# Elevator Lobbies in Lieu of Smoke Curtains @ Elevator Door Openings?



## H8Cr1me (May 22, 2013)

I am designing an R-1, 4-story, type V-A, 1-hour, sprinklered hotel in southern California.

View attachment 1791


View attachment 1792


I’m trying to avoid using smoke curtains. In my hotel an elevator lobby is provided at floors 2‐4 on the double-door side. Smoke curtains have been provided at floors 2‐4 on the single-door side. A lobby enclosure on the ground floor isn’t needed (sprinklered). I’d like to keep things the way I have them.708.7 Openings. Openings in a shaft enclosure shall be protected in accordance with Section 715 as required for fire barriers. Doors shall be self- or automatic-closing by smoke detection in accordance with Section 715.4.8.3.[2010 CBC Section 708.14.1 #3] and [2012 IBC Section 713.14.1 #3] States: Enclosed elevator lobbies are not required where additional doors are provided at the hoistway opening in accordance with Section 3002.6. Such doors shall be tested in accordance with UL 1784 without an artificial bottom seal.My interpretation of the intent of the code is to prevent the propagation of smoke in to the corridor, and that an elevator lobby affords this protection. However, it seems Section 708.7 and  708.14.1 #3 will force me to have a smoke curtain/door, at every elevator door, on every floor. Am I correct in this analysis?I appreciate any assistance
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1791


View attachment 1792


/monthly_2013_05/572953e89b298_ElevatorShaft_Page_1.jpg.4ae9e76831ed194e412a03298982eec3.jpg

/monthly_2013_05/572953e89f5b6_ElevatorShaft_Page_2.jpg.7e9a1a093e22bc8cad0dbe7c17e6e317.jpg


----------



## cda (May 22, 2013)

Welcome from a former member of the great state of California

How did you find us??

Not a calif expert but it appears calif has tougher requirements for elevators and yes curtain or door is needed,

Now there are some fellow calif people on here that can say for sure

Come on back anytime the water's fine!!


----------



## north star (May 22, 2013)

*: - : - :*

H8Cr1me,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum ! 

Your interpretation of the `10 CBC, Section 708.7 & 708.14.1

is correct !....See also, Section 708.14.1, # 8:

_"[sFM] Enclosed elevator lobbies are not required_ _where the_

_hoistway door has a fire-protection rat__ing as required by_

_Section 708.7 __*and *__the hoistway__ door opening is also protected_

_by a listed and labeled smoke containment system complying_

_with ICC ES AC 77."_

*: - : - :*


----------



## cda (May 22, 2013)

north star said:
			
		

> *: - : - :*H8Cr1me,
> 
> Welcome to The Building Codes Forum !
> 
> ...


I think he is trying to get rid of the door or curtain


----------



## AegisFPE (May 22, 2013)

If an elevator lobby is provided, you should not also need extra doors across the elevator openings.

Regardless, separation of the elevator openings from a fire-resistance-rated corridor per CBC 715 by extra doors or a lobby may be required.


----------



## H8Cr1me (May 23, 2013)

I think my code-based justification for not using smoke curtains or doors is this:*708.2* Shaft enclosure required. Openings through a floor/ceiling assembly shall be protected by a shaft enclosure complying with this section. *Exceptions: * 7.4. Is not open to a corridor in Group I and R occupancies. The elevator lobby is what makes the shaft not open into a corridor.

View attachment 705


View attachment 706


Architectural Record - Design Alternatives to the Enclosed Elevator Lobby - Fire and Smoke Safety SolutionsThe only problem I would see with this argument is at the 1st floor on the lobby side where it isn't an enclosed lobby and is also a path of egress. However:*708.14.1 Exception #1* Enclosed elevator lobbies are not required at the street floor, provided the entire street floor is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 705


View attachment 706


/monthly_2013_05/572953c813403_ElevatorShaft_Page_1.jpg.50d18bcd6051224dc34d351d893ec9bf.jpg

/monthly_2013_05/572953c816136_ElevatorShaft_Page_2.jpg.c55c886c138958a89792bd6e5d0fb934.jpg


----------



## H8Cr1me (May 23, 2013)

My Justification

I think my code-based justification for not using smoke curtains or doors is this:

*708.2* Shaft enclosure required. Openings through a floor/ceiling assembly shall be protected by a shaft enclosure complying with this section.

*Exceptions: * 7.4. Is not open to a corridor in Group I and R occupancies.

The elevator lobby is what makes the shaft not open into a corridor.

View attachment 1647
View attachment 1648


This article from Architectural Record discusses alternatives to an elevator lobby and essentially states that the elevator lobby is the initial method of compliance.

Architectural Record - Design Alternatives to the Enclosed Elevator Lobby - Fire and Smoke Safety Solutions

The only problem I would see with this argument is at the 1st floor on the lobby side where it isn't an enclosed lobby and is also a path of egress. However:

*708.14.1 Exception #1* Enclosed elevator lobbies are not required at the street floor, provided the entire street floor is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.


----------



## H8Cr1me (May 23, 2013)

I tried to elaborate on this post twice and it tells me that it will be posted after moderator approval. I think that's completely ridiculous.


----------



## cda (May 23, 2013)

H8Cr1me said:
			
		

> I tried to elaborate on this post twice and it tells me that it will be posted after moderator approval. I think that's completely ridiculous.


Might be because of just a few posts you have made

This site is not censored


----------



## jar546 (May 23, 2013)

Yes, it is because it is a new post from a new member.  You can thank all of the spammers that have registered and their first couple of posts were nothing but spam.  We have lots of safeguards in place against the ever growing population of spammers and moderating the first couple of posts is one of them.  Sorry this is an inconvenience to you but it is also an inconvenience to me since I have to manually look at everyones firsts few posts.  As you can see at the bottom of the main forum page, the automatic controls have stopped over 32,000 spammers from registering in just a few months.  The system is not 100% so I have to approve every single person that registers manually and then the first few posts AND with that, they still sneak by.

I could imagine how this forum would look if I just removed the spam controls......Not pretty.

Welcome by the way and glad you are here.  Enjoy.


----------

