Quad-copter video of Napa CA EQ damage - very cool

[JAE]

I posted this in the structural forum but I thought I'd put it here too.
Very cool video by a quad-copter flying over Napa, California after the earthquake - filming damage from beside and above the buildings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQhYbfIz0n4

Wondering what they cost and whether a typical engineering firm could afford these and make use of them for investigations, etc. in hard-to reach places.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[KENAT]

JAE, has the FAA even approved for use of drones for this kind of thing yet?

https://www.faa.gov/uas/

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[msquared48]

Boy, that was really enlightening. I agree that this would help in remote areas or similar situations where access to the damaged area is hazardous. Also help in the search for victims.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Kenat, the rules are rapidly changing so I might not have the full picture but last I heard the FAA has stated that commercial use of a drone is illegal but non-commercial use is considered under the same rules as a model aircraft. I think they recently put some harsher non-commercial rules into effect but am not sure. There is some legal debate on wither they can actually fine people for violating their commercial ban but I wouldn't test it as they have tried recently to fine a few people for $10,000, if I recall.

It's actually quite frustrating as my father is a retired commercial pilot (still has the full rating, just not a current medial license above the requirements for private pilot) and he's trying to start up a commercial video and photography service using a combination of drones and light aircraft but these rules are basically stopping him. It's stupid that we can get in an aircraft and take commercial video but if we do it with a high end drone we're breaking the law. He also has offered to let me use the drone for engineering work (site surveys, structural investigations, so on) but I've so far turned him down as it would technically be commercial use (and it's also a $1,300 drone I've never flown before).

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[KENAT]

TehMightyEngineer, at first glance it does seem ridiculous how long it's taking FAA to properly address commercial use of drones.

Of course if they'd rushed things then the first time one causes an incident at an airport with an airliner or similar there'd be hell to pay.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

In my mind all they have to do is limit commercial drones to less than 500 feet and 2 to 5 miles from airports (depending on size of the airport). 500 feet is the minimum altitude a pilot should be flying unless landing. There should also be some minimum distance from persons, vehicles and buildings and obvious stuff like don't try to fly anywhere unsafe and so on. Then, provide rules that a rated private pilot and above can operate a drone in visual contact to any altitude and with less restrictions. The crazy thing too is they really aren't that dangerous. As long as you don't get them into a turbine most planes can easily survive impact with a small UAV. You'll obviously do some damage and it wouldn't be fun for the plane but birds can do just as much damage if not more and planes aren't falling out of the sky from them and they have no rules at all.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[MintJulep]

"Wonder what they cost?"

About a thousand bucks.

https://store.dji.com/product/phantom-2-vision

The stability of the image is remarkable.

 

[MintJulep]

Amazing that they can do all of this for $1000.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESKl2dza16U

 

[msquared48]

Can the image be in real time or is it recorded?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[MintJulep]

Both I think.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Both but the range of the video signal is less than the range of the quad copter.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[btrueblood]

Some of the visuals from that video were startling (as in "wow, I didn't know bricks could bend like that!"), until I realized the lens was distorting the image. Wonder if you could get a lens with less fish-eye effects?

 

[JohnRBaker]

Since the advent of the 'Go-Pro' series of small cameras most everything like this are using extreme wide-angle lens, but they are technically not 'fish-eye' lens, but then all lens, particularly wide-angles, when placed that close or when items are at oblique angles to the lens, which by definition happens when any lens is placed close to some central object, those areas off to the sides tend to be distorted to one extent or another. That being said, despite the apparent distortion, for something like this, an extreme wide-angle lens is much more suitable than a so-called 'normal' and certainly better than any shot telephoto lens. Keep in mind, the human eye sees the world in a much wider field-of-view than some people first assume, which is why many people are often disappointed when they first start taking pictures of outdoor scenes if they're not using a wide-angle lens. For my DSLR, I have a 10mm-24mm zoom (about the same as was a 15mm-36mm on a 35mm camera) and it's often the only lens I use when shooting outdoors.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[btrueblood]

I would think you'd want at least one lens that would not distort a straight line, like a wall or door frame, to do a decent structural survey. Damage like fallen bricks stands out well in the video (so does the pile of bricks on the ground, by the way), but a buckled wall or roof joist would be tougher to see in the video, or at least to see if it's really out of plumb, or just distorted by the camera lens (which all of the straight lines are in the video links).

The ability to reduce parallax and distortion in recorded video is (at least to my mind) hard to do reliably via image post-processing (it's hard to do even in a still image, and I know because I've tried, I too own a lot of cameras and a lot of lenses, and like to play with them). Whereas an undistorted (or less distorted) image from the start (even if its field of view is limited) would reduce the number of questions, and hopefully the number of repeat flights to determine the extent and type of damage. Having a seperate camera might be the way to go with this, if the operator wants the wide field of view to avoid running into stuff.

"...despite the apparent distortion, for something like this, an extreme wide-angle lens is much more suitable than a so-called 'normal' and certainly better than any shot telephoto lens"

You don't back this up with anything, so I assume you meant the reason I gave above, John.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Yes, I meant it in the sense that it would be hard to either fly a remote vehicle if you're able to receive the video in real-time, or if not, have any expectation that what you're interested in would even be in the view of the shot, if you weren't using some sort of wide-angle lens.

As for your comment about the need for distortion-free videos for doing inspections of structural damage, I agree 100%, but the current state-of-the-art, at least with respect to what I suspect was used to shoot the videos that we're seeing from Napa, that these are still basically 'hobby' type devices with nothing more sophisticated then something like a Go-Pro camera on board. However, I'm sure that if there is sufficient interest in remote inspection of either inaccessible or hazardous areas via these small drones, that someone will decide to invest in more appropriate video gear suitable of professional operations.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[IRstuff]

Distortion can be reliably removed, IF you have knowledge of the distance, so a small laser rangefinder could make that work.

One REALLY noticeable thing is that Napa seems to be much more 21st century than I would have expected; there were almost no overhead wires in the video. Had there been the typical rat's nest of overhead wires, telephone poles, etc,. the video would have be 10 times harder successfully execute. Additionally, that particular quad-rotor was probably flown by direct line of sight, i.e., the operator probably had eyes on the craft at all times. A pure remote flying is another layer of complexity to come.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[rterickson]

The FAA have recently granted San Diego Gas & Electric limited authority to test out drones for distribution line patrol. I think the technology is only going to get better.

[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-drones-utilities-20140712-story.html[/url]

 

[IRstuff]

That particular application is bound to be a life-saver; there have been chronic accidents with helicopters checking distribution lines.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[JohnRBaker]

As for the overhead line issues, being from the midwest (Northern Michigan originally), that was one of the things we noticed when we first moved to SoCal in 1980, very few overhead wires of any sort. Oh you still have the high-tension lines out in the country, but once you get into urban areas, most power and telephone lines are underground. I suspect that this makes our power delivery more reliable, but of course we don't get as many heavy thunder and lighting storms and certainly no ice storms or blizzards (we do get high winds, Santa Ana's, in the early Spring and late Fall, which can be destructive). However, the city where we live, I suspect that the real reason for the underground service is purely for the aesthetic appeal. It just looks cleaner and nicer.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[IRstuff]

The other reason, I suspect, is ease of access for maintenance for keeping lines above ground elsewhere. Freeze/thaw/rain etc. all contribute to line damage. If the lines were underground, the cost to repair would be quite high, while here, at least in Cali, we're in a coastal desert, so water damage is pretty rare and there's no reason not to bury the lines.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!