1 / 26

Technology Committee Report National Association of Ordnance Contractors

Technology Committee Report National Association of Ordnance Contractors. BOD / GM Meeting November 19 - 21, 2013 San Antonio, Texas. Committee Members. Brian Brunette, AECOM Steve Stacy, ARCADIS Tamir Klaff , CH2M Hill David Wright, CH2M Hill Kevin Sharpe, EA Engineering

elvin
Download Presentation

Technology Committee Report National Association of Ordnance Contractors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Technology Committee ReportNational Association of Ordnance Contractors BOD / GM Meeting November 19 - 21, 2013 San Antonio, Texas

  2. Committee Members • Brian Brunette, AECOM • Steve Stacy, ARCADIS • TamirKlaff, 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 • 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 CommitteeActivities 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

  4. Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP UX-Analyze Training Course • Class held February 19 - 20 in Washington, D.C. • Class held February 27 – 28 in Denver • 20 – 25 participants for each class

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

  6. Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d.) Agenda Tuesday, February 12, 2013 09:00 Convene/Operating Remarks SERDP/ESTCP Deputy Director 09:55 MR-2225: Advanced EM1 Models and Classification Algorithms: The Next Level of Dr. FridonShubitidze Sophistication to Improve Discrimination of Challenging Targets. (SERDP) Dartmouth College 09:55 MR-2226: Decision Support Tools for Munitions Response Performance Prediction and Dr. Laurens Beran Risk Assessment. (SERDP) Sky Research 10:40 Break 10:55 MR-2224: Simple Parameterized Models for Predicting Mobility, Burial, and Re-exposure Dr. Carl Friedrichs of Underwater Munitions. (SERDP) Virginia Institute of Marine Science 11:40 MR-201234: Vortex Lattice Mobility Model Integration. (ESTCP) Dr. Gerald D’Spain Scripps Institution of Oceanography 12:25 Lunch

  7. Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d.) Agenda Tuesday, February 12, 2013 13:30 MR-2229: Inversion of High Frequency Acoustic Data for Sediment Properties Needed Dr. B. Todd Hefner for Detection and Classification of UXOs. (SERDP) University of Washington 14:15 MR-2230: Data and Processing Tools for Sonar Classification of Underwater UXO. (SERDP) Dr. Raymond Lim Naval Surface Warfare Center 15:00 Break 15:15 MR-2231: Acoustic Response of Underwater Munitions near a Sediment Interface: Dr. Steven Kargl Measurement-Model Comparison and Classification Schemes. (SERDP) University of Washington 16:00 MR-2228: Development and Testing of an Engineering Prototype of a Marine Version Dr. H. Frank Morrison of the Berkeley Unexploded Ordnance Discriminator (BUD). (SERDP) Marine Advanced Research 16:45 Committee Discussion (Closed Door) 17:30 Adjourn

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

  9. Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 7, 2013 08:30 Convene/Opening Remarks SERDP/ESTCP Deputy Director 08:40 MR-1711: Bulk Magnetization Effects in EMI-Based Classification and Discrimination Dr. Tom Bell SAIC 09:25 MR-200837: Statistical Verification and Remediation Sampling Methods Mr. Brent Pulsipher Demonstrations. (ESTCP) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 10:10 Break 10:25 MR-201264: Real-Time Quality Control Methods for Cued EMI Data Collection (ESTCP) Mr. Jonathan Miller White River Technologies 11:10 MR-201105: High-Power Vehicle-Towed TEM for Small Ordnance Detection (ESTCP) Mr. Jeff Gamey Battelle 11:55 Lunch 13:00 MR-1712: Bistatic Portable Electromagnetic Induction Sensor with Integrated Dr. Ben Barrowes Positioning. (SERDP) ERDC

  10. Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d) Agenda Tuesday, May 7, 2013 13:00 MR-1712: Bistatic Portable Electromagnetic Induction Sensor with Integrated Dr. Ben Barrowes Positioning. (SERDP) ERDC 13:45 MR-2201: Classification Study Using a Handheld, Three-element EMI Sensor, (Sensor) (Outbrief) Dr. Tom Bell SAIC 14:30 Break 14:45 MR-200910/MR-201235: Analysis of Multi-axis, Multi-coil EMI Sensor data for UXO Dr. Dean Keiswetter Discrimination/Capturing Lessons Learned as Revealed by Large Scale Classification SAIC Demonstration Data (ESTCP) 15:30 Committee Discussion (Closed Door) 16:15 Adjourn

  11. Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meeting (Cont’d) Agenda Wednesday, May 8, 2013 08:30 Convene/Opening Remarks SERDP/ESTCP Deputy Director 08:35 MR-201233: Demonstration of ROV-based Underwater Electromagnetic Array Dr. Gregory Schultz Technology. (ESTCP) White River Technologies 09:20 MR-201234: Vortex Lattice UXO Mobility Model Integration. (ESTCP) Dr. Gerald D’Spain Demonstrations. (ESTCP) Scripps 10:05 Break 10:20 MR-2103: Structural Acoustic UXO Detection and Identification in Marine Environments. (SERDP) Dr. Brian Houston NRL 11:05 MR-2104: Real-Time Hand-Held Magnetometer Array. (SERDP) Dr. Mark Prouty Geometrics 11:50 Lunch 13:00 MR-2227: Underwater Munitions Expert System to Predict Mobility and Burial. (SERDP) Dr. Sarah Rennie Johns Hopkins

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

  13. Technology Committee SERDP / ESTCP IPR Meetings Agenda

  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.

  15. Technology Committee Naming Conventions for Advanced EMI Measurements Internal “Tiger Team”: PersonCompany Dave Wright (Leader) CH2M Hill Alison Paski NAEVA Geophysics Rob Siegel SAIC Brian Junck Weston Solutions Dean Keiswetter SAIC

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

  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.

  18. Technology Committee After defining the problem, the group had an initial meeting and identified the following requirements: • 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. • 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. • 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.

  19. Technology Committee Target ID is comprised of a GeoIDand 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)

  20. Technology Committee *Measurement type codes: Note that the measurement type code is the only alphanumeric field that has a limitation on the number of characters.

  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 qualificationssection

  22. Technology Committee Geophysicist Qualifications for Advanced Classification Internal Tiger Team Convened: PersonCompany Kent Boler (Leader) Matrix Jeff LeberfingerTerranear John Breznick NAEVA Geophysics Craig Murray Parsons Steve Stacey Arcadis Dave Wright CH2M Hill Dean Keiswetter SAIC

  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

  24. AC Geophysics Qualifications Experience qualifications follow individuals. Companies can acquire experience through joint ventures, teaming arrangements, or mentor-protégé relationships in addition to self performance. Training could be from hardware/software manufacturers, USACE or other agencies responsible for executing AC projects, ESTCP, or equivalent in-house training as appropriate. 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. Experience could be from a Standardized Test Site, ESTCP demonstration project, pilot study, characterization project, response action, remedial action, or an equivalent project. 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

  26. Technology Committee Contact Chair, Technology Committee John Allan NAEVA Geophysics, Inc. Office: 434-978-3187 JAllan@naevageophysics.com QUESTIONS ?

More Related