Improving safety

and accessibility
of existing lifts in Europe
Your guidelines to SNEL
(Safety Norm for Existing Lifts)
1
DISCLAIMER
THE PRESENT GUIDELINES ARE INTENDED AS A TOOL AMONG
OTHERS TO HELP IN ASSESSING THE SAFETY OF EXISTING LIFTS
UNDER SNEL. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR EACH
LIFT OWNER'S OR LIFT TECHNICIAN'S OWN ASSESSMENT AND
DECISION-MAKING REGARDING ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF
SAFETY AND MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY
OF AN EXISTING INSTALLATION. ELA DECLINES ANY AND ALL
LIABILITY FOR ANY MEASURE TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN ON THE
BASIS OF THE PRESENT GUIDELINES
Version 1 04-06-2004

ELA - Editor / Contact person: Luc Rivet (l.rivet@ela-aisbl.org)

See updates on ELA website: www.ela-aisbl.org
2
Table of Content
D I S C L A I ME R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. GENERAL I NTRODUCTI ON TO SNEL
1.1. Safety and accessibility of existing lifts ........................................................................3
1.2. EN 81-80, SNEL a new standard with a great future........................................5
2. WHAT I S SNEL? WHAT I S SNEL NOT?
2.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................7
2.2. Approach of this standard......................................................................................................8
2.3. Use of this standard...................................................................................................................9
2.4. Other references in this standard .....................................................................................9
3. GUI DELI NES FOR THE I MPLEMENTATI ON OF SNEL
3.1. The National Filtering Method..................................................................................................10
3.2. The risk-assessment philosophy .......................................................................................10
3.2.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................10
3.2.2. Basic concept of a risk analysis..................................................................................................11
3.2.3. Summarising the step by step analysis procedure...................................................................11
3.2.4. Defining the scope/reason for a risk analysis...........................................................................11
3.2.5. Identifying the hazard .................................................................................................................12
3.2.6. The risk assessment, level of severity and frequency .............................................................12
3.2.7. Evaluation of the risk ..................................................................................................................13
3.2.8. Decision / corrective actions.......................................................................................................14
3.2.9. Documentation and evaluation, the summary table .............................................................14
3.3. SNEL and the identification and evaluation of hazardous situations.......16
3.3.1. The list of significant hazards identified in SNEL ....................................................................16
3.3.2. Definition of frequencies of accidents according to ISO/TS14798 ........................................18
3.3.3. Risk profiles, priorities and scheduling......................................................................................19
3.3.4. The SNEL risk assessment: documentation and evaluation results.......................................21
3.3.5. The original risk profile................................................................................................................29
3.3.6. Risks and solutions illustrated by the ELA - Zack drawings ..................................................31
3.4. Link between SNEL and the Use of Work Equipment Directive (UWED) .....42
4. RI GHTS AND OBLI GATI ONS OF THE DI FFERENT ACTORS
4.1. The different actors..................................................................................................................48
4.2. What if SNEL is not applied? .............................................................................................49
5 . ONCE SNEL I S I NTEGRATED AND WELL APPLI ED
I N YOUR COUNTRY: FOLLOW UP ..............................................................................50
6. SNEL, THE SAFETY CHECKLI ST .......................................................................................51
7. RELATED DOCUMENTS
7.1. List of relevant EN-standards ............................................................................................52
7.2. Relevant EU directives and recommendation...........................................................53
3
1 GENERAL I NTRODUCTI ON TO SNEL
Three million lifts are in use today in Europe. In many countries, more than half of existing
elevators are 25 years old or older. Few of them have been modernised to meet current
safety and performance requirements.
Nevertheless ageing elevators can be made more effective, safer, more reliable and more
comfortable through regular maintenance and improvement.
1.1 Safety and accessibility of existing lifts
The community of the travelling public appreciates the mobility and access that lifts,
escalators and moving walks provide to all groups in the community. They also expect
that their journeys are as safe as possible.
There is a need for new technical and social solutions to facilitate everyday life and to
create an inclusive society. These solutions will have an impact on all residents of urban
societies and on people in their environments, be they young or old, healthy or with
restricted mobility. Home owners and builders are in a key position to provide the
necessary infrastructure. Vertical lift equipment and related services are an integral part
of the accessibility chain of buildings and of society as a whole.
There is a growing trend in our population: people live longer. The disabled require access
and both groups, senior citizens and people with disabilities want safety without the need
for supervision. People do not want to leave their homes where they have been living for
many years due to age and mobility problems.
Finally, lift attendants and caretakers are less common and therefore it is necessary to
provide relevant safety features for the rescue of trapped persons.
Today, the European Committee of Standardization (CEN) has added to its well-known
European Standard for new lifts, EN 81 part 1 and 2, a key standard for the safety of
existing lifts, EN 81-80. This new standard is the result of several years work by committed
safety experts from lift industry, authorities, third party inspection bodies, consumers
organisations and insurance companies.
EN 81-80, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts Existing lifts Part
80: Rules for the improvement of safety of existing passenger and goods passenger lifts,
categorises various hazards and hazardous situations, each of which has been analysed
by a risk assessment. It then provides a list of corrective actions to improve safety
progressively.
The lift should be audited against a checklist of more than 70 items.
The identification of the hazardous situation can be carried out in the course of any
periodical survey or special examination on a given installation, but only technically
competent and sufficiently trained persons should be allowed to carry out these
examinations. This can be subjected to national regulations.
4
The Mobility Chain
5
Once the weak points of the installation have been identified through this pro-active
assessment or safety audit, improvements can be made (if necessary) by a stepwise
upgrading which can naturally be combined with any modernisation being carried out. In
addition, preventive maintenance and repairs are a necessary ongoing process.
We understand under:
Preventive maintenance and inspection:
All the necessary operations to ensure the safe and intended functioning of the
installation and its components after the completion of the installation and
throughout its life cycle.
Furthermore it is about the need for the owner, the maintenance organisation and
third party inspection body to undertake appropriate measures in case of
detection of any dangerous situations.
Repairs:
Is about the replacement of faulty components by equally safe or safer
components/parts corresponding to today state-of-the-art.
Modernisation:
Is about the technical upgrading of the installation changing the main
characteristics or upgrading (Not listed in order of importance):
- Safety
- Accessibility
- Availability
- Performance
- Reliability
- Maintainability
- Fulfilment of legal requirements and responsibilities
- Increase of real-estate value
- .
For more detailed information regarding the maintenance and inspection, please consult:
EN 13015: (2001) Maintenance for lifts and escalators- rules for maintenance
instructions
EN 13306: (2001) Maintenance terminology
1.2 EN 81-80, SNEL, a new standard with a great future:
SNEL (Safety Norm for Existing Lifts) is a powerful instrument that will soon show its
impact all over Europe and through this will also serve as a benchmark for other countries
outside Europe.
SNEL has to be applied as a technical guide package, to promote the progressive (when?)
and selective (what?) maintaining and/or improvement of the safety of existing lifts.
Through these actions there will be an increase in the European lift safety and
6
accessibility for lift users, lift workers and third party inspectors.
Member states decision makers, lift owners, the lift industry and third party inspection
bodies have a vital interest to understand the implications of SNEL. They must link up with
closely related EU and National existing regulations.
The core message is to implement SNEL in a pro-active way. This allows the application of
the well-known prevention principle, of taking the necessary and sufficient measures to
ensure a safe situation.
This SNEL approach, once integrated and well applied, will finally make the lifts safer for
all of us.
The creation, at member-state level, of a specific national law or decree, referring to or
based upon this EN 81-80 standard, can give a more mandatory character to it, as this is
already the case in Belgium, the Netherlands, in France and soon in Spain and Germany.
Even existing national legislation, based on the transposition of existing European
directives and recommendations can help achieve this higher implementation level. The
most important are:
The "10" Recommendations (95/216/EC)
The use of work equipment directive (UWED, 89/655/EC amended by 95/63/EC
and 2001/45/EC)
The product liability directive (85/374/EC of July 25, 1985)
The product safety directive for the consumers (2001/95/EC of December 3,
2001)
The directive 89/391/EC of June 12, 1989 on the introduction of measures to
encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work
The implementation of EN 81-80 in each country, including the 74 defined risks, will vary in
content and scheduling, to allow for any local differences in the assessment of those risks.
The definition of risks levels, categorised as extreme, high, medium or low, will depend on
previous country history of lift regulations and applied standards, accident statistics,
specific product knowledge and social expectations.
In SNEL, annex A, the described methodology of National Filtering Method" provides
a tool for easily and successfully defining the when and what status of each predefined
SNEL risk.
Today, this filtering process, which is already applied in Belgium, the Netherlands and
France, is also ongoing in other EU member-states such as Italy, Germany, Austria,
7
2 WHAT I S SNEL, WHAT I S SNEL NOT?
2.1 Introduction
Being ratified by CEN, the EN81-80, is now published (December 2003).
The implementation date as European state of the art document" in the different EU
member states is June 30, 2004.
SNEL is not:
This standard does not have an EU mandate related to a European Economic Directive
(e.g. the Lift directive 95/16/EC), since it concerns existing installations only. Therefore this
standard has not been published as a harmonised EU Standard.
Furthermore this is a safety standard and is not to be considered as a European
modernisation standard for existing lifts!
SNEL is:
Despite its non-harmonised status, it is to be considered as equally important as other
existing EN-standards for lifts.
In summary:
- As a CEN ratified EN standard it must replace existing national standards related to the
same topic.
- It is being made available to each National Standardization Organisation, after adequate
translation in the applicable national language(s).
- It is to be considered as the official state-of-the-art safety document for existing lifts
in Europe.
Furthermore this standard is not about modernisation, but about the progressive and
selective improvement of the safety and accessibility of existing lifts.
8
2.2 Approach of this standard
This standard:
categorises various hazards and hazardous situations (# 74 scenarios), each of which
has been analysed by a risk assessment;
lists the extreme, high, medium and low risks and corrective actions which can be
applied in separate steps in order to eliminate the risks;
is intended to provide corrective actions to progressively and selectively improve, step
by step, the safety of all existing passenger and goods passenger lifts towards todays
state of the art for safety;
provides a methodology for National Filtering to result in an audit method for each lift;
enables each lift to be audited and safety measures to be identified and implemented
in a step by step and selective fashion according to the frequency and severity of any
single risk.
1920
Safety
Evolution of "the state of the art"
Step by step safety improvement of existing lifts
T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y
R
&
D
Progressive (when?) and selective (what?)
1979
Safety Existing lifts
1985
EN81-80
EN81-1/2
EN81-1/2
EN81-1/2
EN81-1/2
1998 2000 2003 2010
9
2.3 Use of this standard
This standard can be used as a guideline for:
national authorities to determine their own programme of implementation in a step by
step process via a filtering method (as further explained under point 3.1) in a reasonable
and feasible way based on the level of risk (e.g. extreme, high, medium, low) and social
and economic considerations;
owners to follow their responsibilities according to existing regulations (e.g. Use of
Work Equipment Directive);
maintenance companies and/or inspection bodies to inform the owners on the safety
level of their installations;
owners to improve the safety of existing lifts on a voluntary basis in accordance with
this standard if no regulations exist.
2.4 Other references in this standard
SNEL is also referring to other relevant EN 81 series of lift standards* such as:
EN 81-1:1998, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Part 1: Electric
lifts.
EN 81- 2:1998, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Part 2:
Hydraulic lifts.
PrEN 81-21, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Lifts for the
transport of persons and goods - Part 21: New passenger and goods lifts in existing
buildings.
EN 81-28, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Lifts for the
transport of persons and goods - Part 28: Remote alarm on passenger and goods
passenger lifts.
EN 81-70:2003, Safety rules for the construction and installations of lifts - Particular
applications for passenger and good passenger lifts - Part 70: Accessibility to lifts for
persons including persons with disability.
EN 13015,2001, Maintenance for lifts and escalators, rules for maintenance
instructions
PrEN 81-71, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Particular
applications to passenger lifts and goods passenger lifts - Part 71: Vandal resistant
lifts.
PrEN 81-73, Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Particular
applications for passenger and goods passenger lifts - Part 73: Behaviour of lifts in the
event of fire.
* The texts of these standards can be obtained from your national standardisation organisation.
10
3 GUI DELI NES FOR THE I MPLEMENTATI ON OF SNEL
3.1 National Filtering method
This is an essential part of the SNEL standard. It has to be well understood. Each
member state applies SNEL in its own way by using the national filtering method.
All technical solutions for improvement of existing lifts to the state-of-the-art are
listed in clause 5 of the EN 81-80 (see also point 3.3.1 and 3.3.6 of this
document). Although immediate upgrading of all existing lifts to the state-of-
the-art would be sensible from the safety point of view, this may not be possible
in a short period of time, mainly for economic reasons.
This European Standard does not lay down binding requirements for measures to
be carried out on lifts. Such obligations for existing lifts are subject to national
legislation. The procedures described in annex A of the standard are intended to
assist in setting up national regulations for increasing the safety of existing lifts
by showing how to identify and evaluate the existing hazardous situations and
how to classify priority levels which apply to the necessary hazard and risk
reduction measures.
Indeed the implementation of EN 81-80 may vary in content and scheduling for
each country, to allow for any local differences in the assessment of those risks.
The definition of risks levels, categorised as extreme, high, medium or low, will
depend on previous country history of lift regulations and applied standards,
accident statistics, specific product knowledge and social expectations.
3.2 The risk assessment philosophy
3.2.1 Introduction:
The EN 81-80 includes a list of hazards (#74), and is also describing the solutions to
eliminate or reduce the risk.
Those risks have been identified and solutions have been selected, applying a risk analysis
procedure.
Risk assessments are often based on the EN 1050 and ISO/TS 14798
EN 1050:1996
Safety of machinery principles for risk assessment
ISO/TS 14798
Lifts, escalators and passenger conveyors - Risk analysis- Methodology
part 1: General
For a better understanding of the way the EN 81-80 European experts listed the 74
identified risks and corresponding solutions, it is essential to understand the basics of a
risk analysis.
Knowledge of the basic rules of the way to make a risk analysis can be very helpful in
11
applying the National Filtering Method as described in annex A of EN 81-80.
In this annex the described National Filtering Method" provides a tool for easy and
successful defining of the when and what status of each predefined SNEL risk.
A specific checklist as resulting from the nationally applied filtering, should always be
based on risk analysis.
The step by step risk assessment philosophy is documented in the next paragraphs.
3.2.2 Basic concept of a risk analysis:
A risk analysis is a series of logical steps that enable a systematic identification and study
of hazards and their corresponding causes and effects.
The identification of hazards, when followed by an assessment of their severity and
probability of occurrence, yields a measure of the risk associated with the individual
hazards. Through the use of an interactive process, each hazard and effect is evaluated
and either eliminated or, if necessary, controlled by means of appropriate safety measures
that reduce the corresponding risk to an acceptable level of safety.
3.2.3 Summarising the step by step risk analysis procedure:
3.2.4 Defining the scope /reason for a risk analysis
Focusing on the safety and accessibility improvement of an existing lift installation, the
risk analysis is intended to verify if the installation is operating at an acceptable level of
safety.
Definition of the scope of risk analysis
Identification of the (sub-)dangers
Risk assessment
Risk evaluation
Undertake additional appropriate measurements
START
END
STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE
Acceptable safety level?
Yes
No
12
EN 81-80 is the result of a risk analysis at European level. The national risk analysis will
determine whether the identified risk(s), the described solutions and the scheduling (e.g.:
5-10 years) will be applied or if a more specific risk analysis will be executed taking into
account the previous country history of lift regulation and applied standards, accident
statistics, specific product knowledge and social expectations.
For this purpose the best approach is to form a risk analysis team by selecting the
members and by choosing a team leader /moderator.
The members of the team and the team leader /moderator should, as a minimum
requirement, have a working knowledge of the product or process being analysed.
The best results will be obtained by composing a team representing the different
concerned parties such as lift users, lift technicians, lift inspectors, lift owners,
government representatives, insurance companies, etc
3.2.5 Identifying the hazard
An already identified SNEL risk can become subject to re-evaluation.
Even risks not included in the SNEL standard can become subject of an evaluation.
3.2.6 The risk assessment, the level of severity and frequency
Assess the cause and effect of each hazard in terms of probability of occurrence and the
severity of its effects. The combination of severity and frequency of occurrence quantifies
the risk associated with the hazard.
In SNEL, a specific frequency table according to ISO/TS 14798 for existing lifts has been
edited. This table is fully included under point 3.3.2.
RISK
is related to the
considered hazard
Is
function
of
THE RI SK ASSESSMENT
R=SxF
And
SEVERITY
of the possible
incidence for the
considered hazard
FREQUENCY
(PROBABILITY)
Of occurence of the
incident is function of:
frequency and duration
of exposure
probability of occurence of
hazardous event
possibility of avoiding or
limiting the harm
13
CATEGORY OF SEVERI TY
Category of severity Definition
I Catastrophic Death, system loss, or severe environmental damage
II Critical Severe injury, severe occupational illness, major system or
environmental damage
III Marginal Minor injury, minor occupational illness, minor system or
environmental damage
IIII Negligible Should not result in injury, occupational illness, system or
environmental damage
LEVEL OF FREQUENCY
Level of frequency Definition
A Frequent Likely to occur often
B Probable Will occur several times in the lift cycle of the system
C Occasional Will occur at least once in the life cycle of the system
D Remote Unlikely, but may possibly occur in the life cycle of the system
E Improbable So unlikely that it can be assumed occurrence will not be experienced
F Impossible The hazard incident cannot occur unless caused by a deliberate act
3.2.7 Evaluation of the risk
Evaluate the risk assessment results in terms of residual risk and the acceptable level of
safety. The table mentioned hereunder can be used to determine this. If the level of
safety is unacceptable, further risk reduction measures are required and the following
procedure should be used:
1. eliminate the hazard;
2. if the identified hazard can not be eliminated, take the necessary measures to
reduce the risk to an acceptable level of safety as determined by the lift owner
with the help of the lift technician;
3. inform the user of the residual risks. These measures include information,
training, adding warning signs, personnel protection equipment, etc.
RELATI ON BETWEEN SEVERI TY / FREQUENCY
AND CORRESPONDI NG RI SK LEVEL
Frequency Severity
I Catastrophic II Critical III Marginal IV Negligible
A Frequent IA IIA IIIA IVA
B Probable IB IIB IIIB IVB
C Occasional IC IIC IIIC IVC
D Remote ID IID IIID IVD
E Improbable IE IIE IIIE IVE
F Impossible IF IIF IIIF IVF
Unacceptable IA , IB , IC , IIA , IIB , IIIA Corrective action required to eliminate the risk
Undesirable ID , IIC , IIIB, IIIC Corrective action required to mitigate the risk
Acceptable with review IE , IID , Review required to determine whether
IIE , IVA , IVB any action is necessary action as instructed
by the lift owner
Acceptable without review IF , IIF , IIIE , No action required - action as instructed
IIIF , IVC , IVD IVE , IVF by the lift owner
3.2.8 Decision / corrective actions
If the risk evaluation still indicates that the remaining risk is not within an acceptable
level of safety, the whole process has to be repeated.
3.2.9 Documentation and evaluation, the summary table
This document or table contains the result of the risk analysis process.
This documentation package should contain as a minimum:
a definition of the system process that was analysed;
the hazardous situations (hazard, causes and effects), risk assessment and risk
evaluation;
the reference data, used sources of data (e.g. codes and standards), historical
information, drawings manufacturer, design calculations;
the proposed risk reduction measures and residual risks;
the risk profiles indicating the risks:
- actual: assessment not considering the safety measures;
- tentative: assessment assuming measures are taken.
14
15
S
u
b
j
e
c
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
i
s
k

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
:

D
a
t
e
:
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

:
12345678
S

=

S
e
v
e
r
i
t
y
:

H
a
z
a
r
d

e
f
f
e
c
t

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
I

=

C
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
I
I

=

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
I
I
I

=

M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
I
I
I
I

=

N
e
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
F

=

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
;

H
a
z
a
r
d

c
a
u
s
e

l
e
v
e
l

A

=

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
B

=

P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
C

=

O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
D

=

R
e
m
o
t
e
E

=

I
m
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
F

=

I
m
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
C
a
s
e

N

H
a
z
a
r
d
(
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n

C
a
u
s
e
-
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
/
E
f
f
e
c
t
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

a
c
t
i
o
n

(
r
i
s
k

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

r
i
s
k
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
u
a
l
S









F
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
t
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
S









F
16
3.3 SNEL and the identification and evaluation of hazardous situations
3.3.1 The list of significant hazards identified in SNEL
This SNEL list contains 74 hazardous situations (see table below). The hazardous situations
mentioned there have been listed on the basis of experience gathered from registered
accidents as well as specific risk assessments. The state-of-the-art for safety of the
European lift industry in the last decades served as a basis. There may be additional
hazardous situations for very old lifts or lifts with special technology which are not
covered by this standard. In this case, additional risk assessments are necessary for the
lifts in question.
TABLE LI ST OF SI GNI FI CANT HAZARDS ( #74)
Nr. Hazard/Hazardous situation Relevant
clauses in
EN 81-80
1 Presence of harmful materials 5.1.4
2 No or limited accessibility for disabled persons 5.2.1
3 Drive system with bad stopping/levelling accuracy 5.2.2
4 No or inadequate vandal resistance 5.3
5 No or inadequate control functions in case of fire 5.4
6 Well enclosures with perforate walls 5.5.1.1
7 Partially enclosed well with too low enclosure 5.5.1.2
8 Inadequate locking devices on access doors to well and pit 5.5.2
9 Inadequate vertical surface below landing door sills 5.5.3
10 Counterweight/balancing weight without safety gear in case 5.5.4
of accessible spaces below well
11 No or inadequate partition of counterweight/ balancing weight travel path 5.5.5
12 No or inadequate pit screen for several lifts in the same well 5.5.6.1
13 No or inadequate partition for several lifts in the same well 5.5.6.2
14 Insufficient safety spaces in headroom and pit 5.5.7
15 Unsafe pit access 5.5.8
16 No or inadequate stopping devices in the pit or in the pulley room 5.5.9
17 No or inadequate lighting of the well 5.5.10
18 No alarm system in pit and on car roof 5.5.11
19 No or unsafe means of access to machine and pulley room 5.6.1
20 Slippery floor in machine or pulley room 5.6.2
21 Insufficient clearances in machine room 5.6.3
22 No or inadequate protection on different levels in machine pulley room 5.6.4
23 Inadequate lighting in machine or pulley room 5.6.5
24 Inadequate means of handling equipment 5.6.6
25 Perforate landing doors and car doors 5.7.1
26 Inadequate design of landing door fixings 5.7.2
27 Inadequate glass in doors 5.7.3
17
Nr. Hazard/Hazardous situation Relevant
clauses in
EN 81-80
28 No or inadequate protection against dragging of fingers on sliding 5.7.4
car or landing doors with glass
29 No or inadequate lighting on landing doors 5.7.5
30 No or inadequate protective devices on power operated doors 5.7.6
31 Unsafe locking device of landing door 5.7.7
32 Unlocking of landing door without a special tool 5.7.8.1
33 Well enclosure with perforate walls near door locks 5.7.8.2
34 No automatic closing device on sliding doors 5.7.9
35 Inadequate link between panels of landing doors 5.7.10
36 Inadequate fire resistance of landing doors 5.7.11
37 Car door moving with open landing door 5.7.12
38 Large car area in relation to rated load 5.8.1
39 Inadequate length of car apron 5.8.2
40 Car without doors 5.8.3
41 Unsafe locking of car roof trap door 5.8.4
42 Insufficient strength of car roof 5.8.5
43 No or inadequate balustrade on car 5.8.6
44 Insufficient ventilation in car 5.8.7
45 Inadequate lighting in car 5.8.8.1
46 No or inadequate emergency lighting in car 5.8.8.2
47 No or inadequate protection means on sheaves, pulleys and 5.9.1
sprockets against injury
48 No or inadequate protection against rope/chains leaving the sheaves, 5.9.1
pulleys or sprockets
49 No or inadequate protection means on sheaves, pulleys or sprockets 5.9.1
against introduction of objects
50 No or inadequate safety gear and/or overspeed governor on electric lifts 5.9.2
51 No or inadequate slack rope switch for governor rope 5.9.3
52 No protection means against ascending car overspeed on traction 5.9.4
drive lifts with counterweight
53 Inadequate design of lift machine for electric lifts 5.9.4, 5.12.1
54 No or inadequate protection against free fall, overspeed and creeping 5.9.5
on hydraulic lifts
55 Counterweight or balancing weight guided by 2 wire ropes 5.10.1
56 No or inadequate buffers 5.10.2
57 No or inadequate final limit switches 5.10.3
58 Large gap between car and wall facing the car entrance 5.11.1
59 Excessive distance between car door and landing door 5.11.2
60 No or inadequate emergency operation system 5.12.2
61 No shut-off valve 5.12.3
62 No independent starting contactors 5.12.4
18
Nr. Hazard/Hazardous situation Relevant
clauses in
EN 81-80
63 No or inadequate slack rope/chain device 5.12.5
64 No run-time limiter 5.12.6
65 No or inadequate low pressure device 5.12.7
66 Insufficient protection against electric shock and/or marking of 5.13.1
electrical equipment; missing notices
67 No or inadequate protection on lift machine motor 5.13.2
68 No lockable main switch 5.13.3
69 No protection against phase reversal 5.14.1
70 No or inadequate inspection control station and stopping device on car roof 5.14.2
71 No or inadequate alarm device 5.14.3
72 No or inadequate communication system between machine room 5.14.4
and car (travel height >30 m)
73 No or inadequate load control on car 5.14.5
74 Missing notices, markings and operating instructions 5.15
3.3.2 Definition of frequencies of accidents according to ISO/TS 14798
In carrying out risk assessments, the frequencies of incidents have to be estimated.
Based on the number of accidents and incidents you have knowledge over, this combined
with the estimated life cycle of a lift, the purpose is to link some predefined numerical
values to the definitions of frequency according to ISO/TS 14798.
The life cycle of a lift in the past was assumed to be between 30 and max. 45 years.
Today this life cycle is considered shorter because of the fast changing environment, the
innovation in technology and the high expectations of the end users regarding ride
comfort, building noise, optimal traffic, energy consumption, safety and accessibility.
The result is a higher need for periodical upgrading of the installation, better reflecting
the demands of a broader public of lift users.
TABLE DEFI NI TI ON OF FREQUENCI ES
OF ACCI DENTS ( I SO/ TS 14798)
Level of frequency Definition Sub-level
A: Frequent Likely to occur
B: Probable Will occur several times in the life cycle of the system
C: Occasional Will occur at least once in the life cycle of the system
D: Remote Unlikely, but may possibly occur in the life time of the system C-D
D
D-E
E: Improbable So unlikely that it can be assumed occurrence will
not be experienced
F: Impossible The hazard incident should not occur unless caused
by a deliberate act
19
3.3.3 Risk profile, priorities and scheduling
TABLE SNEL PRI ORI TI ES AND SCHEDULE
Fields in risk profile Priority Schedule
S F
I A, B, C
II A
Extreme Immediate, lift has to be stopped
I C-D, D
II B, C, C-D High Short term
III A, B
I D-E
II D Medium Medium term or together with a major modernisation
III C, C-D
I E
II D-E, E
Low
Longer term or together with a modernisation of the
III D related component
IV A, B
I F
II F
III D-E, E, F - -
IV C, C-D, D, D-
E, E, F
Frequency (hazard cause level): Severity (hazard effect category):
A Frequent, B Probable, C Occasional, I Catastrophic, II Critical,
D Remote, E Improbable, F Impossible III Marginal, IV Negligible
NOTE The length of the terms is subject to national filtering, e.g. short term within 5 years, medium term within 10 years.
Extreme
Extreme
Extreme
High
High
Medium
Low
Extreme
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
20
TABLE SNEL RI SK PROFI LE WI TH PRI ORI TY LEVELS
Frequency
Frequency (hazard cause level):
A Frequent, B Probable, C Occasional,
D Remote, E Improbable, F Impossible
Severity (hazard effect category):
I Catastrophic, II Critical,
III Marginal, IV Negligible
Severity
II I
A
B
C
C-D
D
D-E
E
F
III VI
Number of hazardous situation
21
3.3.4 The SNEL risk assessment: documentation and evaluation results
The 74 hazardous situations listed above were subjected to risk assessment during the
preparation of the EN 81-80 standard.
The risk assessment was based on the assumption that an existing lift either has none or
insufficient equipment for preventing the hazardous situations.
The result of the risk assessment is included in the table below and can serve as a basis,
when applying the national filtering method.
The list is not exhaustive.
SNEL TABLE OF RI SK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
22
23
24
25
26