Get documents about "New Tools in the Arsenal for Optimal Perimeter Security Strategies
Description
An analysis methodology for determining overall perimeter security choices is to divide The security components into four major categories; access, detection, prevention and Conviction. Where the security industry has seen an expansion of choices is in the Number of technology options for the detection aspect.
Document Sample
A MicroPower Technologies White Paper
4225 Executive Square, Ste. 430
La Jolla, CA 92037
+1‐858‐768‐5780
www.micropowerapp.com
New Tools in the Arsenal for
Optimal Perimeter Security Strategies
By Allyn Pon, Director of Product Management
MicroPower Technologies, Inc.
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 1
Contents
Introduction 3
Numerous Detection Choices 4
Table 1 ‐ Detection Technologies Matrix 4‐5
Remote Camera Video Surveillance Options 6
Protecting the Perimeter 8
Summary 8
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 2
Introduction
While technology advances in physical security for buildings or building proximity have
been rapid and omnipresent, new tools for improved perimeter security have not been
as visible, but yet still play an important role in overall security success. Environments
such as large parking lots, stadium events, nuclear facilities, parks and recreational
areas, construction facilities, correctional facilities, industrial facilities, government
buildings, and major transportation facilities still continue to represent significant
security challenges as the ideal solutions are cost‐prohibitive due to the difficulty of the
terrain or vast spaces of coverage required. The number of variables and technology
choices to consider for perimeter security are significantly greater than indoor security,
making the final decision for perimeter security a difficult and arduous task.
Numerous Detection Choices
An analysis methodology for determining overall perimeter security choices is to divide
the security components into four major categories; access, detection, prevention and
conviction. Where the security industry has seen an expansion of choices is in the
number of technology options for the detection aspect. New technologies have brought
improvements in range detections as well as rapidly decreasing overall system costs.
Beyond the traditional security guards to patrol the edge, the more sophisticated
options for access control and detection systems for perimeter security now include
fence movement, microwave sensors, seismic ground sensors, infrared sensors, photo
beam sensors, thermal imaging, and video surveillance with motion detection and video
analytics. Each has a trade‐off between operational benefits and costs as shown below
in Table 1.
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 3
Access Technology Category Description
• Simple and easy to install and use
Pros • Easy to monitor and integrate into existing security
system
• Only detects a disturbance
Fence Movement • Prone to false alarms
Cons • Unable to quantify seriousness of security event
• Moderate maintenance for wear and tear
• Accessible, so easy to vandalize and damage
Relative Cost Low
• Simple and easy to install and use
• Easy to monitor and integrate into existing security
Pros system
• Wide range – Up to 1500 feet
• Can handle severe weather conditions
• Typically requires a cable power source at remote
Microwave Sensors locations
• Prone to false alarms
Cons • Unable to quantify seriousness of security event
• Interference from other microwave sources
• Expensive equipment and easy access to vandalize and
damage
Relative Cost Low to Medium
• Protection against vandalism
• No interference with line of sight views and natural
Pros beauty
• Hidden security provides ideal non‐threatening
Seismic Ground Sensors environment
• Prone to false alarms
Cons • Unable to quantify seriousness of security event
• Requires a shallow trenching around the grounds
Relative Cost Medium – High
• Simple and easy to install and use
• Easy to monitor and integrate into existing security
system
• Ability to better distinguish false alarms versus valid
Pros
human intruder detection
• Works in foggy and night environments
• Effective even in camouflage conditions
Infrared Sensors
• No cabled power source required.
• Only detects a disturbance
• Prone to false alarms
Cons • Unable to quantify seriousness of security event
• Limited coverage as each infrared sensor only extends
40 (low cost) to 300 (high cost) feet
Relative Cost Low
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 4
Access Technology Category Description
• Quick and easy to install
• Low cost installation
Pros • No cabled power source required. Battery life run from
3 – 5 years or can use solar
• Wireless communication to monitor station
Photo Beam Sensors • Only detects a disturbance
• Prone to false alarms
Cons • Unable to quantify seriousness of security event
• Limited coverage as each photo beam sensor only
extends 100 to 250 feet
Relative Cost Low
• Ability to better distinguish false alarms versus valid
human intruder detection
Pros
• Works in foggy and night environments
• Effective even in camouflage conditions
Thermal Imaging • Difficult to use in naturally hot environments whereby
the temperature of surrounding environment is equal
Cons
to human temperature
• Requires cable power source at remote locations
Relative Cost Medium ‐ High
• Ability to distinguish false alarms vs valid security
breaches
Pros
• Record historical events for forensics
Video Surveillance with
• Recorded events can be used for conviction
Motion Detection/Video
• More complex to integrate into security systems
Analytics
Cons • Typically requires cable power source at remote
locations*
Relative Cost Low ‐ High
* Except for advanced new technologies using solar
Table 1 – Detection Technologies Matrix
As evident from the matrix, a common theme to most access control solutions is the
large number of potential false alarms associated with each technology option. In
outdoor settings, environmental factors such as heavy wind conditions, debris, ice,
water and animals can create havoc for any perimeter security solution. A
comprehensive solution to address false alarms is as important as the actual detection
system itself, as false alarms impact the effectiveness and credibility of the security
system. In addition, false alarms can be costly, as numerous law enforcement agencies
now charge for responding to false alarms.
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 5
Remote Camera Video Surveillance Options
Any reliable verification system for perimeter security has to include a video surveillance
system. Not only do video surveillance systems provide the ability for immediate
verification based on a triggered event, they provide the ability to quantify the
seriousness should a valid security breach occur and determine the best response. The
proper security response will vary depending on whether the intruder is an
unsuspecting person who has inadvertently crossed the intrusion detection zone, or a
team of terrorists who are attacking a facility. In addition, video surveillance systems
address three of the major categories of detection, prevention and conviction.
Unfortunately, integrating remote camera locations into video surveillance systems for
perimeter security have been limited in scope, making it difficult to develop a
comprehensive perimeter security strategy. The typical compromise is to locate security
cameras near the building or nearby power sources and point the cameras outward to
the perimeter covering the sterile regions and perhaps portions outside the perimeter.
This is not an optimal perimeter security strategy, and does not cover an important
aspect of security breach prevention. An ideal prevention strategy is to analyze events
outside the sterile region whereby potential security events can be monitored in
advance of a valid security breach.
The largest limitation on the location of remote cameras where they are desired or
required is due to lack of access to a power source. Typical IP video security cameras
require about 4 – 5 watts of power, thus normally requiring a cabled power source.
Until recently, there were two traditional video surveillance options that would be
considered when overcoming the lack of a cabled power source for remote location
cameras; wireless solar powered security cameras or trenching the ground to bring
power to the desired location.
Wireless solar security cameras provide the maximum flexibility in location strategies for
remote security cameras. Typical wireless solar security cameras use 160‐400 square
inches of solar panels that reside at least 15’ above the ground while connected to
either a small trailer base or a pole. Wireless communications to the video recording
system can occur point‐to‐point, point‐to‐multipoint, through mesh networks or even
cellular, providing a range of three to 20 miles for a line‐of‐sight configuration. A
typical system will have five days of battery backup, providing adequate energy storage
for most applications. Pole‐mounted solutions range from $5,000 ‐ $10,000 per camera
including labor costs. Unfortunately, due to size and transportation of the mobile trailer
solution, costs can be prohibitive for many applications, since they range from $30,000
to $40,000 for each camera.
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 6
Another alternative, trenching, is typically what is explored as the most viable option for
placing security cameras in optimal remote locations. The trench is typically a minimum
of six inches deep which allows placement of a Power over Ethernet (PoE) or power
source in the trench without any possibility of disturbance. The cost for trenching will
vary dramatically depending on the terrain. For instance, in a request for proposal
(RFP), it was estimated the costs for digging a 120’ trench mostly through soft dirt with
15’ of asphalt was approximately $14,000 for material and labor for a single camera
placement. This equated to a rule of thumb of about $100 per linear foot for trenching
costs. In this case, the cost was prohibitive and the client decided not to pursue the
recommendation of the remote camera location. In other cases, particularly in urban
environments, the cost is considerably higher, sometimes up to $1000 per linear foot,
due to the difficult construction. Thus, trenching costs can range in the $30,000 ‐
$40,000.
Fortunately, a new generation of IP video security cameras have recently become
available, providing a third alternative to remote camera location for optimal perimeter
security strategies. With power requirements that are 1/10th that of a typical IP video
security camera, there is a new form factor for wireless solar IP video security cameras,
whereby the solar panels requirements are considerably smaller. In this new
generation, 72 square inches of solar panels are attached directly on the external
camera enclosure. The battery life is five days, providing for adequate power in most
environment scenarios. Being a wireless solution, this new generation has a range of
up to one mile for a line‐of‐sight environment. Hence, with no wires needed for data
communication or power, this new generation of wireless solar IP video security camera
is a fully self‐contained unit that allows for placement virtually at any remote location.
Because it is a self‐contained unit, installation costs are quite low, even compared to an
installation of wired security solutions. The advantage of these new‐generation security
cameras is that individual camera costs range from $2,500 ‐ $3,500, a 50 – 90%
reduction in costs over alternative solutions.
While the primary attraction of these new‐generation IP video security cameras are for
perimeter security, the portability of this solution also provides opportunities for
applications not previously considered. For instance, public events such as stadium
concerts or government official speeches can wreak havoc for security teams since the
protection zone is so small and intruder access is quite simple. Since these types of
security cameras can easily be installed, temporary security cameras can be
implemented with the re‐use capability making this an attractive financial option.
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 7
Protecting the Perimeter
Vulnerability begins at a facility’s perimeter. Active perimeter strategies that are
focused beyond the perimeter provide the best chance of preventing a security breach
by detecting and deterring activity before loss or damage occurs. While the technology
choices for access control and intruder detection have grown rapidly, such choices are
limited in scope and commonly have the potential for numerous false alarms. An
optimal perimeter security strategy requires the inclusion of remote camera locations
within the video surveillance system to verify intrusions, record events for investigations
and potentially convict intruders.
Summary
With the most recent innovations in solar wireless IP video security camera options, the
inclusion of remote cameras around the perimeter is a viable cost‐effective option not
previously available. Now, the system integrator has a new set of tools to present and
provide cost‐effective solutions for optimal perimeter security strategies.
Allyn Pon is director of product management at MicroPower Technologies, Inc., providers
of the world’s most power‐efficient, totally wireless solar video surveillance camera
solutions. Allyn can be reached at allyn.pon@micropowerapp.com
© MicroPower Technologies, Inc. ‐ June 2011 8
