Download ppt - 1 USMA Department of Systems Engineering Terrain Data Analysis and Visualization USMA Department of Systems Engineering LTC Rob Kewley USMA Department

USMA Department of Systems Engineering1

Terrain Data Analysis and Visualization

USMA Department of Systems Engineering

LTC Rob KewleyUSMA Department of Systems Engineering(845) 938-5206, Fax: (845) [email protected]

Terrain Visualization AdvisorCadet Aaron FairmanUSMA Department of System Engineering(845) [email protected]

Cadet Daniel PateUSMA Department of Systems Engineering(845) [email protected]

Cadet Collin SmithUSMA Department of Systems Engineering(845) [email protected]

Cadet Grace GarciaUSMA Department of Mathematics(845) [email protected]


Agenda

• Problem Definition

• Background

• Assumptions

• Cost Analysis

• Simulation Findings

• Conclusions

• Future Work


Problem Definition

• Problem Statement: Provide information to assist in creating realistic terrain databases for operational testing of the Army’s Future Combat Systems – Providing adequate, realistic data for mission

planning and execution.


Stakeholder Analysis• Key stakeholders listed in bold:

– Research, Development & Engineering Command (RDECOM)

– Topographic Engineering Center (TEC)– Future Combat System (FCS)– National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)– Tactical Terrain Teams– US Army Soldiers: DIV, BDE, BN, CO, PLs, NCOs– Joint Command and Operations: Army, Air Force, Marines,

Navy, Coast Guard– Army National Guard and Reserve Component– Possible Civil Applications: Disaster Relief (FEMA),

Homeland Security


Integration


Overview

• Terrain Databases are used for various military operations.

• Constraints:– Network bandwidth– Limited information/intelligence for a given area.– Different data formats between source data and final

product.

• Designed three different scenarios to test terrain data sufficiency: – Low Level (basic “on-the-shelf” data)– Medium Level (basic data plus significant analysis)– High Level (extensive analysis, additional intelligence)


Functional HierarchyImprove

Terrain Data Generation

Obtain Source Data

Display Data

Visually NumericallyLIDAR Fly Over

NGA Data

Create Dataset

Raster Vector

Identify Target Areas

Identify Area

Identify Components of Analysis

Camp Shugart-

Gordon, Fort Polk, LA

River

Buildings

Roads

Elevation

Vegetation

Add Polygon

Data

Add Line Data

Create Database

Increase Layers of

Detail

Showing Dataset

3D

Database Administration

Analyze Cost

Input Cost and Detail into Data

Matrix

Analyze Cost and Detail of Imgery

Analyze C2 Results and

Cost of Dataset


Camp Shea


Value Hierarchy

Dynamic

Integration of Database in C2 System

Security Cost Accessibility

Maximize Amount

Services can use Database

Maximize Format of

Data

Number of Formats

(MIB)

Number of Joint OPS using

Dataset/Database(MIB)

Maximize Verification/

Authentication for changing

datasets

Maximize Amount of Users can

Access Database

Number of People (MIB)

Minimize Time to Produce Database

Maximize Data

Resolution

Minimize Cost of Storing

Data

Analyst Hours (LIB)

Meters (LIB)

MB (LIB)

Number of Security Checks (MIB)

Minimze Error In Obrtaining

Data

Number of Errors (LIB)


Operational ScenariosAssumptions for Different Scenarios• Low Level

– Less than a week’s notice before the data is given to the commander.

– Only imagery available will be off-the-shelf data.– Not detailed

• Medium Level– Four weeks of contingency planning time was available prior to the

operation– Better imagery will allow for elevation, precise base images,

apparent large features.

• High Level– Air and Ground control over the area for at least two months.– Availability of LIDAR collection equipment and cameras


Levels of Detail

Low Medium High4 Meter Image Roads Key Features (Cultural, Landmarks)DTED2 Railroads Vertical Obstruction Points

Bridges Information PageRunways Ground PhotosWater Features (Lines and Polygons) Buildings of InterestForested Areas RoadsOpen Urban Areas RailroadsResidential Built-up Terrain Zones BridgesCommercial Built-up Terrain Zones RunwaysInstitutional Built-up Terrain Zones Water Features (Lines and Polygons)1 Meter Image (Quickbird view) Forested AreasDTED 2 Elevation Open Urban Areas1:50K Military Overview Map Residential Built-up Terrain Zones4 Meter Image Commercial Built-up Terrain Zones

Institutional Built-up Terrain Zones1 Meter ImageDTED 2 Elevation1:50K Military Overview Map4 Meter ImageLIDAR

Levels of Terrain Layers

Lay

ers

of

Det

ail

Wit

hin

th

e D

iffe

ren

t L

evel

s


Low


Low (close up)


Medium


Medium (close up)


High


High (close up)


Assumptions

Data Generation Assumption• A Team can produce a Medium Density product

given:– 8 hour working days (Monday-Friday)– Minimal breaks– Trained Professionals who know how to create the database– Teams of 4 analysts are constantly available– Urban area that is 15 x 15 kilometers with a 3 to 4 kilometer

“suburban” area


Cost Data Matrix


Digital Terrain Elevation Data(DTED)

• From DTED 5 to 1 the storage space required decreases to between 8-10% of the previous level.

• Only about a 24 hour difference in man hours between best and worst.

• Biggest concern is Operational status pre-deployment to boots on ground.


Level Effectiveness

12

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mission Planning

Effectiveness

Exercise Level of Detail

Terrain Data Layer vs. Mission Planning Effectiveness


Cost Analysis

Cost Analysis

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000

Cost

Val

ue

Hours

Storage

Operational


Conclusion (Data Analysis)

• Data Development– Feature layers are manpower intensive

• Roads, vegetation, and urban areas are easiest to create• Marshes, streams, and rivers are most difficult to create• Categorization of urban areas requires human intelligence

• Analyzed Elevation in the Cost Analysis– Level 1 to Level 2

• 55% Increase in Value for a 10% Increase in Storage Cost

– Level 2 to Level 3• 25% Increase in Value for a 90% Increase in Storage Cost

– Analyst Hours stay constant throughout Cost Analysis.


Future Work

• Continue to Analyze the Cost versus Value– Individual attributes at varying levels of detail– Individual cost for varying attributes

• Advisor and LTC Hendricks will continue work in Ft. Bliss

• Move to gain an understanding between FCS and TEC


Questions