Jump to content

 
Photo

Find best locations to put cameras for dam surveillance

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
barukaah

barukaah

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Canada

Hi all,

Does anybody has any ideas about what would be needed (data, software and
spatial analysis techniques) to determine best locations
to mount cameras for dam surveillance. The surveillance has 2 components to it:

1) ice thickness around the dam (has the potential to destroy the dam's blades)
2) dam safety in general and also people trying to access the dam to steel
copper.

Up until now, camera locations have been determined using an old-fashioned way,
i.e. being on site and doing some visual reconnaissance and deciding on a place
where to mount the devices (monitoring is done remotely through wireless
transmission).

Is there a better/scientific way to approach this, for instance using GIS? Could
DEM derivatives such as Line-of-Sight and Viewshed analysis be useful for this?

Thanks in advance for any idea/help help

#2
David Medeiros

David Medeiros

    Hall of Fame

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redwood City CA
  • Interests:Cartography, wood working, wooden boats, fishing, camping, overland travel, exploring.
  • United States

I would think a view shed analysis could work here but you would probably want to be using the highest resolution data you can get, like lidar.

You might want to create a polygon (or polygons) that represent the area that must be under surveillance by one or more cameras. Then compare those areas with the coverage you get from a variety of observer points for the cameras in the view shed. It's a relatively simple processes. You can enhance this process by bumping the terrain model for vegetation cover. If you have Arc 3d Analyst there are a few more options for determining view sheds and I think you can model buildings and other surface structures as well.

GIS Reference and Instruction Specialist, Stanford Geospatial Center.

 

www.mapbliss.com

 


#3
Earthscientist

Earthscientist

    Contributor

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • No Country Selected

Hi all,

Does anybody has any ideas about what would be needed (data, software and
spatial analysis techniques) to determine best locations
to mount cameras for dam surveillance. The surveillance has 2 components to it:

1) ice thickness around the dam (has the potential to destroy the dam's blades)
2) dam safety in general and also people trying to access the dam to steel
copper.

Up until now, camera locations have been determined using an old-fashioned way,
i.e. being on site and doing some visual reconnaissance and deciding on a place
where to mount the devices (monitoring is done remotely through wireless
transmission).

Is there a better/scientific way to approach this, for instance using GIS? Could
DEM derivatives such as Line-of-Sight and Viewshed analysis be useful for this?

Thanks in advance for any idea/help help


I think there is probably not realistic substitute for doing it the old fashioned way. Yes, using DEMs could guide you to make sure you have maximum coverage and no blindspots. A DEM and GIS would allow you to show the field of view horizontally and vertically, but would take into account things like vegetation and other line-of-sight obstructions. However, unless there is a LiDAR datset for the dam, practically i think you will find it difficult to get a DEM with sufficiently high resolution to make using a DEM feasible and useful.

#4
barukaah

barukaah

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Canada

I would think a view shed analysis could work here but you would probably want to be using the highest resolution data you can get, like lidar.

You might want to create a polygon (or polygons) that represent the area that must be under surveillance by one or more cameras. Then compare those areas with the coverage you get from a variety of observer points for the cameras in the view shed. It's a relatively simple processes. You can enhance this process by bumping the terrain model for vegetation cover. If you have Arc 3d Analyst there are a few more options for determining view sheds and I think you can model buildings and other surface structures as well.


Thanks David. Very much appreciated.

#5
barukaah

barukaah

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Canada

Hi all,

Does anybody has any ideas about what would be needed (data, software and
spatial analysis techniques) to determine best locations
to mount cameras for dam surveillance. The surveillance has 2 components to it:

1) ice thickness around the dam (has the potential to destroy the dam's blades)
2) dam safety in general and also people trying to access the dam to steel
copper.

Up until now, camera locations have been determined using an old-fashioned way,
i.e. being on site and doing some visual reconnaissance and deciding on a place
where to mount the devices (monitoring is done remotely through wireless
transmission).

Is there a better/scientific way to approach this, for instance using GIS? Could
DEM derivatives such as Line-of-Sight and Viewshed analysis be useful for this?

Thanks in advance for any idea/help help


I think there is probably not realistic substitute for doing it the old fashioned way. Yes, using DEMs could guide you to make sure you have maximum coverage and no blindspots. A DEM and GIS would allow you to show the field of view horizontally and vertically, but would take into account things like vegetation and other line-of-sight obstructions. However, unless there is a LiDAR datset for the dam, practically i think you will find it difficult to get a DEM with sufficiently high resolution to make using a DEM feasible and useful.


Earthscientist, Thanksvery much for your perspective on this.

#6
Earthscientist

Earthscientist

    Contributor

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • No Country Selected

Earthscientist, Thanksvery much for your perspective on this.



You are welcome. You did not say where this dam was located. I assumed in my comments that it was in a developed nation, but of course it might not be.

Since i replied earlier, it occurred to me that what you could do if your buget allows, is to acquire a LiDAR dataset of the dam and its surroundings from landbased portable LiDAR device - they come mounted on a tripod usually. Your would need to collect ranging measurements from many points, including the camera sites and the reverse form the dam towards the camera sites. I think this would give you a much better model for your purposes than an airborne LiDAR could. It is a specialist surveying job however.

#7
barukaah

barukaah

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Canada

Earthscientist, Thanksvery much for your perspective on this.



You are welcome. You did not say where this dam was located. I assumed in my comments that it was in a developed nation, but of course it might not be.

Since i replied earlier, it occurred to me that what you could do if your buget allows, is to acquire a LiDAR dataset of the dam and its surroundings from landbased portable LiDAR device - they come mounted on a tripod usually. Your would need to collect ranging measurements from many points, including the camera sites and the reverse form the dam towards the camera sites. I think this would give you a much better model for your purposes than an airborne LiDAR could. It is a specialist surveying job however.


Thanks a bunch again for this alternative approach, seems great. The dam is located in Quebec (Canada) and it's for Hydro Quebec (a public organization in charge of energy matters in our province). Actually several sites require this surveillance, therefore cost come into play here. Is How does the cost of such a landbase portable LiDAR solution compare to that of an airborne one (I am assuming the latter should be more costlier). LiDAR surveys tend to cost a lot in general; is this something affordable?

#8
Earthscientist

Earthscientist

    Contributor

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • No Country Selected

Thanks a bunch again for this alternative approach, seems great. The dam is located in Quebec (Canada) and it's for Hydro Quebec (a public organization in charge of energy matters in our province). Actually several sites require this surveillance, therefore cost come into play here. Is How does the cost of such a landbase portable LiDAR solution compare to that of an airborne one (I am assuming the latter should be more costlier). LiDAR surveys tend to cost a lot in general; is this something affordable?


Landbased LiDAR surveys are technically easier and probably more affordable. Because they are landbased such surveys sense the target in predominantly the vertical plane and produce a profile view of the target so i would think they are better for your needs than an airborne survey, which obviously sees the target in plan view. Since this is hydro Quebec, they may already have such survey capabilities for monitoring ground surface movement of and around dams. Otherwise, I would think they would either be able to purchases such a system and carry out the survey themselves or hire a contractor to do it. I would think in terms of cost of doing the latter you could expect to pay $10K s to $100Ks to have this work done.

#9
barukaah

barukaah

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Canada

Thanks a bunch again for this alternative approach, seems great. The dam is located in Quebec (Canada) and it's for Hydro Quebec (a public organization in charge of energy matters in our province). Actually several sites require this surveillance, therefore cost come into play here. Is How does the cost of such a landbase portable LiDAR solution compare to that of an airborne one (I am assuming the latter should be more costlier). LiDAR surveys tend to cost a lot in general; is this something affordable?


Landbased LiDAR surveys are technically easier and probably more affordable. Because they are landbased such surveys sense the target in predominantly the vertical plane and produce a profile view of the target so i would think they are better for your needs than an airborne survey, which obviously sees the target in plan view. Since this is hydro Quebec, they may already have such survey capabilities for monitoring ground surface movement of and around dams. Otherwise, I would think they would either be able to purchases such a system and carry out the survey themselves or hire a contractor to do it. I would think in terms of cost of doing the latter you could expect to pay $10K s to $100Ks to have this work done.


We'll discuss with Hydro Quebec and see what's their perspective on this. Thanks again for your insights.

#10
barukaah

barukaah

    Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Canada

Thanks a bunch again for this alternative approach, seems great. The dam is located in Quebec (Canada) and it's for Hydro Quebec (a public organization in charge of energy matters in our province). Actually several sites require this surveillance, therefore cost come into play here. Is How does the cost of such a landbase portable LiDAR solution compare to that of an airborne one (I am assuming the latter should be more costlier). LiDAR surveys tend to cost a lot in general; is this something affordable?


Landbased LiDAR surveys are technically easier and probably more affordable. Because they are landbased such surveys sense the target in predominantly the vertical plane and produce a profile view of the target so i would think they are better for your needs than an airborne survey, which obviously sees the target in plan view. Since this is hydro Quebec, they may already have such survey capabilities for monitoring ground surface movement of and around dams. Otherwise, I would think they would either be able to purchases such a system and carry out the survey themselves or hire a contractor to do it. I would think in terms of cost of doing the latter you could expect to pay $10K s to $100Ks to have this work done.


We'll discuss with Hydro Quebec and see what's their perspective on this. Thanks again for your insights.


I was wondering based on your experience and knowledge how would you compare a landbase LiDAR solution with the old-fashion approach in terms of ratio benefit vs cost. I believe that's the only thing that matters for Hydro Quebec and they won't turn their back on a solution that they are convinced have potentially great benefits for them.

Thanks in advance your new perspectives.

Regards.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->