Comparison of building thermography approaches using terrestrial and aerial thermographic images

Thermography is commonly used for auditing buildings. Classical manual terrestrial thermography records images of individual buildings at a short distance. When auditing a large number of buildings (e.g. whole city districts) this approach reaches its limits. Using drones with thermographic cameras allows images to be recorded automatically from different angles, with faster speed and without violating property rights. However, an airborne camera has a significantly greater distance and more varied angles to a building compared to terrestrial thermography. To investigate the influence of these factors for building auditing, we perform a study evaluating seven different drone settings of varying flight speed, angle, and altitude. A comparison is drawn to manually recorded terrestrial thermographic images. While we find that a flight speed between 1m/s and 3m/s does not influence the thermographic quality, high flight altitudes and steep viewing angles lead to a significant reduction of visible details, contrast, and to falsified temperatures. A flight altitude of 12m over buildings is found to be the most suitable for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of rooftops and a qualitative analysis of façades. A flight altitude of 42m over buildings can only be used for qualitative audits with little detail.

Dieses Werk wurde unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz Namensnennung 3.0 (CC-BY 3.0) veröffentlicht und darf unter den Lizenzbedinungen vervielfältigt, verbreitet, öffentlich zugänglich gemacht, sowie abgewandelt und bearbeitet werden. Dabei muss der Urheber bzw. Rechteinhaber genannt und die Lizenzbedingungen eingehalten werden.