Access Control Standards Revolution Now In Progress

Access Control Standards Revolution Now In Progress 

Access control provides the ability to control, monitor and restrict the movement of people, assets or vehicles, in, out and round a building.

Access control is essential for all businesses to protect people and assets and has the added benefit of being expanded from controlling, for example, a single entrance door, to a large integrated security network. There are also huge potentials in terms of integrating other systems, such as Time and Attendance, Visitor Management, ANPR, Fire, Intruder and CCTV.

Few specifications are seen more commonly in access control than UL 294. However, aside from seeing it in print, very few understand what it means. In this note, we break apart and define this spec, describing why it is a vital part of many Access RFPs.

A Standard Defined

The scope of UL 294 covers three aspects of Access Control systems: 

• Construction (Installation)
• Performance
• Operation

Essentially, the heart of UL 294 is a safety standard, where testing proves that system components can be assembled and operate reliably without hazard. In the case of access control, this is a step beyond just validating devices will not catch fire or spark - it attests that the system will not harm the safety or impede egress of those using the system.

In practical terms, this means doors will not accidentally stay locked and keep people in harm's way even during a malfunction. The UL standard subjects each labeled device to a range of testing designed to show the equipment meet relevant code expectations from:

• NEC (NFPA 99): Requirements that each component will not create a hazard either during (recommended) install or use (Sparking, Grounding)
• NFPA 72: Fire Code compliance, assures that controllers include interfaces with fire alarm/suppression systems 
• NFPA 101: System devices 

A UL 294 mark is a 'extra step' the vendor has taken to 'prove' their equipment is safe, and it stands as a 'mark of assurance' when included in buying specifications that dubious equipment will not be purchased.

The Mark

While Underwriter's Laboratories offer a range of 'UL Symbols' that can be interpreted to signify different standards. In the case of UL 294, the mark looks like this:

The UL 'Security Mark' applies only to products such as intrusion detectors, burglar alarms, access control, safes, and vaults.

Performance Tests

UL 294 includes several tests that evaluate how well devices withstand damaging environments. Devices are subjected to atypical electrical, environmental, and brute force situations, including:

• Variable Voltage
• Variable Ambients (Environment)
• Humidity
• Endurance (Ruggedness)
• Transients
• Corrosion
• Standby Power (Battery backup)
• Physical Attack Toughness

Tests are performed individually and are not 'layered' or 'stacked' simultaneously as might occur in the field. The exact methodology for each test depends on the device being tested, but the resulting grade is given in four levels of security performance with Level I (lowest level security equipment) to Level IV (highest level security equipment). 

Exclusions

However, not all parts and features of an Access platform fall under the scope of UL 294. Two areas excluded from the scope include:

• Headend Server/Database: The scope reads "The accuracy of logged data is not evaluated by this standard", and also "This standard does not apply to supplementary computer equipment that is not necessary for operation of the access control system..."
• Intrusion Detection: Again, the scope details "Where an access control equipment and/or system incorporates the features and functions of a burglar alarm control unit, the requirements of the Standard for Proprietary Burglar Alarm Units and Systems, UL 1076, shall also apply"

This is important to note when careless specs are written that "All Access Equipment shall be UL 294 Certified", because this is inherently not possible. There will be major functional aspects outside the scope of the standard.

Large System Adoption

Especially for larger systems, UL 294 is common, including devices from: Mercury Security, C*Cure, S2, Maxxess, Sargent, etc.

However, certification is done on a component basis, and there may be gaps in a brand's portfolio. If UL 294 compliance is required in a system, every hardware component must be checked for conformity, as there is no 'system' certification.

Systems and platform intended for smaller deployments (<100 doors) typically forego the certification, because it simply is not a purchasing driver for many non-enterprise customers.

Prime Use

Regardless of the 'safety' overtures, like UL certification for surveillance equipment, 294 is primarily used to exclude non-compliant systems from specifications. UL 294 evaluation is not mandatory for Access Equipment, and many vendors forego the cost of certification especially when their offerings are not well suited for larger government, institutional, and hospital verticals where 294 is commonly cited. 

Likewise, while the mark's testing 'proves' that devices are safe, the onus remains on the field technician to install them in the correct fashion to indeed live up to the certification.

Remember once UL certification has void OEM is not responsible for any health & safety incident of your premises. UL certification void due to repairing through unauthorized service provider....etc.

NFPA 101

While NFPA 101 is comprehensive, the most relevant passages for access control include:

• NFPA 101: 'Electrically Controlled Egress Doors' (2012: 7.2.1.5.6; 2009: 7.2.1.5.5)
• NFPA 101: 'Releasing Devices' ( 2012: 7.2.1.5.10-12; 2009, 2006, 2003: 7.2.1.5.9 -7.2.1.5.11)
• NFPA 101: 'Access Controlled Egress Doors' (7.2.1.6.2)

Specifically, requirements like Access Control Request to Exit (RTE), Exit Devices, and Delayed Egress foundationally conform to NFPA 101.

NFPA 72

In general, this code is the foundation of requirements that doors must release when fire alarms or smoke detectors go into alarm.

NFPA 80

Specifically, this code examines Fire Doors and how they are properly used for protection in a building. In many cases, these door types are also slated to become access-controlled openings, and the 'Locks or Latches (6.4.4)' section describes which modifications are permitted for access use without voiding their fire door ratings.

IBC: International Building Code

The IBC, published by the International Code Council, is essentially a guidebook for designing and engineering safe buildings.

If not observed directly as the authority, then whatever resulting codes that do have authority take guidance from the source.

• ·     IBC: 'Door Operations' (2012, 2009: 1008.1.9; 2006, 2003: 1008.1.8)
• ·       IBC: 'Sensor Release of Electrically Locked Egress Doors' (2012: 1008.1.9.8; 2009: 1008.1.4.4; 2006, 2003: 1008.1.3.4)
• ·       IBC: 'Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors' (2012: 1008.1.9.9; 2009: 1008.1.9.8)

45% of End User Security Budgets Increasing

With much talk of budget cuts, many US-based organizations are still willing to pour dollars into their physical security initiatives, at least according to a recent study from by IMS Research. In fact, 45 percent of end users say that their security budget increased in 2012, the study found.

"It's clear that end users are still feeling the risk to their facilities -- and that means there's plenty of opportunity for manufacturers of physical security equipment," said Niall Jenkins, manager for video surveillance and security services research at IMS, in a press statement. "Just having a budget available was actually one of the top two reasons for end users paying to replace or upgrade their systems as well."

The survey, which polled 200 end users of physical security equipment across North America, found that the majority of these organizations are dedicating large amounts of resources to physical security. In fact, 44 percent reported that their organization's annual budget exceeded Rs. 5000K.

"Budgets either stayed the same or increased last year for those that spent approximately Rs. 1Cr and also for 85 percent of the overall market," Jenkins noted. "I wouldn't say that the security boom is over just yet."

Even with bigger budgets, users report concerns. Despite investing in new equipment, buyers say that their biggest worry is that vendors will suspend support for newly-acquired security products while they are still being productively used within the organization, the survey found.

Especially as the market in the US transitions from analog to network-based video surveillance, vendors are shifting their product mixes and ending support for products, said Jenkins in an interview with IFSEC Global. "There's also a transition to the use of video analytics, PSIM, and wireless infrastructure," he added. "In the fire market, you don't see that pace of development, while intruder alarm and access control are probably somewhere in the middle."

In addition, some vertical markets feel better served by security vendors. "The majority of end user markets, when asked about whether security meet their needs, were positive, but the transportation industry overall jumped out as one vertical that said the security industry wasn't meet their needs," Jenkins told us.

So, let us know. Is your budget on the rise? Where do you plan to invest?

Indian Company also increase there Security Budgets in 2013.

We hope that you have found this resource page to be helpful.  

 
If you have any questions about this page or anything related to CCTV or surveillance systems, please contact us at bhadra_1980@yahoo.com

Capturing Crystal Clear Images With Megapixel Technology

Megapixel surveillance is not a new concept — its applications and benefits are starkly clear. What has changed are smarter cameras, taking advantage of the added pixels and a better understanding of illumination in real life. In the first of a two-part report, A&S examines how smarter megapixel cameras are getting; the second part looks at best practices for optimal performance.

The big picture for megapixel surveillance cameras looks bright, in the wake of the recession. HD and megapixel cameras are expected to make up nearly 30 percent of network camera shipments in 2011, according to IMS Research. By 2015, it is forecast that more than 60 percent of network cameras shipped will be of megapixel resolution.

The resolution increase has a noted effect on the whole surveillance system. While a 2.1-megapixel or 1,080p HD image is six times larger than a D1 image, the additional pixels require a bigger pipe to transmit more data. The infrastructure and storage costs for megapixel are well-documented, with ROI and TCO being used as arguments in favor of bigger pictures. The fate of megapixel is linked to the future of IP networks, with HD forecast to make up most high-resolution cameras compared to megapixel, according to IMS.

Megapixel surveillance requires careful planning, but the benefits of added resolution boost the accuracy of analytics. Edge devices take advantage of faster processors, resulting in smarter use of pixels. Analytics can help reduce bandwidth, as an event will trigger video streaming, rather than constantly sending the same still images over the network. A more distributed architecture puts less strain on networks and makes life easier.

Clarity is the main driver for megapixel. “At the end of the day, you're putting in a security system to protect life and provide evidence in a court of law,” said Stephen Moody, Security Development Manager for ViS Security Solutions, an integrator in Ireland.

Cracking the Code
H.264 is the de facto standard compression for megapixel cameras, due to its efficiency in crunching large data files into smaller ones for transmission and storage. As compression evolved from M-JPEG's stills to MPEG-4 and now to H.264, a variety of profiles yield differences in performance. With 17 profiles in all, three are the most common: baseline, main and high, said Sachin Khanna, PM for CCTV, Bosch Security Systems.

By profile, the baseline is appropriate for video conferencing; the main profile is good for broadcast video; and high profile is most applicable for HD broadcast video. “H.264 requires a fair amount of processing power for encoding and decoding; this may limit the camera's frame rate and dictate the NVR platform to achieve the desired performance,” said Rich Pineau, CTO of Oncam Global.

Most H.264 profiles stem from 2-D applications, with not all profiles being capable of integration. “Even if both cameras are H.264 and the manufacturers are partners, the system could still not work,” said Patrick Lim, Director of Sales and Marketing for Ademco Far East. “The I/O and output are hard to integrate. Some engineers say it's easy to plug and play — there's no such thing.”