Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Sensor Emplacement Network Analysis for Detection of Cross Border Tunnels LtCol Oscar Garcia-Olalla MAJ Manuel A. Ugarte 2 November 2011.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Sensor Emplacement Network Analysis for Detection of Cross Border Tunnels LtCol Oscar Garcia-Olalla MAJ Manuel A. Ugarte 2 November 2011."— Presentation transcript:

1 Sensor Emplacement Network Analysis for Detection of Cross Border Tunnels LtCol Oscar Garcia-Olalla MAJ Manuel A. Ugarte 2 November 2011

2 Purpose and Agenda Agenda Background. Objective, Issues, & Scope. Constraints, Limitations, & Assumptions. Threat Analysis. SENTRIES* model –S ensor E mplacement N etwork for T unnel R econnaissance & I nterdiction Emulation S imulation Summary. Questions. 2 November 2011 To provide the results of the sensor emplacement network study in support of a tunnel defeat effort. 2 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis *SENTRIES - a soldier stationed at a place to stand guard and prevent the passage of unauthorized persons, especially a sentinel stationed at a pass, gate, opening in a defense work, or the like.

3 Area of Interest Area of Research Focus

4 Study Objective, Issues, & Scope Objective. –Determine the sensor emplacement network that maximizes the probability of detecting the construction of tunnels along the U.S. border according to a selected geographic location. Issues. –Issue 1: What is the combination, localization and array of persistent underground sensors to maximize the probability of detection within a given area of interest? –Issue 2: What is the mix of sensors for border area coverage that provides the greatest probability of detecting cross-border tunnel activity? –Issue 3: What is the life cost estimate of the sensor packages for the tunnel activity risks areas? Scope. –This research coalesces exploratory network simulation analysis to gain insights concerning sensor allocation, configuration, placement, and prioritization of sensor field emplacement along the U.S. southern border. 2 November 20114 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

5 Constraints, Limitations & Assumptions Constraints –Preliminary results due 1 November 2011. –Sensors for the analysis are notional. Limitations –Focus of the analysis will be on the Nogales cross-border area due to time restrictions and data rich environment. –Sensor performance data – adequate for future concepts. –Model does not represent existing tunnel activity. Assumptions –Applying rough orders of magnitude estimates provides sufficient measure. –Addressing high risk regions meets study needs. –Data input is sufficient to enable analysis. 2 November 2011 5 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

6 Nogales GIS Data Analysis 2 November 20116 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis Outside the drain network we see both “ short-and-shallow ” tunnels and the more sophisticated type. Nogales presents a unique set of challenges because of its network of drains.

7 2 November 20117 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis Abstract Network Overlay (Top View) 100 m 50 m

8 2 November 20118 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis - seismic sensors Ground Surface House Shallow (approx 10m) Deep (approx 20m) C ij Pd ij Node i Node j Our Target: Tunneling Activity SENTRIES’ goal is to simulate tunneling activity & localize the sensors in the most likely nodes. US-MX Cross Border Fence Warehouse Exit Node T Entry Node S House

9 Algorithms – Searching safer path (less risk) 2 November 20119 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis (i,j) ε E Prob of det of arc (i,j) Prob of det of a sensor in node i Sensor in node i [0,1] Flow on arc (i,j) [0,1] Cost of arc (i,j)

10 Algorithms – Searching where to place Sensors and re-solving for a safer path 2 November 201110 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis Solving using MAXIMIZING Z (Dual Objetive Function), we find the best placement of sensor. Finally, now that we have computed sensor locations, we re-solve for the operator's new best tunneling route.

11 2 November 201111 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis US Border (Shallow/ Deep) -Rear -Middle -Front MX Border (Shallow/ Deep) -Front -Middle -Rear Node and Arcs Map Overview Direction of Movement

12 No Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201112 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

13 1 Sensor (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201113 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

14 2 Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201114 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

15 3 Sensors (Unlimited Budget ) 2 November 201115 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

16 4 Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201116 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

17 Tunnel Defeat Simulation Model Results 17 As expected, POS is affected by the number of sensors. After 9 sensors, the operator is forced to cross a node with a sensor. 2 November 2011 17 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis Costs consistently fluctuates in an increasing fashion. Number of sensors is not strictly proportional to the Costs. −Pd in each arc ij is not strictly related to the Costs in arc ij Operator Unlimited Budget

18 8 Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201118 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

19 9 Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201119 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

20 10 Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201120 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

21 13 Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201121 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

22 14 Sensors (Unlimited Budget) 2 November 201122 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

23 Tunnel Defeat Simulation Model Results 14-15 October 200923 CBP Analysis Support A budget lower that the operator’s Critical Budget will negatively impact the POS. 2 November 201123 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis Critical Budget

24 Summary and Way Ahead Conclusion: –Operator consistently selects less risky routes (based on a limited budget). –The model provides a quantifiable method to estimate the operator’s critical budget. –This model provides the sensible number of sensors required to drastically reduced the operator’s POS. Way Ahead: –Conduct sensor tests under various geological conditions on selected high- risk areas along the southern border. –Populate the tunnel detection model with sensor performance data for evaluation. –Expand the SENTRIES model to incorporate cultural, geographical data to enhance the representation of threat’s behavior. 2 November 201124 Tunnels are a threat to national security— this effort will provide CBP with a framework and strategy that will result in an efficient and effective resource allocation policy. Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

25 Questions and Discussion Cross Border Tunnel Detection and Sensor Emplacement Network Analysis

26 BACKUPS 2 November 201126 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

27 Tunnel Defeat Simulation Model Simulation Model Incorporates: Creation of new tunnels Sensor performance Two Tunnel types: Shallow Deep Measures of Performance: Probability of Detection vs. Probability of Success Tunnel Cost (monetary) Research Issue: What is the localization, combination, and array of persistent underground sensors to maximize the probability of detection within a given area of interest? 2 November 201127 SENTRIES is flexible and data-driven model that can be easily modified in a relative short time. No off-the-shelf models were found that provided the ability to create/ detect tunnels and represent tunnel activity. Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis Sensor Emplacement Network for Tunnel Reconnaissance & Interdiction Emulation Simulation (SENTRIES Model) Inputs Outputs Number existing nodes and respective arcs Sensor types and locations Tunnel Interdiction Plan: routes of intercepted new tunnels (Operator’s likely tunnel routes) Sensors localization plan Localization of nodes for sensor emplacement plan

28 Threat Analysis High Risk Cross-Border Areas Examined CBP data sets of tunnels detected to identify areas with greater likelihood of cross-border tunnels. –CBP GIS information. Developed patterns of relationships among tunnel characteristics. Analyzed and prioritized threats in terms of tunnel cross-border activity stakeholders, tunnel lifecycle issues, economic issues, and indicators. Applied modeling techniques to asses underlying assumptions regarding the narcotics transport system. 2 November 2011 Characterization of border areas for tunnel potential and assessment of tunnel lifecycle issues to identify high risk cross-border areas. Research Issue: What is the geographic specific likelihood of cross-border tunnel activity? 28 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

29 Buried Sensors Surface Microphone Analysis OPS Center (AOC) In C2 Trailer Buried Trunk Cable Road Buried Sensors Surface Microphone Analysis OPS Center (AOC) In C2 Trailer Buried Trunk Cable Road Our Target: Tunneling Activity SENTRIES’ goal is to simulate tunneling activity & localize the sensors in the most likely nodes 2/26 US- MX Cross Border Fence Deep Tunnels (approx 20 meters below surface) Shallow Tunnels (approx 10 meters below surface) 2 November 2011 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis 29

30 Scenario Characteristics CategoriesShallowDeep Traffic Type Human & Marihuana Traffic Cocaine Traffic Depth from Surface40 m80 m Sensor Pd0.8.60 Construction Budget CostApprox $500kApprox $1million 2 November 201130 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

31 Probability of Success vs. Number of Sensors 2 November 201131 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

32 Tunnel Cost vs. Number of Sensors 2 November 201132 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis Budget = 40

33 Probability of Success vs. Budget 2 November 201133 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis 8 Sensors fixed

34 Probability of Success vs. Budget 2 November 201134 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis 12 Sensors fixed

35 No Sensors 2 November 201135 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

36 1 Sensor 2 November 201136 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

37 2 Sensors 2 November 201137 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

38 3 Sensors 2 November 201138 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

39 4 Sensors 2 November 201139 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

40 8 Sensors 2 November 201140 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

41 9 Sensors 2 November 201141 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

42 10 Sensors 2 November 201142 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

43 43 Background The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (DHS CBP) is responsible for the detection and interdiction of tunnels at both the U.S. northern and southern borders. NORTHCOM reports that illicit traffic tunnels are used to facilitate movement of narcotics, arms, illegal immigrants. Concern for potential WMD shipment is growing. USCENTCOM reports that prisoners use tunnels to escape internment facilities and hide weapons caches, endangering US warfighters. 111 cross-border tunnels found in USNORTHCOM AoF since 1990. Of those detected, 92+ were detected after 11 SEP 01, 60 of them were detected over the last four years, 24 discoveries by LEAs in CY 2008. 2 November 2011 To date no technology has been successfully employed to detect the existence of cross-border tunnels employed for illicit trafficking. Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis

44 44 A Clear and Present Danger Courtesy of U.S. Army MOSUL, IRAQ According to officials, U.S. soldiers, acting on a report of a planned bomb attack against Mosul Provincial Hall by way of a tunnel system, found the tunnel and arrested two in what the U.S. commander in northern Iraq called an evil deed. Recent Discoveries Fox News MEXICALI, MEX A tunnel about 3 feet wide, 3 feet high, and 100 yards long is seen under a neighborhood in Mexicali on Mexico’s northern border with the U.S. 2 November 2011 Tunnel Sensor Emplacement Analysis


Download ppt "Sensor Emplacement Network Analysis for Detection of Cross Border Tunnels LtCol Oscar Garcia-Olalla MAJ Manuel A. Ugarte 2 November 2011."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google