Is Traction-Elevator Shaft Considered "Enclosed"?

12/15/2022

We have three traction elevators side by side, and the three elevators are run in a shaft with no dividing walls between the elevators.

The construction is poured-concrete with a concrete ceiling.

Is this shaft considered to be "enclosed" for the purpose of omitting sprinklers from the bottom of the shaft?

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

15 Comments

Glenn Berger

12/15/2022 08:09:48 am

I would say that sprinkler(s) are required at the bottom of the shaft, There is space between the elevators cabs, which can allow cumulation of stuff in the elevator pit.

James Phifer

12/15/2022 08:14:19 am

My opinion, the sprinkler would not be required. The standard allows the omission of sprinklers within the hoistway. There is no limit as to the number of elevators allowed within the hoistway.

Alex

12/15/2022 10:26:03 am

Hi James,

I'm located out in Boston, who uses an amended version of the 2015 IBC.

3002.2 states that "not more than four elevator cars shall be located in any single hoistway enclosure"

Thanks,
Alex

Alex

12/15/2022 10:27:09 am

Sorry, I hit reply too fast. That is just an FYI regarding your statement that there is no limit to number of cars.

Thanks

James Phifer

12/15/2022 12:50:18 pm

Good to know Alex. Appreciate the information.
Thanks

Todd E Wyatt

12/15/2022 08:23:46 am

No, a hoistway is not considered an "enclosed space" since NFPA 13 includes prescriptive requirements specifically for "hoistways."

2022 NFPA 13 9.3.6 Elevator Machine Rooms, Machinery Spaces, Control Rooms, Control Spaces, and Hoistways includes the requirements for an automatic sprinkler system (ASPS) in “hoistways.”

Chapter 9 — Sprinkler Location Requirements
9.2 Allowable Sprinkler Omission Locations.
9.2.14 Elevator Hoistways and Machine Rooms.
Sprinklers shall NOT be required in locations complying with 9.3.6.3, 9.3.6.6, or 9.3.6.7.2.

9.2.14 states that IF the hoistway meets “9.3.6.3, 9.3.6.6, OR 9.3.6.7.2”, an ASPS is NOT required in the hoistway.

First, review 9.3.6.3 :
Automatic fire sprinklers shall not be required in elevator machine rooms, machinery spaces, control rooms, control spaces, or hoistways of traction elevators installed in accordance with the applicable provisions in NFPA 101, or the applicable building code, where all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The … hoistway of traction elevator is dedicated to elevator equipment only.
(2) The … hoistway of traction elevators are protected by smoke detectors, or other automatic fire detection, installed in accordance with NFPA 72 or other approved fire alarm code.
(3) The … hoistway of traction elevators is separated from the remainder of the building by walls and floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assemblies having a fire resistance rating of not less than that specified by the applicable building code.
(4) No materials unrelated to elevator equipment are permitted to be stored in … hoistways of traction elevators.
(5) The elevator machinery is not of the hydraulic type.

IF the hoistway does NOT meet 9.3.6.3, next check 9.3.6.6 :
The sprinklers required at the top of the elevator hoistway by 9.3.6.5 shall not be required where the hoistway for passenger elevators is noncombustible or limited-combustible and the car enclosure materials meet the requirements of ASME A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators.

IF the hoistway does NOT meet 9.3.6.6, the last “exception” is 9.3.6.7.2 :
The sprinklers in the elevator hoistway shall not be required when the suspension means provide not less than an FT-1 rating when tested to the vertical burn test requirements of UL 2556, Wire and Cable Test Methods, where the suspension means shall not continue to burn for more than 60 seconds, nor shall the indicator flag be burned more than 25 percent.

IF the hoistway does NOT meet “9.3.6.3, 9.3.6.6, OR 9.3.6.7.2”, an ASPS is required in the hoistway.

9.3.6 Elevator Machine Rooms, Machinery Spaces, Control Rooms, Control Spaces, and Hoistways.
9.3.6.1*
Sidewall spray sprinklers shall be installed at the bottom of each elevator hoistway not more than 2 ft (600 mm) above the floor of the pit.
A.9.3.6.1
The sprinklers in the pit are intended to protect against fires caused by debris, which can accumulate over time. Ideally, the sprinklers should be located near the side of the pit below the elevator doors, where most debris accumulates. However, care should be taken that the sprinkler location does not interfere with the elevator toe guard, which extends below the face of the door opening.

12/15/2022 09:33:47 am

This question is in relation to the following reference:

9.3.6.2 The sprinkler required at the bottom of the elevator hoistway by 9.3.6.1 shall not be required for enclosed, noncombustible elevator shafts that do not contain combustible
hydraulic fluids.

Is the shaft still considered to meet the "enclosed" requirement if it contains more than one elevator?

I'm leaning toward "Yes."

This is for an existing building built in the early 70s, and I noted that during our on-site review of the shafts, that these pits specifically were very clean.

Todd E Wyatt

12/15/2022 10:15:39 am

AHJs are required to enforce and interpret the adopted Codes and referenced standards.

AHJs are not permitted to NOT enforce portions of the Code and referenced standards they may disagree with.

If a jurisdiction disagrees with a Code and/or referenced standards, they are permitted to amend the adopted Code and/or referenced standards as directed per their municipal or state statute.

ASPS may initially protect occupants but their primary goal is to protect the building and subsequent emergency responders.

The answer provided was based on the assumption this was NEW construction. If these hoistways (e.g "shafts" with elevators in them) are an existing condition, the adopted International Existing Building Code (IEBC) should be reviewed FIRST instead of the IBC.

12/15/2022 10:26:41 am

This question is more about the definition of "enclosed" rather than whether the AHJ will enforce the statement.

If it were a new-build, would a shaft enclosing three elevators with no division between elevators still be considered an enclosed shaft?

Chad

12/15/2022 01:15:43 pm

Todd-

You paint a overly broad brush with your first two statements and they conflict with each other. NFPA 1 (which applies in the OP's state of MA), allows a fair amount a leeway for interpretation.

Interpretations are a disagreement, in some cases, deciding that a section does not apply in the AHJ's judgment, even though the AHJ next door would not agree. Interpretation is nuanced and is part of the enforcement you refer to. And if you are aggrieved, there is always an appeals process.

The point of this post is to point out that AHJ's do not live in a black and white We are not required or compelled to do as much as inferred. Although there could be an moral or ethical reasoning to just enforce all codes as written, it would end poorly for us all if we did not judge each case on its individual merits.

Todd E Wyatt

12/15/2022 03:23:42 pm

My responses about the "authority" of the AHJ were to some of the other responses that aluded to AHJs they've work with not enforcing the Code because they either disagreed with it or were making "interpretations" that created noncompliance conditions. I was an AHJ for the DOH in WY and I understand the difficulties of serving as an AHJ especially when our decisions cost Projects additional Time and Cost because the Design Team made Code assumptions that were then discovered during Construction and/or during Final Inspection.

2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code states the following regarding AHJ authority :

Chapter 1 - Administration
1.6 Enforcement.
This Code shall be administered and enforced by the AHJ designated by the governing authority.
1.7 Authority.
1.7.3 Interpretations, Rules, and Regulations.
1.7.3.1
The AHJ is authorized to render interpretations of this Code and to make and enforce rules and supplemental regulations in order to carry out the application and intent of its provisions.
1.7.3.2
Such interpretations, rules, and regulations shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this Code and shall be available to the public during normal business hours.
1.7.6 Reliance on Other Enforcement Officials.
1.7.6.1*
The AHJ shall be authorized to rely on plan reviews, inspections, opinions, and approvals rendered by other enforcement officials in determining compliance with this Code.
1.7.6.2
When the AHJ relies on inspections, plan reviews, opinions, and approvals rendered by other enforcement officials in determining compliance with this Code, the other enforcement officials shall be deemed to be acting as agents under their own authority and not as agents of the AHJ enforcing this Code.

A.1.7.6.1
The AHJ enforcing NFPA 1 may not have the technical expertise, required certifications, licensure, or legal authority to enforce all of the provisions and subject matter contained therein. As an example, Chapter 11 contains references to codes and standards that regulate specific building subsystems. These subsystems could be regulated by electrical, mechanical, plumbing, or other specialty enforcement officials with technical expertise or legal authority in the specific area of the subsystem. This paragraph authorizes the AHJ enforcing NFPA 1 to rely on the opinion and authority of these specialty enforcement officials in order to determine compliance.

12/15/2022 08:34:21 am

I personally agree with Glenn, although all of our Fire Inspectors in the surrounding area, with an exception to one city (they can't make up their minds), does not agree on this. They all say the fire would simply burn out, and having a head would just cause more headache issues.

Then there is the issue with knowing if the head was even going off without a tamper and flow switch wired in. Also, how do you test the flow switch without filling up the elevator pit.

I do also fully agree with James. If nothing is combustible there is no restriction on the size of the hoistway in the codes provided.

Bob Bambino

12/15/2022 08:41:30 am

I cant believe in 2022 that people are still arguing this? We protect people and buildings with fire sprinklers. Fully protect your elevator shafts, hoistways, whatever you want to call them. You also put sprinklers in the the machine rooms. Fires happen, especially in these areas, and quick extinguishment is the name of the game. People have to stop the nonsense of the back and forth on this.

Danial Bartle

12/15/2022 11:23:10 am

Our project has 2-2-stop traction cars in the same hoistway which is concrete and considered "2-hour" rated. When you add sprinklers to the bottom of the shaft, heat detectors are required to be included that would shunt the electric before the sprinklers activated during a fire event. The sprinklers in the shaft can be omitted if the cars and the cabling meet ASME A17.1-2016 Safety Code for Elevators, et al for combustibility. Scheduling elevator inspectors at the same time as ITM inspections can be difficult. NFPA 101 allows omitting the smoke detector in the top of the hoistway but ASME does not if the motor is in the hoistway.
IMO, it is not just whether the shaft is considered "enclosed". There are more issues to answer. By NFPA, I could omit the sprinklers but not the detector because of ASME.

12/21/2022 03:24:08 pm

Couple of things to consider:

Are the elevators fire service access elevators and/or occupant evacuation elevator?

Check the elevator shop drawings to see if the suspensions are fire rated or if they are combustible.

Also, Joe made a sheet for this:

https://mcusercontent.com/5e69714f07f4a6938aeff0309/files/5be9fc63-b743-3add-4b40-dcfa8867f81c/MeyerFire_Sprinkler_Elevators_2020_.pdf?mc_cid=3275a69091&mc_eid=14f4c897d5

Is Traction-Elevator Shaft Considered "Enclosed"?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES