AreaScanIR™ services offer large mosaic infrared and visual imagery mostly used by clients to know the condition of flat and low-slope roofs. AITscan™ thermographers have flown over, or can fly over large areas of cities with high concentrations of commercial roofs. The three services available from AreaScanIR™ are AreaScanIR™ Professional,  AreaScanIR™ Direct, and AreaScanIR™ Premium, explained below.

AreaScanIR™ Professional - For roof consultants, roofers and roofing manufacturers, AreaScanIR™ Professional can be a valuable sales tool. Cold-calling roof owners to allow their roofing professionals a chance to evaluate a roof can be a tough proposition.  But, by using AreaScanIR™ wide-area archived imagery, roofing professionals will be able to know the condition of a given roof with respect to subsurface moisture contamination, making the sales process more targeted.

AreaScanIR™ Direct - For building owners, building managers, property managers, real estate professionals and insurance company underwriters and claims adjusters, AreaScanIR Direct offers the chance to buy just one building or group of buildings that are contained in the AreaScanIR™ archives. AreaScanIR™ Direct delivers contractor pricing directly to anyone interested in a roof in the archives.

AreaScanIR™ Premium - This service is for any entity interested in the roof moisture condition of multiple roofs over a given geographical area. This is not archived imagery, but new imagery that is flown and then post-processed in a stepped approach. This imagery is the highest resolution available. In the first phase, areas or specific sets of building roofs are selected and flown and then partially post-processed to show the status of the individual roofs. In the second phase, building roofs with problems only are completely analyzed saving the buyer from the expense of post-processing dry roofs.

“We have been collecting infrared and visual imagery for years. AreaScanIR™ provides clients the opportunity to purchase imagery that we have archived,” states Greg Stockton, founder and President of SITS.  “The new website makes the purchase process simple and concise, outlines the potential uses, and lists the geographical areas which imagery as already been obtained.” he concludes.

To visit the newly re-designed website, please visit: www.areascanir.com. To see available archived areas, please visit: http://www.areascanir.com/archived_imagery.html.

To learn more about Infrared Thermography and Stockton Infrared Thermography Services, please call 800-248-7226 and visit: www.stocktoninfrared.com.

Gregory R. Stockton & Gillem Lucas, P.E.
RecoverIR Inc., 1580 Millpond Land, Lincoln, CA 95648

ABSTRACT

Natural gas and electric utility companies, public utility commissions, consumer advocacy groups, city governments, state governments and the federal government United States continue to turn a blind eye towards utility energy theft of service which we conservatively estimate is in excess of $10 billion a year. Why? Many in the United States have exhausted their unemployment benefits. The amounts for federal funding for low income heating assistance programs (LIHEAP) funds were cut by nearly 40% for 2012 to $3.02 billion. “At peak funding ($5.1 billion in 2009), the program was national in scale but still only had enough resources to support roughly 1/4 of the eligible households. ” Contributions to charities are down and the number of families below the poverty line who are unable to pay to heat their houses continues to rise. Many of the less fortunate in our society now consider theft and fraud to be an attractive option for their supply of natural gas and/or electricity. A record high mild winter in 2011-2012 coupled with 10-year low natural gas prices temporarily obscured the need for low income heating assistance programs (LIHEAPs) from the news and federal budgets, but cold winters will return.

The proliferation of smart meters and automated meter infrastructures across our nation can do little to detect energy theft because the thieves can simply by-pass the meters, jumper around the meters and/or steal meters from abandoned houses and use them. Many utility systems were never set-up to stop these types of theft. Even with low-cost per identified thief method using aerial infrared thermography, utilities continue to ignore theft detection.

Keywords: Infrared, Thermal Imaging, Thermography, Aerial Infrared, Gas Thieves, Electricity Thieves, Energy Thieves, Thermal Analysis, Repeat Offenders

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper will define the problem and present successful techniques for finding energy theft using aerial infrared thermography, analysis and discuss the social issues involved. These techniques can be used successfully to find and stop theft, but only when the stakeholders across America are willing to admit the problem exits and stops passing the cost of theft on to the bill-paying public.

2. ENERGY THEFT EXCEEDS UTILITY ESTIMATES

2.1 Experience
In January of 2008, we received a telephone call from an executive of a major Midwest US gas and electric utility to ask us if we could create a methodology for using infrared technology to detect natural gas energy theft. The company had purchased 25 handheld cameras and created a ground vehicle-based energy theft program that had failed miserably. The area was large –approximately 130 square miles, and after we submitted a proposal and some internal discussions took place, the company decided that even though we were very confident that we could produce the desired results, they were not so confident. They wanted to try a sample. The decision was made to have us fly and post-process one area, and after doing the investigations, they would decide whether or not to proceed with the entire project the next winter. This is known as a “Pilot Study”, and we picked out about seven square miles to study. We developed an aerial infrared survey protocol, gathered information from the client, flew over the area in April 2008, post-processed the data and sent the results to the company. The results (See Figure 1) were surprising to everyone. The utility had suspected quite a bit of theft, but after full investigations to verify our results, the utility found that of the ~15,000 buildings (mostly homes) in the study area, over 1700 were being heated without an active electric or natural gas account with the company. That meant 11% theft. We had proven that our method worked and very well!

Figure 1. Map & Table with results of the small pilot study – April 2008

In February of 2009, we executed a follow-on contract for analyzing 130 square miles and producing addresses of suspected thieves. Using what we learned from the pilot study, we developed a modified aerial infrared survey protocol and directed assessments of more than 248,000 homes (See Figure 2). We found 19.5% of the homes were potentially stealing natural gas and 94% of those were stealing the electricity as well. Depending on how the accounting was done, the theft of energy amounted to $75.5 million of lost revenue to the utility (See Table 1), with potentially $100’s million potential savings among their other 2.7 million customers. The utility was faced with verifying many potential energy thieves with a very small budget and a small number of scouts, investigators and technicians to cut the services.

Figure 2. Map & Table with results of the large IR survey – March 2009

Table 1. Breakdown of potential savings to the utility from the large IR survey – March 2009

2.2 Why detecting theft so hard without aerial IR surveys and post analysis
Searching house-by-house on the ground to look for thieves is an extraordinarily difficult, costly and dangerous proposition. Many utility companies have a revenue protection department with utility scouts and investigators who are perfectly capable of finding a building that is illegally hooked up to the utility. But how many of us (or them) would like to go into a low-income neighborhood and poke around the houses? Many of the neighborhoods where we found the highest rates of theft were occupied by people with guns and vicious dogs. Unsafe neighborhoods with gangs, thugs, criminals, drug dealers & dogs make the job of finding energy thieves very hard. Also, the location of the meter in older urban areas is often not easily accessible (See Figure 3). The typical person sent out to find natural gas thieves might find it much easier to simply drive their car down bad streets and never get out…that’s the reality.

Figure 3. Pie chart with typical locations of utility meters

3. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES

3.1 Methodology and Conditions
The methodology for flying the areas of suspect thieves is similar to that of aerial photography with some very important differences. First, the thermo-dynamic characteristics of the subjects of the IR survey and the ambient conditions prior and during the survey must be considered always. Optimum thermal conditions and methodologies for finding energy thieves and just about every type of aerial IR surveying are different –some dramatically different. For example, there are different conditions required for surveying buildings for heat loss, building roofs to find the entrained subsurface moisture in the flat and low-sloped roofing systems, steam distribution systems, high, medium and low-temperature hot water systems, chilled water systems, supply water lines, storm water drainage systems, septic tanks, sewer lines, temperature mapping of oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and ponds, fresh water springs, groundwater seeps, structure and forest fires, subsurface fires such as landfill, coal and tire fires, counting animals, etc.

3.2 Conditions Required
Conditions for finding gas thieves are similar to that of finding heat loss in a building from the outside. The optimum conditions are very cold ambient temperatures, dry building surfaces, clear skies and low winds, surveyed at night between 9PM or ~4 hours after sunset to diminish the effects of the sun’s energy absorbed into the building materials –to about an hour before dawn. If the temperatures are low, the gas heater and hot water heater vents will be hot, which is a very good indication that someone lives at that address and the house is heated.

3.3 Ortho-rectified Mapping
In order to produce ortho-rectified thermal maps, much information must be gathered and tagged to the IR imagery. During the flight, the aircraft flies straight, smooth lines on a pre-planned grid, allowing 25% side overlap of the imagery. The IR operator manages the sensor data-acquisition following a structured checklist for orderly data file management. The imagery must be collected with a precise direct-digital timing system, a 3-axis ring-laser-gyro and an inertial navigation system (INS), which is tightly-coupled to a real-time differential GPS satellite positioning system that provides x, y, z positioning of the aircraft at all times. After imagery is collected and QC is verified, the digital infrared imagery is then processed into a series of ortho-rectified image tiles, which are stitched together to create a giant mosaic image. An on-board computer system puts all this information together using a digital elevation model (DEM) of the scene that consists of a uniform grid of point elevation values and the position and orientation of the camera with respect to a three-dimensional coordinate system. The result is presented as a high-resolution IR image in the form of a geo-TIFF, which is compatible with any GIS software.

3.4 Post-Processing
Once high quality digital thermal and photographic ortho-rectified maps are created, these can be added as layers to existing CAD and GIS systems and to other data sets. By post-processing the imagery and using algorithms to highlight areas of excess heat, the area is analyzed (See Figure 4). Then human beings look at the IR, visual, and customer shape (SHP) files to determine whether the house should be flagged as a suspect thief. We do not need the utility’s customer records to determine whether the house is producing heat and looks occupied, but if we have these records, we determine if the houses usage matches the neighbors and the amount of heat and thermal activity that we see. If all appears normal, that address is removed from the suspect list. The deliverable is a SHP file and a spreadsheet with the address of the suspect thieves marked on the ortho-rectified map.

Figure 4. Grayscale and false color IR imagery

4. DEREGULATION HAS VIRTUALLY ELIMINATED THE DESIRES FOR ENERGY UTILITIES TO FIND ENERGY THIEVES

As long as the bill-paying customers continue to pay for energy stolen by the thieves, why would a utility want to:
• Deal with the appearance of the utility being the big corporation monopoly “big brother” with airplanes catching the poor people stealing, and endure the wrath of bad press from politicians on the left and all those that hate big corporations anyway.
• Have to spend a bunch of money to disconnect the thieves only to have them hook themselves back up again. This would mean that the utility would have to figure out a reasonable way to permanently curtail the energy theft, once detected. Recidivism (repeat offenders) is very high among utility thieves and even though utilities might accurately detect the location of thieves, within a few weeks or even days after the utility shuts off the illegal supply, the thieves are hooked up again, even if the laws in that state make it a felony.
• Spend attorney time prosecuting the poor, since there is little chance of recovering even the attorney’s fees, much less a settlement.
• Possibly have one of their employees shot while disconnecting stolen utility services.

Under deregulation, utilities have primarily divested themselves of assets and become bill-takers and distribution system maintenance companies. All utility rates have to be justified by public utility commissions (PUCs) and the general public has to feel that they are receiving services which are of some value from the utilities. Natural gas local distribution companies (LDCs) and electric utilities must go to the state PUCs to have their rate structure approved, and it is only natural that they seek to extract the maximum profit while minimizing their costs and maximizing their allowable rates. Typically, neither the utilities nor the bill paying general public knows the full extent of their theft problem.

Utilities have two primary sources of funding which directly or indirectly affect the bottom line of each utility:
1. Utilities receive funding from the rates they are allowed to charge and the total revenue coming into a utility is simply the number of customers they serve times the amount that they are able to charge each customer.
2. Utilities sometimes receive funding from federal and state sources for certain types of programs, such as weatherization, building energy efficiency, or other special programs which might have lifetimes from a few years to many years.

If under any circumstances the utility is unable to charge for services rendered either due to losses, theft, or inefficient rate plans (no matter what the source of the shortfall) the utility would realize lower profitability, unless they are allowed to essentially include a surcharge to the bill-paying customers to cover the losses, including theft.

Utilities essentially have three taskmasters:
(a) Keeping their consumer base happy and well-supplied with whatever form of energy their utility distributes,
(b) Managing the utility well enough so that utility can continue to receive and distribute energy and make enough profit so that utility can provide a reasonable rate of return on average to its shareholders, and,
(c) Managing the energy distribution in a safe enough manner to prevent damage to public property, injury, or loss of life.

If the utility violates any one of these three major requirements, then the utility can count on someone taking corrective action to adjust how the utility is managed and in some cases may even replace some of the managers in the utility.

5. DEFINING THE CHALLENGES WITH UTILITIES

5.1 Accounting for lost energy
Taking a natural gas utility for example, there are three ways to lose gas:
• Gas Leaks – Leakage of gas in pipelines and distribution systems before the gas gets to the customer’s meter.
• Accounting Errors – Such as not accounting for the company’s buildings use, making mistakes in the accounting process, maladjusted metering devices on the system, or bad meters on customer’s building, etc.
• Theft of Service – People purposely stealing the gas from the LDC.
If a natural gas utility really wants to account for all the gas it takes from the supplier it can be accomplished with some difficulty. Leaks are the largest challenge and the unknown. Leaks below the ground are very hard to detect because obviously, they are under the ground, and because of the sheer size of most systems. Leakage above the ground has been made easier to detect with the introduction of gas-finding infrared cameras, which work when sunlight is absorbed at specific wavelengths, but again there is a lot of area to cover on the ground and the sun has to be shining on it. Accounting errors may be audited and found. We have proven that almost all the theft can be found, even by-pass theft in wealthy neighborhoods and in commercial buildings. So the wild card, leakage, can be accounted for and closely estimated if the other two factors are diligently accounted for. Substitute “gas leaks” for “line loss” in the above paragraph and “line loss” can also be closely estimated for the electric utilities.

5.2 Utility companies are not spending significant time or money to lower energy theft rates.
We attended several annual meetings of IRUPA (International Utilities Revenue Protection Association) and were amazed to find that: a) only a few of the utilities had representatives there, b) most have a tiny staff and a tiny budget proportional to the size of the services areas and number of customers, c) most of the presentations were not really about how to stop theft. After our super-successful projects of 2008 and 2009, we talked with more than 15 major Northeastern and Midwestern utilities who serve major cities. None have a similar program and none have expressed any interest in finding the thieves en masse, even though we have the proof that our method works. We have even offered to do all the work on speculation, being paid only when and if we find verified thieves…but no takers. Why don’t the utilities fund their own revenue protection departments?

Even the client that we did the work for originally –who obviously knows that this technique works extremely well, has never asked us to survey the other 90% of their service area. Our company has made some remarkable breakthroughs in the area of aerial infrared technology, thermal mapping and finding energy thieves, but it appears that we have built a better mouse trap, only to find that nobody wants to kill the mice. We would like to put our proven technology to work, especially in cities where statistically we can make the biggest impact, but the utilities that we have contacted do not want to find the thieves. The reason is that since the deregulation of utilities, the LDCs have little incentive to find and prosecute theft!

5.3 Who else has skin in the game?
Utility companies, public utility commissions, consumer advocacy groups, city governments, state governments, the federal government and the general public all have an investment in the utility business and stopping theft. So where are the consumer advocates? Maybe this paper will have a positive impact.

This is really a social issue. While some might think that the detection of energy theft is important and should be stopped, our society is too soft-hearted to viciously shut off the energy to older people unable to pay their bills, single mothers with many children who might freeze to death, and others in the category of the less fortunate among our society. Perhaps the answer is to find these people and re-categorize them as poor thieves even though they are thieves, remembering that some thieves actually steal for sport. As more and more immigrants enter the USA legally and illegally from countries that have much higher accepted rates of energy theft, we should expect energy theft rates to continue to rise.

6. THE ANSWER IS TO PROVIDE ENERGY THEFT INFORMATION AS A BY-PRODUCT OF BUILDING WEATHERIZATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

We might ask ourselves, if the utilities are unwilling to take action to recover billions of dollars in stolen energy in the United States, can aerial infrared assessments be used in another way to reduce energy theft and is there a way to more efficiently spread funding of low income heating assistance programs and reduce energy theft?

From time to time, the federal government and state governments have provided a variety of different types of funding to help commercial, industrial, institutional and residential building owners understand the energy inefficiency of their buildings. The effectiveness and efficiency of spending money to improve the energy efficiency of buildings has been inefficient with very low returns relative to the funding expended. For example in 2009 the average amount of money spent by the federal government to weatherize homes was in excess of $13,000 per home when it is highly likely that many of these homes were worth far less than $100,000 and the monies expended by the federal government will not achieve a return on investment within 30 years. Worse case scenarios in states such as New Jersey and New York have average 100-year paybacks. Our national mortgage crises and foreclosure crises may have resulted in some of these low income homes actually be torn down before the federal government was able to realize a positive rate of return on funding invested. The U.S. Department of Energy has reported residences heated under Low Income Heating Assistance Programs (LIHEAP) tend to use 30% more energy than those of bill-paying customers. If you don’t have to pay your bill, who cares if a window or door is left open? Are the thieves who did not apply for funding any more efficient with energy while they are stealing it?

By adjusting the technology that we used to detect the energy thieves in 2008 and 2009, we are confident that utilities and governments can more efficiently deploy the funding for weatherization, energy efficiency, and low income heating assistance programs. By using these techniques, weatherization and efficiency funds the government will be freeing-up funds for other purposes, which will help stretch LIHEAP funds and will help utilities and cities at least quantify the magnitude of the energy theft problems and importantly re-classify the thieves (some of them) as the poor. We can use the aerial infrared assessment capabilities to fly over cities and segment both commercial and residential structures into categories, like:
1) those structures which have residents who are stealing the energy,
2) those structures which will most likely benefit most from weatherization funding,
3) those structures which might benefit from weatherization funding, and,
4) those structures which will most likely not benefit very much from any weatherization funding.

7. CONCLUSIONS

By using aerial infrared thermography and applying what building scientists have learned about building thermo-dynamics, we are confident that energy waste can be greatly reduced.

While there are serious technical challenges to correlating thermal energy data gathered from the outside of any building, especially from infrared imagery straight down from above a building, there are correlations that can be made that will have much value. Properly correlated, there is tremendous potential value for an Internet site for each city where the general public and the government could actually look at infrared images of buildings, a “Google Earth of Infrared”, especially if the free availability of these images might drive building owners, utilities, and governments to do something…anything, to save energy. It will be well worth the relative small investment it took to create the imagery and display it.

8. BIOGRAPHIES

*Gregory R. Stockton, CIT.
greg@recoverir.com, 336-689-3658, www.recoverir.com
Gregory R. Stockton is a principal in three infrared companies; Stockton Infrared Thermographic Services, Inc., United Infrared, Inc. and RecoverIR, Inc. Greg is a certified infrared thermographer with thirty years of experience in the construction industry, specializing in maintenance and energy-related technologies.

**R. Gillem Lucas, P.E.
rglucas@recoverir.com, 916-543-1364, www.recoverir.com
R. Gillem Lucas has more than 30 years of successful high technology and energy commercialization experience, an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, an expert witness to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and is a well-versed professional engineer (P.E.), especially in energy-related topics.

REFERENCES

i http://www.liheap.org/
i i http://www.liheap.org/

By: Gregory R. Stockton
ElectricIR.com

ABSTRACT

Eleven years ago, the author published “NOT the low hanging fruit of Infrared Thermography”, a paper discussing why thermographers should explore the many upcoming applications for infrared thermography (IRt) – other than the electrical application. Since then, many changes have occurred in the world of infrared (IR) and in electrical infrared, most of them good for thermography. Even though every application is on the rise, switchgear IR testing remains the most popular infrared application and its use is growing faster than all others.

This paper discusses the development of the technology, market forces, safety and risk management considerations, insurance industry forces, government regulations and the future of electrical infrared.

INTRODUCTION

Today’s infrared thermographer has many opportunities. Just about anything can be imaged and successfully analyzed using infrared thermography as long as the thermographer has the right equipment, knows how to use it, and can figure out how to analyze it. It seems the only real limitation is the thermographer’s imagination, and their ability to get someone who needs the information, to pay for it.

The popularity of a given application is tied to individual markets by:
• the point of development of IR technology at that time,
• the amount and quality of recent advertising a particular application has received,
• the perceived need of that particular application at that moment, and
• the relative cost of doing the survey vs. ROI (return on investment).

All applications of IR thermography have gained popularity over the past thirty years and continue to become more popular, now at an exponential rate.

As each class of IR cameras reach a new lower benchmark price point, new sets of markets open. This has had a big impact on the electrical infrared testing market, along with every other application. The main reason is competition between manufacturers and because of manufacturing, technical and marketing economies of scale. The thermal imaging industry is experiencing tremendous growth. The camera manufacturers are now producing thousands and thousands of cameras, creating commodity pricing. Again, as the price drops, more new markets open, the cameras become cheaper to make, and the price drops.
WHY AND HOW WE DO WHAT WE DO

By now, almost everyone in facilities management knows that infrared surveys of electrical switchgear are absolutely an integral part of every preventive maintenance (PM) and predictive maintenance (PdM) program in every facility. As infrared thermographers, our purpose is to reduce our client’s business loss risk by reducing the risk of premature failure of electro-mechanical components. These failures create a danger to people, cause the loss of equipment and result in downtime of the operation of the facility. With respect to electrical equipment, the reason for performing an infrared survey is to find electrical faults before they fail, hence it is predictive maintenance. Faults need to be found in their nascent stage, before damage has occurred and especially before component failure, so that maintenance personnel can repair them.

The infrared technique is predicated on the fact that:
a) There is locked relationship between temperature [rise] and resistance in electrical components and between temperature [rise] and friction in mechanical components, etc., and
b) Infrared thermography can accurately detect heat and heat patterns on the surfaces of these components.

Common reasons given for performing infrared surveys of electrical switchgear:
• reduce downtime from electrical failures
• increase electrical and mechanical equipment service life
• comply with insurance requirements and government regulations
• lower maintenance and repair costs
• prevent catastrophic failures
• lower risks from arc flash

MARKET FORCES, CAMERA SALES AND PROPER TRAINING

With the better quality and cheaper prices of modern infrared cameras, software and computers, infrared thermographers of today are almost never limited by the equipment costs, or their ability to measure temperatures or discern differences in temperature. Rather, they are limited by their knowledge of how hot the object that they are surveying should be, what to report (and what not to report) as a fault, and how to rate the finding. Just about anyone can turn on an imager and shoot a picture of a piece of switchgear. Knowing what conditions are important, when to perform the survey, how to evaluate imagery and what to report and not to report, is not all that easy. Then there is the issue of accurately measuring temperatures. This is why professional thermographers save companies millions of dollars.

This is also where market forces, camera sales and proper training come into play. Infrared camera salespersons have an obvious incentive to make the sale. Once they get past justifying the initial cost of the camera, the sales objections become: a) the ease of camera and software operation, b) the cost of training, and c) the cost of time allocation for surveying and reporting. Especially with respect to the under $10k class, these cameras are exceedingly easy to operate. With a quick on-line webinar, one-hour demonstration and a couple of 8-hour practice sessions, the function of all of the buttons is mastered. The rudimentary image processing and reporting software is also pretty easy to learn as well…those objections are quickly overcome.

I am only referring to electrical scanning here, not all the other applications and not even mechanical scanning.

The tough objection to handle is “how long will it take, how many mistakes will it take, and how much will it cost, before the thermographer gets up to speed?” This is a painful question for the potential buyer, because it goes to the heart of the sale – “should we do infrared on our own or should we sub it out to a professional thermographer?” Recent market forces have changed things.

Prices for IR cameras have dropped to a point where the professional IR camera salespersons can hardly afford to make these low-dollar sales calls. Since visiting the site and looking over the operation, reviewing all the aspects of which type of camera, which model, which features would the best, how the camera will be used, etc., and making customized recommendations to the facilities management, takes more time than it is worth – especially if the potential client could then just go on-line and buy the camera from a web site. Most of the people who now sell these cameras (distributors / retailers) are selling them as a commodity, at commodity prices. So naturally, the sale has become about price, and salesperson’s proclivity is to downplay the issues of competency, the true cost of setting up an infrared PdM program and all the questions above with respect to the camera fit. The fact is that infrared thermography requires professional advice at all levels. The trade-off is price for advice.

To go in-house or contract it out, that is the question. It is no longer an issue of expensing the camera, or even the price of a couple of week-long certification training classes and the time away from other tasks. The issue is the getting up to speed and not making too many expensive mistakes during the learning process. Success in IRt is not about the camera, it is about the quality of training and level of experience of the person behind the camera. A good rule of thumb is if a company plans to do less than twenty days a year of electrical infrared thermography, it makes no sense to have an in-house program, even if they are given an infrared camera for free. Even if the camera is used twenty-plus days a year on electrical gear, it is not worth the investment if it is only used for that one purpose. Why go through the steep learning curve if the potential thermographers will not be doing other applications in the facility? Electrical and mechanical troubleshooting should be the #2 use, after regular surveys. Next, all the other uses should be considered, like finding water leaks and heat loss, mapping moisture in building roofs, improving manufacturing processes and product R&D. If the camera is only going to be used for one month a year (30 days), that means it will sit in a box, waiting to be lost, broken or stolen, for 11 months.

Many times a company requires or prefers a third party do the work, but after multiple days, for most operations, it starts to make sense for a company to get into IR itself. So once a company has made up its mind to go with an in-house program and made a camera purchase, the hard part begins. Making the costly mistakes of under-reporting and over-reporting can be minimized by hiring a professional thermographer to go with the electrician for a couple of weeks at the beginning and being available for expert consultation.

A good candidate will have knowledge of the objects that are going to be examined, good computer skills and the willingness to learn thermodynamics and physics. Obviously, an electrician that understands electrical switchgear is a leg up to becoming an electrical infrared thermographer. The best thermographer candidate is intrigued with the technology, someone who is a self-starter, one who likes to discover new techniques, explore where nobody has been and is not scared to be wrong. This is 20+ years of training thermographers writing this…if you give an infrared camera to an undertrained, timid or uninterested person, you will be looking for someone else in less than 90 days.

Figure 1) Photograph and thermograph of a plant substation incoming feed.
OF SAFETY AND GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

All exposed electrical circuitry in all buildings must be in an enclosure of some type and since infrared imagery shows surface temperatures and only surface temperatures, all electrical panel covers must be removed to be successfully surveyed. If the panel cover cannot be removed while energized, the manufacturer will have designed it that way. For those panels, IR windows are a great option as they allow for safe viewing of electrical switchgear through a port that is mostly transparent in thermal infrared wavebands. If the panel cover can be removed while energized, proper personal protective equipment (PPE) must be used. In most areas of the US, NFPA 70 is the Electrical Code. NFPA 70B is the recommended practice for electrical equipment maintenance (infrared is recommended). NFPA 70E is the standard for electrical safety in the workplace. These are all written and sold by the National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 70E has been adopted by OSHA and we believe the insurance industry will follow. By and large, the corporations (at least officially) have adopted the NFPA documents, even if it is not required by every municipality or followed religiously in the real world. But, ultimately, the building owner is responsible for safety in their own facilities. These changes over the past ten years are all good for infrared thermography and mean more scanning than ever will be taking place moving forward.

How much money does infrared surveying save the typical operation? It varies wildly by building design, building use, maintenance practices, etc. The true ROI of performing infrared surveying, as compared to the cost of other maintenance has been impossible for me to find all these years. Also, data on how many people are hurt or killed each year while performing IR surveys, how many thermographers are following NFPA 70E to the letter, or how many people are killed by following NFPA 70E…all remain mysteries. There is little hard data available on how much money has been saved by building owners doing IR, although there has been no shortage of case studies presented over the years by thermographers. Where these case studies are great for marketing purposes, they have little actuarial value.

Now, following accepted practices:
• In order to perform an IR survey, the panels have to be marked with a rating letting the thermographer know what PPE is required at a given distance.
• In order to know the rating, an arc flash survey has had to have taken place.
• In order to do an arc flash survey, one-line diagrams need to be updated.
• In order get accurate one-line diagrams, an electrical engineering study needs to be completed.

As one could imagine from the above, some managers have chosen not to perform arc flash or IR surveys because if they have no updated one-lines and if it is going to cost thousands of dollars to get their paperwork together…it becomes easier not to do it. But is that less risky? Almost all operations are somewhere in the middle between compliance and non-compliance and the number of infrared surveys of electrical switchgear continues on an upward trend line. Since reducing risk is becoming a corporate priority, facility managers are actually willing to pay more to do a proper infrared job and do it safely. Where the average price of an average infrared survey has gone down somewhat over the past ten years, pricing for high quality electrical surveys has remained the same.
RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Insurance companies are requiring more infrared testing every day. In fact, it is hard to find a building larger than 100,000 square feet that is not supposed to receive an electrical infrared survey at least once every three years. They must know the numbers referred to above, even if they are not sharing. They ought to know, since [other than managing investments] managing risk is the business of every insurance company. The Property & Casualty and Boiler & Machinery carriers are the most interested in predictive maintenance and minimizing loss of facilities and equipment. Some have even created their own infrared groups to perform the surveys of their insured operations and facilities. Contrary to what some maintenance personnel think, these surveys are not “free” from the insurance company… nothing is free. The costs are passed on the insured, but it is still good because the IR survey will reduce losses, saving the insurance company and the businesses money. In corporations, the power/influence pendulum has swung over the last ten years, in favor of the risk managers by result of the fine work of many attorneys. Implementing risk management has high costs, but based on the reduction in liability that they now enjoy, the companies are willing to pay for it.

THE FUTURE OF TEMPERATURE MONITORING OF ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR

My prediction is that infrared testing of electrical switchgear will be around for a very long time, but there are much safer and much better ways for electrical switchgear to be monitored for temperatures than having an electrician open a panel and a thermographer look at it and analyze it.

Eventually all monitoring of electrical switchgear will be done remotely and automatically, without human danger, subjectivity and error. I see a time in the not so distant future (~20 years) when all critical electrical equipment will have within its bowels, a tiny remote high resolution thermal imager monitoring each pixel’s temperature. The manufacturers will install the thermal imager along with other monitoring devices, first as an option, then as standard equipment. The switchgear and its individual components will have their own IP address, sending steaming data about its physical condition 24/7/365 to a computer with an algorithm to alert facilities management of impending failure, eventually predicting when temperature, load and ambient conditions warrant corrective action, which action should be taken, and when.

But for now, we have two ways that will take us forward to the ultimate automatic infrared thermography device of the future:
1) Infrared viewports, or IR windows, which are installed on panel enclosures, adjacent to internal components, allowing the thermographer to safely see into the switchgear – a good example being “IRISS Windows”, developed by IRISS, Inc. (www.iriss.com).
2) Self-contained temperature monitoring sensors, which are attached to electrical enclosures, measuring the difference in temperature between the internal temperature and ambient temperature – a good example being “Delta T Alert”, developed by Delta T Engineering, LLC. (www.deltatengineering.com).

CONCLUSIONS

Thermographic electrical switchgear testing is still the “low-hanging fruit” of IRt, as popular as ever, growing in use as the technology becomes more of a commodity, with commodity pricing of the cameras and eventually the service. The short-term challenge mainly comes from safety protocols. Other applications of IRt do not, and will not compete with electrical switchgear infrared testing, instead, by association make it more popular, until the technology becomes so well-developed that thermography of electromechanical devices is done primarily by artificial intelligence.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Gregory R. Stockton has been performing electrical IR surveys for over twenty-two years. He is one of the technical directors for ElectricIR.com, an international network of electrical infrared thermographers. He is a principal in three infrared companies; Stockton Infrared Thermographic Services, Inc. (www.StocktonInfrared.com), United Infrared, Inc. (www.UnitedInfrared.com) and RecoverIR, Inc. (www.RecoverIR.com). He is a Certified Level III Infrared Thermographer with thirty years of experience in the construction industry, specializing in maintenance and energy-related technologies. Greg has published many technical papers on the subject of infrared thermography and numerous articles about applications for infrared thermography in trade publications. He is a member of SPIE (the international society of optics and photonics), a member of the Thermosense Program Committee, past Chairman of the Buildings & Infrastructures Session and Co-Chairman of Thermosense, at the Defense, Security and Sensing Symposium.

The first conference was held in 1978.  As an industry leader and innovator of infrared applications, Greg Stockton has been a vital part of the Conference for many years and has served on the Program Committtee as well as Chairman of various conference sessions.

Mr. Stockton was appointed as Chairman of 2012-2013 Conference, ThermoSense XXXV, to be held April 29th – May3rd, 2013 in Baltimore, MD.  ThermoSense is part of the Defense Security and Sensing Symposium of SPIE (International Society for Optics and Photonics).

For more information on ThermoSense XXXV, please visit www.thermosense.org and for more information on SPIE, please visit www.spie.org.

Check out our cool imagery used by PBS in the filming of the Energy Nation Episode of the PBS Series America Revealed.

Larry Davis, an associate of Stockton Infrared Thermographic Service’s Aerial Infrared Division, AITscan™, flew with  Yul Kwon, the series host to film a segment, “Wasting Energy”  of the Electric Nation episode.

Flying over Cleveland, Ohio, using a thermo-imaging camera mounted on the bottom of his plane, the PBS episode demonstrated how using infrared imagery, Larry was to analyze how much energy is wasted from our homes and businesses. In the episode, Yul joined Larry on his flight over Cleveland and discovered just how much energy we waste.  Older buildings that are less energy efficient, new properties that are larger and require more energy to heat, industrial sites – these all glow red when viewed through a thermo-imaging camera.

The episode aired on PBS and is available for viewing on-line at the following link location:  http://video.pbs.org/video/2226356267.  To learn more about the PBS Series, please visit www.pbs.org/america-revealed.

ABSTRACT

While an enormous amount of infrared techniques to look at building efficiency have been developed in the past, recent new testing combining aerial infrared surveys, handheld infrared measurements, pressurization and computational analyses have been developed, with some surprising results. These testing protocols and the results now point the way to suggested changes in the construction of “Big Box” buildings, the repair and weatherization of existing commercial buildings, and a methodology for prioritizing optimal solutions, based upon the net present value of any efforts for improvement relative to projected energy costs.

Keywords: Infrared, Thermography, Air Barrier, Blower Door, Big Box Buildings, Energy Efficiency

INTRODUCTION

This paper will explore large big box commercial retail building design flaws and construction defects. These buildings of between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet typically have slab floors, flat or low-sloped roofs and 20’-30’ high walls. These buildings look like big boxes, hence the name. Design and construction, HVAC and lighting issues will be discussed, but no attempt to address energy usage issues such as water heating, refrigeration, computers and office equipment, or other energy uses in these buildings.

For more than 50 years, companies have developed or tried to develop techniques to lower the energy costs for operating these buildings by trying to understand where the energy is lost, where energy is consumed, the best ways to minimize the use of energy, the relative costs for the reduction of energy, and various financial measures to evaluate optimal solution alternatives. Table 1 shows a representative display of information from the U.S. EIA’s most recently published Commercial Building Energy Consumption 2003 Survey (the 2007 Survey has still not been published).

Table 1) US EIA’s 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (1)

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

As world energy prices continue to fluctuate along an upward trend line, owners of buildings, property managers, state and federal agencies, commercial real estate brokers, among others, are being driven to require more energy efficient buildings, continuous energy improvement programs, financial analysis of energy efficiency, and periodic verification of building operational performance. For example, Table 2 shows the impact of various numbers of air changes per hour which building operators might find important. Monthly space heating costs are shown for an outside temperature of 40°F with an inside temperature of 68°F and a relative humidity of 60% for a 100,000 square foot building with an average wall height of 30 feet.

There needs to be a cost-effective way to holistically verify energy certifications and financially prioritize corrective actions if the energy consumption of the building is less than optimal. Building certifications are not the answer as they often do not include commissioning of the building at all. Case in point: we surveyed a government-funded LEED certified building which should have produced no more than 3 ACH (air changes per hour)…it produced 13 ACH. Missing, misplaced and wet insulation, huge air leaks in building walls and roofs are not only commonly found – they are typical of big box stores and most buildings.

The problem is significant!

Table 2. Cost of heating a big box retail store as compared to air changes per hour.

QUALITATIVE V. QUANTITATIVE

Many professional infrared thermographers are skilled in conducting blower door tests and infrared imaging of the walls, ceilings, windows, and doorways of residential buildings from the outside and the inside of these buildings. However, commercial, industrial and institutional buildings are much more difficult to survey. The size and complexity of larger buildings make it especially difficult to qualify heat loss and air leakage, much less quantify it.

Infrared surveying of the outside of large buildings will sometimes yield usable results and point the thermographer to problem areas on the inside, but often the façade [or surface] of the outside of the building is decoupled from the heat loss and air leakage of the building, either by air gaps between the façade and the building, by ventilation, by insulation or by being so reflective that they are difficult to measure with IR sensors.

In order to accomplish building heat loss surveys, the building must be “set up” so that one can create the conditions necessary to see problems. So, “wholesale” surveying of a campus or group of large buildings from the outside may not yield much useful information if not performed at just the right time, under just the right conditions and in a controlled manner.

The imagery approach is qualitative; it identifies and locates problems based on their anomalous heat signatures. This is much easier to accomplish, but this method does not quantify the amount of energy loss. In order to develop quantitative information, additional work is needed in the form of additional field efforts in the infrared data acquisition phase, combined with heat transfer analysis…a much more costly proposition. To understand the quantitative approach, it is necessary to understand how heat moves and the factors affecting its transfer, as well as the physics involved in determining what the infrared signatures are presenting. In order to know exactly what the radiated energy of any object is, the characteristics of the sensor, atmosphere and the target must be taken into consideration and one must know the transmission, emissivity and reflectivity of the target. There are big differences in the emissive qualities of various building materials. The ability to obtain quantitative measurements is built into radiometric imaging systems, but one must use a radiometric infrared camera to collect the imagery, and in a form that can be post-processed.

Heat energy moves by conduction, convection and radiation. In order to make meaningful quantitative thermal calculations, complete thermal properties of all the materials (specifically heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and density) must all be known and made part of the calculation. In our experience, as-built drawings and thermal properties are usually not available. This generally means that estimates of the heat loss, implications of temperature values obtained, and quantitative evaluation of the building’s performance can only be developed as estimates.

Even though some large format thermal imaging systems are fully capable of accurate radiometric measurements and rapid frame-by-frame digital temperature data acquisition of every pixel of every IR image, the cost of quantitatively gathering measurements and using steady-state and transient heat transfer analysis calculations (typically done with finite element analysis), make quantitative measurement a much more expensive step, than simply using the image data to make judgments based on experience of the person analyzing thermal data. So most of the time, identifying heat loss and air leakage is pretty straightforward, but making calculations regarding insulation effectiveness and other qualities is an additional step that adds much cost.

EXISTING BIG BOX THERMAL PERFORMANCE

Insulated Masonry Walls

Most big box stores have tilt-up concrete panels or single-wythe concrete block walls (8” or 12” CMU or Concrete Masonry Unit).  Infrared imaging of these large building walls under construction to find missing grout, structural components and insulation is a well-understood, if an underutilized technique. Figure 1 shows examples.

The inside walls sometimes have wooden or steel framed walls reaching the level of the uninsulated suspended ceiling, but often are only painted inside surfaces directly on outside walls without any interstitial space full height. Wherever there is a door, window or other opening in the wall, or wherever there is solid grout or a solid structural component, there is very little insulation value.

In any case, these buildings are not designed to be pretty, durable nor energy efficient.

Figure 1. IR image of CMU wall with grouted, empty and insulated cells shown.

Insulated Roofs

If one takes the total surface area impinging on the outside world as a gauge for potential heat loss, the roof definitely has the largest energy loss potential. Also, roofs are perpendicular to the Sun during the day and the night sky (outer space) at night. As shown later in this paper, most of the energy in big box stores goes out of the roof.

BURs (built-up roofs) used to be the most popular way to cover a large building, but that has changed over the past twenty-five years. Properly maintained, a BUR will last over 30 years, but cost significantly more to install. Big box retail stores generally have a life expectancy of 10 years, since the store will either be removed from the area if sales do poorly, or a new larger store (at a close-by location, or major addition and renovation) will take its place if sales do well. So, owing to the more expensive installation and the fact that retailers do not need 30-year roofs, single-ply membranes have become the roof of choice for big box stores.

Typically, the roofs of most big box stores are a single-ply membrane (mechanically fastened or fully adhered), with a couple of inches of closed-cell foam board insulation (commonly polyisocyanurate) over a metal deck welded to the steel bar joists. Because of their higher reflective qualities, white TPO (thermoplastic polyolefin) has become the roof membrane of choice lately due to roofing manufacturer’s strong marketing efforts and government incentives to use these “green roofs”.

After 4-5 years, the membrane and insulation deteriorate at a fast rate due to UV rays from the Sun striking the roof and from thermal shock, caused by rapid heat-up (when the Sun hits the roof) and rapid cool-down (from rain falling on the highly heated roof). As the seams and flashings begin to fail, rain water and condensation begin to seep under the membrane and into the roof substrate to be trapped or leak. This water is either absorbed into the insulation (around the edges first), trapped between the membrane and the insulation, or dripped into the building through cracks in the steel decking. This too is a well-developed infrared predictive maintenance technique (see Figure 2). Wherever the insulation is wet, the mass and therefore heat transfer characteristics are increased, making the insulation essentially ineffective and therefore, the roof less energy efficient.

Figure 2. IR image of building roof. Light areas are saturated board insulation.

NEW APPROACH TO BIG BOX THERMAL PERFORMANCE TESTING

Over the years, many energy efficiency companies have provided a plethora of solutions for buildings ranging from computer controlled devices, control algorithms, alternative energy add-ons and such. Many of these approaches have yielded energy efficiency improvements with varying degrees of success. So with a well-developed set of vendors and proven techniques, why do we need any improvements in how infrared imaging is performed on buildings?

Since the floors are almost always a monolithic poured concrete slab, this leaves only the walls and roof to improve the thermal envelope, moisture envelope and air barrier, which, by design in big box stores, are the largest problems with energy efficiency. Without the significant investment to cover them from the inside or outside, single-wythe block walls themselves leave little room for improvement, since the walls are often weight-bearing and structural, so they must contain solid strong components which have little insulation value. Figures 3 shows a CMU wall with typical grout spacing at 40” on center. As shown, the total area of possible insulation is much less than half of the total wall area, since bond beams, expansion joints and openings must contain extra reinforcing due to structural and seismic code requirements. Even the solid rib part of individual blocks offer increased heat transfer as thermal shorts. As shown in Figure 4, air can leak at the roof to wall intersections and doors.

Roll-up doors are always extremely leaky (see Figure 5). So, the floors offer little chance of improvement and unless the walls are redesigned structurally and/or covered and door openings converted to sealed and converted to a fast roll-up type – other than roof to wall intersection sealing to stop thermal shorts, there is little low-hanging fruit with respect to the floors and walls. That leaves the roof…

Figures 3. Visual and IR image of CMU building wall. (Grouted areas are lighter.)

Figure 4. IR image of building roof to wall intersection (white arrows) and door (black arrows).

Figure 5. IR image of a typically very leaky roll-up door.

NEW APPROACH TO BIG BOX THERMAL PERFORMANCE TESTING

Roof Pressurization Testing

In early 2010, one of our longtime clients asked us to assess the energy efficiency of a couple of their “typical” big box retail stores and make recommendations as to how to improve the design. Knowing pretty much all the above already, we focused on the roofs and areas just below the roofs, since they offered the best return on investment (ROI) for redesign and retrofit for energy improvement. The testing was first conducted on a single store. The HVAC system was controlled from a remote location. We measured the relative humidity, pressure and temperature and compared them with the values supplied by the controls personnel, and the values matched pretty well, even though steady-state normal operation was a slight negative pressure, which really bothered us. Pulling in excessive amounts of unconditioned outside air into any building is inefficient and a very bad idea because the outside air has to be conditioned and importantly, moisture problems develop from this practice. In this situation, the HVAC systems consisted of RTUs (roof top units or package units) that condition the air by bringing in outside air (controlled with a damper system) and conditioning it with either a heating or a cooling coil (see Figures 6). After reviewing the plans and specifications, we noted the exhaust fans removed air at a higher rate than the air pulled into the building by the HVAC systems in many areas. This was a perfect precursor condition for our tests because we did not want any positive pressure during the “before pressurization” test, so that we could measure the differences between heat losses and air leakages between negative and positive pressurizations of the buildings.

Figures 6. Inside photographs and drawing of a typical RTU (roof top unit).

We wanted to compare the zero pressure condition (before pressurization) with increased pressure condition (after pressurization) to see if we could find leaks (heat and air), and if so, where they were occurring. We first took measurements and infrared surveyed the inside and outside of the walls and roof and flew over the roof with a high-resolution infrared imager. Then, we had a mechanical contractor “zip-screw” shut the dampers on about half of the RTUs so that we could raise the pressure in the building to ~25 Pascal (.1 inch of water). Before pressurization, heat loss was evident in the form of heat between the board insulation and around the RTUs (Figure 7). After pressurization, we took the same readings and again surveyed the roof (from the top of the roof and from underneath the roof), the walls (from inside and outside) and the doors and openings (from inside and outside) and again flew over the roof (see Figure 8 and Figures 9). Since we had six thermographers on-site and an airplane crew overhead, the entire data collection process took little more than an hour.

Figure 7. Aerial IR images (before pressurization) of the roof showing heat loss between the board insulation and around the RTUs.

Figure 8. Aerial IR images (after pressurization) of the roof showing heat loss and air leakage between the board insulation and around the RTUs.

Figures 9. Inside photograph and thermograph of the underside of the roof taken during pressurization and pressure gauge reading during building pressurization.

The results of the pressurization testing proved that a tremendous amount of heat and air are being lost in these big box stores through these “green” roofs. The recommendation was to seal up the RTUs with a better flashing system, install a moisture, vapor and air barrier between the steel deck (which is full of holes from the welding process) and the insulation boards and lay 2-1.5” boards of polyisocyanurate insulation instead the single 3” layer. It should be noted that as with any building material, even high-R, low-mass insulation boards, that shrinkage occurs during cold conditions. It was also recommended that the insulation be installed during cold conditions to keep the boards tight during winter and summer, but owing to the fast-track construction schedules for these structures, that recommendation will probably not be followed.

Skylights Testing

Lighting in retail stores is critical, not only from an energy usage standpoint, but more importantly from a point of sale standpoint. Proper lighting produces sales, money and therefore profit, so getting it right is extremely important to the retailer. It is “green” to use to use the sunlight to illuminate one’s building and skylights offer a way to do that, but they also leak air, water and heat and the tradeoff is “free” light vs. higher installation costs, added maintenance costs, and added safety and security risks (from people falling through them or breaking in the building through them).

An aerial infrared test was set-up to compare the two sets of skylights; energy efficient and standard. Two stores were selected that were very similar with the exception of the skylight types. Store A has energy efficient skylights, which cost roughly $200 more per skylight and Store B has standard skylights. We surveyed the buildings under the same ambient conditions. As shown in Figures 10, the energy efficient skylights performed much better than the standard skylight. We are currently doing comparisons to determine the exact ROI of the energy efficient skylights, but the work is not complete at the time of this publication.

Highlights of the New Approach

• Developing detailed test plans, which include simultaneously conducting infrared and blower-door/ventilation system testing, estimating expected ACH, collecting information about the building space heating and cooling costs and designating the optimal time of the day and ambient conditions for all testing.
• Conducting infrared assessments of the walls by capturing radiometrically-accurate high resolution imagery of the interior and exterior of the walls to detect heat loss, air leakage, entrained moisture and other energy losses.
• Conducting aerial infrared assessments of the roof by capturing radiometrically-accurate high resolution imagery to detect heat loss, air leakage, entrained moisture and other energy losses through skylights, RTUs and exhaust fan systems.
• Creating algorithms and protocols for prioritizing the value of the findings and where possible, prioritizing the financial and technical value of various solutions to mitigate detected problems.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

We are developing algorithms used in modeling which will be the basis for a web-based energy benchmarking tool, allowing real estate managers, building owners and operators, governments and corporations to input their own information to create rough baselines of their energy costs, and then decide whether a systems engineering approach assessment would be worthwhile. Since the combined total of energy use in a commercial building is a combination of (space heating) + (air conditioning) + (ventilation) + (refrigeration) + (lighting) + (computer & office equipment, etc.), then a systematic infrared-based approach could potentially yield accurate estimates of expected energy usage, and accurately project savings estimates for design consideration and retrofit planning.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 30 years, we have found that most commercial organizations, government agencies, and building owners in general, have neither the time, expertise nor the inclination to accurately measure, assess, and evaluate the alternatives for reducing energy consumption in their buildings but things are slowly changing. This new approach has been designed to take the next step beyond simple infrared imaging and provide more comprehensive and cost-effective energy efficiency measurement and assessments. If detection, analysis, and correction planning is not holistically accurate, complete and cost-effective, many buildings will continue to be operated far less efficiently than they should be operated. Cross-correlation of high-resolution aerial infrared imaging, with internal and external building infrared imaging, blower door testing and “should cost” energy costs analysis has now become commercially viable.

Figures 10. Photographs and thermographs of the roofs showing energy efficient skylights perform much better. (Store A with energy efficient skylights shown on left side, Store B with standard skylights shown on right side)

REFERENCES

[1] U.S. Energy Information Agency, “Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey commercial energy uses and costs”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Author Biography – Gregory R. Stockton

Gregory R. Stockton is a principal in three infrared companies; Stockton Infrared Thermographic Services, Inc. (www.stocktonInfrared.com), United Infrared, Inc. (www.UnitedInfrared.com) and RecoverIR, Inc. (www.RecoverIR.com). Stockton Infrared is a nationwide multi-disciplined infrared service contractor. United Infrared is a nationwide network of infrared thermographers. UI provides training and support on a variety of applications and teaches the business of infrared thermography. RecoverIR is an aerial thermal mapping company primarily focused on utility issues such as improving energy efficiencies, weatherization, and identification of lost energy.

Greg is a certified infrared thermographer with thirty years of experience in the construction industry, specializing in maintenance and energy-related technologies. He has published 17 technical papers on the subject of infrared thermography and written numerous articles about applications for infrared thermography in trade publications. He is a member of the Program Committee and 2012 Co-Chairman of the Thermosense Conference (SPIE -Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers) and past Co-Chairman of the Buildings & Infrastructures Session at SPIE’s Defense and Security Symposium.

Copyright October 2011

Stockton Infrared Thermographic Services, Inc. Announces It’s Presence on NC Now/UNC TV

August, 2011 – Stockton Infrared Thermographic Services, Inc (SITS) announces its presence on NC Now/UNC TV. In June of this year, SITS participated in the Energy Cost Reduction Summer Community College Tour, hosted by Joel Leonard of www.skilltv.org. The name of the tour was “Infrared Thermography: Hot Technology That Can Drive Energy Cost Reductions”. NC Now of UNC TV interviewed Mr. Leonard as well as Eric Stockton, Division Director for SITS, who participated in the tour. The video of that interview is available for viewing on UNC/TV’s website.

Infrared Thermography has become an integral tool for facilities, manufacturers, hospitals and municipalities to uncover energy waste and develop strategies to improve capacity performance. The tour which took place the week of June 20th at the following community colleges enabled attendees to learn more about this underutilized technology that has helped business increase operational performance while reducing operating costs.

• Montgomery Community College, Troy NC
• Fayetteville Tech Community College, Fayetteville, NC
• Central Carolina Community College, Sanford NC
• Sampson Community College, Clinton, NC
• Bladen Community College, Dublin, NC
• Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst, NC

Special Guests included:
R. James Seffrin is a Level III Certified Infrared Thermographer® and Director of Infraspection Institute located in Burlington, NJ. He has over 27 years experience in performing infrared inspections for a wide variety of commercial, industrial and residential applications. He is a co-author of several industry standards and is qualified as an expert witness on the subject of thermography.

Eric Stockton is Division Director of Stockton’s ElectriSCAN™ and MechaniSCAN™ divisions. Eric has been with the company since 1996 and has been an integral part of its success and growth. Eric R. Stockton received a BA in Zoology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1982. He was an environmental consultant for Carolina Power and Light’s Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant for 14 years prior to joining SITS.

To view the full video, please visit this Stockton Infrared Thermographic Services, Inc. Announces It’s Presence on NC Now/UNC TV (video).  To learn more about the amazing capability of infrared thermography, please visit www.stocktoninfrared.com. To learn about our aerial division, please visit www.aitscan.com. To learn more about SkillTV, please visit www.skilltv.org.

The US Army Corps of Engineers detonated explosives at the Birds Point levee near Wyatt, Missouri, at 10:02 p.m. on May 2, 2011. Water from the intentional breach flooded a 130,000-acre stretch of land. Two more breaches were detonated on May 3 and 5. This image from the Advanced Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft shows the resultant flooding of farmland west of the Mississippi 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of the levee breach. On the image, vegetation is displayed in red, bare fields in gray and water in blue. The image covers an area of 30.7 by 39 miles (49.5 by 63 kilometers), and is located near 36.5 degrees north latitude, 89.4 degrees west longitude.

With its 14 spectral bands from the visible to the thermal infrared wavelength region and its high spatial resolution of about 50 to 300 feet, or about 15 to 90 meters, ASTER images Earth to map and monitor the changing surface of our planet. ASTER is one of five Earth-observing instruments launched Dec. 18, 1999, on Terra. The instrument was built by Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. A joint US/Japan science team is responsible for validation and calibration of the instrument and data products.

The broad spectral coverage and high spectral resolution of ASTER provides scientists in numerous disciplines with critical information for surface mapping and monitoring of dynamic conditions and temporal change. Example applications are monitoring glacial advances and retreats; monitoring potentially active volcanoes; identifying crop stress; determining cloud morphology and physical properties; wetlands evaluation; thermal pollution monitoring; coral reef degradation; surface temperature mapping of soils and geology; and, measuring surface heat balance.

© 2011 by Eric Jackson
All Rights Reserved – Todos Derechos Reservados
Individual contributors retain the rights to their articles or photos

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_17/issue_06/nature_02.html

Infrared Thermography has become an integral tool for facilities, manufacturers, hospitals and municipalities to uncover energy waste and develop strategies to improve capacity performance. The tour will take place the week of June 20^th, 2011 at the community colleges listed below.  Attendees will learn more about this underutilized technology which will help businesses increase operational performance while reducing operating costs. These events will showcase and demonstrate Infrared Technology capabilities with nationally known experts who will be on hand to help area businesses understand how to maximize the benefits of this technology.

• June 20^th, 2011, 1PM – 4PM at Montgomery Community College, Troy NC
• June 21^st, 2011, 9AM – 12PM at Fayetteville Tech Community College, Fayetteville, NC
• June 21^st, 2011, 2PM – 5PM at Central Carolina Community College, Sanford NC
• June 22^nd, 2011, 12PM at Sampson Community College, Clinton, NC
• June 22^nd, 2011, 2PM – 5PM at Bladen Community College, Dublin, NC
• June 23^rd, 2011, 9AM – 12PM at Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst, NC

Special Guests will include R. James Seffrin, a Level III Certified Infrared Thermographer and Director of Infraspection Institute located in Burlington, NJ. He has over 27 years experience in performing infrared inspections for a wide variety of commercial, industrial and residential applications. He is a co-author of several industry standards and is qualified as an expert witness on the subject of thermography. Eric Stockton is Division Director of Stockton’s ElectriSCAN™ and MechaniSCAN™ divisions. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and was an environmental consultant for Carolina Power and Light’s Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant for 14 years prior to joining SITS.

“We are excited to be a part of this tour which will demonstrate the numerous benefits infrared can provide in terms of providing energy cost reductions,” states Eric Stockton.  “This tour will help to demonstrate the value of the maintenance industry in general as well as provide education on the amazing abilities of infrared technology,” states Joel Leonard.

Visit www.stocktoninfrared.com or call 800-248-7226.  To learn more about Joel Leonard and Skill TV, please visit www.skilltv.net.

IR P/PM (infrared predictive/preventive maintenance) is not simply limited to annual infrared surveys of electrical switchgear, as many believe. Infrared thermography is a very effective tool for roof asset management. IR roof moisture surveys are performed on roofs to quantify the extent of roof moisture (water) that is inside the roof system. Infrared thermography is not leak management. No matter how the water got into the substrate, the purpose of this type of survey is simply to find and document where the water is located.

Extending the life of a roof will save the owner the expense and aggravation of re-roofing or re-covering. Re-roofing means that the roof is taken down to the decking and replaced completely. Re-covering means that the waterproofing layer(s) are removed, the wet insulation is removed and replaced and a new waterproofing layer is put down.

The cost of an infrared roof moisture survey is three to five CENTS per square foot. It cost between three and five DOLLARS per square foot to repair/replace roofs.  So, knowing the exact location of the subsurface water is extremely useful information, since only those areas which are damaged need to be repaired.  This information is used to plan budgets and when needed, as a bid document for contracting repairs and/or replacement of the roof.

Every day millions of square feet of perfectly good roofing materials are disposed of in our landfills. Why?  Roofs are often replaced because no one knows exactly where the roof is damaged until it is too late. If you want your roof to last, it must be regularly maintained by professionals. Infrared roof moisture surveying is the best method of non-destructive testing on roofs.