IEEE, 1–4, doi:10.1109/OCEANS-Genova.2015.7271553.
Drews, P., V. Kuhn, and S. Gomes, 2012: Tracking system for un-
derwater inspection using computer vision. 2012 International
Conference on Offshore and Marine Technology: Science
and Innovation (NAVTEC), IEEE, 27–30, doi: 10.1109/
NAVTEC.2012.9.
El-Fakdi, A., and M. Carreras, 2013: Two-step gradient-based
reinforcement learning for underwater robotics behavior
learning. Rob. Auton. Syst., 61, 271–282, doi:10.1016/
j.robot.2012.11.009.
Inzartsev, A. V., and A. M. Pavin, 2008: AUV cable tracking sys-
tem based on electromagnetic and video data. Oceans 2008—
MTS/IEEE Kobe Techno-Ocean, IEEE, 1–6, doi:10.1109/
OCEANSKOBE.2008.4531082.
Isaacs, J. C., and R. Goroshin, 2010: Automated cable tracking
in sonar imagery. Oceans 2010, IEEE, 1–7, doi:10.1109/
OCEANS.2010.5664414.
Ishizu, K., N. Sakagami, K. Ishimaru, M. Shibata, H. Onishi,
S. Murakami, and S. Kawamura, 2012: Ship hull inspection
using a small underwater robot with a mechanical contact
mechanism. Oceans 2012—Yeosu, IEEE, 1–6, doi:10.1109/
OCEANS-Yeosu.2012.6263543.
Jacobi, M., and D. Karimanzira, 2013: Underwater pipeline
and cable inspection using autonomous underwater vehi-
cles. Oceans’13 MTS/IEEE Bergen, Norway: The North-
ern Dimension and Challenges, IEEE, 1–6, doi:10.1109/
OCEANS-Bergen.2013.6608089.
Jordán, M. A., C. Berger, and J. L. Bustamante, 2011: Design of a
robust vision-based sensor of position and rate for the guid-
ance of autonomous underwater vehicles. American Control
Conference (ACC 2011), IEEE, 3978–3986, doi:10.1109/
ACC.2011.5991411.
Kuhn, V. N., P. L. J. Drews Jr., S. C. Pinheiro Gomes, M. A. Barbosa
Cunha, and S. S. da Costa Botelho, 2015: Automatic control of a
ROV for inspection of underwater structures using a low-cost
sensing. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., 37, 361–374.
Lee, D., G. Kim, D. Kim, H. Myung, and H. T. Choi, 2012: Vision-
based object detection and tracking for autonomous naviga-
tion of underwater robots. Ocean Eng., 48, 59–68, doi:10.1016/
j.oceaneng.2012.04.006.
Liu, Y., Y. F. Zhang, and H. Yi, 2013: The new magnetic survey
method for underwater pipeline detection. Appl. Mech.
Mater., 239–240, 338–343, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/
AMM.239-240.338.
Maki, T., H. Mizushima, T. Ura, T. Sakamaki, and M. Yanagisawa,
2012: AUV navigation around jacket structures I: Relative
localization based on multi-sensor fusion. J. Mar. Sci. Tech-
nol., 17, 330–339, doi:10.1007/s00773-012-0165-2.
Mandhouj, I., H. Amiri, F. Maussang, and B. Solaiman, 2012: Sonar
image processing for underwater object detection based on
high resolution system. Proc. Second Workshop on Signal and
Document Processing (SIDOP 2012), Hammamet, Tunisia,
CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 5–10, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-
845/paper-2.pdf.
Mitchell, B., N. Mahmoudian, and G. Meadows, 2014: Au-
tonomous underwater pipeline monitoring navigation
system. Automatic Target Recognition XXIV, F. A. Sadjadi
and A. Mahalanobis, Eds., International Society for Optical
605
Engineering (SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 9090), 90900D,
doi:10.1117/12.2055178.
Ortiz, A., and J. Antich, 2009: Bayesian visual tracking for in-
spection of undersea power and telecommunication cables.
J. Marit. Res., 6, 83–98.
——, ——, and G. Oliver, 2011: A particle filter-based approach for
tracking undersea narrow telecommunication cables. Mach.
Vision Appl., 22, 283–302, doi:10.1007/s00138-009-0199-6.
Pailhas, Y., C. Capus, K. Brown, and Y. Petillot, 2011: BioSonar: A
bio-mimetic approach to sonar systems concepts and appli-
cations. On Biomimetics, L. D. Pramatarova, Ed., InTech,
469–488, doi:10.5772/18392.
Pei, Y. H., H. G. Yeo, X. Y. Kang, S. L. Pua, and J. Tan, 2010:
Magnetic gradiometer on an AUV for buried object detection.
Oceans 2010, IEEE, 1–8, doi:10.1109/OCEANS.2010.5664272.
Saggio, G., 2014: A novel array of flex sensors for a gonio-
metric glove. Sens. Actuators, 205A, 119–125, doi:10.1016/
j.sna.2013.10.030.
——, P. Bisegna, G. Latessa, and S. Bocchetti, 2009: Mechanical
modeling of bend sensors exploited to measure human joint
movements. 2009 IEEE International Symposium on a
World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks and
Workshops (WoWMoM 2009), IEEE, 1–4, doi:10.1109/
WOWMOM.2009.5282407.
Sakagami, N., K. Ishimaru, S. Kawamura, M. Shibata, H. Onishi,
and S. Murakami, 2013: Development of an underwater ro-
botic inspection system using mechanical contact. J. Field
Rob., 30, 624–640, doi:10.1002/rob.21463.
Shibata, M., T. Saito, N. Sakagami, and S. Kawamura, 2010: Si-
multaneous operation of dual arm and body of mobile robots.
2010 International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics,
IEEE, 149–154, doi:10.1109/ROBIO.2010.5723318.
Szyrowski, T., S. K. Sharma, R. Sutton, and G. A. Kennedy, 2013a:
Developments in subsea power and telecommunication cables
detection: Part 1–Visual and hydroacoustic tracking. Un-
derwater Technol., 31, 123–132, doi:10.3723/ut.31.123.
——, ——, ——, and ——, 2013b: Developments in subsea power and
telecommunication cables detection: Part 2–Electromagnetic de-
tection. Underwater Technol., 31, 133–143, doi:10.3723/ut.31.133.
——, ——, ——, and ——, 2015: Subsea cable tracking in an un-
certain environment using particle filters. J. Marine Eng.
Technol., 14, 19–31, doi:10.1080/20464177.2015.1022381.
Talling, P. J., C. K. Paull, and D. J. W. Piper, 2013: How are sub-
aqueous sediment density flows triggered, what is their internal
structure and how does it evolve? Direct observations from
monitoring of active flows. Earth Sci. Rev., 125, 244–287,
doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.07.005.
Tang, Z., C. Sun, Z. W. Liu, and D. Meng, 2013: State estimation of
the underwater moving target based on multi-sensor in-
formation fusion. AASRI Winter International Conference on
Engineering and Technology (AASRI-WIET 2013), W. Dang,
Ed., Advances in Intelligent Systems Research, Vol. 79, At-
lantis Press, 189–192, doi:10.2991/wiet-13.2013.45.
Villar, S. A., G. G. Acosta, A. L. Sousa, and A. Rozenfeld, 2014:
Evaluation of an efficient approach for target tracking from
acoustic imagery for the perception system of an autonomous
underwater vehicle. Int. J. Adv. Rob. Syst., 11, 24, doi:10.5772/
56954.
Wang, P., K. F. Goddard, P. L. Lewin, and S. G. Swingler, 2011:
Electromagnetic field application to underground power cable
detectiom. Proc. 17th Int. Symp. on High Voltage Engineering,
Hannover, Germany, CD-ROM.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC
606 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY
Wu, M., and J. Yao, 2015: Magnetic–gravity gradient inversion for
underwater object detection. Intelligent Robotics and Appli-
cations, H. Liu et al., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence, Vol. 9244, Springer International Publishing, 549–555,
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22879-2_50.
Xu, G. H., L. Y. Wu, K. Yu, C. Yang, and L. Yang, 2012: Multi-
target detection of underwater vehicle based on multi-sensor
data fusion. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, J. S. Chung et al.,
Eds., Vol. 2, International Society of Offshore and Polar En-
gineers, 467–471.
Zhou, W., Y. Zhou, X. Dong, L.-Y. Shao, J. Cheng, and
J. Albert, 2012: Fiber-optic curvature sensor based on
cladding-mode Bragg grating excited by fiber multimode
VOLUME 33
interferometer. IEEE Photonics J., 4, 1051–1057, doi:10.1109/
JPHOT.2012.2202895.
Zhou, X.-J., Y. Wang, and Y. Zhou, 2009: Research on modeling
and experimentation on detecting buried depth of optical
fiber submarine cables based on active detection tech-
nique. ICEMI’09: Ninth International Conference on Elec-
tronic Measurement & Instruments, 2009, 1-91–1-94, IEEE,
doi:10.1109/ICEMI.2009.5274300.
——, Y. Zhang, M. J. Zuo, and Z. D. Yuan, 2015: Research on
submarine cable detection technology based on information
fusion. International Industrial Informatics and Computer
Engineering Conference (IIICEC 2015), Advances in Com-
puter Research, Atlantis Press, 530–533, doi:10.2991/
iiicec-15.2015.121.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/05/21 12:40 AM UTC