We look at PAS 68 vs IWA-14 Gate Safety Standards. This article explains the key differences in vehicle crash testing standards and how they optimise hostile vehicle mitigation.
What Is PAS 68?
PAS 68 is the UK’s flagship crash-test specification for hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM) products such as bollards, blockers and gates. Published by the British Standards Institution in 2005 and revised in 2013, it dictates how products must be installed, impacted and measured to prove they can halt vehicle attacks.
The standard recognises three test routes: full-scale vehicle impacts, pendulum impacts and computer simulation. Results are reported in a code like “V/7500[N3]/80/90:2.5/5.0”, meaning a 7.5-tonne truck struck head-on at 80 km/h, penetrated 2.5 m, and threw debris 5 m.
Still cited by the UK government’s National Protective Security Authority (NPSA), PAS 68 remains the primary benchmark for specifying HVM products across Britain for stadiums, public spaces, data centres and critical infrastructure.
What Is IWA-14?
IWA 14-1:2013 is an International Workshop Agreement published by ISO to create a truly global impact-test language for hostile-vehicle-mitigation barriers. Written by an international committee led by the UK’s security authority and the US Department of State, it distilled best practice from PAS 68 and ASTM F2656 but removed national quirks.
The heart of the document is a single full-scale vehicle crash test; pendulum and simulation options are deliberately excluded to maintain worldwide comparability. A typical rating looks like “V/7200[N2A]/64/90:3.6”, which translates to a 7.2-tonne goods vehicle impacting at 64 km/h, perpendicular to the product, with 3.6 m of penetration.
Debris distance is not recorded – a conscious simplification over PAS 68 – and penetration is measured from the front face of the barrier, not the rear, making numbers directly comparable between products.
IWA 14-1 covers vehicles from 1.5 t to 30 t and speeds from 16 km/h to 112 km/h, allowing designers to specify realistic threat scenarios from ram-raids through to high-speed truck bombs.
Climate, ground conditions and product orientation must be declared, ensuring the test represents how the barrier will be installed.
The standard is supported by IWA 14-2, a code of practice that guides specifiers on selecting, installing and maintaining certified products.
Together they have been adopted by governments, airports, major-event organisers and critical-infrastructure owners on every continent.
Although ISO published the broader ISO 22343 series in 2023, IWA 14-1 certificates still remain valid worldwide and continue to be issued by accredited test houses for new projects.
Why Impact Testing Standards Matter
Vehicular attacks, ram-raids and accidental impacts can generate kinetic energies far beyond conventional building loads.
Without verified data, designers and asset owners would have to rely on misleading manufacturer claims or unsafe rule-of-thumb calculations. Impact testing standards such as PAS 68 and IWA 14 translate complex real-world threats into clear, repeatable laboratory evidence.
Vehicular attacks, ram-raids and accidental impacts can generate kinetic energies far beyond conventional building loads. Without verified data, designers and asset owners would have to rely on misleading manufacturer claims or unsafe rule-of-thumb calculations. Impact testing standards such as PAS 68 and IWA 14 translate complex real-world threats into clear, repeatable laboratory evidence.
Key Differences Between PAS 68 and IWA-14
Scope and governance. PAS 68 is a British standard rooted in UK security policy, whereas IWA 14-1 is an ISO agreement aimed at global acceptance.
Test methods. PAS 68 accepts full-scale impacts, pendulum tests and simulations; IWA 14-1 insists on full-scale crashes only, arguing this preserves comparability and confidence.
Measurement reference lines. PAS 68 measures penetration from the rear face of the product (including anchorage movement). IWA 14 measures from the front face, so identical barriers often show larger penetration figures under IWA-14.
Reporting format. Both use the “V/mass/category/speed/angle:penetration” code, but PAS 68 also lists major debris distance; IWA 14 omits that parameter to simplify testing.
Certification culture. PAS 68 is deeply embedded in UK procurement and planning, so local authorities and insurers routinely request it.
International airports, events and remote infrastructure increasingly prefer IWA 14 because it is jurisdiction-neutral and avoids accusations of parochial bias, for example across North America, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.
Taken together, these distinctions mean the “best” standard depends more on geography, stakeholder expectations and contractual language than on raw stopping power.
What Do They Test? And How Are the Tests Carried Out?
Both standards simulate a worst-case vehicle strike on a finished, installed product. The test house builds a representative foundation, fits anchorage hardware exactly as on site and aligns the barrier to the prescribed impact angle. An unmanned vehicle of the stipulated weight is accelerated along a guide track to the target speed and released.
Cameras and onboard accelerometers verify speed and trajectory before impact. After the crash, survey instruments record residual penetration distance, barrier deflection and, for PAS 68, the furthest travel of debris heavier than 25 kg. Photographs, videos and a detailed report are compiled for third-party certification. If the measured values do not exceed the limits set in the chosen rating, the product earns the corresponding code string.
Which Standard Should You Choose?
Start with your stakeholders. If the project is in the UK or subject to British government security approvals, PAS 68 remains the path of least resistance. Insurers, planners and counter-terror advisers recognise its terminology and may reject anything else.
For airports, venues, data centres or embassies where multiple jurisdictions must sign off, IWA 14-1 offers broader acceptance and avoids arguments about “foreign” standards. It also ensures every certificate is backed by a full-scale crash, which can simplify due-diligence.
Technical performance often overlaps, so compare penetration limits, foundation details and site constraints rather than debating acronyms. Where both certificates are available at the required rating, choose the one your approving authority cites first and document the rationale in the design-risk register.
Our compliance and safety audit programme safeguards every stage of your electric gate’s life-cycle. We perform full inspections, automation risk assessments and routine compliance testing of sensors, safety edges, emergency stops, speeds, control panels and wiring.
