Multicriteria Methodology for Prioritizing Predictive Maintenance Using RPASs (Drones) with Thermal Cameras on Transmission Lines
Abstract
1. Introduction
- -
- Describing a new method for prioritizing predictive maintenance activities for transmission lines;
- -
- Creating a tool for supporting decision making regarding the prioritization of inspections in transmission lines;
- -
- Optimizing inspections using drones with thermographic cameras.
2. Materials and Methods—RPAS with Thermal Imaging Camera and Application of AHP
- Contacts and connections;
- Preformed and compression joints;
- Insulators;
- Cover cables.
3. Methodology
3.1. Step 1: Defining Criteria and Weights
3.2. Step 2: Application of the Criteria to Transmission Lines and Validation of the Results
- The classification is determined by any of the elements present in the criterion;
- The alternative with the highest weight will prevail over the others, with “0” being the most relevant and “3” being the least important.
3.3. Criterion 1—Technical
- -
- History of observed LT failures;
- -
- History of failures due to defects observed in preventive maintenance; —Seasonality of the load;
- -
- Location of the thermal anomaly (points at which there is a risk of a cable or connector breaking);
- -
- Verification of the significance of the defects observed based on their criticality.
3.4. Criterion 2—Safety
3.5. Criterion 3—Systemic/Social
3.6. Criterion 4—Financial
3.7. Summary of Criteria
3.8. Application of Proposed Technique and Evaluation of Results
4. AHP Application
4.1. Application of AHP to the Criteria
4.2. Application of AHP to Alternatives
5. Results of Applying the Methodology
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lopes, A.L.M.; Mesquita, R.B.; Lambertucci, M.; Lara, J.E. The Evolution of the Benchmarking Methodology Data Envelopment Analysis—DEA in the Cost Regulation of the Brazilian Electric Power Transmission Sector: A critical look at the renewal of concessions. Gestão Produção 2020, 27, e3940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herich, D.; Vaščák, J. The Evolution of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Analyzing the Differences and Similarities between IoV and IoFV. Drones 2024, 8, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joram, S.; Ulrike, W.H.; Martin, R. Enhanced Multi Criteria Decision Analysis for Planning Power Transmission Lines. In Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2018), Melbourne, Australia, 28–31 August 2018; Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik: Wadern, Germany, 2018; Volume 114, pp. 15:1–15:16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jalil, B.; Pascali, M.; Leone, G.R.; Martinelli, M.; Moroni, D.; Salvetti, O.; Berton, A. Visible and Infrared Imaging Based Inspection of Power Installation. Pattern Recognit. Image Anal. 2019, 29, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jalil, B.; Leone, G.R.; Martinelli, M.; Moroni, D.; Pascali, M.A.; Berton, A. Fault Detection in Power Equipment via an Unmanned Aerial System Using Multi Modal Data. Sensors 2019, 19, 3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, H.; Suzuki, S.; Namiki, A.; Wang, W. Design and Application of a UAV Autonomous Inspection System for High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukačević, I.; Lagator, D. Requirements for High-Quality Thermal Inspection of the Transmission Lines. In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Organization and Technology of Maintenance (OTO 2022), Osijek, Croatia, 12 December 2022; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fj, F.; Meganathan, L.; Esha, M.; Nguyen, G.M.T.; Doss, A. Power Transmission Line Inspection Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle—A Review. In Proceedings of the 2023 Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-PACT), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–10 December 2023; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, T.; Cunha, T.; Dias, A.; Moreira, A.P.; Almeida, J. UAV Visual and Thermographic Power Line Detection Using Deep Learning. Sensors 2024, 24, 5678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wong, S.Y.; Choe, C.W.C.; Goh, H.H.; Low, Y.W.; Cheah, D.Y.S.; Pang, C. Power Transmission Line Fault Detection and Diagnosis Based on Artificial Intelligence Approach and its Development in UAV: A Review. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 46, 9305–9331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prommachan, W.; Surin, P.; Srinoi, P.; Pipathathtakul, M. Selection Criteria for Evaluating Predictive Maintenance Techniques for Rotating Machinery using the Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP). Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024, 14, 13058–13065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, W.; Jang, B.; Jung, I.; Sung, H.; Jang, Y. Evaluation of Preferences for a Thermal-Camera-Based Abnormal Situation Detection Service via the Integrated Fuzzy AHP/TOPSIS Model. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L. Review of nondestructive testing methods for fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sin. 2024, 45, 529697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chadly, A.; Aldayyani, H.Y.; Hamasha, M.M.; Amer, S.E.; Maalouf, M.; Mayyas, A. Selection of optimal strategy for managing decentralized solar PV systems considering uncertain weather conditions. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 12269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khan, M.S.; Shah, S.I.A.; Javed, A.; Qadri, N.M.; Hussain, N. Drone selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technologies (IBCAST), Islamabad, Pakistan, 12–16 January 2021; pp. 256–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duxbury, D.J.; Paton, N.W.; Keane, J.A. Dynamic decision making for situational awareness using drones: Requirements, identification and comparison of decision support methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 252 Pt B, 124057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gharrad, H.; Jabeur, N.; Yasar, A.U.-H. Hierarchical Analysis Process for Belief Management in Internet of Drones. Sensors 2022, 22, 6146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luejai, W.; Suwanasri, T.; Suwanasri, C. Condition Assessment of Overhead Transmission Line Using Weighting and Scoring Method and IT Application. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2021, 16, 2981–2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izhar, A.S.M.; Khalid, N.H.N.; Usman, F.; Abu Bakar, M.S.; Adriyanshah, N.F.; Zahari, H. Electric Transmission Tower Corrosion Assessment Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Health. Index. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 2024, 32, 1855–1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Wang, L.; Tian, R.; Cao, S.; Zuo, S.; Che, D.; Jing, L. A Study on the Evaluation Method for the Operating Status of Overhead Transmission Lines Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Eng. Rep. 2025, 7, e13126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suwanasri, C.; Saribut, S.; Suwanasri, T.; Phadungthin, R. Risk Analysis Using Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis for Transmission Network Assets. Energies 2021, 14, 977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Infrared Training Center (ITC). Thermography Course Manual; Thermographer Course Handbook; ITC: Kolkata, India, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- ICAO. The ICAO UAS Toolkit. Available online: https://www.icao.int/safety/UA/UASToolkit/Pages/Toolkit-Operations.aspx (accessed on 7 July 2025).
- Brasil. Ministério da Defesa Comando da Aeronáutica. Departamento de Controle do Espaço Aéreo. Tráfego aéreo—aeronaves não tripuladas e o acesso ao espaço aéreo brasileiro: ICA 100-40. Rio de Janeiro, 2023. Available online: https://www.decea.mil.br/drone/docs/ICA%20100-40%20-%20Aeronaves%20n%C3%A3o%20Tripuladas%20e%20o%20Acesso%20ao%20Espa%C3%A7o%20A%C3%A9reo%20Brasileiro%202023%20-%20BCA%20103%2006.06.23.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2025).
- Ishizaka, A.; Nemery, P. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; Available online: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Multi+criteria+Decision+Analysis%3A+Methods+and+Software-p-9781119974079 (accessed on 21 July 2025).
- Siekelova, A.; Podhorska, I.; Imppola, J.J.; Caha, Z.; Ruschak, M.; Velková, V. Analytic Hierarchy Process in Multiple–Criteria Decision–Making: A Model Example. SHS Web Conf. 2021, 90, 01019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.; Vargas, L.; St, C. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; ISBN 978-1-4614-3597-6. [Google Scholar]
Priority | Risk | Manageable | Characteristics | Treatment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Manageable (maximum 3 years or up to 10 years) | Eventual or None | Yes, long term | Extendable | Monitors and schedules in a timely manner |
Desirable (maximum 180 days or maximum 1 year) | Medium/low | Yes, medium term | Programmable | Program |
Necessary (maximum 60 days) | High to equipment or third parties | Yes, short term | By necessity | Completes what is being done and meets |
Urgency (maximum 15 days) | Imminent to equipment or third parties | No | Imposing | For everything and meets |
1. Technical | ||||
Type | Defect | Failure History | ||
T0 | Urgency/ Emergency | Analogous/General defect | ||
T1 | Necessary | Analogous/General defect | ||
T2 | Desirable | Analogous/General defect | ||
T3 | Manageable | No significant defects | ||
2. Safety | ||||
Type | Situation | |||
S0 | Encroachment on right of way | |||
S1 | Passes through high-traffic highways | |||
S2 | Animals raised in right o way | |||
S3 | Does not fit options 0, 1, or 2 | |||
3. Systemic/Social | ||||
Type | Systemic conditions/Locations of load shedding | |||
SS0 | Load shedding—Hospitals, trains, public safety and essential agencies | |||
SS1 | Load shedding—Other locations not classified as SS0 | |||
SS2 | Loss of n−1 | |||
SS3 | No load shedding or impact or irrelevant | |||
4. Financial | ||||
Type | Profitability ranking | Impact on the company’s image | Inspection | Resulting plan |
F0 | Up to 10th position | High risk | High risk | Belongs/High risk |
F1 | Up to 30th position | Considerable risk | Considerable risk | Considerable risk |
F2 | Above 30th position | Medium risk | Medium risk | Medium risk |
F3 | Above 30th position | Low/ non-existent risk | Low/ non-existent risk | Low/ non-existent risk |
Levels | Description |
---|---|
Level 1: Problem | What is the priority order for sending a drone with a thermal imaging camera to inspect transmission lines? |
Level 2: Criteria | Technical–Safety–Systemic/Social–Financial |
Level 3: Alternatives | T0 to T3-S0 to S3-SS0 to SS3-F0 to F3 |
Criterion | Variable |
---|---|
1 | Technical |
2 | Safety |
3 | Systemic/Social |
4 | Financial |
Crit 1 | Crit 2 | Crit 3 | Crit 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Crit 1 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 3 |
Crit 2 | 0.143 | 1 | 0.333 | 0.333 |
Crit 3 | 0.333 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Crit 4 | 0.333 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Crit | Weight |
---|---|
1 | 54.44% |
2 | 6.88% |
3 | 19.34% |
4 | 19.34% |
Technicians | Percentages Normalized | Percentages Relative to the Total | Rank |
T0 | 60.24% | 32.79% | 1 |
T1 | 24.33% | 13.24% | 2 |
T2 | 10.46% | 5.69% | 5 |
T3 | 4.98% | 2.71% | 9 |
CI | 2.55% | ||
CR | 2.83% | ||
Safety | Percentages Normalized | Percentages relative to the total | Rank |
S0 | 64.70% | 4.45% | 6 |
S1 | 14.81% | 1.02% | 14 |
S2 | 14.81% | 1.02% | 14 |
S3 | 5.67% | 0.39% | 16 |
CI | 1.27% | ||
CR | 1.42% | ||
Systemic/Social | Percentages Normalized | Percentages relative to the total | Rank |
SS0 | 64.74% | 12.52% | 3 |
SS1 | 19.52% | 3.77% | 7 |
SS2 | 10.05% | 1.94% | 11 |
SS3 | 5.69% | 1.10% | 13 |
CI | 1.37% | ||
CR | 1.52% | ||
Financial | Percentages Normalized | Percentages relative to the total | Rank |
F0 | 62.42% | 12.07% | 4 |
F1 | 19.33% | 3.74% | 8 |
F2 | 11.29% | 2.18% | 10 |
F3 | 6.96% | 1.35% | 12 |
CI | 1.70% | ||
CR | 1.89% |
Alternative | Percentages Relative to the Total | Ranking |
---|---|---|
T0 | 32.79% | 1 |
T1 | 13.24% | 2 |
SS0 | 12.52% | 3 |
F0 | 12.07% | 4 |
T2 | 5.69% | 5 |
S0 | 4.45% | 6 |
SS1 | 3.77% | 7 |
F1 | 3.74% | 8 |
T3 | 2.71% | 9 |
F2 | 2.18% | 10 |
SS2 | 1.94% | 11 |
F3 | 1.35% | 12 |
SS3 | 1.10% | 13 |
S1 | 1.02% | 14 |
S2 | 1.02% | 14 |
S3 | 0.39% | 16 |
Thermographer | Management Experience | Professional of Transmission Lines | Expert for over 5 Years | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Specialist 1 | Senior Electrical engineer | YES | YES | NO | YES |
Specialist 2 | Electrical engineer | NO | YES | YES | NO |
Specialist 3 | Senior Electrical Technician | YES | NO | NO | YES |
Specialist 4 | Electrical engineer | NO | YES | NO | YES |
Specialist 5 | Electrical engineer | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Specialist 6 | Electrical engineer Specialist | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Specialist 7 | Senior Electrical engineer | NO | NO | YES | YES |
Specialist 8 | Electrical engineer | NO | YES | YES | YES |
Criticality | Work | Experts | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Technical | 54.44% | 35.03% | −19.41pp |
Safety | 6.88% | 16.41% | +9.53pp |
Systemic/Social | 19.34% | 18.21% | −1.13pp |
Financial | 19.34% | 30.35% | +11.02pp |
CI | 0.29% | 2.40% | +2.11pp |
CR | 0.32% | 2.67% | +2.35pp |
Technicians | Percentages Normalized | Percentages Relative to the Total | ||||
Work | Experts | Difference | Work | Experts | Difference | |
T0 | 60.24% | 62.01% | +1.77pp | 32.79% | 21.84% | −10.96pp |
T1 | 24.33% | 21.09% | −3.24pp | 13.24% | 7.18% | −6.06pp |
T2 | 10.46% | 10.39% | −0.07pp | 5.69% | 3.71% | −1.98pp |
T3 | 4.98% | 6.51% | +1.54pp | 2.71% | 2.30% | −0.41pp |
CI | 2.55% | 3.76% | +1.21pp | |||
CR | 2.83% | 4.18% | +1.35pp | |||
Safety | Percentages normalized | Percentages relative to the total | ||||
Work | Experts | Difference | Work | Experts | Difference | |
S0 | 64.70% | 52.80% | −11.90pp | 4.45% | 7.93% | +3.47pp |
S1 | 14.81% | 27.33% | +12.51pp | 1.02% | 5.33% | +4.31pp |
S2 | 14.81% | 13.85% | −0.97pp | 1.02% | 2.22% | +1.20pp |
S3 | 5.67% | 6.03% | +0.36pp | 0.39% | 0.94% | +0.55pp |
CI | 1.27% | 3.53% | +2.26pp | |||
CR | 1.42% | 3.92% | 2.51pp | |||
Systemic/Social | Percentages normalized | Percentages relative to the total | ||||
Work | Experts | Difference | Work | Experts | Difference | |
SS0 | 64.74% | 64.72% | −0.03pp | 12.52% | 12.03% | −0.49pp |
SS1 | 19.52% | 18.59% | −0.93pp | 3.77% | 3.13% | −0.64pp |
SS2 | 10.05% | 10.59% | +0.53pp | 1.94% | 1.93% | −0.02pp |
SS3 | 5.69% | 6.11% | +0.42pp | 1.10% | 1.12% | +0.02pp |
CI | 1.37% | 3.30% | +1.93pp | |||
CR | 1.52% | 3.67% | +2.15pp | |||
Financial | Percentages normalized | Percentages relative to the total | ||||
Work | Experts | Difference | Work | Experts | Difference | |
F0 | 62.42% | 65.37% | +2.94pp | 12.07% | 19.61% | +7.54pp |
F1 | 19.33% | 17.78% | −1.55pp | 3.74% | 5.50% | +1.77pp |
F2 | 11.29% | 10.20% | −1.09pp | 2.18% | 3.12% | +0.94pp |
F3 | 6.96% | 6.66% | −0.30pp | 1.35% | 2.12% | +0.77pp |
CI | 1.70% | 3.23% | +1.53pp | |||
CR | 1.89% | 3.59% | +1.70pp |
Alternatives | Work Ranking | Experts’ Ranking | Position Difference |
---|---|---|---|
T0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
T1 | 2 | 5 | −3 |
SS0 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
F0 | 4 | 2 | +2 |
T2 | 5 | 8 | −3 |
S0 | 6 | 4 | +2 |
SS1 | 7 | 9 | −2 |
F1 | 8 | 6 | +2 |
T3 | 9 | 11 | −2 |
F2 | 10 | 10 | 0 |
SS2 | 11 | 14 | −3 |
F3 | 12 | 13 | −1 |
SS3 | 13 | 15 | −2 |
S1 | 14 | 7 | +7 |
S2 | 14 | 12 | +2 |
S3 | 16 | 16 | 0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Schnorr, A.; Bernardon, D.; Feil, D.; Fabrin, F.; Konrad, C.; dos Santos, L.L.C.; Bitencourt, V.; Fontoura, H.; Correa, C. Multicriteria Methodology for Prioritizing Predictive Maintenance Using RPASs (Drones) with Thermal Cameras on Transmission Lines. Sensors 2025, 25, 5064. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165064
Schnorr A, Bernardon D, Feil D, Fabrin F, Konrad C, dos Santos LLC, Bitencourt V, Fontoura H, Correa C. Multicriteria Methodology for Prioritizing Predictive Maintenance Using RPASs (Drones) with Thermal Cameras on Transmission Lines. Sensors. 2025; 25(16):5064. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165064
Chicago/Turabian StyleSchnorr, André, Daniel Bernardon, Dion Feil, Francisco Fabrin, Cristiano Konrad, Laura Lisiane Callai dos Santos, Vagner Bitencourt, Herber Fontoura, and Cristian Correa. 2025. "Multicriteria Methodology for Prioritizing Predictive Maintenance Using RPASs (Drones) with Thermal Cameras on Transmission Lines" Sensors 25, no. 16: 5064. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165064
APA StyleSchnorr, A., Bernardon, D., Feil, D., Fabrin, F., Konrad, C., dos Santos, L. L. C., Bitencourt, V., Fontoura, H., & Correa, C. (2025). Multicriteria Methodology for Prioritizing Predictive Maintenance Using RPASs (Drones) with Thermal Cameras on Transmission Lines. Sensors, 25(16), 5064. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165064