(2009). LANDMINES DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY. The Egyptian Journal of Environmental Change, 1(1), 54-59. doi: 10.21608/ejec.2009.96557
. "LANDMINES DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY". The Egyptian Journal of Environmental Change, 1, 1, 2009, 54-59. doi: 10.21608/ejec.2009.96557
(2009). 'LANDMINES DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY', The Egyptian Journal of Environmental Change, 1(1), pp. 54-59. doi: 10.21608/ejec.2009.96557
LANDMINES DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY. The Egyptian Journal of Environmental Change, 2009; 1(1): 54-59. doi: 10.21608/ejec.2009.96557
LANDMINES DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Many techniques can be used in landmine detection. The performance of each technique depends on the nature of the contaminated soil and the type of the landmine buried. This paper offers a survey of the most recent advances in landmine detection techniques such as biological, electromagnetic, optical, nuclear, acoustic, and mechanical. Biological detection techniques include the use of dogs, rats, bees, plants and bacteria, while electromagnetic detection techniques include metal detector (MD), ground penetrating radar (GPR), microwave radiometry (MWR) and millimeter wave radiometry (MMWR) Optical detection techniques, however, include visible light and light detection and ranging (LIDAR), as opposed to nuclear detection techniques which include nuclear quadrople resonance (NQR) and the neutron based method. Yet, acoustic detection techniques include the use of ultrasound method and the acoustic to seismic (A/S). By contrast, mechanical detection techniques include mine clearing machines. These techniques are briefly described and their relative merits and drawbacks are highlighted and compared. A comparison among those techniques is also presented in order to show the ideal working conditions for, and the inherent challenges involved in the use of, each technique. Other, equally significant, factors of comparison will also be included in this study, such as cost, complexity, speed, safety, false alarm rate and influence of environmental conditions.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines, "Landmine Monitor Report", (2007).
J. k. Paik, C. P. Lee and M. A. Abidi, Int. J. Sens. Tech. Appl., 3 (2002) 153.
S. Sen and R. L Woodfin , Am. Phys. Soc., 31 (2002)
C. P Gooneratne, S. C. Mukhopahyay and G. S. Gupta, 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 2004. http://wwwist.massey.ac.nz/conferences/icara2004/files/Papers/Paper70_ICARA2004_401_407.pdf
M Acheroy, and I. D Bosch, Detection of Explosives and Landmines, 66(2002) 39.
A. A . Berhe, :, Land degradation and development,. 18(2007)1.
Y. Liao, L.W Nolte, and L. M. Collins, IEEE Trans.on Geo. and remote sensing, 45 (2007) 398.
T. W Bosq, M. L Alonso, G. D Boreman and D Dillery , Proc. SPIE, 6217 (2006)
J MacDonald and J.R. Lockwood,Alternatives for Landmine Detection, online book, 0-8330-3301-8, 2003
A. Jakobsson, M. Mossberg and A. S. Smith, IEEE Trans. signal processing, 54 (2006) 1610
Valkovic, V and Antonic, D .: Humanitarian Demining, Second Australian American Joint Conference on the Technologies of Mines and Mine Countermeasures, Sydney, Australia, 2001
J. M. Sabatier, N. Xiang, A. G. Petculescu, and M. Bradley, International Conference on Requirements and Technologies for the Detection of Landmines, Brussels, Belgium, 2003
View on SCiNiTO
Top