A recap of the PCTEL webinar hosted by NEDAS on December 7, 2017

WELCOME

#NEDASSeminar

PLATINUM

GOLD SILVER

Thank You To Our 2017 Annual Sponsors

February 2018 - NEDAS DC Symposium

May 9, 2018 - NEDAS Chicago Social *NEW*

July 18, 2018 - NEDAS Boston Symposium

September 6, 2018 - NEDAS NYC Summit

NEDAS 2018 Events

Save the Date!

NEDAS Annual Sponsorships now available! Expand and grow your business in

2018 by becoming a NEDAS Annual Sponsor and let us help you reach your

goals. For more information, contact: [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

Jason ChambersCSM & CPM Service Manager

David AdamsSenior Product Manager

Presented By

&

Assuring Critical Communications for Public Safety: Supporting the Effort to Verify Indoor Network Performance

David Adams, Senior Product Manager, PCTEL

Assuring Critical Communications for Public Safety: Supporting the Effort to Verify Indoor

Network Performance

Jason Chambers, Service Manager , Day Wireless Systems - SeaTac

Presented by PCTEL and Day Wireless Systems

Demands for assuring Public Safety “in building” network coverage is growing rapidly. The leading PS agencies have strict

requirements for testing and demonstrating satisfactory performance.

New cost-effective tools are required to enable organizations to meet these requirements.

● Public Safety network coverage requirements

● Key challenges to putting requirements in place and enforcing

them and effective solutions to overcome these challenges

● Case study of successfully assuring performance

Introduction and Agenda

○ Day Wireless Systems (DWS)-Advises AHJ’s on Fire

Codes

○ Balancing PS Radio System Requirements w/Fire Code

○ Local Fire Codes; Fire Code Adoption vs Local

Amendments

○ Differences in Coverage Testing Requirements

○ Educating AHJ’s and Building Owners

○ Compliance Testing Challenges

PS Network Coverage Requirements

Introduction

DWS Support for AHJ Amendments

○ Staying current with adopted Fire Codes & Amendments

○ Understanding adopted Fire Code (IFC 2015 and/or

NFPA-72)

○ Understanding how PS Radio Network operates

○ Implications amendments and compliance have on 1st

Responders

○ Implications amendments and compliance have on

building owners


AHJ Amendments to Fire Codes

○ DWS SeaTac Maintains 1 of 4 Public Safety Radio Networks

○ Governmental agencies may not be on the same page

○ Simulcast Sites & Interoperability with other agencies

○ Channelized vs Non-Channelized systems (in code)

○ Isolation testing required by PS Radio System Managers not

Fire Code

○ Coverage Testing Requirements:

Donor agencies & uplink testing

Fire Code: uplink & downlink testing requirements


Radio Requirements vs. Fire Code

○ Which Fire Code are enforced locally for ERRS? May not be the same as FACPs or Sprinkler System

○ Blended Fire Code Requirements (IFC, NFPA and/or Local)

○ Compliance Requirements for Coverage Testing 20-Grid, 40-Grid, NFPA-72, other? Residences waived in certain jurisdictions for Annual

Recertification Critical Areas defined & enforced? What is the “Spirit of Intent” in the Fire Code?

○ Know the code!


Code Adoption vs Local Amendments

○ Each AHJ can have stark differences in requirements

○ New Construction, Retro-Fit and Annual Recertification

○ What’s required by AHJ’s Fire Code and/or City Permitting? 20-Grid, 40-Grid, Baseline/Benchmark/Organic? Critical Areas? Donor Signal Strength? Voice Quality?

○ Fire Code/Permitting different than contract requirements? Common w/ Voice Quality Test in Greater Seattle Area

○ Is the technician qualified & equipped for the requirements?

○ Does the tech know the code they are testing against?


Differences in Testing Requirements

○ Technicians, AHJ’s & Building Owners staying current

○ AHJ’s rarely notify Building Owners on changes to Fire Code

○ Fire Inspectors not always stay up to date on Local Fire

Code

○ “AHJ Walkthroughs” can turn into education opportunities

○ “AHJ Walkthroughs” w/ customer & technicians important


Educating AHJ’s and Building Owners

○ Access to residential or restricted areas

○ Service Provider the bearer of bad news

○ Certification for resources (equipment & personnel)

○ Shaping data to make sense for AHJ & customer


Compliance Testing Challenges

What are the key challenges to putting requirements in

place and enforcing them?

What is required in an effective solution?

Illustrated with PCTEL’s Solution: SeeHawk Touch and

IBflex Scanner

Key Challenges / Effective Solutions

Introduction

IBflex®


Introduction

Fragmented Test Requirements

○ Differences between the leading organizations

○ How the AHJ’s are adopting and adapting

○ Many entities influencing the requirements

Solution Requirements

○ Wide flexibility to configure test and reporting to cover the

range of differing requirements

○ Accommodate the approach of power level and voice

Multiple networks, architectures on various bands

Testing services

impacted by a

range of

organizations and

sources of

requirements


Introduction

High Time to Complete

○ Test preparation, execution and report

generation are all manual and time

consuming

○ Cost of “delayed” determination of

pass/fail


○ Each phase needs to be automated =

efficient and easy

○ Clear understanding of the performance

at the end

○ Real time report updates during

execution

Icon Description

Run measurement

Add grid

Edit grid

‘Do not test’ area

Move test points in area

Add critical points

Add reference points


Introduction

Inefficient Use of Personnel

○ Manual process requires multiple people

○ Utilizes higher levels of experience and skill


○ Test execution kept simple for fewer, less skilled testers

○ Reports generated automatically

○ Higher level of skill to “adapt” the setup and report

Point/click for test to run

Results

displayed,

reports

update on

each test


Introduction

Getting the Right Test Tools

○ Accurate and fast measurements

○ Multiple functions in a single tool – fewer tools

○ Multiple bands/channels/technologies in single test


○ Measurement device designed for purpose

○ Spectrum analysis “built in” for trouble shooting and tests –

fewer pieces of equipment to maintain, carry and use.

Indoor Grid and Walk, Outdoor Drive, Signal Analysis


Introduction

Ineffective collaboration with the “DAS solution” designer

○ Field personnel rarely have design tool experience or access

○ Design info is “print outs”

○ Little coordination to return measurements and results


○ Leverage all design info for “in the field” activities

○ Tight integration between measurement tool and design tool

4. Analyze,

Refine Design

SeeHawk Touch

Design file to

tablet1. Design 2. Test

3. Return ResultsiBWave Complete

data returned


Introduction

Advantages of an Effective Solution vs. Manual

○ Automated setup, test and report

○ Fast, simultaneous, accurate measurements

○ Consistency in the measurement and methodology

○ Ergonomics – light, discrete, etc.

○ Cost effective use of personnel

○ Future proof

○ Robust development roadmap that is “customer driven”

○ System Description

○ Testing Requirements

○ Two (2 Tunnels): Former Method & PCTEL Equipment

○ Man-Hour Consumption

○ Accuracy of Data

○ Post Processing

Tunnel Coverage Test Case Study

Introduction

System to be Tested

○ Two “Sister” Tunnels w/ three lanes of traffic per tunnel

○ Two independent Public Safety BDA/DAS fed by 5 Donors

○ Baseline & Fire Code Compliance required for each system

Test Execution Streamlined

○ Tunnel Coverage Testing is challenging! Tunnel #1: 3 Techs & 5 test devices per shift (2 shifts)

Required lane closures on major highways 36 man-hours consumed for On-Site Coverage Testing Manual recording of 600 signal levels (handwritten) for test grids

Tunnel #2: 2 Techs & 1 PCTEL Test Suite (1 Shift) 1 Shift with NO lane closures required Safety vehicles & personnel (lead/trail) not required ($$’s saved) 7 man-hours consumed for On-Site Coverage Testing 600 signal levels auto-recorded for test grids


System and Test Description

Post Processing of Data for Report Generation Simplified

○ Tunnel#1: 20 administrative man-hours Quality of data & reporting met Fire Code & Contract req’s

○ Tunnel#2: 8.5 administrative man-hours Quality of data & reporting EXCEEDED Fire Code & Contract

req’s

BENEFITS

○ Efficiencies Gained & Time Saved! Total time savings: 72% (15.5 vs. 56 hours)

○ Increased accuracy through automation

Happy AHJ = Relieved Customer!


End Results

Questions?

For your test solution needs, contact PCTEL

[email protected]

http://rfsolutions.pctel.com/

For your public safety design and test services needs, contact

Day Wireless Systems

[email protected]

http://www.daywireless.com/

Conclusion

mailto:[email protected]

http://rfsolutions.pctel.com/



Icon Description

Run measurement

Add grid

Edit grid

‘Do not test’ area

Move test points in area

Add critical points

Add reference points

Technology

A recap of the PCTEL webinar hosted by NEDAS on December 7, 2017