How to Interpret and Implement the Recently
Updated UFC 4-010-01, Antiterrorism and Force
Protection Requirements
Sponsored by SAME Architectural Practice
Moderator:
• Rad Delaney, AIA, F.SAME, CDM Smith
Speakers:
• 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 523-6119
1
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 2013
4
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 THREATCON
5
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
practice
6
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 procedures
7
Integrity - Service - Excellence
UNCLASS
UNCLASS
AT Planning Process is Unchanged
START
UFC 4-020-01
Only min std
required
YES
Conv constr
standoff dist
availabl
NO
YES
Apply
UFC 4-010-01
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.
FINISH
8
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 Standards
9
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-committeestandards-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 facilities
10
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 space
12
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 area
13
Integrity - Service - Excellence
UNCLASS
UNCLASS
Standards
14
•
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 5: Parking beneath Buildings
or on Rooftops
Standard 15: Overhead mounted
Architectural features
•
Standard 16: Air Intakes
•
Standard 6: Progressive collapse
avoidance
•
Standard 17: Mail room ventilation
•
Standard 7: Structural isolation
•
•
Standard 8: Building overhangs
Standard 18: Emergency air
distribution shutoff
•
Standard 9: Exterior masonry walls
•
•
Standard 19: Utility distribution and
installation
Standard 10: Windows & skylights
•
Standard 11: Building entrances
•
Standard 20: Equipment bracing
•
Standard 21: Under building access
•
Standard 22: Mass notification
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 point
15
Integrity - Service - Excellence
UNCLASS
UNCLASS
Minimum AT Standards Changes
Standard 1. Minimum Standoff Distances (cont.)
GLAZING STANDOFF
MAY DETERMINE THE
BUILDING STANDOFF
NOT THE WALLS
16
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 area
17
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 06-08
18
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 WALLS
19
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 spaces
22
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 doors
23
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 stripped
24
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 trigger
25
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 casualties
26
Integrity - Service - Excellence
UNCLASS
UNCLASS
Wrap-Up
27
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, 2014
Copyright © 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 Examples
Copyright © 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
Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc.
IS
REQUIRED
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 line
Copyright © 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 23 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
debris
Copyright © 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 FORCE
Copyright © 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 4-01001.
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 - STANDOFFS
Copyright © 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 - STANDOFFS
Copyright © 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 - STANDOFFS
Copyright © 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
Mullion
Rotation (deg)
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
32.33
Copyright © 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 Welcome
Copyright © 2014 Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc.
22