Advertisement

Risk Reduction in Line Grid Search for Elliptical Targets

  • Donald A. SingerEmail author
Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Structured search strategies have been well studied, but consequences of frequently made assumptions can lead to “optimum” recommendations that are far from optimum in that they ignore risks of failure. Common assumptions are many targets that have average sizes and shapes, and are randomly orientated. The effects of common assumptions are examined for parallel and grid line searches. Equations are provided for estimating probabilities of hitting elliptical targets with parallel and square grid lines along with new simplified equations when orientations are random. In a large portion of searches, the probability of missing the largest, most valuable target, dangerous ordnance, or key target is critical to the decision-maker. The risk of missing a target is frequently central to the decision. Where the target is elliptical in shape and has unknown orientation, square grid line search should be considered over line search. Square grid line search has a slightly lower expected probability of detecting an elliptical target with one or more hits than an equal-cost parallel line search, but the probability of missing regardless of orientation in square grid search is significantly lower. Where two or more hits are required, the square grid has a significantly higher probability of hitting and a slightly lower standard deviation than an equal-cost line search. For elliptical targets, the use of a square grid significantly reduces the chances of search failure.

Keywords

Mineral deposits Geophysical search Hot spots Crime search Unexploded ordnance Archaeological survey 

References

  1. Agocs WG (1955) Line spacing effect and determination of optimum spacing illustrated by Mamore, Ontario, magnetic anomalies. Geophysics 20(4):871–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banning EB, Hawkins AL, Stewart ST (2011) Sweep widths and the detection of artifacts in archaeological survey. J Archaeol Sci 38(12):3447–3458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barouch E, Kaufman GM (1979) Detection of geologic anomalies by grid line search. Working Paper No. MIT-EL 7.-008WP, February 1979Google Scholar
  4. Chung CF (1981) Application of the Buffon needle problem and its extensions to parallel-line search sampling scheme. Math Geol 13(5):371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Geoffroy JG, Wignall TK (1985) Designing optimal strategies for mineral exploration. Plenum Press, New York, p 364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drew LJ (1979) Pattern drilling exploration: optimum pattern types and hole spacings when searching for elliptical shaped targets. Math Geol 11(2):223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis RM, Blackwell JH (1959) Optimum prospecting plans in mineral exploration. Geophysics 24(2):344–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferguson C (1992) The statistical basis for spatial sampling of contaminated land. Ground Eng 25:34–38Google Scholar
  9. Freeze RA, James Bruce, Massmann Loel, Sperling Tony, Smith Lessie (1992) Hydrogeological decision analysis: 4. The concept of data worth and its use in the development of site investigation strategies. Ground Water 30(4):574–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Wiley, New York, p 336Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert RO, Wilson JE, O’Brian RF, Carlson DK, Pulsipher BA, Bates DJ (2003) Version 2.0 visual sample plan (VSP): UXO module code description and verification. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, PNNL-14267Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg MR (1987) Sampling strategies for finding contaminated land. Appl Geogr 7:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen SR (2007) Applications of search theory to coordinated searching by unmanned aerial vehicles. Unpublished MS thesis, BYU ScholarsArchive Citation. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/864
  14. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council) (2004) Geophysical prove-outs for munitions response projects. UXO-3. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Unexploded Ordnance Team, Washington, D.C. http://www.itrcweb.org
  15. Kaufman G (1994) What has seismic missed? Nonrenewable Resour 3(4):304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim EJ (2013) Hotspot detection and nonstationary variance function estimation. Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, AmesGoogle Scholar
  17. Kulatilake PHSW (1987) A computer simulation technique to study probability of detection of geologic targets. APOM 87. In: Proceedings of the twentieth international symposium on the application of computers and mathematics in the mineral industries, vol 3; Geostatistics Johannesburg, SAIMM, 1987, pp 271–278Google Scholar
  18. Matzke BD, Wilson JE, Hathaway JE, Pulsipher BA (2008) Statistical algorithms accounting for background density in the detection of UXO target areas at DoD munitions sites. Stoch Environ Res Assess 23:181–191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-007-0208-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCammon RB (1977) Target intersection probabilities for parallel-line and continuous-grid types of search. Math Geol 9(4):369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller JW Jr (1991) Optimizing of grid-drilling using computer simulation. Math Geol 23(2):201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Brien RF (2002) Probabilities of a grid of rectangular transects of positive width intersecting an elliptical target. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pachman JM (1966) Optimization of seismic reconnaissance surveys in petroleum exploration. Manage Sci 12(8):312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parkhurst DF (1984) Optimal sampling geometry for hazardous waste sites. Environ Sci Technol 18(7):521–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Riggs CA, Cornes K, Godwin HJ, Liversedge SP, Guest R, Donnelly N (2017) The importance of search strategy for finding targets in open terrain. Cognitive Res Princ Implic 2017(2):14.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0049-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singer DA (1975) Relative efficiencies of square and triangular grids in the search for elliptically shaped resource targets. J Res 3(2):163–167Google Scholar
  26. Singer DA (2013) The lognormal distribution of metal resources in mineral deposits. Ore Geol Rev 55:80–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2013.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singer DA, Wickman FE (1969) Probability tables for locating elliptical targets with square, rectangular, and hexagonal point-nets. The Pennsylvania State University, Earth and Mineral Sciences Experiment Station, Special Publication 69-1Google Scholar
  28. Singer DA, Berger VI, Moring BC (2008) Porphyry copper deposits of the world: database, map, and grade and tonnage models, 2008. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2008–1155. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1155/
  29. Slichter TB (1955) Geophysics applied to prospecting for ores. In: Bateman AM (ed) Economic geology 50th Anniversary, Pt. 2 vol 1905–1955, Economic Geology Pub. Co., pp 885–969Google Scholar
  30. Stone LD (1983) The process of search planning: current approaches and continuing problems. Oper Res 31(2):207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council Unexploded Ordnance Team (2004) Geophysical prove-outs for munitions response projects. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 79 pGoogle Scholar
  32. Verhagen P, Rensink E, Bats M, Crombe P (2012) Establishing discovery probabilities of lithic artefacts in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites with core sampling. J Archaeol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang Y, Schervish M, Acar EU, Choset H (2001) Probabilistic methods for robotic landmine search. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.  https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2001.977196

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CupertinoUSA

Personalised recommendations