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?


FOURTENETS

DETECTION


FOURTENETS

ASSESSMENT


FOURTENETS

DELAY


FOURTENETS

RESPONSE


FOURTENETS

RESPONSE


•Detection•Assessment•Delay•Response

The Holistic Approach

FOURTENETS


• Environmental– Five year weather history– Data

• Daily Temperature • Daily Precipitation• Snowfall• Wind• Ice• Fog (anecdotal)

SITEANALYSIS


SITEDATA

December 2007 to December 2008


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


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


• Physical - BarriersSITEISSUES


• Physical - TerrainSITEISSUES


• Physical - ObstaclesSITEISSUES


• 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


• Buried Ported Coax (Leaky Cable)TECH


• 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


• Electrostatic Field (E Field, X Field)TECH


• 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


• Bi-Static Microwave DetectionTECH


• 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


TECH


• Passive InfraredTECH


• 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


• Active Photo Elec, Laser, InfraredTECH


• 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


• Ground Surveillance RadarTECH


• 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)


TECH


• Monostatic Microwave and Hybrid (Doppler MW and Passive IR)TECH


• 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


• Acoustic Fence Mounted Sensors (copper) – Fiber Fence SensorsTECH


• 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


• Acoustic and Fiber sensors on/in Razor/Barbed WireTECH


• 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


• Fiber Mesh SensorTECH


• 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


• Taut Wire SensorTECH


• 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


• Video Motion DetectionTECH


• 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


TECH


• Thermal Video Motion DetectionTECH


• 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


• Seismic DetectorsTECH


• 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


• Point SensorsTECH


• 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


• Fluid Filled Pressure SensorsTECH


• 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


TECH


• Lethal and Stun FenceTECH


• 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


• 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


The Holistic Approach

Perimeter Security is a marriage of technology, the environment and an understanding of the human

element

SUMMARY


?QUESTIONS


Documents

Perimeter Security A Holistic Approach