home News Sensor deployment planning – case study

Sensor deployment planning – case study

Sep 6, 2013

Figure 2 - Best Sites analysis — תמונה 2 – איתור נקודות הפריסה הטובות ביותר

This post is also available in: עברית (Hebrew)

Utilizing deployment planning capabilities, Jedvice has been involved in security projects all over the globe. A case study of the planning session will demonstrate such a process.

First, the target area to be covered is outlined through coordination with the customer’s operational staff.

Figure 1 - Target area — Figure 1 – Target area

The protected site’s surrounding field is analyzed to locate alternative locations for the sensors that shall deliver the best coverage of the required area. This analysis is adapted to the sensors’ attributes.

It is apparent that the product of the analysis points on key locations that will deliver the best coverage of the required area as defined by the customer.

Now, on each subsection of the required area, locations are selected and coverage analysis is conducted per each location to attain a smooth unified coverage with no major gaps between adjacent sensors up to the edges of the required area.

Figure 3 - First alternative coverage — Figure 3 – First alternative coverage

iHLS – Israel Homeland Security

During the coverage analysis – several locations are set for each sensor to allow the deployment team to consider physical and logistical aspects and limitations on site.

For example, the above first alternative set of locations seems to be too short of properly covering the north-east edge of the required area (near Sensor 1). Therefore a second alternative coverage analysis is performed to make sure the edge is covered.

Figure 4 - Second alternative coverage and remaining gap — Figure 4 – Second alternative coverage and remaining gap

In order to fill major gaps in the coverage (as between the gap sensors 3 and 4) – a dedicated focused sites analysis may be performed for the gap to find the preferred location for an additional gap-filling sensor.

Some regions within the required area may be too cumbersome to cover such as at the north-west area (near sensor 6 which demonstrates sparse and patchy coverage). Such condition may suggest the usage of alternative types of sensors or other measures on ground to protect the area or delay the intruder. Alternatively, it may be helpful to analyze this specific region using more detailed geographical information.

The resultant coverage may be as outlined below with sensor 6 omitted at the north-west region and the added sensor 7 that fills the gap between sensors 3 and 4.

Figure 5 - Full coverage — Figure 5 – Full coverage

Figure 6 - 3D view with Google Earth — Figure 6 – 3D view with Google Earth

Such report, easily observable in 3D by tools available by the end customer, may improve understanding of the protection goals and serve as a platform for coordinating expectations with the customer and even as a marketing tool for tender proposals. Past experience shows that customers’ personnel including operational officers, derive valuable information from such easy to apprehend reports that help in properly setting up and arranging for the system.