• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Dead end corridor with elevator

M

Matt Jones

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
45
Location
Greenville, SC
Doing a code review on a project which has an odd situation. It's a corridor that exceeds the dead end length and to my initial thoughts shouldn't be allowed. This corridor is only serving an elevator bank with no other spaces opening onto it. The one thing giving me pause on calling this a dead end, though, is that one of the two elevators is set up as the accessible means of egress elevator and is on emergency power (required due to height). Does this provide enough egress to make this not a dead end corridor? There are no stairs egressing from this branch corridor, so it's kind of an odd situation.
 
1003.7 Elevators, escalators and moving walks. Elevators, escalators and moving walks shall not be used as a compo-
nent of a required means of egress from any other part of the building.
Exception: Elevators used as an accessible means of egress in accordance with Section 1009.4.
 
Is this corridor on the level of exit discharge, or on an upper/lower floor?
 
Is this corridor used as a circulation path, or for any other use?

My thought being, can it be classified as an exit passageway?
 
classicT said:
Is this corridor used as a circulation path, or for any other use?

My thought being, can it be classified as an exit passageway?
Click to expand...
Potentially. It does not serve as a circulation path other than from these elevators to units (the levels with business occupancies have elevator lobbies meeting the 2.5:1 exception). We would have to look at increasing the fire separation and providing doors, which isn't ideal from a design standpoint, but it may be an option if the elevator doesn't serve as an egress component (which 1003.7 makes it seem like it can).
 
Oddly, if you added a pair of doors on magnetic hold-opens and called it an "elevator lobby", it would probably comply, including T-1006.2.1 for common path of egress travel < 75'.

1655333332238.png

I say "oddly" because the doors accomplish nothing in terms of making the path shorter, and in fact they add more time to egress because they require the occupant to operate the hardware.

What they DO accomplish is:
  • The doors keep people in the main corridor from making the wrong turn towards the elevator during emergency exiting (unless using the elevator as an AMOE).
  • In creating a lobby, the doors help control smoke from the elevator shaft.
 
Yikes said:
Oddly, if you added a pair of doors on magnetic hold-opens and called it an "elevator lobby", it would probably comply, including T-1006.2.1 for common path of egress travel < 75'.

View attachment 9054

I say "oddly" because the doors accomplish nothing in terms of making the path shorter, and in fact they add more time to egress because they require the occupant to operate the hardware.

What they DO accomplish is:
  • The doors keep people in the main corridor from making the wrong turn towards the elevator during emergency exiting (unless using the elevator as an AMOE).
  • In creating a lobby, the doors help control smoke from the elevator shaft.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't they then be required to swing out? IF this is a dead end corridor, it implies that the egress is elsewhere, which means the direction of egress would swing out. Or at the least maybe a double egress since it is the AMOE.
 
Matt Jones said:
Wouldn't they then be required to swing out? IF this is a dead end corridor, it implies that the egress is elsewhere, which means the direction of egress would swing out. Or at the least maybe a double egress since it is the AMOE.
Click to expand...
the newly-created lobby would be treated like and other room. Unless this is an I-2 occupancy, IBC 1010.1.2.1 says that for occupant loads less than 50, the door can swing in either direction. I think the case could be made that the elevator + lobby occupant load is less than 50, or perhaps even "unoccupied", especially if there are no other occupied spaces opening into the lobby.
 
If it is part of a required accessible route it could then become an area of rescue assistance. The answers seem to depend heavily on the approved use of the elevators and whether they are expected to operate in an emergency which the code now allows in certain conditions. See chapter 30. FYI
 
EdJ said:
If it is part of a required accessible route it could then become an area of rescue assistance. The answers seem to depend heavily on the approved use of the elevators and whether they are expected to operate in an emergency which the code now allows in certain conditions. See chapter 30. FYI
Click to expand...
Would that affect the alternate solution shown in post #11?
 
EdJ said:
If it is part of a required accessible route it could then become an area of rescue assistance. The answers seem to depend heavily on the approved use of the elevators and whether they are expected to operate in an emergency which the code now allows in certain conditions. See chapter 30. FYI
Click to expand...
This is not required to be a FSAE and can't be an Occupant Evac Elev without an adjacent stair. This is only serving as the accessible means of egress as required by the building height.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top