ASTM F2781-15(2021)
(Practice)Standard Practice for Testing Forced Entry, Ballistic and Low Impact Resistance of Security Fence Systems
Standard Practice for Testing Forced Entry, Ballistic and Low Impact Resistance of Security Fence Systems
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The success or failure of any attempt to forcefully penetrate a fence system is dependent upon three primary factors that collectively define the threat—the tools and devices employed, the number of aggressors, and their level of sophistication.
5.2 Normally, a test procedure of this scope would be supported by years of laboratory testing intended to qualify and accurately reproduce the destructive effects of a variety of tools, implements, and devices. However, rapidly changing social conditions have created an immediate need for building components resistant to evolving forced entry techniques. Accordingly, the procedures presented herein are based more on field experience than laboratory analysis. They are more representative than inclusive, are intended to provide a basis for the comparative evaluation of different fence systems using forced penetration procedures, ballistic tests and impact testing, and are not primarily intended to be used to establish or confirm the absolute prevention of forced entries.
5.3 The test requirements specified herein have been established for use in evaluating the penetration resistance characteristics of standard fence systems to be used in commercial, government and military installations.
5.3.1 The success of any forced entry threat is dependent on the cumulative effect of the implements used, the elapsed time, and the sophistication and motivation of the personnel affecting the forced entry.
5.3.2 Absolute penetration resistance from forced entry by a determined and well-equipped attack group is impossible.
5.3.3 Aggressor groups range from unsophisticated criminals and vandals to organized criminals.
5.3.4 Attempts to force an entry may be thwarted by increasing the time necessary to affect such an entry and by early detection. Intrusion sensors positioned as far as possible from the protected environment in conjunction with optimal structural and component design will maximize the time available for ...
SCOPE
1.1 The forced entry resistance of fence systems is evaluated relative to three levels of forced entry threat using the limited hand tool inventory outlined in Table 1. It also establishes a system for rating the forced entry resistance of those systems (see Table 2). The tools specified to be used for testing at each threat level are those that are known to have a maximum destructive effect on structures and their sub-assemblies and are readily available to aggressors categorized as posing that level of threat.
1.1.1 Low Threat Level (L)—Specifically exempted from the inventory of available tools for the low (L) threat level category are power tools (gasoline, electric or hydraulic), and devices requiring more than one person to transport and operate.
1.1.2 Medium Threat Level (M)—Specifically exempted from the inventory of available tools for the medium (M) threat level category are power tools requiring an outside power source or self contained gasoline or battery driven tools and devices requiring more than two persons to transport and operate.
1.1.3 Aggressive Threat Level (A)—Specifically exempted from the inventory of available tools for the high (H) threat level category are devices requiring more than two persons to transport and operate.
1.2 The ability of a fence system to offer protection from bullets fired from a rifle or handgun would be beneficial particularly in Border Fence areas where security personnel can be targets during patrol activities. Accordingly, a limited test using a .38 Special handgun and a 7.62-mm rifle is performed to determine if any level of protection is provided by the fence system.
1.3 The ability of a fence system to provide impact resistance from a 4000 pound mass vehicle moving at a velocity of 20 MPH at a modest cost will provide relative guidance as to the strength of a security fence system in resisting low impact situations.
1.4 This international standard w...
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: F2781 − 15 (Reapproved 2021)
Standard Practice for
Testing Forced Entry, Ballistic and Low Impact Resistance
of Security Fence Systems
This standard is issued under the fixed designation F2781; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 20 MPH at a modest cost will provide relative guidance as to
the strength of a security fence system in resisting low impact
1.1 The forced entry resistance of fence systems is evalu-
situations.
ated relative to three levels of forced entry threat using the
1.4 This international standard was developed in accor-
limited hand tool inventory outlined in Table 1. It also
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
establishes a system for rating the forced entry resistance of
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
those systems (see Table 2). The tools specified to be used for
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
testing at each threat level are those that are known to have a
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
maximum destructive effect on structures and their sub-
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
assemblies and are readily available to aggressors categorized
as posing that level of threat.
2. Referenced Documents
1.1.1 Low Threat Level (L)—Specificallyexemptedfromthe
2.1 ASTM Standards:
inventory of available tools for the low (L) threat level
F1233 Test Method for Security Glazing Materials And
category are power tools (gasoline, electric or hydraulic), and
Systems
devices requiring more than one person to transport and
2.2 SAE Standard:
operate.
SAE J972 Moving Rigid Barrier Collision Tests
1.1.2 Medium Threat Level (M)—Specifically exempted
2.3 U.S. Military Standards:
fromtheinventoryofavailabletoolsforthemedium(M)threat
MIL-STD-662F Department of Defense Test Method Stan-
level category are power tools requiring an outside power
dard V50 Ballistic Test for Armor
source or self contained gasoline or battery driven tools and
2.4 U.S. Dept. of Justice:
devices requiring more than two persons to transport and
NIJ Standard 0108.01 National Institute of Justice Ballistic
operate.
Resistant Protective Materials
1.1.3 Aggressive Threat Level (A)—Specifically exempted
from the inventory of available tools for the high (H) threat
3. Terminology
level category are devices requiring more than two persons to
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
transport and operate.
3.1.1 test director—the individual identified by the indepen-
1.2 The ability of a fence system to offer protection from
dent testing laboratory as being responsible to complete the
bullets fired from a rifle or handgun would be beneficial
specified tests and to document the results.
particularly in Border Fence areas where security personnel
3.1.2 forced entry—creating a four square feet opening.
can be targets during patrol activities. Accordingly, a limited
test using a .38 Special handgun and a 7.62-mm rifle is
4. Summary of Practice
performed to determine if any level of protection is provided
4.1 For each rating a structured portion and a discretionary
by the fence system.
portion as described in 4.2 and 4.3 is required.
1.3 The ability of a fence system to provide impact resis-
tance from a 4000 pound mass vehicle moving at a velocity of
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
1 3
This practice is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee F14 on Fences and Available from SAE International (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Dr.,Warrendale,
is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee F14.50 on High Security Fences and PA 15096, http://www.sae.org.
Perimeter Barriers. Available from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2021. Published November 2021. Originally Bureau Dr., Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, http://www.nist.gov.
approved in 2009. Last previous edition approved in 2015 as F2781 – 15. AvailablefromNationalInstituteofJustice(NIJ),8107thSt.,NW,Washington,
DOI:10.1520/F2781-15R21. DC 20531, http://nij.gov.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
F2781 − 15 (2021)
4.2 The structured portion of the test provides for a zero to 4.7 The impact test is intended to provide relative guidance
five minute test with specific tools selected as the most as to the strength of a fence system to absorb 53.5 K-ft-lbs of
debilitating from the tool list in Table 1, regardless of the fence
kinetic energy.
system being tested.
5. Significance and Use
4.3 Following the structured portion of the test, the discre-
tionary portion of the test provides up to 55 minutes of testing,
5.1 The success or failure of any attempt to forcefully
optimizing forced entry efforts by selecting any (or all) tools
penetrate a fence system is dependent upon three primary
from the applicable category of the list (low (A), medium (B),
factorsthatcollectivelydefinethethreat—thetoolsanddevices
oraggressive(C)).Selectionoftoolsisbasedontheperception
employed, the number of aggressors, and their level of sophis-
of the test director as to which tools will most effectively result
tication.
in a forced entry.
5.2 Normally, a test procedure of this scope would be
4.4 Testing of security fence systems in accordance with the
supportedbyyearsoflaboratorytestingintendedtoqualifyand
requirements of this test method shall result in a rating
accurately reproduce the destructive effects of a variety of
reflecting the severity of the threat and the cumulative penetra-
tools, implements, and devices. However, rapidly changing
tion resistance time (see Table 2).
social conditions have created an immediate need for building
4.5 The times used to establish the protection ratings of
components resistant to evolving forced entry techniques.
Table2rangefrom0–60minutesandareintendedtoreflectthe
Accordingly, the procedures presented herein are based more
elapsedtimeofforcedentryresistancenecessaryforaresponse
on field experience than laboratory analysis. They are more
force to arrive and counter the threat with additional defensive
representative than inclusive, are intended to provide a basis
personnel and equipment. It is important to recognize that the
for the comparative evaluation of different fence systems using
lowest threat level time will establish the maximum time limit
forced penetration procedures, ballistic tests and impact
for a greater threat level.
testing,andarenotprimarilyintendedtobeusedtoestablishor
4.6 The ballistic is intended to provide the probability of a
confirm the absolute prevention of forced entries.
person standing behind the secure fence side from being hit
with a bullet fired by a 38-caliber hand gun or a .30-06 rifle.
TABLE 1 Schedule of Testing—All Levels of Threat Severity
(See Sections 8 and 14 for unabridged tool list.)
Time of Application (minutes)
Structured Testing Discretionary Testing
Tool(s) L M A L M A
Crowbar 3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55
5lbby28in.(2)
Cold Chisels and 3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55
Hammer (2)
Hacksaw and 3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55
Two HSS Blades
Sledgehammer 3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55
16in.by6lb
Fire Axe 3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55
36in.by6lb
Bolt Cutter (2) 3-5 3-5 3-5 - 0-55 0-55
Fire Axe - 3-5 3-5 - 0-55 0-55
36in.by10lb
Hole Saw 2 in. - 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55
(1) and Jigsaw
Pry Bar - 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55
30 in. Steel (2)
Sledgehammer - 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55
30in.by12lb
Steel Wedge - 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55
6 in. long (2) and
Plate Shears
Circular Saw - 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55
8 in., 1100 W,
and
3 Blades (1)
Disc Grinder - 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55
5 in., 1100 W,
and 3 Blades (1)
Rotary and - - 0-5 - - 0-55
Hammer Drill
750 W and 5 Drill
Bits, ⁄2 in. (1)
F2781 − 15 (2021)
TABLE 1 Continued
Time of Application (minutes)
Structured Testing Discretionary Testing
Tool(s) L M A L M A
Hole Saw - 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55
Greater than 2 in.
(1)
Steel Pinch - - 0-5 - - 0-55
Bar 60 in. long
(2)
Reciprocating - 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55
Saw 750 W and
3 Carbide Blades
(1)
Sledgehammer - - 0-5 - - 0-55
30in.by15lb(1)
Oxyacetylene - - 0-5 - - 0-55
Torch with 80 ft
Oxygen and
40 ft Acetylene
Tanks (1)
Cut-Off Saw - - 0-5 - - 0-55
5KWorHD
Gasoline
18 in. Dia. and 3
Blades (1)
Breaker - - 0-5 - - 0-55
(1900 W) 30 lb
with
3 Bits (1)
Scissor Jack - - 0-5 - - 0-55
1500 lb
with 4 in. min
retraction and 8
in.
Stroke (1)
Adhesive - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Tape (1)
Fishing - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Line (250’)
Grappling - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Hook (1)
5-in. Knife (1) - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
8 in. Std and Self - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Grip Pliers (2)
10 in. Multiple - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Slip Pliers (2)
10 in. Pipe - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Wrench (2)
1.660 in. O.D. by - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
12 ft.
pipe (2)
8 in. Plate - - - 0-55 (1) 0-55 (1) 0-55 (2)
Shears (1)
Screwdrivers - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
7 in.,10 in., and
16 in. (1)
Cordless ⁄2 in. - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Drill with
spare power pack
and
carbide bits (1)
Butane - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Torch (1)
Rope (1) - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
TABLE 2 Forced Entry Resistant Ratings
Resistance Time (minute)
Active Test
Threat Level Rating
Personnel
Structured Test Discretionary Test Cumulative
Low (L) 2 Less than 5 0 Less than 5 L0 to L4.9
5 Less than 5 Less than 10 L5 to L9.9
5 5 to 9.9 Less than 15 L10 to L14.9
5 10 to 14.9 Less than 20 L15 to L19.9
5 20 to 25 30 L20 to L30
5 31 to 55 60 L31 to L60
F2781 − 15 (2021)
TABLE 2 Continued
Resistance Time (minute)
Active Test
Threat Level Rating
Personnel
Structured Test Discretionary Test Cumulative
Medium (M) 2 Less than 5 0 Less than 5 M0 to M4.9
5 Less than 5 Less than 10 M5 to M9.9
5 5 to 9.9 Less than 15 M10 to M14.9
5 10 to 14.9 Less than 20 M15 to M19.9
5 20 to 25 30 M20 to M30
5 31 to 55 60 M31 to M60
Aggressive (A) 4 Less than 5 0 Less than 5 A0 to A4.9
5 Less than 5 Less than 10 A5 to A9.9
5 5 to 9.9 Less than 15 A10 to A14.9
5 10 to 14.9 Less than 15 A15 to A19.9
5 20 to 25 30 A20 to A30
5 31 to 55 60 M31 to A60
5.3 The test requirements specified herein have been estab- 6.1.2.3 Construction instructions, including weldments,
lished for use in evaluating the penetration resistance charac- bolting, bonding materials, etc.
teristics of standard fence systems to be used in commercial, 6.1.3 Proprietary Information—Noneoftherequirementsof
government and military installations. 6.1.1 through 6.1.2.3 are intended to compromise or circum-
vent a manufacturer’s proprietary rights with respect to any
5.3.1 The success of any forced entry threat is dependent on
the cumulative effect of the implements used, the elapsed time, feature, configuration, material, or design. Those portions of
the design disclosure documentation considered proprietary
andthesophisticationandmotivationofthepersonnelaffecting
the forced entry. would be clearly marked or eliminated from the disclosure
documentation with an appropriate explanation. All submitted
5.3.2 Absolute penetration resistance from forced entry by a
documentation, however, would accurately represent the
determined and well-equipped attack group is impossible.
sample tested.
5.3.3 Aggressor groups range from unsophisticated crimi-
nals and vandals to organized criminals.
7. Sampling, Test Specimens, and Test Units
5.3.4 Attempts to force an entry may be thwarted by
7.1 Sample Size—In order to facilitate test standardization
increasing the time necessary to affect such an entry and by
all test samples will conform to the sizes specified in 7.1.1.
early detection. Intrusion sensors positioned as far as possible
7.1.1 A minimum lateral area of 96 in. high and 30 ft in
from the protected environment in conjunction with optimal
length. The requirements of this section and the procedures of
structural and component design will maximize the time
the test method are intended to minimize test costs by
available for a response force to intercept the intruders.
conducting as much testing on single test segments, if possible.
5.4 The procedures of this test method are intended to
Impact Tests shall target the impact location of the vehicle at
evaluate the time necessary for vandals and unsophisticated
themidpointofthe30ft.lengthtoavoidcontactingthevertical
criminals to forcefully penetrate security fence systems by
posts and performed after penetration tests have been com-
using manually operated tools—defined as a low, medium, or
pleted to minimize costs of material and repair labor.
aggressive forced entry threat.
7.1.2 Test Environment—The location of the test shall be in
a natural environment where the temperature minimum is not
6. Documentation of Test Materials
less than 40 °F and the maximum is 95 °F during the perfor-
6.1 Configuration Documentation—All materials and as-
mance of the test. All tested materials and tools will be
semblies to be tested shall conform to and be in compliance
temperature conditioned in this environment for a minimum of
with the latest revision of the appropriate publication or
24 h immediately prior to initiation of any test. The area
specification governing the fence system configuration. The
immediately adjacent to the test sample extending 6 ft to the
following documents shall apply: left and right of either vertical edge of the sample, 10 ft from
6.1.1 Standard Commercial Materials—Commercial mate- the assault face of the sample, and 10 ft above the horizontal
rials used in fabricating security fence systems will conform to surface supporting the test (attack) personnel, shall be free of
the configuration and performance standards established for any and all obstructions and appurtenances.
that material by ASTM International.
8. Preparation of Apparatus
6.1.2 Non-Standard Materials—All materials and sub-
assemblies used in the fabrication of forced entry barriers
8.1 Tools, Devices and Materials:
whose nature and configuration are not otherwise controlled by
8.1.1 Analysis of many of the aggressive actions against
recognized industrial, government, or manufacturer’s specifi-
installations that have resulted in forced entry has produced an
cations will be accompanied by full disclosure dra
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.