ASTM F2781-09
(Practice)Standard Practice for Testing Forced Entry Resistance of Security Fence Systems
Standard Practice for Testing Forced Entry Resistance of Security Fence Systems
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
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.
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 and are not intended to be used to establish or confirm the absolute prevention of forced entries.
TABLE 1 Schedule of Testing—All Levels of Threat Severity Time of Application (minutes) Structured TestingDiscretionary Testing Tool(s)LMALMA Crowbar
5 lb by 28 in. (2)3-53-53-50-550-550-55 Cold Chisels and
Hammer (2)3-53-53-50-550-550-55 Hacksaw and
Two HSS Blades3-53-53-50-550-550-55 Sledgehammer
16 in. by 6 lb3-53-53-50-550-550-55 Fire Axe
36 in. by 6 lb 3-53-53-50-550-550-55 Bolt Cutter (2)-3-53-5-0-550-55 Fire Axe
36 in. by 10 lb-3-53-5-0-550-55 Hole Saw 2 in. (1)-0-50-5-0-550-55 Pry Bar
30 in. Steel (2)-0-50-5-0-550-55 Sledgehammer
30 in. by 12 lb-0-50-5-0-550-55 Steel Wedge
6 in. long (2)-0-50-5-0-550-55 Circular Saw
8 in., 1100 W, and
3 Blades (1)--0-5--0-55 Disc Grinder
5 in., 1100 W, and 3 Blades (1)--0-5--0-55 Rotary and
Hammer Drill
750 W and 5 Drill Bits, ½ in. (1)--0-5--0-55 Hole Saw
Greater than 2 in. (1)--0-5--0-55 Steel Pinch
Bar 60 in. long (2)--0-5--0-55 Reciprocating
Saw 750 W and
3 Carbide Blades (1)--0-5--0-55 Sledgehammer
30 in. by 15 lb (1)-...
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.
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: F2781 – 09
Standard Practice for
Testing Forced Entry 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 3.2 The structured portion of the test provides for a zero to
five minute test with specific tools selected as the most
1.1 The forced entry resistance of fence systems is evalu-
debilitating from the tool list inTable 1, regardless of the fence
ated relative to three levels of forced entry threat using the
system being tested.
limited hand tool inventory outlined in Table 1. It also
3.3 Following the structured portion of the test, the discre-
establishes a system for rating the forced entry resistance of
tionary portion of the test provides up to 55 minutes of testing,
those systems (see Table 2). The tools specified to be used for
optimizing forced entry efforts by selecting any (or all) tools
testing at each threat level are those that are known to have a
from the applicable category of the list (low (A), medium (B),
maximum destructive effect on structures and their sub-
or aggressive (C)). Selection of tools is based on the perception
assemblies and are readily available to aggressors categorized
of the test director as to which tools will most effectively result
as posing that level of threat.
in a forced entry.
1.1.1 Low Threat Level (L)—Specifically exempted from
3.4 Testing of security fence systems in accordance with the
the inventory of available tools for the low (L) threat level
requirements of this test method shall result in a rating
category are power tools (gasoline, electric or hydraulic), and
reflecting the severity of the threat and the cumulative resis-
devices requiring more than one person to transport and
tance time (see Table 2).
operate.
3.5 The times used to establish the protection ratings of
1.1.2 Medium Threat Level (M)—Specifically exempted
Table 2 range from 0–60 minutes and are intended to reflect the
from the inventory of available tools for the medium (M) threat
elapsedtimeofforcedentryresistancenecessaryforaresponse
level category are power tools requiring an outside power
force to arrive and counter the threat with additional defensive
source or self contained gasoline or battery driven tools and
personnel and equipment. It is important to recognize that the
devices requiring more than two persons to transport and
lowest threat level time will establish the maximum time limit
operate.
for a greater threat level.
1.1.3 Aggressive Threat Level (A)—Specifically exempted
from the inventory of available tools for the high (H) threat
4. Significance and Use
level category are devices requiring more than two persons to
4.1 The success or failure of any attempt to forcefully
transport and operate.
penetrate a fence system is dependent upon three primary
2. Terminology factorsthatcollectivelydefinethethreat—thetoolsanddevices
employed, the number of aggressors, and their level of sophis-
2.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
tication.
2.1.1 test director—the individual identified by the indepen-
4.2 Normally, a test procedure of this scope would be
dent testing laboratory as being responsible to complete the
supportedbyyearsoflaboratorytestingintendedtoqualifyand
specified tests and to document the results.
accurately reproduce the destructive effects of a variety of
2.1.2 forced entry—creating a four square feet opening.
tools, implements, and devices. However, rapidly changing
3. Summary of Practice social conditions have created an immediate need for building
components resistant to evolving forced entry techniques.
3.1 For each rating a structured portion and a discretionary
Accordingly, the procedures presented herein are based more
portion as described in 3.2 and 3.3 is required.
on field experience than laboratory analysis. They are more
representative than inclusive, are intended to provide a basis
This practice is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee F14 on Fences and
for the comparative evaluation of different fence systems using
is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee F14.50 on High Security Fences and
Perimeter Barriers.
Current edition approved July 1, 2009. Published August 2009. DOI: 10.1520/
F2781-09.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
F2781 – 09
forced penetration procedures and are not intended to be used
to establish or confirm the absolute prevention of forced
entries.
TABLE 1 Schedule of Testing—All Levels of Threat Severity
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 - 0-55 0-55
Fire Axe - 3-5 3-5 - 0-55 0-55
36in.by10lb
Hole Saw 2 in. (1) - 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55
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)
Circular Saw - - 0-5 - - 0-55
8 in., 1100 W, and
3 Blades (1)
Disc Grinder - - 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)
Hole Saw - - 0-5 - - 0-55
Greater than 2 in. (1)
Steel Pinch - - 0-5 - - 0-55
Bar 60 in. long (2)
Reciprocating - - 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
5 KW or HD Gasoline
18 in. Dia. and 3
Blades (1)
Breaker - - 0-5 - - 0-55
(1900 W) 30 lb with
3 Bits (1)
Scissor Jack 1500 lb - - 0-5 - - 0-55
with 4 in. min
retraction and 8 in.
Stroke (1)
Adhesive - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Tape (1)
F2781 – 09
TABLE 1 Continued
Time of Application (minutes)
Structured Testing Discretionary Testing
Tool(s) L M A L M A
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 12 ft. - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
pipe (2)
8 in. Plate - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
Shears (1) (1) (1) (2)
Screwdrivers - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
7 in.,10 in., and 16 in. (1)
Cordless ⁄2 in. Drill with - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55
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
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
4.3 The test requirements specified herein have been estab- 4.3.2 Absolute penetration resistance from forced entry by a
lished for use in evaluating the penetration resistance charac- determined and well-equipped attack group is impossible.
teristics of standard fence systems to be used in commercial, 4.3.3 Aggressor groups range from unsophisticated crimi-
government and military installations. nals and vandals to organized criminals.
4.3.1 The success of any forced entry threat is dependent on 4.3.4 Attempts to force an entry may be thwarted by
the cumulative effect of the implements used, the elapsed time, increasing the time necessary to affect such an entry and by
andthesophisticationandmotivationofthepersonnelaffecting early detection. Intrusion sensors positioned as far as possible
the forced entry. from the protected environment in conjunction with optimal
F2781 – 09
structural and component design will maximize the time 7. Preparation of Apparatus
available for a response force to intercept the intruders.
7.1 Tools, Devices and Materials:
4.4 The procedures of this test method are intended to
7.1.1 Analysis of many of the aggressive actions against
evaluate the time necessary for vandals and unsophisticated
installations that have resulted in forced entry has produced an
criminals to forcefully penetrate security fence systems by
extensive list of tools and implements that are readily acces-
using manually operated tools—defined as a low, medium, or
sible to aggressor groups. From this comprehensive listing,
aggressive forced entry threat.
tools and devices have been categorized as to the likelihood of
their use and forced entry threat severity.While infinite in type,
5. Documentation of Test Materials
size, and construction, all can be categorized with respect to
5.1 Configuration Documentation—All materials and as- their principal effect and function—prying, screwing, pulling,
shearing, cutting, and impacting. Additionally, certain tools
semblies to be tested shall conform to and be in compliance
with the latest revision of the appropriate publication or have been identified as those which are not actually tools, but
which have a debilitating effect on protective barriers and are
specification governing the fence system configuration. The
following documents shall apply: readily available (that is, ropes, and so forth).While no attempt
will be made to completely list all the tools and implements
5.1.1 Standard Commercial Materials—Commercial mate-
which can be utilized to effect forced entry, Table 1 presents
rials used in fabricating security fence systems will conform to
those tools and implements which have been determined to be
the configuration and performance standards established for
that material by ASTM International. readily available and representative of the most effective of
forced entry tools for the very low, low, medium, and high
5.1.2 Non-Standard Materials—All materials and sub-
threat severity categories, respectively.
assemblies used in the fabrication of forced entry barriers
7.1.2 All tools proposed for use in this test are to be clean
whose nature and configuration are not otherwise controlled by
and verified for proper operation prior to commencement with
recognized industrial, government, or manufacturer’s specifi-
the test.
cations will be accompanied by full disclosure drawings and
7.2 Low Threat Severity Category Tools:
specifications.
7.2.1 Adhesive Tape.
5.1.2.1 Component Material Details—Specific industrial
7.2.2 Fishing Line.
specifications, including size, thickness composition, etc.
5.1.2.2 Make, model number, serial numbers, and date of 7.2.3 Grappling Hook.
7.2.4 Knife, 5 in.
manufacture (as appropriate).
7.2.5 Standard and Self-Gripping Pliers, 8 in.
5.1.2.3 Construction instructions, including weldments,
bolting, bonding materials, etc. 7.2.6 Multiple Slip Pliers,10in.
7.2.7 Pipe Wrench,10in.
5.1.3 Proprietary Information—None of the requirements
of 5.1.1 through 5.1.2.3 are intended to compromise or 7.2.8 Pipe, 1.660 in. O.D. by 12 ft.
circumvent a manufacturer’s proprietary rights with respect to 7.2.9 Plate Shears, 8 in.
any feature, configuration, material, or design. Those portions 7.2.10 Screwdrivers, 7 in., 10 in., and 16 in. long.
of the design disclosure documentation considered proprietary 7.2.11 Crowbar, 5 lb, 28 in.
would be clearly marked or eliminated from the disclosure
7.2.12 Cold Chisels, 10 in. long by 1 in. wide.
documentation with an appropriate explanation. All submitted 7.2.13 Drill, cordless, ⁄2 in., spare power pack, and carbide
documentation, however, would accurately represent the
drill bits.
sample tested.
7.2.14 Butane Torch.
7.2.15 Hacksaw, two HSS blades.
6. Sampling, Test Specimens, and Test Units
7.2.16 Sledgehammer, 16 in., 6 lb.
7.2.17 Rope, 20-ft length of ⁄2-in. diameter manila rope,
6.1 Sample Size—In order to facilitate test standardization
(4-lb).
all test samples will conform to the sizes specified in 6.1.1.
7.2.18 Fireman’s Axe, 36 in., 6 lb.
6.1.1 A minimum lateral area of 96 in. high and 30 ft in
7.2.19 Pipe Cutter, 4 in. O.D.
length. The requirements of this section and the procedures of
7.2.20 Bolt Cutter.12in.
the test method are intended to minimize test costs by
7.2.21 Fence Pliers,10in.
conducting as much testing on single test segments, if possible.
7.2.22 Cable Ratchet, 2000 lb capacity.
6.1.2 Test Environment—The location of the test shall be in
7.3 Medium Threat Severity Category Additional Tools:
a natural environment where the temperature minimum is not
7.3.1 Bolt Cutter,20in.
less than 40°F and the maximum is 95°F during the perfor-
7.3.2 Disc Grinder, 12 V with spare power pack and three
mance of the test. All tested materials and tools will be
cutting discs.
temperature conditioned in this environment for a minimum of
7.3.3 Drill Bits, 5.5 in., carbide.
24 h immediately prior to initiation of any test. The area
7.3.4 Axe, 36 in., 6 lb.
immediately adjacent to the test sample extending 6 ft to the
7.3.5 Hole Saw, 2 in.
left and right of either vertical edge of the sample, 10 ft from
the assault face of the sample, and 10 ft above the horizontal 7.3.6 Steel Pry Bar.
7.3.7 Jigsaw, cordless, 12 V, and three carbide blades.
surface supporting the test (attack) personnel, shall be free of
any and all obstructions and appurtenances. 7.3.8 Plate Shears,12in.
F2781 – 09
7.3.9 Sledgehammer, 30 in., 12 lb. 10. Testing Guidelines
7.3.10 Pipe, 1.660 in. O.D. by 20-ft long.
10.1 General Test Sequence—All samples submitted for
7.3.11 Steel Wedges, 6-in. long.
testing shall be in compliance with 6.1.1. The forced entry
7.3.12 Circular Saw, cordless, 18 V, 8-in. diameter, and
testing of all samples shall begin with a structured portion of
three blades.
testing as outlined in Tables 1 and 3 and continue through the
7.3.13 Disc Grinder, 18 V with spare power pack and three
discretionary
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.