News

Meesons defines LPS 1175 and EN1627-30: 2011

Meesons AI Ltd – Secured by Design member firm – recently received a number of inquiries from specifiers who want to learn more about the key differences between LPS1175 and EN1627-30 approved security for facade entrance. They compared these important standards, which define the methods used to determine a product’s resistance to unauthorized entry.

LPS 1175 is an internationally recognized certification, while EN1627-30: 2011 is a European standard that applies to products across Europe. These standards cover a wide range of security products, although we will be looking specifically at revolving doors and security gantries here.

LPS 1175

LPS 1175 stands for “Loss Prevention Standard” and is one of the many LPS standards published by the LPCB (Loss Prevention Certification Board). LPS 1175 focuses on the physical security of a range of fault-resistant components, including products such as our Rev 190 Revolving Door and Security Portals

Issue 8 is the latest version of LPS 1175, which supersedes and contains important updates from Issue 7. The changes to Issue 8 reflect the range of tools criminals now have at their disposal, the size of the tools they use, the access to and portability of those tools, and the performance and effectiveness of the tools.

In issue 8 of LPS 1175 a new matrix is ​​also used to define the safety ratings. This means that they can be applied to a much wider range of threat scenarios. It also supports the use of a layered approach by security specifiers to provide longer delays to criminals willing to use force to get into a facility.

In determining the security rating, the classifications take into account the risk and investments that criminals, terrorists, activists or protesters consider when planning activities. This includes scenarios where larger, more powerful tool sets can be used during a rapid attack or for an extended period of time.

Although the new standard 48 covers threat and delay combinations, it is envisaged that specifiers will achieve longer delay by employing a range of products as part of this multi-layered approach.

EN1627-30: 2011

EN1627-30: 2011 is the European standard for the burglar-resistant classification of a range of security products such as LPS 1175, which in turn includes revolving doors and security portals. The EN1627-30: 2011 standard distinguishes six classifications with increasing resistance level: Resistance class 1 to resistance class 6 (RC1 to RC6). The latest version of EN1627-30 is now 2011, replacing the previous version from 1999.

The EN1627-30: 2011 standard defines the resistance to burglary, a subset of criminal intent, with the scope of LPS 1175 covering the intrusion of criminals, terrorists, activists or demonstrators much further. This has led to some significant differences in the methods by which the tests performed are defined, the tools, how they can be used during the tests, and what results are obtained.

While both standards use a complete product that is placed on a test bench in a controlled environment, there are a number of key differences between EN1627-30: 2011 and LPS 1175:

1. Tool palette – The scope of the tools defined in each standard is different. This can be seen most clearly in the higher resistance classes of EN1627-30: 2011, where the type of tools and attack methods are quite limited compared to LPS 1175. Even within the medium resistance classes, for example, products that meet the resistance according to EN1627-30: 2011. It is unlikely that the class RC3 compared to Rev 190 Revolving Door and Security Portals *, which are approved according to LPS 1175 security rating C5 (SR3) , provides an equivalent delay for forced access.

This is the case even though the resistance times defined in EN1627-30: 2011 for these resistance classes are greater than those defined in LPS 1175 for safety ratings C5. This is due to the scope of the tools available and the respective delay time within the individual standards. The tool sets in LPS 1175 are continuously evaluated with the latest revision of the standard (edition 8) from 2019.

2. Method by which tools are used – A key difference from EN1627-30: 2011 is that it assumes that intruders are using stealth rather than making noise by trying to force their way into the facility. This restricts which tools can be used for RC1, RC2 and RC3 tests and whether they can be used to affect the product. The problem with this is that it ignores all those criminals, terrorists, activists and protesters who are not interested in making noise in order to break the security barrier.

It is therefore advisable to avoid specifying EN1627-30: 2011 (up to RC3) for situations where an intruder may be willing to make noise while attempting to force entry. As a result, it is generally assumed that resistance classes RC1 to RC4 according to EN1627-30: 2011 do not correspond to the safety ratings LPS 1175 to C5 (SR3). If users are unsure or believe that criminals may be willing to make noise, which they do in most cases, it is advisable to specify a revolving door or security portal as per LPS 1175 rather than one that conforms to EN1627-30: 2011 corresponds.

3. Different treatment of glazing – Another key difference to EN1627-30: 2011 is that the tests assume that intruders will not attack the glass as it makes noise. LPS 1175 assumes the worst-case scenario of the technology used and tests specifically for a forced attack for intruders who hit the glass with a range of tools at all threat levels (letters A to H).

4. Failure criteria – The size and shape of the test block is another difference between LPS 1175 and EN1627-30: 2011. This is due to the assumptions about the physical size of the intruder. EN1627-30: 2011 assumes that the intruder is much larger than that for LPS 1175. LPS 1175 allows for a smaller person to be able to squeeze through an opening made with their arm or through the she reaches out to grab an object inside or to operate the entrance system.

5. Product scope – It is critical to ensure that the specified standard is appropriate for the type of product being tested. Tests performed on LPS 1175 include attacks designed to compromise the integrity of the product. This includes electrical, electronic and electromagnetic systems in which components are not adequately protected. This is not considered part of the assessment scope within the EN1627-30: 2011 standard. In some cases, focusing on this area of ​​the product can be a far more effective way for intruders to gain access than attacking the glazing.

6. Ready to attack – This is a fundamental difference between EN1627-30: 2011 and LPS 1175. This is due to the fact that the former only assesses the resistance of a revolving door or security portals to forced entry when the product is completely closed and, for example, all locks are engaged. Mode. Conversely, LPS 1175 assesses its resistance to forced entry when alternative interlocks are activated, e.g. B. Day and night lock modes. LPS 1175 Issue 8 Rev. 190 Revolving doors and security portals are ready to attack at any time of the day.

Submissions to BRE

Richard Flint, BRE Technical and Business Development Manager, commented, “A large number of products that have been assessed to EN 1627 have been submitted to BRE for assessment because specifiers are concerned about the equivalent delays in assessing LPS 1175 Standard shows closer resemblance to the threats specifiers were concerned about. “

“In all cases, the products certified according to EN 1627 delivered a significantly lower resistance when tested according to LPS 1175. For example, over 90 percent of the RC4 products that BRE tested according to LPS 1175 did not achieve more than the safety rating 2 according to LPS 1175. That instead of delivering 10 minutes of resistance, as expected based on the RC rating EN 1627 assigned to these products In fact, with much smaller Category C tools they were unable to provide 5 minutes of resistance and were only able to provide at least 3 minutes of resistance to Category C tools such as claw hammers, screwdrivers, and knives. “

While both standards focus on the physical robustness of a product, there are significant differences in testing and certification that mean they are not comparable. It is important to consider these differences when specifying revolving doors or security portals for buildings.

Further information can be found at: https://www.meesons.com/

Related Articles