1 / 9

SMART Space and airborne Mined Area Reduction Tools

SMART Space and airborne Mined Area Reduction Tools. Description of results. What is SMART?. Goal: provide help for area reduction How to use SMART: Perform flight and field missions to collect data and relevant information Load all data into SMART system

nuri
Download Presentation

SMART Space and airborne Mined Area Reduction Tools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SMARTSpace and airborne Mined Area Reduction Tools Description of results

  2. What is SMART? • Goal: provide help for area reduction • How to use SMART: • Perform flight and field missions to collect data and relevant information • Load all data into SMART system • Extract indicators from data by classification or detectors (SMART tools or COTS) • At all steps, check intermediary results and correct (add, remove, modify) • Merge all findings by data fusion module • Build danger maps (with confidence maps) • Use these maps to propose areas for reduction

  3. Sensor data • Daedalus • 11 channels from light blue to thermal infrared, 1-meter resolution • E-SAR • L-band: full polarimetric, dual-pass interferometric, 2-m resolution • P-band: full polarimetric, dual-pass interferometric, 4-m resolution • X-band: VV-polarization, 1.5-m resolution • C-band: VV-polarization, 1.5-m resolution • RMK • Colour infrared, 3-cm resolution • KVR • Panchromatic satellite images, 2-m resolution • From before the conflict (change detection)

  4. IMA and IMP • Indicators… • … of mine absence (IMA): • Mainly cultivated land • (more difficult to detect: asphalted roads, infrastructural objects in use) • … of mine presence (IMP): • From data: • agricultural areas no longer in use, edges of forest, river shores and banks, hilltops, etc. • From MAC database: • mine accidents and incidents, minefield records • From expert knowledge: • confrontation zones, etc. • There are far more IMP than IMA.

  5. Minefield record Power line Cleared area Agricultural areas not in use Cultivated fields Abandoned lands Point where a river can be crossed Confrontation line Trench Outside danger zones SMART continuous danger maps

  6. Evaluation by independent expert panel 1/2 • Composition of expert panel independent of SMART • Deputy Assistant for Operations Director of CROMAC • Head of regional office of CROMAC • Head of CROMAC GIS-MIS department • A CROMAC counsellor for survey • Director of CROMAC Centre for Testing, Development and Training (HCR Centre TDT) • Two representative of demining companies working in Croatia

  7. Evaluation by independent expert panel 2/2 • Conclusion of independent expert panel • Importance of contribution to area reduction recognised • SMART more useful for risk assessment • Continuous danger maps more useful than discrete danger maps • Confidence maps appreciated • Benefits brought by data fusion recognised • Interest to apply SMART by CROMAC and HCR Centre TDT

  8. Summary: evaluation on all three test sites Suspect Proposed for reduction • Area: 3.9 km2 • 26% (0.97 km2) of the mine-free area has been proposed for reduction • 0.1% (976 m2) of what has been proposed for reduction is actually mined No decision Red: minedGreen: mine-free

  9. Conclusions • A method to help area reduction has been proposed and tested. • The danger maps (and the confidence maps) can be used to PROPOSE areas for reduction (early stage of area reduction) • The method has been evaluated by experts and by trials. • The integration is not completed. • There are far fewer IMA than IMP, therefore: • Detecting safe area is more difficult than detecting risky areas • Reliability of detected safe area may be low • Although useful for area reduction, SMART may be more useful for risk assesment • No (or little) cost-benefit analysis done yet

More Related