Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Www.naoc.org Technology Committee Report National Association of Ordnance Contractors BOD / GM Meeting November 19 - 21, 2013 San Antonio, Texas.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Www.naoc.org Technology Committee Report National Association of Ordnance Contractors BOD / GM Meeting November 19 - 21, 2013 San Antonio, Texas."— Presentation transcript:

1 Technology Committee Report National Association of Ordnance Contractors BOD / GM Meeting November , 2013 San Antonio, Texas

2 Committee Members  Brian Brunette, AECOM  Steve Stacy, ARCADIS  Tamir Klaff, CH2M Hill  David Wright, CH2M Hill  Kevin Sharpe, EA Engineering  Mike McGuire, EA Engineering  Kent Boler, Matrix Design Group  John Allan, NAEVA Geophysics  John Breznick, NAEVA Geophysics 2  Craig Murray, Parsons  Tom Bell, SAIC  John Herbert, SAIC  Dean Keiswetter, SAIC  Jeff Leberfinger, TerrannearPMC  Mike Warminsky, Tidewater  Al Crandall, USA Environmental  Ryan Steigerwalt, Weston Solutions  Brian Junck, Weston Solutions

3 Technology Committee Activities in 2013  SERDP/ESTCP:  UX-Analyze Training  In-Progress Review Meetings  Naming conventions for Advanced EMI Measurements  Geophysicist Qualifications for Advanced Classification (ITRC)  Geophysical Reporting Requirements for USACE Work 3

4 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP UX-Analyze Training Course  Class held February in Washington, D.C.  Class held February 27 – 28 in Denver  20 – 25 participants for each class 4

5 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meetings  First meeting February 12 th  Mike Warminsky attended  Notes posted on NAOC website  Agenda and presentations posted on NAOC website 5

6 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d.) Agenda Tuesday, February 12, :00Convene/Operating RemarksSERDP/ESTCP Deputy Director 09:55MR-2225: Advanced EM1 Models and Classification Algorithms: The Next Level ofDr. Fridon Shubitidze Sophistication to Improve Discrimination of Challenging Targets. (SERDP)Dartmouth College 09:55MR-2226: Decision Support Tools for Munitions Response Performance Prediction andDr. Laurens Beran Risk Assessment. (SERDP)Sky Research 10:40Break 10:55MR-2224: Simple Parameterized Models for Predicting Mobility, Burial, and Re-exposureDr. Carl Friedrichs of Underwater Munitions. (SERDP)Virginia Institute of Marine Science 11:40MR : Vortex Lattice Mobility Model Integration. (ESTCP)Dr. Gerald D’Spain Scripps Institution of Oceanography 12:25Lunch 6

7 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d.) Agenda Tuesday, February 12, :30MR-2229: Inversion of High Frequency Acoustic Data for Sediment Properties NeededDr. B. Todd Hefner for Detection and Classification of UXOs. (SERDP)University of Washington 14:15MR-2230: Data and Processing Tools for Sonar Classification of Underwater UXO. (SERDP)Dr. Raymond Lim Naval Surface Warfare Center 15:00Break 15:15MR-2231: Acoustic Response of Underwater Munitions near a Sediment Interface:Dr. Steven Kargl Measurement-Model Comparison and Classification Schemes. (SERDP)University of Washington 16:00MR-2228: Development and Testing of an Engineering Prototype of a Marine VersionDr. H. Frank Morrison of the Berkeley Unexploded Ordnance Discriminator (BUD). (SERDP)Marine Advanced Research 16:45Committee Discussion (Closed Door) 17:30Adjourn 7

8 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meetings  Second meeting May 7 th - 8 th  Al Crandall attended  Notes posted on NAOC website  Agenda and presentations posted on NAOC website 8

9 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 7, :30Convene/Opening RemarksSERDP/ESTCP Deputy Director 08:40MR-1711: Bulk Magnetization Effects in EMI-Based Classification and DiscriminationDr. Tom Bell SAIC 09:25MR : Statistical Verification and Remediation Sampling MethodsMr. Brent Pulsipher Demonstrations. (ESTCP)Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 10:10Break 10:25MR : Real-Time Quality Control Methods for Cued EMI Data Collection (ESTCP)Mr. Jonathan Miller White River Technologies 11:10MR : High-Power Vehicle-Towed TEM for Small Ordnance Detection (ESTCP)Mr. Jeff Gamey Battelle 11:55Lunch 13:00MR-1712: Bistatic Portable Electromagnetic Induction Sensor with IntegratedDr. Ben Barrowes Positioning. (SERDP)ERDC 9

10 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d) Agenda Tuesday, May 7, :00MR-1712: Bistatic Portable Electromagnetic Induction Sensor with IntegratedDr. Ben Barrowes Positioning. (SERDP)ERDC 13:45MR-2201: Classification Study Using a Handheld, Three-element EMI Sensor, (Sensor) (Outbrief)Dr. Tom Bell SAIC 14:30Break 14:45MR /MR : Analysis of Multi-axis, Multi-coil EMI Sensor data for UXODr. Dean Keiswetter Discrimination/Capturing Lessons Learned as Revealed by Large Scale ClassificationSAIC Demonstration Data (ESTCP) 15:30Committee Discussion (Closed Door) 16:15Adjourn 10

11 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d) Agenda Wednesday, May 8, :30Convene/Opening RemarksSERDP/ESTCP Deputy Director 08:35MR : Demonstration of ROV-based Underwater Electromagnetic ArrayDr. Gregory Schultz Technology. (ESTCP)White River Technologies 09:20MR : Vortex Lattice UXO Mobility Model Integration. (ESTCP)Dr. Gerald D’Spain Demonstrations. (ESTCP)Scripps 10:05Break 10:20MR-2103: Structural Acoustic UXO Detection and Identification in Marine Environments. (SERDP)Dr. Brian Houston NRL 11:05MR-2104: Real-Time Hand-Held Magnetometer Array. (SERDP)Dr. Mark Prouty Geometrics 11:50Lunch 13:00MR-2227: Underwater Munitions Expert System to Predict Mobility and Burial. (SERDP)Dr. Sarah Rennie Johns Hopkins 11

12 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meetings  Third meeting October 29 th  Jeff Leberfinger attended  Notes posted on NAOC website  Agenda and presentations posted on NAOC website 12

13 Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meetings Agenda 13

14 Technology Committee Naming Conventions for Advanced EMI Measurements  Problem Statement: “Tracking of anomalies from detection to resolution (intrusive investigation or a ‘no dig’ decision) to archiving is critical to the QA/QC process and ultimate goals of any munitions remediation effort. To facilitate this anomaly tracking, seamless integration of anomaly identifiers (which may include grid numbers, transect numbers, initial acquisition file pointers etc.) into the advanced analysis workflow is required. Without this integration the advanced analysis process will be subject to unneeded complexity and errors associated with having to deal with multiple naming conventions.”  There is no industry wide anomaly naming convention and the goal of this is not to develop one but to generate a file naming convention and header structure that will accommodate the variety of naming methods. 14

15 Technology Committee Naming Conventions for Advanced EMI Measurements Internal “Tiger Team”: PersonCompany Dave Wright (Leader)CH2M Hill Alison PaskiNAEVA Geophysics Rob SiegelSAIC Brian JunckWeston Solutions Dean KeiswetterSAIC 15

16 Technology Committee Naming Conventions for Advanced EMI Measurements  Final document submitted to NAOC President on November 6th 16

17 Technology Committee Global Leader in Munitions Response Advanced EMI Measurement Nomenclature PREPARED FOR: John Allan COPY TO: Dean Keiswetter Alison Paski Robert Siegel Brian Junk PREPARED BY: David Wright/BOS DATE: November 6, 2013 A volunteer task force was assembled to discuss and recommend naming conventions for advanced EMI measurements and files such that they will fit into the processes used by NAOC member companies. The members of this task force include David Wright (CH2M HILL), Alison Paski (NAEVA Geophysics Inc.), Dean Keiswetter (Science Applications International Corporation), Robert Siegel (Science Applications International Corporation) and Brian Junk (Weston Solutions) The problem was stated as follows: Tracking of anomalies from detection to resolution (intrusive investigation or a ‘no dig’ decision) to archiving is critical to the QA/QC process and ultimate goals of any munitions remediation effort. To facilitate this anomaly tracking, seamless integration of anomaly identifiers (which may included grid numbers, transect numbers, initial acquisition file pointers etc) into the advanced analysis workflow is required. Without this integration the advanced analysis process will be subject to unneeded complexity and errors associated with having to deal with multiple naming conventions. 17

18 Technology Committee After defining the problem, the group had an initial meeting and identified the following requirements: o The capability to add (1) two prefixes (both strings) and a (2) data type (string) at acquisition, which would then be stored in the HDF5 header tags. o The intent is that one of the prefix strings would be attached to the target ID (a number) to make the combined string unique. This prefix would enable users, perhaps, to record the grid ID (alphanumeric) or transect ID. The second prefix should pass through to the data analysis soft- ware and be stored with the data, but it would not be attached to the target ID. This might serve to store the AOC or Site name, perhaps. o The ‘data type’ entry refers to limited number of labels, to include at a minimum ‘blind’, ‘IVS’, ‘test’, and ‘background’. The data type should be stored in the HDF5 tag as well as the filename somehow (perhaps abbreviated...). At a subsequent meeting between representatives from the ESTCP program office (Herb Nelson); advanced analysis software developers (Dean Keiswetter, SAIC), industry service providers (David Wright, CH2M HILL) and equipment manufacturers (Bart Hoekstra, Geometrics) this subject was dis- cussed and the following naming convention was proposed: “ProjectPrefix_TargetID_type_vers” Where: Project Prefix: any alphanumeric characters used to describe the project (e.g. Ft Rucker). This set of characters will be kept as a reference in the database, but will not necessarily be attached to every target identifier. 18

19 Technology Committee Target ID is comprised of a GeoID and Target###: GeoID = any set of alphanumeric characters used to identify the geophysical unit that the measurement was made in (e.g. grid, survey, or transect). This set of characters will form part of the unique TargetID Target## = a numeric identifier specific to the target for static collection or survey unit (e.g. sortie number) for dynamic collection. The combination of GeoID and Target## is a number that should be unique to the project (or installation) Type – identifies one of 7 specific measurement types Version – identifies the measurement version associated with the Target ID Proposed Format: PPPPP_[GGGG_TTTTT]_YY_VV where: PPPPP = Project name (alphanumeric) Square brackets indicate TargetID: GGGG = Geophysical unit (alphanumeric) TTTTT = numeric (integer) YY = measurement type (2 characters*) VV = version numeric (integer) 19

20 Technology Committee 20 AMAnomaly Measurement Static measurements over an identified location with an unknown anomaly source BGBackground MeasurementStatic measurement over a non-anomalous location DSDynamic Survey Dynamic survey for detection and classification of potential MEC DQDynamic QC (IVS line)Dynamic survey of an IVS used for QC purposes FTFunction TestA direct test of all sensor component responses to a stand- ard object placed at a precisely know location (relative to the sensor). QCQuality Control (static IVS) Static survey of emplaced IVS targets for QC purposes XMMiscellaneousAll other Note that the measurement type code is the only alphanumeric field that has a limitation on the number of characters. *Measurement type codes:

21 Technology Committee Geophysicist Qualifications for Advanced Classification  ITRC was preparing a Tech-Reg entitled Geophysical Classification for munitions response  NAOC asked to make recommendation for the contractor and analyst qualifications section 21

22 Technology Committee Geophysicist Qualifications for Advanced Classification Internal Tiger Team Convened: PersonCompany Kent Boler (Leader)Matrix Jeff LeberfingerTerranear John BreznickNAEVA Geophysics Craig MurrayParsons Steve StaceyArcadis Dave WrightCH2M Hill Dean KeiswetterSAIC 22

23 Technology Committee Geophysicist Qualifications for Advanced Classification  Draft recommendations made by Technology “Tiger Team” and discussed / revised with OSC (Hud Heaton)  Consensus reached  Final document submitted to NAOC President on November 1st 23

24 24 Munitions Response Advanced Classification (AC) Geophysical Qualifications PositionExperience 1 EducationTraining 2 CertificationsRemarks AC Data Analyst Lead  Documented experience applying advanced classification 3  1 year experience analyzing DGM data for MR projects  24 hours AC analysis under the direct supervision of a qualified AC Data Analyst Degree in:  geophysics,  geology, or  a closely related scientific or engineering field 5  40 hours in applicable DGM Software, including o Geosoft (or equivalent) o Geosoft QA QC tools (or equivalent)  16 hours of training on AC method and mode of operation being implemented  8 hours AC analysis refresher training, if no AC analysis has occurred in past year No applicable certifications at present AC Data Collection Lead  Documented experience collecting AC data 4  1 year experience collecting DGM data for MR projects  24 hours in-field AC data collection under the direct supervision of a qualified AC Instrument Operator Degree in:  geophysics,  geology, or  a closely related scientific or engineering field 5  8 hours training on each advanced EMI sensor and mode of operation being utilized  8 hours AC data collection refresher training, if no AC data collection has occurred in past year No applicable certifications at present AC Geophysics Qualifications 1.Experience qualifications follow individuals. Companies can acquire experience through joint ventures, teaming arrangements, or mentor-protégé relationships in addition to self performance. 2.Training could be from hardware/software manufacturers, USACE or other agencies responsible for executing AC projects, ESTCP, or equivalent in-house training as appropriate. 3.Experience could be from a Standardized Test Site, ESTCP demonstration project, pilot study, characterization project, response action, remedial action, or an equivalent project or standardized test data set. Recommended minimum experience consists of AC analysis on two projects or AC analysis of 2,500 targets using the proposed project methodology. 4.Experience could be from a Standardized Test Site, ESTCP demonstration project, pilot study, characterization project, response action, remedial action, or an equivalent project. 5.Or has documented AC experience prior to 2014.

25 Technology Committee New Initiative for 2014 Geophysical Reporting Requirements (GRR)  Initiated by USACE-Huntsville (Elise Goggins)  Heard Ryan say current GRR incur significant costs  Want to explore this further in 2014 and consider potential revisions  Anticipate meeting in Huntsville in Winter / Spring 25

26 Technology Committee Contact Chair, Technology Committee John Allan NAEVA Geophysics, Inc. Office: QUESTIONS ?


Download ppt "Www.naoc.org Technology Committee Report National Association of Ordnance Contractors BOD / GM Meeting November 19 - 21, 2013 San Antonio, Texas."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google