Hungarian Defence Review 2020, Nr. 1.
52HDR 2020, Nr. 1Burglar resistanceThe first experiment was focused on the determination of the dynamic resistance known asburglar resistance, i.e. the ability to withstand violent intrusion in protected rooms or areasfollowing the application of physical force and with the aid of tools (6 different group oftools according to the security classes). As an examined asset glass windows were selected. 4The windows were fixed in the testing frame. Commercially used window systems wereinvestigated during the experiment. Particular attention was paid to the sensitivity of thetype and properties of the support frame to the impact. The nominal glass thickness was 3mm for wooden samples and 4 mm for samples with PVC frames. In terms of glass size,dimensions are defined by the overall size of the window samples and frames used. The glasssurface of the wooden frame windows was 1.22 x 1.05 m and 0.81 x 0.97 m of the PVCframe windows. The mounting of the wooden frame window in the test structure is shownin the following Figure 2.abFigure 2 Arrangement of the sample and the measuring instruments (a) wooden frame (b)PVC frameDuring the experiment, 3 windows with a wooden frame and 1 with a PVC frame wereused (see Figure 2). Various sizes of steel ball (2.644 kg and 4.571 kg) were used in the test,which were gradually released from pre-determined distances. Each measurement was recordedwith a high-speed camera and an accelerometer sensor. Individual drop heights wereincreased until the glass panel was damaged. Subsequently, the total impact energy valueswere evaluated.The second round of testing of burglar resistance involved various barriers and parts ofprotection systems (safes, reinforced walls etc.), see Figure 3.4 Figuli, L. et al. “Experimental investigation on the ball drop impact resistance of traditional glass windows”. InGattuli, V., Bursi, O and Zonta, D. (eds.) ANCRiSST 2019 Procedia, 14 th International Workshop on AdvancedSmart Materials and Smart Structures Technology. Roma: Sapienza Università Editrice, 2019. 123-126.
Security Studies53Figure 3 Testing of burglar resistance 5Blast resistanceThe field tests were focusing on the measurement of overpressure and its influence on steelbeams. POLONIT was used as the explosive. The weight of charges selected: 2.3 kg (pipebomb), 4.5 kg (explosive belt) and 9 kg (bomb vest – it was not detonated because of a highoverpressure of the 4.5 kg explosive charge which caused a damage to the steel beam structure).The explosive charges were used together with 25 g of ignition explosive PLNp10. Thesensors were placed at the height of 1.6 m, at the angle of 45° from the normal line in the distances2 m, 5 m, and 10 m from the source of the explosion (see figure 3). One of the sensorswas orientated in parallel with the steel beams in the distance of 5.5 m opposite of a gabionwall and in the distance of 3 m from the source of explosion (we wanted to record the reflectedblast wave). The explosive charges were placed at a wooden base at the height of 10 m. Thestructure consisted of a steel frame and four wide flange steel HEB 100 beams and 12 IPE 120steel beams with a span of 1,770 mm. For convenience the beams were tested in the verticalpositions and simply supported. They were loaded mainly to bending caused by the blast pressureas the axial stress due to the fact that self-weight was practically negligible. 65 Boros, M. “Vplyv deštruktívnych prostriedkov na zisťovanie prielomovej odolnosti rôznych mechanickýchzábranných prostriedkov”. Thesis. University of Žilina, 2016.6 Figuli, L. and Papan, D. “Single degree of freedom analysis of steel beams under blast loading”. Applied mechanicsand materials 617. 2014. 92-95. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.617.92
- Page 3 and 4: HungarianDefenceReviewSPECIALISSUE
- Page 5 and 6: Foreword3FOREWORDThis year we can s
- Page 7 and 8: Focus5Blockchain is clearly a disru
- Page 9 and 10: Focus7the distributed ledger system
- Page 11 and 12: Focus9chain). If the consensus prot
- Page 13 and 14: Focus11made sensational by the nove
- Page 15 and 16: Focus13ones. As a result, blockchai
- Page 17 and 18: HDR 2020, Nr. 1, 15-40. Security St
- Page 19 and 20: Security Studies17could be counter
- Page 21 and 22: Security Studies19secret service in
- Page 23 and 24: Security Studies21without hierarchy
- Page 25 and 26: Security Studies23Regions, as parts
- Page 27 and 28: Security Studies25teach in the firs
- Page 29 and 30: Security Studies27was also a major
- Page 31 and 32: Security Studies29The withdrawal wa
- Page 33 and 34: Security Studies31the next chapter,
- Page 35 and 36: Security Studies33violations agains
- Page 37 and 38: Security Studies35VI. CONCLUSION -
- Page 39 and 40: Security Studies37Behlewî, D. “S
- Page 41 and 42: Security Studies39“Persecution an
- Page 43 and 44: HDR 2020, Nr. 1, 41-49. Security St
- Page 45 and 46: Security Studies43In short, safety
- Page 47 and 48: Security Studies45The historical re
- Page 49 and 50: Security Studies47investment in Eth
- Page 51 and 52: Security Studies49Havasi, Zs. “En
- Page 53: Security Studies51EXTRAORDINARY LOA
- Page 57 and 58: Security Studies55Figure 6 Numerica
- Page 59 and 60: Training57According to Báthory and
- Page 61 and 62: Training59• Obligation: activitie
- Page 63 and 64: Training61In budō, the most import
- Page 65 and 66: Training63standing and mastering of
- Page 67 and 68: Training65Stages Ages Basicconflict
- Page 69 and 70: Training67and ability with the grea
- Page 71 and 72: HDR 2020, Nr. 1, 69-78. Forum & Rev
- Page 73 and 74: Forum & Reviews71the combined appli
- Page 75 and 76: Forum & Reviews73Did the air count
- Page 77 and 78: Forum & Reviews75NATO’s cyber and
- Page 79 and 80: Forum & Reviews77the Alliance than
- Page 81 and 82: HDR 2020, Nr. 1, 79-85. Forum & Rev
- Page 83 and 84: Forum & Reviews81analyze the major
- Page 85 and 86: Forum & Reviews83platforms that alr
- Page 87 and 88: Forum & Reviews85example, adding ne
- Page 89 and 90: Forum & Reviews87“The Military Hi
- Page 91 and 92: Forum & Reviews89well documented pu
- Page 93 and 94: About the Authors91ABOUT THE AUTHOR
- Page 95 and 96: Editorial Policies93EDITORIAL POLIC
- Page 97 and 98: Guidelines for Authors95GUIDELINES
- Page 99 and 100: Guidelines for Authors97NumbersNumb
- Page 101 and 102: Guidelines for Authors99ThesisLast
- Page 103 and 104: HDR 2020, Nr. 1101RECOMMENDED FOR Y
Security Studies
53
Figure 3 Testing of burglar resistance 5
Blast resistance
The field tests were focusing on the measurement of overpressure and its influence on steel
beams. POLONIT was used as the explosive. The weight of charges selected: 2.3 kg (pipe
bomb), 4.5 kg (explosive belt) and 9 kg (bomb vest – it was not detonated because of a high
overpressure of the 4.5 kg explosive charge which caused a damage to the steel beam structure).
The explosive charges were used together with 25 g of ignition explosive PLNp10. The
sensors were placed at the height of 1.6 m, at the angle of 45° from the normal line in the distances
2 m, 5 m, and 10 m from the source of the explosion (see figure 3). One of the sensors
was orientated in parallel with the steel beams in the distance of 5.5 m opposite of a gabion
wall and in the distance of 3 m from the source of explosion (we wanted to record the reflected
blast wave). The explosive charges were placed at a wooden base at the height of 10 m. The
structure consisted of a steel frame and four wide flange steel HEB 100 beams and 12 IPE 120
steel beams with a span of 1,770 mm. For convenience the beams were tested in the vertical
positions and simply supported. They were loaded mainly to bending caused by the blast pressure
as the axial stress due to the fact that self-weight was practically negligible. 6
5 Boros, M. “Vplyv deštruktívnych prostriedkov na zisťovanie prielomovej odolnosti rôznych mechanických
zábranných prostriedkov”. Thesis. University of Žilina, 2016.
6 Figuli, L. and Papan, D. “Single degree of freedom analysis of steel beams under blast loading”. Applied mechanics
and materials 617. 2014. 92-95. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.617.92
Change language