MULTITHREAT SAFETY AND SECURITY SYSTEM AND SPECIFICATION METHOD THEREOF

• US 20090207020A1
• Filed: 01/21/2009
• Published: 08/20/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 01/21/2008
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Thales Nederland BV (Thales SA)
• Original Assignee: Thales Nederland BV (Thales SA)
• Inventors: Guillot, Antoine, Koelman, Ger, Hiemstra, Johannes, Garnier, Bernard
• Granted Patent: US 8,779,920 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 340/541
• CPC Class Codes: G08B 21/12 responsive to undesired emission of substances, e.g. pollution alarms
• CPC Class Codes: G08B 31/00 Predictive alarm systems characterised by extrapolation or other computation using updated historic data
• CPC Class Codes: G08G 3/00 Traffic control systems for marine craft marking of navigational route B63B22/16, B63B51/00

Abstract

The invention relates to a safety and security system designed to protect a designated area. The system comprises sensors of various types (radars, infrared detectors for instance) and sources of intelligence. Correlation is run between instant-track data and non-instant-track data before the level of threat of the tracks is analysed. Reliability of this analysis is thus greatly enhanced. Also a method is provided to develop systems of this type which provides an integrated specification and design method which covers technical and human factors.

Claims

1. A safety and security system for a definite area comprising:

a plurality of sensors each adapted to capture a first set of data comprising instant-track data on a first set of objects located in said definite area or in the vicinity thereof;

a plurality of information sources each adapted to capture a second set of data comprising non instant-track data on a second set of objects; and

a processor configured to perform a first process to correlate members of the first set of objects with members of the second set of objects to produce correlated members, and the processor further configured to perform a second process to compute threat levels of the members of the first set of objects from said first and second sets of data assigned to said correlated members.

2. The system according to claim 1 further comprising:

a memory containing a database in communication with the processor, the processor further adapted to manage the instant-track data and the non-instant-track data; and

a network in communication with the processor, the network adapted to selectively distribute the instant-track data and the non-instant-track data to users of the system.

3. The system according to claim 1 wherein said processor is configured to compute threat levels based on a result of a third process performed by the processor, the third process adapted to detect and to handle anomalies in the behaviour of said correlated members.

4. The system according to claim 3 wherein said processor in performing the third process is configured to:

detect an anomaly using as an input at least one indicator from at least one agent and at least one mapping matrix and produces as output at least one information selected from a group consisting of anomalies report, specific alert, operators advice and general alert.

5. The system according to claim 4 wherein said anomaly detection sub-process uses a reasoning engine.

6. The system according to claim 3 wherein said processor in performing the third process is configured to perform a risk analysis sub-process which receives a surveillance picture and produces an action list.

7. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises information received from transponders on-board at least a portion of the members of the first set of objects and wherein the threat levels of said members are computed at least partly from a value of a variable defining consistency of the information received from the transponders with other items of the first and second sets of data for said members.

8. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises a definition of specific zones within the definite area which are used to compute the threat levels of targets entering said zones.

9. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises expected kinematics patterns for classes of objects and wherein the threat levels of members of the first set of objects which belong to said classes are computed at least partly from a value of at least one variable defining a deviation from said kinematics.

10. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises history footprints of tracks of classes of objects and wherein the threat levels of members of the first set of objects which belong to said classes are computed at least partly from a value of at least one variable defining a deviation from said history footprints of tracks.

11. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises a definition of specific zones within the definite area which are taken into account to compute the threat levels of targets coming out from said specific zones.

12. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises route plans for at least a portion of the members of the first set of objects and wherein the threat levels of said members are computed at least partly from a value of at least one variable indicating consistency of the information received from the sensors with the route plans.

13. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises trade patterns for classes of objects and wherein the threat levels of members of the first set of objects which belong to said classes are computed at least partly from a value of at least one variable indicating a deviation from said trade patterns.

14. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises classes of patterns of tracks representative of classes of events tagged with a level of threat and wherein the threat levels of members of the first set of objects which follow tracks belonging to said classes of patterns are computed at least partly from a value of the level of threat assigned to the matching class of events.

15. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises classes of incidents in tracks representative of classes of events tagged with a level of threat and wherein the threat levels of members of the first set of objects which follow tracks belonging to said classes of incidents are computed at least partly from a value of the level of threat assigned to the matching class of events.

16. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises classes of standard tracks representative of classes of objects and wherein the threat level of members of the first set of objects which belong to a definite class and deviate from the standard track attributed to the object class will be computed at least partly from said deviation.

17. The system according to claim 1 wherein the second set of data comprises information extracted from intelligence reports and wherein correlation of members of the first set of objects to members of the second set of objects is based on a combination of user-defined alert parameters.

18. The system according to claim 1 wherein the information extracted from the first and second sets of data has distribution attributes based at least in part on interest zoning parameters and on information attributes.

19. The system according to claim 1 wherein computer composed area operational pictures are displayed to sets of operators.

20. The system according to claim 19 wherein the computer composed area operational pictures are selected and grouped in worksets determined at least partly as a function of roles defined for said set of operators, each role having configurable attributed tasks to accomplish configurable attributed missions.

21. The system according to claim 20 wherein the worksets are fit to be arranged at least partly as a function of a workflow among operators.

22. The system according to claim 20 wherein the worksets are fit to be made dependent upon a set of alert-state-dependent operation modes which impact the list and workload of tasks for at least one role.

23. The system according to claim 19 wherein the computer composed area operational pictures to be displayed are composed at least partly as a function of a user defined minimum threat level to be addressed and of available computer and display capabilities.

24. A method for designing a specification of a safety and security system for an area comprising the step of:

defining, through at least one interaction with at least a portion of users of the system, one or more missions to be performed by the system and one or more resources fit to accomplish said missions,

wherein said resources are selected from a group consisting of sensors, information sources, operations centers, a communications network and manning requirements.

25. The method according to claim 24 wherein the resources comprise manning requirements and a resource selected from a group consisting of sensors, information sources, operations centers, and a communications network.

26. The method according to claim 24 wherein the deliverables to at least a portion of the users of the system comprise:

an evaluation of suitability of the system for the intended purposes; and

an evaluation of the coverage of the system for the intended purposes.

27. The method according to claim 24 wherein the deliverables to at least a portion of the users of the system comprise an evaluation of training and logistics efforts to deploy and maintain said system.

28. The method according to claim 24 wherein manning requirements are defined at least partly based on roles to accomplish the missions, said roles being defined by sets of tasks.

29. The method according to claim 24 wherein a set of tasks attributed to at least one role may be varied at least partly as a function of operating modes, each operating mode being defined for a combination of a user defined alert state and a state of the system.

30. The method according to claim 24 further comprising the steps of:

defining the human computer interfaces of the system; and

defining business use case diagrams derived from the missions assigned to the users of the system.

31. The method according to claim 30 further comprising the steps of:

selecting activities by at least a portion of the users from a list of the business use case diagrams to produce selected activities; and

defining the tasks to be performed by the system to support the selected activities.

32. The method according to claim 28 further comprising the steps of:

defining interaction contexts to produce defined interaction contexts;

defining conceptual screen layouts, by use of the defined interaction contexts, to produce defined conceptual screen layouts; and

defining the physical interaction design by use of the defined conceptual screen layouts and a graphical user interface builder.