Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 43 references

System Architecture for Real-time Surface Inspection Using Multiple UAVs

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Multiple UAVs inspect surfaces in real time by using angle-encoded particle swarm optimization to plan and assign paths, then transmit data over an IoT network for histogram-based defect detection.

desk verdict The paper assembles a multi-UAV inspection pipeline with angle-encoded PSO, IoT links, and histogram detection but shows no quantitative results to support its real-time claims. read the letter →

arxiv 1907.03305 v1 pith:6WS5K5LT submitted 2019-07-07 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Van Truong Hoang , Manh Duong Phung , Tran Hiep Dinh , Quang P. Ha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords UAVsurfaceinspectionparticleswarmoptimizationIoTimageprocessingdefectdetectionmulti-UAVformationreal-timecontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper describes a coordinated multi-UAV system for surface inspection where an angle-encoded particle swarm optimization algorithm generates inspection paths and redistributes them among the vehicles. Communication occurs through IoT boards that enable real-time data transfer to remote units. An online histogram-based image processing technique then identifies potential defects during flight. Simulations and experiments are used to check that the combined path planning, networking, and detection steps operate together without breakdown.

What carries the argument

Angle-encoded particle swarm optimisation that generates inspecting paths and redistributes them to each UAV, integrated with IoT communication links and a histogram-based online image processing technique.

What would settle it

Run the generated paths in a physical test flight and check whether any UAVs collide or whether the histogram detector misses known defects or flags normal variations as damage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The architecture coordinates UAVs into a formation by applying angle-encoded particle swarm optimisation to create and allocate inspecting paths, equips the vehicles with IoT boards for network and processing functions, streams collected data in real time to remote computers, and applies a histogram method for online detection of surface damage or defects.

Load-bearing premise

The paths produced by angle-encoded particle swarm optimisation remain collision-free and feasible once IoT networking and real-time histogram processing are added, and the histograms can separate defects from normal surface changes under actual flight lighting and motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Data from multiple UAVs reaches remote units in real time for immediate analysis.
  • Defect detection occurs online without requiring post-flight processing.
  • The same path-planning step can be reused for different surface shapes by redistributing the route among available vehicles.
  • The IoT layer supports simultaneous network access for all vehicles in the formation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be tested on non-planar or moving objects if the optimisation step is rerun at regular intervals.
  • Replacing the histogram step with other simple metrics might reveal whether the real-time constraint is the main limit on detection accuracy.
  • The architecture might support inspection of infrastructure such as bridges or pipelines once the path generator accounts for vertical surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a system architecture for real-time surface inspection with multiple UAVs. UAV formation and inspection paths are generated and redistributed using angle-encoded particle swarm optimization; communication and data processing use IoT boards; data are transmitted in real time to remote units; and defect detection employs an online histogram-based image processing technique. The authors state that extensive simulations, experiments, and comparisons verify the validity and performance of the proposed system.

Significance. If the experimental validation holds, the work could provide a practical integrated architecture combining PSO-based path planning, IoT-enabled real-time networking, and histogram-based defect detection for multi-UAV surface inspection tasks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of real-time operation and verified performance rests on the statement that 'extensive simulation, experiments and comparisons have been conducted,' yet the abstract (and by extension the manuscript) provides no quantitative metrics, error bars, number of trials, or baseline comparisons to support this.
  2. The histogram-based online image processing for defect detection is presented without any evaluation of robustness to UAV-specific conditions such as illumination gradients, specular reflections, motion blur, or viewpoint changes; global intensity histograms are known to be sensitive to these factors, and no demonstration is given that the chosen features remain discriminative under actual flight envelopes.
  3. The integration claim—that angle-encoded PSO paths remain collision-free and feasible once IoT network latency and real-time image processing are added—is asserted without any analysis or results showing that the added components preserve the detection margin or path validity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly where appropriate to strengthen the presentation of results and clarify limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of real-time operation and verified performance rests on the statement that 'extensive simulation, experiments and comparisons have been conducted,' yet the abstract (and by extension the manuscript) provides no quantitative metrics, error bars, number of trials, or baseline comparisons to support this.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative metrics to support the claims. The body of the manuscript contains results from simulations and experiments, including performance comparisons. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract to summarize key metrics such as inspection times, detection rates, and baseline comparisons drawn from the experimental sections. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The histogram-based online image processing for defect detection is presented without any evaluation of robustness to UAV-specific conditions such as illumination gradients, specular reflections, motion blur, or viewpoint changes; global intensity histograms are known to be sensitive to these factors, and no demonstration is given that the chosen features remain discriminative under actual flight envelopes.

    Authors: The histogram method was selected primarily for its computational simplicity to support real-time IoT-based processing. Experiments were conducted under the lighting and motion conditions of our test setups. We acknowledge that global histograms can be sensitive to the listed factors and that dedicated robustness tests under varied flight conditions are not included. We will add a limitations paragraph in the revised manuscript discussing these sensitivities and identifying them as directions for future enhancement. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The integration claim—that angle-encoded PSO paths remain collision-free and feasible once IoT network latency and real-time image processing are added—is asserted without any analysis or results showing that the added components preserve the detection margin or path validity.

    Authors: The reported experiments incorporate simultaneous path execution, IoT data transmission, and online image processing. However, we did not include a dedicated analysis isolating the effects of network latency on path feasibility. We will add a short analysis subsection in the revised version that reports observed latencies from the experiments and discusses their influence on overall system timing and path validity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: architecture description is self-contained

full rationale

The paper describes an integrated UAV inspection system that combines angle-encoded PSO for path generation, IoT-based communication, and histogram-based image processing, with validation via simulation and experiments. No equations, predictions, or derivations are presented that reduce a claimed output to a fitted input or self-citation by construction. The central claims rest on implementation choices and empirical verification rather than any closed mathematical chain internal to the paper itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an applied systems description. No explicit free parameters, mathematical axioms, or newly postulated physical entities are introduced beyond standard algorithmic tuning constants that are not detailed in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of System Architecture for Real-time Surface Inspection Using Multiple UAVs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WS5K5LT

@misc{pith2026190703305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: System Architecture for Real-time Surface Inspection Using Multiple UAVs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WS5K5LT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1907.03305}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a real-time control system for surface inspection using multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The UAVs are coordinated in a specific formation to collect data of the inspecting objects. The communication platform for data transmission is based on the Internet of Things (IoT). In the proposed architecture, the UAV formation is established via using the angle-encoded particle swarm optimisation to generate an inspecting path and redistribute it to each UAV where communication links are embedded with an IoT board for network and data processing capabilities. Data collected are transmitted in real time through the network to remote computational units. To detect potential damage or defects, an online image processing technique is proposed and implemented based on histograms. Extensive simulation, experiments and comparisons have been conducted to verify the validity and performance of the proposed system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.03305 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data communication structure B. Communication protocols Along with the hardware, transport protocols play an im￾portant role in ensuring the security and efficiency of the data exchanged. The most popular transport protocols for IoT include the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), User Datagram Protocol (UDP), and Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP). While TCP was originally designed for the reliable transmission of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System architecture for multi-UAV surface inspection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inertial and formation frames in UAV formation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mission Planner incorporating Google Satellite Map to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pseudo-code for path generation process based on (10) to maintain the shape. During the flight, on￾board computers calculate the inverse kinematics, obtain posi￾tion errors with respect to their neighbours and the formation centroid, and then drive these errors to zero…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flowchart of the defect detection algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pseudo code for defect detection VI. RESULTS The performance of our proposed system has been evaluated in a number of surface inspection tasks. This section describes the system testbed and experimental results. A. Experimental setup The UAVs used in this study is the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 3DR Solo testbed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Convergence comparison between conventional PSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bridge inspection with UAV formation (TLBO) [42] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Trajectories of three UAVs tracking the planned paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Altitudes of the three UAVs in the formation test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Errors between the planned and flown paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Defect detection results. First row: image name, original image, ground truth, our result, Sauvola; second row: detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Defect detection results. First row: image name, original image, ground truth, our result, Sauvola; second row: detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Unmanned aircraft system applications in construction,

    M. C. Tatum and J. Liu, “Unmanned aircraft system applications in construction,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 196, pp. 167–175, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Automatic detection of wind turbine blade surface cracks based on uav-taken images,

    L. Wang and Z. Zhang, “Automatic detection of wind turbine blade surface cracks based on uav-taken images,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 7293–7303, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Automatic power line inspection using uav images,

    Y . Zhang, X. Yuan, t. Li, and S. Chen, “Automatic power line inspection using uav images,” Remote Sensing , vol. 9, no. 8, p. 824, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Quality assessment of unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) based visual inspection of structures,

    G. Morgenthal and N. Hallermann, “Quality assessment of unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) based visual inspection of structures,” Advances in Structural Engineering , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 289–302, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    A self organizing map optimization based image recognition and processing model for bridge crack inspection,

    J.-H. Chen, M.-C. Su, R. Cao, S.-C. Hsu, and J.-C. Lu, “A self organizing map optimization based image recognition and processing model for bridge crack inspection,” Automation in Construction , vol. 73, pp. 58– 66, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    L. J. S ´anchez-Aparicio, B. Riveiro, D. Gonzalez-Aguilera, and L. F. Ramos, “The combination of geomatic approaches and operational modal analysis to improve calibration of finite element models: A case of study in saint torcato church (guimar˜aes, portugal),” Construction and Building Materials , vol. 70, pp. 118–129, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    A survey of motion planning algorithms from the perspective of autonomous uav guidance,

    C. Goerzen, Z. Kong, and B. Mettler, “A survey of motion planning algorithms from the perspective of autonomous uav guidance,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems , vol. 57, no. 1, p. 65, Nov 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Enhanced discrete particle swarm optimization path planning for uav vision-based surface inspection,

    M. D. Phung, C. H. Quach, T. H. Dinh, and Q. Ha, “Enhanced discrete particle swarm optimization path planning for uav vision-based surface inspection,” Automation in Construction , vol. 81, pp. 25–33, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Structural inspection path planning via iterative viewpoint resampling with application to aerial robotics,

    A. Bircher, K. Alexis, M. Burri, P. Oettershagen, S. Omari, T. Mantel, and R. Siegwart, “Structural inspection path planning via iterative viewpoint resampling with application to aerial robotics,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015 IEEE International Conference on . IEEE...

    2015

  2. [10]

    Vision and control for uavs: A survey of general methods and of inexpensive platforms for infrastructure inspection,

    K. M ´ath´e and L. Bus ¸oniu, “Vision and control for uavs: A survey of general methods and of inexpensive platforms for infrastructure inspection,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 14 887–14 916, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Unmanned aerial vehicles for power line inspection: A cooperative way in platforms and communications,

    C. Deng, S. Wang, Z. Huang, Z. Tan, and J. Liu, “Unmanned aerial vehicles for power line inspection: A cooperative way in platforms and communications,” J. Communications, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 687–692, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Multi-uav pre- positioning and routing for power network damage assessment,

    G. J. Lim, S. Kim, J. Cho, Y . Gong, and A. Khodaei, “Multi-uav pre- positioning and routing for power network damage assessment,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Bird flocking inspired formation control for unmanned aerial vehicles using stereo camera,

    J. Lwowski, A. Majumdar, P. Benavidez, J. J. Prevost, and M. Jamshidi, “Bird flocking inspired formation control for unmanned aerial vehicles using stereo camera,” IEEE Systems Journal , pp. 1–10, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Leader-to-formation stabil- ity,

    H. G. Tanner, G. J. Pappas, and V . Kumar, “Leader-to-formation stabil- ity,” IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 443–455, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    Stingu and F

    E. Stingu and F. L. Lewis, A Hardware Platform for Research in Helicopter UA V Control. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2009, pp. 387–406

    2009

  8. [16]

    Coordinated trajectory planning for efficient communication relay using multiple uavs,

    S. Kim, H. Oh, J. Suk, and A. Tsourdos, “Coordinated trajectory planning for efficient communication relay using multiple uavs,”Control Engineering Practice , vol. 29, pp. 42 – 49, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Continuous airborne communication relay approach using unmanned aerial vehicles,

    O. Cetin and I. Zagli, “Continuous airborne communication relay approach using unmanned aerial vehicles,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 549–562, Jan 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Wireless communications with unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities and challenges,

    Y . Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Wireless communications with unmanned aerial vehicles: opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Com- munications Magazine , vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 36–42, May 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Vision-based monitoring of locally linear structures using an unmanned aerial vehicle,

    S. Rathinam, Z. Kim, and R. Sengupta, “Vision-based monitoring of locally linear structures using an unmanned aerial vehicle,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 52–63, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    A uav for bridge inspection: Visual servoing control law with orientation limits,

    N. Metni and T. Hamel, “A uav for bridge inspection: Visual servoing control law with orientation limits,” Automation in construction , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    Towards an autonomous indoor aerial inspection vehicle,

    S. Winkvist, E. Rushforth, and K. Young, “Towards an autonomous indoor aerial inspection vehicle,” Industrial Robot: the international journal of robotics research and application , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 196–207, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Colibri: A vision-guided uav for surveillance and visual inspection,

    L. Mejias, J. F. Correa, I. Mondragon, and P. Campoy, “Colibri: A vision-guided uav for surveillance and visual inspection,” in Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , April 2007, pp. 2760–2761

    2007

  15. [23]

    Aerial robotic contact-based inspection: planning and control,

    K. Alexis, G. Darivianakis, M. Burri, and R. Siegwart, “Aerial robotic contact-based inspection: planning and control,” Autonomous Robots , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 631–655, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Uav path planning for structure inspection in windy environments,

    J. A. Guerrero and Y . Bestaoui, “Uav path planning for structure inspection in windy environments,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 69, no. 1-4, pp. 297–311, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Multicopter unmanned aerial vehicle for automated inspection of wind turbines,

    B. E. Schfer, D. Picchi, T. Engelhardt, and D. Abel, “Multicopter unmanned aerial vehicle for automated inspection of wind turbines,” in 2016 24th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED), June 2016, pp. 244–249

    2016

  18. [26]

    Bridge deck delam- ination identification from unmanned aerial vehicle infrared imagery,

    A. Ellenberg, A. Kontsos, F. Moon, and I. Bartoli, “Bridge deck delam- ination identification from unmanned aerial vehicle infrared imagery,” Automation in Construction , vol. 72, pp. 155–165, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Possibilities of use of uavs for technical inspection of buildings and constructions,

    A. Banaszek, S. Banaszek, and A. Cellmer, “Possibilities of use of uavs for technical inspection of buildings and constructions,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , vol. 95, no. 3. IOP Publishing, 2017, p. 032001

    2017

  20. [28]

    Angle-encoded swarm optimization for uav formation path planning,

    V . T. Hoang, M. D. Phung, T. H. Dinh, and Q. P. Ha, “Angle-encoded swarm optimization for uav formation path planning,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , Oct 2018, pp. 5239–5244

    2018

  21. [29]

    Adaptive second- order sliding mode control of uavs for civil applications,

    V . T. Hoang, A. M. Singh, M. D. Phung, and Q. P. Ha, “Adaptive second- order sliding mode control of uavs for civil applications,” in Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), 2017 International Symposium on, 2017, pp. 816–822

    2017

  22. [30]

    Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control,

    A. Levant, “Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control,” International journal of control , vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1247–1263, 1993

    1993

  23. [31]

    Accelerated twisting algorithm,

    Y . Dvir and A. Levant, “Accelerated twisting algorithm,” IEEE Trans- actions on Automatic Control , vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 2803–2807, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    New methodolo- gies for adaptive sliding mode control,

    F. Plestan, Y . Shtessel, V . Bregeault, and A. Poznyak, “New methodolo- gies for adaptive sliding mode control,” International journal of control , vol. 83, no. 9, pp. 1907–1919, 2010

    1907

  25. [33]

    Adaptive twisting sliding mode control for quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicles,

    V . T. Hoang, M. D. Phung, and Q. P. Ha, “Adaptive twisting sliding mode control for quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicles,” in 2017 11th Asian Control Conference (ASCC) , Dec 2017, pp. 671–676

    2017

  26. [34]

    Effect of color space on color image segmentation,

    N. M. Kwok, Q. P. Ha, and G. Fang, “Effect of color space on color image segmentation,” in 2009 2nd International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, Oct 2009, pp. 1–5

    2009

  27. [35]

    A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms,

    N. Otsu, “A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. , vol. 11, no. 285-296, pp. 23–27, 1975

    1975

  28. [36]

    Automatic thresholding for defect detection,

    H.-F. Ng, “Automatic thresholding for defect detection,” Pattern Recog- nition Letters , vol. 27, no. 14, pp. 1644 – 1649, 2006

    2006

  29. [37]

    Adaptive document image binarization,

    J. Sauvola and M. Pietikinen, “Adaptive document image binarization,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 225 – 236, 2000

    2000

  30. [38]

    A new iterative triclass thresholding technique in image segmentation,

    H. Cai, Z. Yang, X. Cao, W. Xia, and X. Xu, “A new iterative triclass thresholding technique in image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1038–1046, March 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    A flexible and robust threshold selection method,

    Z. Wang, J. Xiong, Y . Yang, and H. Li, “A flexible and robust threshold selection method,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 2220–2232, Sep. 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Dynamic measurement of computer generated image segmentations,

    M. D. Levine and A. M. Nazif, “Dynamic measurement of computer generated image segmentations,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., no. 2, pp. 155–164, 1985

    1985

  33. [41]

    A new vibrational genetic algorithm enhanced with a voronoi diagram for path planning of autonomous uav,

    Y . V . Pehlivanoglu, “A new vibrational genetic algorithm enhanced with a voronoi diagram for path planning of autonomous uav,” Aerospace Science and Technology , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 47–55, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Teachinglearning-based optimiza- tion: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems,

    R. Rao, V . Savsani, and D. Vakharia, “Teachinglearning-based optimiza- tion: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems,” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 303 – 315, 2011

    2011

  35. [43]

    Designing multi-label classifiers that maximize f measures: State of the art,

    I. Pillai, G. Fumera, and F. Roli, “Designing multi-label classifiers that maximize f measures: State of the art,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 61, pp. 394 – 404, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.