Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit

Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
APTA STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
American Public Transportation Association
1666 K Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20006-1215
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12
Approved December, 2012
Infrastructure Security Working
Group
Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
Abstract: This Recommended Practice describes anti-vehicle barriers (AVB) for transit passenger facilities to
enhance the security of people, operations, assets and infrastructure.
Keywords: anti-vehicle barriers, barriers, bollards, site survey, design considerations, standoff distance
Summary: Public transit operates in inherently open environments. It provides ease of access and gathers
volumes of people in confined spaces to provide passengers with efficient and convenient transportation
through regions and their communities. These unique attributes make public transportation vulnerable to
adversarial targeting and threats. For these reasons, a sound understanding of anti-vehicle barriers will enable
agencies to implement an approach to more effectively manage the risks of their environments. This
document provides background information on AVB systems, details the systems that are available, and
describes the specific use and capabilities of AVB systems. It outlines the AVB selection process to present
options for the best systems to use in specific environments. It also offers considerations to aid in the
placement of the systems once the proper barrier is chosen.
This Recommended Practice represents a common viewpoint of those parties concerned with its provisions, namely,
transit operating/planning agencies, manufacturers, consultants, engineers and general interest groups. The
application of any standards, practices or guidelines contained herein is voluntary. In some cases, federal and/or state
regulations govern portions of a transit system’s operations. In those cases, the government regulations take
precedence over this standard. APTA recognizes that for certain applications, the standards or practices, as
implemented by individual transit agencies, may be either more or less restrictive than those given in this document.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic
retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the American Public Transportation Association.
Contents
1. Anti-vehicle barrier overview ............................................................ 1 Participants
The American Public Transportation
Association greatly appreciates the
contributions of Bill Pitard, who
provided the primary effort in the
drafting of this Recommended
Practice.
At the time this standard was
completed, the working group
included the following members:
Sean Ryan, MNR, Chair
Randy Clarke, MBTA, Vice Chair
Bill Pitard, PB Americas
Gabriela Amezcua, CTA
John Plante, CTA
Brian Taylor, Halifax
Charles Rappleyea, CATS
Rick Gerhart, FTA
Chris McKay, TSA
Jevon D’Souza, TSA
David Hahn, APTA
Allen Smith, SPAWAR
Mark Mahaffey, VTA
Brad Barker, MBTA
Eric Hartman, OCTA
Harry Saporta, TriMet
April Panzer, MNR
Gardner Tabon, RPTA
1.1 Categories .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Stakeholder considerations .......................................................... 1 1.3 Benefits ........................................................................................ 1 2. Security risk assessment .................................................................. 2 3. AVB recommended practices ........................................................... 2 3.1 AVB uses and functions .............................................................. 2 3.2 AVB design ................................................................................. 3 3.3 AVB selection .............................................................................. 7 3.4 Location of anti-vehicle barriers .................................................. 8 3.5 Anti-vehicle barrier access control .............................................. 8 3.6 Barrier alternatives....................................................................... 8 3.7 Fencing systems ........................................................................... 8 4. Training considerations..................................................................... 8 5. Maintenance considerations ............................................................. 9 6. Cost-effectiveness ............................................................................. 9 7. Liability ................................................................................................ 9 8. Additional design considerations..................................................... 9 Annex A: Understanding crash test rating classifications .............. 11 Annex B: AVB selection checklist ...................................................... 12 References ............................................................................................ 13 Definitions ............................................................................................. 13 Abbreviations and acronyms .............................................................. 14 © 2012 American Public Transportation Association | ii
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
1. Anti-vehicle barrier overview
Adversaries may use a vehicle, either on its own or laden with explosives, to carry out attacks against people,
operations, assets and infrastructure in the transit environment. To reduce the risk from these threats, the
design and placement of anti-vehicle barriers (AVBs) should be considered.
AVB systems differ in and are differentiated by their composition, capability and style. They are constructed
of metals, concrete and other materials for durability to resist energy of vehicular penetration, and they may
vary in style from being several feet in length to cylindrical in shape. Cylindrical shaped vertically installed
AVB systems are referred to as bollards. Bollards vary in their construction and functional design, but they
have many of the same capabilities as horizontally installed barriers—that is, to control vehicle access to an
area. A security risk assessment will identify the need for and placement of an AVB system.
Following selection, but before placement, a site survey should be performed to include the analysis of the
site’s existing features. The checklist in Annex A is provided as a guide to completing and documenting a site
survey.
1.1 Categories
AVBs are primarily classified into two categories, active or passive. Active barriers have moveable
components, and their systems can be operated manually or mechanically to allow or restrict vehicle passage.
In contrast, passive barriers are fixed systems that remain static. While AVBs may provide theft deterrence,
asset protection, and pedestrian and traffic control, they are primarily used to control authorized vehicle
access to an area.
1.2 Stakeholder considerations
The implementation of AVBs serves a meaningful purpose. To the extent possible, AVB application assists
agencies in meeting their security program requirements, while maintaining efficient operations. AVB use and
design, such as planters and bollards, can be functional for efficient operations and aesthetically pleasing to
the communities that host agency properties and operations.
1.3 Benefits
A security system program that includes AVB applications offers the following benefits to an agency:
y
y
y
y
y
y
Protects against harmful vehicle attacks or intrusions.
Provides an appropriate standoff distance and clear zones.
Fosters a sense of physical security.
Creates a sense of ownership by transit users and employees.
Manages access to authorized areas.
Controls access to nonpublic areas.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
1
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
2. Security risk assessment
Transit agencies should complete a systemwide security risk assessment to determine exposure of the
system’s people, assets, operations and infrastructure. A risk-based approach that factors threat, vulnerability
and consequence should be used to assess transit systems. The findings should be used to select security
measures for the protection of people, assets, operations and infrastructure.
For more information regarding risk assessments, consider the following resources:
y
y
y
y
y
y
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Safety and Security Bus Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency Terrorism Risk Assessment and Management (TRAM)
Tool Kit
Department of Homeland Security Analytical Risk Management (ARM-IR)
American Public Works Association (APWA) Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) Threat &
Vulnerability Toolbox
Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) Training, Safety Review Program
National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Transportation Systems Sector
(http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/pages/plans/cikr/transportation.pdf)
3. AVB recommended practices
3.1 AVB uses and functions
3.1.1 Uses
While AVBs can be used in many ways, their primary function is to control authorized vehicle access. They
can be installed at a facility’s gates or entrances (vehicle “checkpoints”), around security guard booths,
between designated parking areas and buildings, adjacent to high-value facilities or assets, or as a protective
barrier around temporary events or activities. Barriers can be passive or active, manned or unmanned, and
remotely or locally controlled.
3.1.2 Functions
Passive AVB systems such as planters, fixed bollards and modular concrete barriers (otherwise known as KRails or “Jersey barriers”) are intended to remain in a fixed position to preventing vehicle access. Active
systems such as a pop-up wedge, retractable bollards and drop-arm barriers manage the access of vehicles.
Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the Department of State (DoS) K-ratings and the Department of Defense
(DoD) K-ratings and L-ratings.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
2
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
TABLE 1
DoD Certified Anti-Vehicle Barrier Options
K-Rating1
Gross Vehicle
Weight (lbs)
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
L-Rating1
Maximum
Penetration
Distance (ft)
K12
15,000
50
L3
3
K8
15,000
40
L2
20
K4
15,000
30
L1
50
Options
AVBs of various K-rating and L-rating combinations
are available in the following barrier systems:
hydraulic, pneumatic, electric or manual bollards,
wedges, or plates; reinforced walls; retractable
bollards; cable restraining systems; drop arm;
sliding beam; foundation wall; fixed bollards; etc.
Department of Defense (DoD)
1. K-ratings are based on a 15,000-pound gross-weight vehicle impacting a barrier system at a specific speed from a perpendicular
direction, with the L-rating determined from the maximum penetration distance of the vehicle past the protected side of the barrier
system.
TABLE 2
DoS Certified Anti-Vehicle Barrier Options
K-Rating1
Gross Vehicle
Weight (lbs)
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
K12
15,000
50
Pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or manual bollards, wedges or plates; reinforced
planters; reinforced walls; etc.
K8
15,000
40
Retractable bollards, cable restraining systems, etc.
K4
15,000
30
Drop arm, sliding beam, foundation wall, fixed bollards, etc.
2
Options
Department of State (DoS)
1. The K-ratings for the DoS AVBs are similar to those of the DoD except that the varied penetration ranges (L-ratings) do not apply.
Instead, DoS acknowledges that the penetration of any vehicle’s cargo bed must not exceed 1 m (39 in.) past the pre-impact inside edge
(protected area) of the barrier system to be certified.
2. Regardless of L-rating, DoS certified AVB only perform to the penetration distance standard of 39-inches (1-meter).
3.2 AVB design
AVBs are either passive (static or non-moveable) meaning they have no moveable parts; or active (operator
controlled for access), meaning some parts of the barrier are moveable. They are manufactured and rated to
resist different levels of kinetic energy and are also available in different design styles, such as flush or
surface-mount wedge, plate or bollards; rolling (sliding) gate; and drop-arm designs. Once an agency has
selected the performance design, it should see the APTA Recommended Practice “Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) at Public Transit Facilities” for additional information.
Typical AVB designs should include the appropriate following support equipment, such as backup power; an
emergency cutoff switch; adequate lighting and safety options (i.e., alarms, strobe or rotating beacon lights
and safety interlocks to prevent the AVB from being accidentally activated); vehicle sensing loops (on the
secure side to prevent activation of the barrier until the vehicle has completely cleared the AVB); safety
markings; and signage. All AVB supporting equipment should be located on the secure side of the barrier and
should be monitored on a continual basis by CCTV and an intrusion detection system (IDS) to reduce their
potential for being sabotaged, as well as for optimum functionality. Additionally, the area surrounding an
AVB should be monitored for security.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
3
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
Passive vehicle barriers are non-moveable systems. Passive barriers include steel or concrete framed or
reinforced earthen barriers; plastic (water-filled) or steel-reinforced concrete modular concrete barriers
(“Jersey barriers”); planter-styled security barriers; steel “impaler-style” barriers; concrete or metal bollards;
and permanently installed concrete, cinder/concrete block or brick wall-type barriers. In contrast, active
vehicle barriers are characterized by their ability to move and can be operated manually or automatically.
The bollard is one of the most versatile components in comprehensive integrated design planning and design
execution. The breadth of design styles of bollards renders them an easy candidate to complement building
architectural and landscaping designs of a broad spectrum. Bollards can be made from any of the following
materials: cast iron, stainless steel, steel/cast iron composite, recycled plastic or plastic covers. Bollards can
be active or passive as well.
Detailed descriptions of passive and active barriers are given in Table 3 and Table 4.
TABLE 3
Passive (Fixed Installation) Barriers
Barrier System
Steel/concrete framed/
reinforced earthen
Description
Typical steel
concrete framework
backfilled with soil,
and topped with sod
Utilization
Construction
(Material)
Height and weight
vary depending on
application and
vulnerability of the
structure.
Steel or concrete
Plastic (water-filled) barrier Available in various
styles, lengths,
shapes and colors
Placed as protective Height: 32 to 42 in.
barriers where
needed; can be
arranged end-toned,
side-by-side, or even
stacked for increased
security.
Typically molded
plastic (filled with
water)
Concrete modular barriers Available in various
(K-rails or Jersey barriers) styles, lengths,
shapes and colors
Used in or along
Height: 32 to 36 in.
driveways or roads to Length: 9 to 10 ft
direct traffic to a
checkpoint
Steel-reinforced
concrete
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
Striped, flashing
lights, sirens, etc.
Used in open areas
with plenty of space
and when cost is an
issue. Can be used
to route or direct
vehicle traffic
circulation.
Typical Height
and Length
4
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
TABLE 3
Passive (Fixed Installation) Barriers
Typical Height
and Length
Construction
(Material)
Barrier System
Description
Utilization
Planter-styled security
barriers
Concrete “shell”
backfilled with soil for
added protective
weight
Prevents vehicle
intrusion; protects
walkways, fences,
guard booths,
important equipment
and prevents driving
around other barriers;
can be used to route
or direct vehicle or
pedestrian traffic.
Height and weight
vary depending on
application and
vulnerability of the
structure.
Steel reinforced
concrete “shell”
Steel “impaler-style”
barriers
Designed to roll
backward upon
impact, impaling the
vehicle on the
underside,
subsequently acting
as an extreme friction
anchor.
Placed wherever
needed, installed
slightly below grade,
and backfilled in
place with concrete;
barriers can be
interconnected for
extended length.
Height: 32 to 42 in.
Length: 10 to 12 in.
Steel
Concrete or metal bollards Vertically installed
metal (preferably
steel) “crash tube”
with the lower base
extending
into the ground; in
use in numerous
military and
commercial
applications
Inhibits vehicle
intrusion, protects
walkways, fences,
guard booths,
important equipment
and prevents driving
around other barriers;
can be used to route
or direct vehicle or
pedestrian traffic.
Height: 18 to 60 in. or Solid steel, or hollow
more
tube filled with
Diameter: Varies
reinforced concrete
depending on
application; typically
8 to 24 in.
Permanently installed
concrete, cinder/concrete
block, or brick wall-type
barriers
Installed around a
security zone or highvalue asset requiring
protection
Height and weight
vary depending on
application and
vulnerability of the
structure.
A vertically
constructed and
installed reinforced
concrete, cinder/
concrete block, or
brick wall
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
Concrete, cinder/
concrete block, or
brick
5
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
TABLE 4
Active (Deployable) Barriers
Description
Use
Permanently installed
“recessed-mounted” (in
ground) ramp-style vehicle
barriers with chain
reinforcements
These ramp
systems weigh
between 2,500 and
12,000 lbs and are
installed sub-grade
and flush-mounted
in the surface of the
road. The ramp
barrier system is
raised or lowered
either manually or
automatically
(based on access
being granted)
through use of
computer-controlled
electrical or
hydraulic systems.
As a barrier for the
perimeter boundary
to stop and/or
disable
unauthorized
vehicle penetration
Width: 1 to 24 ft
Height: ~3 ft
Steel
Ramp-style vehicle
barriers (with chain
reinforcements)
27° lift angle facing
the opponent’s
direction of
approach.
Temporary or
permanently
installed; mounted
at-grade. These
ramp systems
weigh between
2,500 to 12,000 lbs.
The ramp barrier
system is raised or
lowered either
manually or
automatically
(based on access
being granted)
through use of
computer-controlled
electrical or
hydraulic systems.
As a barrier for the
perimeter boundary
to stop and/or to
disable
unauthorized
vehicle penetration
Width: 1 to 24 ft
Height: 3 ft
Steel
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
Height and Length
Construction
(Material)
Barrier System
6
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
TABLE 4
Active (Deployable) Barriers
Barrier System
Description
Use
Construction
(Material)
Height and Length
Hydraulically deployable
metal bollards
Subsurface
vertically installed
metal “crash tube.”
Once deployed,
part of tube is
above surface with
the lower part
extending into the
ground; in use in
numerous military
and commercial
applications.
Inhibits vehicle
intrusion; protects
walkways, fences,
guard booths, and
important
equipment;
prevents driving
around other
barriers; can be
used to route or
direct vehicle or
pedestrian traffic.
Height: 18 to 36 in.
or more
Diameter: Varies
depending on
application; typically
12 to 24 in.
Traffic controllers
(“tire teeth”)
Metal teeth used to
cut/shred vehicle
tire; metal teeth that
are either spring
mounted to allow
safe one-way travel
or retractable to
allow two-way
travel
Prevention of
wrong-way traffic
flow (parking
applications) and
deployable to
flatten tires if
vehicles cross
security access
point
Approximately 1 in.
wide by 4 in. long
teeth are used.
Constructed of solid
tubular steel, can
be filled for added
strength.
AVBs should be designed and deployed to restrict entry of unauthorized vehicles into specific facility areas,
especially during heightened National Terror Advisory System (NTAS) conditions. AVBs may be
significantly damaged after absorbing the full impact of a moving vehicle. The barrier may not be fully
functional or operational after impact and may fail if kept in service. To determine AVB serviceability, any
AVB sustaining an impact should be inspected. It may require repair, restoration or replacement to remain in
service and to maintain its respective agency certification.
3.3 AVB selection
When selecting a barrier, it is important to begin with a site survey. The site survey should include the relative
locations, major dimensions and descriptions of buildings and structures, roads, terrain and landscaping,
existing security features, and the property perimeter. Based on the analysis of the aforementioned factors, the
proper levels of protection will be determined. Other things to consider as part of the terrain include:
y
y
y
whether the structure that is going to be protected is downhill;
whether the road leading to it is straight or curved; and
whether the building is accessible to an unauthorized vehicle through other means.
It may be necessary to install more than one set of barriers to counter the effects of the momentum of an
unauthorized vehicle attempting to breach the perimeter.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
7
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
There are also other important factors to consider when choosing a barrier system. Those factors include the
requirement for barrier system type, installation plans, the required number and placement, aesthetic
requirements, and local codes. The chosen barrier system should also be compatible with the other security
components in place. For example, an active barrier system should not be installed adjacent to an unhardened
chain-link fence, because then the fence would become the weakest path.
In addition to a site survey, other factors must be considered during the selection process of an AVB. For
example, the likelihood of unintended vehicles entering the designated protected area and the possible risks
associated with your chosen style of barrier. Annex A provides a checklist that incorporates the selection
process and the vehicle barrier design and installation requirements.
3.4 Location of anti-vehicle barriers
The location of vehicle barriers can vary based on their design as active or passive and the area they are
protecting. Active vehicle barriers are most often placed at facility entrances. They can also be placed at
selected interior locations. The exact location of active barriers may vary among installations; in each case
they should be placed as far from the critical structure as practical to minimize damage due to possible
intrusion explosion. Passive barriers should be located at entry points to restrict or manage if traffic flow is
restricted or periodic. Passive barriers are most often used for protection of perimeter boundaries. The
agency’s risk assessment will determine its adequate standoff distance for the proper placement of barriers.
3.5 Anti-vehicle barrier access control
Methods of access control are managed by the use of active barriers. Access control can be accomplished with
a staffed guard or remotely through the use of a card or biometric access control devices that will
automatically activate the barrier. The barrier can also be operated from a protected location other than the
entry control point.
3.6 Barrier alternatives
There are several alternatives to AVB systems. These alternatives can include the following:
y
y
y
y
ditches
heavy equipment tires
tire shredders
non-reinforced concrete blocks
3.7 Fencing systems
Fences should not be considered as protection against moving vehicle attacks. Most fences can be easily
penetrated by a moving vehicle and will resist impact only if reinforcement is added. Fences are used
primarily to provide a boundary by defining the outermost limit of a facility and to assist in controlling and
screening authorized vehicle entries into a secured area by deterring overt entry elsewhere along the
boundary. Fences also support detection, assessment and other security functions by providing a “clear zone”
for installing lighting, intrusion detection equipment, and CCTV. For additional information, see the APTA
Recommended Practice “Fencing Systems to Control Access to Transit Facilities.”
4. Training considerations
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 the
appropriate checklist for normal and emergency operating procedures.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
8
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
5. Maintenance considerations
Many manufacturers provide wiring and hydraulic diagrams, maintenance schedules and 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 and operation and
maintenance manuals. Maintenance contracts are available from most manufacturers. Reliability and
maintainability data are available from most manufacturers. Maintenance should include inspection,
adjustment, cleaning, pressure checks on operational systems, and replacement of worn parts.
Check with the manufacturer for a list of current customers deploying their products, and then consider
speaking with those agencies to ascertain performance and other service data about the product your agency is
considering.
6. Cost-effectiveness
Tradeoffs on protective measures may include the following:
y
y
y
y
y
y
locating the vehicle barrier to provide optimum separation distance
slowing down vehicles approaching the barrier, using obstructions or redesign of the access route
barrier open to permit access vs. closed to prevent access
active vs. passive barriers
system-activating options: manual vs. automatic, local vs. remote, electrical vs. hydraulic
safety, reliability, availability, and maintainability characteristics
7. Liability
Possible legal issues may arise from accidents (death/injuries). The agency should consult with legal
representation when considering the installation of an active vehicle barrier system to ensure it is complying
with all local, state and federal laws.
8. Additional design considerations
The following actions are also to be considered when selecting and installing barrier systems:
y
y
y
y
y
y
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. 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.
When barriers are installed at entrance and exit gates, also consider installing passive barrier systems
along the remaining accessible perimeter of the protected area.
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.
Since most types of active barriers can be easily sabotaged, consider installing active barriers only in
areas where they can be under continuous observation.
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.
Barriers should be installed on the exit side of an access control point, as well as the entrance.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
9
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
y
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.
Design passive barrier systems to comply with the requirements of the Deputy Secretary of Defense
memorandum “Access for People with Disabilities” dated October 31, 2008. The memorandum updates the
DoD standards for making facilities accessible to people with disabilities.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
10
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
Annex A: Understanding crash test rating classifications
Overview
AVBs are classified according to their crash test rating results (Department of State Standard SD-STD-02.01,
Revision A, March 2003). AVBs are tested to resist the kinetic energy (K-rating) of the test vehicle’s speed
and limit the penetration distance (L-rating) of the test vehicle beyond the front line (protected side) of the
AVB. The test rating results are based on the distance a 15,000 lb vehicle traveling at different designated
speeds penetrate past the protected side of the barrier. K-ratings are categorized from highest to lowest vehicle
impact speeds. When applied, L-ratings are listed from the shortest to farthest penetration distances past the
protected area of AVB.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
When the 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 that allow penetration distances in excess of 1 m. 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 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.
The ASTM is the primary testing standard for vehicle crash testing and in 2007 revised the “Standard Test
Method for Vehicle Crash Testing of Perimeter Barriers” testing method. However, to date, DoD continues to
certify AVBs based on Department of State Standard SD-STD-02.01, Revision A, March 2003, with the
exception of penetration distances, which have been evaluated for conformance with SD-STD-02.01, April
1985 testing method; while, DoS continues to certify its AVBs based on the standard test methods of
Department of State Standard SD-STD-02.01, Revision A, March 2003.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
11
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
Annex B: AVB selection checklist
The following list incorporates the selection process for anti-vehicle barrier design and installation
requirements. Agencies in the process of selecting an AVB should consider review of the information
contained in it, answering each question based on the results of its TVA.
AVB selection checklist
1. Describe the design basis threat as determined by the agency’s risk assessment.
2. What is the type, weight, maximum velocity, contents and calculated kinetic energy of the threat
vehicle? What type of attack? Single vehicle or multiple vehicles?
3. Is there sufficient standoff distance between the planned barrier and the protected structure?
4. What is the expected speed of the vehicle?
5. Can the speed of the vehicle be reduced (via speed bumps, serpentine approach, etc.)?
6. What is the calculated kinetic energy developed by the moving vehicle?
7. Have all impact points along the perimeter been identified?
8. Have the number of access points requiring vehicle barrier installation been minimized?
9. What is the most cost-effective active barrier available that will absorb the kinetic energy developed
by the threat vehicle?
10. How many barriers are required at each entry point to meet throughput requirements?
11. What is the most cost-effective passive barrier that will absorb the kinetic energy developed by the
threat vehicle?
12. Will the use of aesthetic barriers at some locations be necessary?
13. Is penetration into the site a factor?
14. If penetration into the site is a factor, is the standoff distance adequate after impact?
15. Will traffic flow be affected by the barrier’s normal cycle rate? What is the active barrier’s maximum
throughput rate per day/hour? What is the number of available traffic lanes: one-way only; reversible;
width; and separation? Is the roadway flat/sloping/crowned, islands, etc.?
16. Will the active barrier need to be activated at a rate higher than the normal rate?
17. Will the barrier be required to be normally open (allow traffic to pass) or normally closed (stop traffic
flow)?
18. If normally open (allowing traffic flow), is adequate distance available between the guard post and
the barrier to allow activation and operation of the barrier?
19. Will the barrier be subject to severe environmental conditions? Consider high/low temperatures,
rainfall, drainage, snow and frost. Survey the site for sub-surface conditions, berms, landscaping,
buried utilities, drainage, frost line and water table height. Also consider zoning laws.
20. Do passive barriers installed along the perimeter provide equivalent protection to the active barriers?
21. Do passive barriers interfere with established clear zone requirements?
22. In case of power failure, will the barrier fail open or close? Is there an emergency backup power
source? Are there warning/safety signs/signals/strobes/horns to warn of the barriers ahead? Are there
semaphore gate arms? Are they in sync with the barrier deployment?
23. Is this a temporary or permanent installation?
24. Consider CPTED principles (see the APTA Recommended Practice “Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) at Public Transit Facilities”).
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
12
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
References
American Public Transportation Association Recommended Practices:
“Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) at Public Transit Facilities”
“Fencing Systems to Control Access to Transit Facilities”
American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS), “International Glossary of Security Terms.”
http://www.asisonline.org/library/glossary/index.xml
Department of Defense Handbook, “Selection and Application of Vehicle Barriers,” 1999.
http://www.tpub.com/content/NAVFAC/1013_14/1013_140026.htm
Department of Defense, Unified Facility Criteria, “The Selection and Application of Vehicle Barriers,” UFC4-022-02, August 2010. http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_4_022_02.pdf
FTA Office of Research Demonstration and Innovation, “Appendix E. Vehicle Barrier Selection and
Implementation Considerations,” http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/security/securityinitiatives/
designconsiderations/CD/appe.htm
Oakes, Charles, The Bollard, 2010. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/bollard.php
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Public Transportation Security, Volume 4:
“Intrusion Detection for Public Transportation Facilities Handbook,” 2007.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_86v4.pdf
Definitions
See aptastandards.com for a complete glossary.
barrier: A natural or manmade obstacle to the movement of people, animals, vehicles or materials.
maintenance: The continued care and upkeep of a space for its intended purpose. It also serves as an
expression of ownership.
risk assessment: A formal methodical process used to evaluate risks to a transit system. The security portion
of the risk assessment identifies security threats (both terrorism and crime) to the transit system; evaluates
system vulnerabilities to those threats; and determines the consequences to people, equipment and property.
standoff distance: The distance maintained between an asset or portion thereof and the potential location for
an explosive detonation or other threat.
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
13
APTA SS-SIS-RP-009-12 | Anti-Vehicle Barriers for Public Transit
Abbreviations and acronyms
AVB
ASTM
CCTV
CPTED
DoD
DoS
IDS
K-rating
L-rating
NTAS
TVA
anti-vehicle barrier
American Society for Testing and Materials
closed-circuit television
crime prevention through environmental design
Department of Defense
Department of State
intrusion detection system
kinetic energy rating for AVBs
penetration distance rating for AVBs
National Terror Advisory System
threat and vulnerability assessment
© 2012 American Public Transportation Association
14
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

advertising