Especially at a time when architects increasingly have to “think upwards” because of restricted spatial resources in cities, it’s obvious: When planning new buildings, the topic of safety plays an increasingly important role.
And this is where professional, certified fall protection systems for facades and roofs come into play for preventing serious industrial accidents during construction, and also while performing possible maintenance measures after the building has been built. These can include maintenance, servicing and cleaning of facade components and, increasingly, of a PV system installed on a roof.
The fact that no two buildings are the same naturally also means that an individual, optimally suitable safety solution must always be selected and defined. And this selection should always be made by the architects as soon as planning stage, because it not only ensures the best possible protection of all workers, it can also significantly reduce the costs of the fall protection system.
And last but not least: This also ensures that, in terms of safety, the construction project can be implemented in full compliance with the law.
Regarding costs. Naturally, a solid, professional fall protection system also has a positive effect on the overall calculation. In this post, find out how the costs of the system are broken down, which – often hidden – cost drivers exist, and how they can be reduced from the start.
The costs: What affects them?
In principal, it can be said that the costs for a professional fall protection system are minimal in comparison with the overall construction costs. In any case, the largest cost factors are the necessary materials and the installation of the fall protection system.
But a further decisive factor, often overlooked, is time. In addition, early planning, ideally combined with the overall architectural planning of the building, can avoid the necessity for retrospective modifications, which are often expensive. This not only saves a lot of time, but also money on the bottom line.
Standardised versus customised facade systems
As already discussed above, every new or existing building represents an individual challenge in terms of fall protection. In reality, there is no longer such a thing as standardised facade systems or structures. This also applies on the roofs of the buildings. To put it another way, every building represents an architectural work of art in its own right.
Against this background, unique safety solutions are requested increasingly frequently. They are expected to blend seamlessly and, if necessary, even invisibly into the building’s visual appearance, without impairing the aesthetics of the facade. And this can affect the costs of the fall protection system to be implemented.
Early planning: the key to reducing costs
This means that early integration of the fall protection system into the building design is decisive. This is the only way to ensure that the fall protection system is not perceived as a visual intrusion, because it can be concealed right from the drawing board.
For this purpose, it is recommended to make early contact with appropriate experts who know exactly the safety solution optimally suited to the respective circumstances, and everything required to achieve this. For example, the experts can already recognise in advance whether a rail or a lifeline system is the right solution for the planned facade components and/or the roof. In turn, the material costs to be calculated for the fall protection system depend on this – but more about that later.
Retrofitting to an existing building is certainly possible, and is very much recommended. In that case, however, the necessary anchor points for the fall protection system can sometimes be neatly and above all safely mounted and integrated only through radical construction measures, such as opening the facade or roof. This can be very expensive and time-consuming.
Lifeline system versus rail system - what can reduce costs?
Depending on the building’s structure and design, either a lifeline or a rail system can be implemented. In general, lifeline systems are less expensive than rail systems, because they require fewer anchorage points and therefore less material. The time factor also plays a significant role here.
Here is a comparison of the two systems:
Rail systems such as TAURUS from INNOTECH: This fall protection system is available in the HORIZONTAL, VERTIKAL and ALLROUND variants. TAURUS ALLROUND combines together all the benefits of TAURUS HORIZONTAL and VERTIKAL, and is very flexible in implementation. A rail system is particularly well-suited for fixed routes on facades and roofs.
TAURUS ALLROUND also allows seamless transitions between vertical and horizontal working areas, and the workers therefore do not have to be continuously detaching and re-attaching. They are therefore protected at all times, and can concentrate fully on their work. This solution is also optimally suitable for regular maintenance and cleaning tasks on facades and roofs.
Lifeline system such as AIO (All in One) from INNOTECH: This solution is also available in various versions – passable, non-passable, or overhead. The AIO PASSABLE FACADE lifeline system is deployed especially on facades, walls, and parapets.
Lifeline systems are generally less conspicuous, and are easier to install over longer lengths. The sliders are removable and can be flexibly adapted for every use case.
Both systems are very quick and straightforward to install – as long as planning of this starts early.
A costing example as a reference point
In order to exemplify the cost differences between the two fall protection systems, we consider the example of a 50 metre straight installation onto a steel substructure. This is the most frequent case in practice:
- TAURUS system: The costs of this rail system (including installation) for the total length stated above amount to approximately 14,000 euros. This system is particularly robust, and provides a permanent solution for areas having a high frequency of use or heavy loads.
But through anodisation, and thanks to its slender cross-section, TAURUS can be optimally integrated into the facade.
- AIO system: In comparison with TAURUS, the AIO lifeline system in our example costs about 4,500 euros, also including installation. It is cheaper and also quicker to install. The lifeline system is also ideal for less frequented areas, and it provides maximum flexibility. It is also easier to integrate into the facade or roof, and is less visually conspicuous.
These examples show that the costs incurred and future costs arising largely depend on the system chosen and/or a specific product. This choice must in turn be made taking into account the specific requirements of the project, and the budget available.
While the TAURUS system is favoured in more demanding environments because of its robustness and long working life, the AIO system provides a cheaper alternative for less critical applications.
Fall protection for a PV system installed on a roof
Also for buildings whose roofs are retrospectively equipped with a PV system, the fall protection system should be included right from the start in the planning of the solar power plant, because retrospective modifications can require the removal and re-installation of solar modules, and this can affect the costs which arise.
Find out more in our definitive guide about a specific product and about protecting your PV system while maintaining its desired output – and say no to hidden costs.
Summary
The integration of fall protection systems into the early phase of construction planning contributes significantly to cost-effectiveness and, especially for a PV system, to achieving the desired performance. By selecting a suitable system and through carefully considered positioning, or by checking the actual circumstances, the building’s safety and user-friendliness can be ensured in the long term, without impairing its aesthetics or functionality.
There will be more on this subject in our new guideline.