Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) For Construction Safety Applications

Construction Research Congress 2016 2642
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for Construction Safety Applications

1 2
Masoud Gheisari and Behzad Esmaeili
1
Rinker Assistant Professor, Rinker School of Construction Management, Univ. of Florida, 322
Rinker Hall, P.O. Box 115703, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: masoud@ufl.edu
2
Assistant Professor, School of Architectural Engineering and Construction, Univ. of Nebraska–
Lincoln, 113 NH Lincoln, City Campus. E-mail: besmaeili2@unl.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Auburn University on 09/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abstract
Researchers have suggested using different types of technologies, such as wireless

sensors, radio-frequency identification (RFID), and global positioning system (GPS), to improve
safety performance and reduce potential for human errors on construction job sites. One
emerging technology that provides immense promise to positively impact safety performance is
the unmanned aerial system (UAS). UASs, or drones, can provide several advantages for safety
managers: they can move faster than humans, can reach inaccessible areas of job sites, and can
be equipped with video cameras, wireless sensors, radar, or communication hardware to transfer
real-time data. This study was conducted to identify safety practices that can be improved by
using UASs and distinguish user and technical requirements to successfully assist safety
managers in conducting their tasks using such aerial systems. These objectives were achieved by
distributing an online survey among safety managers in Florida, Georgia, and Nebraska. In total,
twenty-two safety mangers responded to the survey and rated as most important three hazardous
activities that UASs have great potential to improve: working in proximity of boomed
vehicles/cranes, working near an unprotected edge/opening, and working in the blind spot of
heavy equipment. In terms of using UASs for safety inspection applications, the top three
required technical features rated by safety managers were real-time video communication (video
sensor), high-precision outdoor navigation, and sense-and-avoid. These findings can help
professionals recognize potential applications and technical requirements and challenges in
which UASs can be useful in construction safety practices.
Keywords: Unmanned aerial systems (UASs); Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); Drones;
Construction safety; Human-centered technology; Application requirements.
INTRODUCTION
The construction industry plays a significant role in economic growth in all countries.
However, workers employed in this industry experience a disproportionately high rate of injuries
and fatalities; for example, while the construction industry in the United States employs only 5%
of the workers, it accounts for 20% of all fatal industrial accidents (MacKenzie et al., 1999). The
situation is similar in the European Union (EU), in which only 10% of workers are employed in
the construction industry but face 30% of all fatal industrial accidents (MacKenzie et al., 1999).
On average, the construction industry accounts for a large number of industrial accidents across
the world (Bomel, 2001): 50% in Ireland; 30%-40% in Japan; and 25% in UK. Therefore,
enhancing construction safety has the potential to impact millions of workers across the world.
© ASCE
Construction Research Congress 2016

The cornerstone of any construction safety program is hazard identification and control
(Goetsch and Goetsch, 1996; Holt and Lampl, 2006). Therefore, researchers have attempted to
develop automated methods to identify and control hazards in construction sites (Fullerton et al.,
2009; Teizer et al., 2010a; Teizer et al., 2010b; and Wu et al., 2010). These studies can be
classified based on specific hazards they intended to identify and control. Because fall from
height is one of the major causes of fatalities, it captured the attention of researchers in the
construction safety domain. For example, in an attempt to prevent fall hazards, Navon and
Kolton (2006, 2007) developed an automated algorithm to identify hazardous activities in a
project schedule that may lead to a fall accident, identify their location in a building, suggest
protective plans, and automatically monitor installation of guardrails. Although the

implementation of this method improves the ability of safety personnel to monitor fall hazards,
installing guardrails and an actual location measurement system can be laborious.
Fatalities in the construction industry are also frequently the result of struck-by accidents.
A common scenario for a struck-by accident is one in which a worker is hit by a boomed vehicle
or a piece of heavy construction equipment. One of the underlying causes for this type of
accident is the lack of visibility in the operator’s blind spot (Fullerton et al., 2009). Blind spots
can lead to accidents because the operator’s view is obstructed and he or she is unable to see
workers in close proximity (Teizer et al., 2010a), especially when the equipment is backing up.
In order to mitigate these risks, there is an increasing interest in employing state-of-the-art
technologies, such as proximity sensing, to identify and remove blind spots around heavy
construction equipment. For example, Teizer and colleagues (2010b) mounted a laser scanner
inside the equipment cab to develop an automated tool to detect blind spots by analyzing the 3D
point cloud. Using the blind spot measurement tool has the potential to decrease struck-by
accidents dramatically.
In addition, developments in analyzing data collected from video cameras or vision
cameras make it possible to identify hazards during construction operations, either by identifying
objects (Weerasinghe and Ruwanpura, 2009; Chi and Caldas, 2011) or tracking resources and
workers (Teizer and Vela, 2009). Workers exposed to unseen hazards can then receive warnings
that facilitate their safety. Recent developments in sensing and wireless communication
technologies can enhance safety monitoring and control operations. For example, radio
frequency identification (RFID) can be used to identify and track materials and workers on site
(Jaselskis et al., 1995; Ergen et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2011). These tracking-
based systems can provide early warnings for workers who are in proximity to hazards (Fullerton
et al., 2009; Teizer et al., 2010b).
One emerging technology that has the potential to immensely impact safety performance
and can be used as a vehicle for a variety of other technologies is the unmanned aerial system
(UAS). UASs can move faster than humans to inaccessible areas of job sites and can be equipped
with various devices such as video cameras, sensors, radar, or communication hardware to
transfer real-time data to safety managers. They also can perform tasks similar to those done by
manned vehicles but more quickly, more safely, and at a lower cost (Irizarry & Johnson, 2014;
Gheisari and Irizarry, 2015).
During the past decade, UASs have been applied in a wide range of civil and
transportation engineering applications, including traffic surveillance (Coifman et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2007), traffic simulation (Puri et al., 2007; Coifman et al., 2006), monitoring of
structures (Rathinam et al., 2008; Frew et al., 2004), avalanche control (McCormack and
Trepanier, 2008), and bridge inspection (Metni and Hamel, 2007). Although UASs have only
© ASCE

recently appeared in the building and construction literature, they have been used for variety of
purposes, including safety inspection (Irizarry et al., 2012), inspection of building façades (Roca
et al., 2013), surveying (Siebert and Teizer, 2014), building inspection and visual inspection of
structures (Michael et al., 2012; Morgenthal and Hallermann, 2014), site monitoring (Wen and
Kang, 2014), and construction progress monitoring (Han et al., 2015).
Irizarry et al. (2012) conducted the only study on using UASs for safety applications;
they also conducted a usability study and a heuristic evaluation of a small-scale quadcopter
equipped with a camera as a safety inspection tool on construction sites. They ultimately
proposed that UAS can be an ideal safety inspection assistant, providing a safety manager with
real-time access to videos or images from a range of predefined paths and locations around the
job site, as well as voice interaction with construction workers. However, their proposed
conceptual system was not validated by construction safety managers, and little information was
collected from actual safety managers in the field. To address this knowledge gap, the current
study will gather opinions from safety managers about using UASs in various safety-related
operations.
This research project would investigate current construction safety management tasks that
have the potential to implement UAS technology, as well as user and technological requirements
for successful implementation of this technology within those practices. Understanding the
requirements of professionals who are involved in safety management applications will
ultimately lead to a series of UAS development specifications and design characteristics for
construction safety applications.
OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH

This study sought to understand the potential applications of using UAS in improving
safety practices and to identify ideal UAS safety features. This objective was achieved by
developing an online questionnaire and distributing it among safety managers. The questionnaire
started with a brief introduction about the study, its confidentiality policies, and a consent
statement, followed by questions designed to collect demographic information about the
participants. The main body of the questionnaire included questions about the frequency and
effectiveness of using UASs to improve safety practices and the importance of several UAS
features to facilitate their safety-related tasks. Questions also were asked about the frequency of
using UASs at various distances, heights, time limits, and locations on the job site. Most of the
questions required responses on a six-point Likert scale.
The questionnaire link was distributed to a contact list of contractors obtained from the
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), the Associated General Contractors of America
(AGC), and the University of Florida advisory board. In total, 38 people agreed to participate in
the study, and 22 valid responses were collected. People who responded had an average of 24
years of experience in the construction industry and 19 years of specific experience in
construction safety.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Safety Applications
Sixteen different hazardous situations or safety-related activities that could be improved
by UAS were identified from the literature. To assess the relative importance of these practices,
participants were asked to determine how frequently UAS could be used in each area and the
© ASCE

degree to which effectiveness could be improved by using UAS (Table 1). The importance factor
for each situation or activity was calculated by multiplying the average rating score of
effectiveness and frequency. As Table 1 shows, working in the proximity of boomed
vehicles/cranes (Importance Factor: 15.95), working near an unprotected edge/opening (15.93),
and working in the blind spot of heavy equipment (14.83) were the three most important
operations that could benefit from using UAS on a construction project. At the other end of the
scale, safety managers found that the five activities least likely to benefit from using UAS were
appropriate usage of tag out/lock out (3.06), inspecting ergonomics requirements (4.44),
inspecting requirements for guarding machinery (5.79), and inspecting at-risk rigging operation
(6.79). This is understandable, since identification of many of these operations require detailed
attention or human judgment. Another interesting finding is that although using UAS to inspect
proper usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) on the site could be very effective (Median:
4, Average Rating: 3.64), safety managers believed that UAS would not be used very frequently
to monitor proper PPE usage (2, 2.91).
Table 1. Effectiveness, frequency, and importance factor of using UASs to improve safety
monitoring and control practices on site
Hazardous situations or safety related Effectiveness Frequency Importance

activities Median Average Median Average Factor
Rating Rating
Working in proximity of boomed 5 4.50 3.5 3.55 15.95
vehicles/cranes
Working near unprotected edge/opening 5 4.27 4 3.73 15.93
Working in blind spot of heavy equipment 5 4.24 3 3.50 14.83
Conducting post-accident investigation 4 3.77 4 3.67 13.83
Using boom vehicles/cranes in proximity of 4 4.00 4 3.38 13.52
overhead power lines
Inspecting house keeping 3.5 3.82 3 3.45 13.19
Inspecting proper usage of fall protection 4 3.81 3 3.36 12.81
systems
Working at unprotected trench 4 3.55 4 3.24 11.48
Working in proximity of hazardous 3 3.67 3 3.20 11.73
materials
Inspecting proper usage of PPE on the site 4 3.64 2 2.91 10.58
Inspecting confined space entry 3 3.45 2.5 2.82 9.74
Inspecting requirements for ladder/ scaffold 3 3.14 3 3.05 9.57
Inspecting at-risk rigging operation 2 2.82 2 2.41 6.79
Inspecting requirements for guarding 2 2.55 2 2.27 5.79
machinery
Inspecting ergonomics requirements 2 2.27 1 1.95 4.44
Appropriate usage of tag out/lock out 1 1.74 1 1.76 3.06
UAS Technical Features for Construction Safety Applications

For the technical analysis, sixteen technical features (associated with the vehicle, control
station, and system parts of UAS) that might be required to enhance UAS performance for
© ASCE

construction safety purposes were identified from the literature and used in the online
questionnaire. Table 2 illustrates the medians and average ratings for those features.
The feature rated most important by safety managers was the ability of UAS to provide
real-time video of the job site (Median: 6, Average Rating: 5.41). This feature would provide
safety managers with another set of eyes on the job site to directly inspect people and machinery
in the vicinity of the UAS aircraft.
Being able to accurately navigate in an outdoor environment (5.5, 5.32) was the second
most important feature rated by safety managers, followed by sense and avoid (5.5, 5.27). This
means that safety managers need a UAS capable of precisely navigating in an outdoor
environment that can also detect cooperative/non-cooperative objects in the vicinity of the
vehicle and conduct evasive maneuvers if a collision might happen. The importance of these
features is obvious when tied to safety managers’ previous importance ratings for use of UASs in
the proximity of boomed vehicle/cranes, near unprotected edges/openings, or in the blind spots
of heavy equipment. All these tasks require the UAS to have precise navigation together with a
sense-and-avoid feature to successfully conduct those safety-related tasks while minimizing the
safety challenges of maneuvering a UAS on the job site. Ruggedness/durability has been rated by
safety managers as another important technical feature (5, 5.27) for both the vehicle and control
station parts of a UAS. This means that these UAS components should be able to withstand the
typical environment of construction projects, with overall sturdiness and lasting quality to protect
against dropping, dust, or water.
Consistent with safety managers’ rating of real-time communication through a video
camera on unmanned aerial vehicle as the most important feature of a UAS, they also rated
controlling features of that video sensor (5, 5.23) as highly important for safety applications.
Features of the actuated video camera include the vehicle’s ability to tilt or pan the video sensor.
Movability in any or all three axes of motion (roll, pitch, and yaw) would help safety managers
get the maximum visible angle of the job site and conduct a better safety inspection.
The two most important requirements of the UAS, following an actuated video camera,
relate to the control station’s compatibility with other mobile devices (5, 5.09) and a
simple/natural/ interactive user interface (5, 5.00). Safety managers clearly understand the
importance of using and integrating the UAS with other common handheld mobile devices (e.g.,
laptop, iPhone, iPad) that they use frequently on the job site. They also want a simple Graphic
User Interface (GUI) with which they can easily interact and receive required information.
Other features that were rated as important technical features, but not as highly as those
discussed above, include easy transportation of the vehicle and control station (portability: 5,
4.91), automatic take-off and return-to-home without the need of an external pilot (unattended
deployment & return: 5, 4.73), autonomous waypoint navigation using predefined paths or points
(autopilot: 5, 4.50), real-time audio communication (5, 4.50), and high-precision indoor
navigation (5, 4.36).
The rating difference between video (6, 5.41) and audio (5, 4.50) sensors, as well as high-
precision outdoor (5.5, 5.32) and indoor (5, 4.5) navigation, can be tied to the typical working
environment of safety-related tasks, which usually occur outdoors and require direct visual
inspection of workforce and machinery (Irizarry et al., 2012). However, equipping the unmanned
aerial vehicle with motion detection (4, 4.09) or thermographic (4, 3.73) sensors was not rated as
high as incorporation of video (6, 5.41) and audio (5, 4.50) sensors.
The least important technical features for safety managers were equipping the unmanned
aerial vehicle with a thermographic sensor (4, 3.73) or a manipulator/effector (4, 3.77). A
© ASCE

manipulator/effector might range from a simple grappling hook to a robotic arm to allow the
UAS operator to conduct tasks that normally have to be done by a human.
Table 2: Importance of several UAS technical features to improve safety monitoring & control
practices on site
Features Importance Features Importance

Median Average Median Average
Rating Rating
Real-time video 6 5.41 Unattended deployment and 5 4.73

communication return
High-precision outdoor 5.5 5.32 Autopilot 5 4.50
navigation
Sense and avoid 5.5 5.27 Real-time audio 5 4.50
communication
Ruggedness/durability 5 5.27 High-precision indoor 5 4.36
navigation
Actuated video 5 5.23 High-resolution mapping 4.5 4.27
camera capability
Compatibility with other 5 5.09 Actuated non-video sensor 4 4.09
mobile devices packages (motion detection)
Simple-natural- 5 5.00 Manipulator and/or effector 4 3.77
interactive user interface
Portability 5 4.91 Actuated non-video sensor 4 3.73
packages (thermographic)
Safety managers also indicated (Table 3) that if they were provided with a UAS for safety
inspection purposes, they would often fly it lower than 200 feet (height<100 ft: 5, 4.67; 100
ft<height<200 ft: 5, 4.82) and rarely higher than 400 feet (3, 2.95). Safety managers also
indicated that they would most likely need to fly the UAS to inspect inaccessible/unapproachable
locations (5, 4.82) that are less than 500 feet away from them (6, 4.65).
Table 3: Frequency of flying an ideal UAS in different heights, distances, time limits, and locations
to conduct a safety-related task
Variables Frequency Variables Frequency

Median Average Median Average
Rating Rating
Height < 100ft 5 4.67 Time < 30mins 5 4.82
100ft < Height < 200ft 5 4.82 30mins < Time < 1hr 4.5 4.32
200ft < Height < 400ft 4 4.00 1hr < Time < 2hr 3.5 3.09
400ft < Height 3 2.95 2hr < Time 2 2.68
Distance < 500ft 6 4.65 Indoor locations 2 2.41
500ft < Distance < 1mile 5 3.80 Outdoor locations 6 5.73
1mile < Distance < 5mile 2 2.32 Inaccessible/unapproachable 5 4.82
5mile < Distance 1 2.30 locations
© ASCE

They also indicated they would always use the UAS for inspecting outdoor locations (6,
5.73) and rarely for indoor locations (2, 2.41). This significant different rating in favor of
outdoor locations is consistent with previously rated UAS technical features of high-precision
outdoor navigation (5.5, 5.32) compared to indoor navigation (5, 4.5).
Safety managers also indicated that the UAS would often be used in their tasks for less
than an hour (flight time<30 mins: 5, 4.82; 30 mins<flight time<60 mins: 4.5, 4.32). For such
short flight times, off-the-shelf UAS platforms could be used, but for long-to-extra-long flight
times (more than 1-2 hours), more sophisticated and customized UASs might be needed.
CONCLUSION
To explore potential applications of UASs in construction safety, this study was
conducted to identify safety practices that can be improved by using UASs and distinguish user
and technical requirements to successfully help safety managers in conducting their tasks.
In terms of safety-related tasks, the study showed that working in the proximity of
boomed vehicles/cranes, working near an unprotected edge/opening, and working in the blind
spot of heavy equipment were the most important tasks that could benefit from using UAS on a
construction project. In terms of the technical features, the air unit of an ideal UAS for safety
monitoring and control would be a portable vehicle that can fly autonomously and provide real-
time video/audio feed to the simple/natural/interactive user interface of the safety manager’s
control station. The airframe of such system should be fairly robust and safe to be used around
people on construction job sites; an example of a UAS vehicle would be a small-scale quad-
copter with shrouded propellers. This system might not require carrying any special payload
other than video-audio sensors. Actuating the video sensor through tilting or panning could
improve performance by getting a maximum visible angle (movability in any or all of the three
axes of motion: roll, pitch, and yaw). The control station also should be portable and rugged and
should have a natural user-friendly interface and be compatible with other handheld tablet
computers used by safety managers. No special infrastructure is needed to operate such system,
but recharging and maintenance cycles are required since the UAS should be maintained and
fully charged for flying frequently in less than one-hour time periods, at 500-foot distances and
200-foot heights. Special training is also needed for the system users.
These findings can help professionals recognize potential applications in which UASs
can be useful in construction safety practices and technical requirements and challenges of doing
so. This study will lead to further research on the design, development, and large-scale field-
testing of UASs for applications identified as beneficial to construction safety. This user-
centered study also will lead to further investigations into UAS design characteristics for
appropriate data collection to accurately develop UAS-based system strategies for diverse
construction-related applications. It is also important to point out that using Unmanned Aerial
Systems is a new and rapidly evolving area in construction, and in-depth research studies are
needed not only to study their technical implementation but also to investigate social, legal, and
financial factors that constrain their acquisition, construction, or operation for various
applications in the construction domain.
© ASCE

REFERENCES
Bomel Ltd. (2001). Improving health and safety in construction, phase 1: Data collection,
review and structuring. Sudbury: HSE Books.
Chen, Y. M., Dong, L., and Oh, J.-S. (2007). Real-time video relay for UAV traffic surveillance
systems through available communication networks. Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC), IEEE, 2608-2612.
Chi, S., and Caldas, C. H. (2011). Automated object identification using optical video cameras
on construction sites. Journal Computer Aided Civil Infras. Eng., 26(5), 368-380.
Coifman, B., McCord, M., Mishalani, R., Iswalt, M., and Ji, Y. (2006). Roadway traffic
monitoring from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Intel. Transport Systems, IEEE, 11-20.
Coifman, B., McCord, M., Mishalani, R. G., and Redmill, K. (2004). Surface transportation
surveillance from unmanned aerial vehicles. Proc. of the 83rd Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Ergen, E., Akinci, B., and Sacks, R. (2007). Tracking and locating components in a precast
storage yard utilizing radio-frequency identification technology and GPS. Automation in
Construction, 16(3), 354-367.
Frew, E., McGee, T., Kim, Z., Xiao, X., Jackson, S., Morimoto, M., Rathinam, S., Padial, J., and
Sengupta, R. (2004). Vision-based road-following using a small autonomous aircraft.
Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 3006-3015.
Fullerton, C. E., Allread, B. S., and Teizer, J. (2009). Pro-active real-time personnel warning
system. Proc., Construction Research Congress, CRC, Seattle, WA, 31-40.
Gheisari, M., and Irizarry, J. (2015). A user-centered approach to investigate unmanned aerial
system (UAS) requirements for Department of Transportation applications. 2015
Conference on Autonomous and Robotic Cons. of Infrastructure, Ames IA, June 2-3.
Goetsch, D. L., and Goetsch, D. L. (1996). Occupational safety and health in the age of high
technology: For technologists, engineers, and managers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Han, K., Lin, J., and Golparvar-Fard, M. (2015). A formalism for utilization of autonomous
vision-based systems and integrated project models for construction progress monitoring.
In Proc., 2015 Conference on Autonomous and Robotic Construction of Infrastructure.
Holt, A. S. J., and Lampl, F. (2006). Principles of construction safety. Oxford, Malden, Carlton:
Blackwell Publishing.
Irizarry, J., Gheisari, M., & Walker, B. N. (2012). Usability assessment of drone technology as
safety inspection tools. Journal of Inf. Technology in Cons. (ITcon), 17, 194-212.
Irizarry, J., and Johnson, E. N., (2014). Feasibility study to determine the economic and
operational benefits of utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). In, GDOT, Georgia
Department of Transportation. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/52810.
Jaselskis, E., Anderson, M., Jahren, C., Rodriguez, Y., and Njos, S. (1995). Radio-frequency
identification applications in construction industry. Journal Construction Engineering
and Management 121(2), 189-196.
Kim, C., Kim, H., Ryu, J., and Kim, C. (2011). Ubiquitous sensor network for construction
material monitoring. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 137(2), 158-
165.
© ASCE

MacKenzie, J., Gibb, A. G. F., and Bouchlaghem, N. M. (1999). Communication of safety in the
design phase. In: Hughes, W (Ed.), 15th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September
1999, Liverpool John Moores University. Association of Researchers in Construction
Management, Vol. 2, 569-78.
McCormack, E. D., and Trepanier, T. (2008). The use of small unmanned aircraft by the
Washington State Department of Transportation. Washington State DOT.
Metni, N., and Hamel, T. (2007). A UAV for bridge inspection: Visual servoing control law with
orientation limits. Automation in Construction 17(1), 3-10.
Michael, N., Shen, S., Mohta, K., Mulgaonkar, Y., Kumar, V., Nagatani, K., ... and Ohno, K.
(2012). Collaborative mapping of an earthquake‐Damaged building via ground and aerial

robots. Journal of Field Robotics 29(5), 832-841.
Morgenthal, G., and Hallermann, N. (2014). Quality assessment of unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) based visual inspection of structures. Advances in Structural Eng 17(3), 289-302.
Puri, A., Valavanis, K., and Kontitsis, M. (2007). Generating traffic statistical profiles using
unmanned helicopter-based video data. International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, IEEE, Roma, Italy, 870-876.
Rathinam, S., Kim, Z. W., and Sengupta, R. (2008). Vision-based monitoring of locally linear
structures using an unmanned aerial vehicle 1. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 14(1),
52-63.
Roca, D., Lagüela, S., Díaz-Vilariño, L., Armesto, J., & Arias, P. (2013). Low-cost aerial unit for
outdoor inspection of building façades. Automation in Construction 36, 128-135.
Siebert, S., and Teizer, J. (2014). Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system. Automation in Construction 41, 1-14.
Teizer, J. and Vela, P.A., (2009). Personnel tracking on construction sites using video cameras.
Advanced Engineering Informatics 23(4), 452-462.
Teizer, J., Allread, B. S., Fullerton, C. E., Hinze, J. (2010a). Autonomous pro-active realtime
construction worker and equipment operator proximity safety alert system. Automation in
Construction 19(5), 630–640.
Teizer, J., Allread, B. S., Mantripragada, U. (2010b). “Automating the blind spot measurement
of construction equipment.” Automation in Construction 19(4), 491–501.
Weerasinghe, I. P. T., and Ruwanpura, J. Y. (2009). Automated data acquisition system to assess
construction worker performance. Construction Research Congress, Building a
Sustainable Future, Vol. 1, ASCE, Reston VA, 61-70.
Wen, M., and Kang, S. (2014). Augmented reality and unmanned aerial vehicle assist in
construction management. Proc. Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Reston,
VA. 1570-1577.
Wu, W., Yang, H., Chew, D. A. S., Yang, S., Gibb, A. G. F., and Li, Q. (2010). Towards an
autonomous real-time tracking system of near-miss accidents on construction sites.
Automation in Construction 19, 134-141.
© ASCE

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) For Construction Safety Applications

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) For Construction Safety Applications

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Construction Research Congress 2016 2642

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for Construction Safety Applications

Researchers have suggested using different types of technologies, such as wireless

Construction Research Congress 2016

protective plans, and automatically monitor installation of guardrails. Although the

Construction Research Congress 2016

OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Construction Research Congress 2016

Hazardous situations or safety related Effectiveness Frequency Importance

UAS Technical Features for Construction Safety Applications

Construction Research Congress 2016

Construction Research Congress 2016

Features Importance Features Importance

Real-time video 6 5.41 Unattended deployment and 5 4.73

Variables Frequency Variables Frequency

Construction Research Congress 2016

Construction Research Congress 2016

Construction Research Congress 2016

(2012). Collaborative mapping of an earthquake‐Damaged building via ground and aerial

Construction Research Congress 2016

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen