22.01.2015 Views

(IVAR) - Final Report - Strategic Environmental Research and ...

(IVAR) - Final Report - Strategic Environmental Research and ...

(IVAR) - Final Report - Strategic Environmental Research and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

APPENDIX B. ANALYTICAL METHODS SUPPORTING THE<br />

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN<br />

METHOD #1: VALIDATION BY SIMULATION<br />

We used the following Validation by Simulation method to test whether the Multiple Hypothesis<br />

Testing (MHT) <strong>and</strong> Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) tracking algorithms (Blackman 2004)<br />

used in the Digital Radar Processor (DRP) of the eBirdRad avian radars evaluated by the <strong>IVAR</strong><br />

project could accurately track synthetic targets; that is, targets with known dynamic behaviors<br />

generated using software.<br />

We used an in-house software simulation tool to generate sequences of detections that were<br />

consistent with avian target dynamics. The simulation tool outputs a plot file in the same format<br />

as does the DRP when operating in real time. The plot file generated by the simulation tool was<br />

then replayed through a DRP for off-line re-processing (i.e., re-tracking), <strong>and</strong> the resultant tracks<br />

compared with the known dynamics of the targets generated by the software.<br />

The simulated targets we generated for this analysis had the following characteristics:<br />

• A total of twenty (20) simulated targets that were “flying” simultaneously were<br />

generated.<br />

• The speeds of these targets were set to approximately 55 km/hr – emulating typical bird<br />

speeds.<br />

• We organized the targets into four groups, assigning 4 to 6 targets to each group.<br />

• For certain times during the simulation, we assigned the simulated targets the following<br />

motion dynamics that would be consistent with single birds <strong>and</strong> flocking birds.<br />

a. The targets were made to be far enough apart to simulate a separated targettracking<br />

scenario.<br />

b. The targets were crossing to simulate a crossing tracking-tracking scenario.<br />

c. Targets were converging to simulate a converging target-tracking scenario.<br />

d. Targets were made to maneuver to simulate a maneuvering target-tracking<br />

scenario.<br />

e. Targets were made to diverge from one another to simulate a diverging targettracking<br />

scenario.<br />

We replayed the plots file generated by the simulation tool through the DRP <strong>and</strong> the resultant<br />

tracks were displayed on the DRP monitor to determine if their dynamics matched those<br />

specified in the software. We used the DRP’s built-in camera tool to take periodic snapshots of<br />

the display to document the targets’ dynamics.<br />

Figure B-1 <strong>and</strong> Figure B-2 are examples of the types of target-track images generated by<br />

processing the plots files generated by the simulation tool.<br />

297

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!