ISO/TR 11071-1:2004

TECHNICAL ISO/TR
REPORT 11071-1
Second edition
2004-07-15
Comparison of worldwide lift safety
standards —
Part 1:
Electric lifts (elevators)
Comparaison des normes mondiales de sécurité des ascenseurs —
Partie 1: Ascenseurs électriques

Reference number
©
ISO 2004
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but
shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In
downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat
accepts no liability in this area.
Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation
parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In
the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below.

©  ISO 2004
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or
ISO's member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail copyright@iso.org
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword. v
Introduction to the first edition (1990) . vi
Introduction to this edition. vi
1 Scope. 1
2 Terminology. 2
2.1 Lifts and elevators . 2
2.2 Electrical safety devices and electrical protective devices. 3
2.3 Safety gear and safeties. 4
2.4 Other terms. 4
3 Basis for lift safety standards development (basic assumptions) . 4
3.1 Historical background . 4
3.2 General. 6
3.3 Assumption 1 – safe operation assured to 125 % of rated load . 6
3.4 Assumption 2 – failure of electrical safety devices. 8
3.5 Assumption 3 – failure of mechanical devices . 10
3.6 Assumption 4 – imprudent acts by users. 12
3.7 Assumption 5 – neutralization of safety devices during servicing . 12
3.8 Assumption 6 – car speed linked to frequency of mains . 14
3.9 Assumption 7chorizontal forces exerted by a person. 14
3.10 Assumption 8 – retardation. 16
4 Spaces and clearances. 18
4.1 Historical background . 18
4.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts . 21
4.3 Point agreed upon. 22
5 Door systems and interlocks. 22
5.1 Historical background . 22
5.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts . 24
5.3 Points agreed upon. 24
6 Kinetic energy . 26
6.1 Historical background . 26
6.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts . 32
6.3 Points agreed upon. 32
7 Traction calculations . 34
7.1 Historical background . 34
7.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts . 34
7.3 Points agreed upon. 37
8 Safety gear. 38
8.1 Historical background . 38
8.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts . 38
8.3 Points agreed upon. 40
9 Overspeed governors . 40
9.1 Historical background . 40
9.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts . 40
9.3 Points agreed upon. 42
10 Buffers. 42
10.1 Historical background . 42
10.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts.44
10.3 Points agreed upon.46
11 Braking systems.46
11.1 Historical background .46
11.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts.46
11.3 Points agreed upon.48
12 Electrical devices .48
12.1 Historical background .48
12.2 Observations and suggestions by individual experts.50
12.3 Points agreed upon.52
Annex A (normative) Tabulations .54
Annex B (informative) References .105
Annex C (informative) CEN/TC 10/WG 1 Document N144E .107

iv © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies
(ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been
established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and
non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards
adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an
International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote.
In exceptional circumstances, when a technical committee has collected data of a different kind from that
which is normally published as an International Standard (“state of the art”, for example), it may decide by a
simple majority vote of its participating members to publish a Technical Report. A Technical Report is entirely
informative in nature and does not have to be reviewed until the data it provides are considered to be no
longer valid or useful.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
ISO/TR 11071-1 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 178, Lifts, escalators and moving walks.
This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition (ISO/TR 11071-1:1990), which has been updated. It
also incorporates the Amendments ISO/TR 11071-1:1990/Amd.1:1999, References to Japanese standards,
and ISO/TR 11071-1:1990/Amd.2:2001, References to Australian standards.
ISO/TR 11071 consists of the following parts, under the general title Comparison of worldwide lift safety
standards:
 Part 1: Electric lifts (elevators)
 Part 2: Hydraulic lifts (elevators)
Introduction to the first edition (1990)
At the 1981 plenary meeting of ISO/TC 178, work began on a comparison of CEN standard EN 81-1 with the
American, Canadian, and USSR safety codes. In 1983, Working Group 4 was officially formed to carry out the
task of preparing a cross reference between the relevant sections of these standards and to analyze the
differences on selected subjects. The goal at that time was to prepare a technical report which would provide
reference information to assist national committees when reviewing and revising individual standards which
may initiate gradual convergence of the technical requirements. In 1984, the study was expanded to include
the CMEA safety standard.
The content of this report is based on the information provided by the WG 4 members. The information which
could not be obtained on the CMEA standard at the time of publication is noted in the report by a “?” in some
of the tables.
This report is intended to aid standards writers in developing their safety requirements, and to help standards
users understand the basis for the requirements as they are applied throughout the world.
This report is not intended to replace existing safety standards. Conclusions are arrived at in some cases, but
only where there is unanimity amongst the various experts. In other cases, the reasons for the divergent views
are expressed.
This report must be read in conjunction with the various safety standards, as it was often necessary to
summarize the requirements for the sake of clarifying the comparisons. Further, the information contained in
this report does not necessarily represent the opinions of the standards writing organizations responsible for
the development of the safety standards which are being compared, and they should be consulted regarding
interpretations of their requirements (see Annex B).
Introduction to this edition
Since the original publication of this Technical Report in 1990, each standard compared therein has been
revised or amended. The recommendations in the form of “agreed upon points” stated in the original report
have also affected the revisions of the national standards.
Furthermore, since 1990 two amendments to the original report have been published:
 Amendment 1: References to Japanese standards (1999-04-15); and
 Amendment 2: References to Australian standards (2001-07-15).
The original report and amendments have been widely used by the lift industry and standards writing
organizations, including ISO/TC 178. Users have expressed the need for an updated and consolidated
version of the document, in particular the comparison tabulations. In response, with Resolution 208/2002,
ISO/TC 178 requested WG4 “to update comparison tables in ISO/TR 11071 with data from the most recent
published standards for lifts, and to republish both documents, Part 1 and Part 2, with updated tables and
with minimum changes to the narrative sections”.
The narrative sections of the original publication, in particular the assumptions, historical background,
observations and suggestions as well as the points agreed upon, were the result of extensive work by
ISO/TC 178 Working group 4. ISO/TC 178 is currently working on a new series of ISO documents under the
general title “Safety requirements for lifts (elevators)”. In that process, the updated comparison tables are
being used as a reference. Extensive work on a complete re-write of the narrative sections is not deemed
necessary. However, republication of the text with only minor editorial changes would help readers to
understand the background to the safety concerns being addressed in the current national standards for lifts.
To clarify the scope of the revisions to the narrative sections or clauses, and to minimize inconsistencies
between the data in the tables and in the narrative parts, “NOTES” have been inserted.
vi © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

TECHNICAL REPORT ISO/TR 11071-1:2004(E)

Comparison of worldwide lift safety standards —
Part 1:
Electric lifts (elevators)
1 Scope
This Technical Report consists of a comparison of the requirements of selected topics as covered by the
following worldwide safety standards (excluding regional or national deviations):
a) CEN — European Standard EN 81-1:1998, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts —
Part 1: Electric lifts;
b) ASME A17.1-2000 and CSA B44-00, Safety Code for elevators and escalators;
c) Building Standard Law of Japan — Enforcement order — Section 2, Elevator equipment, Articles 129-3 to
129-13, as well as year 2000 Ministry of Construction notices:
 Nos. 1413 up to and including 1418;
 Nos. 1423, 1424, 1428 and 1429;
 No. 1597;
d) AS1735.1-2001, Lifts, escalators and moving walks — Part 1: General requirements, and
AS1735.2-2001, Lifts, escalators and moving walks — Part 2: Passenger and goods lifts — Electric.
NOTE 1 The following standards were compared in the original (1990) publication:
 CEN EN 81 – Part 1:1985;
 ASME/ANSI A17.1 (1987 edition plus the A17.a-1988 and A17.1b-1989 addenda);
 CSA/CAN3-B44 (1985 edition plus Supplement 1 – 1987);
 USSR Elevator design and safe operation code (Edition NEDRA, 1971);
 CMEA – Elevator Safety Regulations of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
NOTE 2 Since the 1990 edition:
 the ASME and CSA standards have been harmonized with insignificant deviations, therefore shown in a single
tabulation column;
 the USSR and CMEA standards have been withdrawn following the political change to the former Soviet Union and
East Block;
 in Russia, the PUBEL document has been issued, which is currently undergoing major revisions;
 therefore, all related references to USSR and CEMA have been removed in this edition and no new data for the
Russian Federation have been introduced.
This report applies to electric traction lifts only, although some sections may also be applicable to positive
drive lifts suspended by rope or chain.
It should be noted that, in addition to the standards listed above, lifts must conform to the requirements of
other standards covering mechanical, structural and electrical equipment.
2 Terminology
NOTE In this section and throughout the document, except the Annexes, the acronyms listed below have the
meaning given:
 CEN – EN 81-1:1998;
 ASME – A17.1b–1989;
 CSA – B44 Supplement 1 – 1997;
 AS – AS1735 – Part 1 & Part 2;
 JAPAN – One of standards listed in 1c).
2.1 Lifts and elevators
2.1.1 The term lift as used in the CEN standard is referred to as elevator in ASME and CSA standards.
These terms are used interchangeably in this report.
NOTE The term lift is also used in the Australian Standards (AS).
2.1.2 For the purposes of this report, unless otherwise specified, the terms passenger lift and freight lift
correspond to the following terms used in CEN standard:
Terms used in Correspond to terms used in the

a c
this document following standards
CEN ASME/CSA
Passenger lift Lift except Passenger
non-commercial elevator and
b c
vehicle lift freight elevator
permitted to carry
passengers
b c
Freight lift Non-commercial Freight elevator
vehicle lift with
b c
instructed users
a
See definitions in the applicable standards.
b
This term is used only to enable comparisons in this report. It
does not indicate recognition of the term “freight lift” by CEN.
c
NOTE: This table has not been updated with EN 81-1:1998
edition. EN 81-1 does not distinguish any more between “passenger
lift” and “non-commercial vehicle lift”.

2 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

2.2 Electrical safety devices and electrical protective devices
Terms used in this Correspond to terms used in the
report following standards:
CEN ASME/CSA
Electrical
Electrical safety
Electrical safety device protective
device
device
2.3 Safety gear and safeties
The term safety gear as used in the CEN standard is referred to as safeties in ASME and CSA standards.
They are used interchangeably in this report.
2.4 Other terms
The following is a list of additional terminology where there is a difference between the English version of the
CEN standard and the ASME/CSA standards:
CEN ASME/CSA
Anti-rebound device Compensating rope tie down
Docking operation Truck zone operation
Fixings Fastenings
Mains Main power supply
Well Hoistway
Progressive safety gear Type B safeties
3 Basis for lift safety standards development (basic assumptions)
3.1 Historical background
NOTE This section has been updated as indicated in notes following a title or subclause.
3.1.1 All lift safety standards assume certain things as being true, without proving them as such, and
stipulate safety rules that are based on these assumptions.
3.1.2 No standard, however, clearly spells out the assumptions used. The CEN committee analyzed its
standard and summarized in the document CEN/TC10/GT1 N144E (see Annex C) the assumptions that, in
the opinion of the CEN committee, were used in the CEN standard.
NOTE EN 81-1:1998 includes some of the assumptions in its Introduction, point 0.3.
3.1.3 The CEN assumptions were compared with assumptions implicitly built into other safety standards. It
has been indicated that:
a) some assumptions apparently used in the CEN standard were not listed in the document referred to in
CEN/TC10/GT1 N144E;
b) some assumptions used in other standards differ from those in CEN/TC10/GT1 N144E; and
c) some things assumed in all standards as being true have been proven as being false, such as the
possibility of overspeeding in the up direction as a result of failures not presently anticipated in existing
standards.
NOTE ASME, CSA and CEN standards now recognize the possibility of uncontrolled upward movement.
3.1.4 Using CEN/TC10/GT1 N144E as a model, the following list of assumptions has been developed which
could be used as a basis for future work on safety standards.
3.2 General
3.2.1 Listed in 3.3 through 3.10 (except as noted) are those things specific to lifts that are assumed as true,
although not yet proven or demonstrated as such, including:
a) functioning and reliability of lift components;
b) human behaviours and endurance; and
c) acceptable level of safety and safety margins.
3.2.2 Where the probability of an occurrence is considered highly unlikely, it is considered as not happening.
3.2.3 Where an occurrence proves that an assumption is false, it does not necessarily prove that all other
assumptions are false.
3.2.4 The assumptions should be subject to periodic review by standards writing organizations to ensure
their continuing validity - considering accident statistics, as well as such things as changes in technologies,
public expectations (e.g. product liability), and human behavior.
3.3 Assumption 1 – safe operation assured to 125 % of rated load
Safe operation of lifts is assured for loads ranging from 0 % to 100 % of the rated load. In addition, in the case
of passenger lifts (see 2.1.2), safe operation is also assured for an overload of 25 %, however, it is not
necessary to be able to raise this overload nor to achieve normal operation (rated load performance).
3.3.1 Rationale for Assumption 1
3.3.1.1 All safety standards limit the car area in relation to its rated capacity (load and/or number of
persons) in order to minimize the probability of inadvertent overloading. However, it is recognized that the
possibility of an overloading of up to 25 % still exists on passenger lifts. To eliminate any hazard for
passengers, safe operation must be assured, but not necessarily normal operation.
NOTE When a car loaded with 125 % of its rated load is stopped or moving, the passengers' safety must not be
affected. However, the lift need not function as when operating with its rated load, e.g. does not have to achieve its rated
speed.
3.3.1.2 In the case of freight lifts (see 2.1.2), no overloading is anticipated. It is assumed that designated
attendants and freight handlers will adhere to instructions posted in cars and will not overload them.
3.3.2 Assumption 1 as applied in current standards
3.3.2.1 The ratio of the rated load to the car platform areas for passenger lifts is approximately same
(within ± 5 %) in all standards for the range of 320 kg to 4 000 kg, and in that respect, universality of the
assumption is achieved.
NOTE This statement is based on data in CEN and ASME/CSA standards, not on the current standards listed in the
Scope.
However, the assumed average weight of a passenger differs: 75 kg (CEN) and 72,5 kg (CSA), while in ASME
it is not specified. Prior to A17.1a-1985 edition, the assumed weight in ASME for purposes of computing the
maximum number of passengers which could be safely transported in an emergency was 68 kg.
Furthermore, the rated load to car platform area ratio is different for freight lifts.
4 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

3.3.2.2 Lift components that are normally designed to withstand, without permanent damage, overloads
greater than 25 % (such as ropes, guides, sheaves, buffers, disconnect switches) are not considered in this
comparison.
3.3.2.3 Table 1 shows some of the safety rules for lift components or features (as applicable to
passenger lifts) which do not always take into account the case of car overload of 25 %.
Table 1 — Comparison of Components’ Ratings
(Percentage of Rated Load)
NOTE All data in this Table have been updated as per current standards listed in the Scope of this Second Edition.
Component EN 81-1:1998 A17.1-2000/ AS1735-1:2001 AS1735-2:2001 Japan
B44-00
Rope traction
Dynamic 100 % 125 % 100 % 125 % 125 % *
(9.3) (2.24.2.3.1) (9.3) (2.14) [BSLJ-EO-129.8
2000 MOC Notice
No. 1429(1)(2)]
125 % *
Static 125 % 125 % 125 % No spec (BSLJ-EO-129.8
(9.3) (2.24.2.3.1) (9.3) 2000 MOC
Notices No. 1429
& No. 2000)
Mechanical brake
alone
(1) from rated 125 % No load 125 % 125 % 125 %
speed (12.4.2.1) (12.4.2.1) (7.10 h) (BSLJ-EO-129.8
2000 MOC
Notices No. 1429
& No. 2000)
(2) at rest 125 % 125 % 125 % No spec 125 %
[2.24.8.3 a)]
(3) from governor No spec No load No spec No spec No spec
trip speed in up
direction
Safety gear ** 100 % *** 125 % 100 % *** 100 % 100 %
(9.8.1.1) (2.17.3) (9.8.1.1) (33.4.1) [JIS A 4302
4.2.1(6)]
* A 125 % loaded car shall not descend more than 75 mm below floor level due to brake slip, rope slip or rope stretch or any other
causes.
** According to CEN, the safety gear is type-tested in free fall. According to ASME and CSA, it is tested on each new installation at
governor tripping speed with 100 % of rated load.
*** For progressive safety gear test, 125 % is required in EN 81-1:1998 (see D.2.j.2 i) at rated speed or lower speed.
3.4 Assumption 2 – failure of electrical safety devices
The possibility of a failure of an electrical safety device complying with the requirement(s) of a lift safety
standard is not taken into consideration.
Since national safety rules for lifts may be based on different assumptions (some are listed below),
universality of Assumption 2 may be questioned.
3.4.1 Rationale for Assumption 2
Reliability and safety performance of lift components designated as electric safety devices is assured if
designed in accordance with rules contained in a given lift safety standard. However, the design rules may be
based on different assumptions.
3.4.2 Assumption 2 as applied in current standards
Most methods of assuring performance reliability of electrical safety devices are similar in present standards.
There are, however, differences and inconsistencies, as detailed in section 12. Section 12.1.3 deals in
particular with discrepancies in assumptions implied in requirements for design of electrical safety devices.
3.5 Assumption 3 – failure of mechanical devices
a) With the exception of items listed below, a mechanical device built and maintained according to good
practice and the requirements of a standard comprising safety rules for lifts, is assumed not to deteriorate
to the point of creating hazards before the failure is detected.
NOTE National practices and safety rules may be different, e.g. as regards safety factors.
b) The possibility of the following mechanical failures shall be taken into consideration:
1) rupture of car suspension means;
2) uncontrolled motion of the lift due to:
 loss of traction while the car, loaded in accordance with Assumption 1, is descending, or
stationary;
 brake failure with car descending, ascending, or stationary;
 failure of machine components such as shafts, gearing and bearings with the car descending,
ascending, or stationary;
3) rupture and slackening of any connecting means such as safety related auxiliary ropes, chains
and belts where the safety of normal lift operation or the operation of a safety related standby
component is dependent on such connections.
c) The possibility of a car or counterweight striking a buffer at a speed higher than the buffer’s rating is not
taken into consideration.
d) The possibility of a simultaneous failure of a mechanical device listed above and another mechanical
device provided to ensure safe operation of a lift, should the first failure occur, is not taken into
consideration.
3.5.1 Rationale for Assumption 3
3.5.1.1 Although recent accident records do not support the assumption in 3.5 b) 1), most safety
standards (including those studied in the preparation of this report) still assume that the risk of suspension
means failure, in particular wire ropes, exists.
3.5.1.2 The list of possible mechanical failures in 3.5 b) 2) is compiled on the basis of records of recent
accidents, which indicate that the assumptions related to the reliability of certain mechanical components
need continual review and revision where necessary. In addition, the list intends to resolve inconsistencies in
assumptions used in existing standards.
3.5.1.3 With the assumption in 3.5 b) 3) it is recognized that the listed components could deteriorate to
the point of creating a direct or potential hazard (by making a safety related standby component inoperative)
before the deterioration is detected.
3.5.2 Assumption 3 as applied in current standards
3.5.2.1 CEN (9.8.1.1) clearly assumes failure of suspension means, while ASME and CSA rules imply
that safety gear must be able to stop, or at least slow down, a free falling car.
6 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

3.5.2.2 All standards imply that protection in the case of loss of traction of a stationary or descending car
must be provided. CEN requires the safety gear to be rated for 100 % of rated load, while traction and the
brake are to be rated for 125 %.
3.5.2.3 No standard addresses a loss of traction while the car is ascending.
3.5.2.4 No standard assumes a failure of the brake while the car is ascending. ASME/CSA alone
assumes failure of mechanical components of a brake and requires redundancy for such components only
(see also 11.1.3).
3.5.2.5 No standard assumes a failure of any of the listed machine components while the car is
ascending.
NOTE EN 81-1:1998, ASME A17.1-2000, CSA B44-00 and AS1735:1-2001 and AS1735:2-2001 now recognize the
possibility of uncontrolled upward movement of the car.
3.5.2.6 Standards differ significantly in regard to the rupture or slackening of connecting means. Only
CEN seems to be consistent in adopting this assumption. Some standards are inconsistent, e.g. ASME/CSA
(2.25.2.3.2)* anticipate failure of tapes, chains or ropes operating normal terminal stopping devices but they
do not anticipate failure of an overspeed governor rope. Only CEN (9.9.11.3) assumes the possibility of
governor rope failure.
*NOTE This reference has been updated as per ASME A17.1-2000 and CSA B44-00.
3.5.2.7 All standards have adopted the assumption that the possibility of a car or counterweight striking
buffers at a speed higher than the buffer’s rating is not taken into consideration.
3.5.2.8 All standards have adopted the assumption that the possibility of a simultaneous failure of a
mechanical device mentioned in Assumption 3 and another mechanical device provided to ensure safe
operation of a lift, should the first failure occur, is not taken into consideration.
3.6 Assumption 4 – imprudent acts by users
A user may in certain cases make one imprudent act, intentionally made to circumvent the safety function of a
lift component without using special tools. However, it is assumed that:
a) two imprudent acts by users will not take place simultaneously; and
b) an imprudent user’s act and the failure of the backup component designed to prevent the safety hazard
resulting from such imprudent acts will not take place simultaneously (e.g. a user manipulating an
interlock and safety circuit failure).
3.6.1 Assumption 4 as applied in current standards
It would appear that most existing codes are based on this assumption.
3.7 Assumption 5 – neutralization of safety devices during servicing
If a safety device, inaccessible to users, is deliberately neutralized in the course of servicing work, the safe
operation of the lift is no longer assured.
3.7.1 Rationale for Assumption 5
If a mechanic, while servicing a lift, neutralizes or circumvents a safety device (e.g. bypassing door interlocks
using a jumper cable or readjusting overspeed governor), safe lift operation cannot be assured.
While it is assumed that lifts will be designed to facilitate ease of servicing work and that service mechanics
will be equipped with adequate instructions, tools and expertise to safely service lifts, it is recognized that “fail-
safe” service work can never be assured solely by the design of a lift.
3.7.2 Assumption 5 as applied in existing standards
Most standards are based on this assumption.
3.8 Assumption 6 – car speed linked to frequency of mains
An alternating current lift motor, connected directly to its mains having constant voltage and frequency, will not
allow the lift to reach a speed in excess of 115 % of its rated speed while the motor’s connections with the
power supply are maintained.
3.8.1 Rationale for Assumption 6
This assumption is based on the inherent feature of an AC squirrel cage motor whose speed is determined by
the number of poles of its winding and frequency of its supply. The rotating speed of the motor may vary up to
± 15 % from its synchronous speed, while it is operating as a motor or generator.
3.8.2 Assumption 6 as applied in current standards
CEN uses this assumption (9.9.11.1)*, permitting governor overspeed switches to operate at the same speed
at which the governor itself trips. CSA also uses this assumption (3.8.4.1.1)**, permitting governors without an
overspeed switch on lifts powered by a squirrel cage motor. Other codes, however, do not consider this
assumption to be false.
*NOTE 1 This CEN rule applies to any type of drive but only for rated speeds up to 1 m/s.
**NOTE 2 CSA B44-00 has deleted this permissive rule.
3.9 Assumption 7 – horizontal forces exerted by a person
One person can exert either of the following horizontal forces at a surface perpendicular to the plane at which
the person stands:
a) static force – 300 N;
b) force resulting from impact – 1 000 N.
Static forces of short time duration may be exerted by the simultaneous deliberate acts of several people
located immediately adjacent to each other at every 300 mm interval along the width of a surface.
3.9.1 Rationale for Assumption 7
It is assumed that a person leaning against a vertical surface will exert these forces at that surface. It is further
assumed that more than one person can exert this force on a surface simultaneously. Only by relating force to
the width of a surface on which it can be exerted, can a realistic design requirement be obtained.
8 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

3.9.2 Assumption 7 as applied in current standards
See Table 2.
Table 2 — Assumption 7 as applied in standards
NOTE All data in this table have been updated as per current standards listed in the Scope.
Component EN 81-1:1998 A17.1-2000/ AS1735-1:2001 AS1735-2:2001 Japan
B44-00
Static force
Landing doors 300 N 2 500 N 300 N 1 200 N No spec

(7.2.3) (2.11.11.5.7) (7.2.3) (12.4.1)

2 2 2
Force over area 100 mm x 100 mm No spec
5 cm at any 5 cm at any 0,1 m
point on the point on the
panel panel
2 2 2 2
Force per unit area No spec
0,6 N/mm 0,25 N/mm 0,6 N/mm 0,012 N/mm
Car enclosure
300 N 330 N 300 N 330 N No spec
Force over area (8.3.2.1) (2.14.1.3) (8.3.2.1) (23.18) No spec
2 2 2
No spec
5 cm 5 cm 5 cm
Impact force
Impact on landing Pendulum* shock 5 000 N on landing Pendulum* shock No spec No spec
doors test only when doors only test only when
glass is used (2.11) glass is used
(7.2.3.3) (7.2.3.3)
Impact on car Pendulum* shock No spec Pendulum* shock No spec No spec
enclosure test only when test only when
glass is used glass is used
(8.3.2.2) (8.3.2.2)
* The pendulum shock tests – hard and soft – required are described in Annex J of EN 81-1:1998.
3.10 Assumption 8 – retardation
A person is capable of withstanding an average vertical retardation of 1g (9,81 m/s ), and higher transient
retardations.
3.10.1 Rationale for Assumption 8
The retardation which can be withstood without injury varies from person to person. Historically, the values
used in the standards (see Table 3) have not been shown to be unsafe for a vast majority of people.
3.10.2 Assumption 8 as applied in current standards
See Table 3.
Table 3 — Assumption 8 as applied in current standards
NOTE All data in this table have been updated as per current standards listed in the Scope.
Assumption EN 81-1:1998 A17.1-2000/ AS1735-1:2001 AS1735-2:2001 Japan
B44-00
Average
a f
retardation
g h g h d e
Safety gear for
0,2g to 1g 1g 0,2g to 1g 1g 1g & 0,5g
b b b
downwards
(BSL-EO Art
(9.8.4) (2.17.8.2) (9.8.4)
direction
129.10 item 1
para. 1)
c c c d
Buffers 1g
1g 1g 1g 1g & 0,5g
(10.4.3.3) (2.22.4.2) (10.4.3.3) (BSL-EO Art
129.10 item 1
para. 1)
Device for "up" u 1g u 1g u 1g No spec No spec
overspeed
(9.10.3) [2.19.3.2 e)] (9.10.3)
protection
Maximum
retardation
Safety gear No spec No spec No spec 2,5g for 0,04 s No spec
Device for "up" No spec No spec No spec No spec No spec
overspeed (9.10.3) (9.10.3)
protection
Buffer > 2,5g > 2,5g > 2,5g > 2,5g > 2,5g
duration
u 0,04 s u 0,04 s u 0,04 s u 0,04 s u 0,04 s
(10.4.3.3) (2.22.4.2) (10.4.3.3) (9.6.3) (JEAS 517)
a
Average retardation levels exceeding 1g can occur with a lightly loaded car during safety or buffer application.
b
For progressive safety gears only (applicable to CEN).
c
At 115 % of nominal speed (applicable to CEN).
d
1g in vertical direction, over 0,5g in horizontal direction. No spec for instantaneous gear or spring buffer (applicable to Japan).
e
Stopping distance for gradual-type safety is stipulated in JIS A 4302. The value is calculated based on the stopping distance and
the speed of actuation of the safety gear (applicable to Japan).

f 2
1g = 9,81 m/s .
g
Retardation in free-fall situation.
h
Retardation with counterweight attached.
4 Spaces and clearances
NOTE Section 4.1 has been updated as per current standards listed in the Scope. References in this section are to
the standards instead of to the standards organizations.
4.1 Historical background
4.1.1 The comparison of requirements in the current standards (see Scope) for spaces and clearances is in
Annex A, Table A.1. The following are comments on the discrepancies between the requirements.
4.1.2 Guided travel of car. While EN 81-1:1998 quantifies the length of “guided travel of car” (see
Table A.1, item 1.1), other standards use performance language to specify that the car shoes shall not leave
their guides.
10 © ISO 2004 – All rights reserved

4.1.3 Free height above car roof. Requirements for the free height above the car roof are expressed
differently in each standard, but the end results are similar. The A17.1-2000 and B44-00 codes use the phrase
“maximum upward travel” which includes the counterweight on its fully compressed buffer, plus any additional
movement to take into account the jump of the car upon counterweight buffer engagement. EN 81-1:1998
defines the distance from the position of the car with the counterweight on its fully compressed buffer, plus
0,035V . After these distances are taken into account, A17.1-2000 and B44-00 codes require now an
additional 1,10 m and EN 81-1:1998 requires 1 m. All of these requirements apply only to a specific area of
the car roof intended to be used by persons performing maintenance or inspection.
Requirements for clearances from the equipment located on the tops of cars vary significantly between the
standards (see Table A.1, item 1.3).
The top car clearances, according to EN 81-1:1998, are measured from the position of the car when the
counterweight is on its fully compressed buffer, while in A17.1-2000 and B44-00 the clearances are measured
with the car at the top car landing.
4.1.4 Jump of car. Both EN 81-1:1998 and A17.1-2000/B44-00 allow a reduction in the top of car
clearance where means are provided to limit the jump of the car upon counterweight buffer engagement [see
Table A.1, item 1.5 b)]. EN 81-1:1998, however, requires that the clearance be increased by a value equal to
the possible travel of the compensating sheave (tensioning pulley) plus 1/500 of the car travel (or at least
0,2 m) to take rope-stretch into account. A17.1-2000 and B44-00 do not include this provision. The other
standards do not cover this situation.
4.1.5 Refuge space. There are major differences in the requirements for the size and location of the refuge
space on the car top (see Table A.1, item 3). While A17.1-2000 and B44-00 require that one face of the
rectangular block be located on the car roof, EN 81-1:1998 appears to permit the location of this imaginary
block anywhere above the car top equipment. An EN 81-1:1998 interpretation indicates that the projection of
the block on the car roof must include the working surface specified in EN 81-1:1998 paragraph 8.13.2.
4.1.6 Bottom runby. There is no requirement for a bottom runby (Table A.1, item 4) in EN 81-1:1998*,
while the maximum car and counterweight runbys are specified in A17.1-2000 and B44-00, JAPAN and
AS1735 Standards. Bottom car runby is defined in A17.1/B44 as “the distance between the car buffer striker
plate and the striking surface of the car buffer when the car floor is level with the bottom terminal landing”.
Bottom counterweight runby is defin
...