Last updated: 13 Nov 12 @ 03:23  |  

The latest generation of temporary barriers are more secure and have a smaller logistics trail

Providing high levels of perimeter security at temporary events can be taxing, with cost and deployment speed often offset against the level of protection. But Robert de la Poer finds that a new generation of temporary barriers is revolutionising the market

Whether providing security for state visits and political conferences, or protecting sensitive sites during protests and periods of heightened terrorist threat, security supervisors face the unenviable task of choosing from a myriad of temporary physical perimeter barriers. As with all security measures, they must navigate the trade-off between cost and level of security provided. But they also must weigh the logistical cost of setting up and dismantling temporary barriers; traditionally, the higher the required level of security, the greater the expense, personnel requirements and setup/dismantling time.

One of the main requirements of a temporary fence is that it should not require foundations, but finding a suitable alternative is not as easy as it might appear. In the past mesh fence panels, secured at either end with weighted “feet”, were considered adequate protection against most threats, providing as they did a simple, versatile and rapidly deployable barrier. But these previously ubiquitous fences are now largely considered inadequate in the face of a concerted terrorist attack on a high-risk facility, or even as a means of keeping out determined protestors. Even when they are secured with concrete feet – rather than the increasingly common water-filled plastic ones – they can be breached relatively quickly, and are generally not rated to stop a moving vehicle.

But as demand for higher-specification temporary barriers has increased, so fencing manufacturers have moved swiftly to provide effective solutions. One such product which has recently entered the market is Zaun’s Rapid Deployable Barrier (RDS) system, which the company claims is as secure as a permanent fence despite lacking foundations. While appearing similar to traditional temporary fencing, the configuration of SecureGuard base blocks, combined with a post arrangement, allows installers to erect and remove the fence panels in a matter of minutes. An additional PAS68-rated cabling system can also be incorporated onto the blocks to give defence against hostile vehicle attack.

Zaun’s Managing Director, Paul Painter, explained that the system was developed in response to growing dissatisfaction with the security levels of traditional temporary fencing. “At the moment, many sensitive events such as G8 meetings and party conferences use normal construction temporary fencing,” he said. “This “Heras”-type fencing is a cheap system but is not at all secure and is also sensitive to windy conditions. It also does not perform well in crowds/riot situations – where it has been used as a weapon against the police. Its weaknesses mean that a large number of police or guards are still required.

“The RDS system requires less personnel on the ground, as the fence offers a high degree of protection in itself and has been shown to perform well in a riot situation. The system has been tested to the highest standards for both hostile vehicle mitigation and hostile pedestrian mitigation. Compared to chain-link it is far more secure in terms of penetration time from manual attack and also far more difficult to climb.”

Like traditional barriers, RDS still relies on weighty blocks to provide its main stopping-power and stability, however. These must be stored, transported to the site and manoeuvred into place, creating a considerable logistical tail for the system. But Paul Painter said the company is well prepared to speed them to wherever they are needed. “Zaun has a large quantity of these blocks available from stock in the UK and other territories for both sale and rental,” he said. “They are a product originally derived from the highways industry. The logistics of storing, transporting and deploying the blocks is all in place – hence we can manage the installation of the system at relatively short notice and out of normal working hours.”

Another company, HESCO, has attempted to overcome the logistical issue with its own temporary high security barrier by employing a ballast system to anchor the fencing. According to the company’s Regional Manager, Jake McQueen, Hesco’s Re-deployable Security Fence (HRSF) can therefore provide PAS68-rated vehicle mitigation and anti-climb capabilities using locally-sourced materials. “An aggregate ballast contained in large bulk bags – which is commonly available at builders’ merchants and aggregate suppliers – is used to anchor the fence to the ground,” he said. “This is simply placed inside the Concertainer-style rear cell of the fence. The major advantage of this is that the ballast, being locally sourced, vastly reduces time effort and logistic burden on the customer. There is therefore no need for prefabricated ballast pieces.

“During the development phase it was recognised that the barrier could provide excellent hostile vehicle mitigation properties as well as anti-climb. The extra capability was gained at very little extra effort or cost. It therefore provides our customers with a much more flexible product, in that it is both an effective anti-climb and anti-vehicle solution.”

In spite of their differences, both systems can be installed quickly if necessary – for example, a team of four people can erect 50 metres of HRSF per hour. They are both also modular, allowing them to be integrated with a wide range of access control and gate systems. Paul Painter explained that flexibility was at the core of the RDS’ design. “We can clad the system with virtually any fencing mesh – hence we can tailor the security level of the system, from a base product to an enhanced security product,” he said. “We have gates and turnstiles which link to the system – all without below-ground foundations. We can also link the system to other hostile vehicle mitigation products. We are currently developing PAS68-rated entrances for the RDS system in its own right – we expect these to be available in the next 3-6 months.”

Neither barrier can offer ballistic protection, however, which may be an essential requirement if the threat of vehicle-borne IED (VBIED) attack is considered high, or if the temporary perimeter cannot be established at a safe distance from the facility. In such circumstances, systems such as the BABS Ballistic Absorption Barrier System or the DefenCell range of products produced by J&S Franklin can combine effective vehicle protection with ballistic protection. Like HESCO’s fences, the lightweight DefenCell products can be filled with locally-sourced materials to help mitigate the logistics of its assembly. Filling the modular system on site can be relatively time consuming, however, making the product less attractive as a temporary barrier. The company has therefore launched a new variant – the DefenCell MC – which is designed specifically for temporary deployments. The system uses a simple metal frame to hold the cellular structure which is pre-filled with polymerised sand. These one-metre cubes are easily deployed and removed using a HIAB or forklift. The MC has been successfully tested to PAS68 crash standards as well as against blast threats.

DefenCell Sales Manager Jeremy Milton explained how the new system has evolved. “DefenCell MC is a pre-filled deployable version of the DefenCell barrier, and is ideal for temporary installations,” he said. “DefenCell has worked closely with the security services to refine different configurations to meet the evolving threats of terrorist attack and to make available a barrier that can be incorporated into enhanced security plans but can also be sympathetically landscaped and is aesthetically pleasing in sensitive locations. Our system has the advantage of being multi purpose, and the same products can be used to provide ballistic protection, blast mitigation and the system was successfully used for flood protection in the US in the Mississippi valley last spring.”

While there is still a tradeoff between the level and type of protection that security managers can receive from a temporary barrier and the speed and ease of their deployment, it is clear that the perimeter protection industry is innovating to provide higher levels of security with a smaller logistical train. As threats continue to escalate, it is likely that we will have more need of them in the months and years ahead.

Robert de la Poer is editor of Intersec, the Journal of International Security