1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to inspection of buildings, vessels, and structures, particularly to the inspection of exposed exterior components.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Buildings, vessels and structures require periodic inspection of their exposed surfaces at elevated heights for many purposes, including legal transactions, maintenance, regulatory inspections, meteorological events, energy conservation, structural integrity, breach of the surface, failure of components, moisture penetration, and conditions that can lead to moisture penetration or failure.
The methods used for these inspections generally fall into four categories;                a) The use of manned mechanically operated ground-based, cranes, derricks, and lifts.        b) The use of manned mechanically operated roof deck level cranes and lifts.        c) The use of manned window-washing platforms or other suspended platforms (stages) lowered over the side of the building, structure, or vessel.        d) The use of ground-based scaffolding.        
Typically land-based, manned, mechanically operated lifts are limited to heights of about 20 meters or less. Their smaller footprint and mobility account for most observations at these heights. Land, roof, or deck based, cranes, derricks, and the like are useful at greater heights, but due to their footprint, mobility, and regulatory requirements, they have limited acceptance in densely populated areas, or are limited due to physical space restrictions. E.g., in Manhattan, it may not be feasible or practical to move such equipment into position, thereby rendering it unsuitable and unusable. The installation and operation of this type of equipment requires compliance with federal safety standards as well as local permitting and inspection. Due to insurance and regulatory requirements, the tedious nature of the operation, and the necessary manual recording of observations, this type equipment can make the cost of inspections prohibitively expensive.
Window-washing or other suspended platforms (stages) can be used on most types and heights of buildings. In the event of equipment failure, high winds, or other unusual circumstances, such equipment can be dangerous, and has caused the death of numerous people and damage to property. Some regulatory requirements and/or local ordinances may limit the suspension of people over the sides of buildings due in part to conditions leading to past accidents. The installation and operation of this type of suspension equipment requires compliance with federal safety standards [OSHA] as well as local permitting and inspection. Due to insurance and regulatory requirements, the tedious nature of the operation, and the necessary manual recording of observations, the cost of the technique can also become prohibitively expensive.
Scaffolding, while generally an acceptable means of close inspection of the exterior components, is restricted to ground-based structures. It is not applicable to vessels or buildings and structures in which temporary ground-based erection is not feasible or practical. E.g., a bridge over water or roadway cannot be inspected by a scaffold. Moreover, for buildings or structures of considerable height, the problems of erecting such a structure can become considerable, as well as an increasingly risky endeavor. For reasons similar to that of the previously described window-washing type equipment, scaffolding systems are often precluded due to high cost and prohibitive local and federal regulations. Additionally, the transport of the required materials, the securing of the area under the scaffold construction, and the cost of removal of the scaffold can make the operation prohibitively expensive. The installation and operation of this type of equipment requires compliance with federal safety standards as well as local permitting and inspection.
By whatever means used, present techniques are not as cost-effective, safe, and accurate as possible for inspections and the archiving of inspection data. Current approaches to the problem place people over the side of a building, in a potentially precarious situation. There they must record, by various means available such as photography, what they see. Being suspended over the side of a building, possibly as much as 250 meters above the ground, the workers must then somehow relate their position to a specific location on the building. Engineers, building-maintenance professionals, and others interested in the condition of their building often will refuse to take the risks inherent in this type of operation. The actual inspection is left to people who see and report what they see to those making maintenance decisions. Any precise correlation between pictures taken and the actual location on the building which the pictures represent is thus lost.
The present options, based upon current technology, leave no satisfactory alternatives for close vertical observation of a building, a structure, or a vessel's visible components that is safe, cost effective, and useable on all sizes and shapes of buildings, structures and vessels.
It is insufficient to simply hang a camera over the side of a building. Such a device would be a pendulum that would swing wildly with the slightest breeze. A cable, even a few feet in length, would exhibit an irresistible tendency to twist, making accurate recording of a specific position of wall impossible. Even if the gyrations of such a pendulum were controlled, to be of value it still requires a means of correlating the position of the camera and the viewing sight line of the camera with the pictures taken.
Because of the expense, feasibility and practical application, close inspection of buildings, structures or vessels have generally not been done for the purpose of due diligence at time of sale, lease, or insurance issuance/coverage of the building, structure or vessel. This has led to numerous surprises, claims of hidden defects, insurance claims, adjustment to purchase price and other claims/litigation that could be averted, deemed unwarranted or otherwise prevented through the use of the present invention.
Previously, due to costs, feasibility and practical application, buildings, structures and vessels have received only cursory inspections unless an overt problem dictated a failure or significant variance in performance. Typical problems would be a leaking window, a falling piece of debris, or indication of a structural failure necessitating a mandatory close inspection of a building structure or vessel.
With conventional equipment, it would be tedious at best to create an accurate, section by section record of the condition of exterior visible components. Workers, operating from conventional equipment would have a difficult time of not only recording surface conditions, but tracking the exact location of each photograph or video frame.
The prior art is replete with teachings of means and methods of suspending persons and equipment over the sides of buildings, structures, and vessels for purposes of inspection, cleaning, repair or modification of the referenced items. One area of prior art, starting as early as 1887 with U.S. Pat. No. 359,902, to U.S. Pat. No. 6,547,205, teaches a plethora of means to achieve a “bird's eye view” of a large object. Some of the prior-art teachings result in distant views, while those offering a close-up view require manned operations. Generally, those offering a distant view of an object, even with the use of long-distance lenses, result in oblique views that can distort what must be seen to properly inspect the condition of a building. Still other devices achieve aerial views using lifting devices and platform stabilization. None of the prior art devices achieve vertical viewing without on-the-spot human intervention and precise ground references to correlate the data gathered with an exact location being viewed.
Fisher, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,096,922 (Jun. 27, 1978), provides a fixed roof structure that serves to support two or more cables connected to a suspended stage. The fixed structure includes support beams extending beyond the line of the roof, enabling the cables that support the vertically adjustable stage to be suspended from such beams. Fisher's structure is large, expensive to install, and generally requires permits issued by the local building and safety department. Fisher's stage can be used for purposes such as window washing, wall repair, as well as inspection of the structure. In the event of a failure of one or more cables, the stage, and everything located on it can fall to the ground, possibly causing fatal injuries to both workers and pedestrians. Some cities have limited the use of devices such as this, due to accidents leading to death.
Beeche, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,234,055 (Nov. 18, 1980), teaches a more complex device than Fisher, combining the roof suspension capabilities of Fisher with a scaffold. As with Fisher, Beeche's scaffold-stage can be used for work on the structure, as well as inspection. Since the scaffold does not necessarily reach to the ground, and in fact is raised and lowered by a mechanism similar to Fisher's, the possibility of a failure of a cable can lead to the same catastrophic results of a failure of the Fisher stage.
Anderson, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,270,628 (Jun. 2, 1981), teaches another type of elevator support device for raising and lowering a stage, or cage, over the side of a building. If the task is actual repair of a building, such a device can be of great use. However, if the task is to inspect a building, the device involves considerable expense in setup, permitting, inspection, and use. Then there is the possibility of a failure as has occurred several times, leading to injury and property damage.
Powell, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,296,905 (Oct. 27, 1981), teaches an adaptation of previous structures that allows overhangs of buildings. Previous structures are generally presumed to have a straight drop from the roof edge down the side of the building. Powell's device requires inspection of a building's exterior wall by bringing a person, or persons, within proximity to the wall.
Fisher, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,496,027 (Jan. 29, 1985), revisited his prior stage, this time providing a cantilevered structure to improve mobility. As with his previous stage, Fisher did not envision any means of building inspection without placing people in proximity to the building wall to be inspected. Actually, Fisher's stage increases the possibility of failure. If the stage is overloaded with too much weight, i.e. too many people, his cantilevered structure could tip forward, leading to the entire structure falling over the side of the building.
Altman, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,647,422 (Mar. 3, 1987), envisions a need to inspect structures, specifically addressing the inspection of nuclear reactor containment housings. Altman limits his device to specific structures, and he does not envision an all-inclusive means of inspecting the outer surface of surfaces of random shape.
Finley, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,065,838 (Nov. 19, 1991), recognizes the existence of parapet around the roof perimeter of some buildings. He teaches a means of securing a structure to the parapet, the structure then supporting a stage, or scaffold, similar to other devices. While Finley's device may be used for inspection purposes, it is primarily intended for the support of window-washing equipment and the like. Failure would also subject workmen and pedestrian to potential injury.
Woodyard, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,287,944 (Feb. 22, 1994), recognizes, possibly more than any previous patents, the dangers and risks associated with suspending men and equipment over the side of a building. Woodyard teaches a fall restraint and/or fall arrest system. He teaches a preferably permanently installed anchor. Presumably, the Woodyard device can be used as a safety backup in the event primary cables fail. Although seeing the inherent danger of working on a building, Woodyard fails to envision a means of eliminating nearly all of the structure necessary to put men over the side of a building for purposes of inspecting that building.
Baziuk, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,341,898 (Aug. 30, 1994), teaches a foldable boom as a means of supporting a suspended scaffold;
Goto, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,343,979 (Sep. 6, 1994), teaches multiple power winches for lowering and raising a gondola down the side wall of a building;
Cohen, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,713,430 (Feb. 3, 1998), teaches a horizontal beam, raised and lowered along a wall, for treating the exterior walls of a building;
D'Amaddio, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,317,387 (Nov. 13, 2001), describes a remote controlled device, using acoustical sensors to provide positioning information, to place the remote controlled device in a desired position with respect to a ship's hull. D'Amaddio concentrates on the problem of inspecting a ship's hull, and does not envision the need to also closely inspect above-water-line structures.
Another area of prior art encompasses the stabilization of cameras. An example is shown in Carter et al, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,547,205 (Apr. 15, 2003). Carter describes a platform supporting a payload wherein the platform is stabilized against undesired displacement induced by a vehicle's motion. Using gimbals and gyroscopes, Carter protects his payload from shock and vibration. As with numerous other prior devices, Carter relies on “isolation means” to block shock and vibration from reaching his payload. While Carter anticipates these forces which might affect his payload, he fails to consider a force that actually displaces his payload from a desired location, and any means of returning the payload to its appointed location.
Likewise, Lewis, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,160 (Jul. 17, 2001), teaches a stabilized platform for payloads. As with Carter, Lewis seeks to isolate a payload from a shock and vibration source, such as a vehicle. Neither Carter nor Lewis anticipates a need not only to detect an external force on a payload, but a means of counteracting that force to maintain a fixed position in space for the payload. Carter and Lewis are generally concerned with stabilizing a camera so as to provide a steady, clear picture without the effects of vibration, jitter, or tilting. They presume that the “vehicle”—which could include a person holding a camera—will provide the means to correct for displacement of the camera.
Other prior art includes devices and methods to stabilize, or position advantageously a camera or data recording device. Examples include the following;
Steffens, in U.S. Pat. No. 359,902 (Mar. 22, 1887), envisions a camera, elevated by a lifting device (a balloon), and an electrically operated shutter. With Steffens, the art is advanced to permit birds-eye-views of Earth-bound objects. However, Steffens does not envision the accumulation of data from a new vantage point, much less juxtaposing that data with coordinates identifying the exact location on an object of that data.
Another early designer, Fairman, in U.S. Pat. No. 367,610 (Aug. 2, 1887), begins to understand the problems associated with an elevated camera. He describes the difficulties of maintaining position control, and suggests the use of multiple guy wires to stabilize his elevated camera platform. While this may work in limited situations, it cannot provide stabilization under windy or gusty conditions.
Adams, in U.S. Pat. No. 510,759 (Dec. 12, 1893), ingeniously couples a barometric pressure altimeter and a parachute to take a picture at a specified altitude, and then return the camera to Earth relatively safely. These early designers did not have the vision, nor the tools, to take a birds-eye-picture, much less relate that photo to a specific location on an object.
Leavitt et al, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,638,502 (Feb. 1, 1972), teaches a camera stabilization system utilizing a plurality of gyroscopes. While Leavitt achieves his goal, the stabilization of a platform from random movements of the supportive vehicle—he uses heavy, complex mechanical devices, and does not address the issue of positional information relative to the pictures taken by his stabilized camera.
Watson, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,034,759 (Jul. 23, 1991), teaches a similar device to that of Leavitt; a stabilized platform for the purpose of obtaining good quality photographs. Watson, as with Leavitt, envisions a complex mechanical device to achieve stability without having the ability to move, in a desired regimen, in three-dimensional space and coordinate that position in that space with the photos, or data, obtained.
The art advances with Desselle, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,088 (May 12, 1998). Using a blimp as a lifting means, Desselle teaches a means to lift a camera, a means to stabilize the camera, using mechanical devices, and a means to position the camera by means of a remote operator. As with all other art, Desselle does not consider the taking of a photograph or data capture during those times when the platform is in a desired position, and the recordation of that position with the data accumulated.
Most prior art dealing with camera stabilization utilizes gyroscopic methods to hold a platform parallel with the Earth's horizon. While such techniques work to maintain a level surface, they do nothing to ensure the actual location of the platform. To maintain a correlation between data and spatial location, other methods are required.
While the prior art contains many other devices relating to the positioning of a camera relative to a desired target, all that I have found provide an unstable platform, which cannot simultaneously maintain a precise spatial location, while providing coordinates of that location correlated with the data captured at that specific location. Nor has the prior art addressed the problems associated with the close-up inspection of the vertical sides of a tall building, structure or vessel without putting persons or heavy equipment in harm's way.
Insofar as I am aware, heretofore there has not been any way to inspect a vertical component of a building, structure or vessel, through close-up viewing and data capturing, while negating the effects of random movement of the data-capture device, and for the data captured, correlating the data with specific coordinates of the location on the target. Moreover, this must be done without risking people, large equipment, nearby structures or objects, or people and objects directly underneath the viewing operation.