Can one of you rewrite this section for me so that it is grammatically correct? English is my native tongue and I do not understand what this is saying at all. Where I get hung up is "where an elevator connects more than three stories, is required to be enclosed......and any of the following conditions apply:" I generally am able to understand and follow the logic of most code sections. However, I don't understand why the ICC needs to invent new grammatical expressions all the time. Maybe so we have to buy the commentary? But then the commentary doesn't always clarify either.
-
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.
IBC 3006.2
- Thread starter Noob
- Start date
When you read it this way, it is grammatically correct, although poorly written.
That said, you are on the right track now.
Here's my logic on the 3 conditions presented in IBC 3006.2 2018:
1. my hoistway DOES connect more than 3 stories
2. my hoistway is a vertical opening, 8 stories tall, so I'm assuming yes, it needs a shaft enclosure (712.1.1 does not speak to "when shaft is required")
3. none of the conditions in the list apply. building is fully sprinklered, not an I occupancy, and not a high-rise.
So, I do not need hoistway opening protection, is that correct?
1. my hoistway DOES connect more than 3 stories
2. my hoistway is a vertical opening, 8 stories tall, so I'm assuming yes, it needs a shaft enclosure (712.1.1 does not speak to "when shaft is required")
3. none of the conditions in the list apply. building is fully sprinklered, not an I occupancy, and not a high-rise.
So, I do not need hoistway opening protection, is that correct?
ok, so my corridor walls at each floor will need to be 30 min. or 1 hour rated. So hoistway openings need to be protected per 3006.3. since I am fully sprinklered, I can either provide elevator lobbies at each floor with smoke doors/partitions, "additional doors" at the hoistway opening for smoke protections, or pressurize the hoistway. But question: do I have to provide elevator lobbies / hoistway opening protections at the level of exit discharge?
"Location: Why?"
Because each state tends to add or delete things from the model code. For example 2019 CBC is based off of 2018 IBC, but ours reads:
"Elevator hoistway door openings shall be protected in accordance with Section 3006.3 where an elevator hoistway connects more than two stories in Group A, E, H, I, L, R-1, R-2, R-2.1 and R-2.2 occupancies, high-rise buildings, and other applications listed in Section 1.11 regulated by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, and more than three stories for all other occupancies. Hoistway opening protection is required to be enclosed within a shaft enclosure in accordance with Section 712.1.1 and any of the following conditions apply:"
The italicized sections indicate additions or alterations to model code text.
In CA I have seen a lot of newer buildings over 4 stories that are fully sprinklered, with the magnetic latches on the doors, and every other fire rated protection that I know of. The doors have magnetic latches that are designed so that if the alarm goes off those big heavy fire doors are released and self-close, right? I'm guessing that's what you're trying to avoid? The answer would depend on how the code reads in the jurisdiction you're designing for, the only answer that really matters is what the AHJ is saying.
Because each state tends to add or delete things from the model code. For example 2019 CBC is based off of 2018 IBC, but ours reads:
"Elevator hoistway door openings shall be protected in accordance with Section 3006.3 where an elevator hoistway connects more than two stories in Group A, E, H, I, L, R-1, R-2, R-2.1 and R-2.2 occupancies, high-rise buildings, and other applications listed in Section 1.11 regulated by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, and more than three stories for all other occupancies. Hoistway opening protection is required to be enclosed within a shaft enclosure in accordance with Section 712.1.1 and any of the following conditions apply:"
The italicized sections indicate additions or alterations to model code text.
In CA I have seen a lot of newer buildings over 4 stories that are fully sprinklered, with the magnetic latches on the doors, and every other fire rated protection that I know of. The doors have magnetic latches that are designed so that if the alarm goes off those big heavy fire doors are released and self-close, right? I'm guessing that's what you're trying to avoid? The answer would depend on how the code reads in the jurisdiction you're designing for, the only answer that really matters is what the AHJ is saying.