Since the middle of the 20th century many any buildings were built without any energy standards and still have a comparably poor energy quality. To obtain an overview of the current thermal quality of buildings in a whole city district, it may be promising to work with thermographic images obtained by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Aerial thermography represents a fast and cost-efficient approach compared to traditional terrestrial thermography. In this paper, we describe an approach to finding thermal bridges on aerial thermographic images and characterizing them in terms of their risk of mold formation, energy losses, retrofit costs, and retrofit benefits. To identify thermal bridge types that can be detected reliably on aerial thermographic images, we use a dataset collected with a UAV in an urban district of the German city of Karlsruhe. We classify and characterize 14 relevant thermal bridge types for the German building cohorts of the 1950s and 1960s. Concerning the criterion of mold formation, thermal bridges of window components, basement ceiling slabs, balcony slabs, floor slabs, and attics are found to be particularly relevant to retrofit projects. Regarding energy savings, the retrofit of thermal bridges of window sills, window lintels, and attics shows high potential. The retrofit of attics seems to be less attractive, when also taking into account the necessary retrofit costs.

No abstract

No abstract

Thermography for building audits is commonly carried out by means of terrestrial recording processes with static cameras. The implementation of drones to automatically acquire images from various perspectives can speed up and facilitate the procedure but requires higher recording distances, utilizes changing recording angles and has to contend with the effects of movement during image capture. This study investigates the influence of different drone settings on the quality of thermographic images for building audits in comparison to ground-based acquisition. To this end, several buildings are photographically captured via unmanned aerial vehicle and classical terrestrial means to generate a dataset of 968 images in total. These are analyzed and compared according to five quality criteria that are explicitly chosen for this study to establish best-practice rules for thermal image acquisition. We discover that flight speeds of up to 5 m/s have no visible effects on the image quality. The combination of smaller distances (22 m above a building) and a 45° camera angle are found to allow for both the qualitative and quantitative analysis of rooftops as well as a qualitative screening of building façades. Greater distances of 42 m between camera and building may expedite the acquisition procedure for larger-scaled district coverage but cannot be relied upon for thermal analyses beyond qualitative studies.

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.