the hydrographic society in scotland … · the next few slides is from a presentation held by...
TRANSCRIPT
The Hydrographic Society in Scotland
WorkshopUnderwater Spoolpiece Metrology
Thursday 19th May 2005
Frank Prytz, Blom MaritimeUnderwater Photogrammetry
Agenda
Blom Maritime asPhotogrammetry explainedSome Photogrammetry work done since 2000Spoolpiece metrology
• Onshore test• Kristin and Snøhvit test – Photogrammetry results• Kristin and Snøhvit test – As seen with the eyes of DeepOcean• Lesson learned• Acoustics and photogrammetry combined
Blom Maritime AS
47 employees41 engineersLocated in StavangerWorking world wide
Office in Stavanger
More than 30 years of experience worldwide with industrial metrology and maritime surveying services
Blom Maritime AS started using photogrammetry under water in 2000.
Photogrammetry under water require different combined skills that Blom has in house
Photogrammetry specialistsDimensional control specialistsSoftware experienceComputer scienceElectronics
Photogrammetry may be described as the science of creating 3D models of objects from images.
Photogrammetry under water
Photogrammetry principle
Fieldwork marking example
Advantages
Millimetre and sub-millimetre accuracy
Reliable results every time
Fast mobilization and field work
Additional dimensions without new field survey
Increased survey possibilities
Same accuracy in all axes
Can be combined with other methods like acoustics
Results
Processing
Computer
Camera
Production line
Some projects using photogrammetry sub sea
Spool-piece test on shore
Surveyed route
Compared to 52 control points
70 meter (97%) 20 meter (97%)
±±
10 mm6 mm
Statistics from the photogrammetry software
70 meter (97%) 20 meter (97%)
±±
12 mm4 mm
Result flanges compared to total station survey
Tilt and rotation ± 0.2deg
Spool piece metrology
Preparation on shore if possible
• Installing and survey of targets
• Survey of structure and hubs
• Survey of transponders if used
Work offshore
• Preparing metrology scale bars
• Placing of scale bars
• Acquire images
Mobilization at quayside
• Adaptation of camera system
Processing and reporting
Spool piece accuracy
Error budget
Description Distance (mm) Angle (deg)
Survey of template HUBs onshore 2 0.14
Photogrammetric model (161 images and 708 points) 4 0.01
Photogrammetry results of termination head 2 0.04
Transformation 2 0.02
Temperature effect on scale 4 0.01
Total (67 meters at 1 sigma) 7 0.15
Metrology projects
Kristin Snøhvit – Template D Snøhvit – Plem
Image quality
3D model
Route length 67 54 51
Images used 108 350 328
Hours used 123 95 184
Hours per meter survey
1,8 t 1,8 t 3,6 t
Hours used per image 57 min 16 min 34 min
Images per meters 1,6 6,5 6,4
The next few slides is from a presentation held by DeepOcean at the Geilo conference in Norway this year.
Advantages and disadvantages using acoustics
Advantages• Independent of sighting• Known and accepted method• Performed by the onboard survey personnel• Good accuracy if performed well
Disadvantages• Relative time demanding offshore• A lot of planning and production onshore have to be put into the
project to achieve optimal results• Vounerable to acoustic noise
Three tests have been performed where acoustics and photogrammetry were done in parallell. Blom Maritime was subcontractor to DeepOcean.
1 Spool at Kristin and 2 spools at Snøhvit. Both for Statoil.
Purpose: Find out if photogrammetry may replace acoustics as a spool metrology tool
Factors to be tested:
• Time and resource used on shore• Time and resource used offshore• Processing time • Result comparison
Test experience – Preparations onshore:
Acoustics• Site visit / Planning of method and transponder positions • Production of brackets• Test of bracket positions / surveying / calibration of brackets and transponders
Photogrammetry• Surveying of photogrammetry targets
Conclution: Photogrammetry approximately 1/3 of the time / cost compared to acoustics.
Test experience – Time used Offshore
Kristin (1 Spool)Acoustics: 34 hoursPhotogrammetry: 17 hours17/34=0.5
Snøhvit (2 spools)Acoustics: 98 hoursPhotogrammetry: 34 hours34/98=0.35
Conclution: Photogrammetry approximately 1/2 of the time/cost compared to acoustics.
Acoustics Photogrammetry Difference
Grid distance 44.36m 44.34m 0.02m
Grid bearing 355.33º 355.30º 0.03º
Depth difference -0.233m -0.194m -0.04m
Pitch difference -6.54º -6.42º -0.12º
Results from Kristin N 101
Acoustics Photogrammetry Difference
Grid distance 36.866m 36.87m -0.01m
Grid bearing 280.264º 280.336º -0.07º
Depth difference -0.189m -0.297m 0.11m
Pitch difference -0.638º -0.710º -0.07º
Results from Snøhvit at D Template
Acoustics Photogrammetry Difference
Grid distance 36.39m 36.36m -0.03m
Grid bearing 333.071º 333.215º -0.14º
Depth difference -0.503m -0.688m 0.18m
Pitch difference 0.172º -0.84º 1.01º
Results from Snøhvit at PLEM
Development and improvements
InclinometerDepth sensor
QC for pitch, roll and relative elevations.
Inclinometer and depth sensor mounted on a frame. Use two or more systems. Each system calibrated on shore and calibrated offshorerelative to each other. Require little or no extra time offshore and in processing.
Reduce the time required to final results
Coded Targets reduses overall time spent.
Used on Snøhvit. Redused time with 65% compared with noncoded targets.
If used on Kristin, the prosessing and reporting time would have been reduced from 123 hours to 41 hours.
Photogrammetry and LBL
Combine the best from the two methodsUse results from CRP for LBL QCUse CRP to connect to the objects at each end