Mass shootings make headlines with regularity. The worst of those shootings often take place in confined areas like schools or offices.
Most solutions aimed at preventing mass shootings by an already-armed assailant are based on firearm detection or denial of entry to the building in the first place. Firearm detection includes installation of metal detectors and similar devices around entry points to a building. The problem with these solutions is that they do not prevent entry or slow an active shooter—they merely provide a potential alarm that a motivated shooter has entered a facility, denying entry to a shooter may involve armed guards, airlock dual entry systems, or use of technology-based credentials to afford entry. But even with these solutions, a motivated shooter can gain entry to a facility. This was the case in the Washington Navy Yard shooting in 2013 and the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. Likewise, in the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the shooter was able to defeat the entry denial system by simply shooting his way through a glass panel.
There may be no foolproof way to deny a determined shooter from entering a building. Some buildings now post active shooter plans, similar to fire escape routes, in an effort to inform occupants the best actions to take in an active shooter scenario. These plans remain often ineffective because channeling people through choke points in halls or stairwells only gathers more potential victims in one place.
A need thus exists to provide building occupants with a way of protecting themselves, exiting a building, and if not fully preventing casualties inflicted by a mass shooter, at least minimizing such casualties.
A ballistic curtain system includes a curtain having cells configured to stop a high-speed projectile and a motor connected to the curtain (or other force to deploy the curtain as needed). The curtain should be capable of being deployed and retracted, optionally at selected speeds, based upon the direction of deployment—such as sidewise, upwardly, or downwardly—as well as the area to be protected.
1. Introduction
In the confined area scenario shown in
In the open venue 300 in
Although it is not shown, the curtain could also be deployed horizontally, so that it provided a “roof” like shelter.
The deployment of the ballistic curtain 100 could be manual or mechanical, gravity driven, or based on systems of counterweights or draw chains like an old-fashioned screen. But more likely, the ballistic curtains would deploy using electrotechnical motors in communication with an alarm system that might be automatically activated in response to sound detection indicative of gunfire or explosions, or someone manually activating the system either from within the building like a fire alarm, or remotely from a central location or by authorities.
The ballistic curtain 100 may contain sensors capable of sending feedback to authorities when it registers an impact indicative of a bullet or high-speed projectile. This may help authorities in quickly locating the active shooter, and could also help building occupants make a safe exit if they know where the shooter is. Technology in the building could direct occupants away from the area where the shooter is active, for example.
While the figures and discussion show and describe a ceiling-mounted ballistic curtain that hangs and rolls, this is not meant to be limiting from ballistic curtains that are wall- or floor-mounted, partially or fully rigid, or that are folded or in sheets. As will be appreciated, the curtain 100 may be deployed in any direction, which can readily be selected based upon the location and geometry of installation. For instance, in some situations it may useful to use curtains that when not deployed are at floor-level and deploy upward (such as in outdoor or temporary venues, including stadiums, arenas and the like) while in other situations it may be preferable to utilize curtains that are along the wall when not deployed and deploy inwardly (such as may be useful when ceiling height or other factors make a downward deployment or ceiling mounting impractical).
2. Design Goals
An embodiment of the ballistic curtain system is a storable, armored partition that can be affixed to a ceiling or ground and be unrolled upon activation. The curtain should be capable of stopping or deflecting rifle bullets commonly used in mass shooting attacks, up to and including the 7.62×51 mm NATO round. In addition to being deployable upon user activation, the system should also be retractable at the discretion of first responders. In order to facilitate this, a motor and electronic control system may be incorporated into the system.
Testing and evaluation have identified certain needs and specifications, which are non-limiting. Table 1 summarizes these as used in one example of a prototype (and therefore the values are meant to inform but not be limiting).
3. Design Description
3.1. Specifications
The UL 752 standard is widely used in industry and gauges the requirements for “cover materials, devices, and fixtures used to form bullet-resisting barriers which protect against robbery, holdup, or armed attack such as those by snipers.” The National Institute of Justice (NU) standards for ballistic resistance “establish minimum performance requirements and test methods for the ballistic resistance of personal body armor intended to protect against gunfire.” Other standards may be followed including those related to local, state and federal fire codes, building codes and relevant Department of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security procedures (all of these are constantly being revised and so we do not seek to summarize them since they are constantly evolving).
3.2. Ballistic Curtain System Design Overview
3.2.1. Curtain with Cells
The steel cells 132 may be rectangular in shape and measure 8 inches long, by 2 inches wide by ¼ inch thick for most deployment, with this sizing being capable of deployment and manufacture, although it will be appreciated that other cell designs may be used such cells that are as long as the curtain is wide (e.g., a curtain that is 36″ wide would have cells measuring 36×2×¼). The cells 132 may be laser cut to this shape. Specific cell sizes may vary as manufacturing and installation design decisions are made.
The steel cells 132 may be mechanically linked to one another to create a fixed louvered arrangement using welding or other mechanical linkage. But what is shown in
The front side 122 and rear side 124 may be bonded to one another using stitching, adhesives, or other bonding means capable of providing structure for the pockets 126 and bonding the sides together.
Although the rectangular shape of cells 123 has been shown and described other cell shapes such as hexagonal may be preferred as they may permit a smaller radius to the curtain 110 when in a stored or undeployed state, although such shapes may be more expensive to manufacture and more difficult to deploy in a louvered arrangement.
The curtain material may be chosen based upon performance characteristics and manufacturing design decisions, but 1050D ballistic nylon is preferred because of its properties s having sufficient resistance to the forces exerted upon the material during normal operation. With an effective tensile strength of approximately 1,000 lbs and a burst pressure resistance exceeding 1500 psi the material can resist both the weight of the steel hanging on it as well as resting broad tearing and destruction associated with the steel cells being impacted by a bullet.
In furtherance of weight savings, the entire length of the curtain 110 may be limited in its inclusion of cells 132, meaning that as shown in
3.2.2. Material Details
AR500 (Abrasion resistant, Brinell hardness of 500) steel-AR500 is an abrasion resistant high carbon steel. Its hardness and abrasion resistant qualities make it an excellent ballistic material.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize its composition and properties.
One of the greatest threats from a ballistic attack comes from spalling or explosion of metal fragments. Anti-spall coatings may be sprayed over the cells 132, which will encapsulate bullets and other ballistic objects, remaining intact, without posing further secondary damage resulting from spalling and fragmentation.
The fabric material may be made from Kevlar, a synthetic fiber made by DuPont having the chemical formula: [—CO-C6H4-CO—NH-C6H4-NH-] n
3.3. Motor System
When ascertaining the specification for a motor 140 to deploy and store the curtain 110, torque is a parameter that is usually measured in oz-in. An as-tested, ceiling-deployed model yielded the following results.
Assuming correct units, the inertia of the curtain (Jr), motor (Jm) and total inertia (Jeq) were calculated using a MATLAB script. The first step in calculating the torque was to calculate inertia pertaining to two main systems: the curtain roller (Jr) and the motor (Jm). After the two results of inertia were found, the total inertia of the system was calculated and translated through the gear ratio. This final inertia (Jeq) was the inertia used in order to determine the final torque calculation.
Subsequent to determining the inertia of the system, angular acceleration was to be ascertained. In order to calculate this specification, a benchmark test speed for raising the curtain was selected. Since the input voltage pattern was known, the angular acceleration could be calculated in rads/sec.
Utilizing angular acceleration and total inertia, both known at this point, the torque at the rotor (Tr) could be calculated. Translating this torque through the gear ratio gave the final torque measurement of the motor (Tm). However, this is the peak torque seen by the motor during normal operation and only occurs for a small amount of operating time. Since the motor may be operating for at least 10 secs during a lift, the continuous torque, or RMS torque of the motor, was required (Trms). Table 5 depicts the final values of RMS torque, speed, and inertia that the motor had to meet.
These calculations provided a reliable estimate regarding the size of the motor needed. A brush DC motor may be used to allow for easier speed and position control. Additionally, DC motors are markedly less expensive than DC brushless motors and stepper motors. A tertiary reason for selecting a brushed DC motor was lacking any need for precision control pertaining to the position of the rotor. This is simply because the only positions that were relevant were fully lowered or fully retracted.
In a networked or connected ballistic curtain system, a control system may ensure that only authorized users can deploy the curtain 110. The control system may be accessed by only authorized users, who may gain access using a credential such as passwords, fobs, retinal scans or other secure access, and those users may access the control system to deploy or retract the curtain(s) in total, one at a time, or in only some areas. The access may also allow a user to see what curtains have been or are being damaged.
4. Testing
4.1. Analytical Testing
A prototype testing plan encompassed two phases. The first phase entailed analytical testing of models using multi-physics simulation software like ANSYS workbench and FEA methods similar to those available in Creo. This allowed the tester to analyze the model as much as possible in a virtual setting before completing a design. Emphasis was centered on the analysis of forces exerted on the structural components of the BCCS in order to ensure that they could withstand the force of gravity while in free hanging mode, as well as the dispersed energy of ballistic impacts.
An ANSYS “Explicit Dynamics” project was generated in order to reflect a single projectile impact and simulate realistic material behavior of the system. Within the ANSYS environment the model was refined to reflect explicit materials. The ANSYS library did not have an AR-500 steel offering as an available material. Therefore, another steel compound (Steel-4340) was modified to reflect the proper material values in order to emulate AR-500 steel. The simulated bullet represented a pure copper round due to computational limitations.
Two bullet impacts were separately simulated. Each simulation conformed to the NIJ standards for armor testing. The initial impact, representing the “low” end of the standards scale, was a 9 mm parabellum Luger Full Metal Jacket (FMJ). The secondary impact, representing the “high” end of the standard scale, was a 7.62 mm (.308 caliber) FMJ NATO round. Both rounds were fired from several centimeters away from the plate at 373 and 847 m/s respectively [11] per NIJ standards. From these impacts, the acceleration of the front face and back face of the plate was probed. The data from the acceleration probes was plotted in ANYS. Through analysis, the relevant acceleration and time steps were extracted.
A simplified model of the curtain was produced in MSC ADAMS, a multibody dynamics simulation software, in order to simulate the effect of an impact over the entire curtain. The acceleration data from the ANSYS tests was incorporated in the ADAMS model test by using a step function to supply a force. This produced calculated acceleration results over its time step interval, as evidenced from the acceleration graphical data. This force was applied at the center of the curtain allowing the dynamic simulation to exhibit the force reactions within the curtain. Throughout the ADAMS simulation, the top, middle and bottom plates were probed in order to analyze the dynamic response of the curtain to impact. This data is relevant for the addition of a possible added feature of the BCCS, which can help locate the shooter, as the data is characteristic to which side of the curtain the gunshots are originating.
4.2. Physical Testing
The second phase entailed physical testing. This process involved subjecting a functional prototype to ballistic impact tests, as well as subjecting a non-ballistic prototype to deployment and roll-ability tests.
4.2.1. Ballistic Testing
The ballistic tests were conducted on the prototype. For this testing, a ballistic curtain measuring 2 ft×2 ft was suspended from wooden frame allowing feasible replication of full deployment. Approximately 1 ft behind the curtain, a backdrop of contractor's paper was spanned across the area of the curtain. Ballistic penetration, residual debris or fragmentation would be evidenced upon the backdrop. Cameras were positioned forward of, and adjacent to, the target area in order to film the terminal ballistic effects upon the curtain.
Safety was a vital consideration for the ballistic testing phase. Primary concerns included ricochet and fragmentation. Secondary concerns related to hearing protection and collateral property damage.
From a range of 25 meters, various rifle calibers were fired at specific points on the curtain. The first cartridge to be tested was the 7.62×51 mm NATO round as this was the largest anticipated ammunition round within our design parameters. At the conclusion of two test fires, the first round made impact at the convergence of two plate edges. The bullet damaged both plates and was able to pass through. However, the bullet had fragmented upon impact, as evidenced from the paper backdrop. The second round struck a plate center mass and cleanly penetrated through the armor. A thicker armor could stop this round in theory but this was not evaluated.
The second phase of testing entailed a 5.56 mm, 55 grain, “green tip” NATO round. This commonly used and acquired caliber within the U.S. It is utilized within a diverse range of firearm platforms to include the widely popular semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and variants. Despite several rounds of test fire, this load and caliber bullet was unable to penetrate the steel plate. Residual evidence of bullet strikes included impact craters and scarring, but lacked complete perforation. Impacts upon the convergence of plates did not evidence bullet puncture, although there was trace evidence of spall passing through.
Finally, pistol rounds of 9 mm and .45 caliber were fired at the curtain from a range of 10 meters. As expected, these rounds had essentially no effect on the steel and were unable to pass through the curtain. Damage to the hook and loop material that holds the cells in place did occur on the impact side of the curtain. However, as the cells are held in place from both sides with hook and loop, the non-impacted side remained undamaged, thus the steel cells remained securely in place. This remained true even for cells that experienced 3 direct hits.
While the invention has been described with reference to the embodiments above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that various changes or modifications may be made thereto without departing from the scope of the claims.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62603866 | Jun 2017 | US | |
62497770 | Dec 2016 | US |