Wednesday (Group 2) - SERDP-ESTCP - Strategic Environmental ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Munitions Management (MM) Poster Number 43 – Wednesday Ground Based Detection and Discrimination — EMI & Magnetometers / Modeling & Processing T DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCES OF COMMERCIAL SENSORS AT APG AND YPG DR. DEAN KEISWETTER SAIC, Inc. 120 Quade Drive Cary, NC 27513 (919) 454-3212 keiswetterd@saic.com CO-PERFORMERS: Mr. Levi Kennedy (Signal Innovations Group, Inc.); Dr. Leslie Colins (Duke University) he objective of SERDP Project MM-1505 is to determine the level to which data acquired at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Yuma Proving Ground using commercial electromagnetic induction and magnetic sensors support feature-based discrimination decisions. As part of this study, we are evaluating discrimination performances for various models, classifiers, and training data. Three fundamental issues are being investigated: namely, the model used during characterization and the impact that classifier selection and training has on performance. The UXO Standardized Test Sites in Aberdeen Maryland and Yuma Arizona represent real world scenarios. They are rich in data, ground truth, near-surface conditions, and target diversity. Because of this, they present an unprecedented opportunity to systematically examine the importance of models, classifiers, and training data. The near-surface conditions vary and the buried targets of interest range from 20mm projectiles to 500 lb bombs. We selected five data sets based on data quality, type, signal-to-noise, and availability at appropriate intermediate processing stages. The datasets include time-domain EM61 (man-towed single sensor and vehicle-towed array), time-domain EM63, frequency-domain GEM-3 (vehicle towed array), and magnetic data (array). The models being investigated include a standard dipole (expressed using polarizabilities, an ellipsoidal representation, and empirical fits), joint frequency-time domain, and singular expansion models. The classifiers being investigated include: the Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test, Support Vector Machines, Relevance Vector Machine, and K-nearest neighbor. Various levels of training data are being extracted using ground truth labels from the calibration, blind grid, and portions of the open field areas. Results of our analysis indicate that the nominal dipole fit error is in excess of 20%. This combined with the facts that (i) the TOI range from 20mm projectiles to 500 lb bombs and (ii) the non-TOI target is typically medium to large in size and thick walled, significantly limited discrimination performances. If we assume that the objective is to discriminate all UXO from all non-UXO at these sites, very little if any discrimination capability is observed. If we restrict the TOI class to specific sizes of UXO, however, such as small, medium, or large UXO which is often the case for live sites, performance improves significantly. G-11
Munitions Management (MM) Poster Number 44 – Wednesday Ground Based Detection and Discrimination — EMI & Magnetometers / Modeling & Processing S SHOCK DEMAGNETIZATION OF PROJECTILES ON IMPACT WITH THE GROUND DR. STEPHEN BILLINGS Sky Research, Inc. 2386 East Mall, Suite 112A Vancouver, BC V6T1Z3 CANADA (541) 552-5185 stephen.billings@skyresearch.com ERDP Project MM-1380 is focused on understanding the physical basis behind changes in a UXO or shrapnel’s remanent magnetization when it is subjected to shock. If rounds are shock-demagnetized on impact, one can develop a very promising discrimination method with magnetic data based on estimating an item’s remanent magnetization. The remanence magnetic discrimination method developed at the University of British Columbia/Sky Research has proven successful at sites in Montana, resulting in false-alarm rates between 1 and 5 non-UXO for each excavated UXO item. In the magnetic remanence method, the amount of remanent magnetization in recovered dipole moments of collected magnetic data is estimated and a prioritized dig-list is developed based on the assumption that items with lower remanence are more likely to be UXO. We describe a field deployment at Aberdeen Test Center where we measured the remanent magnetization before and after firing sixty-five 81 mm mortars. The tests were conducted over a 9 day period in late May/ early June. During the first days on site we measured the initial remanent magnetization and found that only one of the sixty-five mortars had significant remanence (comparable to the induced magnetization). Fortunately, the Non-Destructive- Evaluation equipment at ATC was readily able to impose a remanent magnetization on the 81 mm mortars. We left some mortars in a demagnetized state and imposed medium and large remanences on either the axial or transverse axes of the remaining items. The remanence was again measured just prior to firing. We fired one third with no charge increment (low velocity of impact, the mortars were sticking out of the ground), one third with one charge increment (mortars buried to 2 feet depth) and the one-third with two charge increments (mortars buried to 5 to 8 feet depth). The rounds were carefully excavated (except the two-charge increment mortars where we had to use an excavator), and their depth and orientation was recorded before the remanence was again measured. The data were then processed and analyzed. Shock demagnetization definitely occurred, but for the charge 0 and 1 mortars, there was still a significant amount of residual magnetization. This means that we can't rely on shock demagnetization if impact velocities are low. What was particularly interesting was that rounds that had very low remanent magnetization before firing actually had a larger remanence after firing and impact. The shock of impact erases some of the existing magnetization but allows a new magnetic remanence to be established in the direction of the ambient magnetic field. In the abstract we also describe our efforts to develop a quantitative model of the effect of stress on the magnetization of an impacting ordnance item. G-12
Page 1 and 2: Partners in Environmental Technolog
Page 15 and 16: Munitions Management (MM) Poster Nu
Page 23: Munitions Management (MM) Poster Nu
Page 39 and 40: Munitions Management (MM) Planning
Page 41 and 42: Sustainable Infrastructure (SI) Fac
Page 49 and 50: Sustainable Infrastructure (SI) Nat
Page 75 and 76:
Sustainable Infrastructure (SI) Nat
Page 77 and 78:
Weapons Systems and Platforms (WP)
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Environmental Restoration (ER) Chlo
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Environmental Restoration (ER) Perc
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Environmental Restoration (ER) Heav
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Environmental Restoration (ER) Site
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Environmental Restoration (ER) Ener
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Environmental Restoration (ER) Sedi
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
show all

Wednesday (Group 2) - SERDP-ESTCP - Strategic Environmental ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?