Purpose of this white paper
This paper explains PAS 68 and PAS 69 in practical design and specification language. It is intended for consultants, architects, security planners, facilities teams, project managers and approving authorities who need to understand how impact-tested vehicle security barriers should be assessed, selected and incorporated into a high-security perimeter strategy.
| Subject | PAS 68 and PAS 69 for Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) |
| Audience | Security consultants, architects, engineers, asset owners and project specifiers |
| Application | Critical infrastructure, data centres, utilities, government facilities, airports, rail, industrial plants and public realm |
| Document status | Technical Paper |
Executive Summary
Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) is the discipline of preventing a hostile or errant vehicle from reaching a protected asset, crowded place, critical function or building facade. In high-security environments, perimeter protection is no longer a simple fencing exercise. It is a controlled risk-treatment strategy that combines threat assessment, vehicle dynamics, rated barriers, foundation design, operational access control and long-term maintenance.
PAS 68 and PAS 69 are commonly referenced in HVM specifications because they perform two different but connected roles. PAS 68 provides the impact-test and performance classification framework for vehicle security barriers. PAS 69 provides guidance on how to select, install and use those barriers in real project conditions. In plain language: PAS 68 tells consultants how a barrier performed under a defined impact test; PAS 69 helps consultants decide whether that barrier is suitable for a specific site.
A technically sound specification should avoid simply asking for a ‘PAS 68 bollard’ or ‘crash-rated gate’. Instead, it should define the threat vehicle, required impact speed, impact angle, acceptable penetration, debris risk, standoff distance, foundation constraints, operational duty cycle and integration requirements. This white paper provides a practical framework for doing exactly that.
Standards-status note
PAS 68:2013 and PAS 69:2013 are widely recognised and still regularly encountered in project specifications, but official listings identify both as withdrawn. Consultants should therefore verify the latest client, authority, insurer and project-specific requirements before finalising specifications. Where newer standards such as ISO 22343 or IWA 14 are required, equivalence should be reviewed by a competent HVM specialist.
PAS 68 vs PAS 69 at a Glance
|
Item
|
PAS 68
|
Happy APAS 69ddons
|
|---|---|---|
|
Primary role
|
Impact-test specification and performance classification for vehicle security barriers.
|
Guidance for selection, installation and use of vehicle security barrier systems.
|
|
Core question answered
|
How did this barrier perform when struck by a defined vehicle at a defined speed and angle?
|
How should the right barrier be selected, located, installed, operated and maintained for this site?
|
|
Main output
|
A rating/classification that describes vehicle type, mass, speed, angle, penetration and debris distance.
|
A design and application methodology for turning threat assessment into a workable HVM scheme.
|
|
Use in specification
|
Used to define required tested performance.
|
Used to define application logic, siting, foundations, integration and operational considerations.
|
|
Consultant takeaway
|
Do not treat all PAS 68-rated products as equal. Read the full rating.
|
Do not treat barrier selection as a catalogue choice. Make it site-specific.
|
Framework for Consultants
For early-stage design reviews, the following framework helps consultants translate standards language into project decisions.
|
Question
|
Consultant Focus
|
Expected Output
|
|---|---|---|
|
What?
|
What asset, function, crowd, facade, entry point or perimeter line must be protected?
|
Critical asset register, protected line, desired standoff and consequence profile.
|
|
Why?
|
Why is HVM required: terrorism, forced entry, ram raid, accidental vehicle impact, insurer requirement, authority requirement or corporate risk policy?
|
Threat basis and operational requirement.
|
|
Where?
|
Where can a vehicle generate speed, approach the asset, breach the perimeter or bypass existing controls?
|
Vehicle Dynamics Assessment and vulnerable approach map.
|
|
When?
|
When should HVM be considered: master planning, concept design, tender, retrofit, authority submission, post-incident review or asset upgrade?
|
Design-stage decision record and specification timing.
|
|
How?
|
How should barriers be rated, placed, installed, integrated, tested, operated and maintained?
|
Performance specification, product schedule, foundation/interface details and maintenance plan.
|
1. What PAS 68 Defines
PAS 68 defines a classification system and impact-test methods for vehicle security barrier systems and their supporting foundations when subjected to a single horizontal impact. It is primarily concerned with measurable impact performance. For consultants, PAS 68 is useful because it converts a crash test into a structured rating that can be compared and specified.
1.1 Scope in Practical Terms
- It applies to vehicle security barriers such as fixed bollards, removable bollards, rising bollards, road blockers, gates, barriers, fences and other products intended to resist vehicle impact.
- It considers the barrier system together with its foundation or supporting structure, because a barrier rating is only meaningful when the tested installation condition is understood.
- It describes vehicle impact performance through controlled parameters such as vehicle type, vehicle mass, impact speed, impact angle, penetration and debris distance.
- It is not a complete site-security design guide; it does not by itself resolve siting, operational workflow, traffic management, access control or maintenance strategy.
1.2 What the PAS 68 Rating Communicates
A PAS 68 rating should be read as a performance sentence, not as a marketing badge. The rating typically communicates the test method, vehicle category, vehicle mass, impact speed, impact angle, vehicle penetration and major debris distance. Consultants should review the full test report or certificate and not rely only on a shortened product description.
|
Rating element
|
Why it matters
|
|---|---|
|
Vehicle type and mass
|
A small passenger car and a heavy goods vehicle represent very different kinetic energy levels and foundation demands.
|
|
Impact speed
|
Speed has a major effect on impact energy. A higher-speed rating is not interchangeable with a lower-speed rating.
|
|
Impact angle
|
A 90-degree impact and an angled impact may produce different loading and penetration behaviour.
|
|
Penetration distance
|
This indicates how far the vehicle travelled beyond the original impact line. It directly affects required standoff distance.
|
|
Debris distance
|
This helps assess secondary risk to people, facades, equipment and public areas beyond the barrier line.
|
|
Foundation condition
|
The tested foundation depth, reinforcement and site build-up are crucial. Substitution can invalidate performance assumptions.
|
Consultant rule of thumb
A barrier should not be specified as “PAS 68-rated” without stating the required vehicle class, mass, speed, impact angle and acceptable penetration. The rating is the design language; the badge alone is not enough.
2. What PAS 69 Defines
PAS 69 complements PAS 68 by providing guidance on the selection, installation and use of vehicle security barrier systems. It shifts the consultant’s attention from “Has the product been impact tested?” to “Is this the right barrier, in the right location, installed in the right way, for the actual threat and operational requirement?”
2.1 Scope in Practical Terms
- It assists the selection of vehicle security barriers based on threat, asset, site and operational context.
- It considers installation and foundation issues, including the relationship between the tested product and real site conditions.
- It supports the use of an Operational Requirement to align physical security design with project risk objectives.
- It addresses practical use considerations, including access control, maintenance, inspection, operation and eventual removal or replacement.
2.2 Why PAS 69 Matters
Many HVM failures are not product failures. They are specification, placement, installation, integration or maintenance failures. PAS 69 is valuable because it reminds project teams that a rated product must be part of a coherent protection scheme. A high-performance bollard installed in the wrong location, with unsuitable spacing or poor foundations, can still leave the asset exposed.
3. From Threat to Specification: A Consultant Workflow
Step 1: Define the protected asset
Identify the people, building elements, operational functions, equipment, public areas or critical services requiring protection. Determine the consequence of compromise.
Step 2: Establish the threat basis
Clarify whether the design is addressing hostile vehicle attack, ram raid, vehicle-borne explosive delivery, accidental impact, insider misuse, public realm risk or compliance requirement.
Step 3: Undertake a vehicle dynamics assessment
Map approach routes, turning radii, achievable speeds, gradients, kerbs, road geometry, run-up distance and potential attack vectors.
Step 4: Set the operational requirement
Define how the site must function: pedestrian flow, emergency access, deliveries, queueing, maintenance access, visitor management and traffic control.
Step 5: Select the required performance rating
Translate risk into vehicle type, mass, speed, angle and acceptable penetration. This is where PAS 68 performance language is used.
Step 6: Confirm barrier type and placement
Select fixed, removable or automatic systems based on security function, user behaviour, access needs, aesthetics and maintainability.
Step 7: Engineer the foundation and interfaces
Check slab build-up, drainage, underground services, utilities, reinforcement, edge distances, structural interfaces and temporary works constraints.
Step 8: Integrate with the security ecosystem
Coordinate with access control, CCTV, intercoms, guardhouse workflow, traffic lights, loops, UPS, emergency override, fire strategy and command procedures.
Step 9: Document inspection and maintenance
Define planned maintenance, post-impact inspection, operator training, spare parts, manual release procedure and periodic verification.
4. Where PAS 68 and PAS 69 Are Commonly Applied
The standards are most relevant where a vehicle can be used to breach a perimeter, reach a high-consequence asset, enter a public area, or reduce protective standoff. Typical applications include:
• Data centres and digital infrastructure | • Electrical substations and grid assets |
• Airports, ports and transport terminals | • Government and defence facilities |
• Embassies and diplomatic compounds | • Rail stations and mass transit facilities |
• Industrial plants, oil and gas facilities and utilities | • Stadiums, event venues and public realm |
• Commercial headquarters and high-value logistics hubs | • Water treatment plants and critical municipal infrastructure |
4. Key Design Considerations for Advanced High Security Systems
Layered security
HVM should be one layer within a broader security architecture that includes deterrence, detection, delay, response and recovery. Vehicle barriers alone do not secure a site.
Standoff distance
The location of the barrier line should preserve sufficient distance between a hostile vehicle and the protected asset. Penetration distance and debris distance must be considered together with blast or impact consequence, where applicable.
Barrier continuity
A perimeter is only as strong as its gaps. Consultants should check spacing between units, end conditions, kerb interfaces, landscaping, drainage openings, gates, pedestrian routes and service entrances.
Operational resilience
Automatic systems must be designed for duty cycle, power failure, emergency release, drainage, environmental exposure, abuse, queueing and safe pedestrian separation.
Foundation reality
The tested foundation and the installed foundation must be compatible. Shallow foundations, bridge decks, basement slabs, utilities and existing structures require early coordination.
Aesthetic integration
Public realm and premium developments often require discreet HVM. Street furniture, planters, benches, bollards and architectural elements can provide protection when correctly rated and designed.
Documentation discipline
Tender specifications should require third-party test evidence, certified drawings, installation method statements, as-built records, commissioning records and maintenance manuals.
5. Consultant Specification Checklist
|
Checklist item
|
Consultant confirmation
|
|---|---|
|
Protected asset and consequence category defined
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Threat vehicle and scenario defined
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Vehicle Dynamics Assessment completed or required
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Required vehicle mass, speed and impact angle stated
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Acceptable penetration distance defined
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Debris risk assessed against people, facade and equipment
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Barrier type selected based on operational requirement
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Foundation design checked against tested configuration
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Underground services and drainage constraints coordinated
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Gaps, end conditions and bypass routes closed
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Access control, traffic control and emergency override integrated
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance requirements documented
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
|
Standards status and equivalence reviewed with approving authority
|
☐ Reviewed / ☐ Not applicable / ☐ Action required
|
6. Common Specification Pitfalls
- Specifying “PAS 68-rated” without stating the required rating parameters.
- Assuming a product tested at one speed, vehicle mass or foundation condition is suitable for another.
- Ignoring vehicle approach speed and geometry during early master planning.
- Allowing unprotected gaps at gates, pedestrian entries, kerb transitions or landscape breaks.
- Selecting automatic barriers without considering traffic flow, safety, duty cycle and maintenance access.
- Treating HVM as a late-stage procurement item instead of an early-stage security and civil design decision.
- Failing to verify the current standards required by the client, authority, insurer or national security guidance.
7. Model Performance Specification Wording
The following sample wording may be adapted by consultants. It is intentionally performance-based and should be reviewed against project-specific risk assessments and authority requirements.
Sample clause
Vehicle security barriers shall be independently impact-tested and classified to a recognised HVM performance standard appropriate to the project authority requirements. The proposed system shall demonstrate impact performance for the specified threat vehicle, vehicle mass, impact speed and impact angle, with vehicle penetration and debris distance not exceeding the limits established by the project Operational Requirement. The installed system, including foundation, reinforcement, fixing method, control equipment, safety devices and interface works, shall be consistent with the tested configuration or supported by competent engineering assessment and approved project documentation.
8. Conclusion
PAS 68 and PAS 69 should be understood as complementary tools. PAS 68 provides the measurable performance language for impact-tested vehicle security barriers. PAS 69 provides the application logic for selecting and deploying those barriers effectively in real environments. For consultants, the strongest outcome is achieved when both are used as part of a structured design process: identify the asset, define the threat, assess vehicle dynamics, set the operational requirement, specify the performance rating, engineer the installation and maintain the system throughout its service life.
Reference Notes
[1] British Standards Institution (BSI), PAS 68:2013, Impact test specifications for vehicle security barrier systems; official BSI/NBS listings identify the document status as withdrawn.
[2] British Standards Institution (BSI), PAS 69:2013, Guidance for the selection, installation and use of vehicle security barrier systems; official BSI/NBS listings identify the document status as withdrawn.
[3] National Protective Security Authority (NPSA), guidance on impact testing of vehicle security barriers and recognised HVM testing frameworks.
[4] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), IWA 14-1:2013 and ISO 22343-1:2023 standards landscape for vehicle security barriers.
