Why One Fence Is Not Enough: Closing the Gap in Critical Infrastructure Protection

  • Keith Bobrosky
  • May 12, 2026
Yellow bollards and a striped barrier gate marked “STOP” block vehicle access to a roadway, enhancing critical infrastructure protection. In the background, trees, parked cars, and a fence—providing an added layer of fence security—stand beneath a clear blue sky.

Article Summary

A recent attempted vehicle breach at a power facility is a reminder that perimeter fencing and anti-vehicle protection serve different purposes. This article explains why critical infrastructure owners should assess vehicle approach paths, use crash-rated systems at vulnerable points, and build layered protection around essential assets.

  • Fencing defines and controls a boundary, but it is not automatically designed to stop a moving vehicle.

  • Crash ratings document how a barrier performs against a specified vehicle weight, impact speed, and penetration level.

  • Fixed, active, shallow-foundation, surface-mounted, and portable systems address different site and operating constraints.

  • Barrier selection and placement should follow a site-specific threat and vulnerability assessment.

A recent news event showed a man crashing through fencing with the apparent intent to carry out a terrorist attack on a power facility. The incident made headlines. It should serve as a wake up call.

Perimeter fencing alone is not sufficient to stop a determined vehicle attack.

Fencing defines a boundary. It deters casual intrusion. It signals private property. It is not engineered to stop a multi-thousand pound vehicle traveling at speed. When a truck or SUV is used as a weapon, chain link and ornamental fencing are not designed for that level of force.

Power substations, water treatment plants, data centers, transportation hubs, and government facilities form the backbone of our communities. When they are disrupted, the impact is immediate. Homes lose power. Businesses close. Emergency services are strained.

Vehicle ramming attacks are not theoretical. The method is simple. The tools are accessible. The damage can be severe. Federal authorities warned in 2024 that critical infrastructure operators should expect continued threats, including physical attacks on energy facilities.

Crash rated barriers and bollards are engineered, tested, and certified to stop vehicles of specific weights at specific speeds. They undergo controlled impact testing under recognized standards. Performance is measurable and documented.

When a crash rated barrier is installed, it becomes a true line of defense. It absorbs and redirects energy. It prevents vehicle penetration. It protects the assets and people behind it.

A perimeter strategy should be layered.

Fencing defines the boundary. Anti vehicle protection must address high risk approach points. Fixed bollards, wedge barriers, shallow mount systems, and portable systems each serve a purpose depending on site conditions.

Utilities often face space constraints, underground utilities, and the need for rapid deployment. Portable crash rated systems can close vulnerability gaps quickly.

For example, a series of Delta Scientific TB100 portable bollards positioned along the most vulnerable approach could significantly reduce risk. The TB100 is the only M30 rated portable bollard system available. The TB150 is the only M50 rated portable bollard system in the world. Properly spaced and aligned in front of a fence line, these units are engineered to stop a 15,000 pound vehicle traveling at up to 50 miles per hour. They can be set in place in minutes. No deep foundations. No major excavation. No permanent construction required.

Security design must consider approach angles, setback distances, and vehicle pathways. In many substations, transformers and control houses sit within direct line of sight from access roads. If a vehicle breaches the fence and reaches those assets, the consequences are immediate. Properly placed crash rated protection in front of the fence can prevent that outcome.

Protecting critical infrastructure is about continuity. Physical security supports operational resilience alongside cybersecurity, monitoring, and response planning.

The cost of engineered vehicle barriers is measurable. The cost of a successful attack can include repair expenses, downtime, regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, and risk to human life.

For decades, Delta Scientific has worked with government agencies, utilities, and private sector partners to design and deploy crash rated perimeter systems. Security planning must evolve with the threat environment.

A fence alone is no longer enough for high consequence facilities. Infrastructure owners should review whether their perimeter is designed to stop a vehicle attack, not just discourage trespassers.

We cannot prevent every threat. We can design facilities so that a single vehicle does not become a single point of failure.

The standards exist. The technology exists. The need is clear.

Recent Posts

Frequently Asked Questions

  • Standard chain-link fencing should not be treated as crash-rated anti-ram protection unless the complete system has been tested and documented for that purpose. Fencing can deter and delay intrusion, but a vehicle-stopping requirement calls for a tested barrier system.

  • Under ASTM vehicle-barrier testing, M30 and M50 refer to impact tests using a 15,000-pound medium-duty truck at 30 or 50 miles per hour. The penetration rating must also be reviewed because it shows how far the vehicle or major debris traveled beyond the barrier datum.

  • They can be appropriate for specific approaches, temporary conditions, phased upgrades, or rapid risk reduction. Suitability depends on the tested array, available space, surface, vehicle path, operational access, and the site’s threat assessment.

  • Placement depends on the site layout. Installing the vehicle-stopping line outside or in front of the fence may prevent the vehicle and fence debris from entering the protected zone. A design professional should evaluate standoff distance, public right-of-way limits, access needs, and approach geometry.

  • Fixed systems are often preferred for permanent, clearly defined threat paths. Portable systems can provide flexibility, faster deployment, and reduced excavation. Some facilities use both, with permanent protection at primary approaches and portable systems for temporary or changing vulnerabilities.

Keith Bobrosky

Keith Bobrosky is President of Delta Scientific. A former applications engineer, he writes and speaks to the practical side of vehicle security, connecting crash ratings and standards to what works on real sites.