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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Alex
12/15/2022 10:26:03 am
Hi James,
Reply
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.
James Phifer
12/15/2022 12:50:18 pm
Good to know Alex. Appreciate the information.
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."
Reply
OP
12/15/2022 09:33:47 am
This question is in relation to the following reference:
Reply
Todd E Wyatt
12/15/2022 10:15:39 am
AHJs are required to enforce and interpret the adopted Codes and referenced standards.
Reply
OP
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.
Chad
12/15/2022 01:15:43 pm
Todd-
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.
S
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
NB
12/21/2022 03:24:08 pm
Couple of things to consider:
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop September '24 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
November 2024
PE PREP SERIES |