|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Requirements for hardware |
|||||
|
Protection objective |
Construction product |
EN 1627 Resistance class |
Requirement |
Test limits |
Test method |
|
|
|
2 |
10 kN (security class 2) |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
15 kN (security class 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
4-6 |
20 kN (security class 4) |
|
|
|
Protection against cylinder twisting |
Lock cylinder case on attack side |
1 -3 |
Strengths of the cylinder case against twisting 20x250 Nm (class 1) |
|
|
|
|
|
4-6 |
30 x 250 Nm (class 2) or |
|
Apply the principles of EN 1303:2005, 4.9.3 and 5.9.3. |
|
|
|
|
when covered at least by a 7mm thick security plate with an exact fitting profile |
|
|
|
|
Rotating part of lock cylinder on attack side |
1-3 |
Strength of the rotating part of cylinder against twisting 20 Nm (class 1) |
|
Apply the principles of EN 1303:2005, 4.8.7 and 5.8.6. |
|
|
|
4-6 |
30 Nm (class 2) |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Requirements for hardware |
|||||
|
Protection objective |
Construction product |
EN 1627 Resistance class |
Requirement |
Test limits |
Test method |
|
Requirements on detaining- elements and key system |
Lock cylinder |
1-3 4-6 |
class 4 class 5 |
|
Apply the principles of EN 1303:2005, evidence of 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4 and 4.8.6. |
|
Mortice lever lock |
1-3 4 5 6 |
class В class D class F class G |
|
Apply the principles of EN 12209:2003, 5.12and 6.12. |
|
|
a The use of furniture that requires a removable key to effect unlocking may be required. |
|||||
22
Figure B.1 — Requirements for handles
Annex C
(informative)
Resistance classes - Classification according to EN 1627
C.1 Introduction
It has taken several years and many lively debates by the member states representatives to agree the method of classifying burglar resistance construction products according to ENV 1627. During these discussions the attack methods employed by the burglar (modus operandi) and crime statistics from National sources have been taken into consideration. Also a series of development tests has been carried out and commonly available tools have been grouped into kits for use in the various classes detailed in this Standard.
The issue of reproducibility and repeatability of the manual attack test has been raised by a number of the member states. To address these issues the overall assessment has been enhanced by the further development of the static load test, and the manual attack, now excluded from class 1. The combination of the three test methods, static loading, dynamic loading and manual attack has given rise to an assessment procedure that is more robust and covers that relevant elements relative to each of the classes and therefore the anticipate burglar.
Observations in a number of the member states have concluded that the move from the more traditional level lock towards cylinder-operated locks resulted in an increase in the number of burglaries employing drill attacks on cylinders. This, in turn, gave rise to a significant increase in the use of drill resistant cylinders with a consequence that the occurrences of drill-based attacks have all but disappeared. It is this experience that has lead to the requirement for drill resistance cylinders according to EN 1303 and has allowed the creation of tool kits in the lower classes that do not include drills.
The various classes detailed in this standard are intended to cover the opportunist or casual burglar as well as the more experience and professional.
Whilst this standard includes a number of classes the difference between each consecutive class varies. The most significant step is that between classes 3 and 4. This reflects the two distinct groups of burglars recognised in this standard and is discussed in the following paragraphs.
C.2 Resistance classes 1 to 3
Classes 1, 2 and 3 are intended to address the levels of attack normal associated with the casual or opportunist burglar. It is believed that these attacks are the result of an opportunity presenting itself with no particular regard to the likely reward that success may bring. The level of force used in not excessive and the tools used are more likely to be common hand tools and levers.
Burglaries covered by these classes are likely to avoid noise and unnecessary risk. As risk is associated with time, the period spent attempting to gain entry is limited and varies with the classes. Likewise the level of resistance encountered during the attack is a factor. High levels of resistance often resulting in aborted attack.
C.3 Resistance classes 4 to 6
Resistance classes 4, 5 and 6 are associated with the more experienced and professional type burglar with a more focused aim and knowledge of the likely reward that success may bring. These attacks are general planned with knowledge of the construction products to be defeated. Noise is not
an issue and time is less of a concern. The tools used often include powerful, single operator power tools with a high likelihood that organised crime is involved.
Table C.1 — Anticipated method and attempts to gaining entry
|
Resistance class |
Anticipated method and attempts to gaining entry |
|
1 |
The casual burglar attempts to gain entry using small simple tools and physical violence e.g. kicking, shoulder charging, lifting up, tearing out. The burglar typically attempts to take advantage of opportunities, has no specific information on the level of resistance offered by the construction product and is concerned with both time and noise. No specific knowledge of the likely rewards is anticipated and the level of risk the burglar is willing to take is low. |
|
2 |
The casual burglar additionally attempts to gain entry using simple tools e.g. screwdriver, pliers, wedge and in the case or grilles and exposed hinges the use of small handsaws. Mechanical drilling tools are not associated with this level of burglar as a result of the use of drill resistant cylinders. The burglar typically attempts to take advantage of opportunities, has little knowledge of the likely level of resistance and is concerned with both time and noise. No specific knowledge of the likely rewards is anticipated and the level of risk the burglar is willing to take is low. |
|
3 |
The burglar attempts to gain entry using a crow bar, an additional screwdriver and hand tools such as a small hammer, pin punches and a mechanical drilling tool. With the use of the crow bar the burglar has the opportunity to apply increased forces. With the drilling tool the burglar is able to attacked vulnerable locking devices. The burglar typically attempts to take advantage of opportunities, has some knowledge of the likely level of resistance and is concerned with both time and noise. No specific knowledge of the likely rewards is anticipated and level of risk the burglar is willing to take is medium. |
|
4 |
The practised burglar uses in addition, a heavy hammer, axe, chisels and a portable battery powered drill. The heavy hammer, axe and drill give the burglar an increased number of attack methods. The burglar anticipates a reasonable reward and is likely to be resolute in his efforts to gain entry. He is also less concerned with the level of noise he produces and is prepared to take a greater risk. |
|
5 |
The experienced burglar uses in addition electric tools e.g. drills, jig- and sabre saw, and an angle grinder with a disc of max. 125 mm diameter. The use of the angle grinder further expands the range of attack methods likely to be successful. The burglar anticipates a reasonable reward, is resolute in his efforts to gain entry and is well organised. He also has little concerned for the level of noise he generates and is prepared to take a high level of risk. |
|
6 |
The experienced burglar uses in addition spalling hammer, powerful electric tools, e.g. drills, jig- and sabre saw, and an angle grinder with a disc of max. 230 mm diameter. The tools are capable of being operated by a single person, have a high level of performance and are potentially very effective. The burglar anticipates a good level of reward, is resolute in his efforts to gain entry and is very well organised. He also has no concerned for the level of noise he generates and is prepared to take a high level of risk. |
Annex D
(normative)
Field of application
D.1 Dimensions
The classification of a product is valid only for sizes determined in accordance with this annex.
If a system or family of products are to be assessed then a range of test specimens shall be required. The number of test specimens shall depend upon the size of the system of family to be covered. For sample sizes outside the extrapolation rules detailed below, a full technical justification shall be provided.
The following extrapolations for sizes other than those tested shall be permissible without a statement provided that no written limitation is made in the test report.
Key
1 Width+10%,-20%
2 Height+10%,-20%
® to ® Locking points
Additionally for doorsets: The number of locking points may be reduced only if the distances between the locking points are not greater than on the tested size.
Figure D.1 — Extrapolation rules for doorsets
Key
Ar..A7 +5%,-20%
B1...B7 +5%,-30% area ± 25%
Figure D.2 — Extrapolation rules for windows
Additionally for windows: The number of locking points may be reduced only if the distances between the locking points are not greater than on the tested size.
Key
Clear opening height
Width of specimen
Figure D.3 — Extrapolation rules for shutters
The following extrapolations for sizes other than those tested shall be permissible without a statement provided that no written limitation is made in the test report.
Permissible extrapolations without an expert statement: Any reduction in width and/or height is allowed. An increase in height of up to 50 % is allowed.
An increase in the clear opening width up to 100 mm shall be supported by an expert statement. An increase in the clear opening width greater than 100 mm is not permitted.
D.2 Exchange of hardware elements
Exchange of hardware elements shall be permissible for cylinders and protective hardware on construction products in resistance classes 1 to 4 without any expert statement by the testing laboratory, if the means of installation and the length of fixing lugs of the protective hardware remain unchanged, and if evidence exists of conformity with the requirements of Table 2.
The exchange of lock cylinders on construction products in resistance classes 5 and 6 is permissible without an expert statement only, if the burglar resistant characteristics of the construction products are not impaired. This is the case, if the required protection of the lock cylinder by the protection shield (extended version), the cylinder with a cover or other measures have been taken into account during the test and have been recorded in the test report.
The exchange of floor and rebate seals is permissible in all classes if the burglar resistant characteristics of the construction products are not impaired.
Modifications are the responsibility of the applicant and any modification shall not reduce the tested burglar resistant characteristics of the product.
D.3 Other modifications
The following modifications require an expert statement written by the testing laboratory:
change of infilling components, excluding infillings of glass;
change of infilling geometry, including infillings of glass (especially for essential increasement of the infilling area and changes of the fixing elements, e.g. thicker infillings);
change of the mode of opening provided that the security related hardware components (e.g. locks, hinges, hinge bolts, electric door opener, etc.) are retained;
insertion of cable leads for electronic security devices and access controls;
change of seals around infillings;
installation of lippings and decorative elements;
increase in thickness of leaf;
changes of profile design and profile cross section of framed constructions;
changes to shutter profiles and guide rails;
changes of structure and reduction of thickness of flat constructions;
insertion of openings such as the slot for a letter box or ventilation openings;
changes to shutter operating devices.Annex E
(normative)
Procedure for testing and classification
Figure E.1 — Testing and classification for burglar resisting elements
Figure E.2 — Test procedure according to EN 1627
Bibliography
EN 13241-1, Industrial, commercial and garage doors and gates — Product standard — Part 1: Products without fire resistance or smoke control characteristics
EN ISO 6508-1, Metallic materials — Rockwell hardness test — Part 1: Test method (scales А, В, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, N, T) (ISO 6508-1:2005)
