How to Interpret and Implement the Recently Updated UFC 4-010-01, Antiterrorism and Force Protection Requirements Sponsored by SAME Architectural PracticeModerator:• Rad Delaney, AIA, F.SAME, CDM SmithSpeakers:• Mark P. Gardner, P.E., Blast Security Consultant, Managing Engineer, Hinman• Jeffrey Nielsen, P.E., Antiterrorism Standards Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC)
UNCLASS UFC 4-010-01, DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards For Buildings Jeff Nielsen, P.E. AFCEC/COSC Antiterrorism Engineer jeffrey.nielsen@us.af.mil 850-283-6119, DSN 523-61191 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Background of UFC 4-010-01 DoD Min AT Standards • UFC 4-010-01 was developed under the authority of DoD Instruction 2000.16, DoD Antiterrorism Standards and issued by Under Secretary of Defense AT&L Memorandum on 20 September 2002. » DoDI 2000.16 requires DoD components to adopt and adhere to common criteria and minimum construction standards to mitigate antiterrorism vulnerabilities and terrorist attack. » Mandatory DoD minimum construction requirements for buildings. » Applies to DoD inhabited buildings, billeting, expeditionary, and temporary structures regardless of funding source. » Applies where no known Terrorist activity (threat) exists. » Combatant Commands such as CENTCOM and EUCOM have more stringent requirements.2 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Security Engineering Working Group (SEWG) • UFC 4-010-01 falls under the SEWG. The SEWG is Chaired by the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (ODUSD(AT&L)) » U.S. Army • Headquarters, Corps of Engineers (USACE) • USACE Protective Design Center (Co-Chair) » U.S. Navy • NAVFAC Atlantic and Engineering Service Center • Chief of Naval Operation (CNO N3AT) » U.S. Air Force • Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC - Tyndall) » Other Defense Agencies (U.S. Marine Corps , TMA, DECA, AAFES, DTRA, DDESB, OUSD (I))3 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Evolution of the Minimum AT Standards for Buildings • 1999: Interim Department of Defense Antiterrorism/Force Protection Construction Standards issued 16 December 1999 by Under Secretary of Defense A&T Memorandum (FOUO) • 2002: Standards updated and converted to UFC 4-010-01 and issued by Under Secretary of Defense AT&L Memorandum on 20 September 2002 • 2003: UFC 4-010-01 Standards updated, dated 8 October 2003 • 2007: UFC 4-010-01 Standards updated, dated 8 October 2003, change 1 dated 22 January 2007 • 2012: Major UFC 4-010-01 Standards updated, dated 9 February 2012 • 2013: Standards updated, current version of the standards is dated 9 February 2012, change 1 dated 1 October 20134 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Intent is Unchanged • Minimum Antiterrorism Standards are for locations where there is no defined specific threat • Where required minimum standoff distances can be met, conventional construction is adequate • Where standoff distance cannot be met, an equivalent level of protection must be provided through mitigation • Minimum standards will provide: » Reduced risk of mass casualties due to explosive event » Minimized collateral damage from explosives effects and fragmentation » Facilitation of future upgrades and increases in THREATCON5 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Philosophy is Unchanged • Comprehensive protection is cost prohibitive • Appropriate level of protection can be provided to lessen risk of mass casualties for all DoD personnel • Implement standards over time as new facilities are built and existing facilities receive major renovation • No known threat of terrorist activity exists • Three key elements - » Least expensive time for application is in construction / renovation » Master planning: Long term “blueprint” for installations » Design Practice: Concepts to be incorporated into standard design practice6 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Assumptions are Unchanged • Baseline threat » Stationary vehicle, placed, and mail bombs » Direct and indirect fire weapons » Chemical, biological, and radiological threats • Controlled perimeter • Levels of protection • Minimum standoff distances » Design Codes • Policies and procedures7 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS AT Planning Process is Unchanged START YES Conv constr YES UFC 4-020-01 Only min std standoff dist Apply required availabl UFC 4-010-01 NO NO UFC 4-020-02 Support Manuals UFC 4-020-03, UFC 4-20-04, UFC 4 021-01, UFC 4-022-01, UFC 4-023-03, etc. FINISH8 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS What has Changed? • The primary reasons for the 2012 edition is to incorporate lessons learned since the 2007 edition and to increase the conventional construction’s standoff based on wall material type • The primary reason for the recent 2013 revision was to incorporate the applicability of the Interagency Security Committee (ISC) The Risk Management Process for Federal facilities for DoD leased facilities in lieu of the UFC • The changes implemented will be discussed together since they occurred fairly close together • The following slide highlights the key updates to the AT minimum standards • As discussed earlier, there is no change in the intent, philosophy nor the assumptions that underpin the Minimum AT Standards9 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS What has Changed? • The applicability changes » DoD Leased facilities must now comply with ISC physical security standards and procedures in The Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities document http://www.dhs.gov/interagency-security-committee- standards-and-best-practices • The exemption changes » Fisher House with no more than 24 units » Town centers with no more than 12 MFH units above commercial space on 1st floor » Enhanced Use Lease facilities outside the base perimeter with non DoD occupants » Transitional, temporary and relocatable buildings in use for less than 5 years » Mini-marts and commissaries with less than 15,000 SF (standoff only) • Installation master plan required for all existing and new facilities10 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Design Submittals • Design submittal requirements » Narrative of how each applicable standards is met » Applicable explosive weights and level of protection provided » Standoff distance provided » Blast resistant window and supporting structure calculations or test results » Building element structural analysis or design calculations if the conventional construction standoff distance is not used » Progressive collapse calculations if required • Design submittal, drawings, and specifications that include the explosive weight must be handled as FOUO. • If referred to only as Explosive weight I, II or III the document may be distributed as open source.11 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Key Definition Changes • The Definition changes » Billeting, Family Housing, Fisher Houses » DoD personnel » Minimum standoff distance » Primary gathering building » Unobstructed space12 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Key New Definitions • Additional definitions added for clarity » Controlled Parking » Change of Occupancy » Deviation » Plant replacement value » Uncontrolled public access » Usable building area13 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Standards • Standard 1: Standoff distance • Standard 12: Exterior Doors • Standard 2: Unobstructed space • Standard 13: Mail rooms • Standard 3: Drive-up / drop-off • Standard 14: Roof Access • Standard 4: Access roads • Standard 15: Overhead mounted • Standard 5: Parking beneath Buildings Architectural features or on Rooftops • Standard 16: Air Intakes • Standard 6: Progressive collapse avoidance • Standard 17: Mail room ventilation • Standard 7: Structural isolation • Standard 18: Emergency air distribution shutoff • Standard 8: Building overhangs • Standard 9: Exterior masonry walls • Standard 19: Utility distribution and installation • Standard 10: Windows & skylights • Standard 20: Equipment bracing • Standard 11: Building entrances • Standard 21: Under building access • Standard 22: Mass notification14 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 1. Minimum Standoff Distances • No longer one conventional construction standoff distance for each explosive weights I and II » Conventional construction standoff is now in a matrix with ten different wall materials and two different wall loadings and two different levels of protection. See UFC 4-010-01, Table B-2 » Some conventional construction standoff distances got worse. » Conventional construction standoff still based on typical construction materials, application, and details » Still have the option to design structures that perform better than the conventional constructed wall system » Standoff from base perimeter at ECF measured to the ID check point15 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 1. Minimum Standoff Distances (cont.) GLAZING STANDOFF MAY DETERMINE THE BUILDING STANDOFF NOT THE WALLS16 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 2. Unobstructed Space • No longer a set distance of 10 m (33 feet) » Unobstructed space is based on the hand carried explosive weight II. Therefore the unobstructed space is the same as the facility standoff for the given wall type. • Unobstructed space will extend from the building to the edge of the non controlled parking • Pedestrian access control (fence/wall) required for controlled parking area17 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 3. Drive-Up / Drop-Off • Child Care Centers removed from the list of facilities allowed to have a drive-up/drop-off Standard 5. Parking Beneath Building or on Rooftops • The new UFC stipulates the explosive standoff of 4 feet horizontally and 2.5 feet above the structural component. Follow the design criteria within Protective Design Center Technical Report 06-0818 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 10. Windows and Skylights • There is no longer a prescriptive window /glazing design for conventional construction standoff • All windows, skylights, and other glazing must be designed for the applicable explosive weight and standoff. • Within 200 feet of the base perimeter both explosive weight I and II must be calculated to determine which pressure and impulse is greatest • Frames other than steel and aluminum may be used provided they meet the testing requirement GLAZING STANDOFF MAY DETERMINE THE BUILDING STANDOFF NOT THE WALLS19 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 10. Windows and Skylights (cont.) • Static design method (ASTM F2248) » Allowable design deflection of the window frame member is increased to 1/60 of the member length in lieu of 1/160 in the previous edition » New design procedure for calculating supporting structural elements • The design load no longer needs to be 8 times the glazing resistance found in ASTM E1300 • Skylights designed for medium level of protection (laminated glass may break but cannot level the frame)20 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 10. Windows and Skylights (cont.) • For a project only required to comply with standard 10, design the new windows or skylights based on the existing parking and roadway standoff or the facility standoff identified in the installation AT master plan • For a building exempt from minimum standoff distances (Burger King, Bank, Mini Mart) must use the prescriptive window described in para. B-3.1.7 • Exterior stairways and breezeways may be classified as non occupied areas. Therefore , glazing in exterior stairways and breezeways are not required to be blast resistant. However, any glazing at the building entrance inside the stairwell must provide blast and debris resistance.21 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 12. Exterior Doors • Within 200 feet of the base perimeter both explosive weight I and II must be calculated to determine which pressure and impulse is greatest • New ASTM F2247 and ASTM F2927 design testing standards for doors is incorporated. • The inner door of foyers or vestibules must provide the protective boundary for the occupants. • Overhead doors are required to be tethered to prevent them from translating into inhabited spaces22 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 16. Air Intakes • Existing building must now comply with the minimum air intake height of 10 feet • HVAC replacement project must now comply with the minimum air intake height of 10 feet requirement regardless of the 50% major renovation trigger • Where mechanical room louvers allow blast pressure on the internal building walls and doors, those walls and doors must be designed as if they were exterior walls and doors23 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 17. Mail Room and Loading Dock Ventilation • The requirements for mail rooms now also includes internal loading dock areas • Walls and doors separating mail rooms and loading docks from inhabited portions of the building must be sealed and weather stripped24 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 18. Emergency Air Distribution Shutoff • Locations of the manual shut off switch was revised to comply with a travel distance to each switch not to exceed 200 feet • UFC allows the engineer to determine if shutting off the some exhaust systems violates the fire code or creates another unsafe condition • Special provision added for fan coil unit heaters and air conditioners » Leak proof dampers not required » Emergency shut off only recommended for existing facilities • HVAC replacement project must now comply with the air distribution shutoff requirement regardless of the 50% major renovation trigger25 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Minimum AT Standards Changes Standard 19. Utility Distribution and Installation • Deleted former standards 19 » Maintaining critical facilities utility systems or providing redundant utilities is not part of the minimum AT standards and not required for life safety and prevention of mass casualties26 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
UNCLASS Wrap-Up27 Integrity - Service - Excellence UNCLASS
LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTING ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION WITH 2013 UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC 4-010-01) MARK GARDNER, MANAGING ENGINEER HINMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. June 12, 2014Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1
LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTING ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION WITH 2013 UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC 4-010-01) Agenda • Overview • Pre-design Examples • Design Examples • Construction ExamplesCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 OVERVIEW • What were some overarching goals of the changes? –Reduce misunderstandings of its provision. –Address situations not previously addressed. –Improve the consistency of interpretation.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 PRE-DESIGN – DESIGN BASIS THREAT / LEVEL OF PROTECTION • This requirement is consistently ignored. • Multiple projects just assume there is no project specific DBT and/or LOP is minimum per UFC 4-010-01. In reality, the UFC 4-020-01 process needs to be completed. • It is imperative to clarify this during the bidding process to make sure 1391 was properly developed. • 4 Projects recently have increased their DBT after the 1391 was developed causing funding issues. • Ensure the RFP is clear on threat size and location and level of protection.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 PRE-DESIGN – WHICH STANDOFF IS REQUIREDCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 5
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 PRE-DESIGN - WHICH STANDOFF IS REQUIRED? • Many project design teams see the “minimum” standoff and want to design site plan around this. • The minimum does not mean cost effective. • Many times at pre-design stage the design team does not know building limitations; need provide flexibility for standoff to reduce costs.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN - SUBMISSIONS • Multiple projects have reached 95% phase without any blast calculations submitted.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 7
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN - PARKING GARAGES • If new or existing garage is taller than your facility, make sure the roof design of the new facility accounts for the line of sight for the design threat. • The roofs in the conventional construction tables assume threat below roof lineCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 8
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN - UNOBSTRUCTED SPACE FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS For existing building - to mitigate the introduction of hand delivered explosives into the controlled parking areas those areas will have some means to control pedestrian access as well as vehicular access, such as fencing or walls. \1\ Fences or walls will be a minimum of 6 feet (2 meters) high. Specific fence, wall, and access control requirements will be coordinated with physical security and antiterrorism personnel /1/. • Need to coordinate with local personnel to determine if this is feasible for building operations inside a controlled perimeter or if the existing building should be hardened for a WII threat.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 9
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN - FAÇADE (METAL PANEL / BRICK) How do you handle façade materials not in the Conventional Construction Standoff Distance Chart? Per PDC Forum: The assumption is that the face material is not a structural material, only mass to help resist the blast. That said the face material does not require a blast analysis, but if the supported weights of the face materials differed from the EIFS and brick veneer assumptions, then the metal or wood studs would need to be dynamically designed using the appropriate supported weight. However, if you need to provide higher LOP's or have identified threats larger than those assumed by the Minimum Standards, then the façade needs to be investigated.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN – CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION STANDOFF DISTANCE (CCSD) LIMITATIONS Pay attention to strength, span, and support conditions Note 9: Shear will need to be checked when using higher than minimum material strengths.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 11
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN - INCREASE SHEAR Attention to increase requirement for shear capacity in concrete and CMU walls is regularly missed but is critical to ensure the wall meets the requirements of the UFC.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 12
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN - ROOFS • PDC Forum: “We can only vouch for the properties we’ve investigated. Things get complicated in dynamic systems. Shorter span walls may have increased shear stress issues. Longer spans will have greater deflections. Roof spans are less likely to make a difference, but we’d have to do a parameter investigation to see at what point they would start to make a difference. The same goes for other material properties. The bottom line, therefore, is that any properties outside those in Table 2- 3 will have to be analyzed.”Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 13
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN – VESTIBULES •Need to remember to properly support the inner system head condition. •Can use higher level of protection on outer door and sidelights to prevent debrisCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 14
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 DESIGN - PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE – TIE FORCECopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 15
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 CONSTRUCTION - SPECS • Develop Performance Specs for vendors – Eliminates the guess work / interpretation by vendors – Ensures that the right standoff / design pressure is being utilized – Avoids disagreements over interpretation issued. • UFGS Specs are not 100% up to date with latest criteria. Make sure they are edited for project specific requirements before submission. • On drawings and specs, reference the applicable version of UFC 4-010- 01.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 16
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 CONSTRUCTION - STANDOFFSCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 17
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 CONSTRUCTION - STANDOFFSCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 CONSTRUCTION - STANDOFFS• Short standoffs do not allow static approach as they are out of ASTM F 2248 range• 1 15/16” Glass does not work for Low LOP• Glass too thick for “typical” manufacturers.Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 19
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 CONSTRUCTION - STANDOFFSCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 20
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 CONSTRUCTION - STANDOFFS • Short standoffs do not allow static approach as they are out of ASTM F 2248 range • 1 5/16” Glass does not work for Low LOP • Required glass too thick for Conventional Construction • Door will require center astragal • Vertical Mullion needs to be deeper • Post installed anchorage will be challenging Ductility Rotation (deg) Mullion Threat Reaction (kips) Analysis Criteria Analysis Criteria 7.5" depth w/ Inserts W2@13ft 13.31 - 19.89 10 14.8 10.5" depth w/ Inserts W2@13ft 9.59 - 9.13 10 32.33Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 21
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection Design using Unified Facilities Criteria 2013 DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings: UFC 4-010-01 Contact: Mark Gardner: mgardner@hce.com 703-416-6780 http://www.hce.com/blog/ http://www.hce.com/contact/community.php Feedback on Presentation is WelcomeCopyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. 22
