Clause 1.3
The inclusion of this statement may be redundant. It is recommended that the specification defer to the manufacturer's discretion or supporting documentation regarding corrosion protection practices.
Furthermore, the phrase “after the corrosion protection has been applied” could be interpreted as excluding the use of pre-galvanised materials, which are specifically designed to be cut or modified post-treatment. This interpretation may unnecessarily restrict the adoption of innovative or alternative materials available in the market.
Clause 1.4
The relevance of including detailed manufacturing processes within this context is unclear, as such processes do not directly impact installation procedures and are already governed by Factory Production Control (FPC) and CE marking requirements.
Clarification is also requested regarding the expected level of detail—should the standard outline step-by-step manufacturing procedures, or is a high-level overview sufficient?
Clause 1.7
The relevance of specifying fabrication tolerances within the installation standard is questionable, as such tolerances primarily relate to manufacturing quality rather than installation performance.
Including detailed fabrication tolerances may lead to significantly more complex and voluminous drawings, potentially detracting from critical installation-related information. It may be more appropriate to require that such details be made available upon request, rather than mandating their inclusion in all documentation.
Clause 1.10
GC101 is not available to review, therefore it is not possible to check if this is suitable.
Clause 1.12
GC101 is not available to review, therefore it is not possible to check if this is suitable.
Clause 1.18
What is the proposed process for implementation to ensure this is acted on?
Section 2
This requirement places a significant burden on manufacturers and may lead to the inclusion of numerous redundant details. It is recommended that a caveat be introduced, exempting manufacturers from this requirement where the factory is already certified under a CE-marked Factory Production Control (FPC) system, provided the same processes and procedures are being followed. This would streamline documentation while maintaining compliance and quality assurance.
Clause 3.2
GC101 is not available to review, therefore it is not possible to check if this is suitable.
Clause 3.17
Consider rephrasing to state, No damage that could affect the performance of the drive posts should be evident. If damage does occur it should be repaired appropriately to ensure durability and the required life span of the product. (or similar relevant to existing Series 400).
Clause 3.26
The current wording appears to imply that the entire anchorage must be manufactured from stainless steel, rather than only the upper 80mm as previously specified. Clarification is requested to confirm whether this interpretation is correct.
Additionally, has any assessment been conducted to verify the availability of such components and to evaluate the potential cost implications associated with this change?
Clause 3.28
What evidence is expected? Is calculation sufficient or is on site pull testing required? If so are there any requirements for number of fixings tested etc?
Have notified bodies been contacted about the process of including anchorage into the conformity assessment as this has been rejected previously.
Clause 3.39
Clarification is requested regarding the procedure to be followed if reinforcement is encountered during installation, particularly in cases where the site owner is unable to provide accurate reinforcement layout information.
While ferro scanning is commonly used, it is not always reliable, and instances of reinforcement being struck during drilling or fixing are not uncommon. Guidance on acceptable mitigation measures or alternative verification methods would be beneficial to ensure safe and compliant installation practices.
Clause 4.4
Notes ‘g)’ and ‘h)’ under the table are the same
Note ‘i)’ does not refer to H2 containment level
Clause 5.6
Notes ‘g)’ does not refer to H2 containment level
Clause 6.4
BS7818 refers to withdrawn standards, can the change to Eurocodes instead of BS5400 be mentioned here if BS7818 is not being updated?
This has previously been an issue with clients wanting to follow BS5400 as it is stated in BS7818, disregarding the withdrawn status.
Clause NI/6.9
BS5400-4 is withdrawn? Please review.
Clause 7.9
Clarification is requested regarding who is responsible for determining the competency of the recipient of technical information. This requirement may be impractical to implement consistently and could risk the disclosure of proprietary or commercially sensitive information.
As an alternative, it is proposed that a third-party approval process be established for non-harmonised products, supported by a detailed certificate of performance. This approach would ensure compliance and transparency without necessitating the release of detailed technical data for each individual installation.
Clause 8.9
Same as 7.9
Clause NI/10.4
BS5400-4 is withdrawn? Please review.
Additional Comments:
The current standard does not address the replacement or review of existing anchors, which is an increasingly common requirement in practice. It is recommended that, at a minimum, the site engineer be required to assume responsibility for such assessments and complete a formal risk assessment. This is particularly important where the remaining service life of existing anchors may not align with the expected lifespan of newly installed components, such as parapet or surface-mounted posts, potentially compromising performance and safety.
- While foundations are referenced throughout the document, there is currently no clear or widely accepted industry methodology for determining appropriate foundation sizes. Reliance on Eurocode calculations often leads to overengineered and cost-inefficient solutions, and there is considerable variation in foundation sizing practices among installers. It is recommended that NH consider reviewing and referencing relevant guidance documents or developing a harmonised approach to provide practical, cost-effective, and consistent foundation design criteria.
- Will any installation requirements be added to address installation on curves? Such as suitable assessment and reduction in post centres?
