1、Designation: F2781 15Standard Practice forTesting Forced Entry, Ballistic and Low Impact Resistanceof Security Fence Systems1This standard is issued under the fixed designation F2781; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision,
2、 the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 The forced entry resistance of fence systems is evalu-ated relative to three levels of forced entry threa
3、t using thelimited hand tool inventory outlined in Table 1. It alsoestablishes a system for rating the forced entry resistance ofthose systems (see Table 2). The tools specified to be used fortesting at each threat level are those that are known to have amaximum destructive effect on structures and
4、their sub-assemblies and are readily available to aggressors categorizedas posing that level of threat.1.1.1 Low Threat Level (L)Specifically exempted from theinventory of available tools for the low (L) threat levelcategory are power tools (gasoline, electric or hydraulic), anddevices requiring mor
5、e than one person to transport andoperate.1.1.2 Medium Threat Level (M)Specifically exemptedfrom the inventory of available tools for the medium (M) threatlevel category are power tools requiring an outside powersource or self contained gasoline or battery driven tools anddevices requiring more than
6、 two persons to transport andoperate.1.1.3 Aggressive Threat Level (A)Specifically exemptedfrom the inventory of available tools for the high (H) threatlevel category are devices requiring more than two persons totransport and operate.1.2 The ability of a fence system to offer protection frombullets
7、 fired from a rifle or handgun would be beneficialparticularly in Border Fence areas where security personnelcan be targets during patrol activities. Accordingly, a limitedtest using a .38 Special handgun and a 7.62-mm rifle isperformed to determine if any level of protection is providedby the fence
8、 system.1.3 The ability of a fence system to provide impact resis-tance from a 4000 pound mass vehicle moving at a velocity of20 MPH at a modest cost will provide relative guidance as tothe strength of a security fence system in resisting low impactsituations.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standard
9、s:2F1233 Test Method for Security Glazing Materials AndSystems2.2 SAE Standard:3SAE J972 Moving Rigid Barrier Collision Tests2.3 U.S. Military Standards:4MIL-STD-662F Department of Defense Test Method Stan-dard V50 Ballistic Test for Armor2.4 U.S. Dept. of Justice:5NIJ Standard 0108.01 National Inst
10、itute of Justice BallisticResistant Protective Materials3. Terminology3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:3.1.1 test directorthe individual identified by the indepen-dent testing laboratory as being responsible to complete thespecified tests and to document the results.3.1.2 forced en
11、trycreating a four square feet opening.4. Summary of Practice4.1 For each rating a structured portion and a discretionaryportion as described in 4.2 and 4.3 is required.4.2 The structured portion of the test provides for a zero tofive minute test with specific tools selected as the mostdebilitating
12、from the tool list in Table 1, regardless of the fencesystem being tested.1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F14 on Fences andis the direct responsibility of Subcommittee F14.50 on High Security Fences andPerimeter Barriers.Current edition approved Nov. 1, 2015. Published Dec
13、ember 2015. Originallyapproved in 2009. Last previous edition approved in 2010 as F2781 - 10.DOI:10.1520/F2781-15.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to th
14、e standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.3Available from SAE International (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale,PA 15096, http:/www.sae.org.4Available from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100Bureau Dr., Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, http:/www.nist.gov.
15、5Available from National Institute of Justice (NIJ), 810 7th St., NW, Washington,DC 20531, http:/nij.gov.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States14.3 Following the structured portion of the test, the discre-tionary portion of t
16、he test provides up to 55 minutes of testing,optimizing forced entry efforts by selecting any (or all) toolsfrom the applicable category of the list (low (A), medium (B),or aggressive (C). Selection of tools is based on the perceptionof the test director as to which tools will most effectively resul
17、tin a forced entry.4.4 Testing of security fence systems in accordance with therequirements of this test method shall result in a ratingreflecting the severity of the threat and the cumulative penetra-tion resistance time (see Table 2).4.5 The times used to establish the protection ratings ofTable 2
18、 range from 060 minutes and are intended to reflect theelapsed time of forced entry resistance necessary for a responseforce to arrive and counter the threat with additional defensivepersonnel and equipment. It is important to recognize that thelowest threat level time will establish the maximum tim
19、e limitfor a greater threat level.4.6 The ballistic is intended to provide the probability of aperson standing behind the secure fence side from being hitwith a bullet fired by a 38-caliber hand gun or a .30-06 rifle.4.7 The impact test is intended to provide relative guidanceas to the strength of a
20、 fence system to absorb 53.5 K-ft-lbs ofkinetic energy.5. Significance and Use5.1 The success or failure of any attempt to forcefullypenetrate a fence system is dependent upon three primaryfactors that collectively define the threatthe tools and devicesemployed, the number of aggressors, and their l
21、evel of sophis-tication.5.2 Normally, a test procedure of this scope would besupported by years of laboratory testing intended to qualify andaccurately reproduce the destructive effects of a variety oftools, implements, and devices. However, rapidly changingsocial conditions have created an immediat
22、e need for buildingcomponents resistant to evolving forced entry techniques.Accordingly, the procedures presented herein are based moreon field experience than laboratory analysis. They are morerepresentative than inclusive, are intended to provide a basisfor the comparative evaluation of different
23、fence systems usingforced penetration procedures, ballistic tests and impacttesting, and are not primarily intended to be used to establish orconfirm the absolute prevention of forced entries.TABLE 1 Schedule of TestingAll Levels of Threat Severity(See Sections 8 and 14 for unabridged tool list.)Tim
24、e of Application (minutes)Structured Testing Discretionary TestingTool(s) L M A L M ACrowbar5lbby28in.(2)3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55Cold Chisels andHammer (2)3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55Hacksaw andTwo HSS Blades3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55Sledgehammer16in.by6lb3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55Fire Axe36in.by6lb
25、3-5 3-5 3-5 0-55 0-55 0-55Bolt Cutter (2) 3-5 3-5 3-5 - 0-55 0-55Fire Axe36in.by10lb- 3-5 3-5 - 0-55 0-55Hole Saw 2 in.(1) and Jigsaw- 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55Pry Bar30 in. Steel (2)- 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55Sledgehammer30in.by12lb- 0-5 0-5 - 0-55 0-55Steel Wedge6 in. long (2) andPlate Shears- 0-5 0-5 - 0-55
26、0-55Circular Saw8 in., 1100 W,and3 Blades (1)- 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55Disc Grinder5 in., 1100 W,and 3 Blades (1)- 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55Rotary andHammer Drill750 W and 5 DrillBits,12 in. (1)- - 0-5 - - 0-55Hole SawGreater than 2 in.(1)- 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55Steel PinchBar 60 in. long(2)- - 0-5 - - 0-55F2781 152TABLE
27、1 ContinuedTime of Application (minutes)Structured Testing Discretionary TestingTool(s) L M A L M AReciprocatingSaw 750 W and3 Carbide Blades(1)- 0-5 0-5 - - 0-55Sledgehammer30in.by15lb(1)- - 0-5 - - 0-55OxyacetyleneTorch with 80 ft3Oxygen and40 ft3AcetyleneTanks (1)- - 0-5 - - 0-55Cut-Off Saw5KWorH
28、DGasoline18 in. Dia. and 3Blades (1)- - 0-5 - - 0-55Breaker(1900 W) 30 lbwith3 Bits (1)- - 0-5 - - 0-55Scissor Jack1500 lbwith 4 in. minretraction and 8in.Stroke (1)- - 0-5 - - 0-55AdhesiveTape (1)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-55FishingLine (250)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-55GrapplingHook (1)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-555-in. Kni
29、fe (1) - - - 0-55 0-55 0-558 in. Std and SelfGrip Pliers (2)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-5510 in. MultipleSlip Pliers (2)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-5510 in. PipeWrench (2)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-551.660 in. O.D. by12 ft.pipe (2)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-558 in. PlateShears (1)- - - 0-55 (1) 0-55 (1) 0-55 (2)Screwdrivers7 in.,10 in.,
30、 and16 in. (1)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-55Cordless12 in.Drill withspare power packandcarbide bits (1)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-55ButaneTorch (1)- - - 0-55 0-55 0-55Rope (1) - - - 0-55 0-55 0-55TABLE 2 Forced Entry Resistant RatingsThreat LevelActive TestPersonnelResistance Time (minute)RatingStructured Test Discret
31、ionary Test CumulativeLow (L) 2 Less than 5 0 Less than 5 L0 to L4.95 Less than 5 Less than 10 L5 to L9.95 5 to 9.9 Less than 15 L10 to L14.95 10 to 14.9 Less than 20 L15 to L19.95 20 to 25 30 L20 to L305 31 to 55 60 L31 to L60Medium (M) 2 Less than 5 0 Less than 5 M0 to M4.95 Less than 5 Less than
32、10 M5 to M9.95 5 to 9.9 Less than 15 M10 to M14.95 10 to 14.9 Less than 20 M15 to M19.95 20 to 25 30 M20 to M305 31 to 55 60 M31 to M60F2781 153TABLE 2 ContinuedThreat LevelActive TestPersonnelResistance Time (minute)RatingStructured Test Discretionary Test CumulativeAggressive (A) 4 Less than 5 0 L
33、ess than 5 A0 to A4.95 Less than 5 Less than 10 A5 to A9.95 5 to 9.9 Less than 15 A10 to A14.95 10 to 14.9 Less than 15 A15 to A19.95 20 to 25 30 A20 to A305 31 to 55 60 M31 to A605.3 The test requirements specified herein have been estab-lished for use in evaluating the penetration resistance chara
34、c-teristics 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 onthe cumulative effect of the implements used, the elapsed time,and the sophistication and motivation of the personnel affectingthe forced e
35、ntry.5.3.2 Absolute penetration resistance from forced entry by adetermined and well-equipped attack group is impossible.5.3.3 Aggressor groups range from unsophisticated crimi-nals and vandals to organized criminals.5.3.4 Attempts to force an entry may be thwarted byincreasing the time necessary to
36、 affect such an entry and byearly detection. Intrusion sensors positioned as far as possiblefrom the protected environment in conjunction with optimalstructural and component design will maximize the timeavailable for a response force to intercept the intruders.5.4 The procedures of this test method
37、 are intended toevaluate the time necessary for vandals and unsophisticatedcriminals to forcefully penetrate security fence systems byusing manually operated toolsdefined as a low, medium, oraggressive forced entry threat.6. Documentation of Test Materials6.1 Configuration DocumentationAll materials
38、 and as-semblies to be tested shall conform to and be in compliancewith the latest revision of the appropriate publication orspecification governing the fence system configuration. Thefollowing documents shall apply:6.1.1 Standard Commercial MaterialsCommercial mate-rials used in fabricating securit
39、y fence systems will conform tothe configuration and performance standards established forthat material by ASTM International.6.1.2 Non-Standard MaterialsAll materials and sub-assemblies used in the fabrication of forced entry barrierswhose nature and configuration are not otherwise controlled byrec
40、ognized industrial, government, or manufacturers specifi-cations will be accompanied by full disclosure drawings andspecifications.6.1.2.1 Component Material DetailsSpecific industrialspecifications, including size, thickness composition, etc.6.1.2.2 Make, model number, serial numbers, and date ofma
41、nufacture (as appropriate).6.1.2.3 Construction instructions, including weldments,bolting, bonding materials, etc.6.1.3 Proprietary InformationNone of the requirements of6.1.1 through 6.1.2.3 are intended to compromise or circum-vent a manufacturers proprietary rights with respect to anyfeature, con
42、figuration, material, or design. Those portions ofthe design disclosure documentation considered proprietarywould be clearly marked or eliminated from the disclosuredocumentation with an appropriate explanation. All submitteddocumentation, however, would accurately represent thesample tested.7. Samp
43、ling, Test Specimens, and Test Units7.1 Sample SizeIn order to facilitate test standardizationall test samples will conform to the sizes specified in 7.1.1.7.1.1 A minimum lateral area of 96 in. high and 30 ft inlength. The requirements of this section and the procedures ofthe test method are intend
44、ed to minimize test costs byconducting as much testing on single test segments, if possible.Impact Tests shall target the impact location of the vehicle atthe midpoint of the 30 ft. length to avoid contacting the verticalposts and performed after penetration tests have been com-pleted to minimize co
45、sts of material and repair labor.7.1.2 Test EnvironmentThe location of the test shall be ina natural environment where the temperature minimum is notless than 40F and the maximum is 95F during the perfor-mance of the test. All tested materials and tools will betemperature conditioned in this environ
46、ment for a minimum of24 h immediately prior to initiation of any test. The areaimmediately adjacent to the test sample extending 6 ft to theleft and right of either vertical edge of the sample, 10 ft fromthe assault face of the sample, and 10 ft above the horizontalsurface supporting the test (attac
47、k) personnel, shall be free ofany and all obstructions and appurtenances.8. Preparation of Apparatus8.1 Tools, Devices and Materials:8.1.1 Analysis of many of the aggressive actions againstinstallations that have resulted in forced entry has produced anextensive list of tools and implements that are
48、 readily acces-sible to aggressor groups. From this comprehensive listing,tools and devices have been categorized as to the likelihood oftheir use and forced entry threat severity. While infinite in type,size, and construction, all can be categorized with respect totheir principal effect and functio
49、nprying, screwing, pulling,shearing, cutting, and impacting. Additionally, certain toolshave been identified as those which are not actually tools, butwhich have a debilitating effect on protective barriers and arereadily available (that is, ropes, and so forth). While no attemptwill be made to completely list all the tools and implementswhich can be utilized to effect forced entry, Table 1 presentsthose tools and implements which have been determined to bereadily available and representative of the most effective offorced entry tools for the very low, lo
