• Korean Journal of Remote Sensing
• /
• v.38 no.6_3
• /
• pp.1827-1836
• /
• 2022

Disasters that occur unexpectedly are difficult to predict. In addition, the scale and damage are increasing compared to the past. Sometimes one disaster can develop into another disaster. Among the four stages of disaster management, search and rescue are carried out in the response stage when an emergency occurs. Therefore, personnel such as firefighters who are put into the scene are put in at a lot of risk. In this respect, in the initial response process at the disaster site, robots are a technology with high potential to reduce damage to human life and property. In addition, Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) can acquire a relatively wide range of 3D information using a laser. Due to its high accuracy and precision, it is a very useful sensor when considering the characteristics of a disaster site. Therefore, in this study, development and experiments were conducted so that the robot could perform real-time monitoring at the disaster site. Multi-sensor module was developed by combining LiDAR, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor, and computing board. Then, this module was mounted on the robot, and a customized Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) algorithm was developed. A method for stably mounting a multi-sensor module to a robot to maintain optimal accuracy at disaster sites was studied. And to check the performance of the module, SLAM was tested inside the disaster building, and various SLAM algorithms and distance comparisons were performed. As a result, PackSLAM developed in this study showed lower error compared to other algorithms, showing the possibility of application in disaster sites. In the future, in order to further enhance usability at disaster sites, various experiments will be conducted by establishing a rough terrain environment with many obstacles.

• The Journal of Engineering Geology
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.611-625
• /
• 2022

One of the applications of geomagnetic paleo-secular variation (PSV) is the age dating of archeological remains (i.e., the archeomagnetic dating technique). This application requires the local model of PSV that reflects non-dipole fields with regional differences. Until now, the tentative Korean paleosecular variation (t-KPSV) calculated based on JPSV (SW Japanese PSV) has been applied as a reference curve for individual archeomagnetic directions in Korea. However, it is less reliable due to regional differences in the non-dipole magnetic field. Here, we present PSV curves for AD 1 to 600, corresponding to the Korean Three Kingdoms (including the Proto Three Kingdoms) Period, using the results of archeomagnetic studies in the Korean Peninsula and published research data. Then we compare our PSV with the global geomagnetic prediction model and t-KPSV. A total of 49 reliable archeomagnetic directional data from 16 regions were compiled for our PSV. In detail, each data showed statistical consistency (N > 6, 𝛼₉₅ < 7.8°, and k > 57.8) and had radiocarbon or archeological ages in the range of AD 1 to 600 years with less than ±200 years error range. The compiled PSV for the initial six centuries (KPSV0.6k) showed declination and inclination in the range of 341.7° to 20.1° and 43.5° to 60.3°, respectively. Compared to the t-KPSV, our curve revealed different variation patterns both in declination and inclination. On the other hand, KPSV0.6k and global geomagnetic prediction models (ARCH3K.1, CALS3K.4, and SED3K.1) revealed consistent variation trends during the first six centennials. In particular, the ARCH3K.1 showed the best fitting with our KPSV0.6k. These results indicate that contribution of the non-dipole field to Korea and Japan is quite different, despite their geographical proximity. Moreover, the compilation of archeomagnetic data from the Korea territory is essential to build a reliable PSV curve for an age dating tool. Lastly, we double-check the reliability of our KPSV0.6k by showing a good fitting of newly acquired age-controlled archeomagnetic data on our curve.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.62-68
• /
• 2016

Purpose In a cyclosporine experiment using a robotic liquid handing system has found a deviation of its standard curve and low reproducibility of patients's results. The difference of the test is that methanol is mixed with samples and the extractions are used for the test. Therefore, we assumed that the abnormal test results came from using methanol and conducted this test. In a manual of a robotic liquid handling system mentions that we can choose several setting parameters depending on the viscosity of the liquids being used, the size of the sampling tips and the motor speeds that you elect to use but there's no exact order. This study was undertaken to confirm pipetting ability depending on types of liquids and investigate proper setting parameters for the optimum dispensing ability. Materials and Methods 4types of liquids(water, serum, methanol, PEG 6000(25%)) and $TSH^{125}I$ tracer(515 kBq) are used to confirm pipetting ability. 29 specimens for Cyclosporine test are used to compare results. Prepare 8 plastic tubes for each of the liquids and with multi pipette $400{\mu}l$ of each liquid is dispensed to 8 tubes and $100{\mu}l$ of $TSH^{125}I$ tracer are dispensed to all of the tubes. From the prepared samples, $100{\mu}l$ of liquids are dispensed using a robotic liquid handing system, counted and calculated its CV(%) depending on types of liquids. And then by adjusting several setting parameters(air gap, dispense time, delay time) the change of the CV(%)are calcutated and finds optimum setting parameters. 29 specimens are tested with 3 methods. The first(A) is manual method and the second(B) is used robotic liquid handling system with existing parameters. The third(C) is used robotic liquid handling system with adjusted parameters. Pipetting ability depending on types of liquids is assessed with CV(%). On the basis of (A), patients's test results are compared (A)and(B), (A)and(C) and they are assessed with %RE(%Relative error) and %Diff(%Difference). Results The CV(%) of the CPM depending on liquid types were water 0.88, serum 0.95, methanol 10.22 and PEG 0.68. As expected dispensing of methanol using a liquid handling system was the problem and others were good. The methanol's dispensing were conducted by adjusting several setting parameters. When transport air gap 0 was adjusted to 2 and 5, CV(%) were 20.16, 12.54 and when system air gap 0 was adjusted to 2 and 5, CV(%) were 8.94, 1.36. When adjusted to system air gap 2, transport air gap 2 was 12.96 and adjusted to system air gap 5, Transport air gap 5 was 1.33. When dispense speed was adjusted 300 to 100, CV(%) was 13.32 and when dispense delay was adjusted 200 to 100 was 13.55. When compared (B) to (A), the result increased 99.44% and %RE was 93.59%. When compared (C-system air gap was adjusted 0 to 5) to (A), the result increased 6.75% and %RE was 5.10%. Conclusion Adjusting speed and delay time of aspiration and dispense was meaningless but changing system air gap was effective. By adjusting several parameters proper value was found and it affected the practical result of the experiment. To optimize the system active efforts are needed through the test and in case of dispensing new types of liquids proper test is required to check the liquid is suitable for using the equipment.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.157-165
• /
• 2012

Purpose: We evaluated usefulness of abdominal compressor for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients and hepato-biliary cancer and metastatic liver cancer patients. Materials and Methods: From November 2011 to March 2012, we selected HCC patients who gained reduction of diaphragm movement >1 cm through abdominal compressor (diaphragm control, elekta, sweden) for HT (Hi-Art Tomotherapy, USA). We got planning computed tomography (CT) images and 4 dimensional (4D) images through 4D CT (somatom sensation, siemens, germany). The gross tumor volume (GTV) included a gross tumor and margins considering tumor movement. The planning target volume (PTV) included a 5 to 7 mm safety margin around GTV. We classified patients into two groups according to distance between tumor and organs at risk (OAR, stomach, duodenum, bowel). Patients with the distance more than 1 cm are classified as the 1st group and they received SBRT of 4 or 5 fractions. Patients with the distance less than 1 cm are classified as the 2nd group and they received tomotherapy of 20 fractions. Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) were performed 4 or 10 fractions. When we verify a MVCT fusion considering priority to liver than bone-technique. We sent MVCT images to Mim_vista (Mimsoftware, ver .5.4. USA) and we re-delineated stomach, duodenum and bowel to bowel_organ and delineated liver. First, we analyzed MVCT images to check the setup variation. Second we compared dose difference between tumor and OAR based on adaptive dose through adaptive planning station and Mim_vista. Results: Average setup variation from MVCT was $-0.66{\pm}1.53$ mm (left-right) $0.39{\pm}4.17$ mm (superior-inferior), $0.71{\pm}1.74$ mm (anterior-posterior), $-0.18{\pm}0.30$ degrees (roll). 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1) were similar to setup variation. 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) of $V_{diff3%}$ (volume of 3% difference of dose) of GTV through adaptive planing station was $0.78{\pm}0.05%$, PTV was $9.97{\pm}3.62%$, $V_{diff5%}$ was GTV 0.0%, PTV was $2.9{\pm}0.95%$, maximum dose difference rate of bowel_organ was $-6.85{\pm}1.11%$. 2nd Group (d<1) GTV of $V_{diff3%}$ was $1.62{\pm}0.55%$, PTV was $8.61{\pm}2.01%$, $V_{diff5%}$ of GTV was 0.0%, PTV was $5.33{\pm}2.32%$, maximum dose difference rate of bowel_organ was $28.33{\pm}24.41%$. Conclusion: Despite we saw diaphragm movement more than 5 mm with flouroscopy after use an abdominal compressor, average setup_variation from MVCT was less than 5 mm. Therefore, we could estimate the range of setup_error within a 5 mm. Target's dose difference rate of 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1) were similar, while 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1)'s bowel_organ's maximum dose difference rate's maximum difference was more than 35%, 1st group ($d{\geq}1$)'s bowel_organ's maximum dose difference rate was smaller than 2nd group (d<1). When applicating SBRT to HCC, abdominal compressor is useful to control diaphragm movement in selected patients with more than 1 cm bowel_organ distance.