Landmines Detection by Robots presentation

2. Mansoura University
Faculty of Computers and Information
Information Systems Department
By
Ahmed Ismail
B.SC. Of Information Systems
Faculty of computers and Information
Mansoura University
Landmines Detection By Using Mobile Robots
" ‫اآللى‬ ‫االنسان‬ ‫باستخدام‬ ‫اآلرضية‬ ‫اآللغام‬ ‫عن‬ ‫"الكشف‬
Assoc. Prof. Hazem ElBakry
Department of Information Systems,
Faculty of Computers and Information
Mansoura University
Assoc. Prof. Mohamed Elmogy
Department of Information Technology,
Faculty of Computers and Information,
Mansoura University
Under Supervision of

3. Outline
1. Objectives & Contributions
2. Introduction
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

4. Outline
1. Motivations & Objectives & Contributions
2. Introduction
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

5. Motivations
We developed our low cost demining robot for the
following purposes:
1-Every landmines detection technique has error rates.
2-The landmines still there, due to the limited
performance of available techniques.
3-In the last years, many demining researches used
GPR is very expensive ,very heavy ,and power hungry.

6. Objectives
 Designing a low-cost mobile robot.
 Proposing a method to detect landmines by integrating
more than one technique.
 Using effective motion planning algorithm .
 Ensuring the demining operators safety.

7.  Designing an autonomous low cost light mobile robot .
 Effective motion planning in mines detection and saves time.
 Using Multisensor fusion in demining.
 Developing affective object avoidance algorithm.
 We implemented a system uses effective technique to defuse
the mines where they are.
Contributions

8. Outline
1. Objectives & Contributions
2. Introduction
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

9. Introduction
There are two types of Landmines:
Anti-personnel(AP): Is an explosive device made to
injure or kill a person.
Anti-tank(AT) : AT are designed to destroy tanks and
armored vehicles.

10. Introduction(cont.)
Egypt as a Case Study
 Egypt has 23 million, mostly in border regions)
 Egypt suffers alone from more than 20% of the total number of the
landmines in the world.
 A huge area of land is affected about 25,000 sq. kilometers.

11. Introduction(cont.)
Technologies are used for landmine detection are:
 Humanitarian demining
1. Metal detector
2. Dogs 5-Bactria
3. Rats 6-Plants
4. Honey bees
 Mechanical clearance
 Advanced electromagnetic methods
1. Ground penetrating radar
2. Nuclear detection
3. Acoustic detection
4. Biological sensors
5. Chemical sensors such as thermal fluorescence

12. Introduction(cont.)
Technologies Comparison:

13. Outline
1. Objectives & Contributions
2. Introduction
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

14. Related Work
 Akhtar [2012] Used GPR to captures an image in real-
time.
• Fed into a processing unit where smaller segments of
it, analyzed after being processed for noise reduction.
• Then recognized and classified landmines with
success rate 90%
• This scheme has some drawbacks:
• The sensor such as GPR is larger and heavier.
• GPR is more power hungry.
• GPR can suffer falls alarm rates as high as metal detectors.

15. Related Work (cont.)
 Ghribi et al. [2013] developed a cheap
wheeled robot that could detect only metal
mines.
 The robot mounted on a metal detector to
detect mines.
 The system used to color paint to mark the
position of detected mines. This scheme has
some drawbacks:
 high false alarms due to metal objects in the
soil.

16. Related Work (cont.)
Garcia et al [2002] proposed awaking robot for
detecting and locating antipersonnel landmines,
consisted of: ahead with detector, locator with GPS.
• The robot was controlled remotely
• There is some drawback in their scheme, such as
High cost
The robot can be triggered
False alarms

17. Outline
1. Objectives & Contributions
2. Introduction
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

18. The proposed system depends on two main things:
1. Motion planning
 Complete coverage algorithm.
2. Sensors fusion using decision level
 Preprocessing
 receive alarms
 Count alarms
 Estimation
Computing
 send Information
 Landmines destroying
The Proposed System

19. The Proposed System(cont.)
The block diagram for Demining system

20. The Proposed System(cont.)
1.Motion planning
 Motion planning: complete coverage algorithm
Decompose the field into cells

21. The Proposed System(cont.)
Complete coverage in parallel method
 Motion planning: complete coverage algorithm
Decompose the field into cells

22. The Proposed System(cont.)
2. Multi-sensor fusion
 By using Decision level fusion

23. The Proposed System(cont.)
Multi-sensor fusion(Decision Level fusion)
𝑖𝑓 𝑖=0
𝑛
𝑃 𝐒𝟏 + 𝑃 𝐒𝟐 + 𝑃 𝐒𝟑 + 𝑃 𝐒𝟒 ≥ 2
then this is a mine.
𝑃 𝐒𝟏 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑏𝑦 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝑃 𝐒𝟐 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑏𝑦 𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟
𝑃 𝐒𝟑 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑏𝑦 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟
𝑃 𝑺𝟒 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑎

24. The Proposed System(cont.)
The generic decision-level sensor-fusion
layout

25. The Proposed System(cont.)
Cheap sensors comparison

26. The Proposed System(cont.)
Multi-sensor fusion flow chart

27. The Proposed System(cont.)
3. Defusing mines
The proposed technique is using Robot arm to defuse
mines in their locations by locating a ticking time bombs in
places mines

28. Outline
1. Objectives & Contributions
2. Introduction
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

29. Experimental results
 Autonomous robot structure
low cost equipped vehicle, multiple simple machines are used, each
one carrying a very limited amount of mine detection.

30. Experimental results
 The system structure

31. Experimental results
 Fake mines simulation

32. Experimental results
 Fake mines simulation

33. Experimental results
 Robot Simulation

34. Experimental results
 Environment test.

35. Experimental results
Results summary.

36. Outline
1. Objectives & Contributions
2. 3D Object Recognition
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

37. Conclusion

38. Conclusion(cont.)
• The robot uses a coverage algorithm technique
where explicitly passes over all points in the
minefield at least once.
• The algorithm guarantees complete coverage of
unknown areas for ensuring the detected mines
existence.
• The experimental results proved that using
multisensor system using decision level
fusion when robot move in coverage based
motion decreased the false alarms.

39. Conclusion(cont.)
• Our Result proved that using more than one
low-cost sensors is better than using the best
sensor alone.
• Demining can be done with very low cost
with only $140.
• The overall demining process has no risks to
a human operator with using very small and
light sensors.

40. Conclusion(cont.)
• The more obstacles are in the field; the
longer time the overall process takes.
• So Using fails to clean the field from
obstacles before demining is a critical step.
• using many robots with the same design,
which work together in parallel way solved
the time problem

41. Conclusion(cont.)
• The robot can detect landmines with high
detection rates.
• The use of multi-sensor fusion solved the
problem of high rates of false alarms of
demining sensors.
• Destroying the mines where they are, is
better than forming maps of found mines
and then defusing them.

42. Outline
1. Objectives & Contributions
2. Introduction
3. Related Work
4. Proposed System
5. Experimental and Results
6. Conclusion
7. Future Work

43. using one expensive metal detector sensor that will be better
to increase detection distance underground more than 60 cm.
Test the robot in real mines field
I suggest for the new researchers in demining try to use
nanotechnology or Either that will increase the efficiency of
landmines detection.
Using crawler robot will be better than wheels robots in
demining process.
Testing the robot in real environments.
Future Work

44.  A. Ismail, M. Elmogy, H. ElBakry, " Landmines Detection
Using Autonomous Robots: A Survey", International Journal
of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science
(IJETTCS), Volume 3, Issue 4, 4, July-August 2014.
 A. Ismail, M. Elmogy, H. ElBakry, "Landmines Detection
Using Low-Cost Multisensory Mobile Robot", Journal of
Convergence Information Technology, Volume 3, Issue 4,
2015.
Publications

45. References
• Y.Baudoin, and I.Doroftei," TriDem-A Wheeled Mobile Robot for
Humanitarian Mine Clearance", Citeseer, 2012
• A.Muhammad, S. Abbas, T.Manzoor,A. Munawar,S. Abbas,M.
Hayat,A. Abbas,and M.Awais," Marwa: A rough terrain landmine
detection robot for low budgets",cyphynets.lums.edu.pk,2012.
• A.Alshbatat," Behavior-Based Approach for the Detection of Land
Mines Utilizing off the Shelf Low Cost Autonomous Robot",IAES
International Journal of Robotics and Automation (IJRA),2,83-
92,2013
• G.Tesfamariam, "Signal Processing Techniques for Landmine
Detection Using Impulse Ground Penetrating Radar
(ImGPR)", TU Darmstadt, 2013