Page 46 - Security Today, October 2017

Attack Prevention
By Scott Espensen
CVonsiderations for selection, installation to prevent vehicle attacks
Anti-ram Fencing
ehicle ramming attacks are on the rise in the United ings between different manufacturers’ products, or even different States and abroad. Already in 2017, there have been no products offered by the same manufacturer. It’s important to note less than seven major attacks worldwide resulting in 24 that the standards referenced below are designed for testing vehicle people dead and another 153 injured. Shortly after a driv- barriers against head-on attacks as opposed to testing conducted for
er used his car as a weapon in Times Square, ISIS released a video highway barriers, which often measure the effects of a glancing blow.
calling for lone-wolf terrorist attacks in U.S. cities. As a result of this recent trend, many government agencies at the federal, state and local levels are assessing vulnerabilities at their facilities and public spaces.
When it comes to protecting pedestrians in public spaces, passive bollards have long served as a successful preventive method to stop vehicles from encroaching areas such as sidewalks, tourist attractions and parks because they allow unrestricted walking access. Bollards are manufactured in a wide array of architectural shapes, finishes and sizes, which allows them to blend in or even complement the sur- rounding environment.
Securing property boundaries to prevent vehicle ramming at- tacks, on the other hand, typically involves the use of anti-ram fenc- ing, which is a more cost effective and practical solution than bollards where longer runs are required. Anti-ram fencing is ideal for restrict- ing unauthorized vehicle access to a facility and for protecting office buildings, critical infrastructure, hazardous materials and people in high-risk areas adjacent to roadways or parking lots where free access for pedestrians is not required.
Understanding How Crash Test Standards and
Ratings Apply to Anti-Ram Fencing
When selecting anti-ram vehicle fencing, consideration should be given to how a system was designed and tested to ensure that it meets the applicable threat conditions. In addition, understanding the vari- ous testing standards simplifies the process of comparing crash rat-
U.S. crash test standards for vehicle barriers have evolved a great deal over the years. The U.S. Department of State (DOS) pioneered anti-ram vehicle barrier testing and developed a rating system and test standard that was published in April 1985, and later revised in 2003. While the initial rating system, SD-STD-02.01, allowed for different penetration distances that occurred from a medium-duty truck, the 2003 revision (SD-STD-02.01 Rev A) required that all barriers receiving a DOS certification allow no more than 1 meter of vehicle test bed penetration beyond the inside of the barrier. The DOS test method used a 15,000 pound medium-duty truck as the test vehicle.
In 2009, the DOS retired SD-STD-02.01 Rev A and stated that all new barriers should be tested to ASTM International standards in or- der to be considered for embassy projects. ASTM is an international standards organization that has over 12,000 standards implemented globally. F2656-15 is the most recent standard to which anti-ram ve- hicle barriers are tested, and a corresponding performance rating is assigned based on testing results.
ASTM ratings are assigned based on three variables—test vehicle type, vehicle speed and vehicle penetration distance. Test vehicles span six style and weight categories, from a small passenger car (2,430 pounds) to a heavy goods vehicle (65,000 pounds). Vehicles are im- pacted into the barrier at speeds ranging from 30 to 60 mph. Finally, the penetration distance of the vehicle into the barrier falls into one of three categories—from less than 1 meter (P1) up to 30 meters (P3).
GS20
GOVERNMENT SECURITY OCTOBER 2017