Elevator-world PBcode Sept09

7/27/2019 Elevator-world PBcode Sept09

1/8

September 2009 | ELEVATOR WORLD | 8

Abstract

The world economy is increasingly global in nature, resulting in twomajor effects related to the elevator industry: A universal expectation of aconsistent level of safety for all elevators; and a worldwide demand forsafe, reliable, innovative products. For elevators based on new technol-ogy, a process for ensuring safety while enabling innovation is being de-veloped under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)umbrella. The ASME A17.7/B44.7 Performance Based Safety Code for Elevatorsand Escalators provides an example of the ISO process. A17.7/B44.7 in-cludes the Global Essential Safety Requirements (GESRs) of ISO/TS

22559-1 as the essence of the safety objective. It also includes the ISO14798 Risk Assessment Methodology, which is used to evaluate andmodify an innovative design so as to sufficiently mitigate identified risks.

An independent, accredited elevator/escalator certification organiza-tion (AECO) will verify that the process has been followed and be re-sponsible for the certification of the design. The certificate granted bythe AECO will be provided to jurisdictional authorities in support ofacceptance of the equipment. Jurisdictional authorities also have the op-tion of conducting such certification in their jurisdictions. This will pro-vide a structured, uniform process for verifying the safety of and gainingacceptance of innovative products in North America.

The following describes the worldwide trend toward performance-based codes. The conception and development of the European Direc-tives and their influence on code initiatives is also discussed, and thedevelopment of ISO documents intended for use as a basis for perform-ance-based elevator codes on a worldwide basis is elaborated. TheNorth American approach of developing a performance-based codefounded on such relevant ISO documents is described. Moreover, thisarticle elaborates the risk-assessment process and the content of thecode compliance document presented to the AECO. In addition, the

Louis Bialy is director,

Worldwide Codes & Stan-

dards for Otis Elevator Co.

He is a registered profes-

sional engineer. Bialy has

more than 41 years of

experience in the design,

development and testing

of industrial products and 28 years of experience

in elevator and escalator engineering, including 15

years in full-time codes-and-standards activities.

Bialy is an active member of the ISO/TC178 Ple-

nary Committee, as well as several ISO working

groups. He is a member of the ASME A17 Standards

Committee and is vice chair of the A17 Interna-

tional Standards Committee and A17 Mechanical

Design Committee, and chair of the National Ele-

vator Industry, Inc. Central Code Committee. He

also serves on the NAESA International Board of

Directors. Bialy has received numerous industry

awards and has been honored as an Otis fellow.

He holds many patents in the lift and other indus-

tries.

by Louis Bialy

Continued

To learn more about the Performance-Based Code, visit www.elevator-

world.com and click on the Online Extras icon.


2/8

86 | WWW.ELEVATOR-WORLD.COM | September 2009

qualifications, accreditation, roles and responsibilities ofAECOs are discussed. The next steps in North Americarelated to adoption of the performance-based code areconsidered. Finally, a new paradigm that envisages astructured environment for innovation with safety is de-scribed. Thoughts and suggestions for participating in theprocess are offered for consideration.Introduction

The swift development and dissemination of technol-ogy has played a prime role in the rapid evolution of the

modern world. A vivid example of this is the explosion ofcommunication systems. Major media networks such astelevision, radio and newspapers have shifted to a globalfocus. Computer technology has infiltrated every aspectof life, and the Internet has made a significant impact onsociety as a whole. Telecommunication systems havebeen enhanced by wireless technology, satellite-basednetworks and mobile telephones. Thus, ideas, events, ac-tivities, knowledge and information are rapidly andwidely disseminated throughout the world. In the samemanner, interest in new products, trends and themes arerapidly conveyed from location to location.[1]

One of the consequences of globalization is the increasein travel of people to many parts of the world. Not only dovisitors expect the same level of safety wherever they are,local residents also anticipate that the means of trans-portation they use will be safe. This is particularly true inthe elevator industry, where safety is a non-negotiableimperative.Codes of the Future

Elevator safety codes have become the universal meansof ensuring safety in the elevator industry. In developedas well as developing countries, the expectations of societyhave changed over time, and the elevator codes haveevolved in sympathy with this trend. This effect is notrestricted to elevators. In the automotive industry, forexample, earlier models of automobiles had no restraintsfor the driver or passengers. Eventually, seat beltsemerged and became compulsory by regulation. Laterstill, airbags and such features as anti-lock brakingsystems, limited-slip differentials, traction control, crush-resistant passenger compartments, etc. emerged. In theelevator industry, retracting safety edges on door systemswere replaced by proximity devices such as electromag-netic fields and multiple-ray light-based detection sys-

tems. Ascending car overspeed protection means anduncontrolled car motion protection systems are commonon contemporary elevators.

An important result of increasing globalization of theworlds economy is the emergence and proliferation ofinnovative products. Due to rapid communication andmarket forces, when a product brings increased value tousers in one market, it de facto creates a demand in othermarkets. This effect is equally applicable to elevators, asa myriad of other products. It is imperative that the safety

of innovative products is comparable with the safety ofstandard products that meet the prescriptive codes de-scribed in the foregoing. It is recognized that the processof development of prescriptive codes is inherently slowdue to the pace of reaching consensus. A process is thusrequired to enable safe, innovative new products to enterthe marketplace in a timely fashion. Such a processembodied in a code is generally known as a performance-based code (PBC).The Advantages of PBCs

PBCs provide a structured method of ensuring safetywhile enabling innovation. The use of risk assessment inthe process of applying PBCs systematically identifies andaddresses hazards applicable to the equipment beingreviewed, thus reducing the overall risk level. Moreover,the risk assessment process lends a degree of proactivityin anticipating risks, rather than depending upon experi-ence as a result of accidents and mishaps. One of the mostsignificant results of innovation is that it provides compe-tition in ideas, thus bringing value to users. Innovation is,in the final analysis, the lifeblood of economic growth.Background and Action in Europe

To better understand the current world codes and

standards environment, it is instructive to look backbriefly to the world of 1957. Many people equate this timewith the start of the space age, ushered in by Sputnik I.Another important event, albeit less spectacular, alsooccurred in 1957, but the implications have also had globalsignificance. The event was the Treaty of Rome, at whichan agreement was concluded for the future of Europe.Europe was emerging from the devastation suffered dur-ing World War II. Europeans recognized that in order tocompete economically in the modern world, they wouldhave to expand their markets.

Continued


3/8


One of the most important issues recognized at thetime was that differing national standards could becomea barrier to trade, which would defeat the principle of acommon market. The solution to this dilemma was thecreation of European Directives comprising EssentialHealth and Safety Requirements (EHSR) and an accompa-nying conformity assessment process to ensure that thedirectives were being met. By transposing the directivesinto national law in each country, it could be assumedthat national standards could not be used to block free

trade within Europe.Harmonized standards consistent with the directives

could then be developed as prescriptive means of meet-ing the directives. EHSRs of the directives were generallywritten in performance language, and the conformity-assessment process required that risk assessment becarried out to ensure that all relevant hazards relating toa given system were identified and addressed. Moreover,the conformity assessment process required the estab-lishment of independent, expert organizations, and thatmember countries of the European Union (EU) notify theEuropean Commission of organizations that are accred-ited to perform conformity assessments in their fields ofexpertise. Such organizations have become known asnotified bodies.

In the case of elevators and escalators, the most signif-icant directives are the Machinery Directive,[2] revised in2006 and the Lifts Directive,[5] published in 1995. The EN115 Code for Escalators and the EN 81 Code for Elevators[4]

were each harmonized to eliminate national deviations.The latter was published in 1998. In the case of elevators,European law requires that the Lifts Directive be met.This can be done by meeting the EN 81 code; however, as

long as the EHSRs of the Machinery and Lift Directivesare met and verified by the conformity assessmentprocess, elevators can be placed on the market in anymember country of the EU.

It is not clear that the visionary architects of the Treatyof Rome anticipated that the Directives would ultimatelylead to a revolution in innovation, but it is to their creditthat the directives led to an explosion of new ideas andtechnological innovation. In the elevator industry, prod-ucts such as machine-room-less elevators, elastomeric-coated steel belts and two elevators in a single hoistway

emerged. Prior to the directives, there was little incentifor significant innovation, because the consensprocess for developing codes is inherently slow and thuby the time a prescriptive code is changed to accommdate a new technology, the technology is no longer newAction under ISO

Once the Lift Directives came into force and new proucts emerged in Europe, a worldwide demand for simiproducts was created as a result of the effects describin the previous sections. The fact that the lifts and m

chinery directives were enshrined in law and are undthe auspices of the European Commission made it difcult for these to be adopted outside of Europe. The conceof EHSRs combined with a conformity assessment proceprovided a powerful model for ensuring safety whenabling innovation. The potential of this approach wrecognized in ISO TC 178, the Elevator StandardizatiTechnical Committee of ISO, and a global approatoward PBCs was spawned.

The first step was to develop a set of GESRs, which ain the form of performance-based safety objectives. satisfying the GESRs, a safe elevator system will result

By starting from basic principles and recognizing tfunction of an elevator, a systematic risk-assessmeprocess, in accordance with ISO 14798,[3] was used establish GESRs for elevators without imposing restrtions on the design of, or materials and technologies usin, the elevators. Experts from around the world weinvolved by the establishment of three regional stugroups, (North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific). Tprocess used by each study group was to identify safety risk scenarios, including hazardous situations aharmful events that could arise at all stages and in

conditions of the operation and use of elevators.[6] GESwere formulated as safety objectives to mitigate the idetified risks.

The work of the regional study groups was harmnized under a specific working group of ISO TC 178 usian interactive process. Ultimately, ISO TS 22559-1 wcompleted and became the first building block in a serinecessary to establish performance-based requiremenand a conformity assessment process for worldwiperformance-based codes. The second document in tseries, ISO TS 22559-2,[7] identifies global safety param

Contin


4/8


eters (GSPs), which may be used to help mitigate risksand satisfy the GESRs.

Further documents describing the roles and responsi-bilities, as well as the accreditation procedures, for globalconformity assessment bodies (GCABs) are under devel-opment by ISO TC 178. When complete, ISO/TS 22559-3and ISO/TS 22559-4 will provide the roles and responsi-bilities of and accreditation procedures for GCABs. Certi-fication organizations engaged in international arenassuch as prominent notified bodies and AECOs will likely

apply for accreditation as GCABs, which represent state-of-the-art global certification. ISO 14798[3] also providesan important building block for PBCs.Action in North America

An important example of the incorporation of ISO/TS22559-1 and ISO 14798 into a PBC is provided by theA17.72007/ B44.7-07 Performance Based Safety Code for

Elevators and Escalators[8] published in March 2007 andeffective when adopted by the various jurisdictions inNorth America.Elements of the A17.7/B44.7 PBCs Process

For many years, ASME A17.1[9] recognized that thecode cannot cover all situations, and that alternativetechnology should be allowed by the authorities havingjurisdiction (AHJs), provided that it could be documentedthat safety equivalent to that required by the code hasbeen achieved. This is described in the preface andSection 1.2 of the A17.1/B44. While the principle is clearthat the code is not intended to impose a barrier to newtechnology, code versions prior to 1997 lacked a uniformprocess for demonstrating that equivalent safety to thatrequired by the code has been achieved. A17.7/B44.7

was thus developed to provide a structured process forensuring the safety of innovative products. Such aprocess would be invaluable to enforcing authorities andelevator providers alike.

It was recognized that a way of capturing the essenceof the safety issues (i.e., what is really required to makethe system safe) is needed. As the GESRs of ISO/TS22559-1 were developed with international participation,including participation by North America, these wereused as the basis for A17.7/B44.7. It was also recognizedthat quantitative measures may be necessary to ensure

that the GESRs have been met, and that the technicalsolution is safe. These quantitative measures are calledsafety parameters (SPs). A process is required to evaluateand modify the proposed equipment design so as toensure that the identified hazards have been addressedand the GESRs met. The ISO 14798 risk assessmentmethodology[3] provides this process.

As a further step, a means of verification is required inorder to ensure that the process described by A17.7/B44.7 has been followed and the relevant hazards ad-dressed. This important step will be conducted by AECOsor by the enforcing authorities directly.Global Essential Safety Requirements and Safety Parameters

The GESRs are performance-based statements thatstate the safety objective i.e., what is to be achieved, nothow a safety objective is to be accomplished. There are48 GESRs covering all aspects of elevator safety. The fol-lowing is an example of a GESR, relating to the support/suspension means for the elevator car:

Car Support/SuspensionMeans shall be provided to support the fully loaded

car and reasonably foreseeable overload.NOTE: This addresses the strength and failure of the

suspension means, when the car is loaded with its rated

load. It is, however, understood that the integrity of the

elevator would be maintained if the foreseeable overload

condition were reached. The rated performances, however,

can be affected if the rated load is exceeded.

The support/suspension means GESR addresses manytypes of support/suspension, e.g., steel wire ropes,elastomeric-coated steel belts, hydraulic plungers,scissor jacks, rack-and-pinion devices, screw-thread

jack devices, etc. The note to the GESR clarifies thatthe integrity of the elevator car should not be compro-mised by a foreseeable overload, although the elevatorperformance can be affected by such an overload.

In order to satisfy the safety objectives of a particu-lar GESR, an SP may be useful. Using the example ofthe suspension/support means for an elevator car, anSP would define how strong the suspension/supportmeans should be. Thus, SPs such as electric stabilitycriteria, rigidity requirements, etc. for suspension/support means are safety factors.

Continued


5/8


SPs for other GESRs are deceleration levels, body

part dimensions, illumination levels, fire-rating levels,etc. (It should be recognized that different dimensional

spaces are required related to body part dimensionsdependent upon whether safe entry is to be ensured

for a body part, or whether a body part is to be pre-vented from entering a particular space.) SPs are fullyconsistent with values embodied in the requirements

of the A17.1/B44 code. Thus, there are no contradic-

tions between the A17.1/B44 and A17.7/B44.7 codes.It should also be recognized that SPs are a means ofmeeting a safety objective and not always necessary.

As an example, the ISO 14798 Risk AssessmentMethodology provides a hierarchy of risk-reduction

measures. The first priority is to eliminate the hazardby design where feasible; if not, the next priority is to

provide a protective measure. If the hazard is eliminated,there is clearly no need for an SP.

Outline of the A17.7/B44.7 PBC

A list of GESRs conforming to ISO/TS 22559-1 is pro-

vided in A17.7/B44.7 Part 3 and Appendix A-3. A list ofSPs compatible with existing codes and/or existing ISOdocuments is also provided in A17.7/B44.7 Part 4 and

Appendix B. A method of selecting appropriate GESRs forthe system being analyzed is provided in A17.7/B44.7

Section 2.4. The ISO 14798 Risk Assessment Methodologyis explained in A17.7/B44.7 Section 2.7 and Appendix C.

A realistic elevator example is provided to assist the userin A17.7/B44.7 Appendix E.

An approval process for AECOs is provided in an accom-panying document designated A17.7.1/B44.7.1[10].

Establishing the Safety of a Product Using A17.7/B44.7The A17.7/B44.7 code outlines the options for estab-

lishing the safety of a product as follows:

N Option 1 Meet the requirements in A17.1/B44

N Option 2 Meet some of requirements in A17.1/B44and where provisions of A17.1/B44 are not met, meetapplicable requirements of A17.7/B44.7

N Option 3 Meet the requirements in A17.7/B44.7Option 1 is intended to establish mutual recognition

between the A17.1/B44.1 prescriptive code and theA17.7/B44.7 PBC. Thus, meeting the one is de facto rec-

ognized as meeting the other. Option 2 is the proce

most likely to be used, as most elevator products wgenerally have a majority of standard features and only

minority of provisions not covered by A17.1/B44.1. this case, only the GESRs applicable to provisions n

addressed by A17.1/B44.1 need to be addressed usinA17.7/B44.7.

Option 3 provides a process for meeting all of thGESRs of A17.7/B44.7. This would generally only bapplied in special cases where the technology is novel

The typical approach to product safety would be to firevaluate if the proposed elevator system is completecovered by A17.1/B44. If so, there is no need to apply tPBC. The next step is to determine which aspects of thsystem are not covered by A17.1/B44 and to identify tapplicable GESRs that pertain to the aspects not coverby A17.1/B44.

The next step is to carry out a risk assessment, usingbalanced team of experts led by an experienced facilittor to verify that the identified GESRs are met. SPs woube applied where appropriate to sufficiently mitiga

identified risks. The completed risk assessment, as was other technical documentation including design antest data is assembled in a code compliance docume(CCD), which will be used for certification.

An AECO will examine the CCD and provide feedbato the submitter, who will revise the CCD in an iterativprocess until the AECO is satisfied that the process hbeen followed and is safe. At that stage, the AECO will cetify the product. The AHJ can provide the function of AECO and may do so if it has appropriate expertise. Oncertification is obtained, the certificate can be used to ga

acceptance of the product in jurisdictions that have adoptA17.7/B44.7. This process provides a structured approato demonstrating the safety of products and eases tway for new technology to safely enter the marketplac

Major Features of the ISO 14798

Risk Assessment Methodology

Risk assessment is best carried out by a balanced teaof experts, with a range of expertise indexed to the scoof the risk assessment. In general, a team consisting about eight members is suitable. The team should be lby an experienced facilitator, knowledgeable about th

Contin


6/8


Figure 1: Risk assessment documentation

product and skilled in helping teams reach consensus.This is further elaborated in ISO 14792.[3]

The risk assessment is typically documented in thetemplate illustrated in Figure 1. For each identified GESR,a hazardous situation is defined and harmful events com-prising the causes and effect are documented. This processelaborates the mechanism by which a hazardous situa-tion leads to a harmful result. The risk assessment teamassesses a level of severity from the table in Figure 2, anda level of probability during the lifecycle of the elevator

according to Figure 3. The combination of severity andprobability determines the risk level, as illustrated in therisk profile chart of Figure 4.

Clearly, if a scenario has the highest level of severity,(i.e., severity level 1) and the highest probability (i.e.,probability level A), then the corresponding risk level 1Awould be the highest level of risk. On the other hand, if ascenario has a negligible level of severity and is highlyimprobable, it would have a risk level of 4F, which is thelowest level of risk. Thus, the risk level reduces from thetop left corner of Figure 4 to the bottom right corner. The

risk evaluation table of Figure 4 provides guidance on

which risk levels need to be reduced. All risks in riskgroup I need to be reduced, while no further action isrequired for risks in risk group III. For risks in risk groupII, further review is required, and guidance for this isprovided in ISO 14798.

If risk reduction is required, the protective measuresare documented in the template of Figure 1. Protectivemeasures include elimination of the hazard where feasi-ble, and if not feasible, the implementation of SPs and

other measures. After the protective measure is imple-mented, the risk is reassessed and further measures taken(if necessary) until the risk has been sufficiently mitigated.Any residual risks are documented and if necessary,mitigated in the same way as the original risks. Theprocess is continued until all risks pertaining to identifiedGESRs have been addressed.The CCD

The CCD fully describes the equipment to be certified,including its application and duty range. It lists theA17.1/B44 requirements addressed using A17.7/B44.7,

as well as the GESRs that have been considered. It also

Continued


7/8


includes all technical documentation used to support tprotective measures implemented, including applicable tedata and calculations. The risk-assessment documentatioincluding details of the team members, constitutes important part of the CCD. The acceptance inspectiand test methodology unique to the component and tperiodic tests, inspection, maintenance, replacemeadjustment and repair procedures are included in the CCand as part of the maintenance control program (MC

The CCD thus provides a comprehensive document fconsideration by the AECO or AHJ directly.AECOs

AECOs play a vital role in the process of certifyiinnovative products. It is essential that their role apparent, their accreditation be at the highest level anthe certification process be clear. The impartiality of tAECO is vital for the credibility of the process.Roles and Responsibilities of AECOs

The role of the AECO is to review all of the matersubmitted by the applicant in the CCD and verify that t

A17.7/B44.7 requirements have been followed. This winclude a comprehensive review of the range and appcation of the equipment, and the design details of tsafety related items. The AECO will review the selectioof applicable GESRs to ensure that this is accurate ancomplete. The AECO will review the risk assessment ensure that the process has been thoroughly executethat the risk identification and mitigation process is complete, safety parameters applied where appropriate anresidual risks addressed. Moreover, the AECO can coduct additional tests or have these performed to establicompliance with A17.7/B44.7.

The review process will typically be an iterative procdure between the applicant and AECO until the lattersatisfied and all safety-related issues have been adressed. When all of the applicable criteria specified A17.7/B44.7 have been verified and the information prvided in the CCD fully scrutinized, the AECO will provia certificate of conformance confirming the complianof the equipment with the PBC. Subsequent to the certication, AECOs will provide an auditing function to ensuthat certified equipment is being manufactured a

Figure 2: Levels of severity

Figure 4: Risk profile

Figure 3: Levels of probability

Contin


8/8


installed to the requirements defined in the CCD. Theyrequire access to expertise in elevators, escalators,A17.1/B44 and A17.7/B44.7, as well as all of theelements of these codes. They must also have access toexpertise in risk assessment. They will provide auditingand certification functions for equipment designs to en-sure compliance with the PBC and must have a trackrecord of integrity.Accreditation of AECOs

Accreditation of the AECOs is essential for them to berecognized by AHJs. The American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) and Standards Council of Canada (SCC)are the accrediting organizations. A rigorous process ofaccreditation and auditing is in place to ensure high cred-ibility of the AECOs. The process and method for accred-itation defined in ASME A17.7.1/CSA B44.7.1 is based onISO/IEC Guide 65. It includes additional requirementsspecific to the particular functions necessary for AECOsto fully execute their responsibilities.

The accreditation of three AECOs marks a significanthistorical landmark for the North American elevator

industry. ANSI announced in March 2009 that the threeorganizations had met the rigorous requirements of theaccreditation process and are now permitted to certifyelevator components, functions and systems to theASMEA17.7-2007/CSA B44.7-07 Performance-Based Safety Code

for Elevators and Escalators.

The three organizations are as follows:N Underwriters Laboratories Inc.N TV-SD America Inc.N Liftinstituut Holdings BV

Subsequently, the SCC announced that it had accredited

TV-SD America Inc. This accreditation is in additionto the accreditation received from ANSI. Accreditation byeither ANSI or SCC is valid for all of North America and isonly necessary by one of these bodies.Next Steps

With the publication of A17.7/B44.7 and the accredi-tation of three AECOs, a major move forward has beentaken in North America toward ensuring safety and en-abling innovation. The next major step is the adoption ofthe PBC throughout North America, and the recognitionof the AECOs by the AHJs in the U.S. and the regulatory

authorities in Canada. This is clearly a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction process. Progress has been made and severaljurisdictions have already adopted the PBC. It is antici-pated that in the fullness of time, the true value ofA17.7/B44.7 will be recognized, and it will be widelyused in North America.The Emerging Paradigm

A new paradigm is emerging, marked by a trendtoward a process for innovation with safety for newequipment, including elevators. This paradigm demandsa rapid time to market for new, innovative elevators, withcorresponding pressure for PBCs and directives. Suchcodes and directives require a process of verification, cer-tification and/or conformity assessment. Moreover, theparadigm provides impetus for the global recognition ofcertifications granted by accredited organizations.

By developing A17.7/B44.7 based on relevant ISOdocuments and establishing credible AECOs, the NorthAmerican elevator industry as a whole has indicated thatit is ready to set the example and provide leadership forother areas of the world that do not as of yet have anequivalent process.Reference

[1] Ecological Trends in the Lift Industry, a Perspective from a GlobalManufacturer.Louis Bialy, P.E. Proceedings of the European LiftCouncil Heilbronn, Germany, 2008.

[2] EU Machinery Directive, European Parliament and Council Directive2006/42/EC, European Directive for Machinery, Available fromwww.newapproach.org/directives.

[3] ISO 14798 Lifts (Elevators), Escalators and Moving Walks - RiskAssessment and Reduction Methodology. In process of publication,based on ISO CD 14798: 2006 and ISO TS 14798: 2002. Availablefrom British Standards Institution (BSI).

[4] CEN EN 81: 1998 Safety Rules for the Construction and Installationof Lifts. Available from BSI.

[5] EU Lifts Directive, European Parliament and CouncilDirective

95/16/EC, 29, June 1995, No. L 213/2 European Directive for Lifts.Available from www.newapproach.org/directives

[6] ISO/TS 22559-1: 2004 Safety Requirements for Lifts (Elevators) Part1: Global Essential Safety Requirements (GESRs) for Lifts (Elevators)BSI, 2003, available from BSI.

[7] ISO/TS 22559-2 Safety Requirements for Lifts (Elevators) Part 2:Global Safety Parameters (GSPs) for Lifts (Elevators). In process ofpublication.

[8] ASME A17.7-2007/CSA B44.7-07 Performance Based Safety Codefor Elevators and Escalators. Available from CSA.

[9] ASME A17.1-2007/CSA B44-07 Safety Code for Elevators, Escalatorsand Moving Walks. Available from ASME, 2007.

[10] ASME A17.7.1/CSA B44.7.1, General Requirements for AccreditedElevator/Escalator Certification Organizations, 2007. Available fromASME.

Continued

Elevator-world PBcode Sept09

Documents

Transcript of Elevator-world PBcode Sept09