Alternatives for Landmine Detection

1. Alternatives for Landmine Detection Jacqueline MacDonald J.R. Lockwood November 14, 2002

2. Briefing Outline • Origins of this project • Project tasks and study method • Background on the scope of the landmine problem • Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies • Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations • Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system

3. Project 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?”

4. Project Tasks • Identify antipersonnel mine detection technologies currently in the R&D stage. • Evaluate the potential for each to improve the reliability and safety, increase the speed, and decrease the costs of demining. • Identify any barriers to completing development of new technologies. • Recommend options for federal investments to speed development of key technologies. • Provide information on funding requirements to complete development of the new methods.

5. Study 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)

6. 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

7. Landmine Detection Task Force

8. Briefing Outline • Origins of this project • Project tasks and study method • Background on the scope of the landmine problem • Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies • Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations • Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system

9. Scope 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

10. American Mine Victims Robert Washburn: lost leg to mine in Bosnia Fred Downs: lost left arm to mine in Vietnam

11. American Victims (continued) 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

12. Case 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

13. Mine Victims, Afghanistan Mine victims at Kabul limb-fitting center.

14. Blast Mine Blast mines cause the affected object (e.g., foot) to blast upward into fragments

15. Fragmentation Mine Fragmentation mines throw fragments radially outward and can cause casualties at large distance (100 m)

16. Briefing Outline • Origins of this project • Project tasks and study method • Background on the scope of the landmine problem • Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies • Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations • Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system

17. Reliable, Safe, Efficient Detection 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

18. Mine 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

19. “Highly trained, scared soldiers augmented with a coin detector …” Mozambiquan deminer, Kosovo

20. “… and a stick” Deminer probing a detected object to determine whether it is a mine

21. Dogs sometimes lend a hand

22. Metal 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

23. EMI Limitations • Imperfect probability of detection: Not all mines are detected • 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

24. EMI Limitations (continued) • Slow: • Deminer needs 5-20 minutes to investigate each declaration, whether scrap or clutter • Most of deminer’s time is spent investigating false alarms • 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

27. False Alarms Make Mine Detection Extremely Slow Mine Clearance Data from Cambodia, 1992-1998

29. Briefing Outline • Origins of this project • Project tasks and study method • Background on the scope of the landmine problem • Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies • Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations • Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system

30. Electromagnetic Methods

31. Landmine Images from GPR Low-metal mines Metal mine

32. Acoustic/Seismic Methods

33. Explosive Vapor Detection Methods

34. Bacteria Fluorescing in the Presence of TNT

35. Prototype Fluorescent Polymer System

36. Bulk Explosives Detection Methods

37. Prototype NQR System

38. Summary of Innovative Detection Technology Potential

39. Conclusions • 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

40. Briefing Outline • Origins of this project • Project tasks and study method • Background on the scope of the landmine problem • Limitations of conventional mine detection technologies • Alternative mine detection technologies: capabilities and limitations • Recommendations for developing an advanced mine detection system

41. Multi-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

42. Multi-Sensor System Would Exploit Different False Alarm Sources

43. Army Dual-Sensor System: Hand-Held 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

44. Prototype HSTAMIDS System

45. U.S. Funding Is Not Optimized for Multi-Sensor 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

46. Distribution of U.S. Funds for Humanitarian Mine Detection R&D

47. How Much Faster Could We Clear Mines 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

48. Benefits 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

49. What Would It Take to Develop an Advanced, Multi-Sensor Detector?

50. 5-Year Research Plan for Multi-sensor System