ISC SECURITY
DESIGN CRITERIA
FOR NEW FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND MAJOR MODERNIZATION PROJECTS

A REVIEW AND COMMENTARY

Committee to Review the Security Design Criteria of the Interagency Security Committee

Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C. www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary ISC SECURITY DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND MAJOR MODERNIZATION PROJECTS A REVIEW AND COMMENTARY Committee to Review the Security Design Criteria of the Interagency Security Committee Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. 45640000 between the National Academy of Sciences and the General Services Administration and Contract No. SALMEC-01-M-0545 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of State. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-0888-01 Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Available from: Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE SECURITY DESIGN CRITERIA OF THE INTERAGENCY SECURITY COMMITTEE STUART L. KNOOP, Chair, Oudens and Knoop Architects PC, Chevy Chase, Maryland ALFREDO H.-S. ANG, University of California, Irvine NIALL KELLY, Langdon Wilson Architects, Los Angeles, California BRIAN MEACHAM, Ove Arup and Partners, Westborough, Massachusetts RANDALL NASON, C.H. Guernsey & Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma CHARLES OSWALD, Wilfred Baker Engineering, Inc., San Antonio, Texas THOMAS RUST, Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC, Chantilly, Virginia KENNETH SCHOONOVER, KMS Associates, Inc., Lansing, Illinois ROBERT SMILOWITZ, Weidlinger Associates, New York, New York JAMES C. SNYDER, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor LEONARD C. ZIMMERMANN, Flack & Kurtz, Inc., New York, New York Staff RICHARD G. LITTLE, Director, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment JASON DREISBACH, Research Associate DANA CAINES, Financial Associate PAT WILLIAMS, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary BOARD ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT PAUL GILBERT, Chair, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Seattle, Washington MASSOUD AMIN, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California RACHEL DAVIDSON, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York REGINALD DESROCHES, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia DENNIS DUNNE, California Department of General Services, Sacramento, California PAUL FISETTE, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts YACOV HAIMES, University of Virginia, Charlottesville HENRY HATCH, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired), Oakton,Virginia AMY HELLING, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia SUE McNEIL, University of Illinois, Chicago DEREK PARKER, Anshen+Allen, San Francisco, California DOUGLAS SARNO, The Perspectives Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia WILL SECRE, Masterbuilders, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio DAVID SKIVEN, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan MICHAEL STEGMAN, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina DEAN STEPHAN, Charles Pankow Builders (retired), Laguna Beach, California ZOFIA ZAGER, County of Fairfax, Fairfax, Virginia CRAIG ZIMRING, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia Staff RICHARD G. LITTLE, Director, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment LYNDA L. STANLEY, Executive Director, Federal Facilities Council MICHAEL COHN, Program Officer JASON DREISBACH, Research Associate DANA CAINES, Financial Associate PAT WILLIAMS, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Crawford, Karagozian & Case Kent Goering, Applied Research Associates Eve Hinman, Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. Douglas Mitten, Project Management Services, Inc. Harold O. Sprague, Jr., Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Harold Forsen, National Academy of Engineering. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   5     Background,   5     Scope of the Review,   6     Organization of the Report,   6     References,   7 2   A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH TO SECURITY AND BLAST-MITIGATING BUILDING DESIGN   9     Introduction,   9     A Possible Performance-based Framework for the ISC Security Design Criteria,   10     Summary,   24     References,   24 3   BLAST EFFECTS ON BUILDINGS AND PEOPLE: A PRIMER FOR USERS OF THE ISC SECURITY DESIGN CRITERIA   25     Purpose and Use,   26     Blast Effects—Basic Information,   26     Protective Design Strategies,   32     Approaches to Blast-resistant Structural Design,   38     References,   39

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary 4   ASSESSMENT OF THE ISC SECURITY DESIGN CRITERIA   41     The ISC Security Design Criteria,   41     Recommendations,   45     References,   47     APPENDIX: Biographies of Committee Members   49

OCR for page R1
ISC Security Design Criteria For New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects: A Review and Commentary List of Figures and Tables FIGURES 2.1   Performance-based building code hierarchy,   11 2.2   Steps in a performance-based analysis and design process,   22 2.3   Iteration in the performance-based design process,   23 3.1   Pressure-time relationships after an explosion,   27 3.2   Effect of standoff distance on building protection requirements,   29 TABLES 2.1   Security Levels for Federal Facilities,   15 2.2   Damage to Be Expected Based on Protection Levels and Design Event Magnitudes,   20 3.1   Explosive Capacity of Typical Bomb Delivery Methods,   32

OCR for page R1