Decoding the distinctions between EN1627-30 and LPS1175
Recently, we’ve noticed a surge in curiosity about the differences between LPS1175 and EN1627-30 approved facade entrance security. So, let’s break it down and shed some light on these two significant standards that shape how we assess a product’s ability to keep unwanted guests at bay.
LPS 1175, a globally acknowledged certification, and EN1627-30:2011, a European standard specific for European goods, encompass a wide variety of safety items. But for now, let’s focus on Revolving Doors and Security Portals.
Understanding LPS1175
‘LPS 1175’ is short for ‘Loss Prevention Standard’, a certification published by the esteemed LPCB (Loss Prevention Certification Board). This particular standard concentrates on the physical security of various intruder-resistant building components. Among these, our Rev 190 Revolving Door stands out, being the first and only product of its kind to meet this standard. Alongside, our Security Portals also adhere to the LPS 1175 standard, ensuring an uncompromised safety.
Moving from LPS1175: Issue 7 to LPS1175: Issue 8
Issue 8 is the latest version of LPS 1175, which replaces and includes essential updates from Issue 7. Issue 8 expands on the tools criminals have at their disposal today – their size, availability, portability, power, and effectiveness. It introduces a new matrix to broaden the scope of security ratings, accommodating an array of threat scenarios. It encourages specifiers to layer their security, prolonging the time it takes for forceful criminals to infiltrate a facility. The security rating considers the risks and costs that criminals, terrorists, activists, or protestors might incur during their planning.
This includes scenarios where more significant, more powerful toolsets may be used during a quick attack or over a longer period (e.g. Tool set D can be tested with a certified delay time of between 1 and 20 minutes). While the new standard takes into account 48 different threat-delay combinations, it’s expected that specifiers will enhance delay times by using a range of products in a layered approach.
Understanding EN1627-30:2011
EN1627-30:2011, the European Standard, sets the benchmark for burglar-resistant classifications across a spectrum of security products, such as Revolving Doors and Security Portals. This standard uniquely identifies six increasing levels of resistance, from Resistance Class 1 to Resistance Class 6 (RC1 to RC6). The most recent version, introduced in 2011, supersedes the previous version from 1999, ensuring up-to-date and reliable classifications for your security needs.
The EN1627-30:2011 standard defines resistance to burglary as 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 the results achieved.
Comparing LPS1175 and EN1627
Whilst both standards utilise a complete product placed in a test rig in a controlled environment, there are several key differences between EN1627-30:2011 and LPS 1175: Issue 8:
- Range of tools
While both EN1627-30:2011 and LPS 1175 cover a range of tools, there’s a clear contrast regarding the higher resistance classes. EN1627-30:2011 has a more limited scope in terms of the types of tools and attack methods it accounts for compared to the broader remit of LPS 1175.
In the realm of middle resistance classes, products that meet the EN1627-30:2011 RC3 standards may not provide the same level of delay against forced entry as our Rev 190 Revolving Door and Security Portals. Notably, our solutions proudly hold the LPS 1175 security rating C5 (SR3).
Even though EN1627-30:2011 defines resistance times that are longer than those in LPS 1175 for security ratings C5, it’s because each standard uses a different range of tools and delay times. It’s also good to know that LPS 1175’s tool sets are always being reviewed, with the most recent update (Issue 8) released in 2019.
- The method by which tools are used
EN1627-30:2011 stands out because it posits that burglars would opt for discretion over brute force when attempting a break-in, at least until RC3 (where physical force with tools like a crowbar is assumed). This affects the selection of tools for RC1, RC2 and RC3 tests, as well as their potential use to impact the product.
The issue with this is that it ignores all those criminals, terrorists, activists and protestors who are not concerned about making noise to break through the security barrier.
If noise isn’t a concern for an intruder, it’s best to avoid specifying EN1627-30:2011 (up to RC3). As such, it’s widely accepted that EN1627-30:2011 resistance classes RC1 to RC4 don’t quite measure up to LPS 1175 security ratings up to C5 (SR3).
If you are unsure or believe that criminals may be prepared to generate noise, which will be the case in most instances, it would be prudent to specify an LPS 1175 Revolving Door or Security Portal rather than one that meets EN1627-30:2011.
- Different treatments of glazing
The EN1627-30:2011 tests may not consider glass attacks due to noise concerns, but we believe in preparing for all possible scenarios. That’s why LPS 1175, not satisfied with assumptions, covers all bases by testing for even the noisiest forced attacks.
Regardless of the intruder’s strategy – be it stealth or brute force – we’re ready. We test impacts on glass with a variety of tools across all Threat Levels, from A to H. We’ve got you covered.
- Failure criteria
Here’s a key distinction between LPS 1175 and EN1627-30:2011—the assumed intruder size by the size and shape of test blocks. EN1627-30:2011 envisions a larger intruder, unlike LPS 1175, which pictures a smaller person potentially slipping through a created gap or reaching inside to snatch something or manipulate the entry system. This difference directly impacts the test block’s size and shape.
- Product scope
It’s crucial to match the testing standard to the product in question, especially when considering the varied techniques a criminal might use. LPS 1175 tests cover attacks that could compromise a product’s integrity, including those targeting unprotected electrical and electronic systems.
Although, this isn’t something the EN1627-30:2011 standard considers. However, addressing these areas can often be a far more effective way to prevent unwanted entry than focusing solely on the glazing.
- Attack ready
This is a fundamental difference between EN1627-30:2011 and LPS 1175.
While some evaluations focus on the resistance of Security Portals or Revolving Doors to forced entry only when completely closed and locked, like in nighttime mode, LPS 1175 goes a step further. It tests their resilience even when alternative locks are used, including in daytime and nighttime modes.
As you might expect, our LPS 1175 Issue 8 Rev 190 Revolving Doors and Security Portals are ready for any potential attack, regardless of the time. They need no additional intervention from a security team to withstand LPS 1175 forced entry – they’re always prepared.
Specifying third-party approved security solutions
Choose Revolving Doors and Security Portals that are backed by independent approval bodies like LPS 1175 or EN1627-30:2011. This way, you’ll have peace of mind knowing that the products will deliver as promised. For instance, LPCB’s certification is trustworthy because it’s based not only on rigorous testing but also on regular surveillance audits. This ensures that the high standards you expect are consistently met.
Plus, the physical security tests are performed using recognised criteria, and the results reflect actual manual attack testing. That’s the confidence and assurance we want you to have.
“A large number of products that had been rated to EN 1627 have been submitted to BRE for evaluation due to specifier concerns regarding whether they would afford equivalent delays if evaluated to LPS 1175 as that standard bares a greater similarity to the threats the specifiers were concerned about. In all cases, the EN 1627 certified products delivered significantly less resistance when tested in accordance with LPS 1175. For example, over 90 per cent of the RC4 products BRE tested to LPS 1175 failed to achieve more than Security Rating 2 to LPS 1175. That is, in place of delivering 10 minutes of resistance as may have been expected based on the EN 1627 RC rating attributed to those products, they failed to deliver 5 minutes of resistance using much smaller category C tools and were only capable of delivering at least 3 minutes resistance to category C tools such as claw hammers, screwdrivers and knives.”
Richard Flint
Technical and Business Development Manager at BRE
Whilst both standards focus on a product’s physical robustness, there are key differences in the testing and certification that mean they are not comparable. Considering these differences when specifying Revolving Doors or Security Portals for your building is important. Meesons Rev 190 Security Revolving Door and Security Portals are also Secured by Design accredited.