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.
====== 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 Testing
Discretionary Testing
Tool(s)
L
M
A
L
M
A
Crowbar
5 lb by 28 in. (2)
3-5
3-5
3-5
0-55
0-55
0-55
Cold Chisels and
Hammer (2)
3-5
3-5
3-5
0-55
0-55
0-55
Hacksaw and
Two HSS Blades
3-5
3-5
3-5
0-55
0-55
0-55
Sledgehammer
16 in. by 6 lb
3-5
3-5
3-5
0-55
0-55
0-55
Fire Axe
36 in. by 6 lb
3-5
3-5
3-5
0-55
0-55
0-55
Bolt Cutter (2)
-
3-5
3-5
-
0-55
0-55
Fire Axe
36 in. by 10 lb
-
3-5
3-5
-
0-55
0-55
Hole Saw 2 in. (1)
-
0-5
0-5
-
0-55
0-55
Pry Bar
30 in. Steel (2)
-
0-5
0-5
-
0-55
0-55
Sledgehammer
30 in. by 12 lb
-
0-5
0-5
-
0-55
0-55
Steel Wedge
6 in. long (2)
-
0-5
0-5
-
0-55
0-55
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)
-
-
0-5
-
-
0-55
Oxyacetylene
Torch with 80 ft
3
Oxygen and
40 ft
3
Acetylene Tanks (1)
-
-
0-5
-
-
0-55
Cut-Off Saw
5 KW or HD Gasoline
18 in. Dia. and 3
Blades (1)
-
-
0-5
-
-
0-55
Breaker
(1900 W) 30 lb with
3 Bits (1)
-
-
0-5
-
-
0-55
Scissor Jack 1500 lb
with 4 in. min
retraction and 8 in.
Stroke (1)
-
-
0-5
-
-
0-55
Adhesive
Tape (1)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
Fishing
Line (250
’
)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
Grappling
Hook (1)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
5-in. Knife (1)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
8 in. Std and Self
Grip Pliers (2)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
10 in. Multiple
Slip Pliers (2)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
10 in. Pipe
Wrench (2)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
1.660 in. O.D. by 12 ft.
pipe (2)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
8 in. Plate
Shears (1)
-
-
-
0-55 (1)
0-55 (1)
0-55 (2)
Screwdrivers
7 in.,10 in., and 16 in. (1)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
Cordless
½
in. Drill with
spare power pack and
carbide bits (1)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
Butane
Torch (1)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
Rope (1)
-
-
-
0-55
0-55
0-55
TABLE 2 Forced Entry Resistant Ratings
Threat Level
Active Test
Personnel
Resistance Time (minute)
Rating
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
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.
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.
Absolute penetration resistance from forced entry by a determined and well-equipped attack group is impossible.
Aggressor groups range from unsophisticated criminals and vandals to organized criminals.
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 a response force to intercept the intruders.
The procedures of this test method are intended to evaluate the time necessary for vandals and unsophisticated criminals to forcefully penetrate security fence systems by using manually operated tools
—
defined as a low, medium, or aggressive forced entry threat.
到馆提醒
收藏跟踪
分享链接
购买正版
分类信息
首页
馆藏资源
舆情信息
标准服务
科研活动
关于我们
️版权归中国标准化研究院所有