SECURITY SYSTEMS
UNDERSTANDING THE KEY DIFFERENCES ON SECURITY STANDARDS
Secured by Design member company Meesons A . I . Ltd , have received a number of enquiries recently from specifiers wanting to understand more about the key differences between LPS1175 and EN1627-30 . Whilst both standards focus on a product ’ s physical robustness there are key differences to the testing and certification that mean they are not comparable ...
LPS 1175
LPS 1175 stands for ‘ Loss Prevention Standard ’ and is one of many LPS standards that are published by the LPCB ( Loss Prevention Certification Board ). LPS 1175 focusses on the physical security of a range of intruder resistant building components including products such as our Rev 190 Revolving Door ( the first and only product of its type to meet this standard ) and Security Portals .
Issue 8 is the latest version of LPS 1175 , which replaces , and includes important updates , from Issue 7 . The changes to Issue 8 reflect the scope of tools now available to criminals , size of tools they use , access to the tools , portability of the tools , power and effectiveness of the tools . Issue 8 of LPS 1175 also uses a new matrix to define the security ratings , meaning they can be applied to a far wider scope of threat scenarios . It also supports the use of a layered approach by security specifiers to deliver extended delays to criminals who are prepared to use force to get into a facility . In determining the Security Rating the classifications take account of the risk and investment that criminals , terrorists , activists or protestors will consider in planning activity .
This includes scenarios where larger more powerful tool sets may be used during a quick attack , or over a longer period ( e . g . Tool set D can be tested and with a certified delay time of between 1 and 20 minutes ).
Although the new standard covers 48 combinations of threat and delay it is envisaged that specifiers will achieve an extended delay by deploying a series of products as part of this layered approach .
EN1627-30:2011
EN1627-30:2011 represents the European Standard for the burglar resistant classifications of a range of security products like LPS 1175 including , again , Revolving Doors and Security Portals . EN1627- 30:2011 standard distinguishes six classifications with increasing resistance levels : Resistance Class 1 to Resistance Class 6 ( RC1 to RC6 ). The latest version of EN1627-30 is now 2011 , which replaces the earlier version from 1999 .
‘ A significant difference with EN1627-30:2011 is that it assumes burglars will use stealth rather than creating noise by trying to force their way into the facility ’
The EN1627-30:2011 standard defines the resistance to burglary , a subset of criminal intent , with the LPS 1175 scope far wider covering intrusion whether by a criminal , terrorist , activist or protestor . This has led to some significant differences in the methods used to define the tests being conducted , the range of tools , how they may be used during the tests and what results are achieved .
Whilst both standards utilise a complete product placed in a test rig in a controlled environment , there are a number of key differences between EN1627-30:2011 and LPS 1175 :
1 . Range of tools
The scope of tools defined in each standard is different . This is most apparent at EN1627-30:2011 ’ s higher resistance classes , where the type of tools and attack methods catered for are fairly restricted compared to LPS 1175 . Even within the middle resistance classes , for example , products rated to EN1627-30:2011 resistance classes RC3 are unlikely to offer equivalent delay to forced entry when compared with our Rev 190 Revolving Door and Security Portals * which are approved to LPS 1175 security ratings C5 ( SR3 ). This is the case even though the resistance times defined in EN1627-30:2011 for those resistance classes are greater than those defined in LPS 1175 for security ratings C5 . This is due to the scope of the tools available and the respective delay time within each standard . It is also worth noting that the tool sets in LPS 1175 are continually evaluated with the latest revision of the standard ( Issue 8 ) only issued in 2019 .
2 . Method by which tools are used
A significant difference with EN1627- 30:2011 is that it assumes burglars will use stealth rather than creating noise by trying to force their way into the facility – at least up to up to RC3 ( physical force using tools such as a crowbar ). This restricts which tools may be used with RC1 , RC2 and RC3 tests and whether they may be used to impact the product . The issue with this is that it ignores all those criminals , terrorists , activists and protestors that are not concerned about making noise to break through the security barrier .
It is therefore advisable to avoid specifying EN1627-30:2011 ( up to RC3 )
58
JAN / FEB 2021
locksmithjournal . co . uk Issue Takeover
Magazine Sponsor