Download - Perimeter Security A Holistic Approach
Perimeter Security
A Holistic Approach
• Why Perimeter Security?• Review the Basics• Consider site specific needs• Evaluate Risks• Review Technology• Discuss Best Value Analysis
GOALS
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Financial• Efficiency• Effective• Response
Why Perimeter Security?
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
FOURTENETS
DETECTION
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
FOURTENETS
ASSESSMENT
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
FOURTENETS
DELAY
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
FOURTENETS
RESPONSE
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
FOURTENETS
RESPONSE
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
•Detection•Assessment•Delay•Response
The Holistic Approach
FOURTENETS
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Environmental– Five year weather history– Data
• Daily Temperature • Daily Precipitation• Snowfall• Wind• Ice• Fog (anecdotal)
SITEANALYSIS
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
SITEDATA
December 2007 to December 2008
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
SITEANALYSIS
Environmental Summary (of 5 years - 1825 days)•Precipitation Events – 461
• Events above 1” – 1• Average Precipitation - .124 Inches• Greatest Precipitation – 1.41 Inches
•Snow Events – 101• Events above 1” – 36• Average Daily Depth – 1.08 Inches• Greatest Daily Depth – 4.1 Inches
•Wind Events• Highest Wind Event – 103 MPH• 43% of wind events above 20 MPH
•Ice – 138 days w/precip and temps 32 and below•Fog - Anecdotal
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
SITEISSUES
– Length of Perimeter– Patrol Road at perimeter– Terrain– Perimeter Barriers
– Curved fences– Single Fences in perimeter
– Obstacles– Buildings in perimeter– Structures near perimeter
– Sources of False Alarms– Recreation near inner perimeter– Wildlife– Condition of fence– Configuration of fence
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Physical - BarriersSITEISSUES
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Physical - TerrainSITEISSUES
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Physical - ObstaclesSITEISSUES
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Threats– Aggressive Attempt– Stealthy Attempt– Cut– Tunneling– Bridging– Vaulting/Stilts– Assisted Attempts
• Cost of Failure– Forms of Failure– Confidence Factor– Addition of manpower– Risk to the public
ASSESSRISKS
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Buried Ported Coax (Leaky Cable)TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Buried Ported Coax (Leaky Cable)– Concept
• Transmit/Receive parallel buried cables establish magnetic field. Disturbance in field is detected. Approx 3’ height field.
– Pros• Very adaptable to terrain• High probability of detection• Detects surface and tunneling threats
– Cons• Running and Standing Water• Erosion• Moderately susceptible to EMI/RFI
– Cost• Moderate First Costs• Low TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Electrostatic Field (E Field, X Field)TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Electrostatic Field (E Field, X Field)– Concept
• Electrostatic field established between wires, disturbance of field is detected
– Pros• Very flexible mounting options• No high tensioned cable
– Cons• Highly susceptible to EMI/RFI• Snow builds disables• Maintenance (re-tensioning)
– Cost• Moderate First Costs• Moderate TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Bi-Static Microwave DetectionTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Bi-Static Microwave Detection– Concept
• Transmit and receive head establish cigar shaped microwave beam – movement that breaks or partial blocks beam is detected
– Pros• Visible Deterrence• Covert Beam• High Probability of detection
– Cons• Multi-stack to avoid snow builds • Must have level, clear field of view• Generally after fence barrier
– Cost• Moderate First Costs• Low TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Passive InfraredTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Passive Infrared– Concept
• Heat sources in the field of view are detected and evaluated as targets
– Pros• Compares full view with small changes to
moderate FAR/NAR from environmental sources
– Cons• Temperature masking• Small targets at the end of field of view
– Costs• Moderate First Costs• Low TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Active Photo Elec, Laser, InfraredTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Active Photo Beam, Laser, Infrared– Concept
• Break Beam Detectors– Pros
• Visible Deterrence• Covert Beam• Variety of mounting options
– Cons• Snow builds disables• Alignment Issues • High Maintenance
– Cost• Moderate First Cost• High TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Ground Surveillance RadarTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Ground Surveillance Radar (passive)– Concept
• Reflected back energy from activity in shaped millimeter wave radar beam is detected
– Pros• Precise end of field of view cut-off• Curtain wall beam pattern available
– Cons• Freeze over blockage (rare)
– Cost• Moderate First Costs• Low TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Monostatic Microwave and Hybrid (Doppler MW and Passive IR)TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Monostatic Microwave and Hybrid (Doppler MW and Passive IR)– Concept
• Reflected back energy from IR source or MW energy is detected
– Pros• Only responds if both detectors are
activated (“anded” together)
– Cons• Very short range
– Not Recommended for primary sensor• Good product for portals and difficult
terrain area
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Acoustic Fence Mounted Sensors (copper) – Fiber Fence SensorsTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Acoustic Fence Mounted Sensors (copper) – Fiber Fence Sensors – Magnetic Polymer Strain Sensors– Concept
• Vibrations on fence are detected in the sensor as acoustic energy, disturbance of electromagnetic fields or disturbance of light modes
– Pros• Terrain friendly, large sensitivity
adjustment– Cons
• Subject to NAR/FAR sources on fence– Cost
• Low to Moderate First Costs• Potentially High TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Acoustic and Fiber sensors on/in Razor/Barbed WireTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Acoustic and Fiber sensors on/in Razor/Barbed Wire– Concept
• Vibrations on razor/barbed wire are detected in the sensor as acoustic energy, disturbance of electromagnetic fields or disturbance of light modes
– Pros• Easy install, highly configurable• Better shielded from UV
– Cons• Subject to NAR/FAR sources on fence
– Cost• Low to Moderate First Costs• Moderate TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Fiber Mesh SensorTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Fiber Mesh Sensor– Concept
• Fiber mat covers the fence surface, cuts in the mat are detected
– Pros• Easy install• Very low NAR/FAR
– Cons• Subject to UV damage• Very difficult to troubleshoot and repair
– Cost• Low First Costs• High TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Taut Wire SensorTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Taut Wire Sensor– Concept
• Array of high tension wires are attached to anchor/sensor posts. Deflection or cut of wire is detected.
– Pros• Very High Probability of Detection• Very Low NAR/FAR• Very difficult to defeat
– Cons• Moderate Maintenance
– Cost• High First Costs• Low TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Video Motion DetectionTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Video Motion Detection– Concept
• Changes in pixels on a video image consistent with desired target is detected and tracked
– Pros• Combines detection and assessment
– Cons• High FAR/NAR from environmental issues• Heavy rain, fog, snow obscures view and
impedes detection
– Cost• Moderate First Costs• Moderate TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Thermal Video Motion DetectionTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Thermal Video Motion Detection– Concept
• Changes in pixels on a thermal video image consistent with desired target is detected and tracked
– Pros• Combines detection and assessment• Targets high contrast images (eliminates
most environmental FAR/NAR issues)– Cons
• Somewhat susceptible to fog– Costs
• Moderate First Costs• Low TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Seismic DetectorsTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Seismic Detectors– Concept
• Seismic disturbances on fence or in the ground activate a “geophone” – signal is interpreted as consistent with target
– Pros• High Probability of Detection• Flexible Deployment
– Cons• Subject to FAR/NAR from vehicles• Reduced sensitivity in frozen ground (buried)
– Costs• Moderate First Costs• Potentially High TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Point SensorsTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Point Sensors– Concept
• Mechanical action is detected when it activates shock sensor, accelerometer, piezo or mercury switches
– Pros• Very low initial cost
– Cons• Potentially high FAR/NAR
– Costs• Low First Costs• Moderate to High TCO (depending on
technology)
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Fluid Filled Pressure SensorsTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Fluid Filled Pressure Sensors– Concept
• Two pressurized fluid filled tubes are buried parallel - micro pressure changes are detected
– Pros• Buried sensor detects tunneling and
surface targets
– Cons• Reduced sensitivity in frozen ground• No deterrence
– Cost• Moderate First Costs• Moderate TCO
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Lethal and Stun FenceTECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Lethal and Stun Fences– Concept
• Lethal or Stun pulses of electrical current are present on horizontal wire array. Contact between wires or to ground is lethal or disabling
– Pros• Very high deterrence
– Cons• Lethal requires additional protective fence• High nuisance wildlife kills• Stun fence potential liability
– Cost• Moderate to High First Costs (depending on
product)• Low to High TCO (depending on product)
TECH
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
• Best Value AnalysisANALYSIS Cat Wt Weight Taut Wire Fence Sensor Buried Sensor Area Detectors Video SensorCOST 0 0 0 0 0 0 First Costs Cost of Failure (Risk) TCO POD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hi POD increase NAR Failure Potential Factor 8 FAR/NAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental EMI/RFI Discriminates non-threats DETERRANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overt Intimidating Factor 8 INTERFERENCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 EMI/RFI Weather Terrain (Soils, Water etc) VULNERABILITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stealthy attack Aggressive attack Assisted attack Avoidance MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 Staff perform PM Staff perform CM Cost of Maintenance RELIABILITY (MTBF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Field Components Head End
Total 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
The Holistic Approach
Perimeter Security is a marriage of technology, the environment and an understanding of the human
element
SUMMARY
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach
?QUESTIONS
Perimeter SecurityA holistic approach