113.1 Topics we cover (planning→handover)

Scope spans assessment (211–219), VDA (221–229), selection (432–435), arrays/spacing (321–326, 232), foundations/drainage (331–334, 245), controls/safety (341–357), delivery/QA (611–639), and O&M/SLAs (733–739, 842). Wherever relevant, we show how an HVM bollard decision affects install and how a crash rated bollard certificate shapes design.

From early site assessment through commissioning & tests, the guide links decisions to downstream effort: choosing an HVM purpose influences array patterns and clear-gap math; selecting a crash-rated model drives footing depth, drainage, and utilities choices. We emphasize practical hand-offs so each stage proves the previous.

113.2 What’s excluded (and where to find it)

We reference, but don’t detail, non-bollard barriers and full perimeter systems; use our mapping notes to gates/walls where interfaces matter (346, 534). For an HVM bollard project, we focus on arrays and lanes; for a crash rated bollard model, we focus on certification and dependencies (411–416, 421). Related documents go into the pack (938).

Perimeter fences, wedge barriers, and road blockers are acknowledged where they integrate with controls/integration, but their product-level details sit outside scope. When they affect bollard lanes (e.g., access control signal mapping or fire alarm interface), we show interface requirements and where to capture them in submittals.

113.3 Product types included (HVM & low-speed)

We cover fixed, removable, and automatic units across low-speed and HVM use-cases (124). Arrays blend types where justified (326). When naming a crash rated bollard, follow 125 and 415 to keep variants aligned with certificates (431). Selection logic differentiates convenience control from hostile mitigation (432, 434).

Types are mapped by function and operation: fixed, removable (lift-out), and automatic. Mixed-type arrays (e.g., fixed line with an automatic lane) are in scope where the clear-gap rules remain intact and certification dependencies are maintained.

113.4 Ratings, standards, and compliance scope

Standards overview (411), terms (412), rating strings (413), and equivalence (414) are in scope so you can specify and review credibly. HVM bollard projects often combine rated and unrated measures; keep rated boundaries clear. For any crash rated bollard, acceptance hinges on dependencies and evidence (421, 431, 444).

We explain how to read rating strings, when to use low-speed standards vs full crash-ratings, and where equivalence claims fit (and don’t). Compliance threads into specification, test evidence, and site acceptance, tying back to documentation & certificates.

113.5 Design depth & calculations scope

We provide calcs outlines for loads/foundations (331–333) and clear-gap math (322). Use them to defend HVM bollard spacing and to convert crash rated bollard test outputs into design actions. Full FEA (416) is optional; focus on traceable assumptions and reviewer-ready tables (444, 938).

Design guidance includes: impact load pathways, footing reactions, and clear-gap calculations. We favor transparent calculation sheets and envelope checks over opaque models, with references to calculation pack templates and quick estimators.

113.6 Execution/QA scope

Construction covers set-out to reinstatement (612–629), with ITP hold/witness points (714). Commissioning/SAT (631–639) verifies control/safety behavior for automatic HVM bollards. For a crash rated bollard line, QA proves alignment, cover, and dimensions that preserve certification (421). Evidence standards live in 716/444.

Execution content spans datum/alignment checks, levelling, groundwater control, and loop/sensor proving. We show which photos, sign-offs, and measurements to capture so submittals stand up to audit.

113.7 Documentation & handover scope

We define what goes into packs (938): certificates (431), drawings/calcs (331–333), ITP/QA (714), SAT forms (638), and O&M (733–739). Use consistent naming/versioning (911, 115). Whether it’s an HVM bollard lane or a crash rated bollard array, handover must allow auditors to retrace decisions in months/years.

The documentation stream culminates in a Handover Pack Index with traceable references to the file index & naming rules. We include checklists for O&M manuals, asset registers, and training sign-offs.

113.8 Regional notes (UAE focus)

We highlight UAE/SIRA expectations (133–137) that influence HVM bollard submissions and inspection timing (134). For any crash rated bollard claim, align global ratings (411–416) with local tier language (123). Plan witness points and document formats to match reviewer preferences (717, 938).

For Dubai projects, see the SIRA hub and the overview of authority variations. We call out timing and evidence that typically reduce re-submittals and site delays.

113.9 Future additions planned

Planned items include deeper worked examples per market (137, 811–818), more array details (323–325), and additional acceptance wording (435). Expect periodic updates to HVM bollard commissioning aids (631–636) and to crash rated bollard equivalence guidance (414). Track changes under 118 and update your templates (912–919).

As the library grows, we will expand calculators (920 series) and add more case studies demonstrating end-to-end traceability from VDA to handover.

113 What’s In Scope — FAQ