Transcript Terrain Data Analysis and Visualization Final

Terrain Data Analysis and
Visualization
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Terrain Visualization
Cadet Daniel Pate
USMA Department of Systems
Engineering
(845) 515-4417
[email protected]
Cadet Aaron Fairman
USMA Department of System
Engineering
(845) 515-4421
[email protected]
Cadet Collin Smith
USMA Department of Systems
Engineering
(845) 515-1013
[email protected]
Cadet Grace Garcia
USMA Department of Mathematics
(845) 515-5366
[email protected]
Advisor
LTC Rob Kewley
USMA Department of Systems
Engineering
(845) 938-5206, Fax: (845) 938-5919
[email protected]
1
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Problem Definition
Background
Assumptions
Cost Analysis
Simulation Findings
Conclusions
Future Work
2
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
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.
3
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
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
4
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Integration
5
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
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)
6
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Functional Hierarchy
Improve
Terrain Data
Generation
Obtain
Source Data
LIDAR Fly
Over
Raster
Identify
Target
Areas
Create
Dataset
NGA
Data
Identify
Area
Identify
Components
of Analysis
Vector
Camp
ShugartGordon, Fort
Polk, LA
River
Create
Database
Add
Polygon
Data
Increase
Layers of
Detail
Add Line
Data
Display
Data
Visually
Showing
Dataset
3D
Numerically
Analyze
Cost
Input Cost
and Detail
into Data
Matrix
Analyze C2
Database
Results and
Administration
Cost of
Dataset
Analyze
Cost and
Detail of
Imgery
Roads
Buildings
Elevation
Vegetation
7
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Camp Shea
8
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Value Hierarchy
Integration of
Database in
C2 System
Dynamic
Security
Cost
Accessibility
Maximize
Amount
Services can
use Database
Maximize
Format of
Data
Maximize
Verification/
Authentication
for changing
datasets
Minimize Time
to Produce
Database
Maximize
Data
Resolution
Minimize Cost
of Storing
Data
Maximize Amount
of Users can
Access Database
Minimze Error
In Obrtaining
Data
Number of Joint
OPS using
Dataset/Database
(MIB)
Number of
Formats
(MIB)
Number of
Security
Checks
(MIB)
Analyst
Hours
(LIB)
Meters
(LIB)
MB (LIB)
Number of
People (MIB)
Number of
Errors (LIB)
9
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Operational Scenarios
Assumptions 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
10
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Levels of Detail
Layers of Detail Within the Different Levels
Low
4 Meter Image
DTED2
Levels of Terrain Layers
Medium
High
Roads
Key Features (Cultural, Landmarks)
Railroads
Vertical Obstruction Points
Bridges
Information Page
Runways
Ground Photos
Water Features (Lines and Polygons) Buildings of Interest
Forested Areas
Roads
Open Urban Areas
Railroads
Residential Built-up Terrain Zones
Bridges
Commercial Built-up Terrain Zones
Runways
Institutional Built-up Terrain Zones
Water Features (Lines and Polygons)
1 Meter Image (Quickbird view)
Forested Areas
DTED 2 Elevation
Open Urban Areas
1:50K Military Overview Map
Residential Built-up Terrain Zones
4 Meter Image
Commercial Built-up Terrain Zones
Institutional Built-up Terrain Zones
1 Meter Image
DTED 2 Elevation
1:50K Military Overview Map
4 Meter Image
LIDAR
11
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Low
12
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Low (close up)
13
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Medium
14
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Medium (close up)
15
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
High
16
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
High (close up)
17
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
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
18
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Cost Data Matrix
19
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
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.
20
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Level Effectiveness
Terrain Data Layer vs. Mission Planning
Effectiveness
100
90
80
70
60
Mission
Planning
Effectiveness
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
Exercise Level of Detail
3
21
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Cost Analysis
Value
Cost Analysis
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.0000
Hours
Storage
Operational
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
Cost
22
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
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.
23
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
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
24
USMA Department of Systems Engineering
Questions
25
USMA Department of Systems Engineering