# Elevator lobby



## Sifu (Feb 4, 2019)

1994 UBC 3002 required elevator lobbies to have at least one exit.
2012 IBC 713.14.1 requires elevator lobbies to have at least one means of egress.

Do either or both of these sections require that an exit stair in a high rise be provided direct access from within the lobby itself?  Or could leaving the lobby, travelling down a corridor to an exit stair comply?

Also

2012 IBC 403.6.1 requires a fire service access elevator be installed if occupied floor above 120' (this building exceeds that) and IBC 3007.7 requires those fire service access elevators to open into a fire service access elevator lobby per 713.14.1 (1-hr fire partition) with direct access to an interior exit stairway (3007.7.1) and be enclosed by a 1-hr smoke barrier (3007.7.2) with 45-min doors that are smoke protected (3007.7.3).

So does this section require the elevator lobby/fire service elevator lobby to have DIRECT access to an interior stair from within the lobby?

My situation is this:  I have an existing sprinklered high rise built under the 94 UBC with rated corridors.  Work proposed on the 16th floor.  It has an elevator lobby, enclosed by horizontal sliding doors but has no fire service access elevator lobby and no stair access from within the lobby.  A request has been made to "de-rate" the corridors based on the fact that the 2012 IBC 1018 wouldn't require them but I am concerned that the elevator lobbies do not meet the code for having an exit by either 713.14.1 or 3007.7 and the way I see it all applicable elements of the 2012 code would need to be met in order to allow compliance with the current code as opposed to the 94 code.  IEBC not in use.


----------



## Builder Bob (Feb 4, 2019)

Chapter 34 of the IBC ---


----------



## RLGA (Feb 4, 2019)

The definition of "exit" in the 1994 UBC is different than the definition of "exit" in the IBC. The 1994 UBC used "exit" in much the same way that the IBC defines "means of egress." Therefore, the intent of the 1994 UBC and the 2012 IBC are much the same. Each elevator lobby must have at least one means of egress--in other words, one door. The UBC and the IBC do not require direct access to an exit stair, but access to an exit stair would be required. If the elevator lobby is off the corridor, then one opening to the corridor that leads to an exit is all that is required, whether the corridor is rated or not. Travel distance and CPET are applicable from the lobby.

Fire service access elevators would not be required in an existing building unless the building is going through a change of occupancy that would require complete compliance with the current building code.


----------



## Sifu (Feb 5, 2019)

Thanks Ron, but a point of clarification for the fire service access elevator.  The request is to remove the ratings from the existing corridors based on the current code requirements in IBC 1018 where a fully sprinklered building wouldn't require rated corridors.  I have asked for a gap analysis, basically asking them to compare and provide the code provisions for this high-rise based on the code under which it was designed as well as the current code.  One of the first things I noticed is the lack of a fire service access elevator and lobby as required by the 2012 IBC.  So my question was to confirm that it is required now, but not then.  It is not that I am requiring compliance with the current code, just pointing out that cherry picking new code to suit their wants must be a little more holistic.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 5, 2019)

If the work on that floor only consists of alterations, then Section 3404.1 states "Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration."

Therefore, regarding the fire service access elevators, by not providing them, you are not making the building any less compliant with the code then it was prior to the alteration. As for nonrated corridors, the paragraph states "...no less complying with the provisions of _*this code*_...," which means if the current code (2012 IBC) allows nonrated corridors, then nonrated corridors can be provided because it is not making the building any less complying with the code now than it was before.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 5, 2019)

In the CA jurisdiction where I work there are many sprinklered building owners that would love to de-rate their existing one-hour corridors.  There is a good chance that they can if the building was built after 1996.  The thinking is that if designed and constructed using the 1996 edition of NFPA 13 the sprinkler system is up to date enough in order to take the sprinkler exception to the rated corridor requirement.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 5, 2019)

JPohling said:


> In the CA jurisdiction where I work there are many sprinklered building owners that would love to de-rate their existing one-hour corridors.  There is a good chance that they can if the building was built after 1996.  The thinking is that if designed and constructed using the 1996 edition of NFPA 13 the sprinkler system is up to date enough in order to take the sprinkler exception to the rated corridor requirement.


Good point. If the sprinkler system does not comply with the current code, then the sprinkler exceptions cannot be taken since it would make the building less complying with the code than it was before the alteration.


----------



## Sifu (Feb 5, 2019)

I agree to some extent, the building is not less compliant in regards to the rated corridors, but may not have other provisions now included in the code.  My concern is that the current codes have lowered the rating requirement, but did so based on the expectation that other provisions are now included in the codes that were not there before.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 5, 2019)

Sifu said:


> I agree to some extent, the building is not less compliant in regards to the rated corridors, but may not have other provisions now included in the code.  My concern is that the current codes have lowered the rating requirement, but did so based on the expectation that other provisions are now included in the codes that were not there before.


There is no connection between rated/nonrated corridors and the fire service access elevators. If the requirement for nonrated corridors in high rise buildings was contingent on the presence of a fire service access elevator, then I would say they couldn't de-rate the corridors because they don't have a fire service access elevator--but that's not the case, there is no connection.

If we take the position that using a new, less-stringent requirement in the code leads to compliance with all other provisions of the new code based on an assumption that all requirements are somehow interrelated, then no renovation work will be done because owners wouldn't want to pay the huge cost associated with their small renovation project.

Now, if this building was being converted from an office building to an apartment building, then yes, full compliance with the code would be applicable due to the change of occupancy and increase of hazard.


----------



## Sifu (Feb 5, 2019)

In looking at the IEBC (803.1.1-2018) for a level 2 alteration, it specifically says that where an approved sprinkler is installed throughout the story then the corridor rating could be reduced in accordance with the IBC.  So in this case, IF the sprinklers are an approved system then the corridor could be de-rated (in accordance with 1018).  So does that give the green light to disregard other provisions?  That would make my life a lot easier!


----------



## RLGA (Feb 5, 2019)

Sifu said:


> In looking at the IEBC (803.1.1-2018) for a level 2 alteration, it specifically says that where an approved sprinkler is installed throughout the story then the corridor rating could be reduced in accordance with the IBC.  So in this case, IF the sprinklers are an approved system then the corridor could be de-rated (in accordance with 1018).  So does that give the green light to disregard other provisions?  That would make my life a lot easier!


I thought you said the IEBC was not used? Used or not, the statement is true whether explicitly stated as in the IEBC or not. A corridor can only be non-rated if the building is sprinklered throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 -- the version referenced by the currently adopted building code. If the sprinkler system does not comply with the currently referenced NFPA 13 standard, then corridors cannot be non-rated or the sprinkler system will need to made to comply with the current standard.


----------



## Sifu (Feb 5, 2019)

No, we don't use it.  I am just trying to find solutions, and getting opinions from other sources, whether it be a person on this forum or from another code book can't hurt.  I am trying to wrap my head around the use of a new code for an old building but if the IEBC spells it out like it appears to I don't really need to wrap my head around it since it is explicit.  I am continually getting accused of trying to make old buildings fit new code (which I try not to do but sometimes fail).  In this case I am being challenged on trying to make the old building meet the old code.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 5, 2019)

Ron is absolutely correct.  The sprinkler system needs to at least be up to the NFPA standard as to when the sprinkler exception for rated corridors was introduced.  Some things that changed that will allow the sprinkler exception in the NFPA were quick response heads, seismic braces, flexible couplings and increased pipe clearances.


----------

