RAND 11
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Alternatives for Landmine DetectionAlternatives for Landmine Detection
Jacqueline MacDonald
J.R. Lockwood
November 14, 2002
RAND 22
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Briefing OutlineBriefing Outline
1. Origins of this project
2. Project tasks and study method
3. Background on the scope of the landmine problem
4. Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies
5. Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations
6. Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system
RAND 33
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Project OriginsProject Origins
October 2001 memo from Gary Ellis to Helga Rippen, director of the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI):
“With the number of buried mines exceeding 50 million worldwide, OSTP seeks an update on knowledge of how to clear these hazards. What new technologies are available? In specific, what is the best area of research and development to support, to make an order-of-magnitude improvement in mine-clearing?”
RAND 44
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Project TasksProject Tasks
1. Identify antipersonnel mine detection technologies currently in the R&D stage.
2. Evaluate the potential for each to improve the reliability and safety, increase the speed, and decrease the costs of demining.
3. Identify any barriers to completing development of new technologies.
4. Recommend options for federal investments to speed development of key technologies.
5. Provide information on funding requirements to complete development of the new methods.
RAND 55
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Study MethodStudy Method
Review literature on landmine detection technologies
Identify leaders in the mine detection field
Appoint Landmine Detection Task Force
Identify innovative technologies (literature search and task force interviews)
Identify two lead researchers on each technology
Ask researchers to submit papers describing the potential of each technology (received 23 papers)
RAND 66
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Study Method (continued)Study Method (continued)
Meet with task force to review capabilities and limitations of each technology (two-day meeting held in May 2002)
Work with task force to refine evaluations and recommendations
Submit report to task force members for review
Submit report to additional peer reviewers who were not task force members
RAND 77
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Landmine Detection Task ForceLandmine Detection Task Force
Dr. John McFee (chair) Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technology
Dr. Tom Altshuler DARPA
Dr. Tom Broach Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate
Dr. Larry Carin Duke University
Dr. Russell Harmon Army Research Office
Dr. Cary Rappaport Northeastern University
Dr. Waymond Scott Georgia Tech
Mr. Richard Weaver Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate
RAND 88
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Briefing OutlineBriefing Outline
1. Origins of this project
2. Project tasks and study method
3. Background on the scope of the landmine problem
4. Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies
5. Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations
6. Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system
RAND 99
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Scope of the Landmine ProblemScope of the Landmine Problem
45-50 million mines worldwide
100,000 mines cleared each year => 450-500 years to clear all existing mines
1 million new mines emplaced annually => 19 years of additional mine clearance time added each year
15,000-20,000 victims each year in 90 countries
RAND 1010
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
American Mine VictimsAmerican Mine Victims
Fred Downs: lost left Fred Downs: lost left arm to mine in Vietnamarm to mine in Vietnam
Robert Washburn: lost leg to Robert Washburn: lost leg to mine in Bosniamine in Bosnia
RAND 1111
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
American Victims (continued)American Victims (continued)
Marianne Holtz: civilian Marianne Holtz: civilian nurse, lost both legs to a nurse, lost both legs to a mine in Zairemine in Zaire
Jerry White: lost a leg Jerry White: lost a leg while a student on a while a student on a backpacking trip in Israelbackpacking trip in Israel
RAND 1212
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Case Study: AfghanistanCase Study: Afghanistan
One of the world’s most heavily mined countries
More than 11 percent of land is mined
150-300 mine victims per month, half of them children
17 in 1,000 children injured or killed by mines
Most mines left from Soviet occupation; some emplaced during civil wars that followed
Mine presence interfering with restoration of stability
RAND 1313
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Mine Victims, AfghanistanMine Victims, Afghanistan
Mine victims at Kabul limb-fitting center.
RAND 1414
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Blast MineBlast Mine
Blast mines cause the affected object (e.g., foot) to blast upward into fragments
RAND 1515
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Fragmentation MineFragmentation Mine
Fragmentation mines throw fragments radially outward and can cause casualties at large distance (100 m)
RAND 1616
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Briefing OutlineBriefing Outline
1. Origins of this project
2. Project tasks and study method
3. Background on the scope of the landmine problem
4. Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies
5. Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations
6. Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system
RAND 1717
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Reliable, Safe, Efficient Reliable, Safe, Efficient Detection Methods Are LackingDetection Methods Are Lacking
Detection technologies have advanced little since World War II:
“Today, highly trained, scared soldiers use all of their senses, augmented with a coin detector and a pointed stick.”
Col. Robert Greenwalt
RAND 1818
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Mine Detection ProcessMine Detection Process
Divide mined area into grids (e.g., 100 m2)
Split grid into 1-m-wide lanes
Slowly traverse each lane while swinging a metal detector low to the ground
Investigate each item signaled by the metal detector, using pointed stick
Variations: mechanical flails, mine-sniffing dogs
RAND 1919
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
““Highly trained, scared soldiers Highly trained, scared soldiers augmented with a coin detector …”augmented with a coin detector …”
Mozambiquan Mozambiquan deminer, deminer, KosovoKosovo
RAND 2020
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
“… “… and a stick” and a stick”
Deminer probing a detected object to determine whether it is a mine
RAND 2121
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Dogs sometimes lend a handDogs sometimes lend a hand
RAND 2222
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Metal Detector ConceptsMetal Detector Concepts
Operate via “electromagnetic induction” (EMI)
Electric current from detector coil creates magnetic field in ground
Induces an electric current in buried metal
Current in buried metal creates secondary magnetic field
Receiver coil detects voltage change
Detector converts voltage change to audible signal
RAND 2323
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
EMI LimitationsEMI Limitations
1. Imperfect probability of detection: Not all mines are detected
2. High false-alarm rate:
- 100-1,000 inert metal objects excavated for every mine
- Increases deminer fatigue and likelihood of carelessness
- Trade-off between false-alarm rate and probability of detection
RAND 2424
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
EMI Limitations (continued)EMI Limitations (continued)
3. Slow:
- Deminer needs 5-20 minutes to investigate each declaration, whether scrap or clutter
- Most of deminer’s time is spent investigating false alarms
4. Dangerous:
- Deminers must work close to mines; must excavate or prod to confirm mine presence
- 1 deminer killed for every 1,000-2,000 mines cleared
RAND 2525
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
RAND 2626
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
RAND 2727
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
False Alarms Make Mine Detection False Alarms Make Mine Detection Extremely SlowExtremely Slow
Type of Item Number Found
Time Spent (hours)
Percentage of Total Time
Antitank mines 961 240 0.0074
Antipersonnel mines
89,327 22,000 0.068
Unexploded ordnance
452,770 110,000 0.34
Scrap 191,737,707 32,000,000 99.6
Mine Clearance Data from Cambodia, 1992-1998
RAND 2828
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
RAND 2929
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Briefing OutlineBriefing Outline
1. Origins of this project
2. Project tasks and study method
3. Background on the scope of the landmine problem
4. Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies
5. Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations
6. Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system
RAND 3030
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Electromagnetic MethodsElectromagnetic Methods
Technology Principle Limitations
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
Reflects radio waves off mine/soil interface
Roots, rocks, water pockets; extremely moist or dry environments
Electrical impedance tomography
Determines electrical conductivity distribution
Dry environments; can detonate mine
X-ray backscatter
Images buried objects with x-rays
Slow; emits radiation
Infrared/ hyper-spectral
Assesses temperature, light reflectance differences
Cannot locate individual mines
RAND 3131
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Low-metal mines
Metal mine
Landmine Images from GPRLandmine Images from GPR
RAND 3232
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Acoustic/Seismic MethodsAcoustic/Seismic Methods
Technology Principle Limitations
Acoustic/ seismic
Reflects sound or seismic waves off mines
Deep mines; vegetation cover; frozen ground
RAND 3333
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Explosive Vapor Detection MethodsExplosive Vapor Detection Methods
Technology Principle Limitations
Biological (dogs, bees, bacteria)
Living organisms detect explosive vapors
Dry environments; environmental confounders
Fluorescent Measure changes in polymer fluorescence in presence of explosive vapors
Dry environments
Piezoelectric Measure shift in resonant frequency of various materials upon exposure to explosive vapors
Dry environments
Spectroscopic Analyze spectral response of sample
Dry environments
RAND 3434
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Bacteria Fluorescing in the Presence of Bacteria Fluorescing in the Presence of TNTTNT
RAND 3535
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Prototype Fluorescent Polymer SystemPrototype Fluorescent Polymer System
RAND 3636
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Bulk Explosives Detection MethodsBulk Explosives Detection Methods
Technology Principle Limitations
Nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR)
Induces radio frequency pulse that causes chemical bonds in explosives to resonate
TNT; liquid explosives; radio-frequency interference; quartz-bearing and magnetic soils
Neutron Induces radiation emissions from the atomic nuclei in explosives
Not specific to explosives molecule; moist soil; ground surface fluctuations
RAND 3737
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Prototype NQR SystemPrototype NQR System
RAND 3838
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Summary of Innovative Detection Summary of Innovative Detection Technology PotentialTechnology Potential
Unlikely to Yield Major Gains or Not Suitable
Basic Research Needed
Promising Established
Electrical impedance tomography
X-ray backscatter
Infrared/ hyperspectral
Neutron
Biological (bacteria, bees)
Fluorescent
Electrochemical
Piezoelectric
Spectroscopic
Acoustic/ seismic
NQR
EMI
GPR
RAND 3939
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
ConclusionsConclusions
Some individual technologies warrant further research
However, no single mine sensor can detect all mine types in all environments
All sensors are limited by false alarms (specific to the sensor type) and/or environmental interference
RAND 4040
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Briefing OutlineBriefing Outline
1. Origins of this project
2. Project tasks and study method
3. Background on the scope of the landmine problem
4. Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies
5. Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations
6. Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system
RAND 4141
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Multi-Sensor Approach Is NeededMulti-Sensor Approach Is Needed
Multi-sensor system would overcome limitations of single sensors:
Multiple sensors with different false alarm sources would decrease false alarm rate
Multiple sensors with different environmental confounders would increase probability of detection
Advanced signal processing and/or decision algorithms would optimize operator decisions about whether or not item is a mine
Design from first principles is needed
RAND 4242
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Multi-Sensor System Would Exploit Multi-Sensor System Would Exploit Different False Alarm SourcesDifferent False Alarm Sources
Detection Technology Primary Source of False Alarms
EMI Metal scrap, natural soil conductivity and magnetism variation
GPR Natural clutter (roots, rocks, water pockets, etc.)
Acoustic/seismic Hollow, man-made objects (e.g., soda cans)
Fluorescent polymers Explosive residues
NQR Radio frequency interference
RAND 4343
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Army Dual-Sensor System: Hand-Held Army Dual-Sensor System: Hand-Held Standoff Mine Detection System Standoff Mine Detection System
Combines GPR and EMI
Production scheduled for 2004
Does not represent the type of advanced muti-sensor system we envision:
Relies on established electromagnetic sensors
Does not use innovative methods for detecting explosives or acoustic properties
Does not use advanced signal processing or multi-sensor decision algorithms; operator receives two distinct signals
RAND 4444
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Prototype HSTAMIDS SystemPrototype HSTAMIDS System
RAND 4545
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
U.S. Funding Is Not Optimized for Multi-U.S. Funding Is Not Optimized for Multi-Sensor System DevelopmentSensor System Development
Total 2002 funding for humanitarian mine detection R&D: $13.5 million
Only $4.9 million of this was allocated for detection technologies
Nearly half the $4.9 million was allocated for wide-area (not close-in) detection
Total available for close-in detection: $2.7 million
Most of the $2.7 million was focused on established technologies
RAND 4646
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Distribution of U.S. Funds for Distribution of U.S. Funds for Humanitarian Mine Detection R&DHumanitarian Mine Detection R&D
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Hand-held detection(EMI, GPR)
Explosive vapordetection
Radars for wide-area detection
Infrared sensors forwide-area detection
Funding ($ millions)
RAND 4747
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
How Much Faster Could We Clear Mines How Much Faster Could We Clear Mines with a Multi-Sensor System?with a Multi-Sensor System?
At project outset, we were asked to evaluate whether order-of-magnitude decreases in time is possible
Across-the-board order-of-magnitude decrease in time is not possible in foreseeable future:
Vegetation, trip-wire clearance are time consuming
Thus even a perfect detector could not cut clearance time by a factor of 10
Current research predicts 60-300% decrease in clearance rates with elimination of 99% of false alarms
RAND 4848
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
Benefits of Multi-Sensor SystemBenefits of Multi-Sensor System
Savings of billions to tens of billions of dollars in world-wide cost of mine clearance:
• Estimated total cost to clear all mines is $14-50 billion
• Most of cost is personnel cost
• Thus time savings translate almost directly into cost savings
Improvement in probability of detection
Improvement in demining safety
Spin-off benefits
RAND 4949
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
What Would It Take to Develop an What Would It Take to Develop an Advanced, Multi-Sensor Detector?Advanced, Multi-Sensor Detector?
R&D Stage HSTAMIDS Time
HSTAMIDS Cost
Predicted Advanced System Time
Predicted Advanced System Cost
Basic 4 years $5 million 5-8 years $50 million
Prototype 2 years $8 million 2 years $10 million
Demonstration 5 years $33 million 5 years $40 million
Manufacturing 4 years $27 million 4 years $35 million
RAND 5050
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
5-Year Research Plan for 5-Year Research Plan for Multi-sensor SystemMulti-sensor System
Research Area Researcher Years
Cost Results
Algorithms for sensor fusion
40 $10 million
Minimal set of sensor-level fusion algorithms for specific sensor suite
Integration of component sensors
25 $6.2 million
Multi-sensor prototype detector with three to four sensor technologies
Explosives detection
50 $12 million
Set of sensors suitable for use in multi-sensor prototype
Environment effects on sensors
10 $2.5 million
Simple tests that can be performed to improve or predict sensor performance
RAND 5151
Science & Technology Policy Science & Technology Policy InstituteInstitute
SummarySummary
Antipersonnel mines are a significant problem with effects on U.S. interests world-wide
Existing mine detection technologies are primitive: coin detectors and sticks
A number of promising mine sensors are in the R&D stage
No single sensor can overcome all sources of false alarms and find all mine types in all environments
An advanced, multi-sensor system is needed
Current U.S. R&D would need to be refocused to develop such a system