68 Chapter 4   Mobile Sensors

privilege rules, such as those defined by efforts such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Response
Framework [47]. Further, protocols like XMPP have part of their core specification to support end-to-end encryption to
make the information exchange secure. MQTT does not have encryption as part of its core, but it does not preclude use
of Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) or the application-specific encryption mechanism. However, the real challenge is not the
availability of technology or standards but the impossibility of top-down implementation.

4.2.6.4  Device Management

Device management as a concept emerged with the rapid adoption of mobile communication and the need for mobile
operators to manage end-user mobile phones. Most of the standards work in this arena was led by Open Mobile Alliance
(OMA), an industry consortium, under the working group for Device Management (DM) [48]. The alliance provides the
technical specification for a DM server and a client for management, including over-the-air (OTA), of device configuration
and services access. As discussed earlier, the Smart Fire Fighting roadmap should pay critical attention to this capability
because it is critical to dynamically reconfigure systems during fire-fighting operations. While OMA DM has several device
profiles, future research is needed to understand the device profile for mobile-sensor embedded equipment such as unmanned
ground, air, and underwater vehicles. Some of the research challenges include a unified mechanism for disparate platforms
and secure real-time and reliable protocols that reliably work in austere environments. While OMA DM can provide the
unifying basis, the protocol needs to be extended to support the later requirements.
OMA Lightweight M2M Device Management (LWM2M DM) [49] is, as the name suggests, a lightweight DM proto-
col for M2M device management in the IoT realm. LWM2M provides device management functionality over the cellular
and other constrained communication environments. The standard defines an efficient DM server to client interface using
standard IETF protocols such as Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). CoAP provides extensible Object and Resource
model for richer application semantics. OMA also provides a public registry for object registrations.
In summary, DM can enable unified management of a fleet of mobile-sensor embedded equipment. In particular, the
OTA capabilities can enable in situ dynamic configuration of devices to meet the operations requirements. Further, this
application-agnostic capability can be a lynchpin for enabling on-the-go mobile command and control of these devices,
including dynamic updates of credential and policies for information sharing.

4.3  Summary of Perceived Future Trends

4.3.1  Portable Equipment

There are opportunities to integrate remote reporting from portable equipment and apparatus to distributed and central
locations to enhance situation awareness and incident response. Real time data to incident commanders can facilitate better
coordinated response operations.

4.3.2  Land-Based Vehicles

Enhancements to on-board navigation and route finding can be expected, as well as monitoring of the mechanical state
of the apparatus (maintenance/safety needs), crash avoidance systems, and health monitoring of the driver. In addition,
connections between components on the apparatus, such as pump controls and nozzle action, so as to provide real time
monitoring and adjustment can be foreseen. Development of sensors, communication, and control systems to support these
functions is needed.

4.3.3  Air and Water Craft

New and enhanced sensor packages for assisting in wildland fire detection and for support of search and rescue operations
(from air or water craft) could be expected.

SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 68 4/29/15 10:25 AM

 4.4  Technology Gaps, Outputs, and Outcomes in Support of Research 69

4.3.4  Unmanned Vehicles

Opportunities exist for advancing automated, semi-automated, and tethered control of unmanned vehicles; for integrating
more sensor platforms; for enhancing capabilities for moving through, over, and around debris; for navigating in buildings;
and for performing suppression and rescue functions.

4.3.5 Robotics

As with unmanned vehicles, opportunities exist for advancing automated, semi-automated, and tethered control of robotic
systems; for developing ground and airborne swarming robots for reconnaissance and perhaps operational support; for
integrating more types of and more resilient sensor platforms; and for enhancing capabilities for moving through, over, and
around debris and navigating in buildings. Programs by the EU, NASA, DARPA, and others to expand robotic capabilities
indicate the broad support for research and development in these areas.

4.3.6  Robotic Application Architectures

Monolithic single-sourced software and hardware–coupled solutions would have to evolve to more apps-centric archi-
tectures with protocols and middleware to support plug-and-play integration and interoperability. This, arguably, will be
the trend, but its realization might be slow in the absence of proper governance and certification processes. While smart
cities infrastructure and IoT efforts will result in mature platforms that support the desired plug-and-play architectures,
specific instantiations of these platforms for Smart Fire Fighting or for first responders at large would require a more
concentrated effort.
Another foreseen trend is a bottom-up approach for solving the access and security problems for large-scale joint
responses. This approach will rely on the following two items: (1) the ability to remotely configure these mobile sen-
sor platforms, and (2) the availability of standard information flows during incident responses. Incident commanders,
using incident command applications, will use those two items to dynamically provision appropriate certificates,
both on mobile sensor–equipped equipment and on the user devices or systems. Mobile computing will be cheap and
pervasive; thus, a large number of the mobile sensor–embedded equipment discussed in this chapter will likely have
such a capability in the future. Mobile computing coupled with device management capability will help realize the soft
dynamic, on-demand configuration of mobile equipment. Standard information flows available as part of the National
Incident Management System (NIMS) [50] under the Resource Management and Mutual Aid section will also assist
these configuration operations.
A critical future role for NIST or NFPA (or both) would be to clarify design guidelines for the application middleware
and provide certification services so that both the users and the developers can benefit from interoperability.

4.4  Technology Gaps, Outputs, and Outcomes in Support of Research

Table 4.1 summarizes the technology gaps to be addressed and the potential outcomes of those successful development
efforts. While the table provides a detailed breakdown, note that a fundamental gaps continues to be the ability to equip
portal equipment with ruggedized sensors that can reliably communicate with each other and other decision support and
incident command systems. Also note that traditional robotics and unmanned autonomous systems are too expensive for
fire-fighting requirements. Lightweight and inexpensive drone technology is emerging but is not ready for fire fighting.
Further to improve the ability to gather, analyze, and act upon the data from various mobile streaming sensors, there is a
critical need of a well-defined application stack to develop fire fighter friendly decision support systems and applications
for field usage.

SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 69 4/29/15 10:25 AM

 70 Chapter 4   Mobile Sensors

Table 4.1  Technology gaps, outputs, and outcomes in support of research.

Area Gaps Outputs & Outcomes Timeline Magnitude Metrics

Portable Lack of If it is understood what Short-term Low cost — readily a. Define incident
equipment communication data are needed, and by implemented command data
structure and whom, communication needs
protocol for use of issues could be b. Beta test
data addressed on selected
equipment
c. Assess efficacy

Land-based 1. Lack of 1. Sensors and systems 1. Medium- 1. Moderate a. Develop

vehicles driver health to help identify term investment high sensors and
monitoring symptoms of heart 2. Short- return potential systems
2. Lack of crash attack and health term 2. Moderate b. Beta test
avoidance conditions which (build on investment high on selected
might impact driver existing return potential equipment
3. Lack of
safety tech)
sensors, 3. Low investment c. Assess efficacy
communication 2. Sensors and systems 3. Short- moderate
and control to further assist in term return
between ‘end crash avoidance
of hose’ and 3. Pump-nozzle sensors,
pump control communication and
and related control technology
functions

Unmanned 1. Autonomous/ 1. Minimize exposure of 1. Long-term 1. High investment a. Develop

vehicles swarming UAVs FF to harsh/unsafe 2. Medium- high return sensors and
2. Resilient sensor environments — term potential systems
platforms speed search & 2. Moderate b. Beta test
3. Long-term
for harsh rescue — increase investment high on selected
environments environmental data return potential equipment
collection for incident
3. Robust mobile 3. Moderate c. Assess efficacy
command
communications investment high
technology 2. Increase type and return potential
reliability of sensor
data in harsh
environments
3. Be able to
communicate
needed information
within appropriate
resolution and
timescale for
informing incident
command decisions
and responses

Robotics 1. Autonomous/ 1. Minimize exposure of 1. Long-term 1. High investment a. Develop

swarming FF to harsh/unsafe 2. Longer- high return sensors and
robots environments — term potential systems
2. Walking, speed search & 2. High investment b. Beta test
3. Medium-
grasping, rescue — increase high return on selected
term
human-like environmental data potential equipment
collection for incident 4. Long-term
robots c. Assess efficacy
command

SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 70 4/29/15 10:25 AM

 4.5  Perceived Priorities for Research 71

Table 4.1 (Continued)

Area Gaps Outputs & Outcomes Timeline Magnitude Metrics

3. Resilient sensor 2. Minimize exposure of 3. Moderate

platforms FF to harsh/unsafe investment high
for harsh environments — return potential
environments speed search & 4. Moderate
4. Robust mobile rescue — increase investment high
communications environmental data return potential
technology collection for incident
command
3. Increase type and
reliability of sensor
data in harsh
environments
4. Be able to
communicate
needed information
within appropriate
resolution and
timescale for
informing incident
command decisions
and responses

Application 1. Leveraging 1. Families of sensors 1. Short- 1. Moderate a. Standardization

architectures existing that are interoperable term investment completion
frameworks for 2. Make integration of 2. Medium- and moderate b. Beta trials
defining sensor sensors in incident term return possible.
c. Industry uptake
services to command easy Standardization
3. Medium-
create Smart activity mostly.
3. Supplier diversity and term
Fire Fighting– 2. Moderate
innovation
specific sensor investment and
nomenclature high return.
2. Mission-enabled Leverage efforts
dynamic from other
adaptation/ sectors.
configuration 3. High investment
of networked and high return.
sensors Non-trivial effort
3. Middleware for to bootstrap the
enabling apps eco-system
ecosystems

4.5  Perceived Priorities for Research

Areas for further research such as robust remote communication technologies and hardening of the sensors should not be
surprising outcomes in light of the technology gaps already identified. There is considerable research focus already on
improving the computing and communication capabilities of sensor technologies, and this would eventually benefit Smart
Fire Fighting efforts. However, explicit research efforts will be needed to address fire fighting–specific requirements such as
improved accuracy, survivability, and low cost of ownership. There is also a critical need for developing a research agenda
to develop fire fighting–specific new applications that exploit these highly capable sensors. Fire fighting applications have
very unique requirements — for example, they need to be very context sensitive with highly adaptable user interfaces
(heads-up display during fire fighting versus tablet for unified incident command).

SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 71 4/29/15 10:25 AM

 72 Chapter 4   Mobile Sensors

Table 4.2 provides a more detailed breakdown of perceived priorities for research.

Table 4.2  Perceived priorities for research.

Area Research Priorities Barriers Impacts of Success

Portable 1. Define data needs from portable 1. Incident command More robust incident
equipment equipment to enhance incident needs command decisions
command (driven from incident based on more and
command — not equipment) better data
2. Develop and test communication
protocol for high-priority equipment

Land-based 1. Driver health monitoring 1. Data communications 1&2. Fewer deaths

vehicles 2. Crash avoidance and cost and injuries on
2. Cost fire fighters and
3. Sensors, communication and control
other emergency
between ‘end of hose’ and pump
responders in route
control and related functions
to incidents

3. More immediate
response of water
needs at the
nozzle — better
pump control

Unmanned vehicles 1. Autonomous/swarming UAVs 1. FAA — autonomous Fewer fireground

2. Resilient sensor platforms for harsh navigation — deaths and injuries
environments environmental
resilience —
3. Robust mobile communications
monitoring,
technology
command and control
systems — cost
2. Cost

Robotics 1. Autonomous/swarming robots 1. Autonomous Fewer fireground

2. Walking, grasping, human-like navigation — deaths and injuries
robots environmental
resilience —
3. Resilient sensor platforms for harsh
monitoring,
environments
command and control
4. Robust mobile communications systems — cost
technology
2. Fine motor controls —
cost
3. Cost

Application 1. Developing sensor services 1. Industry alignment Supplier diversity and

architectures ontologies 2. Bootstrapping innovative and feature
2. Developing plug-n-play architectures rich applications that
enable Smart Fire
3. Developing governance models and
Fighting
middleware to support ecosystem
apps developers
4. Apps certification

SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 72 4/29/15 10:25 AM


4.6 References
1. Kumagai, J. 2014. 9 Earth-imaging start-ups to watch.
IEEE Spectrum. http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/
satellites/9-earthimaging-startups-to-watch.
2. DARPA Robotics Challenge. http://www.therobotics
challenge.org/overview.
3. Penders, J., Alboul, L., Witkowski, U., Naghsh, A.,
Saez-Pons, J., Herbrechtsmeier, S., and M. El-Habbal.
2011. A robot swarm assisting a human fire fighter.
Advanced Robotics. 25.
4. Purohit, A., Sun, Z., Mokaya, F., and P. Zhang. 2011.
SensorFly: controlled-mobile sensing platform for
indoor emergency response applications. 10th Interna-
tional Conference on Information Processing in Sensor
Networks.
5. Huffman, C., and L. Ericson. 2012. Assessment of por-
table HAZMAT sensors for first responders. National
Institute of Justice, Sensor, Surveillance, and Biometric
Technologies (SSBT). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/
nij/grants/246708.pdf.
6. Lasar, M. 2011. Army surveillance bot approved for
use by police, firemen. arstechnica. http://arstechnica.
com/tech-policy/2011/04/military-surveillance-robot-
unleashed-for-public-safety-use/.
7. Metz, R. 2012. Bouncing camera gets into dangerous
places so people don’t have to. MIT Technology Review.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506751/
bouncing-camera-gets-into-dangerous-places-so-
people-dont-have-to/.
8. Cyganski, D., Duckworth, J., and K. A. Notarianni.
2010. Development of a portable flashover predictor —
FEMA AFG 2008 scientific report. Worcester Poly-
technic Institute. http://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/
ECE/WPI_AFG_2008_Fire-ground_Environment_
Sensor_-_Scientific_Report.pdf.
9. Buda-Ortins, K. E. 2012. Prototype Design for Ther-
moacoustic Flashover Detector. College Park, MD:
University of Maryland.
10. Kanellopoulos, N., Tsironis, G., Vasileiou, G., Man-
tes, T., Gryllakis, A., Koutlis, M., Venizelos, D., and
V. N. Christofilakis. 2007. Forest fire risk management
information system — FFRMIS. EARSEL Workshop
on Forest Fires. http://www.earsel.org/?target=earsel/
earsel.
11. Raibagi, A.S., Anand, S., and R. Swetha. Ultrasonic anti
crashing system for automobiles. International Journal
of Advanced Research in Computer and Communica-
tion Engineering. 2.
SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 73
4.6  References 73
12. Baudoin, Y., and M. K. Habib. 2010. Robot-assisted
risky intervention, search, rescue and environmental
surveillance. International Journal of Advanced Robot-
ics Systems. 7.
13. Baudoin, Y., and M. K. Habib. 2011. Using Robots in
Hazardous Environments. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead
Publishing.
14. Chang, P. –H., Kang, Y. –H., Cho, G. R., Kim, J. –H.,
Jin, M., Lee, J., Jeong, J. W., Han, D. K., Jung, J. H.,
Lee, W. G., and Y. B. Kim. “Control architecture design
for a fire searching robot using task oriented design
methodology.” Paper presented at the SICE-ICASE
International Joint Conference 2006, Oct. 18–21, 2006.
15. Szynkarczyk, P., Czupryniak, R., Trojnacki, M., and
A. Andrzejuk. “Current state and development tendency
in mobile robots for special applications.” Paper pre-
sented at the 6th Workshop on European Scientific and
Industrial Collaboration on promoting Advanced Tech-
nologies in Manufacturing (WESIC’08), Bucharest,
September 25–26, 2008.
16. Tan, C. F., Liew, S. M., Alkahari, M. R., Ranjit, S. S. S.,
Said, M. R., Chen, W., Rauterberg, G. W. M., and
D. Sivakumar. 2013. Fire fighting mobile robot: state
of the art and recent development. Australian Journal
of Basic and Applied Sciences. 7: 220–230.
17. Miyazawa, K. 2002. Fire robots developed by the Tokyo
Fire Department. Advanced Robotics. 16: 553–556.
18. HAZMAT: robot applique kit. QinetiQ. http://www
.qinetiq.com/services-products/survivability/UGV/
hazmat-and-fire-fighting/Pages/hazmat-rak.aspx.
19. Kuntze, H. B., Frey, C. W., Tchouchenkov, I., Staehle,
B., Rome, E., Pfeiffer, K., Wenzel, A., and J. Wol-
lenstein. SENEKA — sensor network with mobile
robots for disaster management. 2010 IEEE Confer-
ence on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST).
406–410.
20. Department of the Navy. 2004. The Navy Unmanned
Undsea Vehicle (UUV) Master Plan. http://www.navy
.mil/navydata/technology/uuvmp.pdf.
21. Kremens, R., Faulring, J., Gallagher, A., Seema, A.,
and A. Vodacek. 2002. Autonomous field-deployable
wildland fire sensors. International Journal of Wildland
Fire. 12: 237–244.
22. Ambrosia, V. G., Wegener, S., Zajkowski, T., Sullivan,
D. V., Buechel, S., Enomoto, F., Lobitz, B., Johan, S.,
Brass, J., and E. Hinkley. 2011. The Ikhana unmanned
airborne system (UAS) western states fire imaging
4/29/15 10:25 AM
 74 Chapter 4   Mobile Sensors
missions: from concept to reality (2006–2010). Geo-
carto International. 26: 85–101.
23. Chou, T. -Y., Yeh, M. -L., Chen, Y. -C., and Y. -H. Chen.
“Disaster monitoring and management by the unmanned
aerial vehicle technology.” Paper presented at the TC
VII Sympoism, Vienna, Austria, 2010.
24. DeBusk, W. M. 2009. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Sys-
tems for Disaster Relief: Tornado Alley. NASA Ames
Research Center. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/
casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090036330.pdf.
25. Hunter, G. W., Okojie, R. S., Krasowsk, M., Beheim,
G. M., Fralick, G., Wrbanek, J., Greenberg, P., and
J. Xu. Microsystems, Space Qualified Electronics, and
Mobile Sensor Platforms for Harsh Environment Appli-
cations and Planetary Exploration. http://solarsystem
.nasa.gov/docs/P4.3%20Hunter%20Microsystems&
Electronics%20for%20Planetary%20Exploration.pdf.
26. Hunter, G. W., Neudeck, P. G., Okojie, R. S., Beheim,
G. M., Powell, J. A, and L. Chen. 2003. An overview of
high-temperature electronics and sensor development
at NASA Glenn research center. Transactions of the
ASME. 125.
27. Hefeeda, M., and M. Bagheri. 2007. Wireless sensor
networks for early detection of forest fires. Proceedings
of IEEE International Conference on Mobile Adhoc and
Sensor Systems. 1–6.
28. Bouabdellah, K., Noureddine, H., and S. Larbi. 2013.
Using wireless sensor networks for reliable forest fires
detection. Procedia Computer Science. 119: 794–801.
29. Bahrepour, M., Meratnia, N., and P. Havinga. 2008.
Automatic Fire Detection: A Survey from Wireless
Sensor Network Perspective. Technical Report TR-
CTIT-08-73. Enschede, Netherlands: University of
Twente.
30. De Cubber, G., Serrano, D., Berns, K., Chintamani, K.,
Sabino, R., Ourevitch, S., Doroftei, D., Armbrust, C.,
Flamma, T., and Y. Baudoin. 2013. Search and rescue
robots developed by the European Icarus Project. 7th
Int. Workshop on Robotics for Risky Environments.
31. De Cubber, G., Doroftei, D., Serrano, D., Chintam-
ani, K., Sabino, R., and S. Ourevitch. 2013. The EU-
ICARUS project: developing assistive robotic tools for
search and rescue operations. 2013 IEEE International
Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics
(SSRR).
32. Baudoin, Y., Doroftei, D., De Cubber, G., Berre-
bah, S. A., Pinzon, C., Warlet, F., Gancet, J., Motard, E.,
Ilzkovitz, M., Nalpantidis, L., and A. Gasteratos. 2009.
VIEW-FINDER: robotics assistance to fire-fighting
services and crisis management. IEEE International
SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 74
Workshop on Safety, Security & Rescue Robotics
(SSRR). 1–6.
33. Khoon, T. N., Sebastian, P., and A. B. S. Saman. Auton-
omous fire fighting mobile platform. Procedia Engi-
neering. 41: 1145–1153.
34. Marques, C., Cristova, J., Alvito, P., Lima, P., Frazao, J.,
Ribeiro, I., and R. Ventura. 2007. A search and rescue
robot with tele-operated tether docking system. Indus-
trial Robot: An International Journal. 34: 332–338.
35. Kim, Y. -D., Kim, Y. -G., Lee, S. -H., Kang, J. -H.,
and J. An. “Portable fire evacuation guide robot sys-
tem.” Paper presented at the 2009 IEEE/RSJ Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
St. Louis, MO, October 11–15, 2009.
36. Jacoff, A., Huang, H. -M., Virts, A., and R. Sheh.
“Emergency response robot evaluation exercise,”
Paper presented at the 2012 Association for Comput-
ing Machinery. PerMIS’12, College Park, MD, March
20–22, 2012.
37. Atzori, L., Iera, A., and G. Morabito. 2010. The internet
of things: a survey. Computer Networks. 54: 2787–2805.
38. Zero Configuration Networking (Zeroconf). http://www
.zeroconf.org/.
39. Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman. 2005.
Dynamic configuration of IPv4 link-local addresses.
The Internet Engineering Task Force. http://tools.ietf
.org/html/rfc3927.
40. UpnP Specifications. http://upnp.org/sdcps-and-
certification/standards/.
41. SensorManagement:1. http://upnp.org/specs/smgt/
smgt1/.
42. Devices Profile for Web Services (DPWS). http://docs
.oasis-open.org/ws-dd/ns/dpws/2009/01.
43. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. http://www
.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/.
44. OpenIoT — Open Source Cloud Solution for the Internet
of Things. http://www.openiot.eu/.
45. XMPP Standards Foundation. http://xmpp.org/xmpp-
protocols/rfcs/.
46. MQ Telemetry Transport (MQTT). http://mqtt.org/
47. National response framework. FEMA. http://www.fema
.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf.
48. OMA: Device Management. http://openmobilealliance.
org/about-oma/work-program/device-management/.
49. OMA Lightweight M2M. http://openmobilealliance
.hs-sites.com/lightweight-m2m-specification-from-oma.
50. National incident management system. FEMA. http://
www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system.
4/29/15 10:25 AM

4.7  Additional Reading
Barrett, K. “Fire severity information from active fire detec-
tions in high northern latitude ecosystems.” Paper pre-
sented at the 9th EARSeL Forest Fire Special Interest
Group Workshop, University of Leicester, UK, October
15–17, 2013.
French, N. H. F., Loboda, T., Jenkins, L., Miller, M. E.,
and L. Bourgeau-Chavez. “Remote sensing of fire and
fire effects in tundra ecosystems of North America.”
Paper presented at the 9th EARSeL Forest Fire Special
Interest Group Workshop, University of Leicester, UK,
October 15–17, 2013.
Laneve, G., Ferrucci, F., Lopez, A. S., Laurenco, L., Clan-
dillon, S., Tampellini, L., Hirn, B., Diagourtas, D. and
SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 75
4.7  Additional Reading 75
G. Leventakis. “PREFER: space-based information
support for prevention and recovery of forest fires.”
Paper presented at the 9th EARSeL Forest Fire Special
Interest Group Workshop, University of Leicester, UK,
October 15–17, 2013.
Lloret, J., Garcia, M., Bri, D., and S. Sendra. 2009. A wire-
less sensor network deployment for rural and forest
fire detection and verification. Sensors. 9: 8722–8747.
Steinberg, D., and S. Cheshire. 2005. Zero Configuration
Networking: The Definitive Guide. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly.
4/29/15 10:25 AM
SFF15_CH04_059_076.indd 76 4/29/15 10:25 AM
 77Head 77
5.1  Description of Stationary SensorsRunning

ChapteR
Stationary Sensors
1
5
André W. Marshall Abstract
Department of Fire Protection
Acquiring actionable information from an emergency incident scene is critical for
Engineering
effective fire fighting operations. While the importance of information gathering in
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland emergency response is apparent, the task of compiling that information into authori-
tative guidance can quickly become perplexing. Unlocking the value of ever increas-
Gavin P. Horn ing data from emerging information technology and cyber-physical systems (CPS)
installed in stationary structures and aboard occupant carried platforms requires care-
Illinois Fire Service Institute
University of Illinois at Urbana- ful consideration. The complex process of information gathering begins at the sensor.
Champaign Sensors convert the physical characteristics of systems involved in a fire emergency
Champaign, Illinois into information, thereby initiating the process of transforming what is perceived
into actionable information. This broad interpretation for sensors can include design
modeling tools, devices, or even people. Prior sensor technology success stories for
fire safety (e.g., smoke detectors) should inspire the fire community to seek creative
implementations of CPS technology. As a starting point, leveraging emerging sen-
sor technologies and installed systems (e.g., building environment) provides latent
opportunities (and perhaps challenges) for Smart Fire Fighting.

Keywords 5.1  Description of Stationary Sensors

stationary sensors 5.1.1 Overview
building information
modeling (BIM) Emerging cyber-physical system (CPS) technology, infrastructure, and concepts have
human sensing
increased the availability, utility, and value of information. Currently, sensing (i.e., infor-
mation acquisition) is being reimagined in stationary structures through a massive prolif-
modeling
eration of sensors that provide meaningful information for a variety of interests, including
sustainability, energy management, infrastructure health monitoring, and post-9/11 security.
The movement away from sensors that alarm and toward sensors that perceive is well on
its way. This sensor information supports decision making to optimize function-specific
performance. In fact, the accessibility, speed, and integration possible through modern
information technology and CPS has expanded the view of information acquisition beyond
conventional sensing devices. A CPS information acquisition framework requires care-
fully curated devices to gather information (device sensing), a facility to use information
acquired by people (human sensing), and an innovative system to provide context [e.g.,
geographic information system (GIS) or building information modeling (BIM)] for the
acquired information. A crowd-sourced implementation of enabled navigation systems
is an everyday example of masterful implementation of these elements for wayfinding
(land or sea).

77

SFF15_CH05_077_096.indd 77 4/23/15 11:43 AM