Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

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

Review, classification and structural analysis of downhole robots: Core

technology and prospects for application
∗
Qingyou Liu a,b , Jianguo Zhao a,b , Haiyan Zhu a , , Guorong Wang b , John D. McLennan c
a
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, 610059, China
b
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, China
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84105, United States

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, downhole robots are classified into two categories according to their structures and
Received 23 July 2018 applications. And, two categories are downhole traction robots and downhole drilling robots. Mean-
Received in revised form 29 December while, attributes of the downhole robots, such as the working parameters, applications, environmental
2018
tolerances and design principles for each core technology are analyzed. According to the analysis
Accepted 12 February 2019
parameters, the downhole robots can be divided into several small parts, such as wheeled type,
Available online 16 February 2019
telescopic type, pedrail type and so on. In addition, four key technical criteria (support structure, drive
Keywords: structure, control system and power supply method) are summarized for the downhole robots. And,
Downhole robot four new application schemes are proposed for the downhole robots. Thus, the purpose of this review
Drilling robot is to provide a concise reference, which summarizes the development and research directions, as well
Traction robot as the design and the application of downhole robots.
Tractor © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Downhole tool
Horizontal well

1. Introduction more than 75% of all downhole operations in StatoilHydro (now

Horizontal wells have become the primary construction tech-
nology for the oil and gas exploitation. In 2012, more than 2300
horizontal wells were drilled in China [1]. With current horizontal
technology, it is very difficult (or at least costly) to run pipe
string or carry out other downhole operations into the horizontal
wells [2–5]. One root cause is that the pipe string will be stuck
due to friction force. And, it is also needed to point out that a
coiled tubing will also self-lock due to the buckling [6,7]. The axial
friction force is one direct cause of the buckling. Thus, reducing
friction force is the most common method to aid in tripping of
a pipe string [8–10]. Even so, the problems related to tripping
into a wellbore cannot be fundamentally solved in this manner
since the friction force always increases with the increase of the
borehole length. Therefore, some new deployment methods are
mandated. One method is to use the downhole robots to drag the
pipe string, which can reduce the axial compressional force [11].
If the axial force imparted by a downhole robot is large enough,
the problems associated with tripping in a pipe string under
excessive compression can be solved [12]. Since the promotion of
the downhole robots in 1996, the number of downhole operations
using this technology has been increased year by year. In 2008,
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhaojianguo_1@qq.com (J. Zhao),
zhuhaiyan040129@163.com (H. Zhu).
Equinor) equipped with the downhole robots (Fig. 1) [13]. Now,
as the worldwide oil and gas reservoirs production develop for
tens of years, the number of the downhole problems increase
dramatically, which generated a huge well maintenances needs.
In order to better understand the causes of these problems, Liu
et al. [14,15], Ren et al. [16,17] and Chen et al. [18] studied the
structures of downhole robots by using the ground oil and gas
pipe in different conditions.
Today, downhole robots are used to drag logging or frac-
turing pipe strings in the horizontal wells. However, there is
no systematic classification of these downhole robots and the
scope of their application is relatively narrow. Therefore, it is
worthwhile to understand the structures and the applications of
the downhole robots. In this paper, the downhole robots are sys-
tematically classified into two categories, which are the downhole
traction robots and the downhole drilling robots. This classifi-
cation method is based on their structures, configurations and
the particular applications. The downhole traction robots can
be subdivided into three types: wheeled traction robots, pedrail
traction robots and telescopic traction robots. In addition, there
are also three basic types of downhole drilling robots: telescopic
drilling robots, wheeled drilling robots and badger drilling robots.
After describing the nuances of the robots, the key technical
attributes (support structure, drive structure, control system and
energy supply system) of the downhole robots are summarized
and evaluated in this paper. And, four new application schemes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.02.008
0921-8890/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
Fig. 1. Applications of the downhole robot operation technology by Equinor.
(including StatoilHydro operated wells from 1992–2008) [13].
for downhole robots are proposed. Thus, the purpose of this
review is to provide a reference advocating for research, design
and application of downhole robots.
2. Structure analysis of downhole robots
Downhole robots can be classified as the downhole traction
robots and the downhole drilling robots based on the applications
and the configuration. The biggest difference between the two
categories of robots is that there is no circulation channel pro-
vided for mud in the downhole traction robots, and there must be
a circulation channel for debris removal in the downhole drilling
robots. All in all, if a downhole robot is to operate normally,
a support structure and a drive structure are indispensable. So,
this section will focus on analyzing the representative support
structures and drive structures.
2.1. Downhole robot used for traction
As mentioned above, based on the structural and functional
characteristics, the downhole traction robots can be subdivided
into wheeled traction, the pedrail traction and the telescopic
traction robots.
Fig. 2. Wheeled traction robot with hydraulic drive wheel [19–21].
105
2.1.1. Wheeled traction robot
In 1987, Hallundbæk et al. [22] designed the first downhole
robot [19,23–25] as shown in Fig. 2. The support structure of that
robot consists of a support arm, a connecting rod, a piston and
a spring. And, the drive structure consists of a rotor, a stator,
a hydraulic piston, a drive wheel and a contact wheel. When
the contact wheel contacts the bevel of the stator (Fig. 2c), it
will produce a force which can make the rotor rotate. If the
contact wheels contact with the stator alternately, the rotor will
rotate continuously. Since the stator is cam-shaped, the stator
will exert an opposing force on the contact wheel and cause
the rotor to rotate clockwise. The support structure converts the
axial motion of piston to rotation motion of the support arm
through the connecting rod. The support arm drives the drive
wheel to expand radially and provides a support force for the
drive wheel. The greatest feature of this robot is that the drive
wheel is also the drive structure, which can integrate a number
of hydraulic pistons. Those pistons use the crank principle to
drive the wheel to provide driving force. The application of this
drive wheel structure in downhole robots is unprecedented. The
advantage of this drive structure is that it can drive the robot with
hydraulic pressure and improve the vibration resistance.
In 1998, Local and Denney [26–29] invented a wheeled trac-
tion robot as shown in Fig. 3. The support structure consisted
of a support arm, a slide block, a spring, a linear actuator and
a support motor. And, the drive structure consisted of a drive
wheel, a gear pair, a transmission shaft and a drive motor. When
this robot is functioning, the linear actuator moves to the left
and compresses the spring. The spring pushes the slide block to
the left. The slide block then drives the support arm to expand
radially, providing the driving force for the drive wheel. At the
same time, the drive motor drives the gear pair through the
power transmission shaft. The gear pair transmits power to the
drive wheels through the chain in the support arm. The structure
of this kind of robot is extremely simple, so it is also the most
widely used in wheeled traction robot. It has the characteristics of
high reliability and good stability. However, the support structure
of this kind of robot is purely mechanical, so it is easy to fail,
which will lead to a stuck accident.
In 2001, Gissler et al. [28,29] invented the wheeled traction
robot that is shown in Fig. 4 [31,34]. The support structure con-
sists of a support arm, a cam and a piston. When this robot is
106 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120

Fig. 3. Wheeled traction robot with symmetrical drive wheel [28,29].

Fig. 4. Wheeled traction robot with a cam support structure [30,31].

Fig. 5. Wheeled traction robot with multi-group drive wheel [32,33].

functioning, the piston moves left and pushes the push–pull rod
to the left (Fig. 4b). The cam is drived to rotate counterclockwise
by the piston and forces the support arm to expand radially. These
radially expanding support arms contact with the drive wheels.
Each drive wheel is provided with a rotational driving force by
the motor/pump. Unlike Fig. 3, the support structure of this robot
used a cam principle. The support structure of a cam can provide
a bigger support force and a smaller size.
In 2006, Doering et al. [32] developed a downhole traction
robot as shown in Fig. 5. The support structure consists of a
support arm, a slide block, a linear actuator and a support motor,
and the drive structure consists of transmission gears, a drive
wheel, a transmission structure, and a drive motor. Actuation
of the traction robot is provided by the linear actuator. The
linear motion of the slide block facilitates radial expansion of
the support arm for and provides support force for the drive
wheels. The driving force is transmitted to each drive wheel by
the transmission structure [35]. The drive structure of the robot
is composed of three or more drive wheels. This drive structure
can provide a greater friction force for this robot. Because its
adaptability is better, it can better adapt to practical application
conditions (Fig. 5b).
In 2007, Doering et al. [36] proposed a downhole traction
robot as shown in Fig. 6. The support structure consisted of a
piston, a slide block and a support arm. If the pressure of the
right hydraulic chamber increases, the piston will make the slide
block move to the left. Then, the support arms expend and the
drive wheels can contact with the borehole wall. In addition,
the drive structure consists of a drive motor, an endless screw,
gears and drive wheels. The driving force of the drive wheels
is transmitted from the drive motor through the endless screw
and the gears [32,33]. The greatest advantage of the robot is that
it uses gears to transmit the driving force. The efficiency of the
transmission mechanism is higher than that of the chains, and
the operation is more stable.
2.1.2. Pedrail traction robot
In 2007, Doering et al. and Guerrero et al. [37,38] proposed
a downhole traction robot with three pedrails (Fig. 7). The sup-
port structure consists of a support arm and a piston. And, the
drive structure consists of a drive motor, a screw, drive shafts,
second gears, transmission gears, screws and chains. When this
robot is functioning, the piston drives the support arm to the
 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
Fig. 6. Wheeled traction robot with a slide block support structure [32,33].
Fig. 7. Pedrail traction robot with pedrail teeth drive structure [37].
left and the support arm expands radially to provide a contact
force for the three pedrails. Since there are many teeth in the
pedrail, the pedrail and the screw can engage with each other.
In normal operation, the screw directly provides a driving force
for the three pedrails. Meanwhile, the motor can drive the three
pedrails directly. In addition, it can improve the drive efficiency
for the robot. Because the structure of this robot is very complex,
it is very difficult to miniaturize the size of the robot and the
manufacturing cost is very high. At present, there is no report of
the application.
In 2008, Ueland and Mellemstrand [39] also developed a
pedrail traction robot (Fig. 8). The support structure consists of
a support arm, support rod and a piston, and the drive structure
consists of three pedrails, a cone gear, a drive shaft, a drive shaft
and a drive motor. Under normal operation, the support rod
moves to the left to produce a radial motion and the support
arm make the pedrail contact with the borehole wall. The drive
shaft transfers motion to the cone gear, and the cone gear drives
the pedrail for linear motion. Thus, the pedrail can effectively
overcome the drive failure problem caused by the drive wheel slip
of wheeled robots. The structure of this type of pedrail traction
robot is simpler than that shown in Fig. 7.
2.1.3. Telescopic traction robot
In 2004, Jeff et al. and Guerrero [40–42] invented a telescopic
traction robot as shown in Fig. 9. The robot consists of two
107
support structures and two traction structures. In order to achieve
a telescopic motion, the valves are used to make the support
structures and the traction structures operate alternately. This
type of traction robot has a good performance in terms of passing
over the obstacle. For example, the robot can pass through the
shape of the wellbore as shown in Fig. 9c and d [43].
In 2012, Qiao et al. [44] invented a telescopic traction robot
based on a self-locking cam (Fig. 10). When this robot is function-
ing, the support structure expands radially. The cam contacts the
borehole wall, and the reaction force of the traction structure acts
on the cam. With the rotation of the cam, the rotation angle of the
cam increases. Then, the support force between the cam and the
borehole wall increases substantially. This is a self-locking struc-
ture. It can effectively improve the support structure’s stability.
At the same time, the self-locking structure can overcome the
problem of low traction force caused by insufficient support force.
In 2016, Krueger [45,46] invented a traction robot which only
had an eccentric support arm (other robot all have three or more
support arms, such as Fig. 8 or Fig. 9) as shown in Fig. 11. The
role of the eccentric support arm is to minimize the outer diam-
eter of the robot. Although the outer diameter of the robot has
been reduced, the maximum diameter of the support structure is
increased. Therefore, the robot can be used in micro-wellbores,
as well as in routine diameter wellbores.
108 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120

Fig. 8. Pedrail traction robot with cone gear drive structure [39].

Fig. 9. Telescopic traction robot with multi-link support structure [40,41].

2.2. Downhole robot used for drilling
As mentioned above, based on the structure and the functional
characteristics, the downhole drilling robots can be subdivided
into telescopic drilling, wheeled drilling robot and badger drilling
robot.
2.2.1. Telescopic drilling robot
In 1996, Moore et al. [47,48] proposed the concept of using
downhole drilling robots in oil and gas wells. They invented a
variety of leaf spring support structures, as shown in Fig. 12 [49,
50]. The elastic force of the leaf spring can make the support
structures have the recovery force and avoid the stuck accident.
Thus, it can protect the robot from being stuck caused by the
failure of the control system, and avoid the downhole accidents.
However, there is no report of using this tool in the drilling
process. Because the outer diameter of the robot must meet the
API standard, and the flow channel of the mud inside the robot
must meet the standard of carrying rock debris, it is difficult to
meet both of them at the same time.
In 2017, a micro-wellbore drilling robot with large traction
force was invented and its support structure is shown in Fig. 13
[51–53]. The proposed double bevel support structure (DBSS) is
smaller than that of other robots and the traction force are much
 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120 109

Fig. 10. Telescopic traction robot with a self-lock support structure [44].

Fig. 11. Telescopic traction robot with an eccentric support arm [45,46].

Fig. 12. Telescopic drilling robot [47,49,50].

larger than that of other downhole robots. This particular robot
can be used for micro-wellbores.
2.2.2. Wheeled drilling robot
In 2013, Liu et al. [54,55] proposed an active-screw drilling
robot (Fig. 14). The robot incorporates active gears, a universal
joint connector, a velocity reduction mechanism and three drive
shafts. In a passive screw robot, a motor drives the robot to rotate
through a velocity reduction mechanism. And, the screw wheels
rotate with the robot body and each screw wheel revolves on
its own axis because of the friction force between the screw
wheels and borehole. Since there is an angle between the axis
of the screw wheels and the wellbore, a passive screw robot is
driven to move axially under the combined action of revolution
and rotation. The active-screw drilling robot equally distributes
the driving force to the drive wheels (screw wheels) through
the planetary gear. Meanwhile, the drive wheels generate driving
force on the borehole. This force causes the robot to move axially.
Further, the friction force between the screw wheel and the well-
bore wall is the resistance to the movement of a passive screw
robot. However, the active-screw drilling robot uses the friction
force generated by the normal force between the drive wheels
and the borehole to drive axially. The driving force of an active-
screw drilling robot is greater than that of a passive screw robot.
Another difference between active and passive screw drilling
robots is the highly complex velocity reduction mechanism in the
motor of a passive screw robot. An active-screw drilling robot
generates a reduction mechanism between the drive wheels and
110 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
Fig. 13. Drilling robot with double bevel support structure [51].
Fig. 15. Prototype of active-screw drilling robot [56].
the wellbore/casing. The reduction ratio of robots is improved
without increasing the complexity of robots. The prototype of the
active-screw drilling robot is shown in Fig. 15.
2.2.3. Badger drilling robot
In 2001, Stokka [58] proposed the concept of badger drilling
robot as shown in Fig. 16 [59,60]. The biggest difference between
the badger drilling robots and other downhole robots is that the
cuttings produced by the badger drilling robots are squeezed
out of the hole. When the hole reaches a certain depth, the
cuttings will be squeezed out, and eventually the hole drilled
by the robot will be blocked. Finally, the badger drilling robot
will bury itself. The key structures include a cutting compression
section which compresses cuttings and squeezes them into the
upper hole section. And, the compressional force is up to 40 000
kg. There is a solid–liquid separation section which separates
debris from the seawater. The up hydraulic anchor and the down
hydraulic anchor are used to fix the robot, which can overcome
the anti-torque caused by the power supply system. And, a hy-
draulic pump is used to compress the debris and to provide
weight on bit (WOB). It is a non-reusable exploration tool that
remains permanently underground. So, it cannot be used in the
conventional borehole of oil and gas exploration.
As there is no drilling machine maintenance and no mud
maintenance, the badger drilling robot can effectively reduce
labor requirements. The badger drilling robot does not require a
cement measure, and it can greatly reduce the cement material
consumption. In addition, there is no environment pollution be-
cause there is no solid and liquid discharge. The ratio of drilling
success is high, and there is a lower risk in implementation. How-
ever, once error occurs, the remedial measures are impossible to
achieve. Besides, it can only be used in exploration and cannot be
applied in exploiting wells, because there is no mud channel and
it is difficult to discharge the debris.
Due to the varied and specialized working conditions in oil
and gas wells, many types of downhole traction robots have
been conceived and developed. So, the specific parameters and
service conditions of different downhole robots are shown in
Table 1. As the table shows: the velocity of a wheeled traction
robot is greater than that of telescopic traction robots and pedrail
traction robots. Therefore, for downhole operations, if the velocity
demand is very high, wheeled traction robots can be chosen.
And, if the traction force requirements higher, the telescopic
traction robot should be selected. Meanwhile, traction force of the
telescopic robot is larger than that of wheeled traction robots and
pedrail traction robots. The numbers of pedrail traction robots are
less than that of wheeled traction robots or telescopic traction
robots, so almost no application reports of pedrail traction robots
have been reported. In a word, for downhole operations, wheeled
traction robots can be chosen if the velocity demand is high. The
telescopic traction robot should be selected if the traction force
requirements are higher.
Field application of downhole traction robots is very common.
However, there is no report about field application of the down-
hole drilling robots. The reason is the stability and reliability of
the downhole drilling robots are not high enough. Thus, it is nec-
essary to systematically analyze and study the core technologies
of the downhole robots [61]. And, the key parameters are outlined
in the following section.
3. Core technologies of downhole robots
In order to obtain an adequate traction force, the borehole
must provide enough friction force for the downhole robot. At the
same time, the downhole robot is required to provide an enough
support force for the friction force. So, the support structure is
one of the key components of a downhole robot. And, other
components include the drive structure, the control system and
the energy supply system.
3.1. Support structure of downhole robots
Support structures can be subdivided into gear type, turbine
worm type, screw type, cam type, and hydraulic piston type.
The main function of the support structure is to provide a sup-
port force or a contact force for the drive wheel, drive slider or
pedrail. It ensures that an enough friction force is provided at
the borehole in order to drive the downhole robot. And, Table 2
Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120 111

Fig. 14. Structure of active-screw drilling robot [56,57].

Fig. 16. Badger drilling robot [59,60].

112 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120

Table 1
Comparison of performance parameters of downhole robots.
Model Type Power External Velocity Traction Wellbore Field Reference
diameter (m) (m/s) force (N) diameter (m) application
Welted Electro- 0.054/0.1143 0.305/0.466 2000–12000 0.056–0.5588 Yes [20]
hydraulic
GE-Sondex Motor 0.054 0.150 2730 0.057–0.244 Yes [26,32]
Aker Kvaerner Wheeled Electrohy- 0.054/0.0794 0.333 6810 – Yes [62]
PowerTrac draulic
China Shipbuilding Motor 0.054/0.080 0.150 2200 0.073–0.228 Yes [63]
Industry 719 (QYQ-1/,
MHPT-1)
Harbin Institute of Motor 0.105 0.111 2000 – No [64,65]
Technology
Schlumberger TuffTrac Motor 0.0794 0.271 1330 0.086–0.269 Yes [32,33]
Schlumberger UltraTrac Motor 0.0857 0.271 1780 0.091–0.381 Yes [31,34]

ExproGroup SmarTract Electrohy- 0.054/0.086 0.151 4540/6800 0.073–0.339/ Yes [66]

draulic 0.152–0.241
Omega Telescope Pure mechanic 0.084 0.0986 1820 – Yes [67]
Schlumberger MaxTrac Electrohy- 0.054 0.186 4540 0.061–0.244 Yes [40,43,68,69]
draulic
WWT(West Well Tool) Hydraulic 0.1193 0.0844 65 770 – Yes [49,50,69–71]
National University of Motor 0.054 0.0578 754 0.148–0.180 No [44]
Defense Technology
MWS(Maritime Well Motor 0.054/0.0794 0.0833 2268/4536 – Yes [39]
Pedrail
Service) PowerTrac
Invader
Schlumberger Motor – – – – No [37]

Table 2
Comparison of support structure of downhole robot.
Type Power Support force Locking method Retraction principle for Advantages Disadvantages Reference
(kN) Support structure
Gear Motor 9 100 Motor self-locking Reverse motor rotation Easy to control Motor torque [28]
control is difficult
Turbine shaft Motor 4 430 Turbine shaft Reverse motor rotation Easy to control It is easy to be [32]
self-locking stuck
Screw Motor 5 930 Screw self-locking Reverse motor rotation Easy to control It is easy to be [36]
stuck
Cam Motor 15 130 Motor self-locking Reverse motor rotation Easy to control Self-locking is [34]
easy to be stuck
Pressure pump 22 670 Pressure of piston Pressure relief Controllable Moving seal fails [20,23]
Piston
pressure easily
Pressure difference inside 219 230 Pressure of piston Commutation valve Simple structure Pressure is not [49,50]
and outside drilling pipe controllable

lists various support structures. The support force is equal to
the traction force divided by the friction coefficient. The friction
coefficient is no greater than 0.3 [72,73]. Since friction force =
support force * friction coefficient, the greater the friction coeffi-
cient, the smaller the support force. Table 2 is mainly concerned
with the critical support force of the downhole robots, so 0.3 is
chosen as the friction coefficient in this paper. And, Table 2 shows
that the support force has been applied by configurations using a
hydraulic piston, which is much greater than that of other support
structures and this type of support structure has limited risk of
being stuck. Consequently, if there is a requirement for a large
support force, the hydraulic piston of support structure could be
selected. If the requirements for support force are not high, other
support structures also can be selected. However, it is important
to ensure that there is no possibility of being stuck.
3.2. Drive structure of downhole robots
The drive of downhole robots include pure machinery type,
motor crank type, motor drive wheel type, hydraulic drive wheel
type, differential pressure inside and outside of the robot (valve)
and motor pedrail type. The function of the drive structure is
to provide the traction power for the robot. Table 3 lists drive
mechanisms that can be used to advance a downhole robot.
As can be seen in Table 3, a drive wheel mechanism can
provide the largest traction force (12 000 N). The hydraulic drive
wheel has the highest velocity, reaching at 0.466 m/s. The hy-
draulic drive wheel system is currently considered to be the
optimal drive structure selection. The traction force of downhole
drilling robot is 65 770 N, which can provide enough driving force
in the drilling process. The velocity of a drilling robot is more
than 0.0833 m/s, and this velocity (as provided by any of the
models shown in Table 3) can meet the requirement of a drilling
process [49,50].
3.3. Control system of downhole robots
Table 4 is a comparative analysis of the control systems that
are available for downhole robots. The main control systems
used for the downhole robot are PIC (peripheral interface con-
troller) + CPLD (programmable device), PIC + DSP (digital signal
processing), computer control, hydraulic valve, and intelligent
control systems. This system controls the various movements of
the structures which comprise the robot. Table 4 shows that: (1)
the motion velocity of the hydraulic valve control system cannot
be controlled while other control systems can. The reason is the
valves are controlled by the fluid whose flow rate and pressure
cannot be controlled in a certain time; (2) a control system with
 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120 113

Table 3
Comparison of drive structure of downhole robot.
Type Application Motion method Traction Motion Motion speed Usage Representative Reference
force (N) distance (m/s) products
Pure machinery Traction Telescope, 1 820 Small 0.0986 Traction Omega [67]
(wire dragging) rotation
Motor crank Traction Telescope – Large – Traction National University of [44]
Defense Technology
Motor drive wheel Traction Rotation 2 730 Large 0.015 Traction Sondex [26,32]
Hydraulic drive Traction Rotation 12 000 Large 0.466 Traction Welltec [20]
wheel
Differential Drilling Telescope 65 770 Large 0.0844 Drilling WWT [49,50,69–71]
pressure (valve)
Pump hydraulic Traction Telescope 6 800 Large 0.186 Traction Schlumberger MaxTrac [40,43,68,69]
Motor pedrail Traction Rotation 4 536 Large 0.0833 Traction MWS [39]

Fig. 17. Multi-branch micro-wellbore exploitation technology with downhole

robot.

a PIC can only do simple calculations, while computer control

Fig. 18. Micro-wellbore drilling technology with drilling robot.
systems or smart control systems can process huge volumes of
data in a complex manner.

many problems [76,77]. The development cost is high. For exam-

3.4. Energy supply system of downhole robots
There are three methods of energy supply for the downhole
robots. These include dragging with slickline, cable and hydraulic.
Table 5 compares the energy supply systems available for down-
hole robots. As can be seen in Table 5, slicklines and cables have
been used in field applications. But the slickline can only be used
in shallow wells owing to the traction force is limited, and wire
integrity is difficult to guarantee. Thus, the cable is the preferred
method. The disadvantage of using a hydraulic energy supply is
that its telemetry uses hydraulic pulses.
4. Application prospects of downhole robots
Current research on the downhole robots mainly focuses on
mechanical components and configurations, including contact
and drive structures, the control system and energy supply. The
downhole robots applications are currently limited to dragging
logging strings or fracturing strings, and also they are very simple.
The prospect of downhole robots is significant and their other
applications can be readily developed. So, some of these potential
applications are described below.
4.1. Well completion technology for multi-branch micro-well with
downhole robots
The reserves of recoverable shale gas in China exceed 540 bil-
lion m3 [75]. However, the exploitation of shale gas in China faces
ple, a typical hydraulic fracturing treatment costs more than 4.58
million dollars, accounting for 30 to 50% of the total investment in
drilling and completion. The extraction cost of shale gas in China
(0.80–1.00 dollar/m3 ) is 4–5 times greater than that in the United
States (0.16–0.20 dollar/m3 ). Additional costs are also accrued for
flow back and fluid disposal. Therefore, hydraulic fracturing is an
important component of well construction costs. So, it is difficult
to balance both cost and profit [78]. Especially, the depth of shale
gas reservoirs often exceeds 4000 m (the Yuanba shale gas reser-
voir in the Sichuan Basin is 4110 m deep). Meanwhile, costs and
difficulty of drilling and stimulation increase with depth. Finally,
as in other countries, water handling can be expensive. Fracturing
water requirements for a Sichuan shale gas well have reached
4.6 × 104 m3 [79]. Disposal of produced fluids is a challenge and
the early shortage of water further exacerbated this situation.
In order to address some of these problems of the shale
gas exploitation, Liu et al. [80–82] proposed a new technology
(Fig. 17). A large-scale network of high-density micro-wellbores
is drilled. Directional detonation is used instead of hydraulic
fracturing and the high explosives are used. This technology can
offer an environmental and economic motivation for the shale gas
production and it relies on using downhole robotic technology to
drill the microholes.
This new technology (Fig. 17) relies on micro-wellbore drilling
technology. Micro-wellbore drilling is usually done with coiled
tubing. The length of the parent horizontal well is historically rel-
atively short because the coiled tubing will lock-up for buckling.
Thus, conventional large-scale techniques are not suited for this
114 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120

Table 4
Comparison of control system of downhole robot.
Control method Implementation Complexity Principle Advantages Disadvantages
mechanism
Motor pump Simple The control chip is integrated Simple structure, easy to No feedback data
PIC+CPLD
on the robot and the actuator implement
is continuously controlled
according to the set time
interval
Electromagnetic valve Simple
Motor pump Complex The control chip integrated in Control is more accurate Sensor requirements
PIC+DSP
the robot, the use of signal are higher
feedback on the
implementation of feedback
control agencies.
Electromagnetic valve Complex
Motor pump Simple The control signal is sent from Can handle large Signal transmission is
Computer
the computer and is controlled amounts of data difficult
by the actuator of the robot
movement.
Electromagnetic valve Simple
Hydraulic valve Hydraulic valve Complex According to the control Pure mechanical control Movement
relationship of the valve, the uncontrollable
use of pipe pressure on the
robot’s implementing agencies
for automatic control.
Smart control Electric / hydraulic Very complex Using a variety of sensor data, To achieve the autonomy The control principle
control mechanism adaptive adjustment, automatic control of the robot is very complicated
control.

Table 5
Comparison of power supply of downhole robot.
Energy supply method Application Traction force (N) Moving distance Field application Reference
Slickline Traction 1 820 Small Yes [67]
Cable Traction 12 000 Medium Yes [26,32]
Hydraulic Drilling 657 700 Large No [47]

smaller size of micro-wellbores. Fig. 18 shows that using a drilling
robot and coiled tubing can increase the length of the horizontal
well and drill micro-wellbores.
In order to implement multi-branch micro-wellbore drilling,
Liu et al. [83] invented a micro-wellbore orientation tool as
shown in Fig. 19. The orientation tool is driven by a differential
pressure Pi–Po (Pi is the pressure inner in the pipe and Po is
the pressure outside of the pipe). If an orientation operation is
required, the angle adjustment cylinder rotates. And, the control
signal is generated by a mud pulse. When the mud pulse reaches
the bottom of the wellbore, it will be filtered and input to the
Up PIC through an analog digital converter. At the same time, the
mud pulse is changed to a control signal. Then, the control signal
is transmitted to the downhole PIC, and after that the orientation
tool is controlled by the signal.
The structure of this orientation tool is very simple, so the
size of the outer diameter is only 0.080m. Consequently, this
orientation tool can be used in the micro-wellbores, while the di-
ameter of conventional orientation tools with a larger diameter is
not suitable for micro-wellbores. The micro-wellbore orientation
tool can provide a routine and reliable operation as required for
micro-wellbore drilling.

Fig. 19. Micro-wellbore coiled tubing orientation tool [74].

 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
Fig. 20. Intelligent closed-loop drilling technology with a downhole robot.
4.2. Intelligent closed-loop drilling technology with downhole robots
In 2009, Liu [84] proposed intelligent drilling technology as
shown in Fig. 20. According to the generic principles of smart
drilling technology, drilling robots need to pull a string with a
large traction force and provide a WOB. Moreover, the drilling
robot must have a mud circulation channel to circulate mud and
take debris out.
Intelligent closed-loop drilling requires that there is no opera-
tor intervention during the drilling process. And, the WOB, torque
and other mechanical parameters are completely controlled by
the robot. Meanwhile, intelligent closed-loop drilling technology
requires condition recognition, drilling data processing, fault de-
tection and feedback, setting of drilling parameters themselves,
and no manual intervention in the drilling process. This technol-
ogy can effectively improve the working environment, the labor
efficiency, and reduce the drilling costs. Thus, intelligent closed-
loop drilling technology will become the ultimate development
goal of well drilling.
4.3. Casing tripping technology with downhole robot
Due to the large friction force during casing tripping, running
casing in extended reach or horizontal wells can be very difficult.
So, the following method can reduce the friction force:
(1) The process of casing tripping technologies: floating casing
tripping, "up and down" casing tripping [86], centralizer instal-
lation and casing string optimization technology [87], rotating
casing tripping technology, and mud performance optimal tech-
nology. (2) Casing tripping tools: casing drilling bit, centralizer
structure optimization, and top drive casing tripping [88,89].
There are two considerations in reducing the difficulty of casing
tripping. The first is to improve the driving force of the casing
during tripping, and the second is to reduce the friction force
encountered during tripping. Thus, the trajectory of the wellbore,
micro-doglegs and the consequent friction force are major con-
siderations. And, traditional methods are difficult to solve the
problems related to casing tripping.
Liu et al. [85] proposed a casing tripping technology with
downhole robots, as shown in Fig. 21. When the casings cannot
be moved, circulating mud can make the robot work and drag the
casings to move. A throttle valve develops a differential pressure
between the inside and outside of the robot. The differential
pressure encourages the downhole robot to move and the robot
115
Fig. 23. Expandable tubular cement technology with downhole robot.
simultaneously drags the casing forward. When the casing has
been moved to the design position, a ball is dropped and then
contact with the cementing valve. After that, the valve opens for
subsequent cementing operation.
Conventional casing technologies mainly reduce the friction
force of casings tripping. These methods did not fundamentally
solve the problem of casing tripping. With increasing of the well
depth, these methods will encounter further limitations. Casing
tripping with a downhole traction robot can provide an additional
axial traction force and drag the casing in a horizontal well. This
technology can greatly increase the depth of casing tripping and
optimize the completion economics.
4.4. Expandable tubular cement technology with downhole robot
Conventional expandable tubular cement technology relies on
mobilizing a rig in an old well (Fig. 22) [90–92]. Mobilizing and
rigging up a rig will cost much time and money. The inner diam-
eter of the hydraulic anchor is much smaller than that of a casing,
which has an irreversible effect on the subsequent downhole
operation. Thus, it is relatively easy for the hydraulic anchor
to slip during the drilling process. Once slippage of a hydraulic
anchor occurs, it will not be able to cement, and it is difficult
to remove the expandable tubular, which may cause a wellbore
abandonment.
Thus, expandable tubular cement technology with a downhole
robot is proposed, as shown in Fig. 23. The new technology
requires an operation truck, a support unit, a downhole robot,
an expansion cone and expandable tubulars. The generic process
is as follows: (1) complete the installation of the operation tools
as shown in Fig. 23. As pressure increases, the downhole robot
moves axially. The expansion cone is shaped to the expandable
tubular, and the expandable tubular is attached to the casing. (2)
The coiled tubing and the downhole robot are tripped out. (3)
Complete the expansion process.
This technology does not need a rig, so it can effectively reduce
the subsidiary operation time, and improve the economic benefits
of the workover or completion operation. Since there is no hy-
draulic anchor, the diameter of the original well is larger than that
of the conventional expandable tubing. Thus, the process does
not require a hydraulic anchor, which can greatly reduce the risk
of being stuck. There is no end cap in the proposed expandable
tubular cement technology with a downhole robot, so there is no
milling operation required.
116 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
5. Discussions
(1) It is undeniable that the wheeled downhole robots are
widely used. However, the velocity and the traction force of such
downhole robots are difficult to achieve independent control. The
reason is that the wheeled downhole robots usually have only
one set of decelerating mechanisms. Once the downhole robot is
fixed, the deceleration ratio of the mechanism is fixed as shown in
Fig. 24. Unlike a car, you cannot adjust the speed ratio through a
reducer to achieve the independent control of speed and traction
force. Therefore, the independent control of the velocity and
the traction force will be the focus and difficulty in the future
research. In addition, the wheeled traction robots usually have
multiple sets of wheels. The synchronization of multiple drive
wheels will also be the focus of such research. Because, the
drive wheels will greatly affect the velocity, the traction force,
the motor efficiency and the overload problem of each motor,
whether or not they are synchronous.
(2) Because the telescopic downhole robots run alternately at
a certain frequency, the motion of the robots is discontinuous. In
the process of the motion, the velocity of the downhole robots is
constantly changing according to a certain law, and the traction
force is uncontrollable as shown in Fig. 25. If the telescopic
Fig. 21. Casing tripping technology with downhole robot [85].
Fig. 22. Expandable tubular cement technology in old well.
downhole robots are used in the drilling process, the robots will
drive the drilling tools to impact the bottom rock uninterruptedly,
which will damage the bit, positive displacement motor (PDM)
and so on. At present, the velocity and traction of the robot are
difficult to achieve effective control, which is the reason of the
drilling robot cannot be used in the field [52,94]. Therefore, the
research on the velocity and the traction force of the telescopic
downhole robots will also be the focus of this kind of robots.
(3) At present, the traction force of the downhole robots is
small, so it is difficult for the downhole robots to adapt to the
high traction force requirement in the downhole operation. In
fact, without changing other conditions, the use of self-locking
principle can greatly improve the traction force of the downhole
robots. Based on the requirement of the large traction force of the
downhole robots, Liu et al. [53] proposed a self-locking structure
as shown in Fig. 26 and the prototype as well as the experimental
device of the micro-wellbore drilling robot are also processed
(Fig. 27). Besides, the design method of structure parameters of
the self-structure is obtained [Eqs. (1) and (2)]. And, experimen-
tal results shows that the self-locking structure can effectively
 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120 117

⎧
⎨1.1µ1 − µ2 + 0.19 > 0
⎪
0 ≤ µ1 ≤ 0.175 (2)
⎪
0.18 ≤ µ2 ≤ 0.5
⎩

where α is the angle of the left bevel block, β is the angle of the
right bevel block, φ1 is the friction angle between double bevel
blocks and left bevel block or right bevel block, φ2 is the friction
angle between double bevel blocks and the borehole wall, µ1 is
the friction coefficient between double bevel block and borehole
wall, and µ2 is the friction coefficient between double bevel block
and the left and right bevel.
The mechanical integrity of the micro-wellbore drilling robot
has been tested at the working pressure of 1.5*107 Pa. The test
results are shown in Table 6. Compared with the WWT drilling
robot, the traction force of the micro-wellbore drilling robot
exceeds 70 000 N, which is greater than that of the WWT drilling
robot. What is more, the inner diameter of the micro-wellbore
drilling robot is larger than that of WWT drilling robot, which is
Fig. 24. A typical deceleration mechanism a downhole robot [93].
beneficial to the circulation of the drilling mud.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, a new classification method for the downhole

robots is put forward based on the structure features, the field
application parameters and the working conditions. The new
classification method can simultaneously reflect the similarity
and difference of the downhole robots. For instance, the traction
force of the telescopic robots is basically greater than that of the
wheeled traction robot, but the velocity of the wheeled robots is
basically faster than that of the telescopic robots.
Based on summarizing the core technologies of the down-
hole robots and combining the field application parameters, the
advantages and disadvantages of different core technologies are
compared and analyzed in this paper. The information will be
conducive to further research and the development of downhole
robots.
The prospects of additional field applications for downhole
robots are evaluated. And, four novel application technologies are
proposed. Meanwhile, the proposal of the four novel applications
Fig. 25. The motion curve of a telescopic downhole robot [94]. for downhole robots is only a small part of the oil and gas engi-
neering. This paper will provide a reference for the applications
of downhole robots in the field of oil and gas engineering, and
improve the traction force of the downhole robots (Table 1). even in other underground space.
{ Although downhole robots have been used for many years,
90◦ ≥ α ≥ φ2 − φ1 = 12.45◦ the scope of the application is still very narrow, which is limited
(1)
0 < β ≤ φ2 − φ1 = 12.45◦ to the field where the traction force is not required. With the

Fig. 26. Mechanical model of DBSS.

118 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
Fig. 27. Traction force experiment for the micro-wellbore drilling robot.
Table 6
Mechanical properties of micro-wellbore drilling robot.
Type Outer diameter (m) Length (m)
Micro-wellbore drilling robot 0.100 4.92
Micro-wellbore drilling robot 0.080 5.505
WWT drilling robot 0.1193 8.36
development of intelligent drilling and completion engineering,
it is an inevitable trend to develop downhole robot which has a
large traction force. At present, the traction force of the telescopic
type downhole robots has obvious advantages over other types
of robots. Therefore, the research of the telescopic traction robot
should become the focus in the field of the downhole robots in
the future.
The drilling robot has been developed for more than 20 years
since the concept was put forward. However, the development of
the drilling robot is still in the experimental stage, and there is
no report about large-scale application. The results of field test
of the badger drilling robot are not up to expectations. So, it
is still a long time before the actual application of the badger
drilling robot. The core technologies such as sealing reliability and
controlling reliability are the important reasons for restricting the
development of other drilling robots. Therefore, the research on
erosion theory, structures and dynamics should be carried out in
the future, so that to solve the key bottleneck problems.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (No. 51604232, 51874253), the search Foundation
of Sichuan Province, China (2018FZ0069, 19ZDYF0653) and the
National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2018YFC0310200). This
work is also supported by a Research Project at the Key Labo-
ratory of Fluid and Power Machinery, China (Xihua University).
The authors also sincerely thank the editors and the reviewers
for their efforts in improving this article.
References
[1] J. Feng, The data of China Petroleum 2012. URL: http://news.cnpc.com.cn/
system/2013/01/10/001408075.shtml.
[2] T. Mcintosh, K.J. Baros, J.G. Gervais, R. Schultz, J. Whitworth, A vibratory
tool study on extended reach horizontals during coiled tubing drillout
in the eagle ford shale. part 2: vibratory and tractor, in: SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, 2016,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179087-MS.
[3] K. Bybee, New downhole tool extends coiled-tubing reach, New J. Pet.
Technol. 52 (6) (2000) 32–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/0600-0032-JPT.
Inner diameter (m) Traction force (N) Reference
0.030 70 500 –
0756.020 40 000 –
0.01905 65 770 [49,50,69–71]
[4] M. Al-buali, A. Dashash, A. Al-shawly, W. Al-gurraini, S. Al-Driweesh, V.
Bugrov, et al., Maximizing coiled tubing reach during logging extended
horizontal wells using e-line agitator, in: Kuwait International Petroleum
Conference & Exhibition, 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/127399-MS.
[5] J. Zhao, Q. Li, H. Yin, Study of casing centralizer for cementing quality
of shale gas horizontal well, Oil Field Equip. 10 (2013) 22–24, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-3482.2013.10.005.
[6] Y. Qianbei, J. Liu, L. Zhang, Q. Zhang, The posting-buckling analysis and
evaluations of limit drilling length for coiled tubing in the sidetrack
horizontal well, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 164 (2018) 559–570.
[7] J. Abdo, A. Al-Shabibi, H. Al-Sharji, Effects of tribological properties of
water-based drilling fluids on buckling and lock-up length of coiled tubing
in drilling operations, Tribol. Int. 82 (2014) 493–503, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.triboint.2014.01.028.
[8] K. Newnan, T. Burnett, J. Pursell, O. Gouasmia, Modeling the Affect of a
Downhole Vibrator, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2009, http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/121752-MS.
[9] S.P. Barton, F. Baez, A. Alali, Drilling performance improvements in gas
shale plays using a novel drilling agitator device, in: North American
Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2118/144416-MS.
[10] H. Suzuki, H. Usui, T. Kamada, Surfactant drag reduction caused by a
cationic surfactant with excess addition of counter-ions, J. Chem. Eng.
Japan 37 (10) (2004) 1232–1237, http://dx.doi.org/10.1252/jcej.37.1232.
[11] J. Hallundbaek, K. Ostvang, J. Haukvik, T. Skeie, A.D. Heijer, Wireline
well tractor: case histories, in: Offshore Technology Conference, 1997,
http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/8535-MS.
[12] X. Bai, X. Zhang, W. Liu, Dynamic simulation of auto-centralizer for
horizontal well traction robot based on ADAMS, Pet. Explor. Dev. 1 (2010)
104–110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(10)60019-5.
[13] B. Schwanitz, K. Henriques, The development of wireline-tractor
technology, 5(2) (2015) 18-20. http://dx.doi.org.10.2118/0209-018-TWA.
[14] Q. Liu, T. Ren, Y. Chen, Characteristic analysis of a novel in-pipe driving
robot, Mechatronics 23 (4) (2013) 419–428, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
mechatronics.2013.03.004.
[15] Q. Liu, Y. Chen, T. Ren, Y. Wei, Optimized inchworm motion planning for a
novel in-pipe robot, ARCHIVE Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C 228 (7) (2014)
1248–1258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954406213502409.
[16] T. Ren, Q. Liu, K. Bao, Mobility and eccentricity analysis of a helical belt
drive in-pipe robot, in: IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and
Automation, Takamatsu, Japan, 2013, pp. 1507–1512, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/ICMA.2013.6618137.
[17] T. Ren, Q. Liu, Y. Li, Basic characteristics of a novel in-pipe helical drive
robot, Int. J. Mechatronics Autom. 4 (2) (2014) 127–136, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1504/IJMA.2014.062340.
[18] Y. Chen, T. Ren, Q. Liu, A simple and novel helical drive in-
pipe robot, Robotica 33 (4) (2015) 920–932, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0263574714000599.
[19] J. Hallundbæk, Downhole driving unit having a hydraulic motor in a wheel,
US: 9435167, 2016-9-6.
 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
[20] Conveyance solutions. URL: http://www.welltec.com/solutions/
conveyance/.
[21] J. Hallundbæk, Radial piston motor or pump, US: 5391059, 1995-2-21.
[22] The story of welltec. URL: http://www.welltec.com/company/.
[23] J. Hallundbæk, Downhole driving unit having a hydraulic motor with a
planetary gearing system, US: 9051802, 2015-6-9.
[24] J. Hallundbæk, Fail-safe spring, US: 9097087, 2015-8-4.
[25] J. Hallundbæk, Torque member, US: 9523253, 2016-12-20.
[26] Logging while Tractoring GE Oil & Gas. URL: https://www.geoilandgas.com/
oilfield/wireline-technology/logging-while-tractoring.
[27] E. Local, Wireline tractor production logging experience in australian
horizontal wells, in: SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
1998.
[28] D. Denney, Wireline-tractor production logging in horizontal wells, J. Pet.
Technol. 51 (3) (1999) 80–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/0399-0080-JPT.
[29] SondeTrax Wireline Tractor. URL: https://www.geoilandgas.com/oilfield/
wireline-technology/sondetrax-wireline-tractor.
[30] M.H. Al-Buali, A.A. Dashash, W.K. Guraini, Enhancement of PLT tool
reach in horizontal wells using advanced wireline tractor, in: Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference of Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/137205-MS.
[31] R.W. Gissler, M.W. Holcombe, D. Purkis, Downhole tractor, US: 6273189,
2001-8-14.
[32] F.W. Doering, T.K. Sheiretov, R.A. Ewan, Traction control for downhole
tractor, US: 7143843, 2006-12-5.
[33] F.W. Doering, T.K. Sheiretov, R.A. Ewan, Traction control for downhole
tractor, US: 7185714, 2007-3-6.
[34] W.N. Ludwig, Well tractor, US: 14/406889, 2012-6-14.
[35] T. Sheiretov, Wireline tractors and mechanical services tools: compara-
tive study of technical solutions, in: SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well
Intervention Conference and Exhibition, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
179044-MS.
[36] P.A. Foucher, M. Billingham, T.K. Sheiretov, Fiber optic slickline and tractor
system, WO 2015047399 A1, 2013-9-30.
[37] F.W. Doering, W.D. Dupree, Chain drive system, US: 7222682, 2007-5-29.
[38] J.C. Guerrero, F.W. Doering, C.J. Roy, Open hole tractor with tracks, US:
7156192, 2007-1-2.
[39] G. Ueland, J. Mellemstrand, Device for a pulling tool for use in pipes and
boreholes for the production of oil and gas, US: 7363989, 2008-4-29.
[40] F. Jeff, W. John, B.M. Christian, D. Bob, G. Bob, W. Chuck, Tractor-Conveyed
Sensors and Chemical Packer are Utilized to Remediate an Extended-
Reach Horizontal Uncemented Slotted Liner Completion in a Siliceous Shale
Reservoir, Society of Petroleum Engineerings, 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2118/86938-MS.
[41] C.J. Guerrero, Mechanism that assists tractoring on uniform and
non-uniform surfaces. US: 6910533B2, 2005-6-28.
[42] M.K. Hashem, S.M.A. Dossari, A.R. Marhaba, M. Zeybek, Evaluation of
wireline tractor performance in various well completions in Saudi Arabia,
in: International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 2005,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-10186-MS.
[43] K.R. Nelson, G. Saeed, F. Aguirre, Force monitoring tractor, US: 8905148,
2014-12-9.
[44] J. Qiao, J. Shang, X. Chen, Development of an inchworm in-pipe robot based
on the cam self-locked principle, J. Mech. Eng. 11 (2010) 83–88.
[45] D. Laurie, S. Abubaker, S. Saud, S. Hussain, A. Saudi, M. Bruce, et al., Design
transformation of hydraulically powered coiled tubing tractors for matrix
acidizing simulations in extended reach carbonate reservoirs, in: Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition Conference, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2118/188927-MS.
[46] E.K. Rudolph, Eccentric linkage gripper, US: 9488020B2, 2016-12-8.
[47] WWT CT tractors. URL: http://www.wwtco.com.
[48] B.M. Norman, E.B. Ronald, E.E. Rudolph, Puller-thruster downhole tool, US:
6003606, 1999-11-21.
[49] P.W. Mock, Expandable ramp gripper, US: 7954562, 2011-6-7.
[50] P.W. Mock, Expandable ramp gripper, US: 8302679, 2012-11-6.
[51] Q. Liu, Y. Yang, H. Zhu, W. Zheng, J. Zhao, J. Zeng, A motion mechanism
of hydraulic telescopic downhole robot, CN: 201710018259.2, 2017-1-11.
[52] Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu, W. Zhang, Mechanical model of drilling robot driven
by the differential pressure of drilling fluid, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2191–4281
(2018) 1–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3578-3.
[53] Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu, W. Zheng, Y. Yang, A novel double bevel support
structure for downhole robot, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2191–4281 (2018) 1–11,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3316-x.
[54] Q. Liu, T. Ren, Y. Chen, Active driving spiral pipe robot,
PCT/CN2012/086237, 2012-9-10.
[55] Q. Liu, Y. Li, T. Ren, Y. Chen, An active helical drive in-pipe robot, Robot
36 (6) (2014) 711–718, http://dx.doi.org/10.13973/j.cnki.robot.2014.0711.
[56] Q. Liu, T. Ren, Y. Li, Down-hole robots: current status, challenge and
innovation, in: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on
Mechatronics and Automation, Takamatsu, Japan, 2013, pp. 1703–1707,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICMA.2013.6618172.
119
[57] T. Ren, Y. Chen, Q. Liu, A helical drive in-pipe robot based on compound
planetary gearing, Advanced Robotics. 28 (17) (2014) 1165–1175, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2014.913499.
[58] S. Sigmund, Drilling device, PCT/NO01/00270, 2001-6-21.
[59] O. Larsen, S.G. Sikaneta, System and method for cleaning of a drill bit, US:
Patent Application 15/300806, 2015-3-27.
[60] BXPL. URL: http://www.bxpl.com/?id=1150.
[61] Q. Hu, Q. Liu, Intelligent drilling: a prospective technology of tomorrow,
in: International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China of Society
of Petroleum Engineers, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103781-MS.
[62] K.R. Newman, N.A. Haver, D.J. Speller, Wellbore tractor and method of
moving an item through a wellbore, US: 5794703, 1998-8-18.
[63] Horizontal Well Traction. URL: http://www.hikn.cn/yqtz/columnsId=46&i=
41&comContentId=41.html.
[64] Z. Huajun, L. Jun, L. Wenjian, Design of horizontal well for tractor driving
based on ARM, Oil Mech. 38 (11) (2010) 33–35.
[65] H. Zeng, Research on Core Technology of Horizontal Well Tractor Ddrive
System, Harbin Institute of Technology, 2010.
[66] Smartract inc corporate report. URL: http://www.touch-briefings.com/pdf/
25/SmarTract.pdf.
[67] Harry Stuart, URL: www.omega-completion.
[68] S.D. Hill, C. Prieto, Hydraulically driven tandem tractor assembly, US:
9133673, 2015-7-15.
[69] T. Sheiretov, C. Prieto, G. Tune, Hydraulically driven tractor, US: Patent
Application 11/772181, 2007-6-30.
[70] D. Bloom, N.B. Moore, E.K.V. Rudolph, Gripper assembly for downhole tools,
US: 6640894, 2003-11-4.
[71] S. Stokka, Drilling device, US: 7093673, 2006-8-22.
[72] S. Livescu, S. Craig, B. Aitken, Coiled tubing friction in extended-reach
wells, in: SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179100-
MS.
[73] M.D. Haneef, J. Abdo, Mitigate friction of coiled tubing by optimization and
axial vibrations to facilitate extended reach drilling operations, in: ASME
2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Hous-
ton, Texas, USA, 2012, pp. 207–213, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2012-
87361.
[74] Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu, J. Zeng, Control system and method of orientation
for coiled tubing in micro wellbore, CN: 201710720410.7, 2017-8-21.
[75] Y. Lan, The recoverable reserves of China’s shale gas are the first in the
world. URL: http://www.rmzxb.com.cn/c/2017-08-24/1745944.shtml.
[76] R.H. Joyce, Electric wireline milling? new solutions for new challenges,
in: SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition of Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119382-MS.
[77] C. Zhou, D. Dong, Y. Wang, Shale gas in china: characteristics, challenges
and prospects(ii), Pet. Explor. Dev. 2 (2016) 166–178, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S1876-3804(16)30022-2.
[78] Investment in large production and low losses caused by some of the shale
gas bidding companies retreat meaning. URL: http://news.xinhuanet.com/
2013-05/28/c_124772221.htm.
[79] Shale gas business and the scale of the problem appears to reduce the
cost of fracturing bottlenecks. URL: http://q.stock.sohu.com/news/cn/028/
600028/3738928.shtml.
[80] Q. Liu, H. Zhu, L. Tao, A method for drilling, completion and increasing
production of multistage which likes fishbone in horizontal well of shale
gas reservoir, CN: 104533288A, 2015-4-22.
[81] Q. Liu, H. Zhu, L. Tao, A system for drilling, completion and increasing
production of multistage which likes fishbone in horizontal well of shale
gas reservoir, CN: 104533287A, 2015-4-22.
[82] Q. Liu, H. Zhu, L. Tao, Production enhancement system using robot drill
for drilling multi-branched fishbone and radial microholes in shale gas
reservoir, and method therefor, CA: 2943638, 2018-3-21.
[83] Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu, An orientation tool of coiled tubing in micro
wellbore, CN: 106837173A, 2017-6-13.
[84] Q. Liu, Smart drilling system in future, CAAI Trans. Intell. Syst. 4 (1) (2009)
16–20.
[85] H. Zhu, M. Zhang, Q. Liu, J. Zhao, A system and Method of mud -
driven traction robot - assisted casing runing in horizental well, CN:
201710873115.5, 2018-7-15.
[86] Z. Song, P. Chen, D. Gao, Mechanics analysis of ‘‘lift and free’’ fall casing
runing method, Pet. Tubular Goods Instrum. 6 (2016) 45–48.
[87] J. Zhao, Structural Optimization Design of Cementing String in Shale Gas
Horizontal Well, Southwest Petroleum University, 2014.
[88] Z. Liang, L. Zhang, F. Jiang, Present state and proposal of casing drive tool,
Oil Field Equip. 1 (2013) 1–5.
[89] Casing Tools. URL: http://www.deepcasingtools.com.
[90] T. Li, S. Gao, Q. Chen, Y. Li, W. Han, X. Bi, et al., Innovative design of
the solid expandable tubular to patch the casing: area below the previ-
ously installed expandable tubular, in: International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Bejing, China, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-16429-MS.
120 Q. Liu, J. Zhao, H. Zhu et al. / Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115 (2019) 104–120
[91] Y. Gupta, S.N. Banerjee, The application of expandable tubulars in casing
while drilling, in: SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma
City, USA, 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/106588-MS.
[92] G.L. Cales, The development and applications of solid expandable tubular
technology, J. Can. Pet. Technol. 44 (12) (2005) 12–15, http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/05-12-TB.
[93] Y. Li, Q. Liu, Y. Chen, T. Ren, Design and analysis of an active helical
drive downhole tractor, Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 30 (2017) 428–437, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10033-017-0076-6.
[94] D. Fang, J. Shang, Z. Luo, Y. Feng, F. Chen, Research on hydraulic per-
formance of downhole traction robot in oil field, in: IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vol. 108, 2018, p. 32031, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/108/3/032031.
Qingyou Liu received his Ph.D. from the school of
mechatronic engineering Southwest petroleum univer-
sity Sichuan province, P.R. China in 1997. From 1997
to 1999 He was a postdoctoral fellow in the state
key laboratory of mechanical transmission, Chongqing
university, Chongqing, P.R. China. Currently, he is a
professor in the state key laboratory for oil and
gas reservoir geology and exploitation, Southwest
petroleum university, Sichuan province, P.R. China. His
research interests include oil and gas equipment, oil
and gas well engineering mechanics, and oil and gas
robots.
Jianguo Zhao received his master degree from the
School of Oil and gas Engineering, Southwest Petroleum
University, Sichuan Province, P.R. China in 2014. He
has been engaged in on-site technical service for 2
years and has the title of directional well engineer.
He is currently working towards his PhD in the same
institution. His research interests include robots for oil
and gas equipment and downhole robots.
Haiyan Zhu received his PhD from the petroleum re-
lated rock mechanics and engineering, China University
of Petroleum (Beijing) in 2013. He is currently an as-
sociate professor in the Department of Oil and Natural
Gas Engineering at Southwest Petroleum University,
Chengdu, China. And, he is currently the deputy editor
of the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
the top journal in the international oil and gas industry.
He worked in Kingdream Public Limited Company for
one year in 2009. His research interests are petroleum
related rock mechanics, including laboratory experi-
ments and numerical simulation of wellbore drilling, reservoir stimulation, sand
production, 4D geostress evolution and rock breaking. He has authored more
than 20 academic papers. He has long been committed to oil drilling and rock
mechanics and downhole robot drilling and completion systems research.
Guorong Wang received his PhD from the School of
Mechatronic Engineering, Southwest Petroleum Uni-
versity in 2004. He is a professor in the School of
Mechatronic Engineering, Southwest Petroleum Uni-
versity and the president of the Energy Equipment
Research Institute. He is mainly engaged in the dy-
namics of drill string/riser string, tribology theory and
application, drill bit and downhole tools and design
methods of oil and gas equipment research. He has
authored more than 80 academic papers.
John McLennan has a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from
the University of Toronto, in 1980. He has been an
Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical
Engineering at the University of Utah, Since October
2009. He has been a Senior Research Scientist at the
Energy & Geoscience Institute and a Research Professor
in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the
University of Utah, since January 2008. He has thirty
years of experience in geomechanics with petroleum
service and technology companies. Recent work has
focused on optimized gas production from shales and
unconsolidated formations, fluid–rock interactions, geothermal energy recovery,
in-situ microbial generation of natural gas and high temperature rock testing.