With the UK, USA and Europe all having their own impact test standard (PAS 68, ASTM, CWA 16221); tendering internationally for projects based in new and emerging markets with no real knowledge of impact standards is left very ambiguous. Depending on the client and specifiers experience or the advice that they have taken, the client may favour any of the three international standards with no real thought as to why.
As a vehicle bollard and barrier supplier, this makes product recommendations difficult as the tender conversation extends far beyond the correct product for the site into conversations, power point presentations and report sharing to demonstrate the comprehensive British standard and how it is not technically inferior to the ASTM (American) or CWA 16221 (European) impact test standards.
Sometimes having both the American and British impact tests for the recommended product is beneficial and covers all eventualities but in reality, who has the R&D budget to test every product twice across two continents?
2014 has seen the introduction of the new IWA 14 impact test standard. Born from a committee comprising of representatives from the USA, Australia, UK and France, the new standard aims to provide an international certification for high security equipment.
The standard has utilised the basic principles which underpin the comprehensive PAS 68 (UK) standard but the subtleties of the test criteria have been modified to make comparisons between road blockers (flat and wide structures) and bollards (tall and thin structures) more accurate.
The standard aims to unify existing certifications, taking into consideration a wide range of international test vehicles. This will remove the ASTM Vs. PAS 68 argument, internationalising the impact standard.
Although the new standard will not ‘grandfather’ previous product tests and will not negate the ASTM, CWA 16221 or PAS 68 standard. It purely aims to internationalise and amalgamate previous certification to produce a test specification which can be recognised and advertised internationally as the future of high security certification. A positive move for security suppliers competing internationally, after all – why argue the details of British Vs. American certification if you can bring the trump ‘international’ card to the table?