Gulf Construction Online - Wrightstyle helps keep airports safe

Safety & Security

Wrightstyle helps keep airports safe

Lee Coates* of international specialist glazing company Wrightstyle highlights the importance of taking a multi-disciplinary approach to assessing safety and security risks in public buildings, particularly airports.

01 January 2014

THE recent massacre at Kenya’s Westgate shopping mall, in which at least 67 people died, is a shocking reminder that any building where large numbers of people gather can be a terrorist target.

That threat is most real at airports, which can have a pivotal role in regional or national economies and, for the terrorists, significant news value. Airports have, therefore, seen the greatest investment in security and building research, although the Westgate attack is a reminder that the threat is much wider.

The Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region is at the forefront of airport development, with the number of passengers from the region set to reach 400 million by 2020. Indeed, Middle Eastern airlines now account for eight per cent of global air transport, and are collectively growing at 10 per cent per year.

That, in turn, creates a problem of capacity, and by 2016, airport construction in the region is forecast to reach $119 billion. Major airport projects are planned, with the UAE set to invest $50 billion in new and extended projects over the next 15 years, and Saudi Arabia planning to build some 28 new airports in the next 20 years.

The threat is also not confined to larger hub airports. The 2007 attack at Glasgow airport in Scotland, UK, underlines how terrorism can be both national or local, and meticulously planned for maximum effect or simply opportunistic.

But it would be simplistic is to consider airport security purely in terms of a terrorist threat. Kenya was also in the world’s media spotlight last August following a major fire at Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta Airport, the busiest in East Africa, and of major economic importance for the country – both for inward tourism and exports, mainly cut flowers.

The catastrophic fire, most probably started by faulty wiring, demonstrates how a major infrastructure asset can quickly become a national liability. The airport, built in an age before modern fire regulations and protective systems, was extensively damaged, closing off a vital transport gateway. However, perhaps remarkably, there were no casualties.

The Nairobi fire is a stark reminder of the importance of identifying every conceivable threat, that strategies to deal with them are robustly examined, and emergency procedures routinely tested – which wasn’t the case in Nairobi with its aged infrastructure, inadequate emergency equipment and poor response planning.

Countering those threats starts with a comprehensive assessment of the likely (or unlikely) risks the airport might face in terms of an accidental or deliberate interruption to its operations. Modern building safety is largely determined by taking a multi-disciplinary approach to assessing those hazards – from power failure to cyber attack, from civil disorder to fire and explosive detonation.

For an airport, other factors might have to be considered – from the kinds of threat specific to that country or region, to the airlines that make use of the facility. The fact is that, while terrorism is often a blunt instrument involving random carnage, it can also be targeted more specifically.

There are a number of assessment methodologies to understand the potential threats, identify the assets to be protected, and how best to mitigate against those risks. That assessment then guides the design team in determining acceptable risks and the cost-effectiveness of the measures proposed, both airside and landside.

The UK has been at the forefront of airport safety, largely because of the historical threats posed by Irish terrorists, which included mortar bombs fired onto the runway at London Heathrow in 1994. They failed to detonate but underline how airport security is an issue that has to be considered outside, not just inside, the airport’s perimeter.

That, in essence, is the airport designer’s conundrum: how to build a facility able to safely handle large numbers of people, while making their experience as hassle-free as possible. Modern guidance on airport design covers all of an airport’s critical functions, from security checks on passengers to aircraft hold baggage, from the location of car-parks to the glazed elements in the building’s design – as well as the advisability of creating exclusion zones outside terminal buildings for unauthorised vehicles.

Stand-off distance is an important consideration. A bomb detonating at 7 m from the terminal façade will, depending on the size of the bomb and type of explosive, generate blast pressure of up to one tonne per square foot. At 30 m, blast pressure falls to one-tenth of a tonne per sq ft – within building regulation parameters on structural integrity.

Modern building design, in airports as elsewhere, now makes extensive use of glass. It brings in ambient light and creates a more pleasant interior environment. This extensive use of glass has come about as a result of investment in innovation, both to develop new laminated glass types and framing systems able to withstand blast pressure, as well as to accurately evaluate those systems using a variety of assessment and computational tools.

Wrightstyle has been closely involved in that process of development: designing and testing exterior and interior glazing systems and doors able to withstand explosive blast pressures – and, of course, to guard against fire, smoke and toxic gases for up to 120 minutes.

However, the company has gone beyond computational assessment to also conduct live bomb testing. One test involved a simulated lorry bomb attack (500 kg of TNT-equivalent explosive) detonated 75 m from the test rig.

It immediately followed this with a simulated car bomb attack on the same glazing system (100 kg of explosive), detonated at a distance of 20 m and therefore generating a higher loading on the façade. Both tests were equally successful.

Wrightstyle’s compatible systems, with the glass and steel framing systems tested together, are accredited to EU, US and Asia Pacific standards. The company advocates the specification of the glass and framing as one unit: in a real fire or terrorist situation, the glass will only be as protective as its frame, and vice versa.

As recent events in Kenya have shown, both fire and terrorist attack are potent threats to be assessed, comprehensively guarded against, and staffed by response teams that conduct regular drills to ensure that they can deal adequately with any emergency.

That multi-dimensional approach also extends across the built environment, developing next-generation products and systems to ensure new levels of fire and terrorist protection. The specialist glass and glazing industry remains at the forefront of that innovative research process.

• Lee Coates leads research, development and testing for Wrightstyle’s steel and aluminium systems, which mitigate against fire, bomb/blast and ballistic attack. Wrightstyle has supplied to a number of airports including London Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow in the UK and, internationally, Doha (Qatar), Dubai (UAE) and Taiwan.