Security Barrier Standards Compliance: Are You Getting What You Paid for?
Question: How do you know if the vehicle barrier sold to you for your project has been manufactured and will be installed in compliance to the standard in which it was originally tested against?
Sydney, Australia, March 24, 2009 --(PR.com)-- Answer: You don’t and possibly never will. The reason is simple - there is no enforcement to ensure compliance in Australia, just the word from the manufacturer and installer.
Welcome to the grey area of certified products and compliance.
Mr Heng-Jiang Cheng heads Leda-Vannaclip’s product research and development programme. His experience spans a decade of testing various types of physical security equipment, often with independent testing authorities from around the world. Mr Cheng is also one of the few non-British contributors representing the Australian manufacturing community’s perspective on the development of the UK Government’s PAS68 Standard.
PAS 68 is administered by the British Standards Institute and tested independently by test authorities such as Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) or MIRA based in the United Kingdom. It addresses the needs of organizations requiring independent assurance that vehicle security barriers will provide the level of impact resistance that they seek. The Standard outlines a classification system for the performance of vehicle security barriers and their supporting foundations when subjected to a single horizontal impact.
“Independent and unbiased testing is a great way to determine if the product actually meets a manufacturer’s claims. Testing authorities with the experience and capability of testing vehicle barriers to these standards such as TRL and MIRA inject a significant amount of credibility into product claims and performance. It’s beyond question,” explains Mr Cheng.
So what happens after a certified product is specified?
Mr Cheng continues. “Well, it depends. While independent certification such as PAS68 offer definitive failure thresholds and usage parameters, specifiers need to be perpetually diligent in its implementation as not all manufacturers and / or installers will replicate the same test conditions on site.
These reasons can range from challenging site conditions to outright blatant efforts to cut corners for commercial gain. It’s these cutting of corners, which are a real problem from a security perspective.
Manufacturers such as Leda struggle to fend off commercial pressures to maintain standards integrity but it sometimes comes to a point when we ask ourselves – is it really worth it? Are clients really concerned about such standards? Clients often start by demanding that we meet certain specified standards. As commercial realities set in, compromises start to come into the equation.
I guess until you have to front court cases like I’ve done the past or have been subpoenaed into a coronial enquiry or be an expert witness for the prosecution, these issues will remain a no-go area.”
Compliance to specified standards is expensive as it entails a rigorous set of checks and tests. The following are some of the more common examples given by Mr Cheng on how to circumvent compliance:
a. Footings designs used during the testing phase are not complied with and with no qualified civil engineer assessing ground conditions to adapt the tested footings to suit. Cheaper alternatives can potentially be used - by using less reo, less concrete and smaller footings. Civil excavation costs and footings form the single biggest cost component for the installation of most types of vehicle barriers. So it can be a very attractive component to cut corners from. It’s that easy.
b. Not using strip footings. Evidence secured from some high security sites revealed that individual bollards were not installed in strip footings. In such a situation, the risk of failure can be high, even on low-speed-low-mass impact.
c. Locks, a key component towards the reduction of covert attacks are often excluded. For example, locks prevent pneumatic bollards from lowering in the event of a power failure and loss of air pressure can be omitted.
d. Smaller compressors, receiving tanks and airlines are utilised in pneumatic bollards. This results in bollards taking a longer time to rise instead of the 3 seconds required if they are SCEC Endorsed (Security Construction and Equipment Committee, Australia).
So how does that leave specifiers in determining what’s suitable?
Mr Cheng suggests that the following methods be used to determine if compliance is being met:
a. Test reports need to be submitted which clearly shows reo and footing designs. The client is well-entitled to demand that an as ‘built footing’ drawing be submitted and cross checked against the test sample. Be particularly vigilant when barriers are installed on suspended slabs. Independent checks to be made by a qualified civil engineer.
b. Photos should be taken by the client and stored as records. Leda for example submits photos of footings to the regulatory authority as a matter of practice in an informal arrangement.
c. Check if locks do indeed exist.
d. Check against the functioning unit if the specification calls for a barrier to be raised within a specific time.
Adherence to standard compliance is not a unique issue for the security industry. The key to compliance as Mr Cheng points out is to insure that specification is the start of a long process to installation sign off and that the installer and client are engaged in multiple checks during the entire process.
For additional information on the news that is the subject of this release (or for a sample, copy or demo), contact Pamela Betts or visit http://www.l-v.com.au
About Leda Vannaclip:
Leda Vannaclip Pty Ltd is an Australian company which manufactures Securapost bollards, security gates, turnstiles, boomgates, fencing and bicycle parking.
Contact:
PamelaBetts, PR administrator
Leda Vannaclip Pty Ltd
+61 2 8006 5600
http://www.l-v.com.au
###
Welcome to the grey area of certified products and compliance.
Mr Heng-Jiang Cheng heads Leda-Vannaclip’s product research and development programme. His experience spans a decade of testing various types of physical security equipment, often with independent testing authorities from around the world. Mr Cheng is also one of the few non-British contributors representing the Australian manufacturing community’s perspective on the development of the UK Government’s PAS68 Standard.
PAS 68 is administered by the British Standards Institute and tested independently by test authorities such as Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) or MIRA based in the United Kingdom. It addresses the needs of organizations requiring independent assurance that vehicle security barriers will provide the level of impact resistance that they seek. The Standard outlines a classification system for the performance of vehicle security barriers and their supporting foundations when subjected to a single horizontal impact.
“Independent and unbiased testing is a great way to determine if the product actually meets a manufacturer’s claims. Testing authorities with the experience and capability of testing vehicle barriers to these standards such as TRL and MIRA inject a significant amount of credibility into product claims and performance. It’s beyond question,” explains Mr Cheng.
So what happens after a certified product is specified?
Mr Cheng continues. “Well, it depends. While independent certification such as PAS68 offer definitive failure thresholds and usage parameters, specifiers need to be perpetually diligent in its implementation as not all manufacturers and / or installers will replicate the same test conditions on site.
These reasons can range from challenging site conditions to outright blatant efforts to cut corners for commercial gain. It’s these cutting of corners, which are a real problem from a security perspective.
Manufacturers such as Leda struggle to fend off commercial pressures to maintain standards integrity but it sometimes comes to a point when we ask ourselves – is it really worth it? Are clients really concerned about such standards? Clients often start by demanding that we meet certain specified standards. As commercial realities set in, compromises start to come into the equation.
I guess until you have to front court cases like I’ve done the past or have been subpoenaed into a coronial enquiry or be an expert witness for the prosecution, these issues will remain a no-go area.”
Compliance to specified standards is expensive as it entails a rigorous set of checks and tests. The following are some of the more common examples given by Mr Cheng on how to circumvent compliance:
a. Footings designs used during the testing phase are not complied with and with no qualified civil engineer assessing ground conditions to adapt the tested footings to suit. Cheaper alternatives can potentially be used - by using less reo, less concrete and smaller footings. Civil excavation costs and footings form the single biggest cost component for the installation of most types of vehicle barriers. So it can be a very attractive component to cut corners from. It’s that easy.
b. Not using strip footings. Evidence secured from some high security sites revealed that individual bollards were not installed in strip footings. In such a situation, the risk of failure can be high, even on low-speed-low-mass impact.
c. Locks, a key component towards the reduction of covert attacks are often excluded. For example, locks prevent pneumatic bollards from lowering in the event of a power failure and loss of air pressure can be omitted.
d. Smaller compressors, receiving tanks and airlines are utilised in pneumatic bollards. This results in bollards taking a longer time to rise instead of the 3 seconds required if they are SCEC Endorsed (Security Construction and Equipment Committee, Australia).
So how does that leave specifiers in determining what’s suitable?
Mr Cheng suggests that the following methods be used to determine if compliance is being met:
a. Test reports need to be submitted which clearly shows reo and footing designs. The client is well-entitled to demand that an as ‘built footing’ drawing be submitted and cross checked against the test sample. Be particularly vigilant when barriers are installed on suspended slabs. Independent checks to be made by a qualified civil engineer.
b. Photos should be taken by the client and stored as records. Leda for example submits photos of footings to the regulatory authority as a matter of practice in an informal arrangement.
c. Check if locks do indeed exist.
d. Check against the functioning unit if the specification calls for a barrier to be raised within a specific time.
Adherence to standard compliance is not a unique issue for the security industry. The key to compliance as Mr Cheng points out is to insure that specification is the start of a long process to installation sign off and that the installer and client are engaged in multiple checks during the entire process.
For additional information on the news that is the subject of this release (or for a sample, copy or demo), contact Pamela Betts or visit http://www.l-v.com.au
About Leda Vannaclip:
Leda Vannaclip Pty Ltd is an Australian company which manufactures Securapost bollards, security gates, turnstiles, boomgates, fencing and bicycle parking.
Contact:
PamelaBetts, PR administrator
Leda Vannaclip Pty Ltd
+61 2 8006 5600
http://www.l-v.com.au
###
Contact
Leda Vannaclip
Richard Matthews
+61 2 8006 5600
www.l-v.com.au
Richard Matthews
+61 2 8006 5600
www.l-v.com.au
Contact
Categories