BEYOND THE FENCE: - FLIR.com - FLIR Systems

BENCHMARKING CRITERIA• Sensor Performance• Type of Coverage• Probability of Detection• Vulnerability to Defeat• Advance Warning Capacity• Nuisance Alarm Rate• System Performance Characteristics• Level of Detection• Detection• Classification• Recognition• Identification• Alarm Assessment Capability• Multi-Target Engagement Capability• Robustness• Evidence Collection• Cost of Ownership• Initial• Operation and Maintenancebilities vary considerably based on the characteristicsof the camera components. To make cameras workwell, a complicated engineering analysis is required.Understanding how cameras work is very critical tooptimizing site design. In many applications, camerasare simply thrown at the perimeter and security officialsend up disappointed with the technology, because,though the cameras are doing what they are capable of,they haven’t been applied correctly.DESIGN SCENARIOS FOR THIS STUDYAs a part of this study, four design scenarios wereestablished, optimized and compared. Scenario Onehad a medium asset value and was developed with afeature-based approach. This system focused on CCTVapplications with no external perimeter coverage. Therest of the scenarios utilized a performance-basedapproach to optimize the solution. Scenario One wasdesigned primarily for comparison purposes.Scenario Two was considered to have a medium assetvalue. No external perimeter coverage, volumetriccoverage or redundancy was included. Scenario Threeincreased the asset value and provided external to perimeter/volumetriccoverage and redundancy throughan optimized, layered approach. Finally, Scenario Fourwas considered to have the highest asset value and maximumsecurity criteria for a comprehensive solution.The scenarios escalate in terms of the value assets, thecapital value of the assets and also the performancerequirements. The presumption was that as asset valueincreases so too did the performance characteristicsthat were expected to be achieved.DESIGN SCENARIOSScenario One was used as a benchmark to show howtechnology is normally applied and the associated cost.With a progressively escalating asset value from ScenariosTwo to Four, asset value was used as a key indexdue to the fact that it can be easily conceptualized andhelps drive the optimization of a solution.SCENARIO 1 – MEDIUM VALUE(CCTV COVERAGE)In this scenario, a standard value asset is located in themiddle of the perimeter. The goal was to use CCTVcoverage along a fenced perimeter around the facilityin order to achieve visibility along the perimeter itself.From a client’s perspective, this is essentially findingout what is happening at the perimeter in order to stopor deter an intruder from cutting the fence or breakingin. Though not a particularly sophisticated approach,Scenario One was used as a benchmark in terms ofcosting and layout.As can be seen, fixed cameras are laid out along theperimeter with various colors depicting the detection,recognition and identification zones for a particularcamera. At key points, specifically the corners of thefacility, pan, tilt, zoom cameras are able to assist withinterdiction of identified intruders and overall increasedsurveillance.SCENARIO 2 – MEDIUM VALUE(OPTIMIZED SOLUTION)Scenario Two includes similar types of assets with thesame value and still classified as medium. However,a slightly more sophisticated solution was installed.Rather than a client asking to apply cameras along theperimeter, this solution detects what is going on alongthe perimeter. This solution includes point-based,fence-bound intrusion detection. CCTV cameras withpan, tilt, zoom functionality are strategically located onthe corners of buildings and around the gates to enhancedetection and recognition.SCENARIO 3 – HIGH VALUE(OPTIMIZED SOLUTION)Scenario Three, this is where the solution begins to getmore sophisticated. In this scenario the asset value andperformance criteria have been increased. The resultis the ability to extend perimeter coverage beyond the10 11