Understanding LPS 1175 and EN1627-30:2011

LPS 1175 stands for ‘Loss Prevention Standard’ and is one of many LPS standards published by the LPCB (Loss Prevention Certification Board). LPS 1175 is an internationally recognised certification, whereas EN1627-30:2011 is a European standard that applies to European products. These standards cover a wide range of security products, although we will look at Revolving Doors and Security Portals. 
 
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. 

The key differences between LPS 1175 and EN1627 – 30:2011

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: 

1. Range of tools: EN1627-30:2011 represents the European Standard for the burglar-resistant classifications of a range of security products like LPS 1175. The scope of tools defined in each standard is different. This is most apparent in 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 compared with our Rev 190 Revolving Door and Security Portals*, which are approved to LPS 1175 security rating 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 rating 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. Range of methods 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 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) for situations in which an intruder may be willing to make noise when attempting to force an entry. As a result, it is generally considered that EN1627-30:2011 resistance classes RC1 to RC4 are NOT equivalent 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. 
3. Different treatments of glazing: Another key difference with EN1627-30:2011 is that the tests assume intruders will avoid attacking the glass because, again, it generates noise. As this is not always the case and is unable to be sure which technique they will use – stealth or brute force – LPS 1175 assumes the worst case and specifically tests for a forced attack for intruders impacting the glass with a range of tools at all Threat Levels (letter A to H).
4. Failure Criteria: The size and shape of the test block are another difference between LPS 1175 and EN1627-30:2011. This is due to the assumptions made about the physical size of the intruder. EN1627-30:2011 assumes that the intruder is much larger than that for LPS 1175. For example, LPS 1175 factors in a smaller person being able to squeeze through an aperture they create or reach through with their arm to grab an item inside or to operate the entrance system. 
5. Product scope: Ensuring the standard specified is appropriate to the type of product being tested is critical, with the techniques a criminal may use to overcome a product covered. Tests conducted on LPS 1175 include attacks aimed at undermining the product’s integrity, including electric, electronic and electromagnetic systems where components are not suitably protected. This is not considered part of the scope of evaluation within the EN1627-30:2011 standard. In some instances focusing on this product area can be a far more effective route for intruders to gain entry than attacking the glazing. 
6. Attack ready: This is a fundamental difference between EN1627-30:2011 and LPS 1175. That’s because the former only assesses a Revolving Door or Security Portals’ resistance to forced entry when the product is fully closed and all locks are engaged, for example, in night mode. Conversely, LPS 1175 evaluates their resistance to forced entry when alternative locks are engaged, such as daytime and nighttime locking modes. As you would expect, our LPS 1175 Issue 8 Rev 190 Revolving Doors and Security Portals are attack ready whatever time of day; there is no need for intervention by a security team to resist LPS 1175 forced entry – they are attack ready. 

To conclude

When specifying Revolving Doors and Security Portals to either LPS 1175 or EN1627-30:2011, it’s worth selecting those from an independent recognised, third-party approval body. This ensures that the products will perform exactly as those tested. For example, third-party certification issued by LPCB is based on a combination of testing and ongoing surveillance audits, so you know that high standards will be maintained.