F14.50 - High Security Fences and Perimeter Barriers

SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides assistance for the site security engineer to select the proper components required to design a site-specific, welded-wire physical security perimeter barrier.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of the standard to establish the appropriate design level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations.  
1.3 Specification F2453 is to be used in conjunction with this guide.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Some specific hazards statements are given in Section 7 on Hazards.  
1.6 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.

ABSTRACT
This guide establishes the material selection, system design, and layout requirements, aas well as installation procedures for chain link security fence systems intended to substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate, thereby, increasing intrusion delay time. Selection criteria are provided herein for the following materials and fencing components: chain link fabric; fence framework including line posts, terminal posts, and rails; barbed wires; barbed tape obstacles; tension wire; fittings; post ties, rail ties, and hog rings; swing gates; slide gates; and vehicle crash gates. Installation procedures for passive anti-ram systems are also provided herein.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers the material and installation for selection in the design of a security chain link fence system. The proper material selection, system installation and layout can substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate; thereby, increasing the intrusion delay time.  
1.2 This guide does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the appropriate design for the level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations prior to use.  
1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 It is recommended that Guide F1553 be followed for the format of this guide.  
1.5 This guide is not intended to set specific requirements for chain link security fencing. It intends to cover the considerations or options pertinent to the design and construction of chain link security fencing.  
1.6 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.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Ornamental steel picket fence systems can be designed to provide greater levels of security by selecting styles and configurations that increase the difficulty to penetrate and in turn increase delay time. Some examples include: increasing the height of the fence, using ornamental picket styles that curve outward to form a parapet on the attack side of the fence, and decreasing the spacing between vertical pickets.  
4.2 Security hardening of ornamental steel picket fence systems can be achieved by adding fence security accessories (that is, barbed wire to the top; barbed tape to the top, side or bottom of the fence; or spiked railing supplements along the top rail) or by attaching supplemental security fence fill materials (that is, expanded metal, barbed tape mesh, welded wire mesh, or chain-link mini-mesh fabric). Slats or screening panels can be inserted to restrict visibility when required.  
4.3 Multiple fence lines can be installed to create isolation zones that enhance the ability to patrol or visually monitor the area.  
4.4 Anti-ram cable systems may be added to resist vehicle penetration into a protected perimeter.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers the material and installation standards for selection in the design of an ornamental steel picket fence system for security applications. The proper material selection and system installation and layout can substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate; thereby, increasing the intrusion delay time.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This guide is not intended to set specific requirements for an ornamental steel picket fence system for security purposes. It intends to cover the considerations or options pertinent to the design and construction of ornamental steel picket fence systems for security purposes.  
1.4 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.

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...

SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides assistance for the site security designer to select the proper components required to design a site specific expanded metal physical security perimeter barrier.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the appropriate design for the level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations prior to use.  
1.3 It is recommended that Specification F2548 be used in conjunction with this guide.  
1.4 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 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.

SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides assistance for the site security engineer to select the proper components required to design a site-specific, welded-wire physical security perimeter barrier.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of the standard to establish the appropriate design level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations.  
1.3 Specification F2453 is to be used in conjunction with this guide.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Some specific hazards statements are given in Section 7 on Hazards.

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.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Ornamental steel picket fence systems can be designed to provide greater levels of security by selecting styles and configurations that increase the difficulty to penetrate and in turn increase delay time. Some examples include: increasing the height of the fence, using ornamental picket styles that curve outward to form a parapet on the attack side of the fence, and decreasing the spacing between vertical pickets.  
4.2 Security hardening of ornamental steel picket fence systems can be achieved by adding fence security accessories (that is, barbed wire to the top; barbed tape to the top, side or bottom of the fence; or spiked railing supplements along the top rail) or by attaching supplemental security fence fill materials (that is, expanded metal, barbed tape mesh, welded wire mesh, or chain-link mini-mesh fabric). Slats or screening panels can be inserted to restrict visibility when required.  
4.3 Multiple fence lines can be installed to create isolation zones that enhance the ability to patrol or visually monitor the area.  
4.4 Anti-ram cable systems may be added to resist vehicle penetration into a protected perimeter.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides the material and installation standards for selection in the design of an ornamental steel picket fence system for security applications. The proper material selection and system installation and layout can substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate; thereby, increasing the intrusion delay time.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

ABSTRACT
This guide establishes the material selection, system design, and layout requirements, aas well as installation procedures for chain link security fence systems intended to substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate, thereby, increasing intrusion delay time. Selection criteria are provided herein for the following materials and fencing components: chain link fabric; fence framework including line posts, terminal posts, and rails; barbed wires; barbed tape obstacles; tension wire; fittings; post ties, rail ties, and hog rings; swing gates; slide gates; and vehicle crash gates. Installation procedures for passive anti-ram systems are also provided herein.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides the material and installation standards for selection in the design of a security chain link fence system. The proper material selection, system installation and layout can substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate; thereby, increasing the intrusion delay time.  
1.2 This guide does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the appropriate design for the level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations prior to use.  
1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 It is recommended that Guide F1553 be followed for the format of this guide.

SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides assistance for the site security designer to select the proper components required to design a site specific expanded metal physical security perimeter barrier.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the appropriate design for the level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations prior to use.  
1.3 It is recommended that Specification F2548 to be used in conjunction with this guide.  
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard.

ABSTRACT
This guide establishes the material selection, system design, and layout requirements, aas well as installation procedures for chain link security fence systems intended to substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate, thereby, increasing intrusion delay time. Selection criteria are provided herein for the following materials and fencing components: chain link fabric; fence framework including line posts, terminal posts, and rails; barbed wires; barbed tape obstacles; tension wire; fittings; post ties, rail ties, and hog rings; swing gates; slide gates; and vehicle crash gates. Installation procedures for passive anti-ram systems are also provided herein.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides the material and installation standards for selection in the design of a security chain link fence system. The proper material selection, system installation and layout can substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate; thereby, increasing the intrusion delay time.
1.2 This guide does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the appropriate design for the level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations prior to use.
1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.
1.4 It is recommended that Guide F1553 be followed for the format of this guide.

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 threatthe 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, ballistic tests and impact testing, and are not primarily intended to be used to establish or confirm the absolute prevention of forced entries.
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.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Ornamental steel picket fence systems can be designed to provide greater levels of security by selecting styles and configurations that increase the difficulty to penetrate and in turn increase delay time. Some examples include: increasing the height of the fence, using ornamental picket styles that curve outward to form a parapet on the attack side of the fence, and decreasing the spacing between vertical pickets.
Security hardening of ornamental steel picket fence systems can be achieved by adding fence security accessories (that is, barbed wire to the top; barbed tape to the top, side or bottom of the fence; or spiked railing supplements along the top rail) or by attaching supplemental security fence fill materials (that is, expanded metal, barbed tape mesh, welded wire mesh, or chain-link mini-mesh fabric). Slats or screening panels can be inserted to restrict visibility when required.
Multiple fence lines can be installed to create isolation zones that enhance the ability to patrol or visually monitor the area.
Anti-ram cable systems may be added to resist vehicle penetration into a protected perimeter.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides the material and installation standards for selection in the design of an ornamental steel picket fence system for security applications. The proper material selection and system installation and layout can substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate; thereby, increasing the intrusion delay time.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides assistance for the site security designer to select the proper components required to design a site specific expanded metal physical security perimeter barrier.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the appropriate design for the level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations prior to use.
1.3 It is recommended that Specification F2548 to be used in conjunction with this guide.
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard.

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.

ABSTRACT
This guide establishes the material selection, system design, and layout requirements, aas well as installation procedures for chain link security fence systems intended to substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate, thereby, increasing intrusion delay time. Selection criteria are provided herein for the following materials and fencing components: chain link fabric; fence framework including line posts, terminal posts, and rails; barbed wires; barbed tape obstacles; tension wire; fittings; post ties, rail ties, and hog rings; swing gates; slide gates; and vehicle crash gates. Installation procedures for passive anti-ram systems are also provided herein.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides the material and installation standards for selection in the design of a security chain link fence system. The proper material selection, system installation and layout can substantially increase the difficulty to penetrate; thereby, increasing the intrusion delay time.
1.2 This guide does not purport to address all of the physical protection security concerns. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the appropriate design for the level of physical protection required and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements or limitations prior to use.
1.3 It is recommended that Guide F 1553 be followed for the format of this guide.

ABSTRACT
This specification covers the selection and installation of expanded metal fence systems for applications on new or retrofit fences capable of denying or delaying unwanted access into or out of a commercial, industrial, governmental, or institutional facility as applicable to homeland security, or where the possibility of malevolent incursion is significant. The metal fences can be expanded (Type 1), or expanded and flattened (Type 2); and uncoated (Class 1), hot-dip zinc coated or galvanized (Class 2), or corrosion-resisting steel (Class 3). Fencings shall conform to specified standard sizes and dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers selection and installation of expanded metal fence systems for applications on new or retrofit fences for commercial, industrial, governmental or institutional facilities as applicable to homeland security, or where the possibility of malevolent incursion is significant. See for typical examples of expanded metal fence applications. This type of fence system is not recommended for residential or public recreational facilities such as pools, schools, and kindergartens.
1.2 This specification is intended to guide those responsible for or concerned with the design and installation of an expanded metal fence system capable of denying or delaying unwanted access into or out of an area.
1.3 No recommendation is made or implied here as to the merits of the product from any particular manufacturer. Choice of component selection for the expanded metal system should be made by the writer of the project specification based on their own perception of the products merit and the consequence of a malevolent incursion.
1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. Any values given in brackets are for information only.
This specification does not purport to address all of the safety and security concerns, if any, associated with homeland security. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish the required and appropriate level of security.

ABSTRACT
This specification covers chain-link fencing material applications for high security applications. Fabric shall be attached with tie wires or other appropriate fasteners. Fabric shall be attached with tie wires or other appropriate fasteners. Fabric, shall be attached to the terminal post using tension bars with tension bands or vertical straps. Barbed wire shall be installed, in accordance with the requirement, with one or more strands, depending on the degree of security required, or in conjunction with the use of barbed tape obstacles. Fabric shall be secured to tension wire using steel hog rings.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers chain-link fencing material applications for detention and correctional facilities.  
1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI values given in parentheses are provided for information only.

ABSTRACT
This specification covers chain-link fencing material applications for high security applications. Fabric shall be attached with tie wires or other appropriate fasteners. Fabric shall be attached with tie wires or other appropriate fasteners. Fabric, shall be attached to the terminal post using tension bars with tension bands or vertical straps. Barbed wire shall be installed, in accordance with the requirement, with one or more strands, depending on the degree of security required, or in conjunction with the use of barbed tape obstacles. Fabric shall be secured to tension wire using steel hog rings.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers chain-link fencing material applications for high security applications.
1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.
WITHDRAWN RATIONALE
This specification covers chain-link fencing material applications for high security applications.
Formerly under the jurisdiction of Committee F14 on Fences, this guide was withdrawn in July 2015 and replaced by Guide F2611 on the Design and Construction of Chain Link Security Fencing.1