Issue 5/2006
09/02/06
Lift or machine?
Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Quanz
This article seeks to address a question of major significance to all those involved in every aspect of lifts, from installers to lift operators, test bodies, those responsible for the development of standards, trade associations and finally also the authorities. In the interests of safety, but also to minimize unnecessary friction-induced losses, it is essential for all these groups and institutions to be speaking a common language: in other words for them all to be equally informed and to hold a standardized legal conception of what lift safety means.
Category: Issue 5/2006
Posted by: Editor
In actual fact, the framework of safety regulations occurring in Europe, structured quite unlike any other in the world, does not make for easily digestible reading: It is strictly categorized according to regulations which govern the safety characteristics of products and those which govern occupational safety, coupled with the concept of deregulation, additionally characterized by the specification of protection goals and embellished by harmonized but non-binding standards. Forced to surrender part of their national sovereignty by signing up to the European Economic Area, EU Member and Contracting States have been called upon to withdraw much of their tried and tested existing regulatory framework and replace it with community legislation. In Germany, one piece of national legislation affected by this process is the now obsolete Lift Ordinance “Aufzugsverordnung”, which like the former Accident Prevention Regulations, contained separately documented requirements relating to lift properties and lift operation.
A certain degree of familiarity with the structure and contents of European legislation governing the free trade of goods will help in understanding the following explanation. It relates to the market placement of new lifts and those which have been placed on the market in accordance with the new legislation, i.e. with the 9th or 12th Ordinance to the Equipment and Product Safety Act in respect of Directive 95/16/EC or 98/37/EC. Readers should not feel disoriented if this explanation refers at times to the directive and at times to the ordinance. The contents are completely identical: The directives were able to be applied 1:1 to the free trade of goods between member states, and will be able to be applied in the future when amendments arise.
The decisive point is that the wording of the Community Directives alone (adopted 1:1) is binding. What you will find written down here is authoritative and must be observed without fail. An initial look at definitions of terms contained in the directives is helpful in clarification of what is classed as a lift and what is a machine. It would be natural to expect an unequivocal indication here of what is a machine and what is a lift (page 9 GPSGV Art. 1 Section 2 to 4). The Machine Directive does set out in its exclusion criteria that lifts complying to Directive 95/16/EC do not fall within the scope of the Machine Directive (page 9 GPSGV § 1 Section 5 No. 14). So far so good.
The process of differentiation only becomes difficult when we turn to the Lift Directive. The definition contained here applies to the lift car, which is itself not defined. No further light is shed on the matter until we examine Annex I of the Lift Directive: Here, point 3.1 sets out a binding requirement for the lift car to be completely closed, with the exception of ventilation openings, by solid walls, including floor and ceiling, and also solid doors. It is this which distinguishes a lift from a machine!
The point to remember here is that a hoisting device which has a car not completely enclosed with the exception of ventilation openings (e.g. has no ceiling or no solid doors) is a machine as defined by the EC Machine Directive. And conversely, a hoisting device which has a totally closed lift car with the exception of ventilation openings and solid doors, is classed as a lift according to Directive 95/16/EC, naturally provided the other definitions contained in the Lift Directive apply.
This will be the case at least up until December 28, 2009. From December 29, 2009, the new Machine Directive and the new Lift Directive will both come into force. This will be regulated by Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and the Council dated May 17, 2006 on the amendment of the Machine Directive and the Lift Directive as published on June 09, 2006 in the official journal of the European Union which came into force after 20 days. From December 29, 2006, the scope of the new Lift Directive will exclude, amongst others, hoisting devices whose travel speed is up to 0.15 m/s. These will then automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the new Machine Directive.
The distinction between lift and machine, which has been defined by the totally closed lift car, appears to have been deliberate and also makes perfect sense. On principle, a product must always provide the requisite level of safety. On this assumption, a machine must be at least as safe as a lift, even if it does not have a tot ally closed lift car. Annex I no. 1.1.2. a) of the Machine Directive actually stipulates that the machine’s design must guarantee that operation is possible without endangering life or limb. However, to achieve the protection level of the totally closed lift car would necessitate considerable technical endeavour, if indeed it is possible at all.
Let us consider the lift firstly as a consumer product and also as an item of work equipment. The utilization or intended application of a lift which is a consumer product as defined by GPSG is different to that of a hoisting device used as an item of work equipment. The consumer product is often accessible to the public and can generally be used unsupervised by anyone, including children, those speaking different languages, or the physically disabled. The totally closed lift car affords optimum protection in this situation. The circumstances are totally different, conversely, where a lift is used as an item of work equipment. In this case only those employed in the facility have access to the lift. Employees must receive adequate instruction from the employer and must agree to observe the provided instructions. In this case, it is easy to imagine that safe transportation without risk of injury to employees is conceivable also without a totally closed elevator car.
Practical application can be illustrated using four examples, looking at different scenarios for the placement on the market of a lift:
1. For use in a residential or business complex,
2. for use in the public circulation area of a local authority,
3. for use in a supermarket, where one of its functions is to transport customers with trolleys between the service level and the car park, over a height difference of for instance 1.40 metres and
4. for use in a company as an item of operating equipment.
The lifts referred to in cases 1 to 3 are consumer products, as they are accessible for general public use. The fi rst two must be placed on the market at the reasonable discretion of the operator in accordance with Directive 95/16/EC, as the safety of passengers can only be guaranteed with a fully closed elevator car and at accept able travel speeds.
Example 3 represents more of a grey area. Here, a lift in compliance with the Machine Directive would be conceivable, i.e. one without a ceiling. However, precautions would be required such as safeguarding all possible shearing and crushing points so as to eliminate any possibility of injury. Utilization of the facility for any other than its intended purpose would have to be reliably prevented by the design. It would hardly be possible to dispense with an elevator shaft in this case. To comply with modern expectations, the resulting technical execution of such a lift would equate largely with that of a lift compliant to 95/16/EC.
In the 4th instance, a lift compliant to the Machine Directive for the hoisting and lowering passengers between fixed levels of a building could well be envisaged. This could be fitted with light grids instead of car doors, for instance, which when interrupted would bring the movement of the lift to a standstill so as to prevent any possibility of an incident. In this type of lift design, speed consequently has an important role to play.
Finally, let us take a look at the case of a former freight elevator constructed in accordance with TRA which has been converted to a goods-only lift without passenger transport.
A former freight elevator designed for the dual transportation of goods and passengers, which was originally placed on the market in accordance with the now obsolete Lift Ordinance and before the 12th GPSGV came into force on July 1, 1999, and which has been converted to a pure goods-only lift, for instance due to the requirement outlined in point 2.8 of Annex 1 of the German Workplace Safety Ordinance, has been transformed into a machine without actually falling within the application scope of the EC Machine Directive as a result of the conversion. By subsequent reversal of the modifications, it cannot be simply be turned back into a freight elevator which would be authorized to carry passengers as it was previously. To this end, if required the EC Lift Directive 95/16/EG would have to be taken as a basis and under certain circumstances the Machine Directive could also conceivably be applicable if the lift were to be used as an item of operating equipment.
5/2006
