• E-Mail: [email protected] MINUTES...violation. Much of the outdated material on the old California Building Code has been cleaned up. ... • He was asked to develop some language

National Elevator Industry, Inc. ASSOCIATION HEADQUARTERS 1677 County Route 64 • P.O. Box 838 • Salem, New York 12865-0838 • 518.854.3100 Fax: 518-854-3257

CODE & SAFETY OFFICE 47 Leicester Street • Perry, New York 14530 • 585.302.0813 Fax: 585.302.0841

WWW.NEII.ORG • E-Mail: [email protected]

MINUTES

NEII CENTRAL CODE COMMITTEE

January 28-29, 2009 1. Call to Order. Chairman Louis Bialy called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. at Schlindler Elevator Corporation, 20 Whippany Road, Morristown New Jersey, recessed at 5:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 a.m. on January 29, 2009. 2. Record of Attendance.

Name Company Kyle Apperson Fujitec America Louis Bialy Otis Elevator Company Brian Black NEII Steve Grainer Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA Phillip Hampton ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation Andy Juhasz KONE, Inc. Matt Martin (part time) Schlindler Elevator Corporation David McColl Otis Elevator Company Thomas Norton (part time) Norel Services Co. Aziz Rehman Schlindler Elevator Corporation Jean Smith (part time) Schlindler Elevator Corporation

3. Announcements.

Vincent Robibero indicated he would not be in attendance at the meeting. Andy Juhasz noted that Tom Norton from Norel Service Co., a fire alarm and sprinkler company would be joining the committee on Thursday to discuss fire service elevator wiring.

Minutes – NEII Central Code Committee January 28-29, 2009

2

4. Election of Chairman. It was moved, seconded and APPROVED unanimously to elect Louis Bialy as Chairman for a term of two years. 5. Adoption of Agenda. The agenda posted on the committee website was approved. 6. Approval of October 29-30, 2008 Minutes. The minutes posted on the committee website were approved. 7. Personnel.

Please see Attachment #1 for a copy of the NEII Central Code Committee roster. Members are requested to advise Brian Black of any corrections that should be made. Kyle Apperson noted that Fujitec America has a new address in Mason, Ohio.

8. NEII CodeFinder.

(a) Status Report from Members on Company Assignments.

The committee reviewed the CodeFinder Editor Activity Report (Attachment #2).

Members are reminded the NEII Local Code Regulation Database Policy (Attachment #3) states: “CodeFinder is to be maintained up to date with current Codes and regulations. At a minimum on the 15th of January, April, July and October, the responsible company shall review and update CodeFinder local Code information.”

(b) NEII CodeFinder Open Feedback. The committee reviewed the open feedback items shown in Attachment #4. (c) NEII CodeFinder Help Update.

The committee reviewed the new CodeFinder Help developed by Edward Donoghue (Attachment #5).

(d) CodeFinder Editor Training PowerPoint.

The committee previously agreed to split the training between members, each of whom was to develop a PowerPoint segment on his assigned topic. The topics followed the “Help” feature in CodeFinder: 1. Adding jurisdictions – Vincent Robibero [Amzad Malique] 2. Adding agencies – Vincent Robibero [Amzad Malique]


3

3. Adding contacts – Phil Hampton 4. Adding codes – David McColl 5. Code modifications – David McColl 6. Update existing code modifications – Joe Busse 7. Code modifications – Hold code modifications – Andy Juhasz 8. Rollovers – Andy Juhasz 9. Feedback –Phil Hampton The committee members discussed the training provided at the CodeFinder Editors’

meeting. It was agreed to use the interactive PowerPoint developed by David Nicholas of KONE, Inc. as a template for all modules. David will post his presentations on NEII Talk for others to review and use.

(e) CodeFinder Auditing.

The committee decided to not establish a CodeFinder Auditing Team (Attachment #6). (f) CodeFinder Management Report Outline.

The committee reviewed the draft developed by Ed Donoghue (Attachment #7). It agreed that Editors should only have access to their own company’s information.

Louis Bialy discussed using 14 days as a trigger. The Board of Directors has indicated it

is not so much concerned about meeting a 14-day policy as much as not wanting to add additional resources into keeping up with this requirement.

The committee discussed revising the Metrics 1 table to delete the 14 day reference so

that it only indicates whether the information was posted before or after the effective date. Moved, seconded and APPROVED (see revised, Attachment #8).

The committee discussed the time cutoffs in Metrics 2. It decided to remove middle

columns and simply have <14 and ≥14 day columns. This is meant to alert the CCC m ember when a significant percentage of feedback responses are outstanding (e.g., over the “ATTENTION” trigger). Moved, seconded and APPROVED to make the changes, subject to review by committee members and final approval at the April meeting (see revised, Attachment #8). The CodeFinder Editors will be advised if these changes are approved and implemented.

Comm ittee members considered changing “OVERDUE” in the CodeFinder Open

Feedback Report. The committee discussed both the trigger days and the term, deciding to keep the former but change the term to “ATTENTION”.

(f) Other Issues.

The committee discussed contracting maintenance of CodeFinder with an outside entity (e.g., Stateside). A proposal to the NEII Board of Directors should be developed


4

with the assistance of Brian Black and Edward Donoghue. However, the committee agreed that this should not be an immediate project given the current economic climate.

It was also noted that serving as a CodeFinder Editor requires a certain amount of

technical expertise in the field, and that this could prove challenging to replicate with an outside contractor.

9. Use of Elevator in Fires and Other Emergencies.

(a) NEII Position.

Click on the following link to access NEII Position on the use of Elevators in Fires and Other Emergencies, http://www.neii.org/members/committees/20/.

(b) ASME A17 Emergency Operations Committee Task Groups on Use of Elevators in Fires and Other Emergencies.

David McColl indicated the Task Groups continue to meet. The 2009 IBC and NFPA 5000 now have requirements for Occupant Evacuation Elevators, and Matt Martin of Schlindler has developed a draft of changes to ASME A17.1 to coordinate with the building code requirements. He reviewed Attachment #9 with the committee, which will be provided to the A17 Occupant Evacuation TG at its next meeting. Brian Black will email it and the 2009 IBC text to committee members.

(c) February 2009 Workshop on Emergency Preparedness for Persons with Disabilities and Special Needs.

Brian Black indicated he will represent NEII at this ANSI-sponsored workshop next week in Washington, D.C..

(d) 4th Symposium on Human Behavour in Fire.

David McColl indicated he will be representing the industry at this symposium in Cambridge, England in July (Attachment #10).

(e) 2010 Symposium on the Use of Elevators in Fires. David McColl reported on the status of planning for the symposium. Numerous committee members expressed the opinion that Atlanta would be an easier venue than Charlotte for those attending from overseas locations. 10. NEII Long Range Plan for Codes and Standards.

For a copy of the current Long Range Plan for Codes and Standards, click on the following link, http://www.neii.org/members/committees/20/.


5

Louis Bialy indicated he and Vince Robibero will develop a revised Long Range Plan in line with the goals the committee currently holds.

11. Alternative Technology.

(a) ASME A17.7/CSA B44.7Adoption.

This item was addressed in the joint meeting with the Government Affairs Committee.

(b) AECOs.

Louis Bialy reported that the Lift Instituut, TUV America and Underwriters Laboratory are the three AECOs expected to come on line imminently.

12. Accessibility Issues. (a) ADA/ABA AG (ADAAG).

Brian Black reported that the US Department of Justice has withdrawn the regulatory review of the ADA Title II and Title III proposed regulations (Attachment #11). This could have an impact on the industry should ADAAG’s scoping or technical requirements be visited by the new administration.

(b) ICC/ANSI A117.1.

Brian Black reported the A117 Committee held a final meeting this month and that the 2009 edition of the standard is now being reviewed by the Editorial Committee, of which he is a member.

(c) CSA B44, Appendix E.

David McColl reported nothing new has transpired.

(d) Other. Andy Juhasz express the concern that CodeFinder may be misleading the reader regarding the fact that the ADA still applies, even in jurisdictions that have adopted ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. The committee asked Brian Black to speak with Ed Donoghue regarding placing some type of notice in CodeFinder regarding ADAAG and OSHA requirements that may supersede state or local requirements..

13. Local Elevator Code Issues.

(a) Model Elevator Law.

For a copy of the latest Elevator Law Activity File click on the following link http://www.neii.org/members/committees/20/index.cfm.


6

(b) California. The committee discussed the response from Paul Puno to its letter regarding Static Control Testing (Attachment #12).

Steve Grainer noted the state’s shunt trip requirements shown in Attachment #13. He believes they go into effect August 1, 2009. Andy Juhasz asked what happens when the shunt trip goes off during Phase I. David McColl noted the requirement speaks to shunt trip capability during Phase II, and that it’s occurring during Phase I would not be a violation.

Much of the outdated material on the old California Building Code has been cleaned up. Phil Hampton noted that he was having difficulties with reverse phase relay interpretations in the state, but that this problem appears to be getting resolved.

(c) Chicago.

This item was addressed in the joint meeting with the Government Affairs Committee. (d) Illinois

This item was addressed in the joint meeting with the Government Affairs Committee. (e) Pennsylvania.

Louis Bialy asked whether any of the companies have had difficulty in the Commonwealth lately. No incidences were reported by committee members.

14. ASME QEI.

Louis Bialy reported on three items:

• The QEI requirement that inspectors have copies of the Field Employee Safety Handbook was sustained in an appeal by Lawrence Taylor of Texas. Interestingly, Mr. Taylor attempted (unsuccessfully) to have all industry committee members disqualified from the hearing as having a conflict of interest;

• A new certifying organization, QEI Services, Inc. was approved by the committee; and • He was asked to develop some language (along with Jim Coaker and Norm Martin) to

address the PBC in QEI. 15. Seismic Activities.

Louis Bialy introduced Jean Smith of Schlindler Elevator Corporation to the committee.


7

(a) Seismic Task Group Report.

Jean Smith reported on TN 06-1007 (see Attachment #14 and Attachment #15) which would rewrite all of Section 8.4 of ASME A17.1/CSA B44, incorporating the seismic provisions of the current editions of IBC and NBCC as well as the older editions that use seismic zones. She also explained the proposed appendix that will serve as a white paper to describe the rationale for the code changes and additional appendices that provide example of how to use the new rules. Jean also addressed the draft seismic certification requirements from the State of California (Attachment #16). Certification has been required in the IBC since 2000 for nonstructural components not deemed “rugged” by subjecting them to additional tests (e.g., a shake table test). California has brought this issue to the surface, issuing a code compliance notice in June 2008. Our Task Group participants are working with a consultant to clarify the requirements indicated in the draft. We are also pushing for consistent application of the requirements in different regions in the state. Andy Juhasz requested that any documents generated in response to California be reviewed by this committee before release. Jean Smith stated they are looking for a grace period in which to work with the state to resolve some of the problem areas.

Regarding Task Group participation, Steve Grainer indicated he will check with his company to see if anyone would be available to serve on the task group.

(b) ASME A17, BSSC and ASCE 7.

16. Electrical Codes.

(a) National Electrical Code®.

Andy Juhasz reported on actions taken at the NFPA 70 ROP meeting earlier in the month.

(b) Canadian Electrical Code.

David McColl reported the 2009 edition is imminent. There are no changes in Section 38 (elevator section). The numbering issue reported at previous meetings was withdrawn. This will allow for action to harmonize with NFPA 70 as the next project.

17. Building Code Activities.

(a) ICC.

Brian Black reported that the cutoff date for the next code change cycle is April 24, 2009.


8

(b) NFPA 101/5000.

Brian Black reported that the Technical Committee ROP Meetings are scheduled for December 7-11, 2009 (Attachment #17).

(c) National Building Code of Canada.

David McColl indicated the NRC is working on a 2010 edition. David has proposed harmonizing the car fire ratings with the ASME A17.1 jurisdictions not enforcing the NBCC (requiring 75 for all cars instead of the 25/150 split currently in place).

18. ISO Activities.

Louis Bialy noted the meetings convened last fall. He indicated everything the US asked for was approved. However, a problem resulted when CEN decided to write its own standards for PES and EMC, even after ISO has written these standards (the US standards are virtually the same as ISO). One disappointing development was that while an energy measurement standard was developed for ballot, at the end it was voted down by one vote. NEII should develop a position on this at the next CCC meeting in April. Joseph Busse and Barry Blackaby will be invited to this meeting to review the relevant Performance Standards Committee proposal.

19. Codes and Standards Document Library.

Brian Black reminded the committee members to use and update the library as a resource.

20. NEII Area Code Committees. (a) Vacancies: NEII Area Code Committee Personnel.

The committee noted a number of changes to be made to the list of vacancies (Attachment #18). Brian Black will check with Edward Donoghue to make sure list is up to date and send a revised table to committee members.

David McColl asked whether the 30-day ARMS notices be switched to 90-days or greater. The consensus is that ACCs are important and valuable, and Louis Bialy suggested the work of CCC members would be more difficult without ACC members. Making the system more efficient will be a topic for a future agenda item.

(b) Area Code Committee Chairs. Brian Black will check with Edward Donoghue to make sure list is up to date and send a revised table to committee members.


9

21. ASME A18 Committee.

Brian Black reported the committee met in Los Angeles this month and that Gary Nuschler continues to track issues related to the A18 standard.

22. NEII NOW Articles.

Brian Black and Andy Juhasz will write an article on CodeFinder on overlying federal regulations (ADAAG, OSHA) for the next edition of NEII Now. Jean Smith will write an article on the Seismic TG for the edition after that. Louis Bialy will write an article on the launching of AECOs when this occurs.

23. ASME A17 Outside Emergency Elevators Committee.

This item was addressed at the joint CCC/GAC meeting.

24. ASME A17 Maintenance Code Issues.

David McColl reported on ASME A17.1a/CSA B44a, Section 8.6 and the new provisions for testing in this section. Because the TR to do this took so long, it was not based on the 2007 code. CSA B44 and ASME A17.1 were harmonized in 2007 and, as a result, the following sentences were lost from Section 8.6.1: “Requirements 8.6.1 through 8.6.10 apply in jurisdictions not enforcing NBCC. Requirement 8.6.12 applies in jurisdictions enforcing NBCC.” (This will be corrected in the next addenda.) We believe this should be treated as an erratum, and David will pursue this with Geraldine Burdeshaw.

25. International Mutual Recognition Agreements and Meeting with European Lift

Association. The Global Elevator Industry Commitment to Global Technical Barrier-Free Trade is located on

the committee website at http://www.neii.org/members/committees/20/.

There was no report. 26. NEII/PALEA/JEA (PAPEA) Meeting. Louis Bialy reported on the Kyoto meeting in November 2008. The most important issue

addressed by the Japanese was their attempt to have their building code include more prescriptive language (based in large part on EN 81).

The next meeting was originally scheduled for October 2009 in New York City, but is now being

considered for February 24-25, 2010 to be held in conjunction with the Elevators & Fire Symposium.


10

27. ASME/NEII Liaison. Louis Bialy had a meeting with ASME staff who agreed to assist us with the PBC project. They are also providing staff support for the Suspension Means TG. 28. Local Code Interpretations Policy.

The suggestion that the Model Elevator Law mandate acceptance of interpretations issued by ASME, ICC, etc. (Attachment #19) was reviewed in the joint meeting with the Government Affairs Committee in which the committees determined the MEL is not the appropriate means to accomplish this objective. Regarding the proposal in Attachment #20, the committee discussed the advantages and disadvantaged at length, and decided to hold this item until the next meeting when Vince Robibero can join the discussion.

29. CSA Technical Information Letters (TIL).

Brian Black reported that he has not received a reply to our recent letter (Attachment #21 and Attachment #22).

30. NEII Code Record Archive.

Brian Black reminded the committee that the following historical and current records are still being sought for the NEII Code Record Archives (NEII CRA):

• ASME A17 Mechanical Design Committee – assigned to Lou Bialy; • ASME A17 Escalator and Moving Walk Committee –assigned to Kyle Apperson; and • ASME A17 Hydraulic Committee –assigned to Harry Simpkins/Phil Hampton.

Aziz Rehman will talk to George Kappenhagen regarding Hydraulic.

31. Inspection Committee and ASME A17.2 Inspection Guide.

Andy Juhasz discussed his attempt to clean up the electrical inspection requirements of A17.2. He expressed some concern that the Inspections Committee may be trying to take control of this issue and the result could be to keep adding requirements and short-change the electrical inspections. He suggested committee members raise this issue with any members of the Inspectors Committee in their respective companies. David McColl suggested this issue be addressed as a joint NEII/NAESAi project. Louis Bialy also suggested that Mark Tevyaw, Al Griffin (via teleconference) and Barry Blackaby be invited to the next Central Code Committee meeting in Mississauga to discuss this matter further. Brian Black will set up the time and logistics for the meeting.


11

32. Liaison Committee Reports.

(a) NEII Performance Standards Committee.

Brian Black reported the next meeting will be April 1 in Mobile, Alabama.

(b) NEII Architectural Standards Committee.

Brian Black reported the next meeting will be March 31 in Mobile, Alabama.

(c) NEII Safety Committee.

Brian Black reported the next meeting will be February 18-19 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

33. Other Business. (a) Fire Service Elevator Wiring.

Andy Juhasz introduced Tom Norton of Norel Service Co. to discuss the NFPA 70 proposal regarding fire service elevator wiring (see Attachment #23). The issue focuses on whether the requirements should be in NFPA 70 or NFPA 72 as the latter is not adopted in as many jurisdictions as the former.

Mr. Norton estimates that 40-50% of the fire alarm panels we be replaced in the next 10 years, providing an opportunity to increase the safety of the systems should NFPA 70 and 72 be amended in a way that is agreeable to the elevator industry. At issue is not only whether these provisions be in NFPA 70, but whether the 3-foot rule should apply to elevator equipment. Andy Juhasz noted that one of the basic issues is whether this is appropriate for NFPA 70, which historically addresses risk of fire and shock. This was a main concern at last week’s meeting for the NEC. He also clarified that these new rules, if adopted, would not apply retroactively but only to new installations or replacements of alarm panels. David McColl noted that ASME A17.1 requires compliance with ASME 72, so the latter is effective even in jurisdictions that do not adopt that code directly. Tom Norton responded that while that is true, inspection is problematic in non-NFPA 72 jurisdictions. Having the requirement in NFPA 70 increases the probability that an electrical inspector will look at the system. The committee discussed developing a task group to draft a recommendation for consideration by Norton, et al some time in March 2009. Andy Juhasz will lead the group, with Matt Martin, Doug Henderson and Joseph Busse as members. The language is due to Central Code Committee members by March 6, 2009.


12

(b) ASME A17 MCP Task Group.

The committee reviewed the information provided by Vince Robibero in his January 23, 2009 email (Attachment #24). It also reviewed the draft TN 08-1348 (Attachment #25). The committee briefly discussed the material and agreed to comment on it in the next two weeks on NEII Talk. The committee also agreed there is not yet a NEII or industry “position”, but that it will explore this further at its April meeting.

34. Time and Place for Future Meetings.

A joint meeting of the NEII Central Code and NEII Government Affairs Committees is scheduled for April 28, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. in Mississauga, Ontario. A meeting of the NEII Central Code Committee meeting is scheduled for April 29-30 2009 to begin at 8:30 a.m. in Mississauga, Ontario. A meeting of the NEII Central Code Committee meeting is scheduled for July29-30 2009 in Mason, Ohio.

35. Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned January 29 at 2:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Brian Black NEII Code and Safety Consultant


13

Attachments: 1. Committee Roster 2. CodeFinder Editor Activity Report 3. CodeFinder Database Procedure 4. CodeFinder Open Feedback 5. CodeFinder Help Update 6. CodeFinder Editor Audit Report Outline 7. CodeFinder Management Report Outline 8. Revised CodeFinder Management Report Outline 9. ASME A17 Occupant Evacuation Elevator proposals 10. Human Behavours in Fire Symposium 11. Department of Justice ADA announcement 12. Letter to Al Tafazoli 13. California shunt trip requirements 14. TN 06-1007 15. Seismic Certification Matrix 16. California seismic requirements 17. NFPA 101/5000 schedule 18. ACC vacancies 19. MEL Local Interpretation proposal 20. Robibero local interpretation proposal 21. CSA letter 22. Response to CSA 23. Fire service wiring proposal 24. Robibero MCP email 25. Draft TN 08-1348

Central Code Committee

Name KYLE APPERSON

Title R & D MANAGER

Company FUJITEC AMERICA, INC.

Address 7258 INNOVATION WAY

City MASON State OH Zip Code 45040

E-Mail [email protected]

666

Notes

MemberCategory

Phone 1 932-8000 Extension

Phone 2

Fax 1 933-5582Mobile 276-5680

513Area Number Area Number

513513

Name LOUIS BIALY

Title DIRECTOR WORLDWIDE CODES & STANDARDS

Company OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY

Address 5 FARM SPRINGS ROAD

City FARMINGTON State CT Zip Code 06032-


56

Notes Alternate member NEII Standards Committee for ISO activities.

ChairCategory


Phone 2 651-8335

Fax 1 676-6865Mobile 839-0961


860860860

Name BRIAN BLACK

Title NEII CODE AND SAFETY CONSULTANT

Company BDBLACK CODES

Address 47 LEICESTER STREET

City PERRY State NY Zip Code 14530


725

Notes

SecretaryCategory


Phone 2 237-5965

Fax 1

Mobile 354-6772585Area Number Area Number

585 585

Friday, March 06, 2009 Page 1 of 4ATTACHMENT #1 Page 1 of 4


Name JOSEPH BUSSE

Title DIR. OF TECH. SERVICES CHIEF ENGINEER R & D

Company FUJITEC AMERICA, INC.

Address 7258 INNOVATION WAY

City MASON State OH Zip Code 45040


300

Notes

AlternateCategory


Phone 2

Fax 1 933-5582Mobile 739-0802


513513

203

Name STEVE GRAINER

Title SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER

Company MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA, INC.

Address 5665 PLAZA DRIVE, PO BOX 6077

City CYPRESS State CA Zip Code 90630-0007


461

Notes

MemberCategory


Phone 2 220-4800

Fax 1 220-4812Mobile 448-5796


714714714

Name PHILLIP HAMPTON

Title CHIEF ENGINEER

Company THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION

Address 9280 CRESTWYN HILLS DRIVE

City MEMPHIS State TN Zip Code 38125


623

Notes

MemberCategory


Phone 2

Fax 1 860-2598Mobile 210-9275


901901



Name DOUG HENDERSON

Title ENGINEER

Company THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION

Address P. O. BOX 370

City MIDDLETON State TN Zip Code 38052


624

Notes

AlternateCategory


Phone 2

Fax 1 376-1913Mobile 652-3649


731901

Name ANDREW JUHASZ

Title MANAGER, CODES & STANDARDS

Company KONE INC.

Address ONE KONE COURT

City MOLINE State IL Zip Code 61265-


111

Notes

MemberCategory


Phone 2 743-5525

Fax 1 743-5530Mobile


3093095525

Name DAVID MCCOLL

Title MANAGER, CODES & STANDARDS

Company OTIS CANADA INC.

Address 1655 THE QUEENSWAY EAST

City MISSISSAUGA State ON Zip Code L4X 2Z5


272

Notes

AlternateCategory


Phone 2 276-5577

Fax 1 660-9874Mobile 500-3919


905860416



Name VINCENT P. ROBIBERO

Title NORTH AMERICAN CODE CONSULTANT

Company SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION

Address P. O. BOX 1935

City MORRISTOWN State NJ Zip Code 07962-1935


53

Notes

MemberCategory


Phone 2

Fax 1 397-6141Mobile 216-8030


973973


Editor: Amzad MaliqueState: WestVirginia

Jurisdiction: State ofWest Virginia

Code Type:ElevatorNew

Code Eff/As Of Added Added by Req # Req Eff Added

ASME A17.1/CSA B44Edition: 2007

04/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date

11/11/2008 Amzad MaliqueSchindler Elevator [email protected]

Comments:

Editor: W. J. (Bill)Morrison

State: ColoradoJurisdiction: City ofDenver

Code Type:Building


ICC International BuildingCodeEdition: 2006

07/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date

10/28/2008 W. J. (Bill) MorrisonThyssenKrupp Elevator [email protected]

Comments:http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/114/documents/DBC%208%208%2008.pdf statuteshttp://www.denvergov.org/2008Amendments/tabid/427532/Default.aspx main page



Code Type:Electrical


NEC − NEC / NFPAEdition: 2008

07/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date

10/28/2008 W. J. (Bill) MorrisonThyssenKrupp Elevator [email protected]

Comments:http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/114/documents/DBC%208%208%2008.pdf statuteshttp://www.denvergov.org/2008Amendments/tabid/427532/Default.aspx main page





ASME A17.1Edition: 2004 &1a−05&1S−05

08/08/2008

BuildingPermit Date

10/23/2008 W. J. (Bill) MorrisonThyssenKrupp [email protected]

Colorado −DenverElevator

08/08/200810/23/2008

Comments:2008 Denver Building Code &Amendments The following are the Denver Amendments to the2006 International Building Code: The Building Code for the City and County of Denver is basedon the 2006 Series of I − Codes, and 2008 National Electrical CodeCHAPTER 30 ELEVATORSAND CONVEYING SYSTEMS SECTION 3001 GENERAL Section 3001.2 Referencedstandards is amended by adding the following: ASME A 17.1 A−2004 addenda and A17.1SSupplement Safety Code for Elevators and escalators.


State: ColoradoJurisdiction: State ofColorado

Code Type:Building



01/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date


NEII CodeFinder Editor Report CodeFinder Editor Activity Report

Copyright 2009 NEII, Salem, NY Distribution outside All prohibited 1ATTACHMENT #2 Page 1 of 10

mailto:[email protected]





Comments:Exhibit A Rev. 7/2008 APPROVED STATE BUILDING CODES The following approvedbuilding codes and standards have been adopted by State Buildings Programs (SBP) as theminimum requirements to be applied to all state−owned buildings and physical facilities includingcapital construction and controlled maintenance construction projects. The 2006 edition of theInternational Building Code (IBC) (as adopted by the Colorado State Buildings Program asfollows: Chapters 2−35 and Appendices C and I) The 2006 edition of the International MechanicalCode (IMC) (as adopted by the Colorado State Buildings Program as follows: Chapters 2−15 andAppendix A) The 2006 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (as adoptedby the Colorado State Buildings Program) The 2008 edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC)(National Fire Protection Association Standard 70) (as adopted by the Colorado State ElectricalBoard) The 2006 edition of the International Plumbing Code (IPC) (as adopted by the ColoradoExamining Board of Plumbers as follows: Chapter 1 Section 101.2,102, Chapters 2−13 andAppendices B, D, E, F and G) The 2006 edition of the International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) (asadopted by the Colorado Examining Board of Plumbers as follows: Chapter 1 Section 101,102,Chapters 2−8 and Appendices A, B, C and D) The National Fire Protection Association Standards(NFPA) (as adopted by the Department of Public Safety/Division of Fire Safety as follows witheditions shown in parentheses: NFPA−1 (2006), 11 (2005), 12 (2005), 12A (2004), 13 (2002),13D (2002), 13R (2002), 14 (2003), 15 (2001), 16 (2003), 17 (2002), 17A (2002), 20 (2003), 22(2003), 24 (2002), 25 (2002), 72 (2002), 409 (2004), 423 (2004), 750 (2003) and 2001 (2004))The 2004 edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (as adopted by the Department ofLabor and Employment/Boiler Inspection Section as follows: sections I, IV, VIII−Divisions 1 and2 and 3, X and B31.1) The 2004 edition of the National Boiler Inspection Code (NBIC) (asadopted by the Department of Labor and Employment/Boiler Inspection Section) The 2004 editionof the Controls and Safety Devices for Automatically Fired Boilers CSD−1 (as adopted by theDepartment of Labor and Employment/Boiler Inspection Section) The 2004 edition of the Boilerand Combustion Systems Hazards Code, NFPA 85 (as adopted by the Department of Labor andEmployment/Boiler Inspection Section) The 2007 edition of ASME A17.1 Safety Code forElevators and Escalators (as adopted by the Department of Labor and Employment/ConveyanceSection and as amended by ASME International) The 2005 edition of ASME A17.3 Safety Codefor Existing Elevators and Escalators (as adopted by the Department of Labor andEmployment/Conveyance Section and as amended by ASME International) The 2005 edition ofASME A18.1 Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts



Code Type:ElevatorExisting


ASME A17.3Edition: 2005

01/02/2008

BuildingPermit Date


Chapter 333,Title 9, article5.5−101thru120

01/02/200810/28/2008

Comments:



Code Type:Mechanical


IMCEdition: 2006

01/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date


Comments:

Editor: David Nicholas State: Wisconsin Jurisdiction: State of Code Type:Electrical





Wisconsin


NFPA 70 National ElectricalCodeEdition: 2008

02/01/2009

PlanApprovalDate

01/06/2009 David NicholasKONE [email protected]

620.25

02/01/2009

01/06/2009

620.21(A)(1) 02/01/200901/06/2009

Comments:

Editor: David Nicholas State: WisconsinJurisdiction: State ofWisconsin




01/01/2009

ContractAward Date

01/06/2009 David NicholasKONE [email protected]

1.1.101/01/2009

01/07/2009

1.1.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

1.1.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

1.1.4 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

1.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

1.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.7.2.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.7.3.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.7.3.4.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.7.3.4.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.7.5.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.7.9.2 01/01/2009 01/08/2009

2.8.2.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.10.1 01/01/2009 01/08/2009

2.10.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.12.6.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.16.1.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.17.14 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.18.9 01/01/2009 01/06/2009





2.26.4.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.27.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

2.27.3.2.1 01/01/2009 01/08/2009

2.27.3.2.3 01/01/2009 01/09/2009

2.27.3.2.4 01/01/2009 01/09/2009

2.27.4.2 01/01/2009 01/09/2009

2.27.8 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

3.4.7 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

3.18.3.8.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

3.26.3.1.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.6.1.6.5 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.6.10 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.6.5.7 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.6.5.8 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.7.2.13 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.7.2.17.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.7.2.28 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.7.3.22.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.7.3.31.8 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.9 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.10.1.1.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.10.1.1.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.10.1.1.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.1.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.1.1.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.1.1.2 01/06/2009



01/01/2009

8.11.1.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.1.4 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.2.2.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.2.2.2(b) 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.2.2.7 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.2.3.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.2.3.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.2.3.4 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.2.3.5 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.3.2.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.3.2.2 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.3.2.3 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

8.11.3.3.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

9.1 01/01/2009 01/06/2009

Comments:

Editor: JoAnne Stokes State: VirginiaJurisdiction: State ofVirginia

Code Type:Accessibility


ANSI A117.1Accessible/Usable BuildingsEdition: 2003

05/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date

11/07/2008 JoAnne StokesFujitec America [email protected]

Comments:Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) adopts ANSI A117.1 2003 as referenced by2006 IBC.


Code Type:Building



05/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date


103.205/01/2008

11/25/2008

1007.4 05/01/2008 11/07/2008

3002.4 05/01/2008 11/07/2008





3006.7 05/01/2008 11/07/2008

Comments:Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) references the 2006 ICC codes and theirreferenced standards. The Virginia Construction Code (USBS Part 1) adopts Chapters 2−35 of the2006 International Building Code. Chapter 1 and other Virginia amendments contained in USBCPart I supercede any conflicting provisions of IBC Chapters 2−35. See grace period described inReq. 103.2.





05/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date


Comments:Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) adopts NFPA 70 National Electrical Code2005.




ASME A17.1Edition: 2004 &1a−05&1S−05

05/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date


Comments:Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) adopts ASME A17.1−04, A17.1a−2005addenda, A17.1S Supplement 2005 as referenced by 2006 IBC. VA Construction Code (USBCPart 1) Req. 103.2 describes grace period: 103.2 When applicable to new construction.Construction for which a permit application is submitted to the local building department afterMay 1, 2008, shall comply with the provisions of this code, except for permit applicationssubmitted during a one−year period after May 1, 2008. The applicant for a permit during suchone−year period shall be permitted to choose whether to comply with the provisions of this codeor the provisions of the code in effect immediately prior to May 1, 2008. This provision shall alsoapply to subsequent amendments to this code based on the effective date of such amendments. Inaddition, when a permit has been properly issued under a previous edition of this code, this codeshall not require changes to the approved construction documents, design or construction of such abuilding or structure, provided the permit has not been suspended or revoked.

Editor: SandraAnderson

State: OregonJurisdiction: State ofOregon

Code Type:Building



04/01/2007

BuildingPermit Date

12/02/2008 Sandra AndersonOtis Elevator [email protected]

3001.204/01/2007

12/02/2008

Comments:The 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code is the 2006 Edition of the International Building Codeand amended by the Building Codes Division.


State: OregonJurisdiction: State ofOregon









04/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date


Comments:Oregon Electrical Specialty Code is based on NEC 2008.


State: RhodeIsland

Jurisdiction: State ofRhode Island

Code Type:Building



08/01/2007

Unknown


3001.108/01/2007

11/11/2008

3001.1.1 08/01/2007 11/11/2008

3001.2 08/01/2007 11/11/2008

Comments:No state building inspector, local municipality inspectors only. 39 minicipalities. Rhode IslandState Building Code is Regulation SBC−1−2007, with amendments effective January 1, 2006


State: RhodeIsland





08/01/2008

BuildingPermit Date


Comments:Known as Rhode Island State Electrical Code − SBC−5, 2008.


State: RhodeIsland


Code Type:ElevatorExisting


ASME A17.3Edition: 2005

03/31/2006

FinalAcceptanceDate


2.2

01/14/2008

11/25/2008

2.3 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.4 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.5 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.6 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.7 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.8 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.9 01/14/2008 11/17/2008







2.1 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.10 01/14/2008 11/25/2008

2.11 01/14/2008 11/25/2008

2.12 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.13 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.14 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.15 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.16 01/14/2008 11/25/2008

2.17 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.18 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.19 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.20 01/14/2008 11/25/2008

2.21 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.22 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.23 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.24 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.25 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.26 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.27 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.28 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.29 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.30 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.31 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.32 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.33 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.34 01/14/2008 11/17/2008



2.35 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.36 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.37 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.38 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.39 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.40 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.41 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.42 03/31/2006 11/17/2008

2.43 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.44 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.45 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.46 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.47 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.49 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

2.50 01/14/2008 11/17/2008

Comments:Rhode Island autoadopts per Title 23, Health and Safety, Chapter 23−33, Section 23−33−2.


State: RhodeIsland





10/06/2007

FinalAcceptanceDate


2101.10a

01/14/2008

11/13/2008

303.4(a) 01/14/200811/13/2008

2100.10a 01/14/2008 11/13/2008

2102.10a 01/14/2008 11/13/2008

Rule 1.0Revision (g)

01/14/2008 12/01/2008

Rule 1.0 01/14/2008 11/13/2008

Rule 2.1Definitions

01/14/2008 12/01/2008




Rule 2000.10a 01/14/2008 11/14/2008

Rule 2001.10a 01/14/2008 11/14/2008

Rule 2002.10a 01/14/2008 11/14/2008

Note Rule 1.0 01/14/2008 11/13/2008

Note: Rule 1.0Addition

01/14/2008 11/13/2008

Note: Title 23Health &Safety

01/14/2008 11/13/2008

Comments:Rhode Island autoadopts per Title 23, Chapter 23−33, Section 23−33−2

Agencies/Contacts with no Codes/Modifications

Committed: UnCommitted: Pending:



1.0 Purpose and Objective:

1.1 This document establishes procedures as required by the National Elevator Industry Inc. Local Code Regulations Database Policy (hereinafter called “NEII CodeFinder Policy”) to ensure an accurate and up-to-date NEII Local Code Regulations Database (hereinafter called “CodeFinder”) of all pertinent Codes.

1.2 At this time Rack and Pinion Elevators, Screw-Column Elevators, Hand Elevators, Inclined Elevators, Limited-Use/Limited-Application Elevators, Private Residence Elevators, Private Residence Inclined Elevators, Power Sidewalk Elevators, Rooftop Elevators, Special Purpose Personnel Elevators, Shipboard Elevators, Mine Elevators, Elevators Used for Construction, Dumbwaiters, Material Lifts, Platform Lifts and Stairway Chair Lifts shall not be included in CodeFinder.

2.0 Responsibilities:

2.1 Allocations of Responsibilities:

The Central Code Committee established the following allocations of responsibilities for establishing and maintaining CodeFinder by representative companies.

COMPANY ASSIGNMENTS

State / Province Company UNITED STATES

Alabama ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Alaska ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Arizona Schindler Elevator Corp. Arkansas ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. California Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Colorado ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Connecticut Otis Elevator Company Delaware Fujitec America, Inc. District of Columbia Fujitec America, Inc. Florida Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Georgia Fujitec America, Inc. Hawaii Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Idaho Schindler Elevator Corp. Illinois KONE Inc. Indiana Otis Elevator Company Iowa KONE Inc. Kansas ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Kentucky Fujitec America, Inc. Louisiana ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Maine Otis Elevator Company Maryland Fujitec America, Inc. Massachusetts Otis Elevator Company

ATTACHMENT #3 Page 1 of 6

COMPANY ASSIGNMENTS State / Province Company

Michigan ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Minnesota ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Mississippi Schindler Elevator Corp. Missouri ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Montana KONE Inc. Nebraska KONE Inc. Nevada Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. New Hampshire ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. New Jersey Schindler Elevator Corp. New Mexico Schindler Elevator Corp. New York Schindler Elevator Corp. North Carolina Schindler Elevator Corp. North Dakota KONE Inc. Ohio Fujitec America, Inc. Oklahoma KONE Inc. Oregon Otis Elevator Company Pennsylvania Schindler Elevator Corp. Rhode Island Otis Elevator Company Puerto Rico Schindler Elevator Corp. South Carolina Otis Elevator Company South Dakota KONE Inc. Tennessee ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Texas KONE Inc. Utah ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. Vermont Fujitec America, Inc. Virginia Fujitec America, Inc. Washington Fujitec America, Inc. West Virginia Schindler Elevator Corp. Wisconsin KONE Inc. Wyoming KONE Inc.

CANADA Alberta Fujitec America, Inc. British Columbia Otis Elevator Company Manitoba KONE Inc. New Brunswick Schindler Elevator Corp. Newfoundland Otis Elevator Company Northwest Territories Nunavut and Yukon

Otis Elevator Company

Nova Scotia Otis Elevator Company Ontario Otis Elevator Company Prince Edward Island Otis Elevator Company Quebec Schindler Elevator Corp. Saskatchewan KONE Inc.


2.2 Company Responsibility:

2.2.1 It is the responsibility of the assigned company to obtain and document in accordance with this procedure information for assigned jurisdictions including their local Code variations and interpretations. This information is to be recorded in CodeFinder in a timely manner. Only substantive deviations from the requirements in the Model Code shall be entered into CodeFinder. Editorial deviations from the Model Code should not be included in CodeFinder, e.g. wording revised but requirement the same.

2.2.2 Requirements in local codes that impact the industry shall also be included. 2.2.3 Local code information shall be included only when it differs from the state code or

effective date is different. Add following to comment field when state has modifications “See state (insert code title) Code for modifications”

2.2.4 Each company to assign one CodeFinder Editor to follow-up on feedback forms. Once

the issue is resolved, NEII Code and Safety Consultant to be advised.

3.0 CodeFinder Revisions:

CodeFinder is to be maintained up to date with current Codes and regulations. At a minimum on the 15th of January, April, July and October, the responsible company shall review and update CodeFinder from local Code information. The update will include the data specified in Appendix A of the NEII CodeFinder Policy.

3.1 Revision Methodology:

3.1.1 The latest edition and addenda and/or supplement shall be indicated as the referenced Model Code in CodeFinder. The effective date is the date the AHJ begins to enforce the applicable Code. 3.1.2 The following method of revision shall be used for CodeFinder: 3.1.2.1 All text shall be Arial 10 (CodeFinder editor “Arial small”). Red Underline text shall be used for all additions and Blue Strikeout text for all deletions to the Model Code text. Text for “Other Codes” and a non-model code shall be black and not underlined. 3.2.2.1 The number recorded in the REQUIREMENT field shall be the actual requirement number for the affected text. In Example 1 the requirement numbers for the two entries are 2.27.1.1 and 2.27.1.2. In Example 2 the requirement number for the single entry is 2.27.1.1(g).

EXAMPLE 1: Where a Section, Rule or a Requirement is modified, each Requirement shall be entered into CodeFinder; e.g. Section 2.27


Requirement 2.27.1 Requirement 2.27.1.1 –Local modifications are made to this requirement. Only the text of this requirement shall be shown with the modifications. Requirement 2.27.1.2 – Where this local requirement does not appear in the Model Code, it is a new requirement. Only the text of this added requirement shall be shown

EXAMPLE 2: Where a new subparagraph is added to an existing Section, Rule or Requirement, the text of the affected Requirement subparagraph shall be entered into CodeFinder, e.g. Section 2.27

Requirement 2.27.1 Requirement 2.27.1.1(g) –A new local subparagraph (g) is added. The entire text of 2.27.1.1(g) shall be shown. The following text shall be inserted in the COMMENT field “This requirement has been added”.

3.1.3 Where a local Code requirement number exists that number shall precede the text of the modification.

3.1.4 Do not add text in requirement number field. The requirement number field should

contain only the model code section/requirement/rule number. The number must be entered exactly as shown in the referenced model code. When their is no requirement number insert the term “NOTE”

3.2 Agency Field: 3.2.1 Where there is no responsible agency for enforcement of an adopted model code, enter

“NO AGENCY IDENTIFIED” in the agency name field and “NA” in all other fields.

3.3 Comment Field: 3.3.1 If a modification was added by error or is revised due to an intermediate revision by the AHJ it shall be deleted from the modification field and shown in the COMMENT field as struck out text to advise the user of CodeFinder that a revision has been made to the entry. 3.3.2 Published local Code interpretations, director rulings, etc. shall be included in the COMMENT field.

3.3.3 The comment field should include the term(s), “Added”, “Modified”, “Deleted”, and/or

“Reference” at a minimum.

3.3.4 Where an existing Section, Rule or Requirement is deleted the following text shall be inserted in the COMMENT field for each deleted Requirement “This requirement has been deleted”. In this instance the CodeFinder Editor shall not show the struck out text for the requirement.


EXAMPLE 3: Where an entire Section is deleted each Requirement number shall be entered in CodeFinder. In this instance the CodeFinder Editor shall not show the struck out text for the requirement, e.g. Section 2.27

Requirement 2.27.1 - Where the Section has been deleted add the following to the COMMENT field “This requirement has been deleted”. Requirement 2.27.2 - Where the Section has been deleted add the following to the COMMENT field “This requirement has been deleted”.

3.3.5 Where ASME A17.7/CSA B44.7 is adopted either directly or by reference from ASME A17.1/CSA B44 or other model code, one of the following statements shall be inserted in the COMMENT field:

• “Adopted by legislation/regulation”; or • “Adopted by reference from model code.” Substitute ASME A17.1/CSA B44, etc. for

the term “model code”.

3.3.5.1 Where the code is adopted by reference, the CodeFinder Editor is to verify with the AHJ that they will accept equipment conforming to ASME A17.7/CSA B44.7. If the AHJ indicates equipment conforming to ASME A17.7/CSA B44.7 will not be accepted this information is to be recorded in the COMMENTs field along with the statement required by 3.3.5.

4.0 General:

4.1 Every effort shall be made to attach, or hyper-link to, a copy of the law or regulation (source document) adopted by the AHJ or attach some form of official verification that the regulation has been adopted. Where written documentation is not available the CodeFinder Editor shall document the form of verification in the COMMENT field.

4.2 Local letters of interpretation, directors ruling, etc. shall be appended to the modification to which they apply. 4.3 General documents pertaining to local regulations (e.g. permitting, licensing, enforcement, etc.) shall be appended to the “Edit Code Modification Record”. 4.4 When an effective date is not available, insert record added date, select “Other” for “As Of” insert “Date Record Entered - Effective Date Unknown”.

5.0 NEII Local Code Database Metrics:

5.1 The following shall be tracked by the Central Code Committee:

(a) days between CodeFinder commit date and Code effective date; and (b) revisions to modification records in CodeFinder after commit date.


6.0 Auditing:

6.1 Immediately after adding or revising data the CodeFinder Editor shall generate a user report to verify the added or revised data is included in the report. If the report is not correct the CodeFinder Editor is to advise the developer, NEII Administrator and NEII Code and Safety Consultant of any discrepancies.

APPROVED: NEII Central Code Committee, 30-Aug-08 c:\my documents\wpdocs\neii\neii codefinder\neii codefinder procedures.doc


Created State Jurisdiction Code Type Code Agency Contact Req #AgenciesContacts

Codes2008-11-12

Kentucky State of Kentucky Elevator New ASME A17.1200407/06/2007

Department of Housing,Buildings andConstruction

Feedback Issue: Open: 58 days From: Amzad MaliqueEmail: [email protected]: Schindler Elevator CorporationPhone: 973-397-6289 extension:There is an issue with the following Code: ASME A17.1 in State: Kentucky Jurisdiction: State of Kentucky Code Type:Elevator New Edition: 2004

This is an email we recieved from KY acting cheif inspector George Tackorchick. I hope you dont mind that I left thefeedback here, but thought it would be simpler then opening up a feedback for each amendment. Can you please let meknow if you get any official documentation showing these changes. Thanks. Amzad Upon subsequent testing andinvestigation of the following rules which were initially not adopted, I have concluded that from a safety standpoint they areacceptable as long as they are in compliance with A17.1 2004 edition. 2.19.3..29(a)(3)--rope gripper 2.27.3.3.7--firefighter's service behind a locked cover 3.26.10--battery lowering--Variance letter required and letter will beposted in machine room after testing In addition the governor (hoistway)access opening shall not be required if thegovernor can be inspected and serviced from the car top or an adjacent car, means are furnished to prevent movement ofthe car when servicing the governor, and the governor can be reset automatically when the car is moved in the updirection. If you have any questions or concerns, please call 502-330-3889. Respectfully, George Tokarchick ActingChief Elevator Inspector

2008-11-24 Washington Seattle Building

ICC InternationalBuilding Code200308/15/2004

Department of Planningand Development

Feedback Issue: Open: 46 days From: Amzad MaliqueEmail: [email protected]: Schindler Elevator CorporationPhone: 973-397-6289 extension:There is an issue with the following Code: ICC International Building Code in State: Washington Jurisdiction: Seattle CodeType: Building Edition: 2003

Seattle has adopted IBC 2006 and also A17.1 2005a according to the attachment.

2008-11-25 Washington Seattle Elevator New

ASME A17.12000 thru 1b-0308/15/2004

Department of Planningand Development,Elevator Section

Feedback Issue: Open: 45 days

CodeFinder Open Feedback

Click on these Icons to view or close the entire Feedback Issue. Indicates Feedback Issue has been open for more than twoweeks.

NEII CodeFinder Editor Admin Area http://www.neii.org/members/CodeEditor/IndexFB.cfm

1 of 2 1/9/2009 10:14 AM


From: Amzad MaliqueEmail: [email protected]: Schindler Elevator CorporationPhone: 973-397-6289 extension:There is an issue with the following Code: ASME A17.1 in State: Washington Jurisdiction: Seattle Code Type: ElevatorNew Edition: 2000 thru 1b-03

I Tried sending this yesterday, my computer kicked me off so wasn't sure if it went through. Sorry if this is a duplicate.Seattle apperently has adopted IBC 2006 and A17.1-2005a. Can you please confirm, looks like alot of amendments.thanks http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/Seattle2006/seattle_building/building_frameset.htm

Code Modifications

Created State Jurisdiction Code Type Code Agency BrokenURL Req ##

Agencies2008-10-28

Colorado State of Colorado Building Department ofRegulatory Agencies

Regulation WebSite Link broken

Open: 73 days Broken Regulation Web Site Link:http://colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sbrep/forms/sb/building codes

Code Modifications

CodeFinder Broken Link Report

CodeFinder Feedback ReportState/Province

Company

Jurisdiction Code Type

Begin Date

End Date

Note: Report shows items CREATED between Begin and End dates selected.

Copyright © 2003-2009 National Elevator Industry, Inc., Salem, NY

NEII CodeFinder Editor Admin Area http://www.neii.org/members/CodeEditor/IndexFB.cfm

2 of 2 1/9/2009 10:14 AM


CodeFinder Online Help

Note: CodeFinder users should be aware that the Internet browser supported by CodeFinder is the Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 6 and later. Other browsers are not supported and may not, in all instances, work satisfactorily. Also CodeFinder produces reports in the PDF format. Reports may be read and saved to your computer using any of the Adobe Acrobat products versions 5 and later.

CONTENTS

• INTRODUCTION o Introductory Presentation

• CODEFINDER REPORTS o Enforcement Authority for a Jurisdiction o Code Information for a Jurisdiction o Model Code Adoption by Edition o Model Code Modifications by Edition and Requirement # o Model Code Modifications by Requirement # o Word Search o Pending Code Information for a Jurisdiction

• WEEKLY REPORT ARCHIVE • CODEFINDER FEEDBACK • SEARCHING FOR WORDS IN A PDF DOCUMENT • MODEL CODE PROCUREMENT INFORMATION • ACROBAT READER BROWSER CONFIGURATION

INTRODUCTION The NEII CodeFinder Report Catalog provides a convenient method of querying the CodeFinder database. Field personnel will find the Enforcement Authority for a Jurisdiction, and Code Information for a Jurisdiction reports most useful. Engineers will find Model Code Modifications by Edition and Requirement #, Model Code Modifications by Requirement #, and Word Search reports most useful. Factory personnel will find Code Information for a Jurisdiction, and Model Code Adoption by Edition reports most useful. Attorneys will appreciate the Enforcement Authority for a Jurisdiction, and Code Information for a Jurisdiction reports, especially the historical information. All the queries return their reports in an Acrobat file that can be saved to your computer.

Note: At this time Rack and Pinion Elevators, Screw-Column Elevators, Hand Elevators, Inclined Elevators, Limited-Use/Limited-Application Elevators, Private Residence Elevators, Private Residence Inclined Elevators, Power Sidewalk Elevators, Rooftop Elevators, Special Purpose Personnel Elevators, Shipboard Elevators, Mine Elevators, Elevators Used for Construction, Dumbwaiters, Material Lifts, Platform Lifts and Stairway Chair Lifts are not included in CodeFinder.

NEII CodeFinder Introduction

To view CodeFinder introduction presentation


CODEFINDER REPORTS

Enforcement Authority for a Jurisdiction Inputs for this report are:

• State/Province; • Local Jurisdiction; and • Code Type (all or selected).

The report includes the following information:


• State/Province; • Jurisdiction; • Code Type; • Agency Name; • Contact, Title, Email, Phone, and Fax; • Agency Street and Mailing Address; • Agency Phone, and Fax; • Agency Web Site; and • Regulation Web Site.


Code Information for a Jurisdiction

Inputs for this report are: • State/Province; • Local Jurisdiction; • Code Type (all or selected); and • Current or Historical.

Clicking on the Historical radio button will bring up the In Effect Date input. If Historical is selected, only information within the CodeFinder database for the selected date (In Effect Date) will be included in the report. The report includes the following information:

• State/Province; • Jurisdiction; • Code Type; • Agency Name; • Contact Title, Email, Phone, and Fax; • Agency Street and Mailing Address; • Agency Phone and Fax; • Agency Web Site; • Regulation Web Site; • Code; • Edition; • Effective Date; • As of Date; • Code Comments; and • Modifications (Requirement #, Requirement, Comment, Effective Date &

Document Link).


Model Code Adoption by Edition Inputs for this report are:

• Code Type; • Code Title; and • Edition.


• State/Province; • Jurisdiction;


• Code Type; • Agency Name; • Code; • Edition; • Code Comments; and • Code Attachments.


Model Code Modifications by Edition and Requirement # Inputs for this report are:

• Code Type; • Code Title; • Edition; and • Requirement #.

The Requirement # can be a full requirement number or a partial with an asterisk to retrieve a series of Requirement Numbers. Example 11.* would retrieve 11.1, 11.2, 11.a, etc. Another valid example,*-11-*, which would retrieve 18-11-1101.1, 119-11-1101.2, etc. The report includes the following information:

• State/Province; • Jurisdiction; • Code Type; • Agency Name; • Code; • Edition; • Effective Date; • As of Date; • Code Comments; and • Modifications (Requirement #, Requirement, Comment, Effective Date &

Document Link).


Model Code Modifications by Requirement # Inputs for this report are:

• Code Type; • Code Title; • Requirement #; and • Historical.


Clicking on the Historical radio button will bring up the In Effect Date input. If Historical is selected, only information within the CodeFinder database for the selected date (In Effect Date) will be included in the report.



Document Link).


Word Search Inputs for this report are:

• State/Province; • Jurisdiction; • Code Type; • First Word/Phrase; • Second (optional) Word/Phrase; • Historical.


Inputs for First Word/Phrase and Second (optional) Word/Phrase can contain asterisks as a wildcard. For Example: “Elevat*” will match all Modifications with Comments or Requirement text containing words that begin with “Elevat”; including “elevator” and “elevators”. Two search terms are available, the first is required. If you enter a term into the second field, only Modification with Comments or Requirement text containing both terms will be retrieve (either of the terms could appear in either the Modification with Comments or Requirement text to satisfy a "match" condition. Clicking on the Historical radio button will bring up the In Effect Date input. If Historical is selected, only information within the CodeFinder database for the selected date (In Effect Date) will be included in the report. The report includes the following information:


Document Link).


Pending Code Information for a Jurisdiction Inputs for this report are:

• State/Province; and • Jurisdiction/Code/Edition.

The input screen only displays code information for jurisdictions with future Effective Dates for the criteria selected. The report includes the following information:


• State/Province; • Jurisdiction; • Code Type; • Agency Name; • Contact, Title, Email, Phone, and Fax; • Agency Street and Mailing Address; • Agency Phone and Fax; • Agency Web Site; • Regulation Web Site; • Code; • Edition; • Effective Date; • As of Date; • Code Comments; and • Modifications (Requirement #, Requirement, Comment, Effective Date &

Document Link).


Weekly Report Archives Weekly reports include links to CodeFinder database changes or addition made in the prior week. Weekly reports for the past year are available in this area.


To receive weekly CodeFinder e-mail reports you must check CodeFinder E-Mail Opt In at Edit My Account. If you have not subscribed to weekly reports you may also see an option to subscribe at the bottom of the CodeFinder Report Catalog page. If you previously subscribed to weekly CodeFinder e-mail reports and no longer wish to receive the weekly CodeFinder e-mail uncheck CodeFinder E-Mail Opt In at Edit My Account. To access Edit My Account


CODEFINDER FEEDBACK This FEEDBACK icon will appear at selected locations within a CodeFinder report. If an issue arises you are encouraged to click on the FEEDBACK icon at the point of the issue and a feedback form will be generated. Please fill in the appropriate information and click on the submit feedback button. You may also attach up to 5 documents to provide additional information to the CodeFinder Editors. Allowed document types, that can be attached, are: PDF, Word files (.doc), text files(.txt), .gif files, .jpg files, and Excel files (.xls). Once the feedback report issue has been addressed by the CodeFinder Editor you will receive an e-mail advising of the action taken on your feedback. Feedback can also be sent from the button on the CodeFinder drop down menu. However, it is strongly recommended that this only be used for general comments or soliciting help as this feedback is sent to the NEII Administrator not the CodeFinder Editor.


If you see this CAUTION icon someone else has already found an issue with the associated information and has submitted a feedback report on it. When you see the CAUTION icon there will be no feedback icon. Once the feedback item has been address the FEEDBACK icon will appear on subsequent reports. If you have saved an old report and click on a feedback icon, and someone else has already submitted a feedback report on the item, an alert email will be sent to the editor but no Feedback Report item will be created. It will be up to the Editor to incorporate your issue into the open Feedback Report. A sample feedback form is shown below:

SEARCHING FOR WORDS IN A PDF DOCUMENT Since all CodeFinder database reports are Acrobat PDF’s you can use the tools available in the Acrobat reader to take further advantage of the information in CodeFinder reports.


You can use either the Acrobat Find toolbar, if available on your version of Acrobat, or the Acrobat Search PDF window to locate a word, series of words, or partial word in CodeFinder reports. The Acrobat Find toolbar provides a basic set of options for searching for text in only the open CodeFinder report. The Acrobat Search PDF window provides more advanced options, and lets you search for text in one or more PDF documents, an index of PDF files, or PDF files on the Internet. The Acrobat Find toolbar provides the following search options in the toolbar's Find Options menu. The Acrobat Search PDF window provides these options in either the basic or advanced search mode:

• Whole Words Only - finds only occurrences of the complete word you enter in the text box. For example, if you search for the word “stick”; the words “tick” and “sticky” aren't found.

• Case-Sensitive - finds only occurrences of the words that are in the case that you typed. For example, if you search for the word “Elevator”; the words “elevator” or “ELEVATOR” aren't found.

• Include Bookmarks - searches the text in the Bookmarks tab as well as in the document.

• Include Comments - searches the text in comments and in the document. The Advanced Search Options in the Search PDF window can either broaden or restrict your search results. You can view Advanced Search Options by clicking Use Advanced Search Options at the bottom of the Acrobat Search PDF window when the window displays Basic Search options.

Note: The options Whole Words Only, Case-Sensitive, Include Bookmarks, and Include Comments are also available when the window is in basic search mode.

The Return Results Containing menu lets you restrict your search results according to the option you choose.

• Match Exact Word or Phrase - searches for the entire string of characters, including spaces, in the order in which they appear in the text box. For example, if you type “elevator car”, the results list only instances of “elevator car” (both words, next to each other, and in that order).

• Match Any Of The Words - searches for any instances of at least one of the words typed. For example, if you type each of, the results include any instances in which one or both of the two words appear: each, of, each of, or of each.

• Match All Of The Words - searches for instances that contain all your search words, but not necessarily in the order you type them. For example, if you type “elevator car”, the results include instances “elevator car” and “car elevator”. This option is available only for a search of multiple documents or index definition files.

• Boolean Query - searches for terms or phrases you indicate using Boolean operators. This option is available only for searching in a designated location, not for single-document searches


The Look In menu lets you restrict the search to the current document, an index, or a location on your computer. If you choose to search an index or a location on your computer, additional options appear under Use These Additional Criteria: The options under Use These Additional Criteria let you restrict the search parameters according to the criteria you specify. The results include instances that match all of the selected criteria only.

• For example, if you select Whole Words Only and Case Sensitive for a search of the word “Elevator”, the results don't include “elevator” or “Elevators”.

• The Proximity option returns documents that contain two or more words that you specify and in which the range of words between the specified words is lower than the number specified in the search preferences. For example, if you search for the words “elevator car” and set the Proximity preference to 900, the search finds all instances that contain the words “elevator” and “car”, but the number of words between them is not more than 900. This option is available only for a search of multiple documents or index definition files, and if Match All of The Words is selected.

• The Stemming option finds words that contain part (the stem) of the specified search word. This option applies to single words, and phrases when conducting a search in the current PDF, Find In Folder, or Acrobat indexes. For example, in English, Stemming finds instances of the search word that end in ing, ed, x, ion, and so on, but not er. This option is not available in searches for phrases in indexes created with Acrobat 5.0 or earlier. You cannot use wildcard characters (*, ?) in stemming searches.

MODEL CODE PROCUREMENT INFORMATION

Code Title Publisher ACCESSIBILITY ADA/ABA AG Americans with Disabilities Act US ATBCB ADAAG Americans with Disabilities Act US ATBCB ANSI A117.1 Accessible/Usable Buildings ICC BUILDING BOCA National Building Code ICC ICBO Uniform Building Code ICC ICC International Building Code ICC NBCC of Canada NRCC NFPA 5000 Building NFPA SBCCI Standard Building Code ICC ELECTRICAL CSA Canadian Electrical Code CSA NFPA 70 National Electrical Code NFPA ELEVATOR EXISTING ASME A17.3 ASME


ELEVATOR NEW ASME A17.1 ASME ASME A17.1/CSA B44 ASME or CSA CSA B44 CSA LIFE SAFETY NFPA 101 Life Safety Code NFPA Acrobat Reader Browser Configuration When CodeFinder Reports are generated the browser will attempt to pop up a new browser window which should display the report in PDF format. If instead it attempts to download the report file you should follow the instructions below:

• Configuring the browser to open PDF files within the browser window. • When you install an Acrobat product on a system that includes a browser, you

automatically configure the browser to open PDF files within the browser window. Acrobat installs ActiveX plug-in files that allow you to use IE or AOL to open PDF files. If Acrobat is installed, but PDF files don't open in the browser window, work through the following steps to configure the browser: 1. Make sure that the system meets the requirements for the Acrobat product you use. For a list of system requirements, refer to the following resources:

o Acrobat 6.0 Professional: See the Adobe website at www.adobe.com/products/acrobatpro/systemreqs.html

o Acrobat 6.0 Standard: See the Adobe website at www.adobe.com/products/acrobatstd/systemreqs.html .

o Adobe Reader 6.0: See the Adobe website at www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrrsystemreqs.html .

o Acrobat 5.x or Acrobat Reader 5.x: See the ReadMe file included with the application.

2. Make sure that the ActiveX plug-in is in the correct location: o Acrobat 6.0: Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 6.0/Acrobat/ActiveX folder. o Adobe Reader 6.0: Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 6.0/Reader/ActiveX

folder. o Acrobat 5.x: Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 5.0/Acrobat/ActiveX folder. o Adobe Reader 5.x: Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 5.0 /Reader/ActiveX

folder. 3. Use a supported version of the browser:

o Acrobat 6.0 and Adobe Reader 6.0 support IE 5.1-6.1 and AOL 6.0-8.0. o Acrobat 5.0 and Acrobat Reader 5.0 support IE 4.0-5.0 and AOL 6.x

(Windows 2000, Me, 98, or 95) or AOL 5.x (Windows NT). 4. Restart Windows to make sure that IE or AOL is accessing the most current Windows registry information. 5. Reinstall Acrobat or Acrobat Reader to make sure that the correct plug-in information is added to the Windows registry. 6. If you have an older version of Acrobat or Adobe Reader installed on the system, remove it.


Return to CodeFinder Report Catalog h:\wpdocs\neii\neii codefinder\codefinder user help.docx


CODEFINDER EDITOR AUDIT REPORT OUTLINE

Page 1 of 3

Report to be generated as Excel spread sheet table. Selection Criteria: Report to include committed current and pending code information. The State/Province will be identified with an asterisk “*” for pending code information.

• Company (Editor their company assignment only – Administrator chose company or all) • State/Province (select one or all) (Editor their company State’s/Province’s only –

Administrator chose State/Province or all) • Jurisdiction (select one or all) • Code Type (select one or all)

Default selection Company, State/Province “all”, Jurisdiction “all”, Code Type “all” Report Fields:

• State/Province • Jurisdiction • Agency

o Agency website (Yes or No) o Regulation website (Yes or No) o Last updated (date)

• Contact o Name o Phone (Yes or No) o E-mail (Yes or No) o Address (Yes or No) o Last updated (date)

• Code Type o Code title o Edition o Effective date o Modifications (Yes or No) o Last updated (date)

• Open Feedback (Yes or No) o Date opened

Report will include current data (pending and past data not included). All data field will be hyperlinked. Report Sorting:

• Editor default: o State/Province o Jurisdiction o Code type

• Administrator default: o Company o State/Province o Jurisdiction



Page 2 of 3

o Code type • Secondary sort by user on any column in report (ascending/descending)

Print/Save:

• Print button – print using print utility in browser or if report for single state/province, or jurisdiction offer option to print as a pdf

• Save button – save to file on user computer that can be opened using Excel Rev: 06-Jan-09 c:\my documents\wpdocs\neii\neii codefinder\codefinder editor audit report outline.doc



Page 3 of 3

SAMPLE REPORT

CodeFinder Editor: first name, last name Report Date: mm/dd/yyyy

Sta

te/P

rovi

nce

Juris

dict

ion

Age

ncy

Age

ncy

Web

site

R

egul

atio

n W

ebsi

te

Age

ncy

Last

Upd

ated

Con

tact

Nam

e

Con

tact

Pho

ne

Con

tact

E-M

ail

Con

tact

Add

ress

C

onta

ct L

ast U

pdat

ed

Cod

e Ty

pe

Cod

e Ti

tle

Cod

e E

ditio

n

Cod

e E

ffect

ive

Dat

e

Cod

e M

odifi

catio

ns

Cod

e La

st U

pdat

ed

Ope

n Fe

edba

ck

Feed

back

Ope

ned

AL State of Alabama Building Department

Y N 6/26/2007 John Updike Bill Williams

YY

YN

YY

6/26/20076/26/2007

Building IBC International Building Code

2006 1/1/2007 Y 6/26/2007 Y 9/5/2008

AL State of Alabama Building Department


YY

YN

YY

6/26/20076/26/2007

Electrical NFPA 70 National Electrical Code

2005 3/1/2005 Y 2/24/2005 N

AL * State of Alabama Building Department


YY

YN

YY

6/26/20076/26/2007

Electrical NFPA 70 National Electrical Code

2009 3/1/2009 Y 1/62009 N

AL State of Alabama Elevator Division Y Y 6/27/2007 Joe Inspector Y N Y 9/30/2008 Elevator New

ASME A17.1 2004 10/1/2006 N 9/30/2008 N

AL Birmingham Birmingham Building Department

Y Y 6/27/2007 James Ludlow Y Y Y 9/28/2007 Elevator New

ASME A17.1 2004 & 1a-05

1/1/2006 Y 9/28/2007 N

* PENDING CODE

Note: All fields will be hyperlinked to the data source within CodeFinder.


NE

II C

odeF

inde

r M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T R

EPO

RT

OU

TL

INE

Page

| 1

Cod

eFin

der

Edi

tor:

___

____

____

____

____

___

Rep

ort D

ate:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ R

epor

ting

Peri

od:

____

____

__ to

___

____

____

ME

TR

IC 1

: CO

DE

AC

TIV

ITY

D

etai

led

Rep

ort C

odes

Add

ed a

nd R

olle

d O

ver

in R

epor

ting

Peri

od

Stat

e Pr

oven

ce

Juri

sdic

tion

Add

ed/R

olle

d O

ver

Cod

e T

ype

Res

pons

ible

C

ompa

ny

Eff

ectiv

eD

ate

Dat

e A

dded

/Rol

led

Ove

r D

ays

Lat

e

Su

mm

ary

Rep

ort C

odes

Add

ed a

nd R

olle

d O

ver

in R

epor

ting

Peri

od

Res

pons

ible

C

ompa

ny

Tot

al

Add

ed/R

olle

d O

ver

Cod

es A

dded

/Rol

led

Ove

r ≤

Eff

ectiv

e D

ate

≤ 14

day

s aft

er

Eff

ectiv

e D

ate

> 14

day

s aft

er

Eff

ectiv

e D

ate

Num

ber

Perc

enta

ge

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

r Pe

rcen

tage

Fujit

ec A

mer

ica,

Inc

K

ON

E In

c.

M

itsub

ishi

Ele

vato

r

Otis

Ele

vato

r Co.

Thys

senK

rupp

Ele

vato

r Cor

p.

Sc

hind

ler E

leva

tor C

orp.

TO

TA

L


NE

II C

odeF

inde

r M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T R

EPO

RT

OU

TL

INE

Page

| 2

M

ET

RIC

2:

FEE

DB

AC

K A

CT

IVIT

Y

Det

aile

d R

epor

t on

Feed

back

Cre

ated

in R

epor

ting

Peri

od

Stat

e/Pr

oven

ce

Juri

sdic

tion

Res

pons

ible

Com

pany

D

ate

Cre

ated

D

ate

Clo

sed

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t Fee

dbac

k A

ctiv

ity in

Rep

ortin

g Pe

riod

R

espo

nsib

le

Com

pany

T

otal

Fe

edba

ck

Cre

ated

Feed

back

Cre

ated

C

lose

d ≤

5 D

ays

Clo

sed

>5 D

ays a

nd

≤ 14

Day

s C

lose

d >1

4 D

ays

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geN

umbe

r Pe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geFu

jitec

Am

eric

a, In

c

K

ON

E In

c.

Mits

ubis

hi E

leva

tor

Otis

Ele

vato

r Co.

Thys

senK

rupp

Ele

vato

r Cor

p.

Schi

ndle

r Ele

vato

r Cor

p.

T

OT

AL

N

OTE

S:

1.

Rep

ort t

o be

in C

odeF

inde

r Edi

tor R

epor

t Cat

alog

. 2.

C

odeF

inde

r Edi

tors

, acc

ess t

o th

eir c

ompa

ny in

form

atio

n on

ly.

3.

NEI

I Cen

tral C

ode

Com

mitt

ee (c

hair,

mem

ber a

nd a

ltern

ate)

, NEI

I Cod

e an

d Sa

fety

Con

sulta

nt a

nd N

EII A

dmin

istra

tor,

acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

on a

ll co

mpa

nies

. 4.

R

epor

t to

be p

ublis

hed

as E

xcel

spre

ad sh

eet.

h:\w

pdoc

s\ne

ii\ne

ii co

defin

der\c

odef

inde

r edi

tor m

anag

emen

t rep

ort.d

oc


NE

II C

odeF

inde

r M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T R

EPO

RT

OU

TL

INE

VE

RSI

ON

2

Page

| 1

Cod

eFin

der

Edi

tor:

___

____

____

____

____

___

Rep

ort D

ate:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ R

epor

ting

Peri

od:

____

____

__ to

___

____

____

ME

TR

IC 1

: CO

DE

AC

TIV

ITY

D

etai

led

Rep

ort C

odes

Add

ed a

nd R

olle

d O

ver

in R

epor

ting

Peri

od

Stat

e Pr

ovin

ce

Juri

sdic

tion

Add

ed/R

olle

d O

ver

Cod

e T

ype

Res

pons

ible

C

ompa

ny

Eff

ectiv

eD

ate

Dat

e A

dded

/Rol

led

Ove

r D

ays

Lat

e

Su

mm

ary

Rep

ort C

odes

Add

ed a

nd R

olle

d O

ver

in R

epor

ting

Peri

od

Res

pons

ible

C

ompa

ny

Tot

al

Add

ed/R

olle

d O

ver

Cod

es A

dded

/Rol

led

Ove

r ≤

Eff

ectiv

e D

ate

> E

ffec

tive

Dat

e N

umbe

r Pe

rcen

tage

N

umbe

r Pe

rcen

tage

Fujit

ec A

mer

ica,

Inc

K

ON

E In

c.

M

itsub

ishi

Ele

vato

r

Otis

Ele

vato

r Co.

Thys

senK

rupp

Ele

vato

r Cor

p.

Sc

hind

ler E

leva

tor C

orp.

TO

TA

L


NE

II C

odeF

inde

r M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T R

EPO

RT

OU

TL

INE

VE

RSI

ON

2

Page

| 2

M

ET

RIC

2:

FEE

DB

AC

K A

CT

IVIT

Y

Det

aile

d R

epor

t on

Feed

back

Cre

ated

in R

epor

ting

Peri

od

Stat

e/Pr

ovin

ce

Juri

sdic

tion

Res

pons

ible

Com

pany

D

ate

Cre

ated

D

ate

Clo

sed

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t Fee

dbac

k A

ctiv

ity in

Rep

ortin

g Pe

riod

R

espo

nsib

le

Com

pany

T

otal

Fe

edba

ck

Cre

ated

Feed

back

Cre

ated

C

lose

d ≤

14 D

ays

Clo

sed

> 14

Day

s N

umbe

r Pe

rcen

tage

Num

ber

Perc

enta

geFu

jitec

Am

eric

a, In

c

KO

NE

Inc.

Mits

ubis

hi E

leva

tor

O

tis E

leva

tor C

o.

Th

ysse

nKru

pp E

leva

tor C

orp.

Schi

ndle

r Ele

vato

r Cor

p.

T

OT

AL

N

OTE

S:

1.

Rep

ort t

o be

in C

odeF

inde

r Edi

tor R

epor

t Cat

alog

. 2.

C

odeF

inde

r Edi

tors

, acc

ess t

o th

eir c

ompa

ny in

form

atio

n on

ly.

3.

NEI

I Cen

tral C

ode

Com

mitt

ee (c

hair,

mem

ber a

nd a

ltern

ate)

, NEI

I Cod

e an

d Sa

fety

Con

sulta

nt a

nd N

EII A

dmin

istra

tor,

acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

on a

ll co

mpa

nies

. 4.

R

epor

t to

be p

ublis

hed

as E

xcel

spre

ad sh

eet.

h:\w

pdoc

s\ne

ii\ne

ii co

defin

der\c

odef

inde

r edi

tor m

anag

emen

t rep

ort v

ersi

on 2

.doc


Proposal to add a new section to A17.1: 2.27.10 Occupant Evacuation Operation In buildings where the use of elevators for occupant evacuation is permitted, all elevators shall conform to requirements 2.27.10.1 through 2.27.10.nn. Occupant Evacuation Operation shall not be permitted in buildings that do not include all the features specified in Nonmandatory Appendix S. (Rationale: Extensive hazard analysis shows that evacuation by elevator is safe when these provisions are made, but that unacceptable hazards remain if any of them are omitted) 2.27.10.1 Elevators shall be installed with sufficient traffic handling capacity to bring 12.5% of the building occupant load into or out of the building within a five minute period. (Rationale: This system is intended to get many occupants out of harms way before the fire department arrives. A building with insufficient elevator capacity will not be able to accomplish this goal.) 2.27.10.2 The requirements of 2.27.3.1 shall be modified to provide one Fire Recall key switch per elevator instead of one per group. Each switch shall control the associated elevator in conformance with 2.27.3.1.6, but not control the other elevators of the group operation. The 3 position switches in the lobby at the designated level shall each be located adjacent to the elevator it controls. The 2 position switches in the fire command center shall be grouped together and clearly marked with the car number of the car they control. These switches shall preempt Occupant Evacuation Operation for the elevators they control. (Rationale: Firefighters normally do not use all elevators. This allows them the option of using as many as they need while allowing the rest to continue evacuating occupants from the building) 2.27.10.3 The requirements of 2.27.3.2 shall have priority over Occupant Evacuation Operation. (Rationale: Firefighters on the scene can make better decisions about priorities than a pre-programmed system) 2.27.10.4 The sign required by 2.27.9 shall not be installed. Visual signals for each elevator group shall be installed on each floor served. They shall be located 7 to 10 ft above the floor and centered above a hall call button. Lettering shall be a minimum of 2 inches high and conform with A117.1 requirement 703.2. Any update to the information displayed shall be accompanied by a 1 second audible tone at least 10 dBA above ambient but not more than 80 dBA measured 5 ft above the floor, and 5 ft in front of the hall call button. The visual signals shall be powered by the same power supply as the elevator, including emergency or standby power. When the elevators are in normal service, the signs shall be used to display information which may be of interest to building occupants.


(Rationale: Need to give occupants information to help them decide whether to wait for elevators, or take the stairs. Even if the lobby is crowded with people, we want the sign to be visible to most people, and we want to draw their attention to changes in status. The signs should be used all day, every day to train occupants to look at them and call immediate attention if one fails) 2.27.10.5 Fire alarm panel interface 2.27.10.5.1 Upon automatic detection of a fire in the building in any area which does not initiate Phase I recall in this group, the fire alarm panel shall provide signals to the elevator system in conformance with NFPA 72 indicating which floors are to be evacuated. This shall be a contiguous block of floors, consisting of the fire floor(s), two above and two below. If the fire spreads to multiple floors, this zone must expand to include all fire floors, plus 2 above and 2 below. If the fire is on the designated level, the fire alarm panel shall initiate Occupant Evacuation Operation only if there is a smoke-free path between the elevators and the building exterior door. (Rationale: If there is smoke in an elevator lobby, those elevators recall on Phase I fire service. Evacuation Operation can be used only for fires which are remote from the elevators.) 2.27.10.5.2 The fire alarm panel in the fire command center shall include a switch marked “FULL BUILDING EVACUATION”. When this switch is actuated, the fire alarm panel shall provide signals to the elevator system in conformance with NFPA 72 indicating that all floors are to be evacuated. (Rationale: The decision to evacuate the building due to fire growth or some other threat must be made by the person in charge, not by an automated system) 2.27.10.6 Future use. (Rationale: I don’t feel like renumbering everything right now) 2.27.10.7 When the signals provided in 2.27.10.5 actuate, the elevators shall conform to 2.27.10.7.1 thru 2.27.10.7.11. (Note that the behavior is the same for partial evacuation and full building evacuation, the fire alarm panel just indicates more floors to be evacuated) 2.27.10.7.1 On all floors being evacuated, the visual signal (2.27.10.4) shall indicate that the elevators are available for evacuation and the number of elevators currently in Occupant Evacuation Operation. If no elevators are available for Occupant Evacuation Operation (Fire service, inspection, shut off, etc), the visual signal shall indicate that elevator service is not currently available, and to use the stairs. On the designated level, the visual signal shall indicate that the cars are in evacuation mode and that passengers should not use elevators. On all other floors not being evacuated, the visual signal shall indicate that elevator service is not currently available. (Rationale: need to keep occupants informed of the current status, consistent with the voice announcements, so they can make their own decisions whether to wait for an elevator or take the stairs)


2.27.10.7.2 Any change in the number of cars in Occupant Evacuation Operation, or the selection of floors being evacuated shall cause the visual signals to update. 2.27.10.7.3 A visual signal located in each car shall indicate that the car is being used to evacuate the building and that passengers should quickly exit upon arrival at the main entry floor. (Rationale: If people loiter in the ground floor lobby, they might block other people from exiting elevators and might interfere with arriving firefighters. We want them to leave the building ) 2.27.10.7.4 All hall calls shall be canceled and disabled except at the floors being evacuated. Building security systems which limit service to these floors shall be overridden. Hall calls entered at the fire floor shall be given higher priority than the calls at the floors above and below it. For destination dispatch systems, any floor button press on one of the floors being evacuated shall be interpreted as a call to the Designated level. (Rationale: A button press indicates that a person is in the lobby on a floor being evacuated. We want to send an elevator to pick them up; we then take them to the Designated level, whether they wanted to go there or not.) 2.27.10.7.5 Car calls for all floors, except for the Designated Level, shall be canceled and disabled. A car call for the Designated Level shall be automatically entered when any hall call is answered. 2.27.10.7.6 Unoccupied cars in motion when Occupant Evacuation Operation is actuated shall stop at or before the next available floor, without opening the doors and await hall call assignments. The Door Open Button shall be operative. 2.27.10.7.7 Occupied cars in motion when Occupant Evacuation Operation is actuated shall proceed to the designated level. If a reversal of travel direction is needed, it shall be done at or before the next available floor without opening the door. (Rationale: While these people might have been headed for non-fire involved floors, the fire department has said that the fewer people in the building, the better) 2.27.10.7.8 When a car answers a hall call at a floor being evacuated, a car call at the designated level shall be automatically entered. The hall call button shall be re-enabled as soon as the doors have opened. If a new hall call is entered at this floor, it shall be assigned to a different car, and not canceled until that car arrives. This rule does not apply to destination dispatch systems. (Rationale: Traditional dispatch systems will only send a single car at a time to answer a hall call, this will slow the evacuation process. This rule gets more than one car at a time to the floor. Destination systems will routinely send multiple cars if enough calls are entered to indicate more than 1 car full of passengers are waiting. Occupants of buildings with destination dispatch know to enter a call per person) 2.27.10.7.9 While passengers are entering the car at a floor being evacuated, if the load exceeds 80% of car capacity, the door re-opening device shall be disabled and the doors


shall initiate closing at reduced kinetic energy. If the doors stall while closing, they shall re-open fully, then close. An audible signal shall sound until the doors are closed. If the load exceeds 100% of capacity the doors shall remain open and an audible or visual signal shall indicate that the car is overloaded. (Rationale: For the evacuation to proceed quickly, we want the cars to be well loaded, but want to avoid the delay caused by overloading and then unloading. The closing doors will limit some of the debate about whether or not one more person can squeeze in.) 2.27.10.7.10 Once the block of floors has been evacuated, as indicated by a series of hall calls followed by a 60 second period in which no hall calls are entered, one car shall park with doors closed at the lowest floor being evacuated; the rest shall park with doors closed at the designated level. (Rationale: Firefighters want people in the rest of the building to stay where they are until they evaluate the situation. They can then initiate full building evacuation if warranted. NOTE: HA does not support this, but this rule is based on discussion in the Dec 2008 meeting. Need to review this section of HA) 2.27.10.7.11 When the signal from the Fire Alarm panel is reset, indicating that no floors are being evacuated, the elevators shall end Occupant Evacuation Operation. Question: do we want to consider changing Phase I to park with the doors closed to allow pressurization to work more effectively? Would need a lobby door open button. Add a new section: NONMANDATORY APPENDIX S 1) The building shall have a full, automatic, sprinkler protection. The elevator machine rooms and hoistways shall not contain sprinklers, eliminating the need for shunt trip operation. 2) The building shall have a total coverage smoke detection system with cross zoning, and a voice notification system which will inform occupants on each floor of the current situation and actions to take in an emergency. All interior stairwell doors shall unlock, allowing both exit and re-entry upon any alarm. All exterior stairwell doors shall unlock, allowing exit upon any alarm. The fire alarm system shall be configured to determine if the exit path between the elevator lobby and the building exit on the designated level is free of smoke; Occupant Evacuation Operation shall not be initiated unless the path is clear.


3) The elevator lobby at each floor, with the exception of the designated level, shall be enclosed by a smoke barrier having a 1.5 hour fire resistance rating, and automatic closing doors which are actuated by any indication of fire in the building. The lobby shall be large enough to accommodate 25% of the floor population. There shall be direct access from each elevator lobby to an egress stairwell. 4) The elevator lobbies and hoistways shall be pressurized together to keep them free of smoke without introducing a pressure differential across the hoistway doors. Active smoke control systems which keep smoke away from the elevators and elevator lobbies are an acceptable alternative. Stairwells shall be separately pressurized. 5) The building shall be designed to control the flow of water that accumulates on the floor as a result of sprinkler operation or use of a fire hose outside the elevator lobby and hoistway. This water shall be directed to drains, so it does not enter an elevator hoistway. 6) The building shall have an approved fire safety and evacuation plan which includes fire wardens, routine training and drills for occupants. Training shall include the messages that elevators should not be used during a fire in other buildings, and that preference should be given to people who are unable to use the stairs. 7) The elevators, machine room air conditioning, and pressurization system shall be supplied with emergency or standby power with sufficient capacity to operate all elevators simultaneously for 1.5 hours. The normal power feeders and backup power feeders shall be separated from each other, and each shall be contained in its own 1.5 hour fire rated enclosure. 8) A two-way communications system shall be installed allowing communications between the fire command center and each elevator lobby and between the fire command center and each elevator car. 9) The building shall maintain the elevator lobbies and machine rooms to minimize fire loads. Rev 1 = 7 Nov 2008 Rev 2 = 19 Dec 2008 Rev 3 = 29 Jan 2009


4th Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Cambridge UK, July 2009

Panel: The Use of Elevators for Egress

Guylène Proulx, Chair

National Research Council Canada Background As a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, code provisions for emergency egress from tall buildings are being re‐examined. There is renewed interest in the use of elevators for both occupant egress and fire fighters access. Therefore a Workshop on the Use of Elevators in Fires and Other Emergencies was held in March 2‐4, 2004, in Atlanta, Georgia. The workshop was co‐sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the International Code Council (ICC), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the U.S. Access Board, and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). The workshop focused on two general topics:

(1) Use of Elevators by Fire fighters (2) Use of Elevators by Occupants during Emergencies

The workshop consisted of Plenary Sessions during which selected papers were presented, as well as Breakout Sessions for attendees to brainstorm various ideas and develop recommendations. The goal of the workshop was to come up with concrete proposals that can be put forth to the various code‐writing groups to help improve codes and standards. Following the workshop, the Workshop Steering Committee, which was made up of representatives from each of the sponsoring organizations, meet to review these proposals and assign issues to the appropriate organization for consideration. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International) through its A17 Committee formed two task groups. The Task Group on Use of Elevators by Firefighters and the Task Group on Use of Elevators for Occupant Egress. It was recommended that the Task Groups engage in the following tasks:

1. Review the suggestions from the Workshop on the Use of Elevators in Fires and other Emergencies.

2. Develop a prioritized list of issues that the task group members want to pursue. 3. Conduct a hazard analysis of the prioritized list of issues to see if there are any residual

hazards. 4. Draft code revisions for those issues that survive the process and the task group

members still want addressed. Each of the Task Groups began reviewing the issues at the first A17 meeting on February 2005. In the fall of 2008 the first three tasks of the Task Groups were essentially completed. Drafting code revisions should start in 2009.


4th Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Cambridge UK, July 2009

Panel As the ASME A17 Task Group on Use of Elevators for Occupant Egress is wrapping up its extensive Hazard Analysis conducted over the last 4 years, we feel the Symposium would be an excellent venue to held a panel discussion on the subject of the Use of Elevators for Egress. Tentative Panelists with subject: Guylène Proulx, Chair, Background on the Use of Elevators for Egress (10 minutes) Each panelist introduces their assigned topic, 5 min each: Jason Avrill timing of escape: stairs vs elevators, or combinaison of means Emma Heyes occupant response Norman Groner situation awareness Glen Hedman users with limitations Jake Pauls research needed Peter Johnson ARUP international perspective XXX elevator industry perspective XXX codes and standard perspective XXX fire department perspective Open discussion between panelists and the audience, 30‐45 min.


Home Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan EO 12866 Regulatory Review Information Collection ReviewEO 12866 Regulatory Review Advanced Search Historical Reports Review Counts Letters XML Reports

OIRA Conclusion of EO 12866 Regulatory Review

RIN: 1190-AA44 Received Date: 12/03/2008 Title: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities Agency/Subagency: DOJ / CRT Concluded Action: Withdrawn Concluded Date: 01/22/2009 Publication Date: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations Federalism Implications: No

Disclosure Accessibility Privacy Policy Contact Us

OIRA Conclusion of EO 12866 Regulatory Review http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=116675

1 of 1 1/25/2009 9:26 AM


BDBlack Codes

Highlight

BDBlack Codes

Highlight

National Elevator Industry, Inc. CODE & SAFETY OFFICE 47 Leicester Street • Perry, New York 14530 • 585.302.0813 Fax: 585.302.0841


NEII ASSOCIATION HEADQUARTERS

1677 County Route 64 • P.O. Box 838 • Salem, New York 12865-0838 • 518.854.3100 Fax: 518-854-3257

November 7, 2008 Mr. Al Tafazoli Principal ERT Engineer State of California Division of Occupational Safety & Health 2100 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 280 Anaheim, CA 92806 Dear Mr. Tafazoli, The purpose of this letter is to draw your attention to direction by the ERT Division specifying EMI test procedures that are outside the letter of Title 8, Group IV, and is not in compliance with the referenced ASME A17.1-2004 Elevator Safety Code. Specifically, ERT has stated in the attached correspondence of August 4, 2008 an EMI test procedure as defined by an EN standard that is not referenced within the ASME A17.1-2004 Code. ASME A17.1-2004, Part 9 specifically references EN 12016-1998 for compliance with section 2.26.4.4. ERT is requiring EMI tests specified by EN 12016-2004 which is a substantially different document in technical content compared to EN 12016-1998. Furthermore, ERT is additionally requiring tests beyond the scope of EN-12016-2004, specifically beyond equipment limitations for voltage dips and interruptions specified in normative standard EN 61000-4-11. The limited capability of test apparatus is an important issue for a valid test. Please be cautioned that it is entirely feasible that in order to self-declare compliance to spec 4-11, EMI testing companies and elevator manufacturers may need to interpret test procedure to a degree that may compromise validation of the operational safety intent resulting in a false or incomplete statement of compliance. The ERT direction goes significantly beyond the rules established in Title 8, Section 3141.3 which requires compliance with ASME A17.1-2004 and creates difficulties for EMC testing companies and elevator equipment manufacturers, and consequently for the ERT Division as well. Furthermore, the rationale stated in the ERT correspondence of August 4, 2008 to me, which unilaterally mandates EN-12106-2004 test procedures and goes beyond the requirements of EN 61000- 4-11, is not valid for elevator control systems that have remained stable in terms of design concept since the introduction of EMI testing requirements by California in the year 2000.


Mr. Al Tafazoli November 7, 2008 Page 2

NEII requests that ERT amend the direction in its August 4, 2008 correspondence from Mr. Paul Puno so as to comply with the ASME A17.1-2004 Code as adopted by Title 8 Elevator Safety Orders Group IV. Respectfully,

Brian Black Code and Safety Consultant attachment cc: NEII Central Code Committee NEII Government Affairs Committee Mr. Paul Puno


1

BDBlack Codes

From: Grainer, Steve [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:49 PMTo: BDBlack CodesSubject: FW: California Building Code Changes:

Brian, can you please add to the CCC agenda. Steve David, I have now. Steve -----Original Message----- From: McColl, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:05 PM To: Grainer, Steve Subject: California Building Code Changes:

Hi Steve:

I recently became aware that there are some approved changes to the 2007 California Building Code, as follows:(new code requirements are in blue text)

3006.5 Shunt Trip. Where elevator hoistways or elevator machine rooms containing elevator control equipment are protected with automatic sprinklers, a means installed in accordance with NFPA 72, Section 3.9.4 6.16.4, Elevator Shutdown, shall be provided to disconnect automatically the main line power supply to the affected elevator prior to the application of water. This means shall not be self-resetting. The activation of sprinklers outside the hoistway or machine room shall not disconnect the main line power supply.

3006.5.1 Elevator power shunt-trip shall not activate prior to the completion of elevator Phase I emergency recall operation to the designated recall floor.

3006.5.2 Elevator power shunt-trip capability shall be disabled during Phase II emergency in-car operation.

3006.5.3 Audible and visual annunciation shall be provided at the fire alarm control unit indicating the disabling of elevator power shunt-trip capability under Phase II operation.

3006.5.4 Audible and visual annunciation shall be provided at the fire alarm control unit indicating that the automatic sprinklers, smoke detectors, or heat detectors in the elevator hoistway or elevator machine room have activated.

3006.5.5 Visual illumination shall be provided inside all elevator cars indicating that the automatic sprinklers, smoke detectors, or heat detectors in the elevator hoistway or elevator machine room have activated.

I am not sure when these changes take effect. Someone told me Jan 1/09, but there is nothing in CodeFinder, so I assume that is not correct. I can't find anything advising the effective date on the California Building Standards Commission web site.

Are you aware of these changes? Do you know when they are effective? For the future, do you know how we can find out about these types of proposals while they are still in progress, rather than after they are approved? Do you know if anyone from the NEII California Area Code Committee was aware of these proposed changes?

Thanks for your help, Steve. See you next week.

Best Regards, David


2

David McColl, P. Eng. Manager, Codes & Standards, North America Otis Elevator Company

Tel: +1-905-272-6132 Fax: +1-860-660-9874 Email: [email protected] Web: www.otis.com


TN 06-1007 A17 Earthquake Safety Committee

Page 1 of 54

TN 06-1007

Proposal for A17 ESS R&C Ballot

Draft REV 7 (12/2/08) PROPOSED REVISIONS TO A17.1-2007

SECTION 8.4

ELEVATOR SAFETY SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC RISK ZONE 2 OR GREATER

(a) Requirement Section 8.4 applies to all elevators with counterweights, and direct-plunger

hydraulic elevators where applicable, where such elevators are installed in buildings that are designed and built to the requirements of, and located in, seismic risk zone 2 or greater as defined by the building code (see 3.1). assigned to one of the following:

(1) Seismic Design Category C with Component Importance Factor, Ip, of 1.5 as defined by IBC (see 1.3)

(2) Seismic Design Category D or greater as defined by IBC (see 1.3) (3) Seismic Risk Zone 2 or greater as defined by earlier building codes such as SBC 1982 (4) Seismic Performance Category C with Seismic Hazard Exposure Group II or higher as

defined by earlier buildings codes such as SBC 1994. (5) Location with Design Spectral Response Acceleration for a 0.2 s time period [S(0.2)]

greater than 0.12 and building designated as post-disaster building or IEFaSa(0.2) is equal to or greater than 0.35 as defined by NBCC 2005 (see 1.3)

(b) The appropriate Elevator Component Force Level is determined by the applicable building code (see Nonmandatory Appendix XX Part 1 and Part 2, Sample Calculations 1a-e):

(1) Where the applicable building code references Seismic Design Categories or Design Spectral Response Acceleration [S90.2)], force levels as referenced by 8.4.14 shall be used (see 1.3).

(2) Where the applicable building code makes reference to Seismic Risk Zones, force levels for the appropriate zone, as listed in Section 8.4, shall be used.

(3) Where the applicable building code designates seismic hazard via a ground motion parameter (such as Av or Zv), force levels as referenced by 8.4.13 shall be used.

(4) Where the applicable building code does not make references ground motion parameters but does not designate a seismic hazard, force levels as referenced by to seismic risk zones, the ground motion parameters shown in 8.4.13 shall be used.

(c) The elevator safety seismic requirements contained in 8.4 shall be in addition to the requirements in the other parts of the Code unless otherwise specified. Rationale: The definition of building code has been changed in the 2005 addenda to A17.1-2004. Building codes now referenced no longer use seismic risk zones. Additions indicate how to find correct seismic force to properly correlate with existing building code requirements. 8.4(a)(1) through (4) reference whether seismic requirements apply as detailed by appropriate building code editions. 8.4(b) indicates the appropriate force level to use to properly match levels dictated by building code editions. 8.4.1… No changes 8.4.2 Machinery and Sheave Beams, Supports, and Foundations



Page 2 of 54

8.4.2.1 Securing Beams and Supports. Overhead beams and supports including hitch-plate

blocking beams shall be anchored to prevent overturning and displacement as a result of a seismic force acting in a horizontal direction of not less than that required to produce an acceleration of as defined in 8.4.13 or 8.4.14 (see Nonmandatory Appendix XX, Part 2 Sample Calculation 2), or equal to:

(a) gravity Wp (zone 3 or greater) (b) ½ Wp gravity (zone 2) 8.4.2.2 Overhead Beams and Floors Fastenings. Fastening devices including bolts used to

secure machines, control panels, motor-generator units, machine beams, support beams, and sheaves, including compensating sheave assemblies, to the building structure shall conform to 8.4.2.3. Requirement 2.9.3.1.2 shall not apply in seismic risk zone 2 or greater.

8.4.2.3 Fastenings and Stresses

8.4.2.3.1 Fastening devices (except for guide-rail brackets, see 8.4.8.4) including bolts used

to attach equipment to the supporting structure, which are of the rigid type or are not subject to impact loads, shall be designed to withstand seismic component forces levels acting simultaneously, as defined in 8.4.13 or 8.4.14, or of not less than those required to produce an acceleration of (see Nonmandatory Appendix XX, Part 2 Sample Calculation 3):

(a) gravity Wp horizontally and ½ gravity Wp vertically (zone 3 or greater); or (b) ½ gravity Wp horizontally and 1⁄4 gravity Wp vertically (zone 2).

8.4.2.3.2 … No changes 8.4.2.3.3

(a) Maximum combined stresses in fastenings and their parts due to the specified seismic forces shall not exceed 88% of the yield strength of the material used.

(b) For seismic force not based on seismic zones, maximum combined stresses in fastenings and their parts shall not exceed 60% of the yield strength of the material used (see Nonmandatory Appendix XX, Part 2 Sample Calculation 3). Rationale: IBC allows a reduction of the earthquake force (0.7 E) when used in ASD load combination equations. With the reduction, the increase in allowable stress is removed. (Reference IBC 2000 Rules 1605.3.1 and 1605.3.1.1)

8.4.2.3.4 For areas not utilizing Seismic Zones, the Nonstructural Component Anchorage shall be in conformance with the requirements of the governing building code. Rationale: To cover the special anchorage requirements in IBC. 8.4.3 … No changes 8.4.4 … No changes 8.4.5 Car Frames and Platforms

8.4.5.1 … No changes

8.4.5.2 Design of Car Frames, Guiding Members, and Position Restraints



Page 3 of 54

8.4.5.2.1 Position restraints and their attachments to car frames shall be designed to withstand a seismic force acting horizontally on the weight of the car plus 40% of its rated capacity of not less than that required to produce an acceleration of as defined in 8.4.13 or 8.4.14 (with Wp = car weight + 40% capacity), or equal to (see Nonmandatory Appendix XX, Part 2 Sample Calculation 4):

(a) ½ Wp gravity (zone 3 or greater) (b) ¼ Wp gravity (zone 2)

8.4.5.2.2 … No Changes

8.4.6 Car and Counterweight Safeties 8.4.6.1 Compensating Rope Sheave Assembly. Where compensating ropes are used with a tension sheave assembly, means shall be provided to prevent the tension sheave assembly from being dislocated from its normal operating position when subjected to seismic forces acting either separately or simultaneously of not less than those required to produce an acceleration of:

(a) gravity Wp horizontally and ½ gravity Wp vertically (zone 3 or greater); or (b) ½ Wp 1⁄4 gravity horizontally and ¼ gravity Wp vertically (zone 2); or (c) the component force level as defined by 8.4.13 or 8.4.14 Compensating rope sheaves shall be provided with a compensating rope sheaves switch or

switches conforming to 2.26.2.3. 8.4.7 Counterweights

8.4.7.1 Design

8.4.7.1.1 The counterweight frame and its weight sections shall be so designed and arranged as to limit the guide-rail force at the lower position restraint to not more than two-thirds of the total seismic force due to the weight or effective weight of the counterweight assembly when it is subjected to a component seismic force level as defined by 8.4.13 or 8.4.14, or a horizontal seismic force of not less than that required to produce an acceleration of:

(a) 1⁄2 Wp gravity (zone 3 or greater) (b) ¼ Wp gravity (zone 2)

8.4.7.1.2… No changes 8.4.7.1.3… No changes 8.4.7.1.4… No changes

8.4.7.2 Guiding Members and Position Restraints

8.4.7.2.1… No changes 8.4.7.2.2 Position restraints and their attachments to counterweight frames shall be

designed to withstand a seismic component force level as defined by 8.4.13 or 8.4.14, or a seismic force acting horizontally upon the counterweight assembly of not less than that required to produce an acceleration of (see Nonmandatory Appendix XX, Part 2, Sample Calculation 4):

(a) ½ Wp gravity (zone 3 or greater) (b) ¼ Wp gravity (zone 2)

8.4.7.2.3… No changes



Page 4 of 54

8.4.8 Car and Counterweight Guide Rail Systems

8.4.8.1… No changes 8.4.8.2 Seismic Load Application

8.4.8.2.1

(a) For jurisdictions enforcing Seismic Zones or an equivalent ground motion parameter (see 8.4.13), the weight of a car plus 40% of its rated capacity, or the weight of a counterweight, per pair of guide rails shall not exceed the maximums specified in Figs. 8.4.8.2-1 through 8.4.8.2-7 for the size of rail and the bracket spacing used.

(b) For jurisdictions enforcing IBC/NBCC, the horizontal seismic force, Fp, based on the weight of a car plus 40% of its rated capacity, or the weight of a counterweight, per pair of guide rails shall not exceed the maximums specified in Figures 8.4.8.2-1 – 8.4.8.2-7 for the size of rail and the bracket spacing used (see Nonmandatory Appendix Part 2, Sample Calculation 5).

8.4.8.2.2… No changes 8.4.8.2.3… No changes 8.4.8.2.4... No changes 8.4.8.2.5… No changes



Page 5 of 54

Fig. 8.4.8.2-1 8 lb/ft Guide-Rail Bracket Spacing

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Bracket Spacing, ft

2Fp'

or T

otal

Wei

ght (

Seis

mic

Zon

e 3

or G

reat

er)

per p

air o

f Rai

ls, l

b

No intermediate tie bracketOne intermediate tie bracketTwo intermediate tie brackets



Page 6 of 54


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Bracket Spacing, ft

2 Fp

' or T

otal

Wei

ght (

Seis

mic

Zon

e 3

or G

reat

er)

Per P

air o

f Rai

ls, l

b

No Intermediate tie bracketOne intermediate tie bracketTwo intermediate tie brackets



Page 7 of 54


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Bracket Spacing, ft

2 Fp

' or T

otal

Wei

ght (

Seis

mic

Zon

e 3

or G

reat

er)

Per P

air o

f Rai

ls, l

b




Page 8 of 54


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Bracket Spacing, ft

2 Fp

' or T

otal

Wei

ght (

Seis

mic

Zon

e 3

or G

reat

er)

Per P

air o

f Gui

de R

ails

, ft




Page 9 of 54

Fig. 8.4.8.2-5 18.5 lb/ft Guide Rail Bracket Spacing

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

Bracket Spacing, ft

2 Fp

' or T

otal

Wei

ght (

Seis

mic

Zon

e 3

or G

reat

er)

Per P

air o

f Rai

ls, l

bs

No intermediate tie bracketsOne intermediate tie bracketTwo intermediate tie brackets



Page 10 of 54

Fig. 8.4.8.2-6 22.5 lb/ft Guide-Rail Bracket Spacing

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Bracket Spacing, ft

2 Fp

' or T

otal

Wei

ght (

Seis

mic

Zon

e 3

or G

reat

er)

Per P

air o

f Rai

ls, l

bs

No intermediate tie bracketsOne intermediate tie bracketTwo intermediate tie brackets



Page 11 of 54


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Bracket Spacing, ft

2Fp'

or T

otal

Wei

ght (

Seis

mic

Zon

e 3

or G

reat

er)

Pe

r Pai

r of G

uide

Rai

ls, l

bs

No intermediate tie brackets

One intermediate tie bracket

Tw o intermediate tie brackets



Page 12 of 54

8.4.8.3 Guide Rail Stress. For jurisdictions enforcing Seismic Zones, The stresses in a guide rail, or in a rail and its reinforcement, due to seismic loads shall not exceed 88% of the minimum yield stress of the material used. Stress determinations shall be based upon a seismic force acting horizontally as defined in 8.4.13 or equal to on the car plus 40% of its rated capacity, that required to produce an acceleration of:

(a) 1⁄2 gravity Wp (zone 3 or greater); or (b) 1⁄4 gravity Wp (zone 2). For jurisdictions enforcing IBC/NBCC, the stresses in the guide rail, or in a rail and its

reinforcement, due to seismic loads shall not exceed 60% of the minimum yield stress of the material used. Stress determinations shall be based on a horizontal component force level as defined in 8.4.14.

8.4.8.4 Brackets, Fastenings, and Supports.

8.4.8.4.1 Guiderail brackets and their fastenings and supports, such as building beams and walls, shall be capable of withstanding the horizontal forces imposed by the seismic loads specified in Table 8.4.8.7, with a total deflection at the point of support not to exceed 6 mm (0.25 in.).

8.4.8.4.2 For areas not utilizing Seismic Zones, the Nonstructural Component Anchorage

shall be in conformance with the requirements of the governing building code, with a total deflection at the point of support not to exceed 6 mm (0.25 in.). Rationale: To cover the special anchorage requirements in IBC.

8.4.8.5… No changes 8.4.8.6… No changes 8.4.8.7 Design and Strength of Brackets and Supports. Guide-rail brackets including

intermediate tie brackets, where provided, shall be designed to withstand the forces imposed by the car plus 40% of its rated load, or the counterweight, when subjected to a seismic force of not less than that required to produce an acceleration of a horizontal component force level as defined in 8.4.13 or 8.4.14, or equal to:

(a) 1⁄2 gravity Wp horizontally (zone 3 or greater) (b) 1⁄4 gravity Wp horizontally (zone 2) The stresses and deflections shall not exceed those specified in Table 8.4.8.7.

NOTE (8.4.8.7): Since the specific designs of the rail brackets, their reinforcements where provided, and the method of attachment to the building structure will vary between designs, the maximum stresses and deflections shall be analyzed to suit the specific design.



Page 13 of 54

FIGURE 8.4.8.7 Stresses and Deflections of Guide-Rail Brackets, Fastenings and Supports

Zone > 3 Bracket Design Load, P [Notes (1), (2), and (3)] Allowable

Guide-Rail Bracket L Bracket Type

Vertical Location

Typical Figure

Bracket Moment of

Inertia, mm4(in4) N lb

Bend Stress,

Mpa (psi)

Deflection, mm(in)

[Note (4)]

Main (car and ≥ Rail span l

Any

Building

0.88Fyp (Note1&2)0.6Fyp (Note 1&3) See Table 8.4.14

2.54 (0.10)

counterweight)

≥ Rail span l

supports

6 mm (.25")

Double "U" Mid-span Id

Intermediate Bracket 1/3 span

tie (counterweight) Single "U"

Mid-span 2Id

Bracket 1/3 span NOTES: (1) For hydraulic elevator main bracket design load (car) add 1/4 of the plunger (zone 3 or greater) (2) For Zone 2, multiply design load "P" by 0.5. (3) For areas not using Seismic Zones. Factored loads are shown, see Table 8.4.14. (4) This limitation includes deflections of the guide rail bracket, fastenings and building supports

2 & 1 Notes For 3W

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛2 & 1 Notes

3W 9.807 ⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

3&1 Notes 3

2F0.79.807 p

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛3 & 1 Notes

32F

0.7 p

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

2 & 1 Notes 3L - 1

2W 9.807 ⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l

( ) 3 & 1 Notes 3L - 10.7F 9.807 p ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l

2 & 1 Notes 3L - 1

2W ⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l

( ) 3 & 1 Notes 3L - 10.7F p ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l

2 & 1 Notes 6W 9.807 ⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

2 & 1 Notes 6W

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

3 & 1 Notes 3F

0.7 p⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛3 & 1 Notes 3F

0.7 9.807 p⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛



Page 14 of 54

8.4.8.8… No changes 8.4.8.9… No changes

8.4.8.9.1 Force normal to the x-x axis of the guide rail:

(a) Where L ≥ l (see Table 8.4.8.7):

(SI Units)

Fx-x = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

3W 9.807 (Zone > 3)

Fx-x = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

6W 9.807 (Zone 2)

Fx-x = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛3F 2

9.807 p (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Fx-x = 3W

(Zone > 3)

Fx-x = 6W

(Zone 2)

Fx-x = 3

2Fp (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(a) Where L < l (see Table 8.4.8.7):

(SI Units)

Fx-x = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

2W 9.807 (Zone > 3)

Fx-x = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

4W 9.807 (Zone 2)

Fx-x = ( ) ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1F 9.807 p (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)



Page 15 of 54

Fx-x = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

2W (Zone > 3)

Fx-x = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

4W

(Zone 2)

Fx-x = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1F p (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

8.4.8.9.2 Force normal to the y-y axis of the guide rail:

(a) Where L > l (see Table 8.4.8.7):

(SI Units)

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

6W 9.807 (Zone > 3)

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

12W 9.807 (Zone 2)

Fy-y = ⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

3pF

9.807 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Fy-y = 6W

(Zone > 3)

Fy-y = 12W (Zone 2)

Fy-y = 3F

p (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(b) Where L < l (see Table 8.4.8.7):

(SI Units)

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

4W 9.807 (Zone > 3)



Page 16 of 54

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

8W 9.807 (Zone 2)

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛l3

L - 12F

9.807 p (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

4W (Zone > 3)

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l3L - 1

8W (Zone 2)

Fy-y = ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛l3

L - 12Fp (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

where

Fx-x, Fy-y = seismic force, N (lbf) W = total weight of car plus 40% of its rated load FP = Seismic Component Force as defined in 8.4.14

8.4.9 Driving Machines and Sheaves

8.4.9.1 Seismic Requirements for Driving Machine and Sheaves. All integral parts of driving machines together with their supports shall be capable of withstanding the inertia effect of their masses without permanent deformation when subjected to seismic forces acting separately of not less than those required to produce an acceleration of as defined in 8.4.13 or 8.4.14, or equal to:

(a) gravity Wp horizontally and ½ Wp gravity vertically (zone 3 or greater) (b) ½ gravity Wp horizontally and ¼ Wp gravity vertically (zone 2)

8.4.10 Emergency Operation and Signaling Devices

8.4.10.1 Operation of Elevators Under Earthquake Emergency Conditions. Earthquake emergency operation shall be provided for seismic risk zone 2 or greater conforming and conform to 8.4.10. Earthquake emergency operation is not required for risk zone 2 or Fp < 0.25 Wp with z/h=1 (see 8.4.14.2), provided the car and counterweight guiderail systems, guiding members, and position restraints conform to the requirements and force levels for zone 3 or greater in 8.4.5, 8.4.7, and 8.4.8. where:

Wp = component operating weight

8.4.10.1.1 Earthquake Equipment (See Also Fig. 8.4.10.1.1)



Page 17 of 54

(a) All traction elevators operating at a rated speed of 0.75 m/s (150 ft/min) or more and having counterweights located in the same hoistway shall be provided with the following:

(1) For seismic zone 3 or greater, or Fp ≥ 0.25 Wp with z/h=1: a minimum of one seismic switch per building

(2) For all elevators covered by Section 8.4 seismic zone 2 or greater: (a) a displacement switch for each elevator (b) an identified momentary reset button or switch for each elevator, located in the control

panel in the elevator machine room [see 8.4.10.1.3(i)] (b) For attendant-operated elevators and automatic elevators on designated attendant service,

a signal system consisting of both visual and audible types activated by either the seismic switch or the displacement switch shall be provided to alert the attendant that the car is under earthquake emergency control and that the attendant is to return the car to the nearest available floor. The audible signal required by 2.27.3.1.6(h) shall be permitted to be used for this purpose in lieu of a separate audible signal.

8.4.10.1.2… No changes 8.4.10.1.3… No changes 8.4.10.1.4… No changes

8.4.11 Hydraulic Elevators

8.4.11.1… No changes 8.4.11.2 Overspeed Valve and Plunger Gripper. Hydraulic elevators not provided with car

safeties complying with 3.17.2 shall be provided with (a) an overspeed valve(s) conforming to 3.19.4.7, or (b) a plunger gripper(s) conforming to 3.17.3, except as modified by 8.4.11.2(b)(1) and (2).

(1) Requirement 3.17.3.2 applies as modified. The primary actuation shall be mechanical or hydraulic. Electrical means are permitted as a secondary actuation means.

(2) The plunger gripper shall be capable of withstanding inertia effects of the elevator masses without operational failure when subjected to seismic forces acting separately, of not less than those required to produce an acceleration as follows as defined in 8.4.13 or 8.4.14, or equal to:

(a) for Zone 3 or greater, or Fp ≥ 0.25 Wp with z/h=1 (1) gravity Wplgr horizontally acting on the mass of the plunger (2) ½ (Wplgr + Wp) gravity vertically acting on the mass of the plunger with the mass of

the car at rated load (b) for Zone 2 or Fp < 0.25 Wp with z/h=1

(1) ½ Wplgr gravity horizontally acting on the mass of the plunger (2) ¼ (Wplgr + Wp) gravity vertically acting on the mass of the plunger with the mass of the

car at rated load where

Wplgr = weight of plunger

8.4.11.3… No changes 8.4.11.4… No changes 8.4.11.5… No changes 8.4.11.6… No changes



Page 18 of 54

8.4.11.7 Information on Elevator Layouts. The following information regarding horizontal seismic forces imposed on the guide-rail faces by the lower position restraints of the car or counterweight is required on elevator layout drawings. The forces are to be determined as specified in 8.4.11.7.1 and 8.4.11.7.2.

8.4.11.7.1 Force normal to x-x axis of the rail (see 8.4.8.9): (a) Where L > l (see Table 8.4.8.7):

(SI Units)

Fx-x = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

4W

3W 9.807 plgr (Zone > 3)

Fx-x = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

8W

6W 9.807 plgr (Zone 2)

Fx-x = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

4W

3F2

9.807 plgrp (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Fx-x = 4

W3W plgr+ (Zone > 3)

Fx-x = 8

W6W plgr+ (Zone 2)

Fx-x = 4

W3

2F pglrp + (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)


(SI Units)

Fx-x = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

4W

3L - 1

2W 9.807 plgr

l (Zone > 3)

Fx-x = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

8W

3L - 1

4W 9.807 plgr

l (Zone 2)

Fx-x = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

4W

3L - 1F 9.807 plgr

lp (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)



Page 19 of 54

(Imperial Units)

Fx-x = 4

W3L - 1

2W plgr+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l (Zone > 3)

Fx-x = 8

W3L - 1

4W plgr+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l (Zone 2)

Fx-x = 4

W3L - 1F plgr

p +⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

l (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

8.4.11.7.2 Force normal to the y-y axis of the guide rail:

(a) Where L > l (see Table 8.4.8.7):

(SI Units)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+

8W

6W 9.807 plgr (Zone > 3)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+

16W

12W 9.807 plgr (Zone 2)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+

8W

3F

9.807 plgrp (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Fy-y = 8


Fy-y = 16

W12W plgr+ (Zone 2)

Fy-y = 8

W3

'F plgrp + (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)


(SI Units)



Page 20 of 54

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

8W

3L - 1

4W 9.807 plgr

l (Zone > 3)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

16W

3L - 1

8W 9.807 plgr

l (Zone 2)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛83

L - 12F

9.807 lgp rpWl

(IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

8W

3L - 1

4W 9.807 plgr

l (Zone > 3)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

16W

3L - 1

8W 9.807 plgr

l (Zone 2)

Fy-y = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡+⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛8

W3L - 1

2F

9.807 plgrp

l (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

where

Fx-x, Fy-y = seismic force, N (lbf) W = total weight of car plus 40% of its rated load FP = Seismic Component Force as defined in 8.4.14

WP Wplgr = plunger weight, kg (lb)

8.4.12 Design Data and Formulas for Elevators 8.4.12.1 Maximum Weight Per Pair of Guide Rails. The following formulas shall be used to determine the maximum allowable weight per pair of guide rails.

8.4.12.1.1 Force Normal to x-x Axis of Rail (See 8.4.8.9) (a) No intermediate tie brackets (car and counterweight rails):

(1) Traction elevators (or hydraulic elevator counterweight rails, where provided): (SI Units)

W = l

xZ5.504 (Zone > 3)



Page 21 of 54

W = l

xZ1009 (Zone 2)

2FP’ = l

xZ5.504 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

W = l

xZ671,717 (Zone > 3)

W = l

xZ342,435,1 (Zone 2)

2FP’ = l

xZ671,717 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(2) Hydraulic elevators (car guide rails only): (SI Units)

W’ = l

xZ168 (Seismic Zone Jurisdictions)

2FP-plgr = l

xZ168 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

W’ = l

xZ224,239 (Seismic Zone Jurisdictions)

2Fp-plgr = l

xZ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

4.1224,239


where

W’ = 4


W’ = 8

W6W plgr+ (Zone 2)



Page 22 of 54

Fp’ = 0.7 Fp (IBC) = Fp (NBCC)

Fp-plgr = 4

W3F

0.7 plgrp +⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ (IBC)

Fp-plgr = 4

W3F plgrp + (NBCC)

(b) One intermediate tie bracket located midway between main counterweighted guide-rail

brackets:

(SI Units)

W = l

xZ669 (Zone > 3)

W = l

xZ1338 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = l

xZ669 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

W = l

xZ991,951 (Zone > 3)

W = l

xZ982,903,1 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = l

xZ991,951 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(c) Two intermediate tie brackets approximately equally spaced between main

counterweighted guide rail brackets:

(SI Units)

W = l

xZ6.740 (Zone > 3)

W = l

xZ1481 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = l

xZ6.740 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)



Page 23 of 54

(Imperial Units)

W = l

xZ495,053,1 (Zone > 3)

W = l

xZ990,106,2 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = l

xZ495,053,1 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

8.4.12.1.2 Normal to y-y Axis of Rail (See 8.4.8.9)

(a) No intermediate tie brackets (car and counterweight rails):

(1) Traction elevators (or hydraulic elevator counterweight rails, where provided):

(SI Units)

W = l

yZ1009 (Zone > 3)

W = l

yZ2018 (Zone < 2)

2Fp’ = lyZ1009 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

W = l

yZ342,435,1 (Zone > 3)

W = l

yZ684,870,2 (Zone < 2)

2Fp’ = lyZ342,435,1 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(2) Hydraulic elevators (car guide rails only):

(SI Units)

W’ = l

yZ336 (Seismic Zone Jurisdictions)



Page 24 of 54

2Fp-plgr = lyZ336 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

W’ = l

yZ448,478 (Seismic Zone Jurisdictions)

2Fp-plgr = lyZ448,478 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

where


W’ = 4


W’ = 8

W6W plgr+ (Zone 2)

Fp-plgr = 8

W3F

0.7 plgrp +⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ (IBC)

Fp-plgr = 8

W3F plgrp + (NBCC)

(b) One intermediate tie bracket located midway between main counterweighted guide-rail

brackets:

(SI Units)

W = l

yZ5.1338 (Zone > 3)

W = l

yZ2677 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = lyZ5.1338 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)



Page 25 of 54

W = l

yZ982,903,1 (Zone > 3)

W = l

yZ962,807,3 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = lxZ982,903,1 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(c) Two intermediate tie brackets approximately equally spaced between main

counterweighted guide rail brackets:

(SI Units)

W = l

yZ1481 (Zone > 3)

W = l

yZ2962 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = lyZ1481 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

W = l

yZ990,106,2 (Zone > 3)

W = l

yZ963,213,4 (Zone 2)

2Fp’ = lxZ990,106,2 (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

Where:


8.4.12.2 Required Moment of Inertia of Guide Rails. The following formulas shall be used to determine the minimum allowable moment of inertia of guide rails. 8.4.12.2.1 Force Normal to x-x Axis of Rail (see 8.4.8.9)

(a) Traction elevators (or hydraulic elevator counterweight rails, where provided):

(SI Units)



Page 26 of 54

Ix = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ΔE249

W807.93l (Zone > 3)

Ix = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ΔE498

W807.93l (Zone 2)

Ix = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

ΔE249W'F2

807.93

p l (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Ix = E

WΔ249

3l (Zone > 3)

Ix = E

WΔ498

3l (Zone 2)

Ix = E

WFp

Δ249' 2 3l


(b) Hydraulic elevators (car guide rails only):

(SI Units)

Ix = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

267W

249W

ΔE9.807 plgr

3l (Zone > 3)

Ix = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

534W

498W

ΔE9.807 plgr

3l (Zone 2)

Ix = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

267W

249'F 2

ΔE9.807 plgrp

3l (IBC/NBCC Jurisdictions)

(Imperial Units)

Ix = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

267W

249W

ΔEplgr

3l (Zone > 3)

Ix = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

534W

498W

ΔEplgr

3l (Zone 2)



Page 27 of 54

Ix = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

267W

249'F 2

ΔEplgrp


8.4.12.2.2 Force Normal to y-y Axis of Rail (see 8.4.8.9)

(a) Traction elevators (or hydraulic elevator counterweight rails, where provided):

(SI Units)

Iy = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ΔE498

W807.93l (Zone > 3)

Iy = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ΔE996

W807.93l (Zone 2)

Iy = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

ΔEFp

498' 2

807.93l


(Imperial Units)

Iy = E

WΔ498

3l

(Zone > 3)

Iy = E

WΔ996

3l (Zone 2)

Iy = E

Fp

Δ498' 2 3l


(b) Hydraulic elevators (car guide rails only):

(SI Units)

Iy = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

534W

498W

ΔE9.807 plgr

3l (Zone > 3)

Iy = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

Δ 1068996807.9 lg

3rpWW

El

(Zone 2)



Page 28 of 54

Iy = ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

534W

498'F 2

ΔE9.807 plgrp


(Imperial Units)

Iy = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

534W

498W

ΔEplgr

3l (Zone > 3)

Iy = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

1068W

996W

ΔEplgr

3l (Zone 2)

Iy = ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+

Δ 534W

498' 2 plgr

3pF

El


where Fp’ = 0.7 Fp (IBC) = Fp (NBCC)

8.4.13.3 Ground Motion Parameters Component Force Levels Based on Ground Motion Parameters.

For Section 8.4, the component force level shall be the greater of that dictated by: (a) the applicable building code’s non-structural component requirements; or (b) the appropriate Seismic Zone as determined in 8.4.13.1 or 8.4.13.2 8.4.13.1 For application to building codes of the United States In United States Jurisdictions

with building codes not referencing Seismic Zones and prior to IBC: Affected Peak Zone(s) Velocity Acceleration, Av 0 and 1 Av < 0.10

2 0.10 < Av < 0.20 3 and 4 0.20 < Av

where Av = affected peak velocity acceleration Zv = peak horizontal ground acceleration

Rationale: Additional variable definitions are redundant. Av is already described in correlation chart above. Zv is not included in this correlation chart.

8.4.13.2 Where required, in In Canadian jurisdictions enforcing building codes prior to NBCC-2005, the following values of Zv (velocity – related seismic zone) will determine the applicable seismic zone.

Velocity-Related



Page 29 of 54

Zone(s) Seismic Zone, Zv 2 2 < Zv < 4

> 3 4< Zv NOTE: For Zv values, see “Design Data for Selected Locations in Canada,” in NBCC-1995, Appendix C.

8.4.14 Elevator Component Force Levels (a) For application to building codes in the United States For jurisdictions enforcing IBC: FC = 0.6D +0.7E Where:

FC = Component Complete design load D = the effect of dead load (component operating weight) E = combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake-induced forces.

= Fp + Fv (NOTE: Based on allowable strength design, a reduced value for E, shown above as 0.7E , shall not be used in conjunction with an increase in allowable stress. An allowable stress of 88% of yield strength is permitted with a non-factored E. See Table 8.4.14)

Table 8.4.14 Design Stress Limits CODE ALLOWABLE STRESS

IBCC/ASCE 7 0.6Fy (with 0.7E) 0.88Fy (with 1.0E)

All other US Building (Interim) Codes 0.88Fy (with 1.0E)

NBCC 0.6Fy

Fp = Seismic Design force (horizontal) = pWhz21

IppR

DSS pa 0.4⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+

⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

Fp is not required to be taken as greater than Fp = 1.6SDSIpWp And Fp shall not be taken as less than Fp = 0.3SDSIpWp



Page 30 of 54

Where:

SDS = 5% damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short periods (i.e. 0.2 seconds) ap = Component Amplification Factor = 1 Ip = Component Importance Factor = 1 or 1.5 Wp = Component operating weight as defined in 8.4.15 Rp = Component Response Modification Factor = 2.5 h = average roof height of structure with respect to base (See Nonmandatory Appendix XX,

Part 1, Figure X.X) z = height of component attachment in building. For items below base, z = 0, z/h does not exceed 1.0 Fv = Seismic Design force (vertical) = ±0.2 SDS D

(b) For jurisdictions enforcing NBCC-2005 or later editions:

FC = 1.0D + 1.0E (See NBCC 2005 Table 4.1.3.2) Where:

FC = Component Complete design load D = the effect of dead load (component operating weight) E = horizontal earthquake-induced forces, Fp

Fp = 0.3Fa Sa(0.2) IE SP Wp

Where: Fp = Horizontal force applied through center of mass of the component Fa = Acceleration-based site coefficient, defined in NBCC 2005, Table 4.1.8.4.B Sa(0.2) = 5% damped spectral response acceleration value, expressed as a ratio to gravitational acceleration, for a period of 0.2 s, defined in NBCC Sentence 4.1.8.4(1) IE = Importance factor for the building, defined in NBCC 2005, Article 4.1.8.5 SP = CP Ar Ax/Rp (where SP may range between 0.7 and 4.0) with:

CP = component factor as listed in NBCC 2005 Table 4.1.8.17 (for machinery) =1 for rigid connections =2.5 for flexible connections Ar = component force amplification factor from NBCC 2005 Table 4.1.18.17 Ax = height factor (1 + 2 hx/hn) with:

hx = height above base under consideration for component hn = uppermost level in main portion of structure

Rp = component response modification factor from NBCC 2005 Table 4.1.18.17 Wp = component operating weight as defined by 8.4.15 Note: The base of the structure is the level at which horizontal earthquake motions are considered to be imparted to the structure. 8.4.15 Component Operating Weight (Wp)

The component operating weight as used in 8.4.14 shall be: (a) For support or restraint of specific components, the component operating weight will be

used (ie, counterweight, controller, etc)



Page 31 of 54

(b) For support or restraint of a traction elevator, the component operating weight will include car weight plus 40% capacity (ie, guide rails)

(c) For support or restraint of a hydraulic elevator, the component operating weight will include car weight plus 40% capacity plus ½ of plunger weight (ie, guide rails)

Nonmandatory Appendix XX Part 1: Modification of A17.1 – 2007 Section 8.4 Elevator Safety

Requirements for Seismic Risk Zone 2 or Greater PURPOSE This appendix provides rationale for elevator seismic force determination in Section 8.4. It details A171 harmonization efforts with all building codes and seismic force level comparisons. INTRODUCTION For many years, building codes such as the UBC and SBC differentiated the force levels expected during seismic activity by “Zones”. For example, a building in a Zone 1 location was expected to see lower seismic forces than a building in a Zone 2 location. A USGS map of the US (see Figure 1), published in the various building codes, indicated the appropriate zone for any part of the country. Seismic requirements were first specified in A17.1 – 1981 Appendix F. They were based on the American National Standard Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures, ANSI A58.1. Seismic force levels that the elevator must withstand would vary based on whether the subject building was in a Zone 2 or Zone 3 location. Zone 1 locations did not have elevator seismic requirements. Therefore, to determine elevator seismic forces for any part of the country, one would review the appropriate, adopted building code for that particular location, determine the zone for that location from the Seismic Zone map used by that building code, and then reference the appropriate elevator forces for that zone in A17.1.



Page 32 of 54

Figure 1: Seismic Zone Map as referenced by 1997 Uniform Building Code In the mid-1980’s, the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) published its “Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings” with new seismic maps from the USGS. Instead of using Zones, these new contour maps designated seismic ground motion in terms of a velocity related coefficient, Av. The ground motion parameter, in addition to other building variables, was input into an equation in order to determine seismic force levels for building structural and non-structural components (elevators, etc). Throughout the late 1980’s and 1990’s, the model building codes (BOCA, UBC, SBC) began adopting these new maps and variations of the NEHRP seismic force equation into their codes. Canada also adopted a velocity-related seismic zone parameter, Zv that no longer determined seismic forces by the traditional seismic zones. With different building codes utilizing different seismic force equations and no longer using Seismic Zone maps, the need to properly integrate the A17.1 Seismic requirements with the new building codes was becoming imperative. A17.1 requirement 8.4.13 was introduced in the 2000 edition that correlates ground motion parameters (such as Av and Zv) to the traditional Seismic Zones. Using this correlation, the A17.1 requirements could continue to be used as written. For reference, the correlating values were as follows: (US: see 8.4.13.1)



Page 33 of 54

Affected Peak Zone(s) Velocity Acceleration, Av 0 and 1 Av < 0.10

3 0.10 < Av < 0.20 3 and 4 0.20 < Av

(Canada: see 8.4.13.2) Velocity-Related Zone(s) Seismic Zone, Zv 2 2 < Zv < 4

> 3 4< Zv In 1994, the three US model building codes (ICBO, BOCA, and SBCCI) established the International Code Council (ICC). In 2000, ICC began publishing one comprehensive code, the IBC. The IBC-2000 code utilized the latest USGS maps (now contour maps with a ground motion parameter of earthquake spectral response acceleration) and NEHRP guidelines for its seismic force requirements. ASCE 7-02, recognized as the US standard for seismic force requirements, was referenced by IBC 2003. As with IBC 2000, ASCE 7 –02 referenced the latest USGS maps and NEHRP guidelines as the basis for its force requirements. Canada has developed its own seismic force requirements, dependent on Zv and other variable parameters, in the NBCC 2005. Since its introduction in April 2000, the IBC has been adopted by a majority of jurisdictions as their building code. Because the IBC maps no longer refer to Zones or the Av parameter, the need to properly integrate the A17.1 Seismic requirements with the IBC has become imperative. Section 8.4 provides a methodology to ensure that seismic force levels are met for:

1. IBC and NBCC requirements. 2. Seismic Zones. 3. Older building codes where seismic force levels are based on earlier seismic

maps.

FORCE LEVEL COMPARISONS



Page 34 of 54

In an effort to determine the impact of a change to IBC/ASCE 7 seismic force requirements, a comparison of the A17.1 and IBC/ASCE 7 seismic forces was conducted. It was felt the biggest impact would be seen on the horizontal force levels required. For Zone 3 areas, A17.1 requires elevator components to be able to withstand forces required to produce an acceleration of ½ gravity or gravity. The force level will vary depending on the component being described. IBC/ ASCE 7 specifies its horizontal force as:

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

==hz21

IR

WSa4.0F

p

p

pDSpp zontal)Force(hori DesignSeismic

where: add reference for IBC-2000 and ASCE 7-05 for each variable ap = Component Amplification Factor = 1 for elevators and escalators (ref. Table 1621.3 of IBC-2000 and Table 9.6.3.2 of ASCE 7-02) SDS = Design Spectral Response (short period) = (2/3) (Fa)(Ss) (ref. XXX IBC and XXX ASCE –7) where: Ss – Seismic Map Value (contour lines) - the mapped maximum

considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at short periods Fa – coefficient based on Site Class for building Rp = Component Response Modification Factor = 2.5 for elevators and escalators (ref. Table 1621.3 of IBC-2000 and Table 9.6.3.2 of ASCE 7-02) Ip = Component Importance Factor = 1 or 1.5 (life safety component) z = height at which component is attached to the building h = overall building height (reference Figure XXX in appendix) (provides structural support for the building) WC = Component Operating Weight (Referenced as WP in IBC)

There was concern that A17.1 force levels based on seismic zones and IBC/ASCE 7 force levels for rail brackets would vary greatly at the upper portion of the building. The force levels required by IBC/ ASCE 7 were expected to generate large design changes for much of the country. A comparison of the IBC/ASCE 7 force levels with the A17.1 guide rail force levels was conducted to determine how great an impact would occur with a change to the IBC/ASCE 7 force levels.



Page 35 of 54

For A17.1, seismic zone 3 or greater: For IBC/ ASCE 7:

[Note: an additional increase may be required for anchorage in concrete/masonry (ref. ASCE7 13.4.2) add IBC ref]

Fp = 0.5 Wc c

p

p

DSpp W

hz21

IRSa4.0F ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣⎡

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

=

Values of ap and Rp are standardized for elevators as listed in the equation description above. Inserting their values, Fp is simplified to:

Fp = 0.16 SDS Ip[1 + 2 (z/h)]Wc

The highest values of Fp will

occur at the top of the building, where z = h.

Incorporating this condition simplifies Fp to:

Fp = 0.48 SDS Ip Wc

IBC/ ASCE 7 allow Fp to be reduced by 1.4 (Fp/1.4) or factored by 0.7 (0.7Fp) if allowable stress design is used and Earthquake loads are used in combination load equations as designated by IBC/ASCE7 (Reference IBC 1605.3). With this decrease in Fp, however, allowable stress is reduced from .88Fy to 0.6Fy. Reducing Fp by 1.4 gives: Fp = 0.343 SDS Ip Wc



Page 36 of 54

Comparing A17.1 and IBC/ASCE 7 values of Fp yields:

Reduced Fp No Reduction on Fp 0.5 = 0.343 SDS Ip 0.5 = 0.48 SDS Ip or or 1.46/ Ip = SDS 1.04/ Ip = SDS

SDS is related to the USGS map contour lines by: SDS = 2/3 ( Fa ) (Ss) Inserting the new value for SDS yields: Reduced Fp No Reduction on Fp 2.2/ Ip = Fa Ss 1.56/ Ip = Fa Ss By solving for Ss, it can be determined what areas in the country will see increased seismic force levels when using the IBC/ASCE 7 seismic requirements. For buildings with a component importance factor, Ip = 1: Reduced Fp No Reduction on Fp 2.2 = Fa Ss 1.56 = Fa Ss Per ASCE 7 –02 Table 9.4.1.2.4a, for values of Ss over 1.25, Fa becomes a maximum of 1, giving: Reduced Fp No Reduction on Fp 2.2 = Ss 1.56 = Ss With the reduced Fp, A17.1 force levels would be greater than or equal to IBC/ASCE 7 force levels in all areas where the mapped spectral response acceleration is 220%g or less. With the non-reduced Fp, A17.1 forces levels would be greater than or equal to IBC/ ASCE7 force levels in all areas where the mapped spectral response acceleration is 156%g or less. Reviewing the appropriate IBC/ASCE7-02 map, the largest contour not on a fault line is 225%. (see Figure 9.4.1.1(a) of ASCE 7 – 02 “Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for Conterminous United States, of 0.2s Spectral Response Acceleration (5% of critical damping), Site Class B”). Therefore, for buildings with a Component Importance Factor of 1, A17.1 current force levels would meet or exceed IBC/ASCE 7 reduced loads everywhere in the US except for fault lines and a small area around the



Page 37 of 54

New Madrid fault. However, IBC/ASCE 7 non-reduced force levels would be more stringent in areas such as Charleston, SC. For buildings with a component importance factor, Ip = 1.5:

Reduced Fp No Reduction on Fp 1.47 = Fa Ss 1.04 = Fa Ss Again, per ASCE 7 –02 Table 9.4.1.2.4a, for values of Ss over 1.25, Fa becomes a maximum of 1, giving:

Reduced Fp No Reduction on Fp 1.47 = Ss 1.04 = Ss A17.1 force levels would be greater than or equal to reduced IBC/ASCE 7 force levels in all areas where the mapped spectral response acceleration is 147%g or less. Using the reduced IBC/ASCE 7 forces, areas such as Charleston would not see an increase with IBC/ASCE 7 seismic forces unless a Component Importance Factor of 1.5 is used. However, with the non-reduced IBC forces, areas further outside of fault lines and much of California will see increased forces above those currently seen with A17.1. The above comparison of A17.1 Zone 3 and IBC/ASCE 7 forces is taken basically at the top of a building. Due to the height variable in the IBC (z) and NBCC (hx) seismic force equation, IBC and NBCC forces in the center and lower portions of the building will be reduced. Therefore, the impact of changing to IBC and NBCC forces should be greatly reduced in the mid to lower half of buildings. The chart below indicates the impact of the introduction of IBC/ASCE 7 seismic force levels for the country. The chart indicates that for the upper half of a building, in areas where A17.1 Zone 3 requires only 0.5g seismic forces (such as rail brackets), seismic forces will increase for some portions of the country (regardless of whether IBC forces are reduced). Other locations within the building will see little to no increase above A17.1 seismic zone force levels.



Page 38 of 54

Areas where A17.1 Seismic IBC/ASCE 7 Seismic Contour Bands

Forces are more stringent Component Importance Factor = 1 Component Importance

Factor = 1.5 (Note: Contour line greater than 225% covers entire country)

A17.1 Zone 3 Reduced Fp

No Fp Reduction taken (see

note 2) Reduced

Fp

No Fp Reduction taken (see

note 2) Top of Building Max A17.1 Force (Machine Beams, etc) Wc 440% 320% 294% 214% Min A17.1 Force (Rail Brackets, etc) 0.5Wc 220% 160% 147% 107% Building Mid height Max A17.1 Force (Machine Beams, etc) Wc 660% 460% 440% 306% Min A17.1 Force (Rail Brackets, etc) 0.5Wc 330% 230% 220% 153% Building Ground Level Max A17.1 Force (Machine Beams, etc) Wc 1320% 940% 880% 626% Min A17.1 Force (Rail Brackets, etc) 0.5Wc 660% 470% 440% 313% Note 2: For Canada only Jean, change the shading on the chart A17.1 forces remain most stringent over entire country A17.1 forces remain most stringent except for a small band near fault lines A17.1 forces remain most stringent except for high seismic areas such as Charleston, SC With IBC parameters seismic design category, IP and SDS, the need for seismic requirements and seismic force levels can be determined. The matrix below compares these IBC parameters to existing seismic zones.


Rev. 6 – August, 2008

Page 39 of 54

Table: IBC parameters/existing seismic zones matrix

IBC (2000 and later) / ASCE 7 (2002 and later) ASME A17.1/B44

Seismic Design Category Ip SDS

1, 2 Seismic Zone

A or B - Not required 0, 1

C

1

1.5 0 < SDS ≤ 0.496 2 0.496 < SDS ≤

0.993 3 or greater

D or E or F

1

0 < SDS ≤ 0.745 2 0.745 < SDS ≤

1.487 3 or greater

> 1.487 Special Analysis Required

1.5

0 < SDS ≤ 0.496 2 0.496 < SDS ≤

0.993 3 or greater

> 0.993 Special Analysis Required1. Values have been reduced by 0.7 to convert from Strength Design to Working Stress 2. Assumed (z/h) = 1

While at times requiring slightly increased seismic force levels in the upper half of the building, particularly in the area of rail bracket selection and spacing, adoption of the IBC/NBCC seismic force levels might result in less stringent seismic forces in the lower half of the building than are currently required by A17.1. Use of IBC contour maps may introduce seismic requirements in areas that had been traditionally non-seismic. Regardless of the changes these force levels will dictate, the benefits of clarity in the code and use of the latest and most accurate information in seismic force protection are warranted. In addition to the code proposals and this document, a Sample Calculation Appendix has been developed to further explain the proper force selection for all building codes and the proper use of the new IBC seismic forces with existing A17.1 Section 8.4 requirements. EXPLANATION OF TERMS



Page 40 of 54

ASCE 7 – American Society of Civil Engineers Standard for Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The 2002 (ASCE 7-02) and subsequent publications reference the latest USGS earthquake maps. BOCA – a national building code and its publishing organization, the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. Last publication of this code was 1999. This building code referenced the older, “seismic zone” earthquake maps. The Building and Code Administrators International, Inc is now a member of the International Code Council (ICC) IBC – International Building Code. The 2000 and subsequent publications reference the latest USGS earthquake maps. ICBO – International Conference of Building Officials. Responsible for the publication of the Uniform Building Code, a national building code. Now a member of the International Code Council (ICC). NBCC – National Building Code of Canada. The 2005 edition utilizes a seismic force

equation similar to that of IBC. NEHRP – National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. A US government program. Recommendations from NEHRP are often incorporated into building codes and standards. SBC - The Standard (Southern) Building code. (Standard Building Code). Previously used in many areas in southeastern US. Last published in 1999. This building code referenced the older, “seismic zone” earthquake maps. SBCCI – Southern Building Code Conference International. Organization responsible for the development and maintenance of the model building code known as the Standard (Southern) Building Code. Now a member of the International Code Council (ICC). UBC – Uniform Building Code. A national building code (also referred to as ICBO) published by the International Conference of Building Officials. 1997 was the last published edition. This building code referenced the older, “seismic zone” earthquake maps. USGS – United States Geological Survey. Responsible for the most recent earthquake maps currently being referenced by the latest building codes and standards.



Page 41 of 54

Nonmandatory Appendix XX

Part 2: Sample Calculation Appendix Sample Calculation(s) 1: Determining Proper Seismic Rules and Forces

based on applicable Building Code and A17.1 Applicable ASME Rules: Introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4 Rule 8.4.13 Rule 8.4.14

Sample calculation 1a: Given: Building installed in jurisdiction where Standard Building Code (SBC) 1982 is in effect. Latest Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (ASME A17.1) is also in effect. SBC 1982 utilizes a Seismic Zone Map. Per SBC Seismic Zone map, the building is in a Seismic Zone 0. Determination of Proper Seismic Rules: Per introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4, only buildings in seismic risk zones 2 or greater must adhere to Section 8.4 rules. Since this building is in Seismic Zone 0, A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are not in effect. Sample calculation 1b: Given: Building installed in jurisdiction where Standard Building Code (SBC) 1982 is in effect. Latest Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (ASME A17.1) is also in effect. SBC 1982 utilizes a Seismic Zone Map. Per SBC Seismic Zone map, Building is in a Seismic Zone 2 Determination of Proper Seismic Rules: Per introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4, only buildings in seismic risk zones 2 or greater must adhere to Section 8.4 rules. Since this building is in Seismic Zone 2, A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Seismic force levels as described for Seismic Zone 2 throughout 8.4.1 through 8.4.12 apply. Rules 8.4.13 and 8.4.14 will not apply in this situation.



Page 42 of 54

Sample Calculation 1c: Given: Building installed in jurisdiction where BOCA 1996 is in effect. Latest Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (ASME A17.1) is also in effect. Per BOCA Seismic map, Building is in area with Av = 0.15 Building is designated with Seismic Performance Category C and Seismic Hazard Exposure Group II. All connections for the elevator components/systems are direct connections. Determination of Proper Seismic Rules: Per introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4, A17.1 seismic rules (Section 8.4) are in effect for buildings with Seismic Performance Category C and Seismic Hazard Exposure Group II. Therefore, A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Since building code designates seismic area in terms of Av, seismic force levels are determined in 8.4.13.3. Compare force levels per ASME A17.1 and BOCA 1996 to determine appropriate force level: Per ASME A17.1 Rule 8.4.13.1: For Av = 0.15, the equivalent ASME seismic zone will be zone 2. Per all requirements in ASME, minimum seismic zone force level will be: Fp = 0.25Wc Per BOCA 1996 Rule 1610.6.4: Component seismic force, Fp, is given as: Fp = Av Cc P ac Wc Per BOCA 1996 Table 1610.6.4(1): Component Seismic Coef., Cc = 1.25 Performance Criteria Factor, P = 1 Per Table 1610.6.4(2): Attachment amplification factor, ac = 1.0 Calculating force level, Fp = (0.15)(1.25)(1)(1)Wc = 0.1875Wc Comparing force levels: Minimum ASME A17.1 force level is more stringent (0.1875 Wc < 0.25 Wc) Therefore, ASME A17.1 force levels described for Seismic Zone 2 should be used.



Page 43 of 54

Sample Calculation 1d: Given: Building installed in jurisdiction where Standard Building Code (SBC) 1994 is in effect. Latest Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (ASME A17.1) is also in effect. Per SBC 1994 Contour Map of Effective Peak Velocity-Related Acceleration Coefficient, Av (Figure 1607.1.5A), building is in area between Peak Velocity-Related Acceleration Coefficient contours 0.1 and 0.2, with Av = .18 (ex: western part of Tennessee). Building information states Seismic Hazard Exposure Group III. All connections for the elevator components/systems are direct connections.

Determination of Proper Seismic Rules: Per introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4, A17.1 seismic rules (Section 8.4) are in effect for buildings with Seismic Performance Category C and Seismic Hazard Exposure Group II and greater. Therefore, A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Since building code designates seismic area in terms of Av, seismic force levels are determined in 8.4.13.3. Compare force levels per ASME A17.1 and SBC 1994 to determine appropriate force level: Per ASME A17.1 Rule 8.4.13.1: For Av = 0.18, the equivalent ASME seismic zone will be zone 2. Per all requirements in ASME, minimum seismic zone 2 force level will be: Fp = 0.25Wc Per SBC 1994 Rule 1607.6.4: Fp = AvCcPacWc



Page 44 of 54

Per Table 1607.6.4A: Component Seismic Coef., Cc = 1.25 Performance Criteria Factor, P = 1 Per Table 1607.6.4B: Attachment amplification factor, ac = 1.0 Calculating force level: Fp = (0.18)(1.25)(1.5)(1) Wc = .3375 Wc

Comparing force levels: Depending on Section 8.4 requirement, the ASME Seismic Zone 2 force will be either 0.25 Wc or 0.5 Wc. The SBC 1994 force level is greater than the minimum ASME level, but less than the maximum ASME force level. (0.25 Wc < 0.3375 Wc < 0.5 Wc ) Force Level Determination: Force level to use will vary based on each ASME Section 8.4 requirement. For requirements using max. ASME force level (ex: 8.4.2.1 with Fp = .5 Wc), ASME force levels will be used. For requirements using min. ASME force level (ex: 8.4.5.2.1 with Fp = .25 Wc), SBC 1994 force levels will be used. Sample Calculation 1e:

Given: Building installed in jurisdiction where International Building Code (IBC) 2000 is in effect. Latest Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators (ASME A17.1) is also in effect. Building is in Seismic Design Category C Building has component importance factor of 1.5. Determination of Proper Seismic Rules: Per introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4, A17.1 seismic rules (Section 8.4) are in effect for buildings with Seismic Design Category C and Component Importance Factor of 1.5. Therefore, A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Force levels as referenced by 8.4.14 shall be used as specified.



Page 45 of 54

Sample Calculation(s) 2: Machine Beam Forces with IBC Code based on applicable Building Code and A17.1

Applicable ASME Rules: Introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4 Rule 8.4.2.1 Rule 8.4.2.2 Rule 8.4.2.3.2 Rule 8.4.14

Given: Building in jurisdiction where IBC is in effect Seismic Design Category C Component Importance Factor of Ip = 1.5 SDS = 0.56 A Traction Elevator system with: 7425 lb. Empty car weight 3000 lb. Capacity Gearless machine and bedplate weight = 6200 lbs. Overall Building Height of 420’-0”(870 in) (2) Machine Beams anchored at elevation of 400’-0” Dim between Machine Beam CL = 40” CG of Machine and Bedplate assy 48” above machine beam anchoring Assume (2) Machine Beams, 12.5” Ht x 6.5” flange width x 120” length, 35 lb/ft(350lb total) A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Force levels per 8.4.14 shall be used as specified. Determine Earthquake forces acting on the machine beam anchors (weight due to machine and bedplate only considered for earthquake loading): Earthquake Horizontal Force, Fp:

lb 2694ft 420ft 40021

2.5lb)00)(0.56)(690.4(1)(1.5

hz21

RWSa0.4

FP

cDSPP =⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=

I P

Earthquake Vertical Force, Fv: Fv= 0.2 SDS D = (0.2)(0.56)(6900 lb) = 773lb



Page 46 of 54

Machine Beam Selection:

allowdre'-XX Lσ

Pab S = where:

P = machine & bedplate weight + machine beams weight + suspended load + FV

a = 48 in b = 72 in Suspended load = car + counterweight weight + rated load + hoist ropes + traveling cables = (7425 + 8625 + 3000 + 800 + 300) lb = 20,150 lb σallow = 0.6 FY = 0.6 (36,000 psi) = 21,000 psi

Note: MB1 carries a proportion of the load = Then,

3dreq'-XX in 21.98

psi in in) (72 in) (48 lb) 773 lb 20,150 lb 350 lb (6200 0.6 S =

+++=

︶600,21︵120

Use W12 x 22

0.6 in 12 in 8

in 12=

+



Page 47 of 54

Bolt Load in Tension: For the worst case condition, anchor bolts for machine beams will be tensioned by an upward vertical earthquake load and subject to a bending moment due to horizontal earthquake load. Worst case loading will be along shortest mounting length - length perpendicular to machine beam length. The 4 bolts farthest from the moment will see the maximum loading.

lb 856.516

lb) (773in) (40 4

in) lb)(48 (2694NF

nl H FB v p

T =+=+=

where: n = number of bolts farthest from moment center N = total number of bolts Bolt Load in Shear:

lb 168.416

lb 2694NFB p

SH ===

Complete the process using standard analysis of bolts with combined stresses. (Note: Since earthquake forces have not been reduced, an allowable stress of .88Fy may be used.)



Page 48 of 54

Sample Calculation 3: Fastening Forces with IBC Building Code

Applicable ASME Rules: Introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4 Rule 8.4.2.3.1 Rule 8.4.11.6 Rule 8.4.14

Given: Building in jurisdiction where IBC is in effect Seismic Design Category C Component Importance Factor of Ip = 1.5 SDS = 0.78 A Hydraulic Elevator system with: 3340 lb. Empty car weight 5000 lb. Capacity Overall Building Height of 72’-6”(870in) Hydraulic Tank unit installed at ground level, 0’-0” Hydraulic Tank weight 3400 lbs, with a center of gravity at height of 27.5” (4) 5/8” bolts in a 31” x 51” tie-down pattern A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Force levels per 8.4.14 shall be used as specified. Determine Earthquake forces acting on the tank unit (note: all final values rounded up to nearest whole number): Earthquake Horizontal Force, Fp:

lb637in870

in021hz21

RWSIa4.0F

p

cDSppp

2.5

=⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=

lb)00)(0.78)(340.4(1)(1.5

Earthquake Vertical Force, Fy: Fy = 0.2 SDS D = 0.2 (0.78)(3400) = 531 lb

Bolt Load in Tension: Bolts will be tensioned by vertical earthquake load and moment due to horizontal earthquake load. Worst case loading will be on 2 bolts on the short side of the tank unit.

lb4164531

︶31︵2

︶in5.27︵637NF

nlB y

T hFp=+=+=



Page 49 of 54

where: n = number of bolts on short side of tank unit N = total number of bolts -Sample Calc 3 (cont)- Bolt Load in Shear:

lb1604lb637

NF

B pSH ===

Complete the process using standard analysis of bolts with combined stresses. (Note: allowable stress of .88Fy may be used as earthquake forces have not been reduced.)



Page 50 of 54

Sample Calculation 4: Guiding Members and Position Restraints Forces with IBC Building Code

Applicable ASME Rules: Introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4 Rule 8.4.5.2.1 Rule 8.4.7.2.2 Rule 8.4.14

Given: Building in jurisdiction where IBC is in effect Seismic Design Category C Component Importance Factor of Ip = 1.5 SDS = 0.78 A Hydraulic Elevator system with: 3340 lb. Empty car weight 5000 lb. Capacity Overall Building Height of 72’-6”(870in) Top car landing at 60’-0”(720 in) Bottom car landing at 0’-0” Top car restraints 10ft. (120 in) above platform floor Car restraints on 142 in. centers A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Force levels per 8.4.14 shall be used as specified. Determining the force acting on the position restraints: Per 8.4.14, find FD: FD = 0.6D + 0.7E For the position restraints: D = 0 E = Fp + Fv Fv = 0.2 SDS D = (0.2)(0.78)(0) = 0 Determining Fp: At the ground level:

lb 1000lb) 40)(0.78)(530.4(1)(1.5=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=

in870in021

hz21

RWSIa4.0F

p

cDSppp

2.5

(Note: Per 8.4.5.2.1, Wp = (0.4)5000 +3340 = 5340 lb)



Page 51 of 54

At the top car landing:

lb 2930lb) 40)(0.78)(530.4(1)(1.5=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ +

+=⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=

in870in︶120720︵21

hz21

RWSIa4.0F

p

cDSppp

2.5

Verify that 0.3SDSIpWp < Fp < 1.6SDSIpWp Using “top car landing” force as worst case and adjusting for the load distribution of 2/3 at the lower restraint, then the developed force = 2/3Fp = 2/3(2930) lb = 1953 lb applied to the building. Therefore, using the fundamental equation given in 8.4.14 the results are as follows:

FD = 0.6(0) + 0.7 (2930 + 0) = 2051 lbs For allowable stress design, IBC lists the combined loads as: 0.6D + 0.7E + H where: D = Dead Load E = Earthquake Load H = lateral earth pressure, ground water pressure or Bulk Material pressure = 0 Substituting A17.1 Earthquake Force, FD, the IBC combined load (and force on the position restraint) becomes: FD + H = 2051 lb + 0 = 2051 lb Applying a cantilever beam analysis to a position restraint retainer plate, the required section modulus is:

allow

d'reqPLSσ

= where P = 2051 lb and σallow = 0.6 Fy

(note: increased allowable stress is not taken since reduced Earthquake force is used (0.7E))

3dreq' in 0.095

psi) 0.6(36,0002051(1)S ==



Page 52 of 54

Sample Calculation 5: Car Guide Rail Bracket Spacing

Forces with IBC Building Code

Applicable ASME Rules: Introductory paragraphs of Section 8.4 Rule 8.4.8.2.1 Rule 8.4.14

Given: Building in jurisdiction where IBC is in effect Seismic Design Category C Component Importance Factor of Ip = 1.5 SDS = 0.78 A Hydraulic Elevator system with: 3340 lb. Empty car weight 5000 lb. Capacity Overall Building Height of 72’-6”(870in) Highest Rail Bracket Mounting at 71’ – 6”(858in)

Lowest Bracket Mounting at 0’-0” 8lb car guide rails are to be used A17.1 Section 8.4 rules are in effect. Force levels per 8.4.14 shall be used as specified. Force into the guide rails is horizontal only, so Fp will be calculated. Determining Fp: At the ground level:

lb 1000lb) 40)(0.78)(530.4(1)(1.5

2.5

=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=

in870in021

hz21

RWSIa4.0F

p

cDSppp

(Note: Per 8.4.5.2.1, Wc = (0.4)5000 +3340 = 5340 lb) At uppermost bracket mounting:

lb 2971lb) 40)(0.78)(530.4(1)(1.5

2.5

=⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛+=

in870in85821

hz21

RWSIa4.0F

p

cDSppp



Page 53 of 54

Bracket spacing can now be calculated or Fig. 8.4.8.2-1 may be used with the Fp axis. Using Figure 8.4.8.2-1: Vertical loading on the guide rails is neglected, so the IBC combined loading equation of: 0.6D + 0.7E +H where: D = dead load E = Earthquake Load H = lateral earth pressure, ground water pressure, or bulk material pressure = 0 is reduced to 0.7 Fp. This reduction (0.7) is allowed when an allowable stress of 0.6Fy is used. This reduction is already taken into account on the charts 8.4.8.2-1 thru 7. Per the chart for 8 lb rail, utilize 1.4 Fp to determine bracket spacing. For this example, 1.4 Fp = (1.4)(2971) = 4159.4 lbs at uppermost floor = 1.4(1000) = 1400 lbs at base Per Figure 8.4.8.2-1, for a (1.4 Fp ) = 4160 lb, a bracket spacing of approximately 12.5 ft or less may be used. However, at the base, a bracket height over 16 ft. would be allowable.



Page 54 of 54

Committee Note: To add commentary explaining compliance with the deflection criteria of the building codes and add a note in the rule.

• Presumption is that lateral displacement of the building occurs at every floor • The only span of significance for the car and counterweight is confined to the region of

one floor or thereabouts • If one floor deflects (drifts) with respect to an adjacent floor, the guide shoes will remain

in contact with the guide rails and the entire assembly will displace accordingly but with shoes remaining in contact

• If the car or counterweight is located at approximate midspan of the rails, the guide shoes will not disengage from the guide rail in accordance with the A17 design requirements


Ele

vato

r Com

pone

nt S

eism

ic C

ertif

icat

ion

Mat

rix

A17

.1 E

leva

tor a

nd E

scal

ator

Com

pone

nts

Syst

em/C

ompo

nent

Furt

herD

escr

iptio

n-A

171

Def

initi

onD

SSSS

CN

otes

Pag

e 1

of 3

Syst

em/C

ompo

nent

Furt

her D

escr

iptio

n - A

17.1

Def

initi

onD

SSSS

CN

otes

Des

igna

ted

Spe

cial

Sei

smic

Sei

smic

Cer

tific

atio

nS

yste

mM

achi

ne R

oom

Mac

hine

Bea

ms

Hor

izon

tal s

teel

bea

ms

actin

g a

mai

n su

ppor

t for

mac

hine

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Fast

enin

gs to

be

show

n to

mee

t IB

C a

nd A

17.1

cod

eB

edpl

ate

Mac

hine

pla

tform

Yes

No-

Rug

ged

Fast

enin

gs to

be

show

n to

mee

t IB

C a

nd A

17.1

cod

e

Driv

ing

Mac

hine

Pow

er u

nit t

hat a

pplie

s th

e en

ergy

nec

essa

ry to

driv

e th

e el

evat

or.

Typi

cally

incl

udes

gea

red

tract

ion

mac

hine

and

mot

or, g

earle

ss

tract

ion

mac

hine

s as

wel

l as

dire

ct d

rive

hydr

aulic

(pow

er u

nit w

ith

pum

p,m

otor

, and

val

ve).

Com

plet

e de

scrip

tion

liste

d in

A17

.1

defin

ition

.Y

esN

o- R

ugge

dFa

sten

ings

to b

e sh

own

to m

eet I

BC

and

A17

.1 c

ode

Hd

liP

ii

Pip

ing

and

supp

orts

con

nect

ing

hydr

aulic

pow

er u

nit t

o H

ydra

ulic

Pip

ing

Pip

ing

and

supp

orts

con

nect

ing

hydr

aulic

pow

er u

nit t

o H

ydra

ulic

jack

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Sup

ports

to b

e sh

own

to m

eet I

BC

and

A17

.1 c

ode

Hyd

raul

ic J

ack

Cyl

inde

r equ

ippe

d w

ith p

lung

er th

at a

pplie

s m

otio

n en

ergy

to

hydr

aulic

ele

vato

rY

esN

o - R

ugge

dFa

sten

ings

to b

e sh

own

to m

eet I

BC

and

A17

.1 c

ode

Mac

hine

Roo

m D

uct

Y

esN

o- R

ugge

dFa

sten

ings

to b

e sh

own

to m

eet I

BC

and

A17

.1 c

ode

Con

trolle

r

Yes

Yes

Cer

tify

via

calc

ulat

ion,

sha

ke ta

ble,

or e

xper

ienc

e da

taM

G S

ets

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Fast

enin

gs to

be

show

n to

mee

t IB

C a

nd A

17.1

cod

eM

tD

iY

YC

tifi

ll

tih

kt

bli

dt

Mot

or D

rives

Yes

Yes

Cer

tify

via

calc

ulat

ion,

sha

ke ta

ble,

or e

xper

ienc

e da

taO

vers

peed

Gov

erno

r

Yes

Yes

Cer

tify

via

calc

ulat

ion,

sha

ke ta

ble,

or e

xper

ienc

e da

ta

Sec

onda

ry o

r Def

lect

or S

heav

es

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Fast

enin

gs to

be

show

n to

mee

t IB

C a

nd A

17.1

cod

e

Car

pos

ition

ing

feed

back

sys

tem

s

Yes

Yes

Cer

tify

via

calc

ulat

ion,

sha

ke ta

ble,

or e

xper

ienc

e da

taC

ar s

peed

feed

back

sys

tem

s

Yes

Yes

Cer

tify

via

calc

ulat

ion,

sha

ke ta

ble,

or e

xper

ienc

e da

taC

ar s

peed

feed

back

sys

tem

s

Yes

Yes

Cer

tify

via

calc

ulat

ion,

sha

ke ta

ble,

or e

xper

ienc

e da

taS

eism

ic S

witc

h

Yes

Yes

Cer

tify

via

calc

ulat

ion,

sha

ke ta

ble,

or e

xper

ienc

e da

ta

Sta

tus

Pan

els

and

Lobb

y D

ispl

ays

N

oN

o - N

ot A

ctiv

e

Car

Fra

me/

Cab

Cro

sshe

ad

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

S

tiles

Y

esN

o - R

ugge

d

Sf

tY

NR

dS

afet

y

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Cab

incl

udes

cab

she

ll/fra

me

Yes

No-

Rug

ged

P

latfo

rm

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

C

ontro

l sys

tem

ele

ctro

nics

m

ount

ed in

or o

n ca

bin

clud

es c

ar s

tatio

n op

erat

ing

pane

l (pu

sh b

utto

ns)

Yes

Yes

E

lect

roni

c pe

riphe

rals

or

pass

enge

rinf

o.sy

stem

sin

clud

es p

ositi

on in

dica

tor,

new

s di

spla

y pa

nels

, etc

.N

oN

o-N

otA

ctiv

eN

otre

quire

dfo

rsaf

eop

erat

ion

ofel

evat

orpa

ssen

ger i

nfo.

sys

tem

sN

oN

o - N

ot A

ctiv

eN

ot re

quire

d fo

r saf

e op

erat

ion

of e

leva

tor

Cab

Lig

htin

g

No

Yes

Com

mun

icat

ion

(inte

rcom

)

No

Yes

D

oor O

pera

tor

Yes

Yes

Pag

e 1

of 3


Ele

vato

r Com

pone

nt S

eism

ic C

ertif

icat

ion

Mat

rix

A17

.1 E

leva

tor a

nd E

scal

ator

Com

pone

nts

No

Type

DSS

SSC

Not

es

Pag

e 2

of 3

No.

Type

DSS

SSC

Not

esD

esig

nate

dS

peci

al S

eism

icS

eism

icC

ertif

icat

ion

Sys

tem

Hoi

stw

ay

Cou

nter

wei

ght

Y

esN

o - R

ugge

dC

ount

erw

eigh

t saf

ety

Y

esN

o - R

ugge

dC

ount

erw

eigh

t Rol

ler G

uide

Sho

es

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Rop

es

Y

esN

o - R

ugge

dS

hack

les

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Rai

lY

esN

o - R

ugge

dR

ail B

rack

ets

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Lim

it S

witc

hes

Yes

Yes

Nor

mal

Term

inal

Spe

edLi

miti

ngN

orm

al T

erm

inal

Spe

ed L

imiti

ng

Dev

ices

Yes

Yes

Em

erge

ncy

Term

inal

Sto

ppin

g D

evic

esY

esY

esC

ode

Blu

e K

ey S

witc

hes

Yes

No

- Rug

ged

Hal

l Cal

l But

tons

/Lan

tern

sN

oN

o- N

ot A

ctiv

eE

ntra

nce

Doo

rs/F

ram

esN

oN

o - R

ugge

d gg

Der

ailm

ent S

witc

hY

esY

es

Pit

Buf

fer

Y

esN

o - R

ugge

dP

it S

witc

h

No

No

Es

cala

tor

Trus

sN

oN

o - R

ugge

d &

N

ot A

ctiv

eE

scal

ator

s no

r the

ir co

mpo

nent

s ar

e de

emed

N

o - R

ugge

d &

D

rivin

g M

achi

ne/D

rive

Uni

tN

ogg

Not

Act

ive

desi

gnat

ed s

eism

ic s

yste

ms

requ

iring

spe

cial

Bra

ke/ B

raki

ng S

yste

mN

oN

o - N

ot A

ctiv

ese

ism

ic c

ertif

icat

ion

Han

drai

l Driv

e S

yste

mN

oN

o- N

ot A

ctiv

e

Ste

p an

d C

hain

No

No

- Rug

ged

&

Not

Act

ive

Esc

alat

or C

ontro

ller

No

No

- Not

Act

ive

Bal

ustra

deD

ecki

ng&

Ski

rtsN

oN

oN

otA

ctiv

eB

alus

trade

, Dec

king

, & S

kirts

No

No-

Not

Act

ive

Em

erge

ncy

/ Saf

ety

Sw

itche

sN

oN

o - N

ot A

ctiv

e

Pag

e 2

of 3


Ele

vato

r Com

pone

nt S

eism

ic C

ertif

icat

ion

Mat

rix

No.

Type

DSS

SSC

Not

esD

esig

nate

dS

peci

alS

eism

ic

Pag

e 3

of 3

Des

igna

ted

Spe

cial

Sei

smic

Sei

smic

Cer

tific

atio

nS

yste

m

Pag

e 3

of 3


State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

Page 1 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

CODE APPLICATION NOTICE Subject: Certification of Equipment and Nonstructural Components

FILE NO. 2-1708A.5 EFFECTIVE: 10/31/08

CODE SECTIONS Sections 1708A.2, 1708A.5, 1702A, and 1707A.9, 2007 California Building Code (CBC) Sections 13.2.1, 13.2.2, 13.2.5, 13.2.6, 13.1.3, and 13.1.4, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE/SEI) 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures BACKGROUND The 2007 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE/SEI 7-05 introduces new concepts for seismic design of nonstructural components. These concepts are intended to improve the performance of essential nonstructural systems subject to strong ground shaking. The full text of the related code sections are included in Appendix A of this document. PURPOSE The purpose of this Code Application Notice (CAN) is to clarify the requirements for seismic qualification/certification of mechanical and electrical equipment/components. This CAN also provides an interpretation for code sections of the 2007 CBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05 that appear to be in conflict. Note: This CAN will be updated regularly as additional data on seismic qualification and certification of critical components becomes available. INTERPRETATION 1.0 Identification of Seismic Design requirements The design and documentation requirements for nonstructural components and systems vary, depending upon the importance of component and whether the component is required to be functional immediately following the design earthquake. Figure 1-1 provides a process for determining the appropriate design and documentation approach. Definitions of useful terms are presented in Appendix B.



Page 2 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

Figure 1-1. Identification of Seismic Design Requirements

Nonstructural Component

Component Exempt? Note 1

Design and detailing not

required. Note 2

Special Seismic Certification Required?

Note 3

Component design and anchorage per CBC 1613A. CBC Section 1708A.5 not

applicable. Note 4

Component Rugged? Note 5

Component Special Seismic Certification per CBC Section 1708A.5 and ASCE/SEI 7-05

Section 13.2.2 Note 6

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes



Page 3 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

Notes

1. Certain components are exempt from seismic design requirements. The exemptions are listed in Section 1614A.1.14 of the 2007 CBC; Sections 13.1.4, 13.6.5.5, 13.6.7, 13.6.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-05; and Section 7-125(c) 3.C., 2007 California Administrative Code (CAC).

2. See Appendix A for important corrections to ASCE/SEI 7-05 Section 13.1.4 that

are based on errata to ASCE/SEI 7-05 dated May 3, 2007. 3. Special Seismic Certification is required for certain equipment and components

that are part of the designated seismic system pursuant to Section 13.2.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05. Equipment and components requiring Special Seismic Certification are identified in Item 2.1 of this CAN.

4. Equipment and components not requiring Special Seismic Certification must

comply with the requirements of Section 13.2.1 in ASCE/SEI 7-05. Two options are available: 1) project-specific calculations and details, or 2) manufacturer’s (Seismic) certification, including anchorage pre-approval. The testing alternative in Section 13.2.5 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 is also available. These options are discussed in Items 3.0 and 4.0 of this CAN.

Component supports, and attachments design for position retention shall use importance factor, Ip = 1.5, in accordance with CAN 2-1613A.1.

5. Experience in past earthquakes has shown that certain types of equipment are

inherently rugged, as defined in Appendix B. A list of equipment and components deemed to be rugged is presented in Item 2.2 of this CAN. Rugged equipment and components are considered to satisfy the requirements of Section 13.2.6 of ASCE/SEI 7-05.

6. Equipment and components that require Special Seismic Certification must meet

the requirements of Section 13.2.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 and Section 1708A.5 of 2007 CBC. Acceptable procedures for Special Seismic Certification are presented in Item 3.2 of this CAN.

2.0 Equipment and Components Requiring Special Seismic Certification. Special Seismic Certification is required for certain equipment and components that are part of the designated seismic system pursuant to Section 13.2.2, ASCE/SEI 7-05. Only active mechanical and electrical components that must remain operable following the design earthquake require Special Seismic Certification.



Page 4 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

2.1 List of Equipment and Components Requiring Special Seismic Certification. The following equipment and components require Special Seismic Certification:

1. Emergency and standby power systems equipment including generators, turbines and fuel tanks. 2. Components with hazardous contents excluding pipes, and ducts. 3. Smoke control fans. 4. Switchgear. 5. Motor control centers. 6. Built-up or field assembled mechanical equipment. 7. Elevator equipment (except elevator cabs). 8. X-Ray machine(s) in the fluoroscopy room (as required to meet the minimum basic

radiological/imaging service space requirements of Section 1224.18, 2007 CBC). 9. Air conditioning units.

10. Air handling units. 11. Chillers used for HVAC.

12. Cooling Towers designed as components. 13. Transformers. 14. Electrical substations. 15. UPS and associated batteries.

16. Distribution panels.

Equipment and components that are considered to be rugged pursuant to Item 2.2 of this CAN are deemed to comply with Section 13.2.6, ASCE/SEI 7-05 and are exempt from the requirements of this section. 2.2 Rugged Equipment and Components. The equipment and components listed below are considered rugged and shall not require Special Seismic Certification:

1. Valves (not in cast-iron housings, except for ductile cast iron). 2. Pneumatic operators. 3. Hydraulic operators. 4. Motors and motor operators. 5. Horizontal and vertical pumps (including vacuum pumps). 6. Air compressors. 7. Sterilizers. 8. Blanket warmers. 9. Anesthesia power columns, ceiling or wall mounted.

10. Refrigerators and freezers. 11. Microwave ovens for patient service. 12. Film illuminators. 13. Elevator cabs.



Page 5 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

Exemptions in this section are for factory assembled discrete equipment and components only and do not apply to site assembled or field assembled equipment or equipment anchorage. The list is based in part on the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book commentary Section C 107. 3.0 General Seismic Design Requirements. There are several approaches to comply with the general seismic design requirements for nonstructural components. The steps to complete the design, certification, and OSHPD approval process are summarized in Figure 3 -1.

Figure 3 -1. General Seismic Design Requirements for Nonstructural Components

General Seismic Design Requirements for Nonstructural Components

ASCE /SEI 7-05 Section 13.2 and CBC Section 1613A

Requirements for Position Retention (Design of Supports and

Attachments) ASCE /SEI 7-05 Section 13.2.1

(See Item 3.1 Below)

Special Seismic Certification for Designated Seismic System

ASCE /SEI 7-05 Section 13.2.2 and CBC 1708A.5


Project Specific Design ASCE /SEI 7-05 Section

13.2.1.1


Seismic (Manufacturer’s) Certification

ASCE /SEI 7-05 Section 13.2.1.2


Project Specific Submittal to OSHPD


Analysis ASCE /SEI 7-05 Sections 13.3,

13.4, 13.5, & 13.6 (See Item 3.2.1 Below)

Testing ASCE /SEI 7-05 Section

13.2.5 (See Item 3.2.2 Below)

Experience Data ASCE /SEI 7-05 Section

13.2.6 (See Item 3.2.3 Below)

OSHPD Pre-Approval for Seismic Certifications and Special Seismic Certifications only




Page 6 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

3.1 Seismic Certification. A manufacturer may provide seismic certification in accordance with Section 13.2.1.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05, as a voluntary alternative to project-specific design and documentation in accordance with Section 13.2.1.1 of ASCE/SEI 7-05. Seismic certification of architectural, mechanical, and electrical components, supports, and attachments, if provided, shall be pursuant to Section 13.2.1.2 of ASCE/SEI 7-05. Seismic certifications can be a project-specific submittal or a pre-approval. 3.2 Special Seismic Certification. Special Seismic Certification is required for certain equipment and components pursuant to ASCE/SEI 7-05 Section 13.2.2. The following three methods are acceptable for Special Seismic Certification.

3.2.1 Analysis. Section 1708A.5, 2007 CBC, permits Special Seismic Certification by analytical method for active mechanical and electrical equipment, even though it is not permitted by Section 13.2.2.a of ASCE/SEI 7-05.

3.2.2 Test. Active mechanical/electrical equipment and components with hazardous contents may be certified by an actual test on a shake table or by three dimensional shock tests pursuant to Section 13.2.5 of ASCE/SEI 7-05. 3.2.3 Experience Data. Active mechanical/electrical equipment and components with hazardous contents may be certified by experience data pursuant to Section 13.2.6 of ASCE/SEI 7-05. Rugged equipment listed in Item 2.2 of this CAN shall be considered to satisfy the experience data requirements of Section 13.2.6 of ASCE/SEI 7-05. When experience data is used to certify equipment/components, it shall be shown that the database used contains the similar type/model equipment that is manufactured with the similar structural integrity. The Owner of the special seismic certification shall maintain a quality assurance program that will continually evaluate the performance of installed equipment experiencing new earthquake to determine if a new type of failure may exist.

4.0 OSHPD Approval. Seismic Certification and Special Seismic Certification approval by OSHPD can be either a project-specific approval or a pre-approval. When repetitive review of the same equipment or component is anticipated, a pre-approval is encouraged.



Page 7 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

4.1 Approval by Analysis. All analysis submitted to OSHPD shall be prepared pursuant to Section 7-115 of the 2007 CAC. 4.2 Approval by Testing. All tests shall be performed by an independent laboratory having accreditation to the International Standards Organization (ISO) accreditation standard 17025 by an organization such as the International Accreditation Service (IAS) of the International Code Council (ICC) or shall be under the responsible charge of a registered design professional. Test reports shall be prepared by a registered design professional. Test reports shall be reviewed and accepted by an independent California licensed structural engineer. Testing at the manufacturer’s facility will be accepted if it is performed under the responsible charge of an independent registered design professional, not permanently employed by the manufacturer, who must witness the test and certify the report. Test reports shall be reviewed and accepted by an independent California licensed structural engineer. Use of specific test results shall be limited to the configuration tested, unless otherwise approved by OSHPD. The mounting brackets shall be part of the equipment qualified by testing and shall contain provisions for anchorage of the equipment to the supporting structure at the site. The components from the mounting brackets to the supporting structure shall have the similar flexibility and strength to what is used in the equipment qualification test and may be qualified by a supporting analysis. The flexibility of the support structure shall be considered when certifying the anchorage by analysis. For special seismic certification of a multi-component system, where individual components are certified by tests or exempted by Item 2.2 of this CAN, connecting elements and supports can be justified by supporting analysis.

4.2.1 Acceptable Test. Any dynamic or static test standard adopted in the 2007 CBC or reference standards adopted by the 2007 CBC are acceptable.

4.2.1.1 Dynamic Test. Unless specified otherwise in the test standard, a minimum of two tests is required. Where a range of products is tested, the two tests can be on different size products as required by design changes in the internal structures. 4.2.1.2 Static Test. Unless specified otherwise in the test standard, a minimum of three tests is required. The average of three tests shall be used in determining the capacity. The Co-efficient Of Variation (COV) of the test results shall not exceed 12%. If the COV exceeds 12% either the number of test shall be increased to reduce the COV or the minimum tests value shall be used in determining the capacity. Alternatively, a minimum



Page 8 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

of two tests is acceptable when the lesser of the two test results is used, provided the results from the two tests are within 10% of the lesser value. 4.2.2 Test Report. The test report shall include a complete force-deformation curve of the tested specimens, to the point where residual strength is no greater than 20% of the peak strength, complete fracture occurs, or the loading protocol stops. The failure modes from the individual tests shall be documented with descriptions and photos.

Original Signed 10/31/08

John D. Gillengerten Date



Page 9 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

APPENDIX A

2007 California Building Code SECTION 1708A STRUCTURAL TESTING FOR SEISMIC RESISTANCE ... 1708A.2 Testing for seismic resistance. The tests specified in Section 1708A.3 through 1708A.6 are required for the following: …

2. Designated seismic systems in structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F.

3. Architectural, mechanical and electrical components in structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F that are required in Section 1708A.5.

1708A.5 Seismic qualification of mechanical and electrical equipment. The registered design professional in responsible charge shall state the applicable seismic qualification requirements for designated seismic systems on the construction documents. Each manufacturer of designated seismic system components shall test or analyze the component and its mounting system or anchorage and submit a certificate of compliance for review and acceptance by the registered design professional in responsible charge of the design of the designated seismic system and for approval by the building official. Qualification shall be by an actual test on a shake table, by three-dimensional shock tests, by an analytical method using dynamic characteristics and forces, by the use of experience data (i.e., historical data demonstrating acceptable seismic performance) or by a more rigorous analysis providing for equivalent safety. … SECTION 1702A DEFINITIONS 1702A.1 General. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein. … CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. A certificate stating that materials and products meet specified standards or that work was done in compliance with approved construction documents. DESIGNATED SEISMIC SYSTEM. Those architectural, electrical and mechanical systems and their components that require design in accordance with Chapter 13 of ASCE 7 and for which the component importance factor, Ip, is greater than 1 in accordance with Section 13.1.3 of ASCE 7. …



Page 10 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

INSPECTION CERTIFICATE. An identification applied on a product by an approved agency containing the name of the manufacturer, the function and performance characteristics, and the name and identification of an approved agency that indicates that the product or material has been inspected and evaluated by an approved agency (see Section 1703A.5 and "Label," "Manufacturer's designation" and "Mark"). LABEL. An identification applied on a product by the manufacturer that contains the name of the manufacturer, the function and performance characteristics of the product or material, and the name and identification of an approved agency and that indicates that the representative sample of the product or material has been tested and evaluated by an approved agency (see Section 1703A.5 and "Inspection certificate," "Manufacturer's designation" and "Mark"). … MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION. An identification applied on a product by the manufacturer indicating that a product or material complies with a specified standard or set of rules (see also "Inspection certificate," "Label" and "Mark"). MARK. An identification applied on a product by the manufacturer indicating the name of the manufacturer and the function of a product or material (see also "Inspection certificate," "Label" and "Manufacturer's designation"). ….. SECTION 1707A SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR SEISMIC RESISTANCE … 1707A.9 Designated seismic system verifications. The special inspector shall examine designated seismic systems requiring seismic qualification in accordance with Section 1708A.5 and verify that the label, anchorage or mounting conforms to the certificate of compliance. ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures 13.2 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 13.2.1 Applicable Requirements for Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Components, Supports, and Attachments. Architectural, mechanical, and electrical components, supports, and attachments shall comply with the sections referenced in Table 13.2-1. These requirements shall be satisfied by one of the following methods:

1. Project-specific design and documentation prepared and submitted by a registered design professional.

2. Submittal of the manufacturer’s certification that the component is seismically

qualified by



Page 11 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

a. Analysis. b. Testing in accordance with the alternative set forth in Section 13.2.5. c. Experience data in accordance with the alternative set forth in Section 13.2.6.

13.2.2 Special Certification Requirements for Designated Seismic Systems. Certifications shall be provided for designated seismic systems assigned to Seismic Design Categories C through F as follows:

a. Active mechanical and electrical equipment that must remain operable following the design earthquake shall be certified by the supplier as operable based on approved shake table testing in accordance with Section 13.2.5 or experience data in accordance with Section 13.2.6. Evidence demonstrating compliance of this requirement shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction after review and approval by the registered design professional.

b. Components with hazardous contents shall be certified by the supplier as

maintaining containment following the design earthquake by (1) analysis, (2) approved shake table testing in accordance with Section 13.2.5, or (3) experience data in accordance with Section 13.2.6. Evidence demonstrating compliance of this requirement shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction after review and approval by the registered design professional.

… 13.2.5 Testing Alternative for Seismic Capacity Determination. As an alternative to the analytical requirements of Sections 13.2 through 13.6, testing shall be deemed as an acceptable method to determine the seismic capacity of components and their supports and attachments. Seismic qualification by testing based upon a nationally recognized testing standard procedure such as ICC-ES AC 156, acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction shall be deemed to satisfy the design and evaluation requirements provided that the substantiated seismic capacities equal or exceed the seismic demands determined in accordance with Sections 13.3.1 and13.3.2. 13.2.6 Experience Data Alternative for Seismic Capacity Determination. As an alternative to the analytical requirements of Sections 13.2 through 13.6, use of experience data shall be deemed as an acceptable method to determine the seismic capacity of components and their supports and attachments. Seismic qualification by experience data based upon nationally recognized procedures acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction shall be deemed to satisfy the design and evaluation requirements provided that the substantiated seismic capacities equal or exceed the seismic demands determined in accordance with Sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2. …



Page 12 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

13.1 GENERAL 13.1.3 Component Importance Factor. All components shall be assigned a component importance factor as indicated in this section. The component importance factor, Ip, shall be taken as 1.5 if any of the following conditions apply:

1. The component is required to function for life-safety purposes after an earthquake, including fire protection sprinkler systems.

2. The component contains hazardous materials.

3. The component is in or attached to an Occupancy Category IV structure and it is

needed for continued operation of the facility or its failure could impair the continued operation of the facility.

All other components shall be assigned a component importance factor, Ip, equal to 1.0. … 13.1.4 Exemptions. The following nonstructural components are exempt from the requirements of this section:

1. Architectural components in Seismic Design Category B other than parapets supported by bearing walls or shear walls provided that the component importance factor, Ip, is equal to 1.0.

2. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Category B. 3. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Category C provided

that the component importance factor, Ip, is equal to 1.0. 4. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F

where the component importance factor, Ip, is equal to 1.0 and both of the following conditions apply: a. Flexible connections between the components and associated ductwork,

piping, and conduit are provided and b. Components are mounted at 4 ft (1.22 m) or less above a floor level and weigh

400 lb (1780 N) or less. 5. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F

where the component importance factor, Ip, is equal to 1.0 and both of the following conditions apply: a. Flexible connections between the components and associated ductwork,

piping, and conduit are provided and b. The components weigh 20 lb (89 N) or less or, for distribution systems,

weighing 5 lb/ft (73 N/m) or less.



Page 13 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

Appendix B - Definitions

The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this CAN, have the meanings shown herein: Active Equipment. Equipment containing moving or rotating parts, electrical parts such as switches or relays, or other internal components that are sensitive to earthquake forces and critical to the function of the equipment.

Rugged Equipment. Rugged equipment refers to an ampleness of construction that gives such equipment the ability to survive earthquake strong motions without significant loss of function.

Seismic Certification. Seismic certification refers to a manufacturer’s certification for architectural, mechanical, and electrical components, supports, and attachments pursuant to ASCE/SEI 7-05 Section 13.2.1.2. Seismic Qualification. Same as Special Seismic Certification. Significant Loss of Function. Significant loss of function for equipment or components means the equipment or component can’t be restored to its original function by competent technicians after a design earthquake because the equipment or component require parts that are not normally stocked by the hospital or not readily available. Special Seismic Certification. Seismic certification of mechanical and electrical equipment based on ASCE/SEI 7-05 Section 13.2.2. Special Seismic Certification is required for active mechanical and electrical equipment that must remain operable following the design earthquake.



Page 14 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

Appendix C – Frequently Asked Questions

1. We have equipment and components certified as Mission Critical Level 2 (MC-2) components under Uniform Facilities Criteria, UFC 3-310-04 (2007). Does OSHPD accept certified MC-2 components to be seismically qualified? If so, what documentation does OSHPD require?

Yes, all equipment and components certified as MC-1 or MC-2 components under UFC 3-310-04 (2007) shall be considered to satisfy Special Seismic Certification (Seismic Qualification) requirements of the CBC 2007, Section 1708A.5, pursuant to section 4 of CAN 2-1708A.5.

Copies of the supporting documents for certification as MC-1/MC-2 along with peer review reports is required by OSHPD.

2. The 2007 CBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05 Special Seismic Certification

requirements by experience data are vague at best. Is there a usable procedure and/or example of Seismic Certification by experience data anywhere?

Yes, appendix F of Uniform Facilities Criteria, UFC 3-310-04 (2007), has a detailed procedure and example for Special Seismic Certification by experience data.

3. Is there a way I can get Special Seismic Certification of my oxygen tank by analysis?

Yes. Boilers and pressure vessels without vibration isolators designed by a registered design professional in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2004 (BPVC 2004), and satisfying the force and displacement requirements of Sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2 of ASCE 7-05 having an importance factor, I = 1.5 and reviewed by OSHPD shall be considered to satisfy the Special Seismic Certification requirements on the basis of ASCE 7-05 Section 13.6.9.

4. Since we have to obtain Special Seismic Certification for most jurisdictions now, if we get the Special Seismic Certification through the International Code Council – Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) based on AC-156, is that acceptable to OSHPD?

Yes. Special Seismic Certification based on ICC AC-156 by ICC ES is acceptable to OSHPD pursuant to Item 4.2 of CAN 2-1708A.5.

5. We have obtained a Special Seismic Certification in Japan based on ICC AC-156. Is that acceptable to OSHPD?

Yes, provided testing was done in a laboratory accredited under International Standards Organization (ISO) 17025 by an organization that has a reciprocity agreement with



Page 15 of 15 CAN 2-1708A.5

ICC-IAS. The complete original laboratory test report must be available in English, which shall be reviewed and accepted by a California licensed structural engineer pursuant to section 4.2 of CAN 2-1708A.5. 6. Will OSHPD accept third party listing for Special Seismic Certification? If so, what are the requirements for such acceptance? Yes. OSHPD will accept third party certification if all of the following are satisfied:

1) A Certification of Compliance is provided with the seismic capacity of the equipment in terms of g-levels and the site demand of the project or blanket certificate with the demand for the region or location where the equipment is planned to be installed.

2) The Certificate of Compliance identifies the manufacturer of the equipment and the certification agency (test laboratory or company performing analysis).

3) For certification by testing, the Certificate of Compliance identifies the Listing Agency as an accredited agency by ICC-IAS. The designation on the certificate shall ensure the following: a. Listing Agency is accredited by ICC-IAS. b. Accredited Listing Agency employs at least one inspector certified to

the international inspection standard ISO 17020 by ICC-IAS. c. The Listing Agency performs triennial reviews of the manufacturer’s

Quality Assurance Plan and verifies the equipment is still in compliance with the design basis used for seismic qualification.

4) Certification by analysis shall satisfy the requirements of Section 4.1 of the CAN.

5) Special Seismic Certification documentations shall be reviewed and accepted by a California Registered Structural Engineer.

7. Can the Special Seismic Certification be submitted to OSHPD as a deferred submittal on a project? Yes. See OSHPD Policy Intent Notice (PIN) 41. 8. Are there any exemptions for equipment and components in

non-conforming OSHPD 1 buildings? Yes. See OSHPD Policy Intent Notice (PIN) 42. 9. Can a facility request exemption from the Special Seismic Certification requirements for emergency replacement of Equipment or Components? Yes. On a case-by-case basis, the Office may grant an exemption for emergency replacement of equipment or components. See Policy Intent Notice (PIN) 43.


NFPA 101/NFPA 5000 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ROP MEETINGS

Core Committees - September 21-25, 2009

Monday, September 21 – Friday, September 25, 2009 Building Systems (BSY) Monday, September 21 Fundamentals (FUN) Monday and Tuesday, September 21-22 Furnishings and Contents (FUR) Tuesday, September 22 Structures, Construction Tuesday, September 22 And Materials (SCM) Building Construction (BLC) Wednesday, September 23 Means of Egress (MEA) Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, September 23-25 Fire Protection Features (FIR) Thursday and Friday, September 24-25 Building Service and Fire Thursday, September 24 Protection Equipment (BSF)


NFPA 101/NFPA 5000 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ROP MEETINGS

Occupancy Committees - December 7-11, 2009

Monday, December 7 – Friday, December 11, 2009 Educational and Day-Care Monday, December 7 Occupancies (END) Board and Care Facilities (BCF) Tuesday, December 8 Detention and Correctional Tuesday, December 8 Occupancies (DET) Mercantile and Business Tuesday, December 8 Occupancies (MER) Assembly Occupancies and Wednesday, December 9 Membrane Structures (AXM) Residential Occupancies (RES) Wednesday, December 9 Industrial, Storage and Wednesday and Thursday, December 9-10 Miscellaneous Occupancies (IND) Health Care Occupancies (HEA) Thursday and Friday, December 10-11 1/09


NEII AREA CODE COMMITTEE VACANCIES

Page 1 of 2

NEII AREA CODE COMMITTEEArea Code Committee Company Alabama & Georgia KONE, Otis Alaska Arizona & New Mexico

Arkansas & Oklahoma California Otis Colorado Connecticut & Rhode Island

Otis

Florida Otis Hawaii ThyssenKrupp Idaho ThyssenKrupp, Otis Illinois Indiana Iowa ThyssenKrupp Kansas Kentucky Louisiana & Mississippi

ThyssenKrupp

Maine ThyssenKrupp Maryland & DC Massachusetts ThyssenKrupp Michigan Minnesota Otis Missouri ThyssenKrupp Montana & Wyoming ThyssenKrupp, Otis Nebraska ThyssenKrupp Nevada Schindler New Hampshire ThyssenKrupp New Jersey & Delaware

New York North & South Carolina

Otis

North & South Dakota Ohio ThyssenKrupp Oregon Otis, ThyssenKrupp Pennsylvania ThyssenKrupp Tennessee Otis Texas Fujitec America Inc. Utah Otis Vermont ThyssenKrupp Virginia


NEII AREA CODE COMMITTEE VACANCIES

Page 2 of 2

NEII AREA CODE COMMITTEEArea Code Committee Company Washington ThyssenKrupp, Otis West Virginia Otis, Wisconsin ThyssenKrupp

NEII AREA CODE COMMITTEE CHAIRSArea Code Committee Company of Past Chair

REV: 17-Dec-08 h:\wpdocs\neii\neii area code committee vacancies.doc


1

BDBlack Codes

From: [email protected]: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:02 PMTo: Brian Black; [email protected]; " <[email protected]/

@schindler.com"@invalid.domainCc: Edward A. Donoghue; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Agenda Items for NEII CCC on Local Interpretations and MCPAttachments: NEW TN 08_1348.doc

Importance: High

Dear Lou and Brian, My apologies that I will not be in attendance at the CCC meeting next week. I hope you don't mind that I ask for two items on the agenda that the following points also be discussed by the committee: 1) Under agenda item 28 Local Code Interpretation Policy and the proposal of Attachment 14 "NEII Handling of Local (AHJ) Interpretations of Model Codes" I would like to add the proposal that the NEII consider the following: a) Update the Model Elevator Law to include model statutory language that would require the AHJ to accept interpretations from the organization responsible for the models code they adopt, such as ASME, NFPA, IBC, etc. b) Lobby target AHJ to adopt such legislation. We are seeing certain states, such as OR, WA and TX forming an informal alliance and using the relationship between chief inspectors to take subjective unilateral positions on local interpretations. At the same time, we have had the AHJ flat out reject consensus interpretations rendered by ASME A17. The above actions may help counter this. 2) Under item 33 "Other Business" I would like to give an update on the ASME A17 Task Group activity regarding Maintenance Control Program (MCP) and Maintenance Records and propose that this become an agenda item in the future. As you know, there is an ASME A17 task group that I chair under the Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Committee. A draft TN I presented once before, was submitted to the committee (copy attached), to break the ice once again on this difficult subject in A17. The draft TN 08‐1348 takes the "industry" position. The first task group meeting will be held in Seattle Renaissance Feb 17‐19. Most of the following have already indicated they will attend. The TG includes representatives from the Inspectors Manual Committee. Richard E. Baxter, [email protected] Jack Day, [email protected] Michael V. Farinola, [email protected] Stephen P. Greene, [email protected]


2

Al Griffin , [email protected] Allan S. Hopkirk, [email protected] Douglas B. Labrecque, [email protected] Dean Mclellan, [email protected] Keith Rodgers [email protected] The objective of this first meeting will be to review the proposed TN, itemize the points of contention and reasons there of. The target will be to have open and constructive discussion for all sides to understand the issues and hopeful identify fresh ideas for addressing them. Jack Day (WA) has already said he will present an AHJ perspective on the issues. In addition to the issues of availability and on site records, I expect the following to also be discussed: a) What tests / procedures should or should not be included in the MCP b) Are / should maintenance records be a part of the MCP c) Responsibility / ownership of the MCP I will work with the TG to compartmentalize these and any other important elements on this subject so that committee work can be made most productive to address each. If anyone from NEII is interested to attend, ASME has a rate that is good until Feb 2. The meeting starts at 9AM on the 24th and ends at noon on the 26th. The meeting for this group will be held on February 24‐26, 2009 at: Renaissance Seattle Hotel 515 Madison St. Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: 206‐583‐0300 Website: www.renaissanceseattle.com Please let me know if NEII has any points I would be aware of concerning this meeting. (See attached file: NEW TN 08_1348.doc) Kind regards, Vince Robibero ____________________________________ Schindler Elevator Corporation Product Codes and Standards Vincent Robibero Corporate Code Consultant, NA 20 Whippany Road Morristown, NJ 07960 Tel. +1 973 397 6018 Fax +1 973‐397‐6141 [email protected] www.us.schindler.com ____________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___________________________________________________________ Notice: The information contained in this message is intended only for use of the individual(s) named above and may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged


3

information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not use,disseminate, copy it in any form or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please delete it and any copies of it and notify the sender immediately. ___________________________________________________________


NEII Handling of Local (AHJ) Interpretations of Model Codes Vincent Robibero (updated 12/12/08 with Ed’s comments) CCC Item 27

Page 1 of 4

Issue: With the increase of the adoption of the model codes there appears to be an increase in: 1) Local interpretations by Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) of requirements in model codes that are either gray or are not explicitly addressed in the model code, both of which may have already been addressed by the code writing body responsible for the model code but rejected by the AHJ, 2) AHJ requests to the code writing body for interpretations. Sources of Issue: Often a local interpretation / position is precipitated by:

a) opinions or bias of an inspectors; b) opinions presented at NAESAi educational programs or other programs such as EIWPF/QEI training; c) areas where the model code is silent or gray; or d) new inexperienced inspection personnel.

local interpretation/position may or may not be documented by the AHJ but is none-the-less enforced. Some jurisdictions publish directives or news-letters that communicate their interpretation/position. For example: Pennsylvania has a web-link on interpretations. It also has an advisory web-link that includes positions and interpretations that are important: for example, permanent platforms in the overheads where machine ropes penetrate the top of a hoistway that has 11ft or more clearance above the crosshead of the elevator car. Impact: Typically once an AHJ has rendered an interpretation, it is unlikely they will change their position for two reasons:

1) Chiefs tend to support the position of their enforcement inspectors 2) Once the one manufacturer or service company complies with the local interpretation/position, the AHJ is very reluctant to reverse their position even in view of existing official model code interpretations that they may not have been aware of initially.

Local interpretations can have the same effect as an official model code interpretation in that they can be applied retroactive for all existing installations. It may even apply to installations approved by the AHJ prior to the interpretation.



Page 2 of 4

Proposal to address the issue: Overview: To address this issue, it is recommended that the NEII Central Code Committee add to its scope the coordination of AHJ local code issues among NEII members. To achieve this objective, the NEII Codes and Standards policy will be revised to reflect this initative. Proposed Elements to Policy revisions to address root sources of the issue: A) Establish NEII local code interpretation reporting process. B) NEII process of coordination to address issues and remediation with AHJ. C) Engage NAESAi in advocating use of model code interpretations by AHJ's The following will be incorporated into the NEII Code and Safety Policy upon NEII Board of Directors approval. Instructions and member communication regarding the scope addition would also be addressed. Plan will require NEII, NAESAi and ASME agreements. A) NEII local code interpretation reporting process: NEII will establish a method for member company personnel to report an AHJ’s change in enforcement as a result of a local interpretation. Signs of a local interpretation include:

1) Rejection/citation of a practice in new installations that were previously approved by the AHJ in the past, even though the code being enforced has not changed.

2) Rejection of an official model code interpretation. 3) Direct comment from an AHJ inspector or Chief. 4) AHJ posting of interpretation or advisory on their website or via other method. Suggested solution: Add to the NEII Talk a new "Member Forum" folder for Local Code Advisories with auto notification to NEII CCC members concerning the advisory. B) NEII coordination to address issues and remediation with AHJ The AHJ interpretations may be time critical for a NEII member because the AHJ is holding up approval of the member's installation. It is important that NEII coordination on the issue be as rapid as possible. Several steps to coordinate NEII on the issue are proposed: 1) Affected NEII member:

a) Obtain from the AHJ (preferred in writing) the source of their position/interpretation and confirm. b) Consult NEII code finder for local deviations to the model code. c) Consult the model code body regarding published interpretations in the model code (example ASME interpretations). d) Inform the AHJ, if necessary, that they would like a temporary extension to provide the AHJ with information regarding the issue. e) Identify commercial time constraint surrounding issue.



Page 3 of 4

f) If no official model code interpretation exists, see if AHJ will accept official interpretation from model code organization. Draft a proposed inquiry that is acceptable to AHJ. g) Post all information regarding issue in NEII Local Code Advisory, NEII Talk forum.

2) NEII Central Code Committee and NEII Code and Safety Consultant: a) NEII Central Code Committee members advise via the new NEII Talk forum if they have already addressed the issue or had similar experience with the AHJ. b) If an official model code interpretation exists:

a) NEII Code and Safet Consultant sends the AHJ the model code interpretation or, 2) NEII Code and Safety Consultant requests NAESAio contact the AHJ encouraging them to accept the model code interpretation

c) Where the local interpretation emanates for information given at a NAESAi / or EIWPF/QEI educational program and it conflicts with a clear model code requirements or official interpretations exist; the NEII Code and Safety Consultant will requests NASEAi or EIWPF to issue a memo to AHJ and if necessary modify the educational module. If appropriate the organization will be requested to clarify the issuewith its members such as in the NAESAi Progress news letter. d) If there are no clear model code requirements or official model code interpretations, the draft of a proposed interpretation by the affected NEII member is:

1) commented on by CCC members for NEII CCC approval on NEII Talk. 2) Upon NEII approval, NEII Code and Safety Consultant will send memo to AHJ requesting temporary delay in enforcement pending model code interpretation with proviso that: Depending on AHJ preference, NEII Code and Safety Consultant

can either: a) Sends inquiry to model code body on behalf of NEII with copy to AHJ and Central Code Committee. b) Sends inquiry to AHJ as a proposal for AHJ to submit to model code organization.

e) NEII Code and Safety Consultant searches Handbooks for references that may be of help and forwards to AHJ f) Upon model code approval of interpretation, NEII Code and Safety Consultant requests from model mode organization permission to forward in writing official minuted decision on interpretation to AHJ g) Conclusion of issue is incorporated into NEII CodeFinder where necessary h) Very serious issues that cannot be resolved with the above are discussed at Central Code Committee meeting for further actions including

Comment [ EAD1]: Do you mean what you said. This will take time. In the past the NEII Code and Safety Consultant submitted the request on behalf of a NEII member company. A compromise may be to circulate proposed interpratation for a period of time for comments, then submitt on behalf of a member company?



Page 4 of 4

escalation of the issue to the Government Affairs Committee and Legal Advisory Group where appropriate.

C) Engage NAESAi in addressing model code interpretations with AHJ's 1) Work with NAESAi to secure agreement with ASME to list interpretations in Progress based on minuted ASME A17 Standards Committee approval with short abstract and reference to ASME web-link 2) Where there were AHJ issues between issues and interpretations resolved them, B2(b) and B2(f) above. NAESAi makes special note of the issue and obtains approval from ASME to publish entire interpretation in Progress 3) NAESAi Cracker Barrels:

a) Interpretation questions addresses at Cracker Barrel at NAESAi meetings are to be clearly identified as unofficial. If official interpretation is requested a strawman opinion is to be prepared at the crackerbarell. b) Strawman opinion to forwarded to NEII for evaluation / comment c) agreement of strawman opinion between NEII and NAESAi is published in NAESAi Progress. Disagreement prompts a request for interpretation from either NEII or NAESAi from model mode body d) When model code organization issues official interpretation NAESAi will publish in NAESAi Progress .

h:\wpdocs\2007\jun\neii local code interpretation policy [ead 25-jun-07)].doc

Comment [ EAD2]: I am not clear whit this is intending to address?


C!II

CSA INTERNATIONAL -July 25, 2008

Mr. Edward A. Donoghue, CPCA Code and Safety Consultant to NEIl c/o National Elevator Industry, Inc. 1677 County Route 64 P.O. Box 838 Salem, NY 12865-0838

By-

Re: CSA International Technical Infonnation Letters

Dear Mr. Donoghue:

Thank you for allowing me the time to investigate your concerns regarding the incorporation of relevant requirements of the CSA Technical Infonnation Letters (TILs) into the CSA B44.1/ASME 17.5 standard.

As an accredited certification organization, CSA International's mandate is to certify products to published Standards and/or to Other Recognized Documents (such as the CSA TILs) as stipulated in the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) document CAN-P-1500L, Additional Requirements for Accreditation of Certification Bodies. TILs are typically used to advise industry of additional requirements that need to be addressed between editions of standards, or when concerns are raised by regulatory authorities and industry regarding safety issues encountered in the field, or when new technologies evolve which current standards do not fully address. The publication of a TIL allows CSA International to take into account the relevant issues during its normal certification process. Please note that CSA International's preference is to let the relevant Technical Committees deal with such concerns through the accredited standards development process. CSA International's procedure to issue TILs is designed specifically not to circumvent this standards development process.

CSA International initially prepared the TILs after consultation with industry and th Advisory Council on Elevating Devices (ACED) with the intent 0 address product certification requirements in Canada. Although these requirements were in the Elevator Safety Codes B44, B355 and B613 and CSA Standard B44.I, they could not be used by the regulatory authorities to verify elevator devices. The TILs received acceptance from the Elevator Technical Committees, ACED, and the Canadian Advisory Council on Electrical Safety (CACES). By the year 2000, the Hannonized Elevator Safety Code CSA B44.1 / ASME A17.1 and updated versions ofCSA Elevator Safety Codes B355 and B613 were published. Following the guidelines ofCAN-P1500, CSA International updated the TILs and made proposals to incorporate the TILs into the appropriate standards. We undedtand that these proposals are under review by the A17.11B44 Committees.

Randall W. Luecke

PreSident

---- 8501 East Pleasant Volley Rood. Cleveland. OH. U.S.A. 44131-5516 ---

Telephone: 2165244990, Ext. 8203 Fox: 216.328.8118 Email [email protected]


Edward A. Donoghue Page 2 0[2

CSA International agrees that the relevant requirements of the CSA TILs should be incorporated into the applicable CSA standard. It is suggested that the B44.1/ASME 17.5 Standard may still be the appropriate document to cover many of these requirements.

I have assigned Mr. Richard MacKenzie, Technical Advisor to coordinate with the Secretary of the ASME A17 Standards Committee to modify B44.1/ASME 17.5. Richard will identify the origin of the requirements of the CSA TILs for review by the Secretary of the ASME A17 Standards Committee. Upon request, Richard will provide his support to the Secretary to finalize the incorporation of the requirements of the TILs into the standard. We will only be in a position to withdraw our TILs when this task has been completed.

If you have any further comments or suggestions, please feel free to contact Richard MacKenzie or Davey Li, Technical Manager.

Yours truly,

~"--",,, Randall W. Luecke President, CSA International


National Elevator Industry, Inc. CODE & SAFETY OFFICE 47 Leicester Street • Perry, New York 14530 • 585.302.0813 Fax: 585.302.0841


NEII ASSOCIATION HEADQUARTERS

1677 County Route 64 • P.O. Box 838 • Salem, New York 12865-0838 • 518.854.3100 Fax: 518-854-3257

January 2, 2009 Randall W. Luecke, President CSA International 8501 East Pleasant Valley Road Cleveland, OH. 44131 RE: CSA International Technical Information Letters Dear Mr. Luecke: Thank you for your comprehensive letter of July 25, 2008 explaining the CSA International position on the above subject matter. We appreciate the diligence of CSA International and the commitment to promote enhancements to CSA B44.1/ASME A17.5. We request that TIL proposals be sent to the ASME A17 Secretary for dispersion to the various A17 committees, as some cover issues that are beyond the scope of CSA B44.1/ASME A17.5. Moreover, please confirm that should a proposal submitted by CSA International not be accepted by an ASME A17/CSA B44 committee, the corresponding TIL will be withdrawn by CSA International. As always we thank you for your continued commitment to safety. Best wishes,

Brian Black NEII Code and Safety Consultant Cc: NEII Central Code Committee John Walter, VP Standards, Canadian Standards Association International Suzanne Kiraly, President, Canadian Standards Association International

ATTACHMENT #22 Page 1

ATTACHMENT #22 Page 2





1

BDBlack Codes

From: [email protected]: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:02 PMTo: Brian Black; [email protected]; " <[email protected]/

@schindler.com"@invalid.domainCc: Edward A. Donoghue; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Agenda Items for NEII CCC on Local Interpretations and MCPAttachments: NEW TN 08_1348.doc

Importance: High

Dear Lou and Brian, My apologies that I will not be in attendance at the CCC meeting next week. I hope you don't mind that I ask for two items on the agenda that the following points also be discussed by the committee: 1) Under agenda item 28 Local Code Interpretation Policy and the proposal of Attachment 14 "NEII Handling of Local (AHJ) Interpretations of Model Codes" I would like to add the proposal that the NEII consider the following: a) Update the Model Elevator Law to include model statutory language that would require the AHJ to accept interpretations from the organization responsible for the models code they adopt, such as ASME, NFPA, IBC, etc. b) Lobby target AHJ to adopt such legislation. We are seeing certain states, such as OR, WA and TX forming an informal alliance and using the relationship between chief inspectors to take subjective unilateral positions on local interpretations. At the same time, we have had the AHJ flat out reject consensus interpretations rendered by ASME A17. The above actions may help counter this. 2) Under item 33 "Other Business" I would like to give an update on the ASME A17 Task Group activity regarding Maintenance Control Program (MCP) and Maintenance Records and propose that this become an agenda item in the future. As you know, there is an ASME A17 task group that I chair under the Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Committee. A draft TN I presented once before, was submitted to the committee (copy attached), to break the ice once again on this difficult subject in A17. The draft TN 08‐1348 takes the "industry" position. The first task group meeting will be held in Seattle Renaissance Feb 17‐19. Most of the following have already indicated they will attend. The TG includes representatives from the Inspectors Manual Committee. Richard E. Baxter, [email protected] Jack Day, [email protected] Michael V. Farinola, [email protected] Stephen P. Greene, [email protected]


2

Al Griffin , [email protected] Allan S. Hopkirk, [email protected] Douglas B. Labrecque, [email protected] Dean Mclellan, [email protected] Keith Rodgers [email protected] The objective of this first meeting will be to review the proposed TN, itemize the points of contention and reasons there of. The target will be to have open and constructive discussion for all sides to understand the issues and hopeful identify fresh ideas for addressing them. Jack Day (WA) has already said he will present an AHJ perspective on the issues. In addition to the issues of availability and on site records, I expect the following to also be discussed: a) What tests / procedures should or should not be included in the MCP b) Are / should maintenance records be a part of the MCP c) Responsibility / ownership of the MCP I will work with the TG to compartmentalize these and any other important elements on this subject so that committee work can be made most productive to address each. If anyone from NEII is interested to attend, ASME has a rate that is good until Feb 2. The meeting starts at 9AM on the 24th and ends at noon on the 26th. The meeting for this group will be held on February 24‐26, 2009 at: Renaissance Seattle Hotel 515 Madison St. Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: 206‐583‐0300 Website: www.renaissanceseattle.com Please let me know if NEII has any points I would be aware of concerning this meeting. (See attached file: NEW TN 08_1348.doc) Kind regards, Vince Robibero ____________________________________ Schindler Elevator Corporation Product Codes and Standards Vincent Robibero Corporate Code Consultant, NA 20 Whippany Road Morristown, NJ 07960 Tel. +1 973 397 6018 Fax +1 973‐397‐6141 [email protected] www.us.schindler.com ____________________________________ Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___________________________________________________________ Notice: The information contained in this message is intended only for use of the individual(s) named above and may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged


3

information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not use,disseminate, copy it in any form or take any action in reliance of it. If you have received this message in error please delete it and any copies of it and notify the sender immediately. ___________________________________________________________


NEW TN 08-1348 8.6.1.4 Maintenance Records 8.6.1.4.1 Maintenance records shall document compliance with 8.6 of the Code and shall :

(a) Include records on the following activities:

(a1) description of maintenance task performed and dates (b2) description and dates of examinations, tests, adjustments, repairs, and replacements (c3) description and dates of call backs (trouble calls) or reports that are reported to elevator personnel by any means, including corrective action taken (d4) written record of the findings on the firefighter’s service operation required by 8.6.11.1

8.6.1.2.1 (c) (b) The maintenance records required by 8.6.1.4 shall be kept at a central location either in hard copy or in electronic format. Were maintenance records are retained remote from the installation, instructions for locating or obtaining a maximum of the last three months of records either by hard copy or in electronic delivery (e.g. e-mail of website) shall be provided in or on the controller

Were maintenance records are retained remotely from the installation, Tthe instructions for locating or obtaining the Maintenance Control Program either by hard copy or in electronic delivery shall be provided in or on the controller. procedures and contact information on where to obtain either by hard copy or in electronic delivery (e.g. e-mail of website).a maximum of the last three months of records shall posted in or on the controller.

8.6.1.4.2 Record Availability. (c) The maintenance records shall be available to the elevator personnel.

Maintenance and Control Program

8.6.1.2.1 A written Maintenance Control Program shall be in place to maintain the equipment in compliance with the requirements of 8.6. (a) The Maintenance Control Program shall consist of but not be limited to

(1) examinations, maintenance, and tests of equipment at scheduled intervals in order to ensure that the installation conforms to the requirements of 8.6. The maintenance control program procedures and intervals shall consider be based on

(a) equipment age, condition, and accumulated wear (b) design and inherent quality of the equipment (c) usage (d) environmental conditions (e) improved technology (f) the manufacturer’s recommendations for any SIL rated devices or circuits

(2) Scheduling cleaning, lubricating, and adjusting applicable components at regular intervals and repairing or replacing all worn or defective components where necessary to maintain the installation in compliance with the requirements of 8.6. along with instructions on how to report any corrective action that might be necessary to the responsible party.

(e 3) Procedures for tests, periodic inspections, maintenance, replacements, adjustments, and repairs for all SIL rated E/E/PES electrical protective devices and circuits shall be incorporated

into and made part of the Maintenance Control Program. See 2.26.4.3.2, 2.26.9.4(b), 2.26.9.5.1(b), and 2.26.9.6.1(b).

(f 4) Where unique or product-specific procedures or methods are required to inspect or test equipment, such procedures or methods shall be included in the Maintenance Control Program.

(b) The Maintenance Control Program shall be either in hard copy or in electronic format. Where the


Maintenance Control Program is retained remotely from the installation, The instructions for locating or obtaining the Maintenance Control Program either by hard copy or in electronic delivery (e.g. e-mail of website) shall be provided in or on the controller.

(c) The maintenance records required by 8.6.1.4 shall be kept at a central location. (d) The Maintenance Control Program shall be accessible to the elevator personnel. and shall document compliance with 8.6.

Purpose/Rationale: Requirements for the MCP and maintenance records have developed over several code revisions and have related requirements distributed under several code sections. In addition, requirements related to retention are vague and resulted in several requests for interpretation. The proposal addresses vagueness and re-organization of content, access, and retention requirements.
