Slides
> Slide 1
> Slide 2
> Slide 3
> Slide 4
> Slide 5
> Slide 6
> Slide 7
> Slide 8
> Slide 9
> Slide 10
> Slide 11
> Slide 12
> Slide 13
> Slide 14
> Slide 15
> Slide 16
> Slide 17
> Slide 18
> Slide 19
> Slide 20
> Slide 21
> Slide 22
> Slide 23
> Slide 24
> Slide 1
> Slide 2
> Slide 3
> Slide 4
> Slide 5
> Slide 6
> Slide 7
> Slide 8
> Slide 9
> Slide 10
> Slide 11
> Slide 12
> Slide 13
> Slide 14
> Slide 15
> Slide 16
> Slide 17
> Slide 18
> Slide 19
> Slide 20
> Slide 21
> Slide 22
> Slide 23
> Slide 24
Documentation of Existing Facade Condtions in the Field
A Comparison of Two Methods
A Comparison of Two Methods
- Relatively high capital costs vs. direct labor costs that apply to individual projects as they are completed.
- Job site security, electronic equipment failure, damage, theft.
- A laptop computer vs. hand-written field notes on paper: a small office set up on site is required for each job.
- Logistical complications such as:
- Back up to a one-gigabyte microdrive twice a day.
- iPAQ hand-helds are synched to the laptop between each drop.
- Battery life management and care.
- Version management.
- Ephemeral nature of data (bits and bytes vs. paper)
- PocketCAD no longer supporting the ESA program