Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Automatic Data Processing”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,011 records · Page 57

Solid Freeform Fabrication of Composite-Material Objects

Composite solid freeform fabrication (C-SFF) or composite layer manufacturing (CLM) is an automated process in which an advanced composite material (a matrix reinforced with continuous fibers) is formed into a freestanding, possibly complex, three-dimensional object. In CLM, there is no need for molds, dies, or other expensive tooling, and there is usually no need for machining to ensure that the object is formed to the desired net size and shape. CLM is a variant of extrusion-type rapid prototyping, in which a model or prototype of a solid object is built up by controlled extrusion of a polymeric or other material through an orifice that is translated to form patterned layers. The second layer is deposited on top of the first layer, the third layer is deposited on top of the second layer, and so forth, until the stack of layers reaches the desired final thickness and shape. The elements of CLM include (1) preparing a matrix resin in a form in which it will solidify subsequently, (2) mixing the fibers and matrix material to form a continuous pre-impregnated tow (also called "towpreg"), and (3) dispensing the pre-impregnated tow from a nozzle onto a base while moving the nozzle to form the dispensed material into a patterned layer of controlled thickness. When the material deposited into a given layer has solidified, the material for the next layer is deposited and patterned similarly, and so forth, until the desired overall object has been built up as a stack of patterned layers. Preferably, the deposition apparatus is controlled by a computer-aided design (CAD) system. The basic CLM concept can be adapted to the fabrication of parts from a variety of matrix materials. It is conceivable that a CLM apparatus could be placed at a remote location on Earth or in outer space where (1) spare parts are expected to be needed but (2) it would be uneconomical or impractical to store a full inventory of spare parts. A wide variety of towpregs could be prepared and stored on spools until needed. Long-shelf-life towpreg materials suitable for such use could include thermoplastic-coated carbon fibers and metal-coated SiC fibers. When a spare part was needed, the part could be fabricated by CLM under control by a CAD data file; thus, the part could be built automatically, at the scene, within hours or minutes.

Wang, C. Jeff↗

Toward Synthesis, Analysis, and Certification of Security Protocols

Implemented security protocols are basically pieces of software which are used to (a) authenticate the other communication partners, (b) establish a secure communication channel between them (using insecure communication media), and (c) transfer data between the communication partners in such a way that these data only available to the desired receiver, but not to anyone else. Such an implementation usually consists of the following components: the protocol-engine, which controls in which sequence the messages of the protocol are sent over the network, and which controls the assembly/disassembly and processing (e.g., decryption) of the data. the cryptographic routines to actually encrypt or decrypt the data (using given keys), and t,he interface to the operating system and to the application. For a correct working of such a security protocol, all of these components must work flawlessly. Many formal-methods based techniques for the analysis of a security protocols have been developed. They range from using specific logics (e.g.: BAN-logic [4], or higher order logics [12] to model checking [2] approaches. In each approach, the analysis tries to prove that no (or at least not a modeled intruder) can get access to secret data. Otherwise, a scenario illustrating the &tack may be produced. Despite the seeming simplicity of security protocols ("only" a few messages are sent between the protocol partners in order to ensure a secure communication), many flaws have been detected. Unfortunately, even a perfect protocol engine does not guarantee flawless working of a security protocol, as incidents show. Many break-ins and security vulnerabilities are caused by exploiting errors in the implementation of the protocol engine or the underlying operating system. Attacks using buffer-overflows are a very common class of such attacks. Errors in the implementation of exception or error handling can open up additional vulnerabilities. For example, on a website with a log-in screen: multiple tries with invalid passwords caused the expected error message (too many retries). but let the user nevertheless pass. Finally, security can be compromised by silly implementation bugs or design decisions. In a commercial VPN software, all calls to the encryption routines were incidentally replaced by stubs, probably during factory testing. The product worked nicely. and the error (an open VPN) would have gone undetected, if a team member had not inspected the low-level traffic out of curiosity. Also, the use secret proprietary encryption routines can backfire, because such algorithms often exhibit weaknesses which can be exploited easily (see e.g., DVD encoding). Summarizing, there is large number of possibilities to make errors which can compromise the security of a protocol. In today s world with short time-to-market and the use of security protocols in open and hostile networks for safety-critical applications (e.g., power or air-traffic control), such slips could lead to catastrophic situations. Thus, formal methods and automatic reasoning techniques should not be used just for the formal proof of absence of an attack, but they ought to be used to provide an end-to-end tool-supported framework for security software. With such an approach all required artifacts (code, documentation, test cases) , formal analyses, and reliable certification will be generated automatically, given a single, high level specification. By a combination of program synthesis, formal protocol analysis, certification; and proof-carrying code, this goal is within practical reach, since all the important technologies for such an approach actually exist and only need to be assembled in the right way.

Schumann, Johann↗

Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): SAR Water Body Classification for the Open Data Cube

The detection of inland water bodies from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data provides a great advantage over water detection with optical data, since SAR imaging is not impeded by cloud cover. Traditional methods of detecting water from SAR data involves using thresholding methods that can be labor intensive and imprecise. This paper describes Water Across Synthetic Aperture Radar Data (WASARD): a method of water detection from SAR data which automates and simplifies the thresholding process using machine learning on training data created from Geoscience Australia’s WOFS algorithm. Of the machine learning models tested, the Linear Support Vector Machine was determined to be optimal, with the option of training using solely the VH polarization or a combination of the VH and VV polarizations. WASARD was able to identify water in the target area with a correlation of 97% with WOFS. Sentinel-1, Open Data Cube, Earth Observations, Machine Learning, Water Detection 1. INTRODUCTION Water classification is an important function of Earth imaging satellites, as accurate remote classification of land and water can assist in land use analysis, flood prediction, climate change research, as well as a variety of agricultural applications [2]. The ability to identify bodies of water remotely via satellite is immensely cheaper than contracting surveys of the areas in question, meaning that an application that can accurately use satellite data towards this function can make valuable information available to nations which would not be able to afford it otherwise. Highly reliable applications for the remote detection of water currently exist for use with optical satellite data such as that provided by LANDSAT. One such application, Geoscience Australia’s Water Observations from Space (WOFS) has already been ported for use with the Open Data Cube [6]. However, water detection using optical data from Landsat is constrained by its relatively long revisit cycle of 16 days [5], and water detection using any optical data is constrained in that it lacks the ability to make accurate classifications through cloud cover [2]. The alternative solution which solves these problems is water detection using SAR data, which images the Earth using cloud-penetrating microwaves. Because of its advantages over optical data, much research has been done into water detection using SAR data. Traditionally, this has been done using the thresholding method, which involves picking a polarization band and labeling all pixels for which this band’s value is below a certain threshold as containing water. The thresholding method works since water tends to return a much lower backscatter value to the satellite than land [1]. However, this method can be flawed since estimating the proper threshold is often imprecise, complicated, and labor intensive for the end user. Thresholding also tends to use data from only one SAR polarization, when a combination of polarizations can provide insight into whether water is present. [2] In order to alleviate these problems, this paper presents an application for the Open Data Cube to detect water from SAR data using support vector machine (SVM) classification. 2. PLATFORM WASARD is an application for the Open Data Cube, a mechanism which provides a simple yet efficient means of ingesting, storing, and retrieving remote sensing data. Data can be ingested and made analysis ready according to whatever specifications the researcher chooses, and easily resampled to artificially alter a scene’s resolution. Currently WASARD supports water detection on scenes from ESA’s Sentinel-1 and JAXA’s ALOS. When testing WASARD, Sentinel-1 was most commonly used due to its relatively high spatial resolution and its rapid 6 day revisit cycle [5]. With minor alterations to the application's code, however, it could support data from other satellites. 3. METHODOLOGY Using supervised classification, WASARD compares SAR data to a dataset pre-classified by WOFS in order to train an SVM classifier. This classifier is then used to detect water in other SAR scenes outside the training set. Accuracy was measured according to the following metrics:  Precision: a measure of what percentage of the points WASARD labels as water are truly water  Recall: a measure of what percentage of the total water cover WASARD was able to identify.  F1 Score: a harmonic average of the precision and recall scores Both precision and recall are calculated at the end of the training phase, when the trained classifier is compared to a testing dataset. Because the WOFS algorithm’s classifications are used as the truth values when training a WASARD classifier, when precision and recall are mentioned in this paper, they are always with respect to the values produced by WOFS on a similar scene of Landsat data, which themselves have a classification accuracy of 97% [6]. Visual representations of water identified by WASARD in this paper were produced using the function wasard_plot(), which is included in WASARD. 3.1 Algorithm Selection The machine learning model used by WASARD is the Linear Support Vector Machine (SVM). This model uses a supervised learning algorithm to develop a classifier, meaning it creates a vector which can be multiplied by the vector formed by the relevant data bands to determine whether a pixel in a SAR scene contains water. This classifier is trained by comparing data points from selected bands in a SAR scene to their respective labels, which in this case are “water” or “not water” as given by the WOFS algorithm. The SVM was selected over the Random Forest model, which outperformed the SVM in training speed, but had a greater classification time and lower accuracy, and the Multilayer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network, which had a slightly higher average accuracy than the SVM, but much greater training and classification times. Figure 1: Visual representation of the SVM Classifier. Each white point represents a pixel in a SAR scene. In Figure 1, the diagonal line separating pixels determined to be water from those determined not to be water represents the actual classification vector produced by the SVM. It is worth noting that once the model has been trained, classification of pixels is done in a similar manner as in the thresholding method. This is especially true if only one band was used to train the model. 3.1 Feature Selection Sentinel-1 collects data from two bands: the Vertical/Vertical polarization (VV) and the Vertical/Horizontal polarization (VH). When 100 SVM classifiers were created for each polarization individually, and for the combination of the two, the following results were achieved: Figure 2: Accuracy of classifiers trained using different polarization bands. Precision and Recall were measured with respect to the values produced by WOFS. Figure 2 demonstrates that using both the VV and VH bands trades slightly lower recall for significantly greater precision when compared with the VH band alone, and that using the VV band alone is inferior in both metrics. WASARD therefore defaults to using both the VV and VH bands, and includes the option to use solely the VH band. The VV polarization’s lower precision compared to the VH polarization is in contrast to results from previous research and may merit further analysis [4]. 3.2 Training a Classifier The steps in training a classifier with WASARD are 1. Selecting two scenes (one SAR, one optical) with the same spatial extents, and acquired close to each other in time, with a preference that the scenes are taken on the same day. 2. Using the WOFS algorithm to produce an array of the detected water in the scene of optical data, to be used as the labels during supervised learning 3. Data points from the selected bands from the SAR acquisition are bundled together into an array with the corresponding labels gathered from WOFS. A random sample with an equal number of points labeled “Water” and “Not Water” is selected to be partitioned into a training and a testing dataset 4. Using Scikit-Learn’s LinearSVC object, the training dataset is used to produce a classifier, which is then tested against the testing dataset to determine its precision and recall The result is a wasard_classifier object, which has the following attributes: 1. f1, recall, and precision: 3 metrics used to determine the classifier’s accuracy 2. Coefficient: Vector which the SVM uses to make its predictions. The classifier detects water when the dot product of the coefficient and the vector formed by the SAR bands is positive 3. Save(): allows a user to save a classifier to the disk in order to use it without retraining 4. wasard_classify(): Classifies an entire xarray of SAR data using the SVM classifier All of the above steps are performed automatically when the user creates a wasard_classifier object. 3.3 Classifying a Dataset Once the classifier has been created, it can be used to detect water in an xarray of SAR data using wasard_classify(). By taking the dot product of the classifier’s coefficients and the vector formed by the selected bands of SAR data, an array of predictions is constructed. A classifier can effectively be used on the same spatial extents as the ones where it was trained, or on any area with a similar landscape. While

Kreiser, Zachary↗