Finding explosive threats in complex environments is a challenge. Benign objects (e.g. rocks, plants and rubbish), ground surface variation, heterogeneous soil properties and even shadows can create anomalies in remotely sensed imagery, often triggering false alarms. The overarching goal is to dissect these complex sensor images to extract clues for reducing false alarms and improve threat detection. Of particular interest is the effect of soil properties, particularly hydrogeological properties, on physical temperatures at the ground surface and the signatures they produce in infrared imagery. Hydrogeological variability must be considered at the scale of the sensor's image pixels, which may be only a few centimetres. To facilitate a deeper understanding of the components of the energy distribution, a computational testbed was developed to produce realistic, process-correct, synthetic imagery from remote sensors operating in the visible and infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. This tool is being used to explore near-surface process interaction at a fine scale to isolate and quantify the phenomena behind the detection physics. The computational tools have confirmed the importance of hydrogeology in the exploitation of sensor imagery for threat detection. However, before this tool's potential becomes a reality, several technical and organizational problems must be overcome.

ABSTRACT:The primary technical objective of this demonstration project was to evaluate the detection and discrimination capabilities (including production rates and costs) of advanced UXO systems in difficult magnetic clutter environments such as those encountered at Kaho'olawe, Hawaii. One 90-m by 111.1-m (1-hectare) area and 10 (not necessarily contiguous) 30-m by 30-m test grids within the Kaho'olawe Quality Assurance (QA) Range were prepared to present a limited range of target/clutter/ topography/vegetation/magnetic background conditions to the various demonstrators' systems: Geonics EM-63, GTL TM-5 EMU, Geophex GEM-3, NRL EMMS, and Geonics EM-61. Anomaly maps, survey maps, and demonstrators target discrimination charts are compared to actual groundtruth to determine performance assessment of detection, discrimination, and false alarm rate. At Kaho'olawe, the advanced EMI systems did not demonstrate significant performance and/or cost improvements over the baseline technology consisting of a standard EM-61 system operated in an "EM and Flag" mode. This was not true at Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana (July 2000). Finally, the safety and logistics problems associated with conducting technology demonstrations concurrent with actual UXO cleanup operations proved to be a very inefficient, costly, and time-consuming process. DISCLAIMER:The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. ContentsPreface xii

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract