Slide 1

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Bridge Inspection Demonstration ProjectsPresented by:Jennifer Zink, MnDOTBarritt Lovelace, Collins Engineers

Welcome, thank you for attending. Intro Bev, Intro Barritt

Outline of our 15 minutes: short presentation that has been shared ahead of this event, Q & A period, and if time allows a short demo of a drone by RDO.

Thank Kevin Western for proposing this presentation to TRB we are happy to share what we have learned in Phase 1 and what we are learning and developing in Phase II.1

Phase I Project Background

MnDOT Bridge Office identified UAVs as a potentially useful technologyAdditional research dollars availablePhase I project was scoped, funded and completed by June 30th, 2015

Phase II is underway

UAV and UASUnmanned Aerial Vehicle vs. Unmanned Aerial System, used somewhat interchangeably, we used the term UAV in our study

Very short schedule for project which is difficult when using a new technology with many restrictionsContract executed end of April, report completed by end of June 2 MONTHS

2

Presentation OverviewProject ScopeAssessment of Current PracticesFAA RulesProject PlanningAssessment of Phase I and Phase II UAV TechnologiesPhase I ResultsPhase II StudyConclusions Public Response

3

Demonstration Project ScopeEvaluate the UAVs safety and effectiveness as it applies to bridge inspection.Utilize UAV technology in the inspection of four bridges at various locations throughout Minnesota. Investigate and evaluate the UAVs capabilities and effectiveness in improving inspections and reducing inspection costs.UAV technologies were investigated to evaluate their capabilities as they relate to bridge inspection. Research reports written for the MnDOT Research Services Office.

Viability effectiveness cost effectiveness - safety

Assessment of Current PracticesAccess MethodsAerial Work Platforms (AWPs)Rope Access and Structure ClimbingLadders

NBIS and MnDOT RequirementsHands On InspectionNon Hands on InspectionMeasurements/Testing

Access MethodsAerial Work Platforms (AWPs)LiftsUnder Bridge Inspection Vehicles (snoopers)Rope Access and Structure ClimbingLadders

NBIS and MnDOT RequirementsHands On InspectionNon Hands on InspectionMeasurements/Testing

5

FAA RulesCurrent RulesAircraft must be certified and registered by the FAA.Licensed pilot is required to operate the UAV.UAV must be operated within line of sight.UAV must not be operated within 5 miles of an airport unless prior authorization from the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower is received.A 333 Exemption is required from the FAA.Cannot fly within 500 ft. of non-participants.Proposed RulesMany restrictions removedNo exemption required

FAA UAS Information:https://www.faa.gov/uas/

Additional handout from FAA site with contact information, etc. 6

Project PlanningApprovalsGovernors OfficeFAA333 ExemptionCertificate of AuthorizationMnDOT AeronauticsNational Park ServiceCN RailwayBridge Owners Coordination

ApprovalsGovernors Office, Bev, Nancy and Jen contributionFAA333 ExemptionCertificate of AuthorizationMnDOT AeronauticsNational Park ServiceCN RailwayBridge Owners Coordination

7

Project PlanningBridge Selection CriteriaRural vs. UrbanVariety of Bridge SizesVariety of Bridge TypesBridge LocationBridge Owner CooperationLimit Public Contact

8

Assessment of UAV TechnologiesPhase I TechnologyNot capable of looking upUnable to fly without GPSPhoto, Video and Thermal ImagingPhase II TechnologyInspection-specific UAVsObject SensingCapable of looking upFly without GPS, under bridge decksPhoto, Video and Thermal Imaging

When I first put this slide together it was future technology, now it is current technology.9

Bridge Inspection Methods and ResultsBridge 13509 Chisago CountySmall Local BridgePrestressed Concrete Beam BridgeUnable to Fly Under BridgeInfrared ImagesOrthographic Mapping

Bridge Element ComparisonPhase I

Story about Joe Tripletts response to email asking permission. Sent it to the lawyer as proof of permission.10

Bridge Inspection Methods and ResultsBridge 448 Oronoco BridgeHistorical Concrete Arch BridgePrestressed Concrete Beam ApproachesUnable to Fly Under BridgeAble to fly in Rain

Phase I

11

Bridge Inspection Methods and ResultsBridge 49553 Morrison County Pedestrian BridgeLarge Steel TrussDifficult to access with UBIVGreat detail in imagesPack rust visibleConcrete deterioration visible

Phase I

Flying directly underneath not required.12

Bridge Inspection Methods and ResultsBridge 49553 Morrison County Orthographic Mapping

Phase I

13

Bridge Inspection Methods and ResultsBridge 49553 Morrison County Orthographic Mapping

Phase I

Point cloud14

Bridge Inspection Methods and ResultsArcola Railroad Bridge Large Complex BridgeInspected using rope accessNational Park Service PermissionDifficult to access

Phase I

ROW uncertain, used a pontoon boat

Level of detail impressive. 15

Phase II StudyCost comparison with UBIVs, traffic controlExplore inspection specific technology including the Sensfly eXomCompile a best practices documentIncorporate into an actual inspectionUse a UAV in the planning of an inspectionUse a secondary display for bridge inspectorDeck surveys with zoom cameraCulvert and Box Girder InspectionIR Deck Delamination AssessmentPaint AssessmentData on how many hours UAV vs. other methods

Goals / Deliverables:

Phase I well received and identified further goals that we considered for the application of UAVs. Competed for research funds and was successful. Much longer contract duration so we could expand the goals/deliverables and pursue more complex assessment efforts.

Inherent in this is the goal of using UAVs to improve both state and local inspection efforts given resource challenges this makes the best practices document (intent to include in Bridge and Structures Inspection Program Manual (BSIPM) a critical deliverable.16

Phase II StudyBlatnik Bridge Inspection

Largest Bridge in Minnesota Steel through arch - 8000 feet long 600 foot center spanCrosses the Duluth Harbor near Lake SuperiorHarsh wind and weather conditionsBraver thank in Phase I

17

ConclusionsUAVs can be used in the field during bridge inspections safely. Image quality allows for the identification of defects.Tactile functions cannot be replicated using UAVs.UAVs can be cost effective. UAVs can provide a very efficient way to collect infrared images Safety risks could be minimized with the use of UAVs.UAVs can be utilized to determine channel conditions.UAVs can provide important pre-inspection information.Off the shelf UAVs have limited inspection capability.Current FAA rules are onerous.

UAVs can be used in the field during bridge inspections safely. Based on the UAVs size, weight, controllability and built in fail safes the risk to the inspection team and public is very low. UAVs are more suitable as a tool for inspections for larger bridges but there can also be advantages for smaller bridge inspections.Defects can be identified and viewed with a level of detail equivalent to a close up photo.Measurements can be estimated from images but tactile functions equivalent to a hands on inspection cannot be replicated using UAVs.18

Public ResponseAlmost 100 news articles and storiesOverwhelmingly positiveSafety, reduced closures and cost efficiency valued by public

19

senseFly eXom DemonstrationAdam GilbertsonRDO Integrated Controls9201 East Bloomington FWY, Suite JJBloomington, MN 55420Phone: 952-948-1604 AGilbertson@rdoic.comwww.rdoic.com

Baptiste TripardsenseFly115 1638 R Street NWWashington DC, 20009Phone: 202-450-1506baptiste.Tripard@senseFly.comwww.senseFly.com

20

Questions/Contact InformationJennifer L. Zink, P.E.Bridge Inspection EngineerMnDOT Bridge Office3485 Hadley Avenue NorthOakdale, MN 55128-3307Phone: 651-336-4573 jennifer.zink@state.mn.us

Barritt Lovelace, P.E.1599 Selby Avenue, Ste. 206St. Paul, MN 55104Phone: 651.646.8502blovelace@collinsengr.comwww.collinsengr.com

A copy of the Phase I report is available at: http://mntransportationresearch.org/2015/09/28/using-drones-to-inspect-bridges/

21