• 대한원격탐사학회지
• /
• 제34권6_3호
• /
• pp.1457-1468
• /
• 2018

후방산란계수(${\sigma}^0$) 방정식은 지상표적 탐지, 토지피복 분류, 해상풍 산출, 토양 수분함량 예측 등 Synthetic Aperture Radar(SAR) 영상의 활용을 위해 영상으로부터 지구물리적인 특성을 예측하는 과정에서 요구되는 필수 요소이다. 본 논문에서는 최종 업데이트된 SAR 프로세서와 절대방사보정의 특성을 반영하는 Kompsat-5 (K5)의 Radar Cross Section(RCS) 및 ${\sigma}^0$ 방정식을 제시하고 이를 검증하여 K5 SAR 영상의 활용도를 높이고자 한다. 우선, K5 RCS 방정식을 산출하고 이의 정밀도를 몽골의 검보정 사이트에 설치되어 있는 삼면판 반사기를 이용하여 검증하였다. K5 Spotlight 및 Stripmap 모드의 다양한 빔 영상에 대해서 RCS 방정식을 이용하여 측정한 RCS 값과 K5 SAR 프로세서를 이용하여 관측한 표준 RCS 값을 비교하였을 때 평균 $0.2dBm^2$ 이하의 차이를 보였다. 레이더 방정식과 K5 RCS 방정식을 이용하여 유도한 K5 ${\sigma}^0$ 방정식에 대한 검증은 계절에 따른 후방 산란 특성의 변화가 적은 아마존 열대 우림의 TerraSAR-X(TSX) 및 Sentinel-1A(S-1A) SAR 영상에서 얻은 ${\sigma}^0$과 비교하여 수행하였다. TSX/S-1A 대비 K5 ${\sigma}^0$ 값의 차이는 최대 0.6 dB 이하였다. K5의 절대방사보정에 대한 요구 값이 2.0 dB($1{\sigma}$)을 감안하면 K5 RCS 방정식의 평균 $0.2dBm^2$ 이하의 오차와 K5 ${\sigma}^0$ 방정식의 최대 0.6 dB 이하의 오차는 제시한 방정식들의 정밀도 및 유효성이 높음을 입증하여 준다. 향후, 본 논문에서 제시한 K5 RCS 방정식과 K5 ${\sigma}^0$ 방정식을 이용하여 해상풍 산출 등 정량적인 분석이 가능한 활용을 통한 검증이 추가적으로 이루어져야 할 것으로 생각된다.

• 지능정보연구
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.23-46
• /
• 2017

2000년대 이전부터 북미 유럽의 선진국을 중심으로 특정 기업이나 사업(프로젝트)에 관한 가치를 평가하는 사례는 있어 왔으나, 개별 기술(특허)의 경제적 가치를 산정하는 체계나 방법론은 국내를 중심으로 최근 들어 활성화되어 왔다. 이러한 기술가치평가 분야는 기술이전(거래), 현물출자, 사업타당성 분석, 투자유치, 세무/소송 등의 다양한 용도로 활용되고 있다. 물론 기술보증기금의 KTRS, 발명진흥회의 SMART 3.1과 같이, 평가대상기술에 대한 기술력(등급) 평가 혹은 특허등급평가를 정성적으로 수행하는 온라인 시스템은 존재해 왔으나, 대상기술의 정량적인 가치금액까지 산출해 주는 웹기반 지능형 기술가치평가 시스템은 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI)에 의해 유일하게 개발 및 공식 오픈되어 확산 활용되고 있다. 본 고에서는 KISTI에서 개발 운영중인 웹기반 'STAR-Value' 시스템을 중심으로, 탑재된 방법론 및 평가모델의 유형, 이를 지원하는 참조정보 및 데이터베이스(D/B)가 어떻게 연계 활용되는지를 소개한다. 특히 미래에 발생할 경제적 수익을 추정하여 현재가치화하는 소득접근법 기반의 대표 모델인 현금흐름할인(DCF) 모델과 특정 로열티율을 기반으로 로열티수입료의 현재가치를 기술료 대가로 산정하는 로열티절감모델을 포함한 6개 모델, 그리고 관련 지원정보(기술수명, 기업(업종)재무정보, 할인율, 산업기술요소 등)의 데이터 기반 연계 방식에 대해 살펴본다. STAR-Value 시스템은 평가대상기술에 대한 국제특허분류(IPC) 혹은 한국표준산업분류(KSIC) 등의 분류 정보로부터 기술순환주기(TCT) 지수, 유사업종(혹은 유사기업)의 매출액 성장률 및 수익성 데이터, 업종별 가중평균자본비용(WACC) 및 산업기술요소 지수 등 메타데이터값을 자동적으로 불러오고 여기에 조정요인을 반영하여 기술가치의 산출결과가 높은 신뢰성 및 객관성을 가지도록 한다. 나아가 대상기술의 잠재적 시장규모와 해당 사업화주체의 시장점유율에 대한 정보까지 보유 재무데이터 기반으로 참조값을 제시하거나 기존에 완료된 평가사례 축적 기반으로 업종별 유사 기술의 가치범위값을 제시해 준다면, 본 시스템이 보다 지능형으로 지원 모듈을 연계 활용하고 실시간으로 손쉽게 고(高)정확도의 기술가치범위를 제시해 줄 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. 본 고에서는 웹기반 STAR-Value 시스템이 참조데이터 기반으로 지능형 연계를 수행하도록 해주는 모형선택 가이드라인 지원기능, 기술가치범위 추론 지원기능, 유사기업 선정 기반의 시장점유율 산정 지원기능의 내부 로직 구성을 설명한다. 상기 지원기능을 통해 비전문가(또는 초보자) 수준에서 최적의 평가모형 선택, 기술가치 범위 추론, 유사기업 선택 및 시장점유율 산정에 대한 정보지원이 데이터 사이언스 및 기계학습 기반으로 수행될 수 있다. 본 연구는 기술가치평가 분야의 이론적 타당성을 평가실무에서 활용할 수 있는 평가모델 및 지원정보를 실제 탑재한 웹기반 시스템의 소개에 의미가 있으며, 추가적으로 보다 객관적이고 손쉬운 지능형 지원시스템의 활용성을 높임으로써, 앞으로 기술사업화의 제 분야에서 다양하게 활용할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

• 대한교통학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한교통학회 1995년도 제27회 학술발표회
• /
• pp.101-113
• /
• 1995

The objective of this research is to test the feasibility of developing a statewide truck traffic forecasting methodology for Wisconsin by using Origin-Destination surveys, traffic counts, classification counts, and other data that are routinely collected by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Development of a feasible model will permit estimation of future truck traffic for every major link in the network. This will provide the basis for improved estimation of future pavement deterioration. Pavement damage rises exponentially as axle weight increases, and trucks are responsible for most of the traffic-induced damage to pavement. Consequently, forecasts of truck traffic are critical to pavement management systems. The pavement Management Decision Supporting System (PMDSS) prepared by WisDOT in May 1990 combines pavement inventory and performance data with a knowledge base consisting of rules for evaluation, problem identification and rehabilitation recommendation. Without a r.easonable truck traffic forecasting methodology, PMDSS is not able to project pavement performance trends in order to make assessment and recommendations in the future years. However, none of WisDOT's existing forecasting methodologies has been designed specifically for predicting truck movements on a statewide highway network. For this research, the Origin-Destination survey data avaiiable from WisDOT, including two stateline areas, one county, and five cities, are analyzed and the zone-to'||'&'||'not;zone truck trip tables are developed. The resulting Origin-Destination Trip Length Frequency (00 TLF) distributions by trip type are applied to the Gravity Model (GM) for comparison with comparable TLFs from the GM. The gravity model is calibrated to obtain friction factor curves for the three trip types, Internal-Internal (I-I), Internal-External (I-E), and External-External (E-E). ~oth "macro-scale" calibration and "micro-scale" calibration are performed. The comparison of the statewide GM TLF with the 00 TLF for the macro-scale calibration does not provide suitable results because the available 00 survey data do not represent an unbiased sample of statewide truck trips. For the "micro-scale" calibration, "partial" GM trip tables that correspond to the 00 survey trip tables are extracted from the full statewide GM trip table. These "partial" GM trip tables are then merged and a partial GM TLF is created. The GM friction factor curves are adjusted until the partial GM TLF matches the 00 TLF. Three friction factor curves, one for each trip type, resulting from the micro-scale calibration produce a reasonable GM truck trip model. A key methodological issue for GM. calibration involves the use of multiple friction factor curves versus a single friction factor curve for each trip type in order to estimate truck trips with reasonable accuracy. A single friction factor curve for each of the three trip types was found to reproduce the 00 TLFs from the calibration data base. Given the very limited trip generation data available for this research, additional refinement of the gravity model using multiple mction factor curves for each trip type was not warranted. In the traditional urban transportation planning studies, the zonal trip productions and attractions and region-wide OD TLFs are available. However, for this research, the information available for the development .of the GM model is limited to Ground Counts (GC) and a limited set ofOD TLFs. The GM is calibrated using the limited OD data, but the OD data are not adequate to obtain good estimates of truck trip productions and attractions .. Consequently, zonal productions and attractions are estimated using zonal population as a first approximation. Then, Selected Link based (SELINK) analyses are used to adjust the productions and attractions and possibly recalibrate the GM. The SELINK adjustment process involves identifying the origins and destinations of all truck trips that are assigned to a specified "selected link" as the result of a standard traffic assignment. A link adjustment factor is computed as the ratio of the actual volume for the link (ground count) to the total assigned volume. This link adjustment factor is then applied to all of the origin and destination zones of the trips using that "selected link". Selected link based analyses are conducted by using both 16 selected links and 32 selected links. The result of SELINK analysis by u~ing 32 selected links provides the least %RMSE in the screenline volume analysis. In addition, the stability of the GM truck estimating model is preserved by using 32 selected links with three SELINK adjustments, that is, the GM remains calibrated despite substantial changes in the input productions and attractions. The coverage of zones provided by 32 selected links is satisfactory. Increasing the number of repetitions beyond four is not reasonable because the stability of GM model in reproducing the OD TLF reaches its limits. The total volume of truck traffic captured by 32 selected links is 107% of total trip productions. But more importantly, ~ELINK adjustment factors for all of the zones can be computed. Evaluation of the travel demand model resulting from the SELINK adjustments is conducted by using screenline volume analysis, functional class and route specific volume analysis, area specific volume analysis, production and attraction analysis, and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) analysis. Screenline volume analysis by using four screenlines with 28 check points are used for evaluation of the adequacy of the overall model. The total trucks crossing the screenlines are compared to the ground count totals. L V/GC ratios of 0.958 by using 32 selected links and 1.001 by using 16 selected links are obtained. The %RM:SE for the four screenlines is inversely proportional to the average ground count totals by screenline .. The magnitude of %RM:SE for the four screenlines resulting from the fourth and last GM run by using 32 and 16 selected links is 22% and 31 % respectively. These results are similar to the overall %RMSE achieved for the 32 and 16 selected links themselves of 19% and 33% respectively. This implies that the SELINICanalysis results are reasonable for all sections of the state.Functional class and route specific volume analysis is possible by using the available 154 classification count check points. The truck traffic crossing the Interstate highways (ISH) with 37 check points, the US highways (USH) with 50 check points, and the State highways (STH) with 67 check points is compared to the actual ground count totals. The magnitude of the overall link volume to ground count ratio by route does not provide any specific pattern of over or underestimate. However, the %R11SE for the ISH shows the least value while that for the STH shows the largest value. This pattern is consistent with the screenline analysis and the overall relationship between %RMSE and ground count volume groups. Area specific volume analysis provides another broad statewide measure of the performance of the overall model. The truck traffic in the North area with 26 check points, the West area with 36 check points, the East area with 29 check points, and the South area with 64 check points are compared to the actual ground count totals. The four areas show similar results. No specific patterns in the L V/GC ratio by area are found. In addition, the %RMSE is computed for each of the four areas. The %RMSEs for the North, West, East, and South areas are 92%, 49%, 27%, and 35% respectively, whereas, the average ground counts are 481, 1383, 1532, and 3154 respectively. As for the screenline and volume range analyses, the %RMSE is inversely related to average link volume. 'The SELINK adjustments of productions and attractions resulted in a very substantial reduction in the total in-state zonal productions and attractions. The initial in-state zonal trip generation model can now be revised with a new trip production's trip rate (total adjusted productions/total population) and a new trip attraction's trip rate. Revised zonal production and attraction adjustment factors can then be developed that only reflect the impact of the SELINK adjustments that cause mcreases or , decreases from the revised zonal estimate of productions and attractions. Analysis of the revised production adjustment factors is conducted by plotting the factors on the state map. The east area of the state including the counties of Brown, Outagamie, Shawano, Wmnebago, Fond du Lac, Marathon shows comparatively large values of the revised adjustment factors. Overall, both small and large values of the revised adjustment factors are scattered around Wisconsin. This suggests that more independent variables beyond just 226; population are needed for the development of the heavy truck trip generation model. More independent variables including zonal employment data (office employees and manufacturing employees) by industry type, zonal private trucks 226; owned and zonal income data which are not available currently should be considered. A plot of frequency distribution of the in-state zones as a function of the revised production and attraction adjustment factors shows the overall " adjustment resulting from the SELINK analysis process. Overall, the revised SELINK adjustments show that the productions for many zones are reduced by, a factor of 0.5 to 0.8 while the productions for ~ relatively few zones are increased by factors from 1.1 to 4 with most of the factors in the 3.0 range. No obvious explanation for the frequency distribution could be found. The revised SELINK adjustments overall appear to be reasonable. The heavy truck VMT analysis is conducted by comparing the 1990 heavy truck VMT that is forecasted by the GM truck forecasting model, 2.975 billions, with the WisDOT computed data. This gives an estimate that is 18.3% less than the WisDOT computation of 3.642 billions of VMT. The WisDOT estimates are based on the sampling the link volumes for USH, 8TH, and CTH. This implies potential error in sampling the average link volume. The WisDOT estimate of heavy truck VMT cannot be tabulated by the three trip types, I-I, I-E ('||'&'||'pound;-I), and E-E. In contrast, the GM forecasting model shows that the proportion ofE-E VMT out of total VMT is 21.24%. In addition, tabulation of heavy truck VMT by route functional class shows that the proportion of truck traffic traversing the freeways and expressways is 76.5%. Only 14.1% of total freeway truck traffic is I-I trips, while 80% of total collector truck traffic is I-I trips. This implies that freeways are traversed mainly by I-E and E-E truck traffic while collectors are used mainly by I-I truck traffic. Other tabulations such as average heavy truck speed by trip type, average travel distance by trip type and the VMT distribution by trip type, route functional class and travel speed are useful information for highway planners to understand the characteristics of statewide heavy truck trip patternS. Heavy truck volumes for the target year 2010 are forecasted by using the GM truck forecasting model. Four scenarios are used. Fo~ better forecasting, ground count- based segment adjustment factors are developed and applied. ISH 90 '||'&'||' 94 and USH 41 are used as example routes. The forecasting results by using the ground count-based segment adjustment factors are satisfactory for long range planning purposes, but additional ground counts would be useful for USH 41. Sensitivity analysis provides estimates of the impacts of the alternative growth rates including information about changes in the trip types using key routes. The network'||'&'||'not;based GMcan easily model scenarios with different rates of growth in rural versus . . urban areas, small versus large cities, and in-state zones versus external stations. cities, and in-state zones versus external stations.