Product category:
Building Industry Health and Safety
News Release from: Berry Systems | Subject: Berry Brisafe perimeter barrier
Edited by the Buildingtalk Editorial
Team on 11 September 2006
Be legal with Berry Brisafe perimeter
barrier
Berry Brisafe perimeter barrier incorporates anti-climb and twice force performance in a highly attractive style that gives much greater design flexibility than traditional barriers.
An Accident Waiting To Happen? By Ian Darlington, Managing Director, Berry Systems
This article was originally published on Buildingtalk on 30 May 2005 at 8.00am (UK)
Related stories
Berry spring steel buffers - oriental style
Contract for the safety barriers was awarded to Berry Systems at Wing Yip Chinese Cash and Carry own multi-storey car park.
Berry - spring steel buffers, oriental style
Contract for the safety barriers awarded to Berry Systems by Benjamin Armitage Construction, on behalf of the owners Wing Yip and Brothers Property and Investments .
In theory, there should have been a boom in the market for car park safety barriers since the various reports from the Institute of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, all published in 2002.
Between them they recommended that the average vehicle impact height be increased from 375mm to 445m, that any rail edge less than 550mm from floor level be considered a 'step up point' and that the 1100mm handrail height be measured from this point unless footholds can be spoiled.
They also recommended that where the approach to a barriers is greater than 20 metres, typically at aisle ends and opposite down ramps, then they value of the force to be withstood by the barrier (defined in BS6399) should be doubled.
Further reading
Berry Systems delivering the post
When the Royal Mail needed to think about safety posts and barriers for their regional centre at Daventry, architects Watson and Batty quickly specified Berry Systems.
Berry Systems spiral barrier for shopping centre.
Berry Systems designed a barrier that would not only protect the edges of the ramps but would also carry the lighting supports and some electrical cabling.
Berry Systems focus on safety
The Institution of Civil Engineers publish guidelines for the inspection, maintenance and management of existing multi-storey car parks as well as the design of new ones.
Effectively this meant systems had to be tested to withstand a car at 14.4mph instead of just 10mph.
So, did all car park operators rush out and upgrade their barriers?.
Unsurprisingly, no they didn't.
The new build market has been fairly quiet with obvious exceptions of major developments such as the re-building of Plymouth City Centre or the Centrale project in Croydon to name just two.
However, it's harder to compare the impact on this sector as many barriers are custom designed.
Generally though it's fair to say that the new recommendations have been implemented.
Additionally, new systems are now available such as our own Berry Brisafe perimeter barrier that incorporates the necessary features such as anti-climb and twice force performance in a highly attractive style that gives much greater design flexibility than traditional barriers.
In the Refurb sector most of the recommendations have been taken on board but only where barriers are being replaced in any event.
The vast majority of installations are now for a 445mm impact.
That was the easiest to implement and had minimal cost impact.
The implementation of the twice force systems at aisle ends and opposite down ramps is slightly more patchy as there are still a number of customers who are not aware of this yet.
The usual solution is to reduce post centres although in some cases a heavier barrier rail may be needed.
In consequence there is an increased cost but not an excessive one.
Much of the focus from the ICE/ISE/ODPM reports has been on these 'twice force' barriers in response to accidents where vehicles have broken through perimeter walls with tragic consequences.
However, of all the recommendations made in the reports the one regarding handrail heights and step up points is the one that is likely to have the greatest impact on pedestrian safety on a daily basis.
It is also the most contentious area due to the slightly subjective assessment of what constitutes a step up point.
I'm sure the authors of the reports had a clear idea in mind but it's the one area that's open to different interpretations.
Most manufacturers, ourselves included, had pre-existing handrail and mesh systems to meet the requirements of BS6180 which simply required the mesh infill to stop the passage of a sphere 150mm in diameter (a baby's head.) There was no requirement for anti-climb although they gave some degree of protection to greater or lesser extents.
Initially these were adapted to have greater anti-climb characteristics and now we are able to offer systems specifically designed with that in mind.
They also have a better aesthetic appeal than some of the earlier adaptations.
However, we have seen little indication of car park operators installing handrails at greater heights or anti-climb mesh as specific responses to risk assessments other than when combined with a wider refurb.
This means there are many car parks in the UK where the handrails do not comply with the ICE/ISE/ODPM recommendations and could be said to be an accident (and a law suit?) waiting to happen.
• Berry Systems: contact details and other news
• Email this article to a colleague
• Register for the free Buildingtalk email newsletter
• Buildingtalk Home Page
Search the Pro-Talk network of sites
