Science & Technology Policy Institute
Alternatives for Landmine Detection
Jacqueline MacDonald
J.R. Lockwood
November 14, 2002
1
RAND
Briefing Outline
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
2
RAND
Project Origins
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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-ofmagnitude improvement in mine-clearing?”
3
RAND
Project Tasks
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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.
4
RAND
Study Method
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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)
5
RAND
Study Method (continued)
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
6
RAND
Landmine Detection Task Force
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Dr. John McFee (chair) Canadian Centre for Mine Action
Technology
7
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
Briefing Outline
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
8
RAND
Scope of the Landmine Problem
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
9
RAND
American Mine Victims
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Robert Washburn: lost leg to
mine in Bosnia
Fred Downs: lost left
arm to mine in Vietnam
10
RAND
American Victims (continued)
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Marianne Holtz: civilian
nurse, lost both legs to a
mine in Zaire
Jerry White: lost a leg
while a student on a
backpacking trip in Israel
11
RAND
Case Study: Afghanistan
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
12
RAND
Mine Victims, Afghanistan
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Mine victims at Kabul limbfitting center.
13
RAND
Blast Mine
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Blast mines
cause the
affected object
(e.g., foot) to
blast upward into
fragments
14
RAND
Fragmentation Mine
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Fragmentation
mines throw
fragments
radially outward
and can cause
casualties at
large distance
(100 m)
15
RAND
Briefing Outline
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
16
RAND
Reliable, Safe, Efficient
Detection Methods Are Lacking
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
17
RAND
Mine Detection Process
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
18
RAND
“Highly trained, scared soldiers
augmented with a coin detector …”
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Mozambiquan
deminer,
Kosovo
19
RAND
“… and a stick”
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Deminer
probing a
detected
object to
determine
whether it is a
mine
20
RAND
Dogs sometimes lend a hand
Science & Technology Policy Institute
21
RAND
Metal Detector Concepts
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
22
RAND
EMI Limitations
Science & Technology Policy Institute
1. Imperfect probability of detection: Not all mines
are detected
2. High false-alarm rate:
23
-
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
EMI Limitations (continued)
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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:
24
-
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
Science & Technology Policy Institute
25
RAND
Science & Technology Policy Institute
26
RAND
False Alarms Make Mine Detection
Extremely Slow
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Mine Clearance Data from Cambodia, 1992-1998
Type of Item
Antitank mines
Antipersonnel
mines
Unexploded
ordnance
Scrap
27
Number
Found
Time Spent
(hours)
Percentage of
Total Time
961
240
0.0074
89,327
22,000
0.068
452,770
110,000
0.34
191,737,707
32,000,000
99.6
RAND
Science & Technology Policy Institute
28
RAND
Briefing Outline
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
29
RAND
Electromagnetic Methods
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Technology
30
Principle
Limitations
GroundReflects radio waves
penetrating radar off mine/soil interface
(GPR)
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/ hyperspectral
Assesses temperature,
light reflectance
differences
Cannot locate individual mines
RAND
Landmine Images from GPR
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Low-metal
mines
Metal mine
31
RAND
Acoustic/Seismic Methods
Science & Technology Policy Institute
32
Technology
Principle
Limitations
Acoustic/
seismic
Reflects sound or
seismic waves off
mines
Deep mines; vegetation
cover; frozen ground
RAND
Explosive Vapor Detection Methods
Science & Technology Policy Institute
33
Technology
Principle
Limitations
Biological
(dogs, bees,
bacteria)
Living organisms detect
explosive vapors
Dry environments;
environmental
confounders
Fluorescent
Measure changes in polymer Dry environments
fluorescence in presence of
explosive vapors
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
Bacteria Fluorescing in the Presence of
TNT
Science & Technology Policy Institute
34
RAND
Prototype Fluorescent Polymer System
Science & Technology Policy Institute
35
RAND
Bulk Explosives Detection Methods
Science & Technology Policy Institute
36
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
Prototype NQR System
Science & Technology Policy Institute
37
RAND
Summary of Innovative Detection
Technology Potential
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Unlikely to Yield
Basic Research Promising
Major Gains or Not Needed
Suitable
Established
Electrical
impedance
tomography
EMI
X-ray backscatter
Infrared/
hyperspectral
Neutron
38
Biological
(bacteria, bees)
Acoustic/
seismic
Fluorescent
NQR
GPR
Electrochemical
Piezoelectric
Spectroscopic
RAND
Conclusions
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
39
RAND
Briefing Outline
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
40
RAND
Multi-Sensor Approach Is Needed
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
41
RAND
Multi-Sensor System Would Exploit
Different False Alarm Sources
Science & Technology Policy Institute
42
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
Army Dual-Sensor System: Hand-Held
Standoff Mine Detection System
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Combines GPR and EMI
Production scheduled for 2004
Does not represent the type of advanced mutisensor system we envision:
43

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
Prototype HSTAMIDS System
Science & Technology Policy Institute
44
RAND
U.S. Funding Is Not Optimized for MultiSensor System Development
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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 $2.7 million was focused on
established technologies
45
RAND
Distribution of U.S. Funds for
Humanitarian Mine Detection R&D
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Infrared sensors for
wide-area detection
Radars for widearea detection
Explosive vapor
detection
Hand-held detection
(EMI, GPR)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Funding ($ millions)
46
RAND
How Much Faster Could We Clear Mines
with a Multi-Sensor System?
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
47
RAND
Benefits of Multi-Sensor System
Science & Technology Policy Institute
Savings of billions to tens of billions of dollars in
world-wide cost of mine clearance:
•
Estimated total cost to clear all mines is $1450 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
48
RAND
What Would It Take to Develop an
Advanced, Multi-Sensor Detector?
Science & Technology Policy Institute
49
R&D Stage
HSTAMIDS HSTAMIDS Predicted
Predicted
Time
Cost
Advanced
Advanced
System Time 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
$27 million 4 years
$35 million
4 years
RAND
5-Year Research Plan for
Multi-sensor System
Science & Technology Policy Institute
50
Research Area
Researcher Cost
Years
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
Summary
Science & Technology Policy Institute
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
51
RAND