Detection and Imaging of Underground Objects for Distinguishing Explosives by Using a Fluxgate Sensor Array
Source abstract
Abstract
Active and passive techniques are two different techniques with which to detect buried explosives. In practice, the most preferred active method works by broadcasting a signal underground. This signal may stimulate the buried explosive and cause it to explode. It is important to eliminate or minimize this drawback to ensure the safety of the detector operator. In this respect, it is important to increase the studies on the passive detection technique which is not currently used in practice. The aim of this study was to passively detect improvised explosive devices without stimulating them, and to classify underground objects as explosive or non-explosive. A fluxgate sensor array having 33 components was used for passive magnetic field measurements, and the nearest neighborhood algorithm was preferred for classifying the resulting data. In experimental studies, 33 different samples having different amounts of ferromagnetic properties were used. Successful imaging and classification were achieved for the measurements up to 20 cm below the surface of soil. Data were recorded as 32 × 25 matrices, and then they were reduced to 32 × 2 matrices having the same features. Samples having explosive properties were distinguished from other underground objects with success rates of 86% and 95% for 32 × 25 and 32 × 2 data matrices, respectively. Classification times for 32 × 25 and 32 × 2 data matrices were 42 ms and 3.62 ms, respectively. For data groups where the best results were obtained for the data matrices, frame numbers classified in one second were calculated as 23.80 and 276.2, respectively. False alarm rate achieved was 5.31%. The experimental results proved the successes of the matrices reduction and classification approach. One of the most common problems encountered in passive detecting techniques is that the sensor position affects the measurements negatively. In this paper, a solution has been proposed for this important problem.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Magnetic Field Sensors Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Electronics & Communication, Army NCO Vocational School, National Defence University, Balıkesir 10100, Turkey
Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir 10145, Turkey
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Performance Analysis of Techniques Used for Determining Land Mines10.4236/ijg.2014.510098 ↗
2. Landmine detection: The problem and the challenge10.1016/S0969-8043(00)00218-9 ↗
3. Fatah, A., Arcilesi, R., and Clindock, J. (2008). Guide for the Selection of Explosives Detection and Blast Mitigation Equipment for Emergency First Responders, Preparedness Directorate Office of Grants and Training.
4. Baysoy, D. (2010). Numerical Evaluation of a Mine Detection System Based on Nuclear Techniques. [Ph.D. Thesis, Yıldız Technical University].
5. A combined strategy for landmine detection and identification using synthetic GPR responses10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.08.006 ↗
6. Hoarau, Q., Ginolhac, G., Atto, A.M., Nicolas, J.M., and Ovarlez, J.P. (September, January 29). Robust adaptive detection of buried pipes using GPR. Proceedings of the 2016 24th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Budapest, Hungary.10.1109/EUSIPCO.2016.7760305 ↗
7. A novel signal processing technique for clutter reduction in GPR measurements of small, shallow land mines10.1109/36.885209 ↗
8. Improved performance of a subsurface radar target identification system through antenna design10.1109/TAP.1981.1142580 ↗
9. Kolba, M.P., and Jouny, I.I. (2003, January 21–25). Buried land mine detection using complex natural resonances on GPR data. Proceedings of the IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Toulouse, France.
10. Dumanian, A.J., and Rappaport, C.M. (2005, January 3–8). Enhanced detection and classification of buried mines with an UWB multistatic GPR. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium, Washington, DC, USA.
11. Discrimination between landmine and mine-like targets using wavelets and spectral analysis10.1016/j.nrjag.2013.06.009 ↗
12. Land-Mine Detection With Ground-Penetrating Radar Using Multistream Discrete Hidden Markov Models10.1109/TGRS.2010.2090886 ↗
13. Land mine detection using a ground-penetrating radar based on resistively loaded Vee dipoles10.1109/8.817655 ↗
14. GRANMA: Gradient Angle Model Algorithm on Wideband EMI Data for Land-Mine Detection10.1109/LGRS.2010.2041184 ↗
15. Pamukcu, S., and Cheng, L. (2018). Chapter 2—Acoustic, Electromagnetic and Optical Sensing and Monitoring Methods. Underground Sensing, Academic Press.
16. 14N-NQR based device for detection of explosives in landmines10.1016/j.measurement.2006.04.003 ↗
17. Landmine detection using feedback NQR
18. Deas, R., Cervantes, C., and Schaedel, S. (2004). Landmine Detection by Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance(NQR), US Army RDECOM CERDEC Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate Fort Belvoir.10.21236/ADA431654 ↗
19. Non-destructive acoustic defect detection in drug tablets10.1016/j.ijpharm.2008.04.019 ↗
20. Behboodian, A., Scott, W.R., and McClellan, J.H. (1999, January 24–27). Signal processing of elastic surface waves for localizing buried land mines. Proceedings of the Conference Record of the Thirty-Third Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers (Cat. No.CH37020), Grove, CA, USA.
21. Acoustic detection of buried objects in 3-D fluid saturated porous media: Numerical modeling10.1109/36.927434 ↗
22. Chu, P.C., Cornelius, M., and Wegstaff, M. (2005, January 19–23). Effect of Suspended Sediment on Acoustic Detection Using the Navy’s CASS-GRAB Model. Proceedings of the OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE, Washington, DC, USA.
23. Baysoy, D., and Subaşı, M. (2009, January 6–9). Landmine Detection with the Neutron-Induced. Proceedings of the X National Congress of Nuclear Science and Technologies Congress, Muğla, Türkiye.
24. Multi-parameter optimization of a (3He-252Cf-3He) neutron backscattering sensor for landmine detection
25. DUNBLAD, the Delft University Neutron Backscatter LAnd-mine Detector, a status report10.1063/1.1619862 ↗
26. Standoff detection of explosives and buried landmines using fluorescent bacterial sensor cells10.1016/j.bios.2016.01.011 ↗
27. Experimental optimization of a landmine detection facility using PGNAA method10.1016/S1001-8042(08)60033-0 ↗
28. Investigations on landmine detection by neutron-based techniques10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.02.011 ↗
29. Mine Identification and Classification by Mobile Sensor Network Using Magnetic Anomaly10.1109/TIM.2010.2060220 ↗
30. Direction finding of moving ferromagnetic objects inside water by magnetic anomaly10.1016/j.sna.2008.03.010 ↗
31. A multi-sensor network for direction finding of moving ferromagnetic objects inside water by magnetic anomaly10.1016/j.measurement.2009.06.002 ↗
32. Söyler, S., Kurt, E., and Dağ, O. (2012, January 7–9). Optimization of the Magnetic Anomaly Signals from a New Land Mine Detection Device. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Applications of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Athens, Greece.
33. Anomaly detection with low magnetic flux: A fluxgate sensor network application10.1016/j.measurement.2015.12.004 ↗
34. Identification of materials with magnetic characteristics by neural networks10.1016/j.measurement.2011.12.017 ↗
35. Numerical Analysis for Remote Identification of Materials With Magnetic Characteristics10.1109/TIM.2011.2124651 ↗
36. Jordanova, N. (2017). Applications of Soil Magnetism, Elseiver.10.1016/B978-0-12-809239-2.00010-3 ↗
37. Passive Mine Detection and Classification Method Based on Hybrid Model10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2866538 ↗
38. Gürkan, S., Karapınar, M., and Doğan, S. (2017, January 8–10). Design of a data acquisition system for passive detection of buried explosives. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Electrical and Electronic Engineering (ICEEE), Ankara, Turkey.10.1109/ICEEE2.2017.7935846 ↗
39. Landmine Detection Using Multispectral Images10.1109/JSEN.2019.2925203 ↗
40. Jiang, Z., Ni, F., Yang, D., Li, C., Yang, F., and Liu, H. (2019). A Hybrid Mapping Method with Position and Stiffness for Manipulator Teleoperation. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9235005 ↗
41. Xu, H., Zhou, J., Asteris, P.G., Jahed Armaghani, D., and Tahir, M.M. (2019). Supervised Machine Learning Techniques to the Prediction of Tunnel Boring Machine Penetration Rate. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9183715 ↗
42. Dudaa, R., and Hart, P.E. (1973). Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis, Wiley.
43. Estimation and mapping of forest stand density, volume, and cover type using the k-nearest neighbors method10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00209-7 ↗
44. Top 10 algorithms in data mining10.1007/s10115-007-0114-2 ↗
45. Shi, C.T. (2018). Signal Pattern Recognition Based on Fractal Features and Machine Learning. Appl. Sci., 8.10.3390/app8081327 ↗
46. Islam, M.R., Kim, Y.H., Kim, J.Y., and Kim, J.M. (2019). Detecting and Learning Unknown Fault States by Automatically Finding the Optimal Number of Clusters for Online Bearing Fault Diagnosis. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9112326 ↗
47. Part 1: Simple Definition and Calculation of Accuracy, Sensitivity and Specificity
48. (2019, November 10). Weka 3: Machine Learning Software in Java. Available online: https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/index.html.
49. Statistics Notes: Diagnostic tests 1: Sensitivity and specificity10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552 ↗
50. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic