elevator shaft without ratings

[Hyrax4978]

When i was walking in the mall the other day i saw the open elevator and it got me thinking. (clearly malls have different requirements but....) If we have a two story office building with an elevator. The code allows for an open stair in certain instances. I don't see anything in the code about having an elevator without a rated shaft. What if we wanted to put the elevator right next to the open stair. whats the point of the rated shaft in this for instance....

 

[cda]

Mall is a different animal?

Atrium rules of order?

Depends on the setting

 

[JBI]

Covered malls are unique and have unique provisions in Chapter 4 of the IBC.

 

[CityKin]

It should be allowed IMO, but alas, it is not

 

[cda]

It should be allowed IMO, but alas, it is not

Is it allowed if you meet all provisions of the code??

 

[RLGA]

Section 3002.1 (2015 IBC) states "hoistway enclosures shall be shaft enclosures." If there is no hoistway enclosure (keyword here is enclosure), then there is no requirement to have a rated shaft enclosure. If the elevator is within a 2-story volume complying with Section 712.1.9, then the elevator is not required to be in an enclosure if located within the 2-story volume. Same goes for elevators located within atria. Outside of those two conditions (and exterior elevators), the elevator is required to be enclosed per shaft requirements because it is a vertical opening connecting multiple stories.

 

[cda]

Section 3002.1 (2015 IBC) states "hoistway enclosures shall be shaft enclosures." If there is no hoistway enclosure (keyword here is enclosure), then there is no requirement to have a rated shaft enclosure. If the elevator is within a 2-story volume complying with Section 712.1.9, then the elevator is not required to be in an enclosure if located within the 2-story volume. Same goes for elevators located within atria. Outside of those two conditions (and exterior elevators), the elevator is required to be enclosed per shaft requirements because it is a vertical opening connecting multiple stories.

Thought thee was something, just been awhile since the question came up.

And have seen the set up before

 

[sergoodo]

2015 IBC cleaned up some of the 2012 IBC interpretation problems with simplification:

2012 IBC
If < 3 story elevator hoistway does not penetrate a rated assembly then no requirement for Section 713 shaft enclosure rating.

2015 IBC
If elevator hoistway is <3 story, Chapter 7 is not applicable.

 

[RLGA]

2015 IBC cleaned up some of the 2012 IBC interpretation problems with simplification:

2012 IBC
If < 3 story elevator hoistway does not penetrate a rated assembly then no requirement for Section 713 shaft enclosure rating.

2015 IBC
If elevator hoistway is <3 story, Chapter 7 is not applicable.

Provide code citations for each. I don't believe what you've stated is correct.

Section 713.14 (Both editions) states, "Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with Section 713 and Chapter 30."

Section 3002.1 (Both editions) states, "Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be shaft enclosures complying with Section 713."

I don't see anything in either of those sections that relate to number of stories.

 

[sergoodo]

For the 2015 IBC I don't believe...no I am wondering if you can cite where both openings and penetrations protection are required for <3 stories shaft enclosure.

Section 713.14 & Section 3002.1 only references requirement to comply with Section 713, no protective requirement is established.
Section 713 only applies to shafts required to protect openings and penetrations through floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies.

Prefer 2015IBC for hoistway. 2012IBC discussion creates continuous loop

2015IBC
SHAFT. An enclosed space extending through one or more stories of a building, connecting vertical openings in successive floors, or floors and roof.
SHAFT ENCLOSURE. The walls or construction forming the boundaries of a shaft.
713.1 General. The provisions of this section shall apply to shafts required to protect openings and penetrations through floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies.
713.14 Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistways.
Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with Section 713 and Chapter 30.
3002.1 Hoistway enclosure protection. Elevator, dumb-waiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be shaft enclosures complying with Section 713.​

There is no discussion when the “and” is ignored. Why rate a shaft when there are no opening protectives (OP thought)

 

[RLGA]

For the 2015 IBC I don't believe...no I am wondering if you can cite where both openings and penetrations protection are required for <3 stories shaft enclosure.

Section 713.14 & Section 3002.1 only references requirement to comply with Section 713, no protective requirement is established.
Section 713 only applies to shafts required to protect openings and penetrations through floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies.

Prefer 2015IBC for hoistway. 2012IBC discussion creates continuous loop

2015IBC
SHAFT. An enclosed space extending through one or more stories of a building, connecting vertical openings in successive floors, or floors and roof.
SHAFT ENCLOSURE. The walls or construction forming the boundaries of a shaft.
713.1 General. The provisions of this section shall apply to shafts required to protect openings and penetrations through floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies.
713.14 Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistways.
Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with Section 713 and Chapter 30.
3002.1 Hoistway enclosure protection. Elevator, dumb-waiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be shaft enclosures complying with Section 713.​

There is no discussion when the “and” is ignored. Why rate a shaft when there are no opening protectives (OP thought)

To which "and" are you referring? The definition of a shaft states it's through "one or more stories," so anything that connects two or more stories is a shaft and requires a 1- or 2-hour rating unless it complies with all conditions listed in Section 712.1.9 (2015) or 712.1.8 (2012).

 

[sergoodo]

2015 IBC
712.1.9 Is not applicable to "Shaft Enclosures".
This is applicable: 712.1.1 Shaft enclosures. Vertical openings contained entirely within a shaft enclosure complying with Section 713 shall be permitted.

Here is the "and" referenced:
Section 713 only applies to shaft enclosures required to protect openings and penetrations.... There is no requirement <3 stories to protect openings and penetrations of a "Shaft Enclosure" as an elevator hoistway.

 

[ADAguy]

Ding! Round 2?

 

[RLGA]

2015 IBC
712.1.9 Is not applicable to "Shaft Enclosures".
This is applicable: 712.1.1 Shaft enclosures. Vertical openings contained entirely within a shaft enclosure complying with Section 713 shall be permitted.

Agreed, but if its not a shaft enclosure, then Section 712.1.9 is applicable, since it is a vertical opening and none of the other requirements in Section 712 are applicable to elevator hoistways.

Here is the "and" referenced:
Section 713 only applies to shaft enclosures required to protect openings and penetrations.... There is no requirement <3 stories to protect openings and penetrations of a "Shaft Enclosure" as an elevator hoistway.

An elevator hoistway, surrounded on all sides by wall construction, is a shaft enclosure that must have protected openings and penetrations. I don't see where it indicates anywhere in the IBC that an enclosed elevator hoistway is not a shaft enclosure that requires protected openings and penetrations.

If per Section 712.1.1 the elevator hoistway is a shaft, then the remaining requirements of Section 712 are not applicable and Section 713 is, therefore, required to protect the vertical opening created by the elevator hoistway; thus, Section 713.4 requires a fire-resistance rating of 1 or 2 hours, as applicable, and constructed as fire barriers or horizontal assemblies per Section 713.2.

Section 713.7 requires openings to be be protected per Section 716 for fire barriers.

Section 713.8 requires penetrations to comply with the requirements of Section 716 for fire barriers.

Therefore, openings and penetrations are required for shaft enclosures used as elevator hoistways. There are no exceptions for elevator hoistways in Section 712, 713, or 3002, regardless of the number of stories connected by the hoistway.

 

[sergoodo]

3002.1 Hoistway enclosure protection....”shall be shaft enclosures complying with Section 713”
2015 IBC = elevator hoistway is always a shaft enclosure with 3006.2 enclosure protection requirement of only 712.2.1.

Section 3006.2 <3 stories not applicable, if applicable then Section 712.1.1 applies.

713 is now only applicable If the shaft enclosure penetrates rated floor assembly then 712.2.1 shaft enclosure complying with 713 is permitted

 

[RLGA]

Section 3006.2 requires additional opening protection beyond the the fire-protection rating already required of hoistway entrances. Elevator doors in enclosed hoistways will have a 1-1/2 hour fire-protection rating that would be required for 2-hour-rated (maximum) fire barriers; but, because of the nature of elevator doors, they do not provide smoke and draft control protection. Therefore, Section 3006.2 requires this smoke and draft control protection in addition to the required fire-protection rating of the elevator door per Section 713.7. If a hoistway only connects two stories, then the the additional smoke and draft control protection is not required; however, the 1-hour (minimum) fire-protection rating for the elevator door is still required per Table 716.5, because of the required 1-hour fire barriers for the shaft (hoistway) enclosure that connects three or fewer stories.

 

[RLGA]

I should point out that the requirement for the additional smoke and draft control protection is only applicable to hoistways that connect more than three stories. So, if the hoistway only connects three stories, then the additional protection is not required. Further, this additional protection requirement only applies when one of the five conditions listed exists. For example, if you have a 5-story building that is not a high-rise, but is sprinklered throughout, then per 3006.2, subparagraph 1, the additional smoke and draft control protection is not required, but the 1-1/2-hour fire-protection rating of the hoistway entrances is still required.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Made me look it up!

3002.1 Hoistway enclosure protection. Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be shaft enclosures complying with Section 713.

“Reference is made to Section 713 of the code for the required fire resistance and construction of the hoist-way enclosure. Section 713 contains fire-resistance rating requirements, as well as construction requirements for shafts, which are typically the methods used to satisfy the requirements for a hoistway enclosure. It should be noted that this section of the code does not require hoistway enclosures for all elevators and dumbwaiters. See Section 2.1.1.3 of ASME A17.1 for the protection requirements for partially enclosed hoistways.”

713.14 Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistways. Elevator, dumbwaiter and other hoistway enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with Section 713 and Chapter 30.

“The hoistway enclosure is the fixed structure consisting of vertical walls or partitions that isolates the enclosure from all other building areas or from an adjacent enclosure in which the hoistway doors and door assemblies are installed. With the exception of observation elevators (usually in atriums), the hoistway is normally enclosed with fire barriers (see Section 707.3.1). Elevator hoistways in all parking structures that serve only the parking structure are exempt from enclosures by Section 712.1.15. In addition, shaft enclosures are not required for elevators located in an atrium since the hoistways are not concealed and there is no penetration of floor assemblies. Elevator hoistways are enclosed to ensure that

flame, smoke and hot gases from a fire do not have an avenue of travel from one floor to another through a concealed space (see the discussion of stack effect in the commentary to Section 708.14.1). Enclosures are also provided to restrict contact with moving equipment and to prevent people from falling.”

 

[sergoodo]

There is such thing as a fire rated elevator door, so the logic in the last couple of posts is requirement of fire shutter on elevator openings of 2 story building.

The 716.5 table does not require rated shafts, the table requires rated opening defined by the level of required rating of shaft assembly.

Show me the IBC 2015 reference a 2 story elevator reguires a rated shaft enclosure and I'll show you the requirement to protect the elevator doors with a fire shutter.

 

[RLGA]

To clarify, are you saying "there is such a thing as a fire rated elevator door" or "there is no such thing as a fire rated elevator door"?

 

[sergoodo]

no such thing, you gotta use a shutter or have the elev lobby automatically sealed off

 

[RLGA]

On the contrary, elevator doors are tested for fire-protection rating per UL 10B or NFPA 252 in accordance with IBC Section 716.5.2 (2015). Elevator doors have a rating of 1 to 1-1/2 hours as required for 1- and 2-hour fire barriers that are used for shaft enclosures.

The one thing they are not tested for is smoke leakage, which is not required for openings through standard fire barriers and shaft enclosures; thus, the added requirement for shutters or lobby enclosures per Section 3006.3. You’ll notice that there is no mention of a fire-protection rating in any of these requirements, but they do reference sections regarding the smoke and draft control. Since a fire-protection rating is already required for openings within the sections for fire barriers, shaft enclosures, and opening protection, the protection requirements in Section 3006 only address the protection of stories from the movement of smoke through the elevator shaft.

Recall the 1980 MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas.

We’ll probably never agree on this issue, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[sergoodo]

The MGM Grand is not what is being discussed. 2 story bldg is being discussed and MGM is irrelevant.
not a disagreement, the code is the code. Show me a manufacturer link to a 1hr rated elevator door and another for the 1.5 hr option. There is no requirement for a 2 story, building opening table is not applicable 2 story building. This is because the 2 story elevator shaft is not rated.

A small 2 story building with an unenclosed stair in the same lobby as an elevator, there is no requirement to rate the shaft..it is pointless, and does not make the building safer.

same logic requires rating an elevator shaft to mezzanine.

a 20 min door is a smoke door, a door rated for an hour...also keeps the smoke out, otherwise it is not rated.

 

[RLGA]

I never said an unenclosed elevator in a two-story space had to be enclosed. See my earlier comment (comment #6). However, if a two-story elevator hoistway is enclosed, then it has to be rated as a shaft enclosure. Otis, Kone, Schindler, ThyssenKrupp, etc. all mention fire-rated elevator doors in their respective specifications (I know because I’m a construction specifier and have specified many elevators). Yes, 20-min doors in corridors are required to have smoke and draft control as required by Section 716.5.3, as well as doors in smoke barriers; but smoke and draft control is not required for opening protectives in other fire-resistance-rated assemblies unless required by another specific provision, such as that for elevator hoistways more than three stories.

As much as I’ve enjoyed this little banter, I think it has run its course. I’m apparently not going to convince you to see my point, and you’re not going to convince me to see yours, so we might as well call it a draw a save our energy for another discussion topic. Happy New Year!