# elevator shaft without ratings



## Hyrax4978 (Mar 29, 2017)

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 (Mar 29, 2017)

Mall is a different animal?

Atrium rules of order?

Depends on the setting


----------



## JBI (Mar 29, 2017)

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


----------



## CityKin (Mar 29, 2017)

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


----------



## cda (Mar 29, 2017)

CityKin said:


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




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


----------



## RLGA (Mar 29, 2017)

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 (Mar 29, 2017)

RLGA said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2017)

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 (Dec 13, 2017)

sergoodo said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Dec 13, 2017)

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 (Dec 13, 2017)

sergoodo said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Dec 14, 2017)

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 permitte_d.

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 (Dec 14, 2017)

Ding! Round 2?


----------



## RLGA (Dec 14, 2017)

sergoodo said:


> 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 permitte_d.


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.


sergoodo said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2017)

_

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 (Dec 18, 2017)

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 (Dec 18, 2017)

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 (Dec 18, 2017)

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 (Dec 23, 2017)

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 (Dec 23, 2017)

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 (Dec 23, 2017)

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


----------



## RLGA (Dec 24, 2017)

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 (Dec 26, 2017)

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 (Dec 26, 2017)

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!


----------



## sergoodo (Dec 27, 2017)

Here is the 2015 IBC takeaway for 2 story elevator shaft enclosure discussion:
1) Elevator hoistways are “shaft enclosures”, see 3002.1
2) “Shaft enclosure” protection applicable only if openings and penetration require protection, see 713.1
3) <3 story no opening protection required, see 3006.2
4) <3 story, 713 not applicable, see 2) above
5) <3 story 713.4 rating not applicable see 2) & 3) above
6) Also refer to 3006.2 for the 5 unique conditions and follow through requirements with Chapter 6 for element ratings of building classification.

Please consider the following “little banter” items that should be ignored:
a) ‘unenclosed elevator’ no such bird
b) ‘1.5hr elevator door’ no such bird, table 716.5 not applicable to elevator doors
c) ‘1hr elevator door’ no such bird, table 716.5 not applicable to elevator doors
d) 712.1.9 is not applicable to elevator hoistways, only 712.1.1 applicable - no exception.
e) ‘1hr door assembly without smoke and draft control’ no such bird in 2015
f) ‘716.5 rating for elevator door requirement’, no such requirement, 716.5 N/A for elevator door
g) “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”  Wrong, all fire door assemblies require NFPA 105 smoke & draft control, so totally disregard the aforementioned statement.
h) "elevator is not required to be in an enclosure" Wrong, see 3002.1 

For clarification:
A “shaft enclosure” can be non-rated
A “shaft” is not a “shaft enclosure”
A “fire door” is not a “fire door assembly”

For reference:
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.
FIRE DOOR. The door component of a fire door assembly.
FIRE DOOR ASSEMBLY. Any combination of a fire door, frame, hardware and other accessories that together provide a specific degree of fire protection to the opening.

Respect RLGA interpretations, respect that we basically are posting the same conclusions. The problem here is a pathway for conclusion not supported by code - which I can agree to disagree.  This however is not acceptable conclusion for a discussion to determine code requirements, determining life safety requirements. This board’s purpose is to crystallize code requirements and eliminate gray areas into a black/white enlightenment of life safety. Yes....your posts are serving a higher purpose.


----------



## RLGA (Dec 28, 2017)

Here’s the summary following the code based on the 2015 IBC:

Elevator hoistways can be enclosed or unenclosed.

1.  If an elevator hoistway is *enclosed*, Section 3002.1 “Hoistway enclosure protection” requires that the hoistway be a _shaft enclosure_ complying with Section 713.
a.  Section 713.2 “Construction” requires _shaft enclosures_ to be constructed of _fire barriers_, horizontal assemblies, or both.
b.  Section 713.4 “Fire-resistance rating” requires _shaft enclosures_ to have the following _fire-resistance ratings_:

2 hours when connecting four or more stories.
1 hour when connecting less than four stories.
c.  Section 713.7 “Openings” requires openings in _shaft enclosures_ to be protected per Section 716 as required for _fire barriers_. Additionally, Section 3002.1.1 “Opening protectives” requires openings in hoistway enclosures to be protected per Chapter 7.
d.  Section 716.5 “Fire door and shutter assemblies” requires openings to be tested per Sections 716.5.1, 716.5.2, *or* 716.5.3. Section 716.5.1 does not apply to elevator doors, since they are not side-hinged or pivoted. Section 716.5.3 applies to corridor doors and doors in smoke barriers and does not apply to elevator doors (more on this later). Section 716.5.2 “Other types of assemblies” applies to elevator doors; thus, elevator doors are required to be fire rated per either UL 10B or NFPA 252 (elevator hoistway doors are tested for fire ratings whether you choose to believe it or not). The fire protection rating for the doors is per Table 716.5 as follows:

2-Hour Hoistways: Under “Enclosures for *shafts*, interior exit stairways and interior exit ramps,” the minimum fire-protection rating is 1-1/2 hours.
1-Hour Hoistways: Under “Fire barriers having a required fire-resistance rating of 1 hour: Enclosures for *shafts*…,” the minimum fire-protection rating is 1 hour.
e. Section 3006.1 provides *additional* protection requirements for elevator hoistway openings. There are five elements to this requirement, of which the first one is relevant to most elevators, and requires that where protection is required by Section 3006.2, the requirements of Section 3006.3 apply.
f.  Section 3006.2 “Hoistway opening protection required” provides five conditions in which *additional* protection is required for hoistway enclosures that connect more than three stories (if a hoistway connects three stories or less, then the *additional* protection is not required, but the fire ratings per Section 716.5 still apply). If the additional protection is required, then Section 3006.3 provides four options for complying with the added protection--each related only to smoke and draft control. (NOTE: this section states “…is required to be enclosed within a shaft enclosure in accordance with Section 712.1.1…,” which implies that a shaft enclosure for an elevator hoistway is not always required.)​
2.  If an elevator hoistway is *not enclosed*, then, as stated in 1.f. above, Section 712.1.1 offers one option (_shaft enclosure_) for a vertical opening if used for the elevator hoistway. If Section 712.1.1 is not used, then one of the remaining options may be used. One option, Section 712.1.7, would not require an elevator hoistway enclosure for elevators in an atrium. Similarly, Section 712.1.9 would not require an elevator hoistway enclosure for two-story spaces that comply with all the conditions listed. Elevators connecting mezzanine levels would also not require an elevator hoistway enclosure per Section 712.1.11.
a. If an elevator hoistway is not enclosed by any of the options listed above, then there is no _shaft enclosure_; and, thus, there are no requirements for protection of hoistway openings.​
3.  Regarding smoke and draft control of opening protectives: NFPA 105 only applies to the installation of smoke door assemblies and then only to specific door types--not all fire door assemblies are required to be smoke and draft control doors. Chapter 35 identifies only four locations in the IBC where NFPA 105 applies: doors in smoke barriers for underground buildings (405.4.2), doors in smoke partitions (710.5.2.2), fire door assemblies in corridors and smoke barriers (716.5.3.1), and vestibule doors in smokeproof enclosures (909.20.4.1).
a. Similarly, UL 1784 addresses air leakage of certain door assemblies, and Chapter 35 identifies only eight locations in the IBC where control of air leakage is required: doors in smoke partitions (710.5.2.2 and 710.5.2.2.1), fire door assemblies in corridors and smoke barriers (716.5.3.1), labeling of smoke and draft control doors (716.5.7.1 and 716.5.7.3), additional doors over elevator hoistway openings (3006.3), fire service access elevator lobby doors (3007.6.3), and occupant evacuation elevator lobby doors (3008.6.3).​I'm done.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 28, 2017)

Well I have enjoyed the little "banter" and as stated before the ICC does not stand for Intelligent, Clear or Concise.
Sticking with the charging language in 3002.1 I agree with RLGA if it is enclosed then the enclosure is constructed as a shaft
I have an existing building where the unenclosed stairs wrap around shaft  and an elevator was never installed. Now the senior center wants to relocate there and the existing shaft will not accommodate a wheel chair. The only way to get the correct amount of area is to remove the enclosure and install an open elevator. The designer is hoping this will fit    https://www.kone.pl/Images/brochure-kone-prospace_tcm49-20234.pdf


----------



## sergoodo (Dec 29, 2017)

ignore 3002.1 and make up the code classification of "unenclosed hoistway"

First, read the definition of "Shaft Enclosure". Then find image to post of the imaginary "unenclosed hoistway" and l'll tell you why it is image posted not code compliant, actually unsafe.

That is, if you can find an image.


----------



## RLGA (Dec 29, 2017)

From the 2015 IBC Code Commentary regarding Section 3002.1:

"...It should be noted that this section of the code does not require hoistway enclosures for all elevators and dumbwaiters..."


----------



## sergoodo (Dec 29, 2017)

should be noted that an elevator not located in a shaft enclosure is dangerous and not permitted by code.  This shaft enclosure in some cases does not need to be rated, as in the case of the Kone elevator posted.

if the shaft is not fully enclosed


----------



## sergoodo (Dec 29, 2017)

the safety of people pets kids is ignored

see nfpa 80 requiring both smoke & fire, show me where an door opening in a rated wall does not require nfpa 80


----------



## sergoodo (Dec 29, 2017)

mtlogcabin said:


> Well I have enjoyed the little "banter" and as stated before the ICC does not stand for Intelligent, Clear or Concise.
> Sticking with the charging language in 3002.1 I agree with RLGA if it is enclosed then the enclosure is constructed as a shaft
> I have an existing building where the unenclosed stairs wrap around shaft  and an elevator was never installed. Now the senior center wants to relocate there and the existing shaft will not accommodate a wheel chair. The only way to get the correct amount of area is to remove the enclosure and install an open elevator. The designer is hoping this will fit    https://www.kone.pl/Images/brochure-kone-prospace_tcm49-20234.pdf



if state licensed facility, an elevator sized for a stretcher may be required depending on the upper levels use.


----------



## RLGA (Dec 29, 2017)

NFPA 80 is for the installation, functional testing, maintenance, and inspection of fire-rated openings--not the testing to determine fire rating or smoke and draft control if required.


----------



## sergoodo (Dec 29, 2017)

RLGA said:


> NFPA 80 is for the installation, functional testing, maintenance, and inspection of fire-rated openings--not the testing to determine fire rating or smoke and draft control if required.


wrong: To comply w/nfpa 80 the components and installation of the assembly required to comply with nfpa105 & nfpa252 smoke & fire. 

check the section on requirements by reference

smoke is the #1 cause of death in fire and yah, all fire doors need to be smoke & draft tested.


----------



## RLGA (Dec 29, 2017)

sergoodo said:


> wrong: To comply w/nfpa 80 the components and installation of the assembly required to comply with nfpa105 & nfpa252 smoke & fire.
> 
> check the section on requirements by reference
> 
> smoke is the #1 cause of death in fire and yah, all fire doors need to be smoke & draft tested.


Just because a reference is listed in Chapter 2 does not mean it applies to everything in NFPA 80--it only applies to the extent it is referenced. As Section 2.1 "General" states, "The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter *are referenced within this standard *and shall be considered part of the requirements of this document" (emphasis added). The emphasized portion means that the standards listed are referenced somewhere in NFPA 80 and where they are referenced they are made a part of NFPA 80. If you do a search of NFPA 80, you will find that NFPA 105 is only referenced in Chapter 19 "Installation, Testing, and Maintenance of Fire Dampers." Thus, it applies only to fire dampers and is not applicable to any other opening covered by NFPA 80 unless specifically required by another standard or code; and, as I previously mentioned, NFPA 105 only applies to those four locations identified in the IBC.


----------



## sergoodo (Dec 30, 2017)

"and shall be considered a part of this document" 

your logic is flawed and dangerous...essentially saying it is acceptable to undercut doors 1" in a rated wall assembly for HVAC circulation is ok where you believe 105 is not applicable. Also the poor kid who loses an arm pulling out his dead cat from one of those "unenclosed hoistways" you deem acceptable.

the code provides MINIMUM safety requirements to protect the public...


----------



## RLGA (Dec 30, 2017)

I suggest before calling someone "flawed and dangerous" that you might actually read the standard. 

The 1-inch undercut is not permitted by NFPA 80 and has nothing to do with NFPA 105. NFPA 105 is only a part of the standard where it is referenced in the standard (i.e., in NFPA 80 Chapter 19)--Chapter 2 only lists the standards that are referenced elsewhere within the standard and is not a blanket requirement for the entire standard. This is basic code/standard protocol.

FYI, here's the NFPA 80 requirement regarding the bottom clearance for a fire-rated door assembly:

"4.8.4.1* The clearance under the bottom of a door shall be a maximum of 3⁄4 in. (19 mm)."


----------



## RLGA (Dec 30, 2017)

sergoodo said:


> Also the poor kid who loses an arm pulling out his dead cat from one of those "unenclosed hoistways" you deem acceptable.
> 
> the code provides MINIMUM safety requirements to protect the public...


I think I understand what you're trying to get at, and the significant element here is the term "enclosure." 

When the IBC refers to a "hoistway enclosure" in IBC Section 3002.1, they are referring to a _shaft enclosure _as defined by the IBC (i.e., "The walls or construction forming the boundaries of a shaft") and is required to be fire-resistance rated per IBC Chapter 7. But, as I previously pointed out, a fire-resistance-rated shaft enclosure is not always required by the IBC for an elevator hoistway; thus, an "unenclosed" hoistway.

However, ASME 17.1/CSA B44, which is required for compliance by IBC Section 3001.2, defines "hoistway enclosure" slightly differently as "the fixed structure, consisting of vertical walls or partitions, that isolate the hoistway from all other areas or from an adjacent hoistway and which entrances are installed." ASME A17.1 does not require that hoistways be fire-resistance rated and defers that decision to the building code:

"*2.1.1.2.1*  Where fire-resistive construction is not required by the building code, hoistway construction shall conform to 2.1.1.2.2 or 2.1.1.3."
ASME does, however, require protection around the hoistway for safety purposes as indicated by the two references in the quoted section above:

"*2.1.1.3 Partially Enclosed Hoistways. *For elevators that are not fully enclosed, protection at least 2 400 mm (94.5 in.) high shall be provided on the hoistway sides that are located 1 500 mm (59 in.) or less from the elevator equipment to areas accessible to other than elevator personnel. Such protection shall comply with 2.1.1.2."
"*2.1.1.2.2*  The hoistway shall be fully enclosed conforming to 2.1.1.2.2(a), (b), (c), and (d); or 2.1.1.2.2(a), (b), and (e).
"_(a)_ Enclosures and doors shall be unperforated to a height of 2 000 mm (79 in.) above each floor or landing and above treads of adjacent stairways. The enclosure shall be unperforated, adjacent to, and for 150 mm (6 in.) on either side of any moving equipment that is within 100 mm (4 in.) of the enclosure.
"_(b)_ Partitions between hoistways and _(1) _machinery spaces outside the hoistway[,] _(2) _machine rooms[,] _(3) _control spaces outside the hoistway[, and] _(4) _control rooms[,] shall be of solid or openwork construction that meets the requirements of 2.1.1.2.2(d)(1), (2), and (3). Partitions of solid construction shall be permitted to have openings essential for ropes, drums, sheaves, and other elevator equipment. Openwork construction shall reject a ball 25 mm (1 in.) in diameter, except where there are openings for ropes, drums, sheaves, and other elevator equipment.
_"(c) _Openwork enclosures, where used above the 2 000 mm (79 in.) level, shall reject a ball 25 mm (1 in.) in diameter.
"_(d)_ Openwork enclosures shall be _(1)_ at least 2.2 mm (0.087 in.) thick wire, if of steel wire grille[,] _(2)_ at least 2.2 mm (0.087 in.) thick, if of expanded metal[, and] _(3)_ so supported and braced as to deflect not over 15 mm (0.6 in.) when subjected to a force of 450 N (100 lbf) applied horizontally at any point.
"_(e)_ Enclosures shall be permitted to be glass, provided it is laminated glass conforming to ANSI Z97.1, 16 CFR Part 1201, or CAN/CGSB-12.1, whichever is applicable (See Part 9). Markings as specified in the applicable standard shall be on each separate piece of glass and shall remain visible after installation."

So, I concede that an "enclosure" is required around portions of a hoistway for safety purposes (not for fire or smoke control) as a minimum per ASME A17.1 (as referenced by the IBC). If this is the type of "enclosure" to which you were referring, then I apologize...you are correct; however, the IBC references you used in support of this type of "enclosure" were incorrect, and, thus, led us down this discussion path.


----------



## sergoodo (Jan 3, 2018)

RLGA said:


> I think I understand what you're trying to get at, and the significant element here is the term "enclosure."
> 
> When the IBC refers to a "hoistway enclosure" in IBC Section 3002.1, they are referring to a _shaft enclosure _as defined by the IBC (i.e., "The walls or construction forming the boundaries of a shaft") and is required to be fire-resistance rated per IBC Chapter 7. But, as I previously pointed out, a fire-resistance-rated shaft enclosure is not always required by the IBC for an elevator hoistway; thus, an "unenclosed" hoistway.



Maybe the mods can <snip> that verbal strike, I can't, and it certainly did not help the discussion. Thanks for calling it out.  

I hijacked my own thread with the smoke door...I had read somewhere that only smoke doors require the label, like >1hr label is not to be used, seemed good enough to just start shooting from the hip on that...So where did I read that?  Figure you should be able to correct my memory so I can eventually figure out why I should not start another topic

Back to the elevator...
We are arriving at the same level of safety; except the path through the ASME 17.1 to classify the shaft enclosure as "unenclosed hoistway" then applying 712.9.1 creates some gymnastics with logic.  I can agree with the logic, but if that is the only pathway being argued, an AHJ could just dig feet in and not entertain performing the gymnastics. Basically shut down the argument with:  3002.1 Elevator hoistways are “shaft enclosures”, see 712.1.1 which is applicable to "shaft enclosures"  How would you respond? Not really an option to tell a client the AHJ does not understand.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 3, 2018)

I would probably respond that if the hoistway is not enclosed, then it is not an "enclosure." If it's not an "enclosure," then it doesn't need to comply with the requirements of a shaft enclosure, provided the vertical openings for the elevator hoistway comply with other requirements of the IBC--specifically Sections 712.1.7, 712.1.9, or 712.1.11, as applicable. 

If they still don't believe you, then refer them to the quote from the _2015 IBC Code Commentary _that I mentioned in comment #29 of this thread. It's an ICC publication, so they should know what they're talking about, even if the _Commentary _text is not considered part of the code (why state it if it isn't true?).

As an example of an "unenclosed" elevator hoistway, go into just about any Hilton Embassy Suites Hotel, which typically has elevators within an atrium (IBC Section 712.1.7). I used one in a community center within an open 2-story space several years ago that would comply with IBC Section 712.1.9 (it was under the 1997 UBC at the time, but the code requirements were similar).


----------



## sergoodo (Jan 5, 2018)

Would like to point out that the high point of the discussion was when mtlogcabin said ICC does not stand for Intelligent, Clear or Concise.

Arguing the 'and' 'or' interpretations is pretty much fruitless.  One discussion led to a "show me" request... with the AHJ opening his code book. Well...there was a big 'X' crossing out the "OR".  The AHJ crossed it out "cause it's wrong"

Thanks RLGA, Oh I believe you, Now my #1 interpretation, plus not seeing any dissension makes me believe generally most accepted...if there is a chance to hit wall with your interpretation, figure I will probably end up in another "and" argument using the #2 interpretation 713.1 “Shaft enclosure” protection applicable only if openings and penetration require protection.

And for the record, I have always felt safe around the elevator at Hilton Embassy Suites Hotel.


----------

