Efficacy of Detection Sensor Technologies - Essay Example

Efficacy of Detection Sensor Technologies Student’s Name Institution Introduction The efficiency and effectiveness of detection sensor technologies rests with the fact that it highly depends on a significant number of factors that include; design involved, the process of installation as well as any possible environmental factors (Brooks, 2014). The detection has become popular due to the ever-increasing need for security as well as because it plays a critical role in defence depth. Detection sensor technologies are designed in a way that allows the detection and the signalling of a possible presence, entry or attempted entry of unwanted objects or people into already sensory or alarmed areas of operations (Brooks, 2014). This paper will examine the ways upon which detection sensor technologies have been effectively used to promote aspects related to security and protection of places. Body The underlying principle of detection sensor technologies is based on five aspects that include the presence of a stimulus like a person, the sensor technology in place, a decision step to be assumed, an alarm system in place, assessment process, and finally a response mechanism (Smith & Brooks, 2013). On the other hand, the sensor technologies involve a set of different foundation like light, microwaves, as well as magnetic and electric fields. The efficacy of detection sensor technologies lies in numerous aspects that include; first, the capacity to detect, in a timely manner, any possible attempted or true unauthorised entry. The aspect comes into action when there has been detection of a stimulus that goes ahead to elicit a response that fits with this intrusion (Smith & Brooks, 2013). Consequently, there is a possibility of a creation of preventive factor that will be used for eliminating or even reducing, to a greater extent, the likelihood of attacking the system as a whole. These preventive measures are put in place to ensure that both warranted and unwarranted entry is established prior to possible intrusion (Ashoor, & Sharad, 2011). Certainly, the effectiveness of the detection system will ensure that it possess the capacity to alter any deviant level of behaviours that might exist in the process of ensuring security and protection of any intrusion. Notwithstanding, the detection sensor technologies might help the security personnel or even management to manage the level of risks involved. There are certainly higher level of risks involved with activities related to protection and security (Cutnell & Johnson, 2012). Thus, the capacity to disembark numerous process involved in discerning the likelihood of an entry, might prove very effective to security personnel to establish whether or not there is unwarranted entry. The intrusion detection and assessment systems, which are part of detection sensor technologies, constitute a fundamental component of a given physical protection system (Cutnell & Johnson, 2012). In fact, detection sensor technologies provide a platform for the development of effective security responses. Detection sensor systems like the IDS should be designed in a way that facilitates the immediate detection of possible attempted and actual unauthorised entrance into specific designated sections and, also should incorporate the security response by way of availing a security force with timely warnings of suspicious activities from which an assessment can be formulated and immediate response made (Cutnell & Johnson, 2012). Efficiency of these systems require that the underlying techniques employed for purpose of detection as well as assessment of implementation should be extended and allowed a capacity to avail the highest degree of protection for particular applications within a facility as a whole. Notably, the efficacy of the system will depend on whether the detection sensors of a facility’s protection system have adopted numerous techniques, which should be integrated to allow for complete detection capacity (Cutnell & Johnson, 2012). In fact, the incorporation of numerous detection systems will facilitate the creation of a superior detection and assessment capacity that will allow multiple overlapping of layers that provides support for each other in the event that one of the techniques fails completely (McKinnon, 2013). The next section puts up a discussion on interior microwave sensor in order to fully comprehend the efficacy of detection sensor technologies currently in the market. Interior Microwave Sensors Principles of Operation; Interior based microwave sensors are deemed to be active volumetric sensors that operate on a monostatic fundamental basis. As a monostatic operative, the microwave sensor incorporates a single piece of antenna for both the transmission and receiving functions while all of the components involved are enclosed within a single phasing structure (Garcia, 2008). It is noted that microwave sensor technology always emit an energy field so that any possible motions that are initiated within an areas that is secured by a microwave will definitely result to alterations to the entire microwave energy that eventually forms a Doppler frequency shift. This is to say that any individual or object that moves into the microwave enclosed energy field will lead to certain small alterations in the immediate frequency of the microwave (Denning, 2007). Given the fact that the sensor comprehends the exact frequency upon where it allows transmission it therefore goes that in the event that receives possible reflected energies at different frequencies, it will result to difference between the stated frequencies involved (USNRC, 2010). In consequence, an alarm will go off in the event that the frequency’s differences surpass a predetermined threshold. It is important to note that microwave sensors always operate within the confinements of X band radiofrequency region with a lowly-placed power output that rests between 5 to 10 milliwatts. Figure 1 illustrates a common sensor coverage pattern (USNRC, 2010). It is quite important to comprehend the fact that the shown pattern can vary in greater degree in relation to the immediate characteristics and configuration of a microwave antenna that is utilised in the sensor design (USNRC, 2010). However, a greater percentage of interior monostatic microwave sensors possess a detection pattern that varies from about 9 to 30 meters in length. The shape of a given detection region is always overseen by the underlying design of antenna and it can be compared to a lengthened balloon (USNRC, 2010). As can be seen from the figure, antenna is mostly shaped in the form of a microwave horn. The optimal detection for microwave detection sensors is attained whenever the target is set in motion towards or away from the sensor in place as opposed to being set across a detection zone (USNRC, 2010). It is for this reason that numerous advices are given to position microwave sensors in a way that the rival will be pushed to shift towards or away from the sensors in order to accomplish overall goals and objectives. There are basically two types of interior microwave sensors; first, there is one that operates under the monostatic sensor capability so that it has the transmitter and receiver enclosed within a single housing section (USNRC, 2010). Secondly, there are bistatic sensors, whose operations employ different transmitters and receivers that develop into a detection region between them. It is critical to note that bistatic system can extend over a substantial level of regions and would be mostly applied in the event that more than one sensor is deemed necessary from the immediate section under coverage (Roman, Zhou, & Lopez, 2006). Figure 1 :( USNRC, 2010) Vulnerabilities Due to the higher level of frequencies of microwave sensors, the signal, in most cases, is not affected by such objects as moving air or even changes in temperatures however; these highly-positioned frequencies will allow sensors to pass through any standard walls or even wood thus causing nuisance alarms to be produced by possible motions adjacent to but relatively exterior to the main detection regions (USNRC, 2010). Subsequently, in the event that the microwave sensors are implemented within room that is constructed by light construction materials and that the detection region is considered to be larger in comparison to a given space within facility then, nuisance alarms will result due to movements. Nuisance alarms, which are mostly the worst form of microwave sensor vulnerabilities, can be produced by such objects as fans and equipment. Another important vulnerability to note is the fact that microwave sensors can be caused by fluorescent lights (USNRC, 2010). This is due to the fact that any gas found within the fluorescent light is deemed to be a direct reflector of microwave energy in the event that it is ionized. In fact, this light will flick at the exact line frequency that the signal or rather sensor deems to be in motion (Cavusolglu, Mishra & Raghunathan, 2001). Electromagnetic sources that are positioned close to the microwave frequency are a vulnerability that interferes with detection regions causing unnecessary signals (USNRC, 2010). It thus goes without saying that a single microwave positioned within a similar region will certainly require different sets of frequencies for operations. Markedly, microwave sensors create vulnerability especially when signals under reflection of metal objects act to surpass sensor coverage to regions that were not intended in the first place thus developing a platform for nuisance alarms and responses. Strengths Microwave sensors are deemed to be mostly sensitive and efficient in case they are installed so that possible rivals would move onto or away from the definite sensor (USNRC, 2010). Moving forward, microwave sensors can be effectively utilised to supervise interior confinements like vaults and specific storage regions (USNRC, 2010). In fact, they can serve the purpose of issuing alerts in case of intruders approaching secured places within a facility. For instances, in cases where fairly-positioned regions of coverage are required, the adoption of monostatic microwave sensors are deemed to be appropriate. Microwave sensors are considered to be least sensitive in the event that they are installed in such a way that the rivals can easily limit their motions to paths visible within a given detection pattern (USNRC, 2010). The distinctive properties of microwave beams facilitate these sensors to go through almost all forms of surfaces. Following this line of reasoning, a microwave possesses the capacity to detect movements in a region where detection is undesirable and not detect motions where it is deemed to be desirable in nature. Weaknesses One of the notable weaknesses of microwave sensors lies in the fact that it can operate within a high-frequency platform(X band), it means that it can affect the detection reliability (USNRC, 2010). In essence, regions with greater coverage of both magnetic and electric fields can act to affect the capacity of microwave sensors to operate in proper and desirable manner. Self- generation of sensor reflection is yet another form of weakness of microwave sensors that results to improper positioning or mounting processess (USNRC, 2010). The issue can however; be eliminated whenever the positioning of sensors is external and parallel to a given wall structure as opposed to enclosing it within a wall. Conclusion & Recommendation Despite of this, a microwave sensor technology is highly recommended because it fosters effective and efficient security platform. Although it might prove a challenge for a microwave sensor to detect possible slower motions, it remains to be one of the sensors that pose a challenge to defeat. The sensor can detect even movements of 1 inch per second making it difficult to easily enter a facility altogether. References Ashoor, A, S & Sharad, G. (2011). Importance of Intrusion Detection System. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 2(1), 1-4. Brooks, D. (2014). Intrusion Detection Systems in the Protections of Assets. The Handbook of Security, 2nd Ed, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Cutnell, J.D. & Johnson, K.W. (2012). Physics. 9th Ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Cavusolglu, H, Mishra, B & Raghunathan, S. (2001).The Value of Intrusion Detection Systems in Information Technology Architecture, Information Systems Research, 16(1), 28-46. Denning, D. (2007). An Intrusion-detection model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE 13(2), 222-232. Garcia, M.L. (2008). The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. McKinnon, S. (2013). Alarms: Intrusion Detection Systems. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Roman, R, Zhou, J, & Lopez, J. (2006). Applying Intrusion Detection Systems to Wireless Sensor Networks, Institute for Infocomm Research, Retrieved on August 21, 2015 from http://www.wsn-security.info/slides/2006/RZL06.pdf Smith, C, L & Brooks, D, J. (2013). Security Science: The Theory and Practice of Security. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann. USNRC. (2010). Intrusion Detection Systems and Subsystems, Technical Information for NRC Licensees. Retrieved on August 21, 2015 from http://facilityexecutive.com/wp-content/uploads/sr1959.pdf Read More

Detection sensor systems like the IDS should be designed in a way that facilitates the immediate detection of possible attempted and actual unauthorised entrance into specific designated sections and, also should incorporate the security response by way of availing a security force with timely warnings of suspicious activities from which an assessment can be formulated and immediate response made (Cutnell & Johnson, 2012). Efficiency of these systems require that the underlying techniques employed for purpose of detection as well as assessment of implementation should be extended and allowed a capacity to avail the highest degree of protection for particular applications within a facility as a whole.

Notably, the efficacy of the system will depend on whether the detection sensors of a facility’s protection system have adopted numerous techniques, which should be integrated to allow for complete detection capacity (Cutnell & Johnson, 2012). In fact, the incorporation of numerous detection systems will facilitate the creation of a superior detection and assessment capacity that will allow multiple overlapping of layers that provides support for each other in the event that one of the techniques fails completely (McKinnon, 2013).

The next section puts up a discussion on interior microwave sensor in order to fully comprehend the efficacy of detection sensor technologies currently in the market. Interior Microwave Sensors Principles of Operation; Interior based microwave sensors are deemed to be active volumetric sensors that operate on a monostatic fundamental basis. As a monostatic operative, the microwave sensor incorporates a single piece of antenna for both the transmission and receiving functions while all of the components involved are enclosed within a single phasing structure (Garcia, 2008).

It is noted that microwave sensor technology always emit an energy field so that any possible motions that are initiated within an areas that is secured by a microwave will definitely result to alterations to the entire microwave energy that eventually forms a Doppler frequency shift. This is to say that any individual or object that moves into the microwave enclosed energy field will lead to certain small alterations in the immediate frequency of the microwave (Denning, 2007). Given the fact that the sensor comprehends the exact frequency upon where it allows transmission it therefore goes that in the event that receives possible reflected energies at different frequencies, it will result to difference between the stated frequencies involved (USNRC, 2010).

In consequence, an alarm will go off in the event that the frequency’s differences surpass a predetermined threshold. It is important to note that microwave sensors always operate within the confinements of X band radiofrequency region with a lowly-placed power output that rests between 5 to 10 milliwatts. Figure 1 illustrates a common sensor coverage pattern (USNRC, 2010). It is quite important to comprehend the fact that the shown pattern can vary in greater degree in relation to the immediate characteristics and configuration of a microwave antenna that is utilised in the sensor design (USNRC, 2010).

However, a greater percentage of interior monostatic microwave sensors possess a detection pattern that varies from about 9 to 30 meters in length. The shape of a given detection region is always overseen by the underlying design of antenna and it can be compared to a lengthened balloon (USNRC, 2010). As can be seen from the figure, antenna is mostly shaped in the form of a microwave horn. The optimal detection for microwave detection sensors is attained whenever the target is set in motion towards or away from the sensor in place as opposed to being set across a detection zone (USNRC, 2010).

It is for this reason that numerous advices are given to position microwave sensors in a way that the rival will be pushed to shift towards or away from the sensors in order to accomplish overall goals and objectives.

Read More