درباره ما
MIL-HDBK-1013/10
SECURITY FENCING, GATES, BARRIERS, AND GUARD FACILITIES, DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
Organization:
NAVY - YD - Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Year: 1993
Abstract: This military handbook provides guidance and detailed criteria for the design, selection, and installation of new security fencing, gates, barriers, and guard facilities for perimeter boundaries of Navy and Marine Corps installations or separate activities, and designated restricted areas. Primarily, the criteria herein is based on the following Chief of Naval Operations Instructions (OPNAVINSTs):
a) OPNAVINST 5530.13A, Department of the Navy Physical Security Instruction for Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives (AA&E).
b) OPNAVINST 5530.14B, Department of the Navy Physical Security and Loss Prevention.
c) OPNAVINST C8126.1, Navy Nuclear Weapon Security Manual.
This military handbook, MIL-HDBK-1013/10, supersedes the following portions of NAVFAC Design Manual (DM) 5.12, Fencing, Gates and Guard Towers, dated October 1979: Section 1, paragraph 3; Section 2, paragraphs 2c and 3a; Section 3, paragraphs l(l) and l(d); portions of Table 1, dealing with Applications-Security, Perimeter, Nuclear Weapons; and, Table 2 in its entirety.
Where criteria documentation such as Federal Specifications, Military Specifications, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) Guide Specifications, etc., are cited, the latest version should be used for design.
Physical barriers will be established around all perimeter boundaries and designated restricted areas as defined in Chapter 3 of OPNAVINST 5530.14B, Chapter 5 of OPNAVINST 5530.13A, and Chapter 3 of OPNAVINST C8126.1.
This handbook was developed to lead the designer through the detailed criteria required to establish a physical barrier around any Navy and Marine Corps perimeter boundary and designated restricted area. Perimeter boundaries and restricted area fence and barrier criteria from OPNAVINST 5530.14B have been used in this handbook as a baseline to design security fences. Where different or special requirements for AA&E or nuclear restricted areas are specified in OPNAVINST 5530.13A or OPNAVINST C8126.1, they are contained herein under the appropriate subject title and section.
There are differences between the criteria contained in this handbook and the criteria authorized or directed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While this handbook may be used as a baseline for design of security fencing, gates, barriers, and guard facilities in Europe, obtain and follow specific NATO criteria to assure that specified NATO security requirements are met when designing these security components.
Security fences will not stop a determined intruder. To be effective, such barriers must be augmented by security force personnel and other means of protection, detection, delay, and assessment. Security fences are used primarily to:
a) define the perimeter of a restricted area.
b) provide a physical and psychological deterrent to entry while serving notice that entry is not freely permitted.
c) prevent accidental entry.
d) optimize security force operations.
e) enhance detection and apprehension of intruders.
f) channel and control the flow of personnel and vehicles through designated portals.
Keep these factors in mind while proceeding with the security fence design.
Prior to making decisions to employ security fencing, perform a thorough risk and threat analysis to determine the degree of physical security required. As indicated in Chapter 2 of Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5530.14B, extensive and costly security measures may be justified in certain cases to protect certain assets of security interest; however, ultimately the commanding officer of an activity is responsible for complying with established security requirements while at the same time working to achieve economy. To achieve this objective, higher echelon security requirements must be clearly understood. Additionally, evaluate the relative criticality and vulnerability of the security interest in relation to a ranking of potential threats, and calculate the specific level of security to ensure the best possible protection for that threat level in a cost-effective manner. Only after the above preliminary factors are addressed can a proper design be initiated. See MIL-HDBK-1013/1, Design Guidelines for Physical Security of Fixed Land-Based Facilities, for guidance and more detailed procedures which may be helpful in the decision process.
It is imperative that security fencing requirements for restricted areas be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Installing large quantities of security fencing around an entire outer perimeter may not be practical or cost-effective, and may not improve security, particularly in remote and unpopulated areas. Consider the following:
a) If the outer perimeter of the installation has adequate security fencing, then fencing of inner zones may not be required.
b) If the outer perimeter of the installation has barbed wire or hog-wire fencing or no fencing, security fences for inner facilities or storage areas may be more practical and cost-effective.
c) If the outer perimeter of the installation is partially fenced with a security fence, it may be more cost-effective to provide security fencing for the remainder of the outer perimeter rather than install security fencing around inner restricted areas.
d) If natural barriers such as mountains, cliffs, rivers, seas, or other difficult-to-traverse terrain form portions of the perimeter, then security fencing of the inner restricted areas may be more practical and cost-effective than providing security fencing either along or through these difficult-to-traverse areas.
In some cases, a request for a permanent exception to fencing, requirements submitted in accordance with OPNAVINST 5530.14B may be more appropriate than erecting costly security fencing.
Existing serviceable 6-foot (1.8-meter (m)) chain link fences (without outriggers) and gates constructed under the old version of OPNAVINST 5530.13A requirements do not need to be modified or replaced to meet the new OPNAVINST 5530.13A, 7-foot (2.1-m) (without outrigger) requirement.
Increasing the height of chain-link fencing by 1 or 2 feet (0.30 or 0.61 m) may, at best, increase the time to penetrate by going over the fence by only a couple of seconds. However, it has no effect on the time to penetrate the fence by cutting.
Generally, physical security cost expenditures should be based upon the cost of the item to be protected, possible damage that the loss of the item could inflict upon the civilian population, and the importance of the item to the overall security and readiness posture of the command. The cost of security is frequently greater than the dollar value of the property or material protected. Sensitive items that may be a threat to the civilian population or vital to national security will be provided additional protection commensurate with their sensitivity and the threat to their loss or destruction.
a) OPNAVINST 5530.13A, Department of the Navy Physical Security Instruction for Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives (AA&E).
b) OPNAVINST 5530.14B, Department of the Navy Physical Security and Loss Prevention.
c) OPNAVINST C8126.1, Navy Nuclear Weapon Security Manual.
This military handbook, MIL-HDBK-1013/10, supersedes the following portions of NAVFAC Design Manual (DM) 5.12, Fencing, Gates and Guard Towers, dated October 1979: Section 1, paragraph 3; Section 2, paragraphs 2c and 3a; Section 3, paragraphs l(l) and l(d); portions of Table 1, dealing with Applications-Security, Perimeter, Nuclear Weapons; and, Table 2 in its entirety.
Where criteria documentation such as Federal Specifications, Military Specifications, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) Guide Specifications, etc., are cited, the latest version should be used for design.
Physical barriers will be established around all perimeter boundaries and designated restricted areas as defined in Chapter 3 of OPNAVINST 5530.14B, Chapter 5 of OPNAVINST 5530.13A, and Chapter 3 of OPNAVINST C8126.1.
This handbook was developed to lead the designer through the detailed criteria required to establish a physical barrier around any Navy and Marine Corps perimeter boundary and designated restricted area. Perimeter boundaries and restricted area fence and barrier criteria from OPNAVINST 5530.14B have been used in this handbook as a baseline to design security fences. Where different or special requirements for AA&E or nuclear restricted areas are specified in OPNAVINST 5530.13A or OPNAVINST C8126.1, they are contained herein under the appropriate subject title and section.
There are differences between the criteria contained in this handbook and the criteria authorized or directed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While this handbook may be used as a baseline for design of security fencing, gates, barriers, and guard facilities in Europe, obtain and follow specific NATO criteria to assure that specified NATO security requirements are met when designing these security components.
Security fences will not stop a determined intruder. To be effective, such barriers must be augmented by security force personnel and other means of protection, detection, delay, and assessment. Security fences are used primarily to:
a) define the perimeter of a restricted area.
b) provide a physical and psychological deterrent to entry while serving notice that entry is not freely permitted.
c) prevent accidental entry.
d) optimize security force operations.
e) enhance detection and apprehension of intruders.
f) channel and control the flow of personnel and vehicles through designated portals.
Keep these factors in mind while proceeding with the security fence design.
Prior to making decisions to employ security fencing, perform a thorough risk and threat analysis to determine the degree of physical security required. As indicated in Chapter 2 of Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5530.14B, extensive and costly security measures may be justified in certain cases to protect certain assets of security interest; however, ultimately the commanding officer of an activity is responsible for complying with established security requirements while at the same time working to achieve economy. To achieve this objective, higher echelon security requirements must be clearly understood. Additionally, evaluate the relative criticality and vulnerability of the security interest in relation to a ranking of potential threats, and calculate the specific level of security to ensure the best possible protection for that threat level in a cost-effective manner. Only after the above preliminary factors are addressed can a proper design be initiated. See MIL-HDBK-1013/1, Design Guidelines for Physical Security of Fixed Land-Based Facilities, for guidance and more detailed procedures which may be helpful in the decision process.
It is imperative that security fencing requirements for restricted areas be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Installing large quantities of security fencing around an entire outer perimeter may not be practical or cost-effective, and may not improve security, particularly in remote and unpopulated areas. Consider the following:
a) If the outer perimeter of the installation has adequate security fencing, then fencing of inner zones may not be required.
b) If the outer perimeter of the installation has barbed wire or hog-wire fencing or no fencing, security fences for inner facilities or storage areas may be more practical and cost-effective.
c) If the outer perimeter of the installation is partially fenced with a security fence, it may be more cost-effective to provide security fencing for the remainder of the outer perimeter rather than install security fencing around inner restricted areas.
d) If natural barriers such as mountains, cliffs, rivers, seas, or other difficult-to-traverse terrain form portions of the perimeter, then security fencing of the inner restricted areas may be more practical and cost-effective than providing security fencing either along or through these difficult-to-traverse areas.
In some cases, a request for a permanent exception to fencing, requirements submitted in accordance with OPNAVINST 5530.14B may be more appropriate than erecting costly security fencing.
Existing serviceable 6-foot (1.8-meter (m)) chain link fences (without outriggers) and gates constructed under the old version of OPNAVINST 5530.13A requirements do not need to be modified or replaced to meet the new OPNAVINST 5530.13A, 7-foot (2.1-m) (without outrigger) requirement.
Increasing the height of chain-link fencing by 1 or 2 feet (0.30 or 0.61 m) may, at best, increase the time to penetrate by going over the fence by only a couple of seconds. However, it has no effect on the time to penetrate the fence by cutting.
Generally, physical security cost expenditures should be based upon the cost of the item to be protected, possible damage that the loss of the item could inflict upon the civilian population, and the importance of the item to the overall security and readiness posture of the command. The cost of security is frequently greater than the dollar value of the property or material protected. Sensitive items that may be a threat to the civilian population or vital to national security will be provided additional protection commensurate with their sensitivity and the threat to their loss or destruction.
Collections
:
-
Statistics
MIL-HDBK-1013/10
Show full item record
| contributor author | NAVY - YD - Naval Facilities Engineering Command | |
| date accessioned | 2017-09-04T17:46:19Z | |
| date available | 2017-09-04T17:46:19Z | |
| date copyright | 05/14/1993 | |
| date issued | 1993 | |
| identifier other | ELRXDAAAAAAAAAAA.pdf | |
| identifier uri | https://yse.yabesh.ir/std/handle/yse/169532 | |
| description abstract | This military handbook provides guidance and detailed criteria for the design, selection, and installation of new security fencing, gates, barriers, and guard facilities for perimeter boundaries of Navy and Marine Corps installations or separate activities, and designated restricted areas. Primarily, the criteria herein is based on the following Chief of Naval Operations Instructions (OPNAVINSTs): a) OPNAVINST 5530.13A, Department of the Navy Physical Security Instruction for Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives (AA&E). b) OPNAVINST 5530.14B, Department of the Navy Physical Security and Loss Prevention. c) OPNAVINST C8126.1, Navy Nuclear Weapon Security Manual. This military handbook, MIL-HDBK-1013/10, supersedes the following portions of NAVFAC Design Manual (DM) 5.12, Fencing, Gates and Guard Towers, dated October 1979: Section 1, paragraph 3; Section 2, paragraphs 2c and 3a; Section 3, paragraphs l(l) and l(d); portions of Table 1, dealing with Applications-Security, Perimeter, Nuclear Weapons; and, Table 2 in its entirety. Where criteria documentation such as Federal Specifications, Military Specifications, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) Guide Specifications, etc., are cited, the latest version should be used for design. Physical barriers will be established around all perimeter boundaries and designated restricted areas as defined in Chapter 3 of OPNAVINST 5530.14B, Chapter 5 of OPNAVINST 5530.13A, and Chapter 3 of OPNAVINST C8126.1. This handbook was developed to lead the designer through the detailed criteria required to establish a physical barrier around any Navy and Marine Corps perimeter boundary and designated restricted area. Perimeter boundaries and restricted area fence and barrier criteria from OPNAVINST 5530.14B have been used in this handbook as a baseline to design security fences. Where different or special requirements for AA&E or nuclear restricted areas are specified in OPNAVINST 5530.13A or OPNAVINST C8126.1, they are contained herein under the appropriate subject title and section. There are differences between the criteria contained in this handbook and the criteria authorized or directed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While this handbook may be used as a baseline for design of security fencing, gates, barriers, and guard facilities in Europe, obtain and follow specific NATO criteria to assure that specified NATO security requirements are met when designing these security components. Security fences will not stop a determined intruder. To be effective, such barriers must be augmented by security force personnel and other means of protection, detection, delay, and assessment. Security fences are used primarily to: a) define the perimeter of a restricted area. b) provide a physical and psychological deterrent to entry while serving notice that entry is not freely permitted. c) prevent accidental entry. d) optimize security force operations. e) enhance detection and apprehension of intruders. f) channel and control the flow of personnel and vehicles through designated portals. Keep these factors in mind while proceeding with the security fence design. Prior to making decisions to employ security fencing, perform a thorough risk and threat analysis to determine the degree of physical security required. As indicated in Chapter 2 of Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5530.14B, extensive and costly security measures may be justified in certain cases to protect certain assets of security interest; however, ultimately the commanding officer of an activity is responsible for complying with established security requirements while at the same time working to achieve economy. To achieve this objective, higher echelon security requirements must be clearly understood. Additionally, evaluate the relative criticality and vulnerability of the security interest in relation to a ranking of potential threats, and calculate the specific level of security to ensure the best possible protection for that threat level in a cost-effective manner. Only after the above preliminary factors are addressed can a proper design be initiated. See MIL-HDBK-1013/1, Design Guidelines for Physical Security of Fixed Land-Based Facilities, for guidance and more detailed procedures which may be helpful in the decision process. It is imperative that security fencing requirements for restricted areas be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Installing large quantities of security fencing around an entire outer perimeter may not be practical or cost-effective, and may not improve security, particularly in remote and unpopulated areas. Consider the following: a) If the outer perimeter of the installation has adequate security fencing, then fencing of inner zones may not be required. b) If the outer perimeter of the installation has barbed wire or hog-wire fencing or no fencing, security fences for inner facilities or storage areas may be more practical and cost-effective. c) If the outer perimeter of the installation is partially fenced with a security fence, it may be more cost-effective to provide security fencing for the remainder of the outer perimeter rather than install security fencing around inner restricted areas. d) If natural barriers such as mountains, cliffs, rivers, seas, or other difficult-to-traverse terrain form portions of the perimeter, then security fencing of the inner restricted areas may be more practical and cost-effective than providing security fencing either along or through these difficult-to-traverse areas. In some cases, a request for a permanent exception to fencing, requirements submitted in accordance with OPNAVINST 5530.14B may be more appropriate than erecting costly security fencing. Existing serviceable 6-foot (1.8-meter (m)) chain link fences (without outriggers) and gates constructed under the old version of OPNAVINST 5530.13A requirements do not need to be modified or replaced to meet the new OPNAVINST 5530.13A, 7-foot (2.1-m) (without outrigger) requirement. Increasing the height of chain-link fencing by 1 or 2 feet (0.30 or 0.61 m) may, at best, increase the time to penetrate by going over the fence by only a couple of seconds. However, it has no effect on the time to penetrate the fence by cutting. Generally, physical security cost expenditures should be based upon the cost of the item to be protected, possible damage that the loss of the item could inflict upon the civilian population, and the importance of the item to the overall security and readiness posture of the command. The cost of security is frequently greater than the dollar value of the property or material protected. Sensitive items that may be a threat to the civilian population or vital to national security will be provided additional protection commensurate with their sensitivity and the threat to their loss or destruction. | |
| language | English | |
| title | MIL-HDBK-1013/10 | num |
| title | SECURITY FENCING, GATES, BARRIERS, AND GUARD FACILITIES, DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR | en |
| type | standard | |
| page | 74 | |
| status | Active | |
| tree | NAVY - YD - Naval Facilities Engineering Command:;1993 | |
| contenttype | fulltext |