UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC) SELECTION AND APPLICATION OF VEHICLE BARRIERS

UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC) SELECTION AND APPLICATION OF VEHICLE BARRIERS
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)
SELECTION AND APPLICATION OF
VEHICLE BARRIERS
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)
SELECTION AND APPLICATION OF VEHICLE BARRIERS
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Any copyrighted material included in this UFC is identified at its point of use.
Use of the copyrighted material apart from this UFC must have the permission of the
copyright holder.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (Preparing Activity)
AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER SUPPORT AGENCY
Record of Changes (changes are indicated by \1\ ... /1/)
Change No.
1
Date
August 9,
2010
Location
Revisions throughout Document: Deleted Appendix B –
List of Manufacturers; revised document text and
appendices accordingly.
This UFC supersedes MIL-HDBK-1013/14, dated 1 February 1999.
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
FOREWORD
The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) system is prescribed by MIL-STD 3007 and provides
planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization criteria, and applies
to the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities in accordance
with USD(AT&L) Memorandum dated 29 May 2002. UFC will be used for all DoD projects and
work for other customers where appropriate. All construction outside of the United States is
also governed by Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), Host Nation Funded Construction
Agreements (HNFA), and in some instances, Bilateral Infrastructure Agreements (BIA.)
Therefore, the acquisition team must ensure compliance with the more stringent of the UFC, the
SOFA, the HNFA, and the BIA, as applicable.
UFC are living documents and will be periodically reviewed, updated, and made available to
users as part of the Services’ responsibility for providing technical criteria for military
construction. Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE), Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC), and Air Force Center for Engineering
and the Environment (AFCEE) are responsible for administration of the UFC system. Defense
agencies should contact the preparing service for document interpretation and improvements.
Technical content of UFC is the responsibility of the cognizant DoD working group.
Recommended changes with supporting rationale should be sent to the respective service
proponent office by the following electronic form: Criteria Change Request. The form is also
accessible from the Internet sites listed below.
UFC are effective upon issuance and are distributed only in electronic media from the following
source:
•
Whole Building Design Guide web site http://dod.wbdg.org/.
Hard copies of UFC printed from electronic media should be checked against the current
electronic version prior to use to ensure that they are current.
______________________________________
JAMES C. DALTON, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and Construction
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
______________________________________
JOSEPH E. GOTT, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
______________________________________
PAUL A. PARKER
The Deputy Civil Engineer
DCS/Installations & Logistics
Department of the Air Force
______________________________________
MICHAEL McANDREW
Director, Facility Investment and
Management
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment)
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)
NEW DOCUMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Document: UFC 4-022-02, Selection and Application of Vehicle Barriers
Superseding: Military Handbook 1013/14, Selection and Application of Vehicle
Barriers
Description: Provides a unified approach for the design, selection, and installation of
active and passive vehicle barriers associated with Department of Defense (DoD)
facilities. The examples provided in this UFC are for illustration only and shall be
modified and adapted to satisfy installation specific constraints. This UFC is not
intended to address procedural issues such as threat levels or to provide specific design
criteria such as impact forces.
This UFC was developed by consolidating and refining criteria from USACE Protective
Design Center, Security Engineering Working Group (SEWG); Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM), Engineering Criteria Office, Engineering
Service Center and available military, government, and commercial sources\1\ /1/.
Commanders, security and antiterrorism personnel, planners, designers, architects, and
engineers should use this UFC when evaluating existing and providing new vehicle
barriers. Technical information considered generally known to professional designers,
architects, engineers, or readily available in technical references (UFC, Military
Handbooks, Technical Manuals, etc.) has not been included.
Reasons for Document: Vehicle barriers are primarily used as one of many elements
that define perimeters that require a final denial barrier to be provided for certain
restricted areas. This UFC focuses of the design, selection, and application of active
and passive vehicle barriers.
Impact: The following direct benefits will result:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A standardized approach for identifying and justifying security and
antiterrorism design criteria for DoD facilities;
A standardized nomenclature and criteria for asset, threat, and level of
protection definition;
A standardized procedure for identifying costs for DoD facilities with
security and antiterrorism requirements to a planning level of detail;
A standardized process for evaluating design criteria and protection
options based on cost and risk management;
Guidance for incorporating security and antiterrorism principles into
installation master planning; and
There are no adverse impacts on environmental, sustainability, or
constructability policies or practices.
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1-1
PURPOSE....................................................................................................... 1
1-2
INTRODUCTION. ............................................................................................ 1
1-3
BACKGROUND. ............................................................................................. 1
1-4
SCOPE AND USE OF GUIDANCE. ............................................................... 2
1-5
SECURITY ENGINEERING UFC SERIES...................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING REQUIREMENTS AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ................. 4
2-1
GENERAL....................................................................................................... 4
2-2
DOD REQUIREMENTS. ................................................................................. 5
2-2.1
DOD 5200.8-R PHYSICAL SECURITY PROGRAM. ...................................... 5
2-2.2
DOD 2000.12 DOD ANTITERRORISM (AT) PROGRAM. .............................. 5
2-2.3
DOD 2000.16 DOD ANTITERRORISM STANDARDS. .................................. 5
2-4
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES......................................................................... 5
2-5
REFERENCE WEBSITES. ............................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 3 - DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................... 7
3-1
ACRONYMS. .................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 4 - VEHICLE BARRIER DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................ 8
4-1
GENERAL....................................................................................................... 8
4-2
SITE SURVEY. ............................................................................................... 8
4-3
INTEGRATED PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM. ........................................ 11
4-4
ATTAINABLE VEHICLE SPEED. ................................................................. 12
4-4.1
ATTAINABLE VEHICLE SPEED ON A STRAIGHT PATH. ......................... 12
4-4.2
ATTAINABLE VEHICLE SPEED ON A CURVED PATH. ............................ 16
4-4.3
ATTACK ROUTES PARALLEL TO THE BARRIER. ................................... 18
4-5
VEHICLE KINETIC ENERGY. ...................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 5 - VEHICLE BARRIER SELECTION, DESIGN, AND INSTALLATION ...... 23
5-1
VEHICLE BARRIER TYPES......................................................................... 23
5-1.1
ACTIVE BARRIER SYSTEMS...................................................................... 23
5-1.2
PASSIVE BARRIER SYSTEMS. .................................................................. 23
5-1.3
FIXED BARRIER SYSTEMS. ....................................................................... 23
5-1.4
PORTABLE/MOVABLE BARRIER SYSTEMS. ........................................... 23
5-2
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. ...................................................................... 23
5-2.1
FENCING. ..................................................................................................... 29
5-2.2
LOCATION. .................................................................................................. 30
5-2.3
AESTHETICS. .............................................................................................. 30
5-2.4
SAFETY. ....................................................................................................... 30
5-2.5
SECURITY. ................................................................................................... 31
5-2.6
RELIABILITY. ............................................................................................... 31
5-2.7
MAINTAINABILITY. ...................................................................................... 32
5-2.8
COST. ........................................................................................................... 32
5-2.9
BARRIER OPERATIONS. ............................................................................ 32
5-2.10
UNOBSTRUCTED SPACE. .......................................................................... 33
5-2.11
ENVIRONMENT. ........................................................................................... 33
5-2.12
INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. ............................................................. 33
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
5-2.13
FACILITY COMPATIBILITY. ........................................................................ 34
5-2.14
OPERATOR TRAINING................................................................................ 34
5-2.15
OPTIONS. ..................................................................................................... 34
5-2.16
OPERATIONAL CYCLE. .............................................................................. 34
5-2.17
METHODS OF ACCESS CONTROL. ........................................................... 34
5-2.18
COST EFFECTIVENESS. ............................................................................. 35
5-2.19
LIABILITIES.................................................................................................. 35
5-3
ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. ............................................... 35
5-4
BARRIER CAPABILITY. .............................................................................. 36
5-5
VEHICLE BARRIER CERTIFICATION. ........................................................ 37
CHAPTER 6 - ACTIVE AND PASSIVE BARRIERS ...................................................... 39
6-1
ACTIVE BARRIER SYSTEMS...................................................................... 39
6-1.1
PORTABLE VEHICLE BARRIERS. ............................................................. 39
6-1.2
HIGH-SECURITY BARRICADE SYSTEM. ................................................... 43
6-1.3
BOLLARD SYSTEM. .................................................................................... 45
6-1.4
CRASH BEAM BARRIER SYSTEM. ............................................................ 47
6-1.5
CRASH GATE SYSTEM. .............................................................................. 48
6-1.6
GROUND RETRACTABLE AUTOMOBILE BARRIER (GRAB). ................. 50
6-1.7
MAXIMUM SECURITY BARRIER (MSB). .................................................... 50
6-2
PASSIVE BARRIER SYSTEMS. .................................................................. 52
6-2.1
CONCRETE-FILLED BOLLARD. ................................................................. 53
6-2.2
CONCRETE MEDIAN. .................................................................................. 56
6-2.3
KING TUT BLOCKS. .................................................................................... 57
6-2.4
CONCRETE PLANTER. ............................................................................... 59
6-2.5
EXCAVATIONS AND DITCHES. .................................................................. 59
6-2.6
GUARDRAILS. ............................................................................................. 63
6-2.7
HEAVY EQUIPMENT TIRES. ....................................................................... 65
6-2.8
TIRE SHREDDERS. ..................................................................................... 66
6-2.9
STEEL CABLE BARRIERS.......................................................................... 66
6-2.10
STEEL CABLE-REINFORCED CHAIN LINK FENCING. ............................. 68
6-2.11
REINFORCED CONCRETE KNEE WALLS. ................................................ 70
6-2.12
PLASTIC BARRIER SYSTEMS. .................................................................. 73
6-2.13
EXPEDIENT BARRIER SYSTEMS. ............................................................. 74
6-3
VEHICLE BARRIER PERFORMANCE. ....................................................... 74
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES .................................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B - \1\ BARRIER /1/ COST DATA ............................................................. B-1
B-1
SCOPE......................................................................................................... B-1
B-2
NON-GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS....................................................... B-1
B-3
DEFINITIONS. ............................................................................................. B-1
B-4
ACTIVE BARRIERS. ................................................................................... B-1
B-4.1
DOS RATINGS FOR ACTIVE BARRIERS. ................................................. B-1
B-4.2
COST DATA FOR ACTIVE BARRIERS. ..................................................... B-1
B-5
COST DATA FOR PASSIVE BARRIERS.................................................... B-5
APPENDIX C - PERFORMANCE DATA FOR \1\/1/ PASSIVE VEHICLE BARRIERS C-1
C-1
SCOPE........................................................................................................ C-1
C-2
DEFINITIONS. ............................................................................................ C-1
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
C-3
PASSIVE BARRIERS. ................................................................................ C-1
APPENDIX D - EXAMPLES FOR PROTECTION AGAINST TERRORIST VEHICLE
BOMBS ....................................................................................................................... D-1
D-1
SCOPE........................................................................................................ D-1
D-2
NON-GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS...................................................... D-1
D-3
DEFINITIONS. ............................................................................................ D-1
D-4
EXAMPLES. ............................................................................................... D-1
D-4.1
EXAMPLE 1. ............................................................................................... D-1
D-4.2
EXAMPLE 2. ............................................................................................... D-4
APPENDIX E - VEHICLE BARRIER DEBRIS MINIMIZATION AND EFFECTS ON
COUNTER-MOBILITY.................................................................................................. E-1
E-1
GENERAL.................................................................................................... E-1
E-2
BARRIER RESPONSE TO EXPLOSIVE LOAD TESTING. ........................ E-1
E-3
LOW-DEBRIS BARRIER COUNTER-MOBILITY EVALUATION. ............... E-3
E-4
RESTORATION OF DAMAGED BARRIERS. ............................................. E-5
FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Example Site Layout ................................................................................... 10
Figure 4-2 Integrated Physical Security System........................................................... 11
Figure 4-3 Vehicle Speed vs. Acceleration Distance .................................................... 13
Figure 4-4 Speed Correction Factor for Vehicles Driving on a Sloped Path ................. 15
Figure 4-5 Skid Speed vs. Radius of Curvature ........................................................... 17
Figure 4-6 Correction Factor for Vehicle Traveling Parallel to Barrier (Based on
Coefficient of Friction, f = 0.5) ................................................................................ 19
Figure 4-7 Correction Factor for Vehicle Traveling Parallel to Barrier (Based on
Coefficient of Friction, f = 0.9) ................................................................................ 20
Figure 6-1 Vehicle Surface Barrier (Example 1) ........................................................... 41
Figure 6-2 Portable High Security Anti-Terrorist Vehicle Crash Barrier (Example 2) .... 42
Figure 6-3 Portable Barrier (Example 3)....................................................................... 42
Figure 6-4 Maximum Security Vehicle Arrest Barrier (Example 4) ............................... 42
Figure 6-5 Example High-Security Barricade System (Wedge Type) ........................... 43
Figure 6-6 Example High-Security Barricade System (Flush-Mounted) ....................... 44
Figure 6-7 Example Bollard System ............................................................................. 46
Figure 6-8 Cable-Reinforced Crash Beams ................................................................. 48
Figure 6-9 Example Linear Crash Gate ........................................................................ 49
Figure 6-10 Example MSB Vehicle Barrier (Lift Plate Barricade System) .................... 51
Figure 6-11 Second Example MSB Vehicle Barrier ...................................................... 52
Figure 6-12 DOS Passive Anti-Ram Bollard Example .................................................. 54
Figure 6-13 Example Bollard Design Section ............................................................... 55
Figure 6-14 Bollard Design Example Layout in Plan View ........................................... 55
Figure 6-15 Precast Non-Reinforced Concrete Median................................................ 57
Figure 6-16 Concrete Blocks ........................................................................................ 58
Figure 6-17 Reinforced Concrete Planter ..................................................................... 59
Figure 6-18 Anti-Vehicular Ditch Profile with Incline Slope Requiring Stabilization ...... 61
Figure 6-19 Anti-Vehicular Ditch Profile with Maximum Incline Slope Not Requiring
Stabilization ............................................................................................................ 61
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-20 Anti-Vehicular Ditch Profile with Maximum Incline Slope Not Requiring
Stabilization or Berm .............................................................................................. 61
Figure 6-21 Simulated Trajectory Path and Impact Angle with Ditch Incline Slope for
Vehicle at Two Speeds .......................................................................................... 62
Figure 6-22 Lower Bumper Reference Line and Vehicle Approach Angle ................... 63
Figure 6-23 Guardrails ................................................................................................. 64
Figure 6-24 Heavy Equipment Tire Barrier ................................................................... 65
Figure 6-25 Tire Shredders .......................................................................................... 66
Figure 6-26 Steel Cable Barriers .................................................................................. 68
Figure 6-27 Typical Steel Cable Reinforced Chain-Link Fencing ................................. 69
Figure 6-28 Anti-Ramming Foundation Wall ................................................................ 71
Figure 6-29 Anti-Ramming Knee Wall Section ............................................................. 72
Figure 6-30 Reinforced Concrete Knee Wall Details .................................................... 73
Figure 6-31 Commercially Available Plastic Barrier System......................................... 74
Figure D-2 Site Plan for Examples ............................................................................. D-3
Figure E-3 Hesco Bastion Concertainer Barrier, Oblique View ...................................E-4
Figure E-4 Polymer-Coated, Lightweight Concrete Barrier System ............................E-5
TABLES
Table 4-1 Speed Correction Factor for a Vehicle Traveling Parallel to Barrier (Based on
Friction Coefficient = 1.0) ....................................................................................... 21
Table 4-2 Kinetic Energy Developed by Vehicle, ft-lbf (kgf-m) x 1,000 ........................ 22
Table 6-1 Performance Data for Portable Vehicle Barriers .......................................... 41
Table 6-2 Performance Data for Example High-Security Barricade System ................ 45
Table 6-3 Performance Data for Example Bollard System ........................................... 47
Table 6-4 Performance Data for Cable-Reinforced Crash Beams ............................... 48
Table 6-5 Performance Data for Example Linear Crash Gate ...................................... 49
Table 6-6 Performance Data for MSB Vehicle Barriers ................................................ 52
Table 6-7 Separation Distance (D)* for Barriers to Reduce Speed on a Straight Path in
Ft (m) ..................................................................................................................... 58
Table 6-8 Maximum Vehicle Approach Angles and Side Slope Angles ....................... 63
Table 6-9 Performance of Cable Restraint Systems .................................................... 70
Table B-1 DoS Ratings................................................................................................B-1
Table B-2 Manufacturer’s Data and Cost for Certified Active Barriers.........................B-2
Table B-3 Cost for Passive Barriers ............................................................................B-5
Table C-4 Performance for Passive Barriers .............................................................. C-2
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1-1
PURPOSE.
This UFC provides the design requirements necessary to plan, design, construct, and
maintain vehicle counter-mobility barriers used within Entry Control Facilities (ECF) or
as perimeter protection. This UFC is to be used during the design of Department of
Defense (DoD) facilities to ensure an optimal vehicle barrier system is selected by
engineers and security personnel for a specific operation within an installation. Barrier
performance, maintenance, and cost should all be optimized. It is intended to establish
consistent requirements, standards, and design basis for barrier planning, design,
construction, and maintenance for all military departments. This UFC identifies design
features necessary to ensure that infrastructure constructed today will have the flexibility
to support future technologies, a changing threat environment, and changes in
operations.
1-2
INTRODUCTION.
A vehicle barrier selection and placement process is presented herein, along with
criteria for the design, selection, installation, operation, and maintenance of security
barrier systems. The selected barrier system must effectively stop and/or disable
vehicles that pose a threat, including explosive laden vehicles, of breaching the
perimeter of a protected area. Both passive (static or non-movable) perimeter barriers
and active (operational for access control) barriers at facility entrances are included.
The examples presented in this UFC are for illustration purposes only and should be
modified and adapted to satisfy installation specific constraints. This UFC is not
intended to address procedural issues such as tactics and techniques; however, an
appropriately designed vehicle barrier system used within an ECF/ACP or along an
installation perimeter can enhance and improve operations.
1-3
BACKGROUND.
Guidance and documentation regarding issues of vehicle barriers and vehicle countermobility design are provided within the joint military services. Each document presents
useful information to engineers, planners, architects, and security personnel responsible
for Entry Control Facilities (ECFs) and Access Control Points (ACPs), both existing and
new facility construction involving vehicle barriers and counter-mobility techniques.
Until now, there has been no single DoD document that provides all the information
required for vehicle barrier design. This UFC, in conjunction with UFC 4-022-01 for
Entry Control Facilities/Access Control Points, establishes consistent standards and
requirements for each military service branch. The UFC supplements and is referenced
by the Security Engineering Facility Planning Manual (UFC 4-020-01) and the Security
Engineering Facility Design Manual (UFC 4-020-02). The design of a vehicle barrier
system should begin with planning as directed in UFC 4-020-01, then graduate to
design guidance provided in UFC 4-020-02, then culminate with selection and
installation of a barrier system using this UFC.
1
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
1-4
SCOPE AND USE OF GUIDANCE.
Commanders, security personnel, planners, designers, and engineers should use this
UFC when designing vehicle barrier systems for ECFs or other perimeter locations.
Technical information considered generally known to professional designers or
engineers or readily available in existing technical references (Unified Facility Criteria,
Military Handbooks, Technical Manuals, etc.) has not been included.
1-5
SECURITY ENGINEERING UFC SERIES.
This UFC is one of a series of security engineering Unified Facilities Criteria documents
that cover minimum standards, planning, preliminary design, and detailed design for
security and antiterrorism. The manuals in this series are designed to be used
sequentially by a diverse audience to facilitate development of projects throughout the
design cycle. The manuals in this series include the following:
a. DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings. UFC 4-010-01 DoD
Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings and UFC 4-010-02 DoD
Minimum Antiterrorism Standoff Distances for Buildings establish standards
that provide minimum levels of protection against terrorist attacks for the
occupants of all DoD inhabited buildings. Those UFC are intended to be
used by security and antiterrorism personnel and design teams to identify the
minimum requirements that must be incorporated into the design of all new
constructions and major renovations of inhabited DoD buildings. They also
include recommendations that should be, but are not required to be,
incorporated into all such buildings.
b. Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual. UFC 4-020-01 Security
Engineering Facilities Planning Manual presents processes for developing the
design criteria necessary to incorporate security and antiterrorism into DoD
facilities and for identifying the cost implications of applying those design
criteria. Those design criteria may be limited to the requirements of the
minimum standards, or they may include protection of assets other than those
addressed in the minimum standards (people), aggressor tactics that are not
addressed in the minimum standards or levels of protection beyond those
required by the minimum standards. The cost implications for security and
antiterrorism are addressed as cost increases over conventional construction
for common construction types. The changes in construction represented by
those cost increases are tabulated for reference, but they represent only
representative construction that will meet the requirements of the design
criteria. The manual also includes a means to assess the tradeoffs between
cost and risk. The Security Engineering Planning Manual is intended to be
used by planners as well as security and antiterrorism personnel with support
from planning team members.
c. Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual. UFC 4-020-02 Security
Engineering Facilities Design Manual provides interdisciplinary design
2
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
guidance for developing preliminary systems of protective measures to
implement the design criteria established using UFC 4-020-01. Those
protective measures include building and site elements, equipment, and the
supporting manpower and procedures necessary to make them all work as a
system. The information in UFC 4-020-02 is in sufficient detail to support
concept level project development, and as such can provide a good basis for
a more detailed design. The manual also provides a process for assessing
the impact of protective measures on risk. The primary audience for the
Security Engineering Facility Design Manual is the design team, but it can
also be used by security and antiterrorism personnel.
d. Security Engineering Support Manuals. In addition to the standards,
planning, and design UFC mentioned above, there is a series of additional
UFC that provide detailed design guidance for developing final designs based
on the preliminary designs developed using UFC 4-020-02. These support
manuals provide specialized, discipline specific design guidance. Some
address specific tactics such as direct fire weapons, forced entry, or airborne
contamination. Others address limited aspects of design such as resistance
to progressive collapse or design of portions of buildings such as mailrooms.
Still others address details of designs for specific protective measures such
as vehicle barriers or fences. The Security Engineering Support Manuals are
intended to be used by the design team during the development of final
design packages.
3
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING REQUIREMENTS AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
2-1
GENERAL.
This UFC should be used in conjunction and coordination with UFC 4-020-01 Security
Engineering Facilities Planning Manual, UFC 4-020-02 Security Engineering Facilities
Design Manual, UFC 4-022-01 Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities/Access
Control Points, and UFC 4-022-03 Security Engineering: Fences, Gates and Guard
Facilities to guide the user through a selection process to establish a protective barrier
system around a DoD installation and designated restricted areas within the installation
(enclave areas). A systematic approach is used. The main issues to be considered
during the selection and design of a vehicle barrier include:
a. Threat Analysis – to quantify the potential threat. For threat analysis, refer to
UFC 4-020-01 Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual and UFC 4020-02 Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual. The procedures in
these manuals will quantify and qualify all potential threats, including the
“moving” vehicle bomb threat necessary for the determination of the
appropriate vehicle barrier for a given location.
b. Performance – to determine the appropriate levels of protection (both to
personnel and property). An acceptable level of protection must be defined
by the installation commander.
c. Access Control Measures – physical controls, operating procedures,
hardware and software features used in various combinations to allow, detect,
or prevent access.
d. Requirements – appropriate standoff distance to maintain a level of protection
compatible with operational needs; passive or active barrier systems to stop
the threat vehicle; barrier reliability and maintainability, safety, sabotage and
malfunction protection, and cost effectiveness.
e. Response – potential structural damage to the vehicle barrier from blast loads
produced during an explosion.
f. Liabilities – potential liability effects on the decision to protect assets against
the effects of a terrorist act.
g. Cost – security expenditures based on the value of the asset to be protected
and the importance of the asset to national security and readiness. For
protection against vehicle bombs, the potential loss of human life generally
drives the cost of security, overriding the value of the property to be
protected. The decision to use vehicle barriers and provide protection against
terrorist vehicle bombs is primarily motivated by protection of personnel.
4
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
2-2
DOD REQUIREMENTS. There are several instructions and publications
within the Department of Defense that establish access control, physical security, and
antiterrorism requirements for the Department of Defense installations and restricted
areas.
2-2.1
DOD 5200.8-R Physical Security Program.
This regulation requires DOD Components to determine the necessary access control
based on the requirements of a developed physical security program. Emergency
planning is specified to include establishment of a system for positive identification of
personnel and equipment authorized to enter and exit the installation and maintenance
of adequate physical barriers that will be deployed to control access to the installation.
Planning will also include increasing vigilance and access restrictions during higher
force protection conditions
2-2.2
DOD 2000.12 DOD Antiterrorism (AT) Program.
This directive provides DOD policies for ATFP and assigns responsibilities for
implementing the procedures for the DOD ATFP Program. It authorized the publication
of DOD O-2000.16 as the DOD standards for ATFP and DOD O-2000.12-H DOD
Antiterrorism Handbook as guidance for the DOD standards. DOD O-2000.12H defines
the DOD Force Protection Condition (FPCON) System, which describes the potential
threat levels and the applicable FPCON measures to be enacted for each level. It also
requires Commanders to develop and implement Random Antiterrorism Measures
(RAM) as an integral part of their AT Program.
2-2.3
DOD 2000.16 DOD Antiterrorism Standards.
This instruction and service directives require the installation or activity Commanding
Officer to define the access control measures at installations. Additionally DOD
2000.16 requires Commanders at all levels to develop and implement a comprehensive
Antiterrorism (AT) Program, which should define the necessary action sets, including
identification and inspection procedures, at each of the potential Force Protection
Condition (FPCON) levels.
2-3
COMBATANT COMMANDER REQUIREMENTS
Combatant Commanders issue requirements for Antiterrorism and physical security for
installations within their area of responsibility. Ensure any such requirements are
incorporated in addition to the requirements found in this UFC
2-4
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.
Other documents, drawings, and publications that could contribute to the guidance
provided in this UFC are listed below.
PDC-TR90-2
Barrier Impact Response Model 3
5
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Dimension (BIRM 3D)
SD-STD-02.1, Revision A
Specification for Vehicle Crash Test of
Perimeter Barriers and Gates
UFGS 34 71 13.19
Unified Facilities Guide Specification,
Active Vehicle Barriers
UFGS 12 93 00
Unified Facilities Guide Specification,
Site Furnishings
ASTM F 2656-07
Standard Test Method for Vehicle
Crash Testing of Perimeter Barriers
Means, R.S., “Building Construction Cost Data”, 61st Edition, 2003 (Copies can be
ordered from the R.S. Means website: http://www.rsmeans.com)
2-5
REFERENCE WEBSITES.
Copies of many of the documents referenced in this chapter can be obtained
from the following websites.
a. Whole Building Design Guide web site
http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dod.php (See Service Specific
information on the right hand side of the website.)
b. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Protective Design Center,
Omaha District https:/pdc.usace.army.mil/library/drawings/acp
6
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
CHAPTER 3 - DEFINITIONS
3-1
ACRONYMS.
The acronyms used in this UFC are defined below.
a) BDAM
-
Blast Damage Assessment Model
b) CCTV
-
Closed-Circuit Television
b) DOD
-
Department of Defense
c) DODISS
-
DOD Index of Specifications and Standards
d) DOS
-
Department of State
e) ERASDAC
-
Explosive Risk and Structural Damage Assessment Code
f) FACEDAP
-
Facility and Component Explosive Damage Assessment
Program
g) FRF
-
Fragment-Retention Film
h) MIL-HDBK
-
Military Handbook
i) NAVFAC
-
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
j) NFESC
-
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
k) PDC
-
Protective Design Center
7
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
CHAPTER 4 - VEHICLE BARRIER DESIGN PARAMETERS
4-1
GENERAL.
Vehicles loaded with explosives can detonate as a large bomb, inflicting severe damage
on critical military facilities and potentially injuring DoD personnel. Such vehicle bombs
are effective terrorist tools because they facilitate the transport of large quantities of
explosives to any desired location. When planning and selecting vehicle barriers to be
used for facility perimeter protection, the first step is to determine the Design Basis
Threat (DBT) for any given location in the facility. Table B-1 provides active vehicle
barrier kinetic energy rating and vehicle penetration based on the SD-STD-02.1
Revision A test standard. The DBT may vary within and around the installation. It can
be affected by guidance instructions specific to the area and service specific guidance.
UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, as well as local and
service specific guidance documents, should be consulted in defining Design Basis
Threats at each location where barriers are required.
Several factors should be considered when setting up defense against the DBT: (1) the
occupied structures in a particular area; (2) the barrier penetration capabilities of the
DBT vehicle (based on the maximum vehicle velocity to the barrier location, the angle of
impact, and the area around the barrier location); and (3) the structural response of and
potential debris throw from the barrier, if the vehicle bomb detonates.
Both stationary and moving vehicle bombs need to be considered. To effectively
prevent a moving vehicle from getting close to the intended target, the perimeter barrier
must absorb the kinetic energy produced by the total weight of the vehicle bomb
(vehicle weight plus the weight of explosives and any other cargo in the vehicle) and the
vehicle’s maximum attainable speed at the point of impact. Thus, kinetic energy is a
primary factor used to establish performance requirements for moving vehicle barriers.
Another primary consideration for either stationary or moving vehicle bombs should be
the barrier’s response to the load produced by detonation of the explosives in the
vehicle. The amount of debris produced and subsequent debris throw distance should
also factor into the selection of appropriate barriers.
4-2
SITE SURVEY.
The process of selecting and designing a barrier system begins with determination of
the Design Basis Threat (DBT) and required levels of protection. Reference UFC 4020-01, Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual and UFC 4-020-02, Security
Engineering Facilities Design Manual for methods to determine the DBT and levels of
protection. Next, preparations are made for a site survey. First, a scaled map of the
protected area must be prepared from detailed plans of the facility that must include at
least one block beyond the perimeter. This map should include the relative locations,
major dimensions and descriptions of structures, roads, terrain and landscaping,
existing security features, and property perimeter. Any features outside the perimeter
(within one block or so) that could possibly be used to reduce vehicle speed, prevent
8
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
access to the perimeter barrier, shield structures from damage in the event of an
explosion, or affect an aggressor’s progress in any other way should be shown on the
site map as well. This map will permit careful analysis of distances and topographical
features between the perimeter and the facility. The map identifies potential
vulnerabilities. Due to the information included on any such site map, it may need to be
a classified document. Figure 4-1 shows an example site map for a facility.
As shown in Figure 4-1, the individual segments of the perimeter can be attacked from a
variety of paths. For example, for Building 827 with a controlled area on two sides of
the perimeter, the two remaining sides (Perimeter Roads “A” and “B”) are vulnerable to
a vehicle attack. The Entrance Road and the extension of Perimeter Road “B" are
perpendicular and lead directly to the compound boundary. Each of these roads is a
potential attack path. Certain segments of the perimeter can be attacked from more
than one street. In addition, for Perimeter Roads “A” and “B”, running parallel to the
perimeter, there are an infinite number of impact points and angles depending upon
vehicle location and speed. As a result, a large number of potential impact conditions
(the combination of vehicle speed and impact angle) can occur at any point along the
perimeter boundary.
9
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 4-1 Example Site Layout
NORTH
10
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
4-3
INTEGRATED PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM.
Any vulnerabilities identified in the site survey should be addressed by developing an
integrated physical security protection system. Design Basis Threats identified for the
specific facility and current security requirements need to be considered. These threats
are determined by assessment of site-specific threats or are specified by an installation.
Comprehensive protection can be provided by coordinating physical barriers (such as
fences, active barriers, and passive barriers) with other security components and
options. For example, perimeter sensors, lights, and closed circuit television can be
used to detect vehicles attempting to covertly penetrate the perimeter. Sallyports can
be used to detect bombs hidden in vehicles entering a facility. Performance of the
perimeter barrier can be enhanced with strategic placement of bollards, ditches, and
planters. A wide range of potential threats can be detected early using clear zones as
well. All barrier requirements should be coordinated with the ECF design guidance
given in UFC 4-022-01 Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities/Access Control
Points. Figure 4-2 illustrates some examples of integrated physical security measures.
Figure 4-2 Integrated Physical Security System
11
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
4-4
ATTAINABLE VEHICLE SPEED.
The speed of a vehicle at the point of impact on a vehicle barrier is a major parameter in
determining the required performance of the barrier. The impact is calculated from the
initial speed, “v”, the acceleration rate, “a”, and the distance, “s”, available for
acceleration between the starting point and the point of impact. Additional factors that
must be considered are the general terrain, the surface condition of the path, whether or
not the path is straight, curved, or banked. Information presented in Figure 4-1 through
Figure 4-7 allows calculation of maximum attainable vehicle speed, or suggests
strategies for modifying possible attack paths to control vehicle speed.
The impact speed along the perimeter should be calculated for all possible driving paths
identified on the site survey map. The strategy for barrier system design, selection, and
installation can then be developed using this data.
The methods presented in this section for determining attainable vehicle speeds
assume flat roadway surfaces. Most roadways are not flat, either due to superelevation or to typical roadway crowning and constructed transverse slopes. If a driver
can use a non-flat roadway surface to his advantage in attaining a higher speed, this
needs to be taken into consideration. The use of any geometrics in the selection of
barriers and design of an ECF should only be provided under the guidance of an
engineer experienced in roadway/transportation engineering. Otherwise, some of the
assumptions for the methods in this section may be highly conservative and may lead to
designs that are treacherous for vehicles traveling at normal/design speeds, for vehicles
traveling during wet conditions, or for large commercial and emergency vehicles.
Consult with the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide and AASHTO Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets for roadway design and road geometry/geometric requirements.
4-4.1
Attainable Vehicle Speed on a Straight Path.
The highest attainable vehicle speed results from a long, straight path between the
starting point and a vehicle barrier.
a) On a Horizontal Surface. On a horizontal, straight path, the speed attainable
by an accelerating vehicle depends primarily on its initial speed, “v0”, the acceleration,
“a”, and the distance, “s”, traveled during acceleration. The relationship among these
parameters is given in Equation (1).
v = (v02 + 2as)1/2
where:
v
v0
a
s
=
=
=
=
final vehicle speed (mph or kph)
initial vehicle speed (mph or kph)
acceleration (ft/sec2 or m/sec2)
distance traveled (feet or meters)
12
(1)
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
For convenience, Equation (1) is plotted as
Figure 4-3, using a conversion factor for values in ft/sec2 and mph.
Figure 4-3 Vehicle Speed vs. Acceleration Distance
To illustrate its use, consider the case of a high performance car accelerating on
a 300-ft (91.5 m), straight, horizontal path with initial speed, v0 = 25 mph (15.53 kph),
and acceleration, a = 11.3 ft/sec2 (3.4 m/sec2). The speed at the end of the path will be
determined as follows:
Locate v0 = 25 mph (15.53 kph) on the vertical axis (point A).
Draw a horizontal line from point A until it intersects the curve (at point B) for a =
11.3 feet per second2 (3.4 m/sec2).
Draw a vertical line down from point B until it intersects the horizontal axis (point
C). This is the point from which velocity will be calculated.
Locate point D on the horizontal axis so that the distance between points C and
D is the accelerating distance [300 feet (91.5 m) in this example].
13
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Draw a vertical line up from point D until it intersects the curve (at point E) for a =
11.3 ft/sec2 (3.4 m/sec2).
Draw a horizontal line from point E until it intersects the vertical axis (point F).
The value of the speed, “v”, at point F, 61.5 mph (98.97 kph), is the answer.
Note: If “v0” = 0, the graph can be used to determine velocity from a dead start.
b) On a Slope. Due to gravitational effect, to achieve the same final speed as
that on a horizontal path, the required distance for acceleration on a slope will be
shorter (longer) if the vehicle is traveling downhill (uphill). Let, “s”, be the acceleration
distance needed to also attain final speed, “v”, on a horizontal path, and let, “s'”, be the
acceleration distance needed to attain, “v”, on a sloped path. The following relationship
shown in Equation (2) applies:
s'/s = 1/[1 + (g/a)sinθ]
(2)
where:
s'
s
g
a
θ
=
=
=
=
=
acceleration distance needed to attain final speed on a sloped path
acceleration distance needed to attain final speed on a horizontal path
gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec2 (9.82 m/sec2)
acceleration of the vehicle, ft/sec2
angle between the slope and the horizontal in degrees
This correction factor relationship is plotted as Figure 4-4.
14
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 4-4 Speed Correction Factor for Vehicles Driving on a Sloped Path
To illustrate the use of this figure, consider the example used in 4-4.1a, except the
vehicle is traveling downhill on a 5-degree slope. The steps are:
Locate 5 degrees on the horizontal axis (point A).
Draw a vertical line up from point A until it intersects the curve (at point B) for a =
11.3 ft/sec2 (3.4 m/sec2).
Draw a horizontal line from point B toward the vertical axis and read off the “s'/s”
value at the intersecting point C.
The value of s'/s is 0.8. Because s' = s x (s'/s) and s = 300 feet (91.5 m),
therefore s' = 300 feet (91.5 m) x 0.8 = 240 feet (73.2 m).
This example shows that to accelerate the vehicle to the same 61.5 mph speed (98.97
kph), a 5-degree slope will help shorten the accelerating distance from 300 feet (91.5 m)
to 240 feet (73.2 m). It clearly demonstrates the increased vulnerability caused by local
terrain sloping down toward a protected area. Modifying the local terrain is an effective
way to minimize vulnerability.
15
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
4-4.2
Attainable Vehicle Speed on a Curved Path.
Centrifugal force makes it difficult to drive fast on a curve unless the road surface is
properly banked. The centrifugal force, “CF”, of a vehicle moving on a curved path
depends on its weight, “w”, the radius of the curvature, “r”, and the speed, “v”, and g =
gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec2 (9.82 m/sec2), as shown in Equation (3).
CF = wv2 /(gr)
(3)
where:
CF =
W =
r =
v =
g =
centrifugal force (lbs/kgs)
vehicle weight (lbs/kgs)
radius of curvature (feet/meters)
vehicle speed (mph/kph)
gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec2 (9.82 m/sec2)
When the “CF” is large enough, it will overcome the road friction and a vehicle will skid.
The vehicle could also topple if its center of gravity is too high. Because skidding
usually occurs first, only this condition will be considered here. Road friction force, “FF,”
equals the product of the vehicle weight, “w,” and the friction coefficient, “f,” between
the tires and the road surface, as shown in Equation (4).
FF = fw
(4)
where:
FF = road friction force
f = friction coefficient
w = vehicle weight
NOTE: The value of friction coefficient, “f”, is between 0 and 1 and is highly variable. It
depends on the tire and its condition, the material and condition of the drive path, any oil
or water on the drive surface, etc. On a roadway, under normal conditions, f = 0.6 is
usually used. If unable to determine, use f = 1, which will provide a more conservative
value.
a) On a Horizontal Surface. The skidding speed (the speed at which skidding
occurs), “vS”, is obtained by equating the centrifugal force and the road friction force, as
shown in Equations (5) and (6).
fw = w vS2 /(gr)
(5)
where:
f
w
vS
g
r
=
=
=
=
=
friction coefficient
vehicle weight
skidding speed
gravitational constant
radius of curvature
16
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
From which,
vS =
(6)
fgr
where:
vS
f
g
r
=
=
=
=
skidding speed
friction coefficient
gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec2 (9.82 m/sec2)
radius of curvature
Because “v” must be made as small as possible for the most cost-effective protection,
this relationship suggests that options for the physical security planner include making
the drive path slippery, with a small radius of curvature, or both. The above relationship
is plotted as Figure 4-5, using “f” as a parameter using a conversion factor for values in
ft and mph.
Figure 4-5 Skid Speed vs. Radius of Curvature
Using this figure, with a chosen value of “f” (see previous Note) and the tolerable
vehicle impact speed of the selected barrier, a curved path can be designed to cause
any vehicle driving above that velocity to skid.
b) On a Slope. Unlike a straight downhill path (see Paragraph 4-4.1), a curved downhill
path is actually effective in deterring vehicle attacks. This is because the extra velocity
gained from traveling downhill can easily cause the vehicle to skid or topple. Therefore,
if a protected area has downhill approach paths, the local terrain can be modified so
17
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
that a straight driving path is impossible. Caution should be exercised when designing
roads to decrease velocity. Posting speed restrictions along the path is strongly
recommended to reduce the possibility of accidental skidding.
To determine the final velocity at the end of a curved path, use the length of the curved
path as the acceleration distance in Figure 4-3 and as the acceleration distance needed
to attain final speed on a horizontal path (s) in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4 can then be used
to determine the velocity at which the vehicle will skid.
4-4.3
Attack Routes Parallel to the Barrier.
A reduction in energy transferred to a barrier can be accomplished by forcing a vehicle
to make an abrupt (short radius) turn before impacting the barrier. Short radius turns
effectively reduce vehicle speed by forcing the vehicle to slow down to avoid skidding,
reducing the load transfer if the impact angle is less than 90 degrees to the barrier.
Thus, the amount of energy that must be absorbed by a perimeter barrier depends on
the impact angle, see Figure 4-1, perimeter roads A and B for a graphical
representation of this angle of impact) and the final speed of the vehicle at impact. The
load transferred to the barrier is determined by the perpendicular component of the
velocity. By using Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7, the impact angle directed toward the
barrier, based on the offset distance (distance between restricting barriers, i.e., the
distance between curbs or barriers that will limit the available turning radius), can be
determined. These figures are based on the formulas provided in Paragraphs 4-4.2 and
4-4.3. Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 show the impact angle versus speed for a given offset
distance for friction factors f = 0.5 and f = 0.9. The curves can be used to determine the
angle of impact, “θ”, knowing the values of the friction coefficient, “f”, speed at the start
of the turn, “v”, and the offset distance available.
Once the angle of impact is determined from Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7, the speed
component perpendicular to the barrier, “Vp”, can be calculated using Equation (7),
where “sinθ” is the correction factor.
Vp = v sinθ
(7)
where:
Vp = speed component perpendicular to barrier
V = speed at start of turn
θ = angle of impact
18
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 4-6 Correction Factor for Vehicle Traveling Parallel to Barrier (Based on
Coefficient of Friction, f = 0.5)
19
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 4-7 Correction Factor for Vehicle Traveling Parallel to Barrier (Based on
Coefficient of Friction, f = 0.9)
For convenience, Table 4-1 provides a correction factor for “Vp” based on the speed of
the vehicle at the beginning of the turn, the offset distance available for negotiating the
turn, and a friction coefficient f = 1.0 (the most conservative value). Thus, “Vp” is
calculated by multiplying the initial speed of the vehicle by the correction factor from
Table 4-1.
20
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Table 4-1 Speed Correction Factor for a Vehicle Traveling Parallel to Barrier
(Based on Friction Coefficient = 1.0)
Speed of Vehicle
in mph (kph)→
Max. Radius of
Curve @ f=1.0
ft (m)→
Offset Distance in
ft (m) ↓
10 (3.1)
20 (6.2)
30 (9.3)
40 (12.4)
50 (15.3)
60 (18.3)
70 (21.4)
80 (24.4)
4-5
20
(32)
27
(8)
30
(48)
60
(18)
40
(64)
107
(33)
50
(80)
167
(51)
60
(97)
240
(73)
70
(113)
327
(100)
80
(129)
427
(56)
0.616
0.966
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.559
0.743
0.866
0.946
0.988
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.438
0.588
0.707
0.788
0.848
0.899
0.940
0.966
0.342
0.470
0.547
0.656
0.707
0.766
0.809
0.867
0.292
0.407
0.485
0.559
0.616
0.656
0.707
0.743
0.242
0.342
0.423
0.470
0.545
0.588
0.629
0.656
0.208
0.309
0.375
0.423
0.470
0.515
0.545
0.574
VEHICLE KINETIC ENERGY.
The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is measured by its weight and speed, calculated
as shown in Equation (8).
KE (ft-lbf) = 0.0334 wv2
KE (kgf-m) = 0.0039 wv2
(8)
where:
KE = kinetic energy in ft-lbs force (kgf-m)
W = vehicle total weight in lbs (kg)
V = vehicle speed in mph (kph)
A vehicle must have a certain amount of kinetic energy to penetrate perimeter security
barriers. The vehicle must penetrate these barriers to inflict damage on a protected
facility. Since kinetic energy is a function of vehicle weight and speed, a heavy vehicle
moving slowly and a lighter vehicle moving fast could have the same kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy for 4,000-lb and 15,000-lb vehicles, traveling at various speeds, is shown
in Table 4-2. Once the kinetic energy of the vehicle has been determined, active and
passive barriers that are capable of stopping the vehicle can be selected from the
information contained in Chapters 5 and 6.
21
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
In some cases (with dead men, bollards, cabled concrete tee walls or chained vehicles
etc.) some of these being unique expeditionary uses based on available material there
may be a requirement for the design of system of barriers other than those listed herein.
Those cases may require the computation of an impact force to design that system. An
impact force is a high force or shock applied over a short time period. Since force is the
product of mass times acceleration for a mass m accelerating at an acceleration, then
assuming an ideal system, we can set the impact force as, mass times the difference in
velocity for a time interval dt. (F= mXdv/dt)
For example, a car that weighs 1 kg moving at 500 m/s and that hits a 'perfect' steel
barrier where it uniformly decelerates from 500 m/s to 0 m/s in .02 seconds, has an
approximate impact force of 25000 N. Thus, a body, which decelerates more quickly,
has a greater effective impact force than one that decelerates more slowly.
Table 4-2 Kinetic Energy Developed by Vehicle, ft-lbf (kgf-m) x 1,000
Vehicle Weight in lbs
(kg) ↓
4,000-lb (1,818 kg)
Vehicle
15,000-lb (6,818 kg)
Vehicle
10
(16)
13
(2)
50
(7)
20
(32)
53
(7)
200
(28)
Speed of Vehicle in mph (kph)
30
40
50
60
(48)
(64)
(80)
(97)
120
214
334
481
(17)
(29)
(46)
(66)
451
802
1,253
1,804
(62)
(111)
(173)
(249)
22
70
(113)
655
(90)
2,455
(339)
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
CHAPTER 5 - VEHICLE BARRIER SELECTION, DESIGN, AND
INSTALLATION
5-1
VEHICLE BARRIER TYPES.
Vehicle barriers are categorized as either active or passive. Active and passive
barriers can be fixed or movable, depending on how they are made, operated, or
used. Some commercial barriers are dual-classified, when they meet the
requirements for both categories (e.g., fixed-active, portable-passive, etc.) There
is no industry-wide standard terminology for vehicle barriers. For this UFC, the
following definitions will be used.
5-1.1
Active Barrier Systems.
An active barrier requires some action, either by personnel, equipment, or both,
to permit or deny entry of a vehicle. The system has some form of moving parts.
Active barrier systems include barricades, bollards, beams, gates, and active tire
shredders.
5-1.2
Passive Barrier Systems.
A passive barrier has no moving parts. Passive barrier effectiveness relies on its
ability to absorb energy and transmit the energy to its foundation. Highway
medians (Jersey), bollards or posts, tires, guardrails, ditches, and reinforced
fences are examples of passive barriers.
5-1.3
Fixed Barrier Systems.
A fixed barrier is permanently installed or requires heavy equipment to move or
dismantle. Examples include hydraulically-operated rotation or retracting
systems, pits, and concrete or steel barriers. Fixed barrier systems can be either
active or passive.
5-1.4
Portable/Movable Barrier Systems.
A portable/movable barrier system can be relocated from place to place. It may
require heavy equipment to assist in the transfer. Hydraulically operated, sledtype, barricade systems, highway medians, or filled 55-gallon drums that are not
set in foundations are typical examples. Portable/movable barrier systems can
be either active or passive.
5-2
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.
In addition to the calculation of the kinetic energy of a threat vehicle described in
Chapter 4 many factors must be considered before selecting an appropriate
barrier system. The Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities/Access Control
Points UFC 4-022-01 is a required document for planning vehicle barrier design
23
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
and installation. An outline is presented below to serve as a checklist of key
information that is important to the facility planner, security professional,
designer, user, and maintainer in the design of barrier systems. Some of these
issues are discussed in more detail following the outline.
•
Design Basis Threat (s)
The Attack Vehicle(s)
Type
Weight
Maximum Velocity
Contents
Calculated Kinetic Energy
Points of Attack
Path of Attack(s)
Direction of Attack(s)
Type of Attack
Single
Multiple Vehicles
Country in Which Installation Resides
•
Allowable Penetration Beyond the line of Barrier(s)
•
Sufficient Standoff Distance Between Planned Barrier and Protected Structure
•
Existing or Desired Traffic Patterns
Levels of Authorized Traffic
Peak Levels
Average Levels per Day
Types of Traffic
Staff
Freight
Visitors
Number of Available Traffic Lanes
One-Way Only
Reversible
Width and Separation
Minimization of Access Points
•
Vehicle Barrier Operating Protocol(s).
Deploy and Inspect
Maximum Throughput Rate
Per Day
Per Hour (peak)
Threat Dependent, Local / Remote Option
Sally Port Interlock with other Visual Barriers
24
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Automatic (Emergency Deployment)
Deployment Signal Source
Manual
Velocity Sensors
Direction Sensors
Other
Minimum Speed of Deployment
Automatic (Normal Authorized Traffic) Vehicle Identification Means
Parade
Lock down
Free Flow
•
Site (Civil Engineering)
Roadway Layout
Number of Lanes
Width
Flat / Sloping/ Crowned
Islands, etc.
Lane Separator(s)
Boundary / Passive Barriers
Approaching or Crossroad Locations
Sub Surface Conditions
Berms
Landscaping
Buried Utilities
Drainage
Frost Line
Water Table Height
•
Site (Facility Engineering)
Power Distribution Points
Communication Lines
Secure
Local
Existing Network Type
Required Network Type (Bus, Ring, Multiple Rings, Mesh, or
Combination)
Drainage
Utility Cabinets/ Equipment Lockers
Lighting
Traffic Signals/ Controls
Buried Vehicle Sensors
•
Site (General)
Environmental
25
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
High/ Low Temperatures
Rain Fall
Snow
Frost Line
Other
Power Sources
Location
Type
Local
Post-Emergency Backup
Voltage/ Phase/ Frequency
•
Barrier Selection
DOS / DoD Crash Rating
Note:
Both the U. S. Department of State and the U. S. Department of
Defense rate barriers based on full scale crash tests conducted by
independent test laboratories or government-approved facilities. See
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Protective Design
Center website for latest DoS and DoD certified barriers:
https://pdc.usace.army.mil/library/BarrierCertification/
The ‘K’ in a rating refers to the Kinetic Energy (K.E.) of the test
vehicle at the moment of impact.
A rating of K12, for example, indicates K.E. of approximately
1,200,000 ft-lb (165,960 kg-m) of energy (15,000 lb @ 50 mph [6,818
kg @ 80 kph]). A rating of K8, 800,000 ft-lb (110,640 kg-m) of energy
(15,000 lb @ 40 mph [6,818 kg @ 64 kph]) and K4, 400,000 ft-lb
(55,320 kg-m) of energy, (15,000 lb @ 30 mph [6,818 kg @ 48 kph]).
The ‘L’ rating refers to the penetration of the vehicle beyond the front
line of the barrier. A rating of ‘L3’ indicates the truck penetrated less
than 3.0 feet (0.9 m). A rating of ‘L2’ means penetration of less than
20.0 feet (6 m). And ‘L1’ means the penetration was less than 50.0
feet (15 m).
Active or Passive
Temporary or Permanent
Style of Barrier(s)
Wedge, Plate type (Phalanx) (In ground / surface / shallow mount)
Bollard
Rolling Gate
26
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Drop Arm
Transportable
Required Aesthetics, if any
Flush Mount Barriers to Road Surface
Width of Lane(s) to be Protected
Number of Lanes
Barriers to be Operated
Independently
Sets
Sally Port(s)
Speed of Operation
Normal
Emergency
Number of Operating Cycles per Barrier
Per Day
Per Hour (peak)
Available Training from Manufacturer
Availability of Spare Parts
Crash Test Results
Computer Analysis Results Using BIRM 3D (PDC TR90-2)
Environmental Protection
Winterizing
Cooler (Hydraulic Power Unit)
Galvanizing
Stainless Steel
Barrier Road Surface
Special Texture
Excessive Load (over 50,000 lbs)
Cost Effectiveness
•
Foundation/ Installation
Foundation Restrictions
Allowable Depth of Foundation
Extent of Foundation Allowable
Flush mount barrier system to road surface
Power Source
Distance from Barrier Line
Voltage/ Phase / Frequency
Power Available (watts)
Type of Source
Location of Enclosure for Hydraulic Power Unit
Existing Building
Vault
Stand Alone
Distance from Barrier Line
27
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Drainage
Color
Special Markings
Mounted Lights
Equipment Required to Move Barriers
OPERATING SYSTEMS CONSIDERATIONS
•
Control Circuits
Single Barrier
Multiple Barrier(s)
Local Control(s)
Local(s) with Remote Master(s)
Remote Empower and Override
Hand Held
Sally Port Interlock
Master to Slave Interconnect
Hard line
RF Link
Phone Line, Etc.
Remote / Local Status Signal(s)
Status Panel (Visual Indicators / Audible)
Barrier Position (Guard/ Open)
Cycling
Advance Warning
Open Beyond Time-out
Security Level
Is there constant surveillance?
•
Power off Operation
Hydraulic Reserve/Number of Cycles
Control Circuit/Battery Backup
Emergency Standby Power
Dedicated
On Site
Hydraulic Hand Pump
•
Power Failure Deployment
To Full Guard Position
To Full Open Position
•
Warning / Safety Signs/ Signals
Barrier Closing/ Opening
Lights
28
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Horns
Strobes, Etc.
Barrier in Guard Position
Lights
Horns
Red Traffic Signal (Steady/ Flashing)
Barrier Down and Clear (Yellow Traffic Signal)
Semaphore Gate Arms
Gate Arm Synchronized with Barriers Interlocked
Gate Down Before Barrier Deployment
Barrier Down Before Gate Opening
•
Emergency Fast Operation (EFO)
Signal Source
Automatic Sensors
Master(s) / Slave Panels(s)
Deploy Barriers/Speed
Lock Out
Slave Panels
Sub Masters
Automatic Entrance Controls
Deactivate (EFO)
Signal Source
Local Panel Authority
Local Guard
Supervisor
Key Switch
PIN
Master Panel Authority / Level
Some of these design and operating considerations, as well as other key issues,
are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
5-2.1
Fencing.
Fences should not be considered as protection against a moving vehicle attack.
Most fences can be easily penetrated by a moving vehicle and will resist impact
only if reinforcement is added. Fences are primarily used to:
a. Provide a legal boundary by defining the outermost limit of a facility
b. Assist in controlling and screening authorized vehicle entries into a
secured area by deterring overt entry elsewhere along the boundary
29
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
c. Support detection, assessment, and other security functions by
providing a "clear zone" for installing lighting, intrusion detection
equipment and CCTV
d. Deter "casual" intruders from penetrating into a secured area by
presenting a barrier that requires an overt action to penetrate
e. Cause an intruder to make an overt action that will demonstrate intent
f. Briefly delay penetration into a secured area or facility, thereby
increasing the possibility of detection
In the field of security, perimeter barriers provide the first line of defense for a
facility. The true value of a perimeter security fence comes in its association with
other components of a security system. When perimeter security is required, the
security fence forms the basic building block for the rest of the system. UFC 4022-03, Security Engineering: Fences, Gates and Guard Facilities should be
consulted for details on the use of fencing in barrier systems.
5-2.2
Location.
Active vehicle barriers can be located at facility entrances, enclave entry points
(gates), or selected interior locations (e.g., entrances to restricted areas). Exact
locations may vary among installations; however, in each case, the barrier should
be located as far from the critical structure as practical to minimize damage due
to possible explosion. Also, locate support equipment (e.g., hydraulic power,
generator, batteries, etc.) on the secure side and away from guard posts to lower
the threat of sabotage and injury to security personnel. Passive barriers can be
used at entry points, if traffic flow is restricted or sporadic (i.e., gates that are
rarely used). Passive barriers are normally used for perimeter protection. For
more information regarding the location of vehicle barriers, consult UFC 4-02201, Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities/Access Control Points.
5-2.3
Aesthetics.
The overall appearance of a vehicle barrier plays an important role in its selection
and acceptance. Many barriers are now made to blend in with the environment
and be aesthetically pleasing, minimizing a “fortress look”.
5-2.4
Safety.
An active vehicle barrier system is capable of inflicting serious injury. Even when
used for its intended purpose, it can kill or seriously injure individuals when
activated inadvertently, either by operator error or equipment malfunction.
Warning signs, lights, bells, and bright colors should be used to mark the
presence of a barrier and make it visible to oncoming traffic. These safety
30
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
features must always be provided to ensure personnel safety. The following
issues should be addressed to manufacturers and users to identify potential
safety issues affecting the selection of an active barrier system:
a. Backup power;
b. Emergency cutoff switch;
c. Adequate lighting;
d. Installation of safety options, such as alarms, strobes (or rotating
beacons), and safety interlock detectors to prevent the barrier from
being accidentally raised in front of or under an authorized vehicle;
e. Army exception – Installation of Traffic Safety Schemes; i.e., Vehicle
Presence Detection, Vehicle Platooning, etc., as outlined in the
“Standard Definitive Designs; Access Control Points for U.S. Army
Installations”.
Once installed, vehicle barriers should be well marked and pedestrian traffic
channeled away from the barrier system. For high-flow conditions, vehicle
barriers are normally open (allowing vehicles to pass) and used only when a
threat has been detected. In this case, the barrier must be located far enough
from the guard post to allow time to activate and close the barrier before the
threat vehicle can reach it. For low-flow conditions, or where threat conditions
are high, barriers are normally closed (stopping vehicle flow) and lowered only
after authorization has been approved.
5-2.5
Security.
Vehicle barriers must be ready to function when needed. A potential for
sabotage exists when barriers are left unattended or are located in remote or
unsecured areas. For these installation conditions, tamper switches should be
installed on all vehicle barrier access doors to controllers, emergency operation
controls and hydraulic systems. Tamper switches should be connected directly
to a central alarm station so that security of the barrier system can be monitored
on a continuous basis. Provide tamper resistant screws at all controls and
junction boxes.
5-2.6
Reliability.
Many barrier systems have been in production long enough to develop an
operations history under a variety of installation conditions. Reliability data from
manufacturers show less than a three-percent failure rate when these barriers
are properly maintained. Some systems have been placed in environments not
known to the manufacturer, while others have developed problems not
31
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
anticipated by either the manufacturer or user. Most manufacturers will help
resolve problems that arise in their systems. Backup generators or manual
override provisions are needed to ensure continued operation of active vehicle
barriers during power failure or equipment malfunction. Spare parts and supplies
should also be on hand to ensure that barriers are quickly returned to full
operation. If a high cycle rate is anticipated, or the environmental impact from
hydraulic fluid contamination is a concern, the selection of a pneumatic operating
system is recommended. Operate barrier system at least once every 24 hours to
assure performance for security operations. Perform this operation at low traffic
period or before opening to traffic. Maintain log of this operation.
5-2.7
Maintainability.
Many manufacturers provide wiring and hydraulic diagrams, maintenance
schedules, and maintenance procedures for their systems. They should also
have spare parts available to keep barriers in continuous operation. The
manufacturer should provide barrier maintenance support in the form of training,
operation manuals, and maintenance manuals. Maintenance contracts are
available from most manufacturers and are recommended to ensure proper
maintenance of the barrier and assurance that the barrier will function as
intended. Reliability and maintainability data are available from most
manufacturers. Yearly maintenance contracts are usually available from the
manufacturer and should be included in the planning process and budgeted.
Maintenance contracts should include inspection, adjustment, cleaning, pressure
checks on hydraulic systems, and replacement of worn parts.
5-2.8
Cost.
Traffic in restricted or sensitive areas should be minimized and the number of
access control points limited. Reducing traffic flow and the number of control
points will increase security and lower the overall cost of the system. Installation
and operational costs are a significant part of the overall cost of a barrier system
and must be addressed during the barrier selection process. Complexity and
lack of standardized components can result in high costs for maintenance and
create long, costly downtime periods. Reliability, availability, and maintainability
requirements on the system also affect costs. Annual maintenance needs to be
included in the cost of the system.
5-2.9
Barrier Operations.
A barrier must be capable of operating continuously and with minimal
maintenance and downtime to properly satisfy security requirements. System
failure modes must be evaluated to ensure that the barrier will fail in a
predetermined position (open or closed) based on security and operational
considerations. Selecting a normally open (allowing access) or closed
(preventing access) option should be evaluated based on traffic flow conditions
32
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
at the site (either existing or expected) and the overall site security plan.
Emergency operation systems (backup generators or manual override systems)
should be in place to operate the barrier in case of breakdowns or power failure.
Security personnel should be involved in the decision to deploy and use a vehicle
barrier system. If a normally open (allows traffic through) operation is selected,
there must be sufficient distance between the guard and the vehicle barrier to
allow for guard reaction time to activate the barrier, barrier deployment time, and
time required for selected safety regimes. Certain barriers use locking pins (most
notably crash beam type barriers) to lock down barrier. There have been
incidents when controls were activated to raise arm with locking pins inserted
causing damage to beam portion of barrier. Determine if pin is required for full
performance of barrier and inquire of manufacturer if a sensor system is available
that detects presence of pin. Ensure training of personnel to verify pin status
prior to operation of crash beam barriers.
5-2.10
Unobstructed Space.
Barriers installed in inner and outer security unobstructed space must be
designed so they will not provide a protective shield or hiding place. Tall,
continuous barriers, such as planters, Jersey Barriers, guardrails, and other
similar passive vehicle barriers can be a violation of mandated requirements, if
installed in a designated unobstructed space. Placement of any barriers near or
within this unobstructed space must be coordinated with the activity security
officer.
5-2.11
Environment.
The environment must be considered during the selection process. Hinges,
hydraulics, or surfaces with critical tolerances may require heaters to resist
freezing temperatures and ice buildup. They may also require protection from
excessive heat, dirt, humidity, salt water, sand, high water table, and debris. If
options for protection against environmental conditions are not available, the
system may be unsuitable for a specific location. Maintenance should be
increased and/or compensating options (i.e., sump pumps, heaters, hydraulic
fluid coolers, etc.) selected for vehicle barriers subject to severe environmental
conditions to ensure acceptable operation. In cold regions and during winter
months, it is recommended to increase operation of the barrier system to cycle
hydraulic fluids through lines. See Reliability paragraph above.
5-2.12
Installation Requirements.
The vehicle barrier selected must be compatible with the available power source
and with other security equipment installed at the selected site, such as
perimeter intrusion detection and CCTVs designed to detect and assess covert
penetration of the perimeter. Power requirements can vary depending upon the
manufacturer and location of the installation.
33
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
5-2.13
Facility Compatibility.
The chosen barrier system must be compatible with other security components in
place at a site. For example, an active barrier system should not be installed
adjacent to an unhardened, chain-link fence because the fence then becomes
the weakest path. The cost and value of the active barrier as a preventive
measure is then lost. Any decisions on facility compatibility should be
coordinated with UFC 4-022-01, Security Engineering: Entry Control
Facilities/Access Control Points.
5-2.14
Operator Training.
Most manufacturers recommend operator training for active barrier systems.
Operator training prevents serious injury and legal liability, as well as equipment
damage caused by improper operations. If a manufacturer does not provide a
thorough program for operator training, the user should develop a checklist for
normal and emergency operating procedures.
5-2.15
Options.
Manufacturers offer a number of optional features that can be added to the
baseline systems. Some options enhance system performance, while others
improve maintainability or safety. Options increase system cost and may also
increase maintenance requirements. Selection of options depends on
operational, safety, security, site, and environmental conditions. The
manufacturers of certified DoS anti-ram vehicle barriers listed in can be
contacted to determine available options for specific vehicle barrier systems.
These manufacturers can provide guidance on available options and will make
recommendations that will enhance barrier operations.
5-2.16
Operational Cycle.
The frequency of operation must be considered in the selection process. Where
traffic flow is light, a manually operated or removable passive system may work
well at considerable savings. However, for high-traffic conditions (especially
during peak hours), an automatically controlled system designed for repeated
and fast open and close operation (pneumatic or hydraulic) would be more
desirable. The use of one or more barriers at an entry point can also improve
throughput.
5-2.17
Methods of Access Control.
When selecting an active barrier, consider how vehicles will be allowed access.
If a vehicle must be searched for explosives, a sally port design should be used,
which will trap the vehicle between two active barriers while it is being searched.
34
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
This will prevent the vehicle from proceeding into the secured area before it has
been searched and prevent escape (see Figure 4-2).
Access control can be accomplished with a staffed guard station or, remotely,
using card or biometric access control devices that automatically activate the
barrier (subject to random searches). The barrier can also be operated from a
protected location other than the entry control point, using CCTV and remote
controls. Access control systems are available as options from vehicle barrier
manufacturers (see \1\manufacturer specific website for additional
information/1/). Vehicle-sensing loops on the secure side of the vehicle barrier
should always be included to prevent activation of the barrier until the vehicle has
completely cleared the system. If card access control systems are used,
procedures must be included to prevent tailgating (authorized vehicle must wait
until the barrier has closed completely before proceeding).
5-2.18
Cost Effectiveness.
Tradeoffs on protective measures may include:
a. Locating the vehicle barrier to provide optimum separation distance
b. Slowing down vehicles approaching the barrier, using obstructions or
redesign of the access route
c. Barrier open to permit access vs. closed to prevent access
d. Active vs. passive barriers
e. System-activating options: manual vs. automatic, local vs. remote,
electrical vs. hydraulic
f. Safety, reliability, availability, and maintainability characteristics
5-2.19
Liabilities.
Possible legal issues resulting from accidents (i.e., deaths, injuries) and legal
jurisdiction (i.e., state, local, foreign country) must be deliberated with the
installation legal representatives when deciding to install an active vehicle barrier
system.
5-3
ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.
The following actions are also to be considered when selecting and installing
barrier systems.
a. If the location of a vehicle barrier is in an area of high water table,
consider using a surface mounted or shallow profile barrier system.
35
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Below ground barriers can be installed if the required installation depth
is above the water table. If the excavation cannot be drained, water
collection could cause corrosion, and freezing weather may
incapacitate the system.
b. When barriers are installed at entrance and exit gates, also consider
installing passive barrier systems along the remaining accessible
perimeter of the protected area.
c. Protection of individual buildings or zones within the perimeter is
generally more cost-effective than extensive protection of a large
facility perimeter. For example, passive barriers installed in areas
where vehicles cannot reach, just to complete a perimeter barrier
system, are not effective use of security funding
d. Since most types of active barriers can be easily sabotaged, consider
installing active barriers only in areas where they can be under
continuous observation.
e. Barriers should be used to divert traffic or prevent entry or exit.
Installation of barriers immediately adjacent to guard posts is not
desirable because the possibility of injury should be minimized.
Consider keeping vehicle barriers as far from guard posts as possible.
f. Barriers should be installed on the exit side of an access control point,
as well as the entrance.
g. Long, straight paths to a crash-resistant barrier can result in increased
vehicle speed and greater kinetic energy upon possible impact. Where
this cannot be avoided, installation of a passive-type barrier maze
should be considered to slow the vehicle.
h. Design passive barrier systems to comply the requirements of the
DEPSECDEF Memorandum, “Access for People with Disabilities”
dated 31 October 2008. The memorandum updates the DoD
standards for making facilities accessible to people with disabilities.
The US Access Board issued an update of the accessibility guidelines
which the DEPSECDEF Memorandum implements with military unique
requirements specified in the memorandum attachment. The new
DoD, “ABA (Architectural Barriers Act) Accessibility Standard” and the
DEPSECDEF Memorandum are located at http://www.accessboard.gov/ada%2daba/aba-standards-dod.cfm .
5-4
BARRIER CAPABILITY.
36
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
In general, vehicle-crash-resistant barriers should be considered at vehicle
access points to sensitive areas and enclaves. Active and passive barriers
should be tested against specific threats (vehicle weight and speed). Passive
barrier only designs can be analyzed using finite element analysis or computer
programs specifically developed to analyze performance of vehicle barriers. It is
recommended that passive barriers be physically tested before being utilized. All
active barriers concepts are required to be physically tested in accordance with
DoS/ASTM standards prior to deployment. Supplemental gate and fencing
reinforcements may also be needed to provide the same level of protection.
The acceptable penetration distance will vary among installations, depending
upon the locations of the barriers relative to the assets to be protected. The
appropriate penetration distance for a given facility should be determined by the
threat and risk assessments and physical security survey results as indicated by
the process outlined in UFC 4-020-01, Security Engineering Facilities Planning
Manual and UFC 4-020-02, Security Engineering Facilities Design Manual. For
an illustration, refer to Example 1 in Appendix \1\D/1/ of this document.
In the example, the barrier system selected as a candidate barrier must be
capable of stopping the vehicle and allowing little or no penetration. Sufficient
standoff distance is not available to protect Building 827 from the expected
explosive-loading conditions. Possible options would include moving the barriers
further away from the target, closing the perimeter roads to traffic, hardening
building 827 against increased blast-loading conditions or accepting additional
risk to the structure.
For static perimeter barriers, it is important to note that weight alone will not
prevent penetration. As described in paragraph 6-2.2, concrete barriers used to
protect against vehicle impact should be anchored to a concrete foundation, if the
impact angle is expected to exceed 30 degrees.
5-5
VEHICLE BARRIER CERTIFICATION.
When the Department of State (DoS) published the standard SD-STD-02.01,
Revision A, March 2003 “Test Method for Vehicle Crash Testing of Perimeter
Barriers and Gates”, the penetration distance of a vehicle into a barrier was
limited to 1 m. The DoS list of certified barriers was developed under ‘Revision A’
and all barriers allowing penetration in excess of 1 m were removed from the list.
Most DoD components have sufficient standoff and can utilize barriers which
allow penetration distances in excess of 1m. Due to this and other needs the
requirement for a national standard for crash testing of perimeter was
established.
ASTM F 2656-07 Standard Test Method for Vehicle Crash Testing of Perimeter
Barriers has been published and is being adopted by both DoD and DoS for
certification/approval of vehicle barriers. This standard includes more vehicle
37
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
types and differing penetration depths. The ASTM test vehicles, overall test
protocol, instrumentation, measurements, and report requirements are
standardized to provide consistent procedures and requirements for barrier
manufacturers and accredited testing facilities.
Under ASTM F 2656-07 barrier manufacturers are required to utilize an
accredited independent testing laboratory. Laboratory accreditation must be
done in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025. Laboratories that are not ISO/IEC 1705
accredited but whose testing protocols are accepted by a federal agency may
also conduct tests for a period of one year after performing the first test using
ASTM F 2656-07. However, it is unlikely that this acceptance will be extended
beyond those facilities which have previously been given permission to conduct
tests in accordance with the current DoS anti-ram vehicle barrier testing criteria.
Without the federal agency acceptance, the testing facilities will be required to
complete accreditation prior to crash testing of vehicle barriers under this ASTM.
The PDC will continue to maintain a list of approved anti-ram vehicle barriers for
DoD. Currently DoS is maintaining their list as well. Barriers on either the DoS
list or DoD list are approved for use on DoD projects. If a time comes when the
DoS list is no longer kept the PDC will take the information from the DoS list and
incorporate it into the DoD list to make it a comprehensive list of barriers for DoD
application. Note that not all DoD sites have standoff suitable for barriers which
allow more than 1m of penetration. The list of DoD approved anti-ram vehicle
barriers and the DoS list of certified anti-ram vehicle barriers are available on the
PDC web site: https://pdc.usace.army.mil/library/BarrierCertification
Any barrier that is on the current DoS-certified anti-ram vehicle barrier list may
be used by DoD, as well as any barriers listed on the current DoD approved antiram vehicle barrier list. The DoD list includes information on permissible barrier
widths as well as information on penetration of the vehicle during the impact test.
Barrier systems must be installed in the ‘as certified’ condition. Only those
widths contained in the DoS and DoD approved anti-ram barrier lists are
considered acceptable for DoD use.
38
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
CHAPTER 6 - ACTIVE AND PASSIVE BARRIERS
6-1
ACTIVE BARRIER SYSTEMS.
Commercially available active vehicle barrier systems are presented in this section as
generic representations. Inclusion of any equipment in this section does not constitute
an endorsement, nor is this a complete listing of vehicle barriers that are commercially
available. The equipment shown here is for illustration purposes only. Selection of a
specific barrier should be based on site conditions and results of the design, selection,
and installation checklist provided in Chapter 5. Results of this checklist can be used to
establish cost, operational, performance, and environmental requirements. The
checklist results can also be used to select the optimum active and passive barriers
from those presented in this section. Users are advised to consult with manufacturers
on current and more detailed information regarding products and options available. \1\
/1/ See United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Protective Design Center,
Omaha District (https://pdc.usace.army.mil/library/BarrierCertification for latest versions
of DoS and DoD certified anti-ram vehicle barriers. Currently barriers are being tested
to be in conformance with ASTM F 2656-07. DoS and DoD are beginning to accept
vehicle barriers systems tested in conformance with ASTM F 2656-07.
Barrier systems used must be listed in either the Department of State (DoS) certified or
Department of Defense (DoD) approved anti-ram vehicle barrier lists. Barrier widths
shall be 'as certified/approved' on these lists. Alternatively, if a barrier system's width is
between the widths of two listed barrier systems that are identical except for their
widths, then that barrier system is also acceptable. Exceptions and acceptable widths
will only be taken from the DoD anti-ram vehicle barrier list. The design and structural
materials of the vehicle barrier furnished shall be the same as those used in the crash
tested barrier. Crash test must have be performed and data compiled by an approved
independent testing agency in accordance with either ASTM F 2656 or SD-STD-02.01.
Barriers tested and certified on the previous Department of State standard, SD-STD02.01, April 1985, and listed on the DoD approved anti-ram vehicle barrier list are also
acceptable.
6-1.1
Portable Vehicle Barriers.
6-1.1.1
Description.
The portable vehicle barrier shown in Figure 6-1 is a movable, self-contained, portable
roadway barrier, referred to as the vehicle surface barrier system (Example 1). It can
be controlled as a manned checkpoint. Example standard equipment for this sample
portable vehicle barrier is a 50-ft (15.2-m) cord attached to a control box. For
unmanned control, options include either an electric card reader or keypad. The selfcontained hydraulic system is located in the curb panels and sealed to prevent fluid
leaks. The unit can be placed on any roadway or other flat surface (with passive
barriers installed to prevent bypass). Once the electricity is connected, the system is
operational. This barrier is best used for temporary installations, where high water table
39
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
is a concern, or where portability is a requirement. Contact the manufacturer for current
cost information. Example performance data are shown in Table 6-1 as Example 1.
A second example of a portable barrier system is depicted in Figure 6-2. This portable
high security anti-terrorist vehicle crash barrier can be towed into position by a mediumsized truck. The barrier can be deployed in 15 minutes and can be operated either
locally or remotely. The wheels are stored on the side, and the vehicle ramps are
folded out upon deployment. Its deployment, retrieval, and operation are all hydraulic
and push-button controlled. The system can be equipped with a battery-operated
power unit or a hydraulic power unit operated on a locally-supplied power or full manual
system, or combination. Example performance data are provided in Table 6-1 as
Example 2.
Another portable barrier system (Example 3) is shown in Figure 6-3. This barrier is
designed to be rapidly deployed in an emergency situation and fully operational in 15
minutes. It can be towed to a site by a truck then lowered into position using built-in
jacks. The barrier can be an instant road block and can be installed in areas where
foundation work cannot be safely or quickly poured. Stabilizers on the back side of the
unit serve as additional reinforcement. The electro-hydraulic version of this barrier uses
standard relay logic to allow control of the barrier with the supplied push-button control
station. Example performance data are provided in Table 6-1 as Example 3.
A fourth example of a portable barrier system is illustrated in Figure 6-4. This maximum
security vehicle arrest barrier can be relocated and deployed in less than 20 minutes
upon arriving at its intended setup destination. The barrier does not require excavation
and will not mark or damage the road surface. Although it is normally operated
manually, it can be supplied with a hydraulic operating system. Example performance
data are provided in Table 6-1 as Example 4.
6-1.1.2
Testing.
The vehicle surface barrier (Example 1) was tested by the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC), Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) at a
vehicle barrier test bed in China Lake, California. Upon impact, the cab of a 15,200-lb
(6,909-kg) truck, moving at 50.5 mph (81 kph), was crushed. The portable vehicle
barrier, with the truck on top, slid 9.2 ft (2.8 m).
Both the Example 2 and Example 3 portable barrier systems have been certified by DoS
as Level K4/L1 barriers. They will stop and disable a 15,000-lb (6,818-kg) truck, moving
at 30 mph (48 kph). The manufacturers can provide crash test data.
The Example 4 portable barrier system has several versions. The version depicted in
Figure 6-4 has been crash-certified by DoS as K12/L2. It will stop a 15,000-lb (6,818kg) truck, traveling at 50 mph (80 kph). Specific crash test data can be obtained from
the manufacturer.
40
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-1 Vehicle Surface Barrier (Example 1)
Table 6-1 Performance Data for Portable Vehicle Barriers
Example
1*
Height, in. (cm)
Width, in. (cm)
Normal operating cycle (seconds)
Emergency operating cycle
(seconds)
Kinetic energy absorbed in
impact testing, ft-lbf (kgf-m) x one
million
*DoS certified
30 (76)
96 (244)
3
1
1.2 (0.16)
41
Example
2*
10 - 15
Example
3*
144 (366)
15
Example
4*
31 (78.7)
144 (366)
3-5
1.2 (0.16)
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-2 Portable High Security Anti-Terrorist Vehicle Crash Barrier (Example 2)
Figure 6-3 Portable Barrier (Example 3)
Figure 6-4 Maximum Security Vehicle Arrest Barrier (Example 4)
42
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
6-1.2
High-Security Barricade System.
6-1.2.1
Description.
The high-security barricade systems, shown in Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6, are selfcontained, hydraulically or pneumatically-operated units that, depending on the model,
rise to various heights. These barriers are intended for high-speed impact conditions.
Models are available for site conditions where shallow foundations are required.
Performance data for an example system are shown in Table 6-2.
6-1.2.2
Testing.
Numerous manufacturers now produce DoS-certified high-security barriers which have
been formally crash-tested\1\ /1/ The manufacturers should provide crash data for DoScertified models. An example model was tested by Sandia National Laboratories with a
6,000-lb (2,727-kg) vehicle, traveling at 50 mph (80 kph), that penetrated the barrier 27
ft (8.2 m) and an 18,000-lb (8,182-kg) vehicle, traveling at 30 mph (48 kph), that
penetrated 29 ft (8.8 m). Another model was tested by Southwest Research Institute for
DoS using a 15,000-lb (6,818-kg) vehicle, traveling at 50 mph (80 kph), that penetrated
less than 3 ft (0.9 m). A manufacturer tested a third model, using a 15,000-lb (6,818-kg)
vehicle, traveling at 50 mph (80 kph), that penetrated less than 3 ft (0.9 m).
Figure 6-5 Example High-Security Barricade System (Wedge Type)
43
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-6 Example High-Security Barricade System (Flush-Mounted)
44
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Table 6-2 Performance Data for Example High-Security Barricade System
Example
System*
Height, in. (cm)
Width, in. (cm)
Normal operating cycle
(seconds)
Emergency operating cycle
(seconds)
Kinetic energy absorbed in
impact testing, ft-lbf (kgf-m)
x one million
Kinetic energy rating by
engineering analysis, ft-lbf
(kgf-m) x one million
(destruction of vehicle with
some damage to barrier)
*DoS certified
6-1.3
Bollard System.
6-1.3.1
Description.
38 (96)
84 to 144
(213 to
366)
3 to 15
Example
FlushMounted
System*
36 (91)
144 (366)
3 to 15
<1.5
<1.5
.12 (0.16)
.12 (0.16)
.40 (0.55)
.32 (0.44)
Numerous manufacturers now produce DoS-certified bollard systems which have been
formally crash-tested. \1\ /1/ The manufacturers should provide crash data for DoScertified models. The example bollards shown in Figure 6-7 are 10-in (25.4-cm)
diameter steel bollards that are 30 in. (0.76 m) high. They can be lifted into position
either manually (60-lb (27-kg) pull) or hydraulically. The compact size and ease of
operation make this system particularly well-suited as either a stand-alone or a backup
to existing pedestrian gates in the single post configuration. They can also be used to
secure wide entrances when the cost for installing larger systems becomes prohibitive.
Flush mount top of bollard system to surrounding pavement is required.
Hydraulically-operated bollards can be operated individually or in sets, with up to 24
bollards controlled from a single hydraulic power unit. Typical performance data are
shown in Table 6-3.
See paragraph 5.3 h Additional Design Considerations, for handicap accessibility
requirements.
45
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
6-1.3.2
Testing.
Sandia National Laboratories tested an example model with a 15,180-lb (6,900-kg)
vehicle at 32 mph (51 kph), penetrating the barrier 12.2 ft (3.7 m). An example model
was tested by the NFESC and DoS with a 10,000-lb (4,545-kg) vehicle at 40 mph (64
kph) that failed to penetrate the barrier.
Figure 6-7 Example Bollard System
46
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Table 6-3 Performance Data for Example Bollard System
Height, in. (cm)
Width, in. (cm)
Normal operating cycle
(seconds)
Emergency operating cycle
(seconds)
Kinetic energy absorbed in
impact testing, ft-lbf (kgf-m)
x one million
Kinetic energy rating by
engineering analysis, ft-lbf
(kgf-m) x one million
(destruction of vehicle with
some damage to barrier)
*DoS certified
6-1.4
Crash Beam Barrier System.
6-1.4.1
Description.
Example *
30 (76)
10 (25) @ 2
ft (0.6 m) on
center
3 to 15
<1.5
0.445 (0.06)
1.9 (0.26)
Numerous manufacturers now produce DoS-certified crash beam barrier systems which
have been formally crash-tested\1\ /1/ The manufacturers should provide crash data for
DoS-certified models. Crash beam barrier systems, such as the one shown in Figure 68, are cable-reinforced, manually or hydraulically-operated, bollard-mounted barriers.
The beam is counterbalanced and lifts at one end to allow vehicle access. This system
is frequently used for low impact conditions (when vehicle speed can be limited) and as
the interior barrier (after a primary high impact barrier) for vehicle inspection areas or
sally ports. Typical performance data for an example barrier are shown in Table 6-4.
See “Barrier Operations” paragraph, 5.2.9, for specific operation requirements for crash
beam systems.
47
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-8 Cable-Reinforced Crash Beams
Table 6-4 Performance Data for Cable-Reinforced Crash Beams
Example Model
Height, in. (cm)
Length, in. (cm)
30 (76) to 36 (91)
120 (305) to 240 (610)
Note 1
8 to 15
Not available
Normal operating cycle (seconds)
Emergency operating cycle
(seconds)
Kinetic energy absorbed in impact 0.0965 (0.013)
testing, ft-lbf (kgf-m) x one million
1. Contact vendor to verify length and performance of barrier
tested
6-1.4.2
Testing.
The example crash beam barrier has been tested by the NFESC at the China Lake test
facility. A 10,000-lb (4,545-kg) vehicle at 17 mph (27 kph) impacted the sample barrier
and rebounded. There is now a K12 certified crash beam barrier system available as
well.
6-1.5
Crash Gate System.
48
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
6-1.5.1
Description.
A crash gate system, such as the example system illustrated in Figure 6-9, is a sliding
gate that offers pedestrian access and resistance to heavy vehicle impact. The
example system is electromechanically operated with a 30 to 100 ft/min (9 to 30 m/min)
sliding speed (instantly reversible). Safety infrared sensors and front edge obstacle
sensors are standard features. A tested manual version of a crash gate is also
available. Gate systems are normally used where aesthetics is an issue or where wide
opening is required [up to 25-ft (7.6 m) clear opening]. Most systems can be used for
both portable and permanent construction. Typical performance data are shown in
Table 6-5.
Figure 6-9 Example Linear Crash Gate
Table 6-5 Performance Data for Example Linear Crash Gate
Example System*
Height, in. (cm)
Length, in. (cm)
Normal operating cycle (Ft (m) per
minute)
Emergency operating cycle
(seconds)
Kinetic energy absorbed in impact
testing, ft-lbf (kgf-m) x one million
*DoS certified
49
108 (274)
144 (365) to 300 (762)
30 (9) to 100 (30)
Not applicable
1.2 (0.16)
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
6-1.5.2
Testing.
Three tests have been conducted on the example crash gate system by the NFESC, in
conjunction with DoS, using vehicles weighing approximately 15,000 lbs (6,818 kg). At
speeds of 34 and 40 mph (55 and 65 kph), the vehicle did not penetrate the sliding gate.
At 55 mph (89 kph), the vehicle penetrated the sliding gate 5.5 ft (1.7 m).
6-1.6
Ground Retractable Automobile Barrier (GRAB).
6-1.6.1
Description.
A ground retractable barrier is an attenuating device designed to span a roadway or
traffic lane to bring an encroaching vehicle to a controlled stop and prevent its passage.
An example system consists of a steel anchor post at each end, four hydraulic energy
absorbers, and a cable/net assembly. The anchor posts are made from two sections of
A36 steel pipe – a fixed 25-mm thick inner pipe with a 305-mm outer diameter and a 19mm thick, 381-mm outer diameter outer pipe, free to rotate around the anchor post.
Reusable hydraulic cylinders are set between the anchor posts and the net (two at each
end). The net consists of upper and lower 19-mm diameter Extra High Strength (EHS)
wire strands, with a 16-mm diameter wire rope in the center and 16-mm diameter wire
rope woven up and down along the width of the net and attached to the top, middle, and
bottom cables with clamps.
6-1.6.2
Testing.
The example GRAB was tested to the National Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Report 350 test level 2, with both the 1,800-lb (820-kg) car and the 4,400-lb (2000-kg)
truck impacting at the third point of the net at a nominal speed of 45-mph (70 km/h).
Both vehicles were stopped smoothly with no significant roll, pitch, or yaw. The
maximum dynamic deflection of the example GRAB was 20.7 ft (6.3 m) with the car and
21.7 ft (6.6 m) with the truck.
6-1.7
Maximum Security Barrier (MSB).
6-1.7.1
Description.
The MSB vehicle barrier (see example in Figure 6-10) is a hydraulically-operated barrier,
31 in. (79 cm) high by 14 ft (4.3 m) wide. It has a fully electronic, programmable
controller that provides a range of functions. Multiple barriers can be controlled from a
single hydraulic power system. Typical models can be moved without roadway
rebuilding. Installation can be completed in 24 hours by bolting the barriers to the
roadway. Some specific models are certified by DoS.
This type of barrier can also be an underground, flush-mounted barrier, as shown in
Figure 6-11. Most MSB models are similar in construction and operation, varying only
50
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
in the height of the barrier and surface foundation pad construction. Typical
performance data are shown in Table 6-6.
The MSB also is available as a surface-mounted barrier with a gate arm. It has been
crash-tested by the manufacturer, however they are not DoS certified. This system is
frequently used for low impact conditions (when vehicle speed can be limited) and as
the inside barrier (after a primary high impact barrier) for vehicle inspection areas or
sally ports. Typical performance data are shown in Table 6-6.
Figure 6-10 Example MSB Vehicle Barrier (Lift Plate Barricade System)
51
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-11 Second Example MSB Vehicle Barrier
Table 6-6 Performance Data for MSB Vehicle Barriers
Height, in. (cm)
Width, in. (cm)
Normal operating
cycle (seconds)
Emergency operating
cycle (seconds)
Kinetic energy
absorbed in impact
testing, ft-lbf (kgf-m) x
one million
Example
1*
Example
2*
31 (79)
168 (427)
10 ft (3m)
clear
3 to 5
33 (84)
168 (427)
10 ft (3m)
clear
3 to 5
1
1
1.2 (0.16)
1.2 (0.16)
*Not DoS certified
6-1.7.2
Testing.
The Example 1 barrier was tested by NFESC in conjunction with DoS. A 14,980-lb
(6,809-kg) vehicle at 50.3 mph (81 kph) failed to penetrate.
6-2
PASSIVE BARRIER SYSTEMS.
52
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
The following is a compilation of passive vehicle barrier systems used at DOD facilities.
Included are generic systems that can be constructed with the aid of self-help manuals,
using standard, and locally available materials. Some of the systems have not been
formally tested, but should inflict substantial damage on a vehicle if impacted. A
consolidated list of passive barriers, kinetic energy, and penetration data is provided in
Appendix \1\ C /1/. See paragraph 5.3 h Additional Design Considerations, for handicap
accessibility requirements.
6-2.1
Concrete-Filled Bollard.
6-2.1.1
Description.
Passive steel bollards can be constructed locally and are an effective means of
enhancing security against vehicular bomb attacks. Approved bollards are constructed
of structural steel pipe filled with concrete. The steel pipe should have a minimum
outside diameter of 8-in. (20-cm), 1/2-in. (1.2-cm) wall, and be a minimum of 7-ft (2.1-m)
in length. The bollards should extend 3 ft (0.9 m) above the ground level from a
continuous footing with minimum width of 2 ft (0.6 m), as shown in Figure 6-12 and
Figure 6-13. The bollards should be positioned 3 ft (0.9 m) ft apart on center (see
example layout in Figure 6-13 and Figure 6-14. Bollards should never be placed on the
un-secure side (outside) of a fence where they can be used as a climbing aid.
53
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-12 DOS Passive Anti-Ram Bollard Example
54
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-13 Example Bollard Design Section
Figure 6-14 Bollard Design Example Layout in Plan View
55
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
6-2.2
Concrete Median.
6-2.2.1
Description.
A concrete highway median (also known as a Jersey Bounce or Jersey Barrier) can be
effectively used as a perimeter vehicle barrier, but only if the medians are securely
fastened together. It can either be erected from pre-cast tongue-and-groove sections or
cast in place with special concrete-forming equipment. It is especially effective for
impact angles less than 30 degrees and is appropriate for locations where access roads
are parallel to the barrier. Complete penetration is possible with light vehicles; however,
damage to the vehicle will be extensive. If the potential impact angle from threat vehicle
is expected to exceed 30 degrees, anchor barrier to foundation. These barriers should
be set in a concrete foundation, as shown in Figure 6-15. Also barriers need to be
securely connected with a minimum of one 3/4 inch steel cable tying them together to
be effective.
6-2.2.2
Testing.
A non-reinforced, anchored, concrete median barrier was tested with a 4,000-lb (1,818kg) vehicle at 50 mph (81 kph). The vehicle penetrated the barrier 20 ft (6 m). The
vehicle had extensive front-end damage, and the occupants would have received
serious to critical injuries. During the impact, a section of the barrier was broken and
overturned. These barriers should be set in a concrete foundation, as shown in Figure
6-15, for applications where the impact angle exceeds 30 degrees. The barriers need
to be securely tied together to be effective.
56
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-15 Precast Non-Reinforced Concrete Median
6-2.3
King Tut Blocks.
6-2.3.1
Description.
Non-reinforced concrete blocks can be used effectively as vehicle barriers or to slow the
speed of oncoming vehicles, as shown in Figure 6-16. The placement of the blocks is
shown in Table 6-7. These blocks can be cast in place and should be anchored to the
ground so that movement or removal is difficult. Both Figure 6-16 and Table 6-7 are for
57
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
passenger vehicles only. If trucks are considered, the ability to control POV speeds is
lost. Thus, POV and truck traffic must be separated for optimum serpentine use.
Figure 6-16 Concrete Blocks
Table 6-7 Separation Distance (D)* for Barriers to Reduce Speed on a Straight
Path in Ft (m)
Achievable Speed of
Vehicle on a Curve in
mph (kph)→
Road Width in ft (m) ↓
20 (6.1)
30 (9.1)
40 (12.2)
50 (15.2)
60 (18.3)
*Based on f=1.0
6-2.3.2
20 (32)
30 (48)
40 (64)
50 (80)
60 (97)
28 (8.5)
40 (12.2)
47 (14.3)
51 (15.5)
54 (16.5)
43 (13.1)
63 (19.2)
77 (23.5)
87 (26.5)
96 (29.3)
58 (17.7)
86 (26.2)
106 (32.3)
122 (37.2)
135 (41.1)
73 (22.2)
108 (32.9)
134 (40.8)
155 (47.2)
172 (52.4)
87 (26.5)
130 (39.6)
161 (49.1)
187 (57.0)
209 (63.7)
Testing.
58
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
No formal crash testing has been conducted; however, the mass of this type of concrete
construction should perform at least as well as a concrete median (Figure 6-15).
6-2.4
Concrete Planter.
6-2.4.1
Description.
A concrete planter barrier (Figure 6-17) offers permanent protection from vehicle
penetration and can also be aesthetically pleasing.
Figure 6-17 Reinforced Concrete Planter
6-2.4.2
Testing.
This barrier was tested with a 15,000-lb (6,818-kg) vehicle traveling at 47 mph. The
vehicle did not penetrate the barrier. The planter is DoS K12 certified.
6-2.5
Excavations and Ditches.
59
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Ditches offer a simple method of rapidly securing a lengthy perimeter against a moving
vehicle tactic. They can function as permanent anti-vehicle barriers if the required ditch
profile is well maintained, or they can provide a temporary barrier before another
permanent vehicle barrier system is installed. The ditch profile, including the approach
slope, is critical to its ability to function as a vehicle barrier.
There are two vehicle attack methods against a ditch; 1) a slow covert attack where the
vehicle attempts to cross the ditch by approaching at a oblique angle almost parallel to
the ditch and going down and then up along the profile of the ditch, and 2) a fast attack
where the vehicle approaches perpendicular to the ditch at high speed and attempts to
jump the ditch. In the latter case, the flexibility in the vehicle suspension system and
inertia of the vehicle can allow the front wheels to roll over the far edge of the ditch even
if they do not fully clear the ditch. Also ditches are vulnerable to coordinated attacks,
where the ditch profile is modified in the initial attack and then a moving vehicle attack is
mounted across the ditch before it can be repaired.
Soil berms adjacent to the protected side of the ditch provide additional resistance to
vehicle attack but they also can make the ditch a more effective hiding place for
attackers on foot. This negative aspect of berms is less significant when there are
elevated observation positions near the ditch. Soil berms and placement of spoil from
ditch excavation on the attack side of the ditch should not be used because they provide
a ramp effect, or launch angle over the ditch for a fast vehicle attack, increasing the
capability of a vehicle to jump the ditch.
Numerous profiles for anti-vehicular ditches have been proposed in previous DoD
documents, that were based on ditches used primarily to slow tank attacks. These
profiles were not tested against simulated moving terrorist vehicle bombs until recently
when similar ditches, tested in the United Kingdom. The following conclusions were
determined from the United Kingdom tests:
a. Asymmetric V-shaped ditches with an inclined angle greater than 65 degrees
and a total width and depth equal or greater than 5 m and 1.2 m, respectively,
were able to stop the test vehicle.
b. The approach terrain on the attack side of the ditch should not have any
incline or spoil and preferably should have a slight decline.
c. Ditches will stop a fast vehicle attack provided the vehicle drops more than
75% of its wheel diameter in the space provided.
d. Trapezoidal ditches should be avoided in general due to a concern that a
vehicle can drive in and out of the ditch in a slow attack
The United Kingdom tests were not part of a comprehensive design project for antivehicular ditches that allowed the ditch profile to be optimized based on both resistance
to moving vehicle attack and practical construction considerations. A study by NAVFAC
was conducted to use observations from the United Kingdom tests, simple analyses of
60
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
moving vehicle trajectories over various ditch profiles, and a survey of large commercial
vehicle geometry information to design the three anti-vehicular ditches shown in Figures
6-18, 6-19 and 6-20. In all three figures, the protected side of the ditch is on the left.
Figure 6-18 Anti-Vehicular Ditch Profile with Incline Slope Requiring Stabilization
Figure 6-19 Anti-Vehicular Ditch Profile with Maximum Incline Slope Not
Requiring Stabilization
Figure 6-20 Anti-Vehicular Ditch Profile with Maximum Incline Slope Not
Requiring Stabilization or Berm
61
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Trajectory simulations of \1\ medium sized SUV’s /1/ at velocities up to 50 mph showed
that the vehicle impact angle relative to the inclined slope on the far side of the ditch
was at least 43 degrees for all the ditch profiles in Figure 6-18 through
The trajectory simulations were based on a simple physics derivation that ignored air
resistance and specific vehicle geometry characteristics. Figure 6-21 shows a trajectory
analysis where the approach angle at impact for the vehicle at 50 mph is 43 degrees.
This approach angle is sufficient to prevent the front bumper from clearing the top edge
of ditch for a range of commercial utility vehicles including Jeeps, Land Rovers, SUV’s,
and Hummers (except a Hummer 1) based on a limited survey of the geometry of these
vehicles by NAVFAC Atlantic. This survey also indicated that a 42 degree side slope or
greater was sufficient to cause all the surveyed vehicles to tip if they were trying to
make a cross the ditch at an oblique angle in a covert attack.
Figure 6-21 Simulated Trajectory Path and Impact Angle with Ditch Incline Slope
for Vehicle at Two Speeds
The most vehicle survey focused on the lower bumper reference line height of the
vehicles, which affects the maximum approach impact angle that could allow a vehicle
to clear the ditch, and the maximum side slope angle. The approach angle and lower
bumper reference line are illustrated in Figure 6-22 from the International Organization
of Motor Vehicle Manufacturer’s (OICA). Based on a limited survey of SUVs by the
OICA, the lower bumper reference height ranged from 340 mm (13.4”) to 500 mm
(19.7”). This information was used with a survey of SUV vehicle specifications to
determine maximum vehicle approach angles and side slope angles shown in Tables 618, 6-19 and 6-20. The side slope in Table 6-8 is the transverse angle the vehicle can
be at without tipping over.
62
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-22 Lower Bumper Reference Line and Vehicle Approach Angle
Table 6-8 Maximum Vehicle Approach Angles and Side Slope Angles
Vehicle
Jeep Liberty
Jeep Commander
Hummer H3
Hummer H1
Hummer H2
Land Rover LR3
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Land Rover Range Rover
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Mercedes G-Class
Toyota 4 Runner
Maximum Approach Angle
(degrees)
38.1
34
39.4
72
41
37
34
34
34
36
31
Maximum Side Slope Angle
(degrees)
40
40
35
41
28.4
The berms in Figure 6-18 and Figure 6-19 are essentially safety factors and they are
recommended given the approximations in the analyses used to design the ditch
profiles. The profile in Figure 6-18 provides the highest amount of resistance against a
moving vehicle threat, but it requires a stabilized slope, such as concrete riprap or sandbag cover, since natural soil cannot maintain a 45 degree slope. The profile in Figure 619 provides less resistance against a moving vehicle threat, but sandy soil can
theoretically maintain a 34 degree slope. Finally, the profile in Figure 6-20 is similar to
Figure 6-19 except that it does not have the additional safety factor of a berm for
stopping a moving vehicle threat. As mentioned previously, the berm may be
considered unacceptable because it may provide a potential hiding place for attackers
on foot. The declined approach slope helps to some effect, to offset the reduced
resistance to a moving vehicle threat caused by deletion of the berm.
6-2.6
Guardrails.
6-2.6.1
Description.
63
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Standard highway guardrails or median barriers can be used as perimeter vehicle
barriers (Figure 6-23). Guardrail design procedures can be found in the AASHTO
Roadside Design Guide and AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and
in many state DOT standard drawings. Guardrails are normally designed to redirect
vehicles approaching at angles less than or equal to 25 degrees and are not
recommended as perimeter vehicle barrier for approach angles greater than 25
degrees..
A cable guardrail (AASHTO type G1) consists of three ¾-inch diameter steel cables,
spaced 3 inches apart. The posts used are S3x5.7 steel, spaced at 16-ft intervals. The
height, measured from the surface to the top rail, is 30 inches. From the end post, all
three cables are turned down at a 45-degree angle and anchored to buried concrete
deadmen.
A W-beam flexible guardrail (AASHTO type G2) consists of a 12 gauge “W” section
bolted to S3x5.7 steel posts, spaced at 12 ft 6 in. intervals. A Blocked-Out W beam
(AASHTO type G4) guardrail system uses a 12 gauge “W” section bolted to W6x8.5
posts, spaced at 6 ft 3 in. intervals. The AASHTO Guide for Selecting, Locating and
Designing Traffic Barriers provides four post and blocking alternatives for this guardrail
system. A thrie beam (AASHTO type G9) guardrail system consists of a steel thrie
beam bolted to W6x8.5 steel posts at 6 ft 3 in. intervals.
A box-beam guardrail (AASHTO type G3) system consists of a 6 in. x 6 in. x 0.180 in.
steel tube bolted to S3x5.7 steel posts, spaced at 6 ft 4 in. intervals.
Figure 6-23 Guardrails
6-2.6.2
Testing.
The cable guardrail system successfully redirected both low profile 3,500 lb (1,587 kg)
vehicles and a 4,100 lb (1,850 kg) van, as well as other 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) vehicles,
during testing for impact angles of 25 degrees or less. Tests of the W beam system
64
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
resulted in redirection of a vehicle with an impact angle of 25 degrees, but the
redirected vehicle was airborne for a distance of 50 ft. During testing of the BlockedOut W beam system, the barrier successfully redirected low profile vehicles with impact
angles of equal to or less than 25 degrees. This system caused several vans and other
vehicles with high centers of gravity to overturn after impact. Tests of the thrie beam
system provided a smooth redirection of vehicles when the impact angle was 25
degrees or less. The box beam guardrail system tested provided excellent redirection
of the vehicle.
6-2.7
Heavy Equipment Tires.
6-2.7.1
Description.
Heavy equipment tires, half-buried in the ground and tamped to hold them rigid, can be
effective vehicle barriers (Figure 6-24). Use tires that are 7 to 8 ft (2.1 to 2.4 m) in
diameter. Heavy equipment tires can usually be obtained locally from salvage
operations for the cost of hauling them away.
Figure 6-24 Heavy Equipment Tire Barrier
6-2.7.2
Testing.
Buried equipment tires were tested using a 3,350-lb (1,523-kg) vehicle traveling at 51
mph (82 kph). The vehicle penetrated the barrier 1-ft (0.3-m). The tires used were 36
ply, 8 ft in diameter (2.4 m), and weighed 2,000 lbs (909 kg) each.
65
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
6-2.8
Tire Shredders.
6-2.8.1
Description.
Tire shredders can be either surface-mounted or imbedded, as shown in Figure 6-25.
These devices are normally used for traffic control purposes and are designed to slow
or stop a vehicle by deflating their pneumatic tires. These units are available from a
number of commercial manufacturers. Delta Scientific Corporation manufactures the
unit shown in Figure 6-25. When a vehicle drives over the mechanism in the wrong
direction, the spikes penetrate the tire casing, which quickly deflates the tires, making
the vehicle difficult to operate for extended periods. These systems should not be
considered vehicle barriers. Tire shredders are not recommended where vehicle traffic
drives over these devices at speeds exceeding 5 mph. These systems may also not be
effective against modern “run flat” tires, heavy-duty truck tires, or extra-wide tires that
can bridge over two or more spikes. Tire shredders have a very limited capability to
stop a vehicle.
Figure 6-25 Tire Shredders
6-2.8.2
Testing.
These systems have not been formally tested, and as indicated above are not
considered a vehicle barrier.
6-2.9
Steel Cable Barriers.
6-2.9.1
Description.
66
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
As shown in Figure 6-26, there are several configurations for steel cable barriers. Site
requirements, configuration, and environment must be carefully considered prior to
selecting a cable system for a particular application.
6-2.9.2
Testing.
Systems such as those shown in Figure 6-26 have not been formally tested. However,
two 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) diameter cables attached to a 200-ft section of fence, minus fabric,
with deadman anchors at both ends were tested with a 4,000-lb (1,818-kg) vehicle at 52
mph (84 kph). The vehicle was stopped within 13 ft (4 m) and then pushed back to the
impact point. For additional considerations, details, and design guidance relating to the
use of steel cables in fencing and gates, refer to UFC 4-022-03.
67
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
2’-0”
Figure 6-26 Steel Cable Barriers
8’-6”
6-2.10
Steel Cable-Reinforced Chain Link Fencing.
6-2.10.1
Description.
Without some reinforcement, a standard chain-link fence can be penetrated easily by a
light vehicle with little or no damage. However, standard fencing can be reinforced to
provide a cost-effective method to protect against the threat of penetration by light
vehicles, as in Figure 6-26 and Figure 6-27. Although no required pre-tension is
68
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
specified for the cable, it is generally considered acceptable that it should be snug and
not have significant sag. Routine (usually daily) perimeter inspection should include
checking for visible sagging. At this time, there is no specific sag measurement
benchmark, so checking for “visible” sag is a conservative approach. Regularly
scheduled inspections should also check for corrosion of fittings, including the
turnbuckles, anchor bolts, U-bolts, any swaged fittings, and cable clamps. Cable
clamps should be inspected as well to insure no nuts have become loose. For
additional considerations, details, and design guidance relating to the reinforcing of
fencing and gates, refer to UFC 4-022-03.
Figure 6-27 Typical Steel Cable Reinforced Chain-Link Fencing
69
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
6-2.10.2
Testing.
Sandia National Laboratories tested a barrier consisting of a chain link fence reinforced
with a 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) cable. In this test, a 3,350-lb (1,523-kg) vehicle traveling at 23.5
mph (38 kph) penetrated the barrier 7 ft (2.1 m). A 4,050-lb (1,841-kg) vehicle, traveling
at 50.6 mph (82 kph), penetrated 26 ft (7.9 m), and the cable failed at the impact
location. A test using two cables with no fabric was impacted by a 4,000-lb (1,814-kg)
vehicle, traveling at 52 mph (84 kph), and the vehicle penetrated 13 ft (4 m) and then
pushed back to the original fence line. Engineering analysis of various cable restraint
configurations, using the BIRM computer model (PDC-TR90-2), is shown in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9 Performance of Cable Restraint Systems
Cable Barrier w/200-ft
Anchorage Spacing
Kinetic Energy in
ft-lbf x 1,000 (kgfm)
Penetration
in
Ft (m)
1 Cable @ 3/4-in. dia.
2 Cables @ 3/4-in. dia.
3 Cables @ 3/4-in. dia.
4 Cables @ 3/4-in. dia.
1 Cable @ 1-in. dia.
2 Cables @ 1-in. dia.
3 Cables @ 1-in. dia.
4 Cables @ 1-in. dia.
100 (13.8)
200 (27.6)
338 (46.7)
418 (57.8)
150 (20.7)
340 (47.0)
506 (70.0)
706 (97.6)
40 (12.2)
40 (12.2)
40 (12.2)
40 (12.2)
40 (12.2)
40 (12.2)
40 (12.2)
40 (12.2)
6-2.11
Reinforced Concrete Knee Walls.
6-2.11.1
Description.
When a perimeter wall or fence line needs to also serve as a vehicle barrier, it must
meet passive vehicle barrier standards. This can be achieved by using a reinforced
concrete knee wall structure. A knee wall barrier is a wall resting on a footing. The
entire footing and part of the wall are imbedded in the existing soil or in a crushed stone
mix. Figures 6-28, 6-29 and 6-30 show representative cross sections of this type of
barrier.
70
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-28 Anti-Ramming Foundation Wall
71
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-29 Anti-Ramming Knee Wall Section
72
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure 6-30 Reinforced Concrete Knee Wall Details
6-2.11.2
Testing.
Reinforced concrete knee walls have been formally tested. A configuration similar to
Figure 6-28 was tested with a 15,000-lb (6,818-kg) vehicle traveling at 50 mph (80 kph).
The wall effectively stopped the attack vehicle within 3.28 ft (1 m).
6-2.12
Plastic Barrier Systems.
6-2.12.1
Description.
Plastic barrier systems (Figure 6-31) are available from several manufacturers.\1\ /1/
They are molded in a configuration similar to the Jersey Bounce or Barrier, shown in
Figure 6-15. These barriers weigh approximately 130 lbs empty and 1,600 to 1,800 lbs
when filled with water. The units are made from polyethylene plastic and come in six-ft
sections that are easily transported. An interlocking section and steel pipe are used to
link the sections together. Linking the sections is strongly recommended to provide
added resistance to vehicle impact and reduce lateral movement. Surface mounting of
these units limits their use as effective vehicle barriers, except for low-speed impacts
(less than 15 mph) and angles less than 25 degrees.
6-2.12.2
Testing.
73
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Example plastic barriers, filled with sand, have been crash tested, as described in
Appendix \1\ C/1/, paragraph C-3.
Figure 6-31 Commercially Available Plastic Barrier System
6-2.13
Expedient Barrier Systems.
When barrier systems are required quickly with no time for ordering manufactured
barriers, common construction items or available construction vehicles can be used as
barriers. Materials such as large-diameter concrete and steel pipes can form makeshift
barriers. Even large construction vehicles (e.g., dump trucks and earth moving
equipment) that have heavy mass and size can be used, or modified for use, as
expedient barrier systems. Some examples are:
a. Three-ft (0.9-m) sections of large-diameter, corrugated metal or reinforced
concrete pipe can be placed on end and filled with sand or earth.
b. Steel pipe can be stacked and welded together in a pyramid.
c. Construction vehicles can be anchored together with cable or chain.
These expedient measures can provide effective protection against vehicle ramming
attacks. Because no testing has been done on these systems, it is important that these
barriers be stabilized and anchored to prevent displacement by a threat vehicle.
6-3
VEHICLE BARRIER PERFORMANCE.
Full-scale testing of vehicle barrier systems is only one way to obtain information on the
performance capabilities of vehicle barriers. Testing provides evidence that the
selected barrier will effectively absorb the impact of a threat vehicle. Tests may be
conducted by independent testing laboratories, government agencies, or the
manufacturer. Some tests are properly documented and/or witnessed by authorities,
74
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
while others are not. Only tests conducted by independent laboratories or government
agencies should be accepted.
It is important to correctly interpret the test results. For example, “full penetration” could
mean that the vehicle passed through a barrier and was still capable of movement after
penetration. Or, it could mean the vehicle payload penetrated through a barricade, but
the vehicle was incapacitated. Whenever possible, carefully review the actual test
report before selecting a barrier system. For commercially-available active barriers,
these reports are usually accessible from the manufacturer. Such review may not
always be possible
Selection of vehicle barriers can also be based on engineering analysis. Finite element
analysis and computer models specifically designed to analyze barrier impact, such as
the Barrier Impact Response Model 3 Dimension, have been successfully used and
correlated to actual test results. Using this method is much more cost-effective than
full-scale testing. Before accepting the results of an engineering analysis from a
manufacturer, have the calculations carefully checked by a qualified structural engineer.
75
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Appendix A - REFERENCES
AASHTO Guide for Selecting, Locating and Designing Traffic Barriers.
Army Regulation (AR) 190-13, Army Physical Security Program.
\1\ Construction Criteria Base (CCB) and the Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG)
maintained by the National Institute of Building Sciences at Internet site
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb./1/
DOD 2000.12 DOD Antiterrorism (AT) Program.
DOD 2000.16 DOD Antiterrorism Standards.
DOD 5200.8-R Physical Security Program.
MCO P5530.14A Marine Corps Physical Security Program Manual.
Means, R.S., “Building Construction Cost Data”, 61st Edition, 2003,
http://www.rsmeans.com.
PDC-TR90-2, BIRM 3D – Barrier Impact Response Model 3 Dimension.
SD-STD-02.1, Specification for Vehicle Crash Test of Perimeter Barriers and Gates.
UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, Tri-Service
Engineering Senior Executive Panel, http://dod.wbdg.org/
UFC 4-010-02, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standoff Distances for Buildings, TriService Engineering Senior Executive Panel, http://dod.wbdg.org/
UFC 4-020-01, DoD Security Engineering Facilities Planning Manual, Tri-Service
Engineering Senior Executive Panel, http://dod.wbdg.org/
\1\ UFC 4-020-02FA, Security Engineering: Concept Design, Tri-Service Engineering
Senior Executive Panel, http://dod.wbdg.org/ /1/
UFC 4-022-01, Security Engineering: Entry Control Facilities/Access Control Points,
Tri-Service Engineering Senior Executive Panel, http://dod.wbdg.org/
UFGS 34 71 13.19, Unified Facilities Guide Specification, Active Vehicle Barriers,
http://dod.wbdg.org/.
UFGS 12 93 00, Unified Facilities Guide Specification, Site Furnishings,
http://dod.wbdg.org/.
UG-2031-SHR User’s Guide: Protection Against Terrorist Vehicle Bombs.
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
\1\ /1/
Appendix B - \1\ BARRIER /1/ COST DATA
B-1
SCOPE.
This appendix presents rating and cost data for commercial vehicle barriers, and cost
data for passive barriers. The information contained herein is intended for informational
purposes only.
B-2
NON-GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
Means, R.S., “Building Construction Cost Data”, 65th Edition, 2007.
B-3
DEFINITIONS.
The definitions in Chapter 3 of this UFC apply to this appendix.
B-4
ACTIVE BARRIERS.
B-4.1
DoS Ratings for Active Barriers.
\1\See United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Protective Design
Center, Omaha District (https://pdc.usace.army.mil/library/BarrierCertification) for
latest versions of DoS and DoD certified/rated anti-ram vehicle barriers./1/
\1\/1/
The ratings are explained in Table B-1.
Table B-1 DoS Ratings*
DoS
Rating
K12
K8
K4
L3
L2
Speed of Vehicle
At Impact in mph
(kph)
50 mph (81 kph)
40 mph (64 kph)
30 mph (48 kph)
Kinetic Energy
Max. Allowable
Penetration of
Vehicle
1,250,000 ft-lbf (178,812 kgf-m)
800,000 ft-lbf (110,600 kgf-m)
450,000 ft-lbf (62,212 kgf-m)
3 ft (0.91 m)
3 to 20 ft (0.91 to
6.1 m)
20 to 50 ft (6.1 to
15.2 m)
L1
* Based on 15,000-lb (6,818-kg) vehicle weight
B-4.2
Cost Data for Active Barriers.
B-1
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
\1\ Table B-2 contains cost data for active vehicle. /1/
\1\/1/
Table B-2 Manufacturer’s Data and Cost for Certified Active Barriers
\1\
Characteristics
Barrier
Type
(Active, Fixed,
Portable,
Barricade,
Bollard, Gate)
SLIDING GATE
Active, Fixed,
Gate
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
SURFACE
MOUNTED
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
SLIDING GATE
Active, Fixed,
Gate
SURFACE
MOUNTED
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
RETRACTABLE
BOLLARDS
Active, Bollard
RETRACTABLE
BOLLARDS
Active, Bollard
RETRACTABLE
BOLLARDS
Active, Bollard
DOS
Rating
K4 –
K12
Equipment
Cost*
($x1,000)
Installation
Cost (% of
Equip.
Cost)
Width
(ft)
Height Operating Emergency
(in.)
Cycle
Cycle (sec)
(sec)
***
***
12
108
10 to 15
7 to 10
35 to 45
125
#
36
2 to 15
1
35 to 45
125
#
39
4 to 5
1
35 to 45
125
12
108
27 to 48
FPM
35 to 45
125
#
39
3 to 15
2
27 to 37
125
1.06 dia.
39
3 to 15
1.5
29 to 39
118
1.06 dia.
35
3 to 15
1.5
25 to 35
133
0.55 dia.
30
3 to 15
1.5
K12
K12
K12
K12
K8
K12
K4
B-2
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Characteristics
Barrier
Type
(Active, Fixed,
Portable,
Barricade,
Bollard, Gate)
SHALLOW
MOUNT
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
RETRACTABLE
BOLLARDS
Active, Bollard
SURFACE
MOUNTED
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
SURFACE
MOUNTED
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE SINGLE
BUTTRESS
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
HYDRAULIC
WEDGE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
RETRACTABLE
BOLLARD
Active, Fixed,
Bollard
HYDRAULIC
DROP ARM
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
DOS
Rating
Equipment
Cost*
($x1,000)
Installation
Cost (% of
Equip.
Cost)
Width
(ft)
Height Operating Emergency
(in.)
Cycle
Cycle (sec)
(sec)
20 to 40
70
#
44
4 to 6
1
20 to 40
75
#
32
4 to 6
1
15 to 20
75
#
30
4 to 6
1
13
60
14
31
3
1
24
35
14
33
3
1
18
60
14
31
3
1
43.2
50-75
# (3
bollards)
22.7
40
#
39
3
K12
K12
K4
K12
K12
K12
K12
K4
B-3
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Characteristics
DOS
Equipment Installation
Width
Height Operating Emergency
Barrier
Rating
Cost*
Cost (% of
(ft)
(in.)
Cycle
Cycle (sec)
Type
($x1,000)
Equip.
(sec)
(Active, Fixed,
Cost)
Portable,
Barricade,
Bollard, Gate)
NET BASED
47.9
Included
#
55-58
2
1.5
NONin cost
HYDRAULIC
K8
SINGLE LANE
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
NET BASED
59.4
Included
36
55-58
2
1.5
NON-HYRAULIC
in cost
MULTIPLE LANE
K8
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
NET BASED
95.5
Included
36
55-58
2
1.5
NON-HYRAULIC
in cost
MULTIPLE LANE
K12
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
RETRACTABLE
~100
20 to 30
4
BOLLARDS
bollards
K12
Active, Fixed,
Bollard
DEEP
***
***
25
24 to
3 to 5
1
FOUNDATION
30
CRASH BEAM
K12
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
SHALLOW
***
***
25
24 to
3 to 5
1
FOUNDATION
30
CRASH BEAM
K4
Active, Fixed,
Barricade
WEDGE
***
***
2 to 4
BARRIER
K8
Active, Fixed
Barricade
* Cost figures are estimates from various manufacturers of vehicle barrier systems.
*** Cost information not publicly available
*# No data currently available
# Various widths were tested.
/1/
B-4
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
B-5
COST DATA FOR PASSIVE BARRIERS.
Table B-3 is a summary of cost data for selected passive vehicle barriers.
Table B-3 Cost for Passive Barriers
Barrier
Anchored concrete Jersey barrier, non-reinforced (2007 Means
double face, precast concrete median barrier; 34 71 13.26.2200)
Buried tires, 36-ply, 8-ft (2.4-m) diameter, weighing 2,000 lb (909
kg) each
Eight-in. (20.3-cm) diameter bollard system @ 3 ft (0.9 m) on center
with 12-in. (30.5-cm) channel rail (2007 Means 8-in (0.2-m) bollard
34 71 13.17.2700, corrugated steel rail, 3 ft (0.9 m), 34 71
13.260012.)
Standard chain link fence [7 ft (2.1 m), 9 ga w/ outrigger] and two
3/4-in. (1.9-cm) diameter cables (2007 Means 7-ft (2.1-m) chain link
32 31 13.53.0100 with cable guide rail assuming a ¾-in. (1.9-cm)
cable 34 71 13.26.0600)
Eight-in. (20.3-cm) diameter concrete-filled pipe (2007 Means 8-in.
concrete-filled pipe bollards 34 71 13.17.2700)
Concrete planter barrier (2007 Means for 48-in. (1.2-m) dia., 3-ft
(0.9-m) high 34 71 13.17.0200)
Cable barrier (2007 Means 34 71 13.26.0600 guide rail with steel
posts; wire rope [6x19] adjusted per 05 15 16.50.0830 series rope
costs)
One cable @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
Two cables @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
Three cables @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
Four cables @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
One cable @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Two cables @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Three cables @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Four cables @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Reinforced concrete retaining or knee wall
[2007 Means 03 30 53.40.6200 for cast-in-place concrete retaining
walls, 4-ft (1.2-m) high]
$65/ft
Cost/Unit**
($213.25/m)
$25.00/tire
$629/each
$61.30/ft ($201/m)
(including fence)
$515.00/each
$955/each
$12.90/ft
$16.95/ft
$21.05/ft
$25.10/ft
$18.50/ft
$26.75/ft
$34.00/ft
$43.25/ft
($42.32/m)
($55.61/m)
($69.06/m)
($82.35/m)
($60.70/m)
($87.76/m)
($111.55/m)
($141.90/m)
$340/cu. yd ($445/cu. m)
** Based on “Building Construction Cost Data, 65th Annual Edition, 2007.” Average cost for continental
United States. All costs including overhead and profit.
B-5
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Appendix C - PERFORMANCE DATA FOR \1\/1/ PASSIVE VEHICLE BARRIERS
C-1
SCOPE.
This appendix presents performance data for commercial vehicle barriers and passive
barriers. The information contained herein is intended for guidance only.
C-2
DEFINITIONS.
The definitions in Chapter 3 of this handbook apply to this appendix.
\1\/1/
C-3
PASSIVE BARRIERS.
Table C-4 is a summary of performance data for selected passive barriers.
C-1
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Table C-4 Performance for Passive Barriers
Barrier
Kinetic
Energy
ft-lbf (kgf-m)
x 1,000,000
Penetration
ft (m)
Anchored concrete Jersey barrier, nonreinforced
Buried tires, 36-ply, 8-ft (2.4-m) diameter,
weighing 2,000 lb (909 kg) each
Eight-in. (20.3-cm) diameter bollard system
@ 3 ft (0.9 m) on center with 12-in. (30.5cm) channel rail
12.75-in. (32.4-cm) to 13.25-in. (33.7-cm)
diameter bollard system @ 3 ft (0.9 m) on
center
Standard chain link fence [7 ft (2.1 m), 9 ga
w/ outrigger] and one 3/4-in. (1.9-cm)
diameter cable
Eight-in. (20.3-cm) diameter concrete-filled
pipe
Concrete planter barrier
Cable barrier [200-ft (60.9-m) anchorage
spacing]*
One cable @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
Two cables @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
Three cables @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
Four cables @ 3/4-in. (1.9-cm) dia.
One cable @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Two cables @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Three cables @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Four cables @ 1-in. (2.5-cm) dia.
Reinforced-concrete retaining wall**
10 in. (25.4 cm) thick
21 in. (53.3 cm) thick
3.28 ft (1 m) wall
Cable barrier – two 3/4-in. (1.9-cm)
0.3 (0.04)
20 (6.1)
0.3 (0.04)
1 (3.05)
1.1 (0.15)
None
0.8 (0.11)
1.2 (0.17)
3 (0.9)
3 (0.9)
0.06 (0.008)
0.35 (0.048)
7 (2.1)
26 (7.9)
0.135 (0.019)
1.5 (0.46)
1.08 (0.15)
31.2 (9.5)
0.1 (0.014)
0.2 (0.028)
0.338 (0.047)
0.418 (0.058)
0.15 (0.021)
0.34 (0.047)
0.506 (0.07)
0.706 (0.098)
0.157 (0.022)
40 (12)
40 (12)
40 (12)
40 (12)
40 (12)
40 (12)
40 (12)
40 (12)
None
0.36 (0.05)
13 (3.96)
* Based on analytical modeling, using BIRM 3D (PDC-TR90-2) or other
finite element analysis process
**Of the wall designs, the shorter and thinner section 1 meter wall is the most
efficient, based on K rating. /1/
C-2
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Appendix D - EXAMPLES FOR PROTECTION AGAINST TERRORIST VEHICLE
BOMBS
D-1
SCOPE.
This appendix contains examples for determining the design of vehicle barrier systems.
The information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only.
D-2
NON-GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
Means, R.S., “Building Construction Cost Data”, 65th Edition, 2007.
D-3
DEFINITIONS.
The definitions in Chapter 3 of this UFC apply to this appendix.
D-4
EXAMPLES.
D-4.1
Example 1.
Administrative Building 827 (Figure D-2) must be protected against a terrorist vehicle
bomb. The structure is a single-story, reinforced-concrete building. The following
factors apply:
a. A high threat level is considered. The design basis threat has been
established as a moving vehicle with a gross weight of 15,000 lbs (6,818 kg),
including 1,100 lbs (500 kg) of explosives, traveling at 50 mph (80 kph). This
combination of vehicle size and speed will develop 1,253 ft-lbf (173 kgf-m) of
energy on impact (Table 4-2).
b. Assume an asset value of 0.8 for Building 827. For a moving vehicle bomb
as described above, this corresponds to a medium level of protection,
according to UFC 4-020-01. The damage to the building will be repairable.
No permanent deformation will occur in primary structural members.
c. For a medium level of protection, some injury from debris is anticipated, but
serious injury or death is unlikely.
Referring to Figure D-2, the lines of approach are perimeter roads on the north and west
sides of the building. Perimeter passive barriers and an active barrier on the west
entrance to the facility will be required. A candidate active vehicle barrier system might
be one of the example systems described in Table 6-2. For the perimeter fence, a
candidate passive barrier could be the bollard system shown in Figure 6-1.
Using UFC 4-020-01, the required standoff distance for a minimal level of damage to
the building from 1,100 lbs (500 kg) of explosives is 310 ft (95 m). Because there is
about 320 ft (97 m) available for standoff at the location closest to the perimeter (at
D-1
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Building 700), a medium level of protection can be secured. In this case, the asset
value and high threat level indicate some injury is allowable, and minor damage to the
structure is acceptable.
Based on the performance characteristics of the example barrier system, the
penetration distance of the design threat vehicle is 27 ft (8 m). Adding this distance to
the distance required for mitigating the explosive effects, the total standoff distance
between the barrier and the building should be at least 337 ft (103 m). Because this
standoff distance is not available for Building 827 under current site conditions, the next
step would be facility hardening or the acceptance of more damage to the structure.
Passive barriers along the fence line should be designed to allow little or no penetration;
the available standoff distance is already at the marginal level to protect personnel
against death and injury. Selection of the concrete-filled bollard system (Figure 6-3) will
provide adequate penetration resistance, because the approach is parallel to the barrier
(77% of the impact load from Table 4-1).
D-2
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure D-2 Site Plan for Examples
THREAT = 1100# HE
NORTH
D-3
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
D-4.2
Example 2.
Referring to Figure D-2, the target buildings in this case are 796 and 798. Perimeter
Road “B” has a 60-ft (18-m) offset (distance from the barrier to the restricting opposite
curb). Using Table 4-1, a vehicle traveling at 50 mph (80 kph) can safely turn on a
maximum 167-ft (51 m) radius curve without skidding. At this speed and angle of
approach to the barrier, the vehicle will strike the barrier at an angle. Due to the angle
of impact (Table 4-1), the speed directed at the barrier is 76.6 percent of the 50-mph
(80-kph) speed, or 38 mph (61 m). Using Table 4-2 and rounding up to the next highest
speed [40 mph (64 kph)], the kinetic energy transferred to the barrier will be 214,000 ftlbf (29 kgf-m) if the design basis threat is a moving 4,000-lb (1,818-kg) vehicle, and
919,200 ft-lbf (111 kgf-m) if the design basis threat is a moving 15,000-lb (6,818-kg)
vehicle.
Note: Incorporate reduction due to angle of impact after calculation of kinetic
energy.
Once the kinetic energy has been calculated, refer to Appendix\1\ C /1/ for a listing of
passive barriers and penetration distances that can be used to select the most effective
barrier. Anchored Jersey barriers could be used for the threat of a moving 4,000-lb
(1,818-kg) vehicle, and a bollard system or concrete planter would be the only passive
barriers that would be capable of stopping a 15,000-lb (6,818-kg) vehicle. For the larger
threat, it would be appropriate to install concrete blocks as shown in Figure 6-16 and
space them in accordance with the information from Table 6-7 to reduce the vehicle
speed to 30 mph (48 kph) or less.
D-4
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Appendix E - VEHICLE BARRIER DEBRIS MINIMIZATION AND EFFECTS ON
COUNTER-MOBILITY
E-1
GENERAL.
Barriers are widely used in Entry Control Facilities/Access Control Points
(ECF/ACP) and as perimeter boundaries to effectively control traffic. They can
be successful in preventing entry of a suspected vehicle bomb into an
installation; however, barriers may not prevent detonation of the bomb at the
ECF/ACP. The barriers typically used in ECF/ACPs are designed to resist
vehicle impact loads, not blast loads. The blast loading of a barrier wall can
result in breakup of the barrier and subsequent throw of debris toward the facility
being protected by the barrier. This debris has the potential of being thrown
great distances, depending on the explosive quantity in the vehicle bomb. The
debris can range in size from small, penetrating pieces to whole barrier sections,
presenting a significant hazard to personnel, and possibly structures, near the
detonation site. Control of this debris, as well as control of traffic, should be
considered when selecting and installing a barrier system.
E-2
BARRIER RESPONSE TO EXPLOSIVE LOAD TESTING.
A large test program, Barrier Assessment for Safe Standoff (BASS), was
conducted in 2001 for the USAF Force Protection Battlelab (FPB). Full-scale
ECF/ACP vehicle barriers were subjected to detonations of bare explosives. The
primary objectives of the effort were to analyze the secondary debris hazard for
typical reinforced concrete ECF/ACP vehicle barriers and to identify barrier
modifications that would minimize or eliminate this debris hazard.
Twelve barrier tests were conducted, with two barriers used per test. Various
barrier, charge weight, and standoff distance configurations were tested. The
tested barriers included:
•
Jersey
•
Jersey with soil revetment
•
Bitburg
•
Bitburg with soil revetment
•
Jersey with polymer liner applied
•
Cellular Jersey with polymer liner applied
•
Jersey with rock/gravel fill revetment
E-1
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
•
Back-to-back Bitburgs
•
Texas
•
Plastic, sand-filled barrier
Data collection included barrier debris pickup in designated areas behind each
barrier, high-speed video of debris flight to aid in measuring debris velocities,
documentation of the barrier response to the blast load, and free-field pressure
measurements at specific locations in the debris fields.
Based on the barrier debris collected and analyzed in this study, some barrier
systems are more effective than others at reducing the potential secondary
debris hazard from a vehicle bomb detonating at an ECF/ACP. The addition of a
soil revetment to common barrier configurations significantly reduces debris
hazards. Depending on the amount of explosives and the standoff distance from
the barrier to the charge, the barriers with a soil revetment either do not break up,
or the debris are thrown considerably lesser distances than the same barrier
configuration without soil revetment. A rock/gravel revetment presents only a
slightly worse hazard than a soil revetment, if only the throw of the barrier debris
is considered. Maximum debris distances measured from tests with Jersey
reinforced concrete barriers backed by a rock/gravel revetment exceeded debris
distances measured in tests of Jersey barriers backed by a soil revetment by less
than 20%. It should be noted, however, that debris from the rock/gravel
revetment could also be thrown and could cause damage (such as window
breakage) to buildings within the installation.
The polymer liner applied to a Jersey barrier does not offer any improvement to
the debris hazard from a Jersey barrier. Lightweight concrete and sand-filled
plastic barriers produce significantly reduced debris hazards. This may seem
attractive in selecting a barrier system to minimize barrier debris throw upon
detonation of a vehicle bomb. However, subsequent counter-mobility testing of
these barriers showed failure in stopping the vehicle and preventing access
through an ECF/ACP, making them undesirable for use at an ECF/ACP.
The tests also showed that the vehicle-to-barrier standoff used at an ECF/ACP is
equally important. Generally, using terminology from UFC 4-022-01, this standoff
distance refers to the distance between the access control zone (inspection site)
and the final debris barriers in the response zone. The larger 35-ft (10.7-m)
standoff decreased debris hazards for all barrier systems tested. It was
recommended that the standoff distances be increased from 10 ft (3.05 m) to 35
ft (10.7 m) at ECF/ACPs, where possible. It is recognized that a vehicle could
potentially move through the access control zone without stopping and through
the response zone to impact a barrier. If the vehicle bomb detonates while in
direct contact with the barrier, the debris throw is obviously greater than if the
E-2
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
bomb detonates 10 ft (3.05 m) or 35 ft (10.7 m) away from the barrier. The use
of low-debris barriers in this case is even more attractive.
E-3
LOW-DEBRIS BARRIER COUNTER-MOBILITY EVALUATION.
Barriers qualified as low-debris producing barriers when exposed to detonations
of typical vehicle bombs do not necessarily meet counter-mobility criteria.
Barriers that have been proven to minimize, or eliminate, debris hazards from an
explosive threat must still be validated for entry control capabilities. Both
detonation response and counter-mobility issues should be addressed when
selecting a barrier system for a particular base function, such as in an ECF/ACP.
For instance, the lightweight concrete and sand-filled plastic barriers proven to be
low-debris barriers in the 2001 BASS tests did not perform well in subsequent
crash tests. The Barriers for Reduced-debris and Counter-mobility Effects
(BRACE) test program involved testing of these barrier types for counter-mobility.
A baseline performance test was first conducted on a line of ten standard,
reinforced concrete Jersey barriers tied together with steel cables. A 15,000-lb
(6,820-kg) truck impacted the center of the line of barriers at 30 mph (48 kph).
While the line of Jersey barriers successfully stopped the vehicle, neither the
lightweight concrete nor the sand-filled plastic barrier was able to stop the
vehicle. Two new low-debris vehicle barrier concepts were later devised and
tested in another FPB-funded test series, Vehicle Impact Performance Evaluation
of Reduced-debris, Counter-mobility Barriers (VIPER-CB).
The low-debris barriers tested in the later program were Hesco bastion
concertainers (typically used as perimeter barriers and to provide ballistic and
fragment protection) and a modification of the lightweight concrete Jersey barrier
with polymer coating. The lightweight concrete, polymer-coated barriers and the
steel gate successfully defeated the threat of a 15,000-lb (6,820-kg) truck
traveling at 30 mph (48 kph). The depth of penetration of the truck was 16 ft (4.9
m) for the lightweight concrete, polymer-coated barriers. The Hesco bastion
concertainers were tested with a 15,000-lb (6,820-kg) truck traveling at 50 mph
(80 kph). The concertainers successfully stopped the truck in approximately 5 ft
(1.5 m), with no penetration of the payload. Contact HESCO for proper
configuration tested as indicated above.
The recommendations from the tests described in this section are to use both
low-debris, counter-mobility barriers (Hesco bastion and lightweight concrete,
polymer-coated barriers). The low-debris systems adequately protect against the
standard threat of a 15,000-lb (6,820-kg) vehicle impacting at 30 mph (48 kph).
The Hesco bastion barriers do not require any anchoring. They are simply
stacked in layers. To defeat the standard threat above, two rows of barriers on
the bottom with a staggered row of barriers on top are sufficient, as shown in
Figure E-3. Concrete anchors to existing thick roadways or to specially placed
E-3
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
foundations should be used with the polymer-coated, lightweight concrete barrier
system.
Figure E-4 shows the cabling and anchor system used to test this system. For
the test, the polymer-coated, lightweight concrete Jersey barriers were placed in
a line and connected with three 1-in steel cables, as shown in Figure E-4. The
cable was 1-in diameter, 6 x 36 extra improved plow steel, with independent wire
rope center. A 4-ft long loop was created in the cables at the right end of the line
of barriers. The purpose of this loop is to allow some slack in the cable; this
reduces the peak tensile force but allows additional penetration of the truck
Steel shackles were used to connect the cables to the anchor plate and 1-in
cable clips at a 6-in spacing were used to tie the ends of the cables. For this
example, the barrier anchoring system was designed to meet a load of 75,000 lb
of force in each cable. Anchoring for a similar barrier system should at least
meet the same anchoring requirement.
Figure E-3 Hesco Bastion Concertainer Barrier, Oblique View
E-4
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
Figure E-4 Polymer-Coated, Lightweight Concrete Barrier System
E-4
RESTORATION OF DAMAGED BARRIERS.
Another critical consideration in selection of vehicle barriers for use in an
ECF/ACP or in other perimeter protection is the amount of time required to
restore the barrier system to 100% capability after it has been damaged by
exposure to a vehicle bomb detonation. Some barriers can be fully restored to
their original protection capability within minutes after the removal of the vehicle
debris. Other barrier types may take months to repair and restore to 100%.
Restoration time depends on the type of barrier, whether or not it has a
revetment, the size of the vehicle bomb, and the standoff distance between the
bomb and the barrier at the time of detonation. Concrete barriers exposed to low
design basis threats will have minimal breakup and may just topple over or be
slightly displaced. In such a case, the barriers could be reused and re-anchored
back into the barrier system. Other barrier types may need to be completely
replaced with new barriers. If a revetment was being used, it will have to be
rebuilt when the barriers are replaced. Estimates of time required to restore the
E-5
UFC 4-022-02
8 June 2009
Change 1, 9 August 2010
barrier system to 100% capability is critical information to consider in vehicle
barrier selection.
E-6
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement