When budgets tighten or timelines shrink, it is tempting to look at readily available materials for machine perimeter protection. One of the most common questions from plant managers and engineers is:
“Can we just use chain link fence around the machine?”
It is a fair question. Chain link fencing is inexpensive, widely available, and commonly used for perimeter security. But when it comes to machine guarding, the answer becomes more complex.
There is no standard that explicitly states, “Thou shalt not use chain link fence.” However, once you evaluate it against the performance requirements in ANSI and ISO machine safeguarding standards, chain link fencing typically falls short.
In this blog, we will break down:
- What the standards actually require
- Why chain link fencing usually fails performance criteria.
- The risks of using it for safeguarding
- What OSHA looks at during inspections?
- Safer, compliant alternatives
If you are responsible for safety, compliance, or machine design, this guide will help you make a defensible decision.
The Standards That Govern Machine Guarding
Machine safeguarding in the United States is primarily guided by:
- ANSI
- OSHA
- ISO
More specifically:
- ANSI B11.19 – Performance Criteria for Safeguarding
- OSHA 29 CFR 1910.212 – General Requirements for Machine Guarding
- ISO 13857 – Safety distances to prevent hazard zone access.
None of these documents ban chain link fencing by name. Instead, they focus on performance requirements. That distinction is critical.
Machine guarding is not about material choice. It is about risk reduction performance.
What ANSI and OSHA Actually Require
Under OSHA 1910.212(a)(1):
“One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards.”
ANSI B11.19 expands on this by requiring that safeguarding:
- Prevent access to the hazard zone.
- Withstand foreseeable impact.
- Not deflect into the hazard
- Resist defeat or bypass.
- Be durable and securely mounted.
This is where standard chain link fencing starts to struggle.
Problem #1: Reach-Through and Opening Size Concerns
4
ISO 13857 provides detailed tables governing:
- Maximum allowable opening sizes
- Required safety distances based on aperture size.
- Finger, hand, and arm reach limitations
Standard chain link fence typically has:
- 2-inch diamond openings
- Flexible woven wire
- Non-rectangular aperture geometry
Why This Matters
The diamond orientation increases the effective reach dimension. Unlike welded mesh panels (which use fixed rectangular openings), chain link does not provide precise, engineered aperture control.
Additionally:
- Chain link flexes under pressure.
- The opening size can deform.
- It is difficult to validate exact aperture measurements in a risk assessment.
When performing a Task-Based Risk Assessment (TBRA), you must demonstrate that the hazard distance complies with ISO 13857 tables. That is far easier to document using engineered welded mesh guarding.
With chain link, documentation becomes difficult and often indefensible.
Problem #2: Deflection Into the Hazard Zone
4
ANSI B11.19 requires guards to:
- Withstand foreseeable impact.
- Not allow deflection into the hazard zone
Chain link fencing is intentionally flexible. It is designed for perimeter security, not mechanical hazard containment.
If an operator:
- Pushes against the fence.
- Trips into it
- Leans a pallet against it.
- Strikes it with a cart.
The fencing can bow inward.
If that deflection allows a hand or arm to reach the hazard, the guard fails its purpose.
Industrial machine guarding panels, by contrast, are:
- Framed
- Rigid
- Constructed with heavier gauge wire.
- Designed to resist deflection.
Rigidity is a performance requirement — not a preference.
Problem #3: Climb ability and Defeat Potential
4
Chain link fencing was designed for property boundaries.
It is:
- Easy to climb.
- Provides natural footholds.
- Easy to cut with bolt cutters.
- Easy to bend and modify.
Machine safeguarding must consider:
- Intentional access
- Bypass behavior
- Defeat potential
ANSI safeguarding philosophy requires reducing the likelihood of intentional and unintentional access.
Modern machine guarding systems often use:
- Smaller aperture anti-climb mesh
- Welded panels
- Integrated interlocked doors.
- Tamper-resistant hardware.
Climb ability is a significant risk factor in robotic and automated cells.
Problem #4: Impact Resistance and Foreseeable Use
Manufacturing environments are dynamic.
Consider what typically occurs near automated equipment:
- Forklift traffic
- Pallet handling
- Tool carts
- Maintenance activity
- Material staging
Chain link fence:
- Is not designed to absorb impact.
- Can permanently deform.
- Can detach from posts.
- May stretch over time.
ANSI requires guards to withstand foreseeable impact.
In many facilities, that foreseeable impact includes material handling equipment. If a minor bump compromises your guarding system, it does not meet long-term safeguarding expectations.
Problem #5: Integration with Interlocked Safety Systems
Modern safeguarding is not just about physical barriers.
It often includes:
- Interlocked access doors
- Safety-rated hinges
- Latching systems
- Safety switches
- Integration into safety circuits
Chain link fencing:
- Does not easily support rigid interlock doors.
- Often requires field modifications.
- Rarely meets alignment requirements for safety switches.
Engineered guarding systems are designed from the start to integrate:
- Category 3 or 4 safety circuits
- Plod or PLe performance levels.
- Validated stop-time considerations
This is extremely difficult to accomplish with standard chain link installations.
OSHA Inspection Reality
OSHA evaluates safeguarding based on effectiveness — not material type.
If an inspector observes:
- Reach-through capability.
- Deflection allowing hazard access.
- Easily defeated barriers.
- Unprotected pinch points
You can be cited under 1910.212.
The citation will not say:
“You used chain link.”
It will say:
“Employees exposed to mechanical hazard.”
That distinction matters.
Documentation and Defensibility
If you are:
- A Safety Manager
- A Controls Engineer
- A Plant Manager
- An EHS Director
You must defend your safeguarding decisions.
In a post-incident investigation, you may be asked:
- Did you follow ANSI B11.19 performance criteria?
- Did you validate reach distances per ISO 13857?
- Was the guarding engineered for impact resistance?
Chain link fencing makes these answers difficult.
Engineered guarding systems make them clear.
When Could Chain Link Possibly Be Acceptable?
In limited scenarios:
- Hazard is set back sufficiently beyond reach tables.
- No deflection risk
- No climb risk
- No interlocked access needed.
- Structural rigidity is reinforced.
Even then, documentation must prove compliance.
In practice, most professional safety engineers avoid chain link for machine safeguarding because:
It is difficult to validate performance criteria.
Safer, Compliant Alternatives
4
Modern machine guarding systems typically include:
1. Welded Wire Mesh Panels
- Controlled aperture size
- Engineered rigidity.
- Known compliance geometry.
2. T-Slot Aluminum Framing with Infill
- Modular
- Customizable
- Integrates safety devices.
3. Expanded Metal Panels
- Strong
- Smaller openings
- Rigid construction
4. Polycarbonate Panels
- Visibility
- Impact resistance
- No reach-through risk
These systems are designed with compliance and performance in mind.
Security Fencing vs. Machine Safeguarding
This is a critical mindset shift.
Security fencing protects property. Machine safeguarding protects people.
They are not interchangeable.
Chain link fencing was engineered to:
- Define boundaries.
- Deter trespassing.
- Secure perimeters
Machine guarding must:
- Prevent contact with mechanical hazards.
- Reduce risk of serious injury
- Integrate with functional safety systems.
The intent is entirely different.
Executive Summary
Here is the simplified version you can confidently state:
- ANSI does not explicitly ban chain link fence.
- However, machine guarding must meet performance criteria.
- Chain link fencing typically struggles with:
- Reach-through compliance.
- Deflection resistance
- Impact durability
- Anti-defeat considerations
- Integration with safety systems
- In most industrial environments, it does not provide defensible safeguarding performance.
Final Thought: Risk Reduction Over Cost Reduction
Machine guarding is not where shortcuts belong.
The true cost of inadequate safeguarding includes:
- OSHA citations
- Injury claims
- Production downtime
- Litigation
- Reputation damage
Safeguarding decisions should be based on:
- Risk reduction performance.
- Compliance validation
- Long-term durability
Not initial material cost. If you are evaluating guarding options and want to ensure your approach aligns with ANSI B11.19 and ISO 13857 performance requirements, it is worth having that conversation before installation — not after an inspection.
