Temporary Fence Wind Load Chart: Pressure, Force, and the Screen Multiplier

What does the temporary fence wind load chart show by speed and exposure?

At a 60 mph input in Exposure C, the calculated gross solid-face reference pressure is 8.25 psf at strength level and 4.95 psf at ASD level. At 100 mph, the corresponding values are 22.92 and 13.75 psf. The rows are transparent comparison scenarios under the stated inputs, not site-specific mapped wind speeds or product ratings.

Table 1. Calculated velocity pressure and gross solid-face reference pressure, 0–15 feet above grade

Source: Calculated by Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research on July 27, 2026 from ASCE/SEI 7-22 §§26.10 and 29.3 using Kz = 0.57, 0.85, and 1.03; Kzt = Ke = 1.00; Kd = G = 0.85; Cf = 1.458; and the 0.60 ASD factor documented in CLFMI WLG 2445. Exposure D Kz = 1.03 was cross-checked in the official ASCE Amplify result for Table 26.10-1. Download CSV

How should the chart be read?

Velocity pressure, qh, is the equation output after wind speed, exposure, topographic, and elevation inputs are applied but before Kd, G, and Cf. The reference strength pressure then applies those three coefficients. The ASD column is 60% of the strength-level reference result under the cited CLFMI/ASCE method.

For a fully solid comparison face, multiply the reference pressure by gross face area. For the exact bare-chain-link comparison used here, divide the gross-face force by the applicable CLFMI Cf1. For the cited nearly solid wall/sign condition with gross openings below 30%, apply the opening factor shown in Table 4.

Why are strength-level and ASD-level numbers both shown?

The two values answer different design frameworks and differ by a factor of 1.667. Quoting a pressure without naming the level makes valid sources appear to conflict. Every table and downloadable row therefore labels strength and ASD values separately.

What do Exposure B, C, and D mean?

CLFMI’s ASCE-based definitions describe Exposure B as urban, suburban, wooded, or similarly obstructed terrain; Exposure C as open terrain with scattered obstructions generally below 30 feet; and Exposure D as flat unobstructed areas and water surfaces outside hurricane-prone regions. Selecting an exposure is a project and wind-direction determination under the governing standard; this page does not assign one to a site.

How was the Exposure D value resolved?

The chart uses Kz = 1.03for Exposure D at 0–15 feet. That value appears in CLFMI Table 14 and in the official ASCE Amplify result for ASCE/SEI 7-22 Table 26.10-1, so the same primary-standard value is used throughout the article and dataset.

How much force does that put on a fence panel?

At a 60 mph Exposure C input, a fully solid 6-by-12-foot reference face carries about 594 pounds of strength-level horizontal force and a simplified 1,782 ft‑lb moment about the base. The exact CLFMI #11-gauge, 2¼-inch bare-chain-link comparison carries about 60 pounds across the same face. Both are demand calculations, not the capacity of a panel, stand, ballast, brace, or connection.

Table 2. Calculated force on a 6-foot reference face in Exposure C, 0–15 feet

Source: Calculated by Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research on July 27, 2026 from Table 1 Exposure C pressures. The 6×12 gross face is 72 ft²; the uniform resultant is placed at mid-height for the reference moment; the bare comparison divides the gross-face result by CLFMI Cf1 = 9.86 for #11-gauge, 2¼-inch mesh. Download CSV

Why is force per linear foot the more portable figure?

For the fully solid benchmark, force per linear foot equals reference pressure multiplied by fence height. A 6-foot face at 8.25 psf carries 49.5 lb per foot of run, while an 8-foot face at the same pressure carries 66.0 lb per foot. A fully solid 6-by-10-foot reference face at the same 60 mph Exposure C input carries about 495 pounds at strength level.

What does the reference moment mean?

The moment column multiplies the uniform gross-face force by a 3-foot moment arm for a 6-foot-high face. It makes the overturning demand visible, but it does not reveal whether an installed system can resist that demand. Capacity depends on the stand footprint, complete system weight, ballast or anchors, braces, clamps, run geometry, surface friction, substrate, and load path.

This page does not publish required ballast weights, anchor sizes, or brace spacing. Those outputs cannot be reconstructed safely from wind pressure and public panel dimensions alone.

How much does a privacy screen increase temporary fence wind load?

For the three exact CLFMI bare-fabric combinations shown in Table 4 and structural solid-area ratios from 0.71 through 1.00, the derived ratio is 7.5× to 10.4×. The ratio compares a nearly solid gross-face calculation with the CLFMI bare-chain-link area factor; it is not a universal test result for every screen, frame, stand, or installation.

Why is bare chain-link force much lower than gross solid-face force?

CLFMI first treats the face as solid and then adjusts for chain-link fabric using Cf1. The guide states that the reciprocal of Cf1 is the net resisting, or closed, area factor. Under that method, the bare-fabric force across a fixed gross face is the gross solid-face force divided by Cf1.

Table 3. Closed and open area for selected CLFMI chain-link fabric combinations

Source: CLFMI WLG 2445, January 2023, Table 13. Closed-area and open-area percentages calculated by Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research on July 27, 2026 from the reciprocal of Cf1, following CLFMI’s stated method. Download full 47-row CSV

Two current U.S. panel specifications reviewed use 2⅜-inch mesh: SONCO lists 11.5-gauge fabric and American Fence & Supply lists 12-gauge fabric. Those exact mesh-and-gauge combinations are outside CLFMI Table 13, whose largest listed mesh is 2¼ inches, so this page does not assign either product an exact Cf1.

When does the cited ASCE opening rule apply?

For the cited freestanding-wall/sign condition where gross openings are less than 30%, the force coefficient may be multiplied by 1 − (1 − e)^1.5, where e is structural solid area divided by gross area. The table begins at e = 0.71 because that corresponds to 29% gross open area and stays inside the stated condition. The e input must describe the completed wind-exposed face; Table 4 does not treat a screen’s marketing percentage as that value or add an underlying mesh factor a second time.

Table 4. Structural solid-area factor and derived ratio over three exact bare-chain-link combinations

Source: ASCE/SEI 7-22 Figure 29.3-1 note 2 as reproduced by permission in CLFMI WLG 2445, combined with CLFMI Table 13. Opening factors and ratios calculated by Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research on July 27, 2026. Download CSV

The opening reduction is smaller than a simple “percent solid” intuition suggests. At e = 0.90, the factor is 0.9684, only 3.16% below the fully solid result. Across the nearly solid range shown, the ratio over the three selected bare fabrics stays near an order of magnitude.

Why is advertised opacity not a structural solid-area ratio?

A product’s visual opacity, shade percentage, blockage claim, tested air permeability, and geometric solid-material area can be different quantities. The ASCE opening expression requires a structural solid-area ratio. This page therefore does not convert an advertised “85% blockage” or “90% opacity” claim into e unless the product documentation establishes that relationship.

When product structural-area data is absent, a fully solid face can be shown as a declared reference assumption, but that is not a product test or a complete-system design. ASTM’s public Note 1 independently warns that wind screens form a solid barrier and directs the reader toward permanent-fence wind research and design.

A historical New York City example shows the same evidence principle. Buildings Bulletin 2010-019 allowed a reduction for net openings only when force at design wind speed came from manufacturer test data or another method acceptable to the Commissioner. Buildings Bulletin 2014-023 later prospectively rescinded 2010-019 for projects filed under the 2014 codes, so it is not current general permission; it remains a dated example of why a porosity reduction needs evidence.

What does this chart show—and what can it not tell you?

This chart quantifies demand: reference pressure, force, and moment at a stated input speed, exposure, height, geometry, and coefficient set. It does not quantify capacity: whether a particular installed system remains stable or structurally adequate.

Capacity belongs to the complete installation, including:

• Panel and frame geometry
• Steel or material properties
• Base and foot configuration
• Ballast or anchorage
• Braces and stabilizers
• Clamps and connection strength
• Run length, ends, corners, and gates
• Screen material and attachment
• Surface, substrate, and soil condition
• Topography and exposure
• Installation, inspection, maintenance, damage, and corrosion
• Governing code edition, risk category, and authority having jurisdiction

This page does not publish or support:

• A universal safe wind speed for temporary fence
• A manufacturer’s tested wind rating
• Required ballast weight, anchor size, or brace spacing
• Post, footing, stand, or clamp capacity
• A determination that an installation complies with code

CLFMI states that conditions can vary even across one site and that a qualified professional engineer should assess each application. ASTM directs screened temporary fence toward permanent-fence-style wind research and design. Those boundaries are carried through every chart, table, file, and FAQ on this page.

Which standards govern temporary fence wind loads?

The reviewed U.S. sources divide the problem instead of solving it in one document. ASTM addresses temporary-fence application and screening risk, ASCE supplies wind-demand methods, CLFMI applies those methods to concrete-embedded chain-link posts, and local codes can impose their own requirements. None of those sources is being represented here as a universal capacity specification for a complete freestanding temporary-panel system.

Table 5. Standards and jurisdiction map for temporary-fence wind questions

Tier key: ★ = current issuing-body text or authorized technical publication read directly on the verification date. ● = official abstract or public preview used without reproducing paid provisions. Synthesis = an editorial conclusion drawn from the named reviewed sources, not language attributed to a standard. Source: Compiled by Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research on July 27, 2026 from the official and authorized sources listed in Sources. Download CSV

What does ASTM F3342-19 actually do?

ASTM F3342-19 is an active guide for temporary fence applications at construction sites, including 6- and 8-foot enclosures. Its public page does not provide a wind chart. Instead, Note 1 warns that screens create a solid barrier, says the temporary fence described is not capable of the cited 110 mph gust under ASCE/SEI 7-10, and directs screened-fence research and design to CLFMI WLG 2445.

The edition context matters. ASTM’s note still names ASCE/SEI 7-10, while ASCE later published 7-16 and 7-22. The warning remains useful, but its 110 mph sentence must not be repackaged as a universal rating or threshold for every temporary-fence product.

What do New York City and Chicago require?

New York City requires fence installations to be designed by a registered design professional with Chapter 16 wind considered, subject to the stated exception. Current Table 1609.3 gives ultimate 3-second gust speeds of 110, 117, 127, and 132 mph for Risk Categories I through IV, and §1609.8.1 permits 110 mph for construction periods under five years unless otherwise directed.

Chicago uses load percentages for temporary structures generally: 56% of permanent wind load for installations of six weeks or less and 64% for longer installations. The Chicago provision is not being presented as a temporary-fence product test or as proof that the same percentages govern another jurisdiction.

How does Australia’s AS 4687 series differ?

Standards Australia publishes a dedicated four-part 2022 series. Part 1 addresses pathways to conformance, design actions, analysis, and testing; Part 2 covers temporary fencing and pedestrian barriers; Part 3 covers temporary hoardings; and Part 4 covers temporary pool fencing. The official product pages establish that dedicated scope without requiring this page to infer unpublished test values.

Is a forecast gust the same as an ASCE basic wind speed?

No. The ASCE Hazard Tool describes wind outputs as mapped three-second gust speeds at 33 feet above ground for Exposure C, selected by standard edition and risk category. A forecast or weather-station gust is an observation at a specific station, height, exposure, and time.

The values share a unit but not a definition. A mapped design value is tied to a standard, risk category, recurrence interval, and coordinates; an observed gust is tied to an event and instrument. The 30–150 mph rows in this chart are calculation inputs for reference comparisons, not a claim that each value is a mapped speed for Chattanooga or any other site.

Which code edition applies in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, and Tennessee?

The City of Chattanooga and unincorporated Hamilton County identify the 2018 IBC, while the Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office identifies the 2021 IBC for its jurisdiction. The current national chart uses ASCE/SEI 7-22 as a reference basis, so it must not be confused with local adoption. The authority having jurisdiction still depends on the project address.

Table 6. Adopted code context in Chattanooga, unincorporated Hamilton County, and Tennessee State Fire Marshal jurisdiction

Source: City of Chattanooga Land Development Office, Hamilton County Building Inspection Department, Tennessee State Fire Marshal’s Office, and ICC Chapter 35 references, all verified by Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research on July 27, 2026. Download CSV

What does Tennessee’s ASCE 7-22 amendment change?

Tennessee amendment #7 says that where ASCE 7-16 is referenced for seismic design or mapped ground accelerations, ASCE 7-22 mapped ground accelerations may be used to determine S1 and Ss. The text is seismic-specific. It does not move wind design in the adopted 2021 IBC to ASCE 7-22.

Why does the authority having jurisdiction matter?

The city page identifies the Chattanooga Land Development Office, while the county page identifies the Hamilton County Building Inspection Department and separately links municipalities. A project address—not the metro label—determines which issuing office and amendments must be checked.

How is a site-specific basic wind speed found?

This page deliberately does not publish one Chattanooga mph figure. The defensible workflow is to confirm the authority having jurisdiction and adopted code edition, identify the applicable risk category, and use the official ASCE Hazard Tool with the project coordinates and correct standard version. The generated result belongs with the project record and does not replace system-specific design where required.

What do published temporary-fence wind claims disclose?

This dated audit records what current public pages say and what supporting context is visible on those pages. The pages are sources for their own claims or specifications, not engineering evidence for this chart. A missing item in the final column means it was not stated or identified on the reviewed page; it does not prove that no private report exists.

Table 7. Current public wind claims and specifications audited July 27, 2026

Source: The seven pages named in the table, read by Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research on July 27, 2026; clean URLs are listed in Sources. Download CSV

The recurring disclosure gap is the collapse of four separate quantities into one phrase: wind speed, wind demand, screen or mesh geometry, and complete-system capacity. This page keeps them separate. A pressure calculation can be reproduced from its inputs; a product rating must name the exact tested or engineered system and basis.

Why does this matter in 2026?

The source join is still necessary. The 2024 IBC now contains an express wind-load modification provision for public-occupancy temporary structures, but the official text does not turn that section into a temporary-fence wind chart. The 2021 IBC’s general temporary-structure section likewise requires structural strength without supplying panel-system capacity data.

Standards Australia now has a four-part 2022 series dedicated to temporary fencing, pedestrian barriers, hoardings, and temporary pool fencing. In the United States, ASTM F3342-19 remains active and still points screened temporary construction fence toward CLFMI’s permanent chain-link line-post guide.

ASTM’s public warning also still names ASCE/SEI 7-10, while the current ASCE page identifies ASCE/SEI 7-22. That edition gap does not erase the warning; it makes careful labeling of equations, coefficients, design level, and local adoption more important.

Current public pages continue to publish wind-speed, ballast, and moment figures with uneven configuration-level disclosure. A dated, reproducible demand chart cannot validate those ratings, but it gives writers and reviewers a common numerical baseline and a clear list of the evidence a capacity claim would still need.

How was this chart calculated?

All research, source checks, calculations, and file generation for this version were completed on July 27, 2026. The methodology separates primary regulatory or technical text, authorized reproductions, official abstracts, product specifications, current public claims, and original calculations so that none is presented as something it is not.

What sources were collected?

We read the January 2023 CLFMI Wind Load Guide in full, including its methodology, Table 13 fabric coefficients, Table 14 exposure coefficients, Table 17 velocity pressures, authorized ASCE equations, force-coefficient discussion, ASD conversion, concrete-embedment scope, and disclaimer. We checked the official ASCE page, the official ASCE Amplify result for §26.10.1 Table 26.10-1, and the official Hazard Tool documentation.

We read ASTM’s public Scope and Significance and Use text for F3342-19, including the full public Note 1. We read the current NYC fence requirement and 2022 Chapter 16, the current Chicago temporary-structure provision, the 2021 and 2024 IBC public text, official Standards Australia product pages, current Tennessee, Chattanooga, and Hamilton County issuing-office pages, and the current OSHA Part 1926 index. We also read the product and public-claim pages listed in Table 7 only for the specifications or claims each page itself publishes.

What source hierarchy was used?

1. Issuing agency, code publisher, standards body, or original data producer
2. Authorized technical reproduction where the primary paid text was not publicly reproduced
3. Official product abstract or preview, labeled as such
4. Manufacturer specification for that manufacturer’s own product geometry
5. Public supplier or publisher page only for that page’s own claim language
6. Original arithmetic derived from the disclosed sources

No secondary article was used to override a conflicting primary source.

What equations produced the numbers?

Velocity pressure:        qh = 0.00256 × Kz × Kzt × Ke × V²
Ref. strength pressure:   p  = qh × Kd × G × Cf
ASD reference pressure:   pASD = 0.60 × p
Solid force per lin. ft:  p × fence height
Solid face force:         p × gross face area
6×12 reference moment:    face force × 3 ft
Nearly solid open factor: R = 1 − (1 − e)^1.5  (gross openings < 30%)
Bare closed-area factor:  1 ÷ CLFMI Cf1
Screened-to-bare ratio:   R × CLFMI Cf1

Table 8. Disclosed calculation inputs

Source: ASCE/SEI 7-22 official material and authorized excerpts in CLFMI WLG 2445; CLFMI Tables 13 and 14; SONCO TP612S specification. Verified July 27, 2026.

How should the reference force coefficient be interpreted?

CLFMI’s 1.458 is a disclosed average reference constant, not a universal coefficient for every geometry. The guide states a range from 1.30 to 1.80. Every pressure and force in Tables 1 and 2 scales linearly with Cf: multiply by 0.892 to read the 1.30 case and by 1.235 to read the 1.80 case.

How were rounding and direct calculations handled?

The CSV and JSON retain core wind outputs to eight decimal places and screen factors to ten decimal places. The page rounds pressures to two decimals, line forces to one decimal, and face forces and moments to the nearest pound or foot-pound for display. Values below CLFMI’s 105 mph tabular starting point, along with the 115 mph row, were calculated directly from the squared-speed equation rather than estimated by reading between printed table cells.

How was the Exposure D source conflict resolved?

The official ASCE Amplify result for ASCE/SEI 7-22 Table 26.10-1 shows 0.57, 0.85, and 1.03for the low-height B, C, and D values, and CLFMI Table 14 also shows 1.03. The chart, files, key statistics, FAQ, and schema all use that verified value.

How is the dataset reproducible?

Version 1.0.0 publishes 42 core wind rows, 8 screen-factor rows, 47 chain-link factor rows, 11 standards-map rows, 3 local code rows, and 7 public-claim audit rows. The CSV and JSON files carry the source URL and verification date where applicable. The package includes a README and SHA-256 manifest so a later revision can be compared against this release.

How is copyrighted standards material handled?

CLFMI reproduces portions of ASCE/SEI 7-22 by permission from ASCE. That permission does not transfer to this site. This page publishes derived values and identifies equations, sections, tables, figures, and sources rather than reproducing the paid standard as a substitute for the standard.

What was not done?

We did not test a product, measure wind, survey contractors, infer a manufacturer rating, calculate a ballast schedule, or model a market. No statistic on this page is presented as measured when it is calculated, and no public product claim is treated as an independent engineering result.

What are the limitations of this chart?

The chart is complete for its stated reference calculation, but it is not a complete fence-system model. These limitations are part of the dataset and should travel with any quoted figure.

• Every value in Tables 1, 2, and 4 is calculated, not measured.
• The chart models reference demand on a face; it does not model the capacity of a complete temporary-fence system.
• Cf = 1.458 is a benchmark. CLFMI states that the applicable value may range from 1.30 to 1.80.
• G = 0.85 is the cited rigid-structure reference value. This review did not identify a published validation study assigning that value to every flexible temporary-panel line.
• Kzt = 1.00 excludes topographic amplification. A hill, ridge, escarpment, or special wind condition requires project-specific treatment under the governing standard.
• Ke = 1.00 is the disclosed unity ground-elevation assumption.
• The 72-ft² face comes from one published 6×12 panel geometry and is not a claim that every temporary-fence panel has that area.
• The 3-ft moment arm assumes a uniform resultant at mid-height on the 6-ft reference face.
• A long wall or fence line can have load distributions and end-zone effects that are not resolved by treating one gross face uniformly. ASCE Figure 29.3-1 contains geometry-dependent cases; Table 2 does not replace them.
• The bare-fabric comparison uses the exact CLFMI #11-gauge, 2¼-inch entry. Two current 2⅜-inch product specifications reviewed fall outside Table 13 and are not assigned an exact Cf1.
• The screen ratio requires the structural solid-area ratio of the completed wind-exposed face. Advertised opacity, blockage, shade percentage, and airflow are not automatically interchangeable with e, and the underlying chain-link mesh is not added a second time in Table 4.
• Exposure D uses Kz = 1.03 after direct source reconciliation.
• Input speeds from 30 to 150 mph are comparison scenarios. They are not a mapped code-speed recommendation for a project.
• A forecast or observed gust is not interchangeable with an ASCE mapped basic wind speed.
• The page does not publish an exact Chattanooga basic wind speed because coordinates, risk category, standard edition, and jurisdiction have not been fixed for a project.
• Ice accretion, tornado loads, wind-borne debris impact, crowd loading, vehicle impact, excavation proximity, construction operations, and dynamic system response are outside this chart.
• No manufacturer’s complete system was tested. No base, ballast, brace, anchor, clamp, footing, surface-friction, soil, or substrate capacity was calculated.
• The code and public-claim tables can become stale; each carries a verification date.
• The OSHA statement is a documented review result: no temporary site-perimeter fence wind criterion was identified in the reviewed Part 1926 index and provisions. It is not proof that no interpretation or project-specific requirement exists.
• This page is not a sealed calculation, system-specific design, product certification, or permit submittal.

How should this page be cited?

Where can the data be downloaded?

The publication package contains every table used by the page, the calculation inputs and outputs at the published decimal precision, source URLs, verification dates, a README, and checksums. The visible article remains readable without the files; the files make the calculations and source joins independently inspectable.

Table 9. Dataset files

Source: Temporary Fence Rental Chattanooga Research dataset package, version 1.0.0, generated and verified July 27, 2026. Each research row carries a verification date and, where the row depends on an external source, a source URL. The files are provided directly as plain CSV, JSON, Markdown, TXT, and ZIP.

What do readers ask about temporary-fence wind load?

These answers restate the chart’s most common lookup questions in a form that can stand alone. They preserve the same calculation assumptions, source boundaries, and demand-versus-capacity distinction used above.

What primary sources support this chart?

The calculation, code, and standards claims rely on issuing bodies, official code publishers, the original standards organization, or an authorized technical publication. Product and public-claim pages are listed separately and are used only for their own specifications or published language. All URLs were rechecked on July 27, 2026.

Primary technical and regulatory sources

1. American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE/SEI 7-22, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/asce-7
2. ASCE Amplify. ASCE/SEI 7-22 §26.10.1, Table 26.10-1, Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient. https://amplify.asce.org/browse
3. ASCE direct section endpoint for §26.10.1. https://amplify.asce.org/popup-data?apath=%2Fasceworks%2Fstandard%2F9780784415788%2Fpart%2Fprovisions%2Fstandard-chapter%2Fs26%2Fstandard-sec-ver%2Fs26.10.1.ver.atom
4. ASCE Hazard Tool. https://ascehazardtool.org/
5. ASCE. Hazard Tool API Documentation, wind output definitions and recurrence intervals. https://www.asce.org/-/media/asce-images-and-files/publications-and-news/hazard-tool/hazard-tool-api-documentation.pdf
6. Chain Link Fence Manufacturers Institute. Wind Load Guide for the Selection of Line Post and Line Post Spacing, WLG 2445, updated January 2023. https://chainlinkinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WLG-Final-2.12-23-ml.pdf
7. ASTM International. ASTM F3342-19, Standard Guide for Temporary Fence Applications for Construction Sites. https://store.astm.org/f3342-19.html
8. American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE/SEI 37-14 (R2019), Design Loads on Structures During Construction. https://pubs.asce.org/Product?isbn=9780784413098
9. International Code Council. 2021 IBC Chapter 31, Special Construction. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2021P1/chapter-31-special-construction
10. International Code Council. 2024 IBC §3103.6.1.2, Wind Loads. https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/IBC2024P1/chapter-31-special-construction/IBC2024P1-Ch31-Sec3103.6.1.2
11. International Code Council. 2018 IBC Chapter 35, Referenced Standards. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018/chapter-35-referenced-standards
12. International Code Council. 2021 IBC Chapter 35, Referenced Standards. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2021P1/chapter-35-referenced-standards
13. New York City Building Code §3307.7.5, Design of Fences. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-186310
14. New York City Department of Buildings. 2022 Building Code Chapter 16, Structural Design. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/codes-pdf/cons_codes_2022/2022BC_Chapter16_StructuralDesignWBwm.pdf
15. New York City Department of Buildings. Buildings Bulletin 2010-019, historical vertical-netting criteria. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/bldgs_bulletins/bb_2010-019.pdf
16. New York City Department of Buildings. Buildings Bulletin 2014-023, prospective rescission notice. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/bldgs_bulletins/bb_2014-023.pdf
17. Chicago Building Code 14B-31-3103, Temporary Structures. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago_il/0-0-0-2667987
18. Standards Australia. AS 4687.1:2022, Temporary Fencing and Hoardings—General Requirements. https://store.standards.org.au/product/as-4687-1-2022
19. Standards Australia. AS 4687.2:2022, Temporary Fencing and Temporary Pedestrian Barriers. https://store.standards.org.au/product/as-4687-2-2022
20. Standards Australia. AS 4687.3:2022, Temporary Hoardings. https://store.standards.org.au/product/as-4687-3-2022
21. Standards Australia. AS 4687.4:2022, Temporary Pool Fencing. https://store.standards.org.au/product/as-4687-4-2022
22. Standards Australia. AS 4687-2007, Temporary Fencing and Hoardings, superseded edition. https://store.standards.org.au/product/as-4687-2007
23. Tennessee State Fire Marshal's Office. Currently Adopted Codes. https://www.tn.gov/commerce/fire/codes-enforcement/history.html
24. City of Chattanooga. Building Codes. https://chattanooga.gov/stay-informed/building-codes
25. Hamilton County Building Inspection Department. Adopted Codes and Effective Dates. https://www.hamiltontn.gov/Department_BuildingInspections.aspx
26. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 29 CFR Part 1926, Construction. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926

Product specifications and current public-claim sources

27. SONCO. 6 FT × 12 FT Inline Chain Link Fence Panel, TP612S specification. https://7908368.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/7908368/Spec%20Sheet/Spec-Sheet-6x12-%20Inline-Chain-Link-Fence-Panel.pdf
28. American Fence & Supply Co. 12 FT × 6 FT Temporary Construction Panel specification. https://www.afence.com/tempconstpanel12x6-39232.html
29. SONCO. Block 85 Privacy Screen with Half-Moon Wind Vents. https://www.soncocrowdcontrol.com/block-85-privacy-screen-half-moon-wind-vents
30. MetalFenceTech / DB Fencing. Temporary Fencing Wind Load: AS 4687 Stability Data. https://metalfencetech.com/temporary-fencing-wind-load/
31. Twin City Temp Fence. Temporary Fence Wind Load Ratings & Stability Specs. https://twin-city-temp-fence.tempfenceservices.com/features/wind-load-resistance
32. Sandbaggy. Does Adding a Privacy Screen Damage a Chain Link Fence? https://sandbaggy.com/blogs/articles/chain-link-fence-privacy-screen-wind-load-guide
33. Broadfence. OSHA Temporary Fencing Requirements for Construction Sites. https://broadfence.com/blog/osha-temporary-fencing/

Dataset version history

• Version 1.0.0, July 27, 2026:First production release. Uses the verified Exposure D value Kz = 1.03; publishes current NYC Table 1609.3 and §1609.8.1 values; verifies Hamilton County’s January 1, 2022 effective date; and generates every table, download, checksum, FAQ answer, and schema node from one controlled input set.