GUIDE
Intrusion protection guide
for at-risk sites
Table of contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Perimeter protection 3
2.1 Denition 3
2.2 Requirement 4
2.3 Recommended solutions 4
3. Buer zones 9
3.1 Denition 9
3.2 Requirement 9
3.3 Solutions 9
3.4 Products 10
4. Perimeter of buildings 10
4.1 Denition 10
4.2 Requirement 10
4.3 Solution 11
4.4 Products 11
5. Inner layer of buildings 11
5.1 Denition 11
5.2 Requirement 11
5.3 Solution 11
5.4 Products 12
6. Special Cases 13
6.1 ATEX sites 13
6.2 Transmission of alarms to operators 14
6.3 Detection of smoke on site 14
Editor: Philippe Bénard, A&E Business Development Manager, Axis Communications
Philippe has developed his career in security at Axis for more than 20 years. He has
successively held positions as a technical support technician, trainer, sales
representative, pre-sales manager, and design oce manager. He is, among other things, an
expert on the protection of critical sites, in connection with which he works in collaboration with
design oces, integrators and end customers. His technical skills have helped in developing
consulting services for law enforcement.
2
1. Introduction
Following various attacks on SEVESO sites that took place in 2015, the classication of sites as EIV, OIV
(operator/company vital for national integrity), now requires an increased level of protection against intrusions
on this type of site. In this guide, we will show you how Axis Communications can help you choose the most
appropriate technologies and systems to ensure a high level of security. Our recommendations are based on
our expertise, developed over the years by assisting our partners in quotations and recommendations. We have
grouped together the common points from the most relevant projects to create this methodology.
A B
C D
A - Perimeter; B - Inner areas; C - Perimeter of restricted areas; D - Building enclosure
To eectively protect a site, several layers of physical protection can be put in place: barriers, concertina wire
fences, embankments or ditches to deter and, if necessary, slow down the progression of an individual.
Dierent technologies can be used to detect the individual as they progress. As each area of progression is
dierent, we will study each of these areas individually to determine the most appropriate detection and
warning technologies.
2. Perimeter protection
2.1 Denition
This refers to the outer enclosures of the site.
Historically, various technologies have existed to perform the crossing detection function at the site perimeter,
such as infrared barriers or sensing cables. Thanks to their low cost, these solutions are still very common
today, but they must be combined with video to remove any doubt.
These solutions, which are less expensive to purchase but which ultimately must be combined with video
3
verication, can represent relatively high infrastructure costs. The use of sensors for detection and verication
X-ray
UV
Visible
Near-infrared
Mid-wavelength infrared
Long-wavelength infrared
Radio/TV waves
Microwave
Short-wavelength infrared
10
-4
10
3
10
4
10
6
0.40
1.50
3.00
Micrometers (µm)
5.50
(1 mm)
(1 m)
0.01(10
-2
)
IR radiation
Axis thermal cameras
FIR
Visual cameras
Humans
0.70
in the same equipment will reduce installation costs. In this chapter, we describe these solutions.
2.2 Requirement
Deter unauthorized entries, detect boundary crossings, alert, and, if necessary, intervene to stop an intruder's
progression.
2.3 Recommended solutions
Thermal sensors
Thermal sensors, often mistakenly referred to as "thermal cameras", must be used to protect the site perimeter.
As these are sensors and not cameras, there is no regulatory issue involved, and it is possible to view exteriors.
Thermal sensor technology has other advantages because it outperforms visible light cameras in dark settings
and is a great tool for detecting people and objects during 24/7 surveillance, from pitch dark areas to sunlit
parking lots. Thermal cameras create images based on the heat that always radiates from any object, vehicle
or person. Thermal cameras are less sensitive to problems with light conditions, such as shadows, backlighting,
darkness and even camouaged objects; they provide images that allow operators to detect and act on
suspicious activity 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The use of optical cameras requires an additional light source at night. This visible or near-infrared light is
immediately reected by the water droplets that form fog, producing a halo eect that disables the system.
On the other hand, thermal sensors are sensitive to the infrared radiation produced by any body whose
temperature is greater than -273.15°C; therefore, there is no light emission and no halo phenomenon if it is
foggy.
A thermal sensor can generate an image of 16 pixels/meter at a distance of 600 m (AXIS Q1941-E 60 mm
Thermal Network Camera) in an undisturbed environment. The infrared radiation detected by a thermal sensor
is attenuated in fog by about 30dB, which will reduce the detection distance to 200 m in areas of heavy fog.
On the other hand, an optical camera cannot detect beyond 80 m even in the most favorable scenarios, and
does not work at all in a slight fog.
4
A thermal sensor that costs more than an optical camera reduces civil engineering costs because it has a long
detection range and will work in all weather. The return on investment is also ensured by a reduction in false
alarms since moving objects are identied more accurately. Moreover, these sensors do not require any
maintenance.
Complementary technologies
The combination of a thermal sensor and an AXIS Perimeter Defender ACAP package will provide eective
perimeter protection. The sensor produces an image, and the software installed in its memory analyzes it to
detect an individual or/and car crossing the external enclosure.
Design
AXIS Perimeter Defender
5
Loading...