Elevators and Fire

egress. In November 1990, NFPA membership
approved a "menu item" for the 1991 edition of the
Life Safety Code covering areas of refuge and
elevator use for egress. During 1991, the
memberships of the two other BCMC
organizations, BOCA and SBCCI, are expected to
process the BCMC recommendations for areas of
refuge and elevator use for egress. This would
result in revisions to the BOCA National Building
Code and the Standard Building Code respectively.

As in Britain, the elevator egress requirements
evolving in the U.S. do not affect the required
capacity of conventional egress routes. Also
egress-related elevator use is expected to be
restricted to those people who cannot safely use
the exit stairs.

Mobility Disability Demographics. It should
be recognized that most of the people, who are
sometimes included in the group improperly called
"the disabled" (reported as including 43 million
Americans to help justify passage of the ADA), are
quite capable of using stairs. According to U.S.
demographic data noted by Pauls and Juillet
(1990), only about 0.3 percent of the civilian
noninstitutionalized population use wheelchairs. A
similar percentage use walkers for getting around.
The percentages of noninstitutionalized civilians
65-74 years, using wheelchairs and walkers, are 1.1
and 1.2 respectively. The percentages of those 75
years and over using wheelchairs and walkers are
2.3 and 4.8 respectively. Generally, in the U.S.,
about 3 percent of noninstitutionalized civilians
use one or more mobility aids (i.e. wheelchairs,
walkers, crutches, canes, special shoes, braces,
artificial limbs). This rate is only 1.8 percent for
the 0-64 age group and rises to 8.3 percent for the
65-74 age group and to 22.4 percent for the 75-
and-over age group. In buildings used
predominantly by people under 65 years of age, we
can assume that about 3 percent of building oc-
cupants have mobility disabilities but can
independently use exit stairs if moving behind
others who are able to move faster. We can con-
Servatively assume that 0.5 percent, in such
buildings, cannot use stairs without assistance.
This percentage includes users of wheelchairs,
walkers, or crutches. They might need elevators.

Summing up developments: generally the last
fourteen years have witnessed many developments
on this topic, including many publications on
research, standards, and recommended safety pro-
grams. Indeed it came as a surprise -- even to
researchers active in the area -- that a recent
published literature review of the area included
some 350 documents (Pauls, 1988e). A more
recent, unpublished review included 526 items

67

(Pauls, 1988b). Therefore, this brief paper can do
little more than merely introduce a small part of
the background to the matter of egress by elevators
for people unable to use exit stairs.

LOGISTICS OF EGRESS
VIA ELEVATORS

Bazjanac’s Simulations of Elevator Use for Egress

Bazjanac and colleagues at the University of
California, Berkeley, performed computer
simulations of elevator use for evacuating all or
portions of tall office buildings (Bazjanac, 1977).
Although funded for two years by the National
Science Foundation this work had little impact in
firesafety and standards organizations. An assumed
reliance on automatic operation of elevators, with
procedures calling for first response to the fire
floor, might have had something to do with the
work’s small impact. Indeed some attitudes against
such egress methods might have hardened because
of Bazjanac’s work.

Partial Evacuation. The simplest strategy
explored by Bazjanac and his team was to have
elevators operate in a “down-peak" mode and
respond only to three floors in an evacuation zone.
The computer simulation predicted that the last
person would be evacuated from any three-floor
zone in less than eight minutes. The simulation
also suggested that this time could be improved, to
less than five minutes, if people were unloaded at
an intermediate floor rather than going all the way
to the ground floor. Some uncertainty was noted
about how short the actual time might be because
"it is impossible to predict what percentage of the
floor population might escape through means
other than elevators in an actual emergency in
which elevators are available" (Bazjanac, 1977). It
was concluded that the "fastest method of
evacuation of any individual floor is the
simultaneous dispatch of all available elevators to
that floor" and "the success of this strategy depends
entirely on the ability to get everybody on the floor
to the elevator lobby in the short time it takes the
elevators to reach the floor and load people."

Complete Evacuation. Bazjanac’s simulation
suggested that all buildings could be completely
evacuated, using elevators, in less than 30 minutes.
It was noted that, because of their use of elevator
zones and high-speed elevators, some tall buildings
could be evacuated in less than half the time of
buildings with half as many floors.



tland in 1975. A few years later, in the U.S.A,
National Task Force on Life Safety and the
adicapped, Inc. was formed. Along with other,
re-established organizations it held the first of

» major conferences in the Washington, D.C.

a in 1979 (Levin, 1980). The proceedings of

s conference provide the best summation of

Ive key topics (each the focus of preconference
-kshops and conference panels):

codes and standards
emergency preparedness planning
building design
education

consumer interests
products

alarm systems

Tefuge

egress

self-protection
management actions
emergency service actions

Much discussion at this 1979 conference (and
3 follow-up conference in 1980) centered on the
xd for special requirements to be incorporated in

Life Safety Code, NFPA 101. Attempts were
de to introduce such requirements, related
ecially to areas of refuge for people with
bility impairments, in the 1981 and 1985
tions of the Life Safety Code. Similar but less
yminent efforts were made at about the same
\e to introduce new requirements for areas of
uge in the three U.S. model building codes. All
these attempts were unsuccessful.

During 1982 and 1983, a study funded by the
nadian government provided useful information
evacuation techniques for people with
abilities affecting hearing, vision and mobility
shnson, 1983). Also, 1982 marked the beginning
a joint U.S.-Canadian study of elevator use for
icuation during fires. Numerous publications
: available on this work by Tamura at the
tional Research Council of Canada and Klote at
: U.S. National Bureau of Standards, now the
S. National Institute for Standards and
chnology (e.g., Klote and Tamura, 1986).

Among several conferences and satellite
econferences held between 1983 and 1989 was a
e-day program, "Meeting special needs of the
abled in evacuation and sheltering systems,"
onsored by the U.S. Federal Emergency
anagement Agency (FEMA) as part of its
nergency Education Network (EENET) satellite

leoconference series. Building design features,
inagement activities, and one-to-one, egress

Elevators and Fire

assistance techniques were addressed in this
program.

The 1980s saw much attention to the problem
in North American and European standards and
codes. The National Building Code of Canada
introduced special refuge requirements in its 1985
edition (following the lead of the Province of
British Columbia which brought in refuge
requirements in 1979 and 1984). In 1987, France
issued new fire safety rules including requirements
for areas of refuge for people with disabilities.
Based on some substantial early effort by the U.K.
Home Office, the British Standards Institution, in
February 1988, issued a new British Standard, BS
5588:Part 8, "Code of practice for means of escape
for disabled persons" (BSI, 1988), which included
extensive guidance on use of elevators for egress
during fires and built upon BS 5588:Part 5. “Code
of practice for firefighting stairways and lifts" (BSI,
1986). Background to these BSI standards was
provided in papers by the Home Office (1984) and
by Gatfield (1989a, 1989b). These standards cover
construction, elevator design and control, power
supplies, communication systems and management
control.

The U.S. Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) sponsored
studies, first, on alarms for people with hearing
impairments and, later, on egress procedures and
technologies for people with disabilities, a study
resulting in six reports (¢.g., Pauls, 1988a, 1988b)
one of which (Pauls, 1988c) was a source document
for proposals to the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101,
and for the BCMC report on accessibility and
egress for people with disabilities (BCMC, 1990).
Public Works Canada also sponsored studies by
Pauls (19884, 1988e), paralleling those sponsored
by the U.S. ATBCB and influencing a new
Canadian Standards Association national standard,
"Barrier-Free Design, CAN/CSA-B651-M90" (CSA,
1990).

BCMC’s recommendations are usually
submitted as proposals to the respective revision
processes of BCMC’s four constituent
organizations: the Building Officials and Code
Administrators International (BOCA),
International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO), National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), and Southern Building Code Congress
International (SBCCI). In September 1990, ICBO
anticipated BCMC’s proposal, addressing the
refuge/egress provisions, with ICBO membership
approval of a new Chapter 31 to the Uniform
Building Code, 1991 edition, with requirements for
"areas for evacuation assistance" (areas of refuge)
which included the option of elevator use for



68

The Need for Management Control. Bazjanac
compared results of an actual compiete evacuation
of a 22-story office building in San Francisco with
results of a computer simulation. In the actual
evacuation, which occurred because of smoke
spread from a fire, “using both elevators and
stairwells it took over half an hour to evacuate the
building. The evacuation caused a lot of confusion
and was far from efficient." The evacuation was
simulated with the elevators in normal "down-peak"
mode. "The simulated evacuation of the entire
building (with no use of stairwells) was
accomplished in 8 minutes and 20 seconds." The
difference was attributed to "the extent of control
exercised in the evacuation exercise." Bazjanac
noted that “all experimental results are based on
the assumptions of a steady flow of people to be
evacuated to the elevators and the smooth loading
of elevators without any delay. . . . In fact, the
ability to provide such controlled loading of
elevators is by far the most critical factor for
accomplishment of fast evacuation.”

By way of conclusion, Bazjanac contended that
"the decision to pull elevators out of service should
be made according to the spread of danger in each
individual case by an authorized person on
location—not a priori through legislation."

Simulations by Pauls

While Pauls’ simulation efforts were
contemporary with those by Bazjanac, they (and
their funding) were far less extensive than
Bazjanac’s. Pauls presented a graphical simulation
of a few procedures in which elevators were used —
in non-automatic mode and with fire service
supervision — in conjunction with stairs to
evacuate tall office buildings (Pauls, 1977). Like
Bazjanac, Pauls considered treating sky lobbies (the
floors where elevator zones overlap) as “refuge
areas” but the usage was quite different; Bazjanac
treated these floors as ones to which the elevators
would take people; Pauls used these floors as
points of departure for the majority of people who
would first utilize exit stairs to move downward to
the closest sky lobby. From this level the building
occupants could then utilize elevators serving a
zone other than one in which a fire was occurring.
This should be safer and would also leave the fire-
zone elevators — if safe — free for possible use by
firefighters.

Graphical Simulation. First published by
Pauls (1977), Figure 1 is a graphical simulation
showing the complete evacuation of 4500 persons,
in 35 minutes, from a 41-story office building. Of

Elevators and Fire

the total time, fully 15 minutes are assumed to be
needed for fire department response, elevator
capture (Phase I in ASME/ANSI A17.1), elevator
system checking, and dedicated (Phase II) use to
remove people, unable to walk down stairs, from
all of the 40 above-grade, office floors. The other
20 minutes are used for express trips from three
refuge floors or sky lobbies to which ambulatory,
stair-capable persons descend by means of the exit
stairs before boarding elevators in an organized
fashion. The simulation assumes that there are
four 3500-pound (1600 kg), 19-passenger elevator
cars per elevator zone with vertical speeds in the
range of 800 to 1200 feet per minute (4.1 to 6.1
m/s). Due to fire conditions and fire fighting, one
zone of elevators is assumed to be unusable for the
egress from these transfer floors. If stair use were
increased — with one-third of those above the 12th
floor using stairs for their entire egress, the
evacuation time could be reduced to under 30
minutes. A superimposed simulation of 4500
persons able to use stairs, utilizing only the exit
stairs, predicts a total evacuation time of nearly 40
minutes, including 27 minutes of queuing by the
uppermost occupants before they can descend. For
this simulation, each of the two exit stairs is
assumed to be 44 inches (1120 mm) in nominal
width and each is assumed to be optimally used.

General Prediction. Figure 2, also from Pauls
(1977), can be used to predict evacuation times for
various building heights, evacuation procedures,
and populations utilizing stairs alone or elevators
with stairs. As with Figure 1, it is assumed that
there are four 3500 pound, 19 passenger elevator
cars per elevator zone with vertical speeds in the
range of 800 to 1200 feet per minute (4.1 to 6.1
m/s). Although evacuation time increases linearly
with total building population when only stairs are
used, the combined use of elevators and stairs —
with a conservative 15 minute period allowed
before mass use of elevators begins — is shown as
requiring approximately 30 to 35 minutes, starting
from the first alarm. A less conservative 5 minute
delay in beginning elevator egress is also shown.
However, it is felt that such a short delay does not
permit sufficient time for the supervisory personnel
(firefighters or specially trained building staff) to
assess the situation and decide on the best course
of action for the particular situation encountered.

Finally, as discussed more completely
elsewhere (Pauls 1980, 1988f), the population
figures assumed in Pauls’ simulations are actual
occupants, not building-code occupant loads based
on one occupant per 100 square feet (9.3 sq. m) of
gross floor area. The latter are generally too high
by a factor of two or more for office buildings.



Elevators and Fire

63

ELEVATOR USE FOR EGRESS:
THE HUMAN-FACTORS PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

by Jake Pauls!, Albert J. Gatfield, and Edwina Juillet

ABSTRACT

Elevator use for egress is an increasingly
discussed topic in the technical and regulatory
literature; however, human factors issues are barely
addressed. In a comparative approach covering
selected U.S. and British developments, the
departure from a long tradition of prohibiting
elevator use for egress is discussed in terms of
attitudinal impediments, public policy toward
people with disabilities, evacuation capability or
mobility demographics, information needs and
human behavior generally in emergencies, and life
safety options including egress and refuge.

NOMENCLATURE

Although the authors come from both sides of
the Atlantic the paper uses North American
terminology. For example, the term "elevator" is
instead of "lift." Similarly, "egress" is used in place
of the British term “escape.” “Exit stair" is used in
place of "protected stair." Generally, instead of
widely used terms such as "the handicapped" or
"the disabled," we prefer to say, "people with
disabilities." Better still are specific terms such as
“person using a wheelchair,” or "person unable to
use stairs." These preferred conventions properly
identify the fact that we are dealing first with
individuals and only secondarily with their specific
functional adaptations or disabilities.

PURPOSE

The objective of this paper is to help balance
the Symposium’s likely emphasis on technical
information about physical aspects of elevators and
fire with information and ideas on certain human
factors that interact with the physical aspects.
Among the human factors considered are:

« Attitudinal impediments to greater

reliance on elevators for egress,

+ Motivations and capabilities of people to
accomplish various life saving behaviors,

and

+ The information needs of people during
emergencies in which elevator use might

be important.

A major goal of this paper is presentation of
some elevator use procedures or logistics in the
context of the overall emergency response,
including evacuation and refuge facilities plus
activities. While it cannot provide a complete
treatise on these topics, the paper should
encourage much-needed discussion and technical
development.

INTRODUCTION

There is little technical literature, from the
US., addressing how emergency egress using
elevators can be handled logistically and how such
egress relates to more-conventional emergency
egress by exit stairs. This might be due to
widespread professional concern about, and

1 Ajthough all co-authors contributed information and ideas for the paper, the opinions expressed herein are those of the lead

author.



64

traditional prohibition of, elevator use for egress
during fire emergencies.

Even in the context of this Symposium there
might be some participants who will be unhappy if
they perceive an undermining of decades of their
effort to convince building users and others that
egress by elevator is not a workable, safe, or
permitted option. Strenuous opposition (to
proposed regulatory changes involving such
elevator use and related refuge concepts) might
come, for example, from some fire service
tepresentatives. Here it should be noted, however,
that the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101-1988,
Appendix A-7-4.1 states:

"The use of elevators for emergency

evacuation purposes where operated by
trained emergency service personnel
uilding personne! onnel, etc.

should be utilized in the building
evacuation program." (Underlining added.)

A Similar note, differing mainly through a
specific reference to ASME/ANSI A17.1 where the
underlining is shown, has been in the appendix of
NFPA 101 since 1981. Part of the confusion or
dissension over elevator use for egress arises
because of inadequate specification of the expected
conditions of elevator operation. Is it automatic or
supervised? What is the nature of the fire
incident? Has there been an activation of a smoke
detector in an elevator lobby or elevator machine
room, the important criterion used in ASME/ANSI
Al7.1, or is there a (small) event elsewhere in the
building that does not (yet) endanger the
elevators? Also, are elevators and lobbies
adequately protected?

Problems of Elevator Use

Although not the major goal of this paper, it is
hoped that the Symposium, generally, will clarify
the physical conditions in which elevators are
considered usable for egress.

Many publications have touched on the
dangers of elevator use, either for egress by
building occupants or for rescue and suppression
activities by firefighters during fires. Such
publications note all or most of the following
concerns.

(1) Unreliable power supplies and control
systems (e.g., call buttons and solid-state circuitry)
in fire conditions;

(2) Vulnerability of elevator shafts to smoke
and limited escape opportunity when people using

Elevators and Fire

the elevators become trapped between floors;

(3) Vulnerability of elevator controls and
brakes to water;

(4) Difficulties due to excessive air pressures
on doors under some conditions with smoke
management measures; and

(5) Concerns about human behavior, often
purporting likelihood of hysteria, panic or
unreasonable demand for elevators with resulting
disruption of their operation.

The objections by public officials to the use of
elevators for emergency egress were just as strong
and just as valid in Britain as those in North
America. Moreover, the hazards were perceived to
be similar regardless of the geographical
differences.

Public Policy Implications

To some extent, in both Britain and North
America, authorities also faced demands, from
many people with disabilities, to be permitted to
use an elevator for egress. Although not heard so
much today in North America, there were often
Teferences to a policy loosely called "right to risk.”
In the U.S., especially, much attention was given by
some accessibility advocates to simply getting
access to building facilities and services; the
question of how life safety was to be achieved was
left unanswered and was considered secondary to
access. While only recently formally and widely
recognized in the U.S., the need to consider life
safety simultaneously with accessibility was central
to the development of British standards. The
“right to risk" argument was viewed, in Britain, as
something that a responsible society cannot accept.
Neither could it be contemplated that public
Officials charged with safety enforcement would be
improperly influenced by such arguments. The
Foreword to the British Standard, BS 5588:Part 8:
1988, "Code of practice for means of escape for
disabled people," (BSI, 1988) states:

*A basic tenet of building law is that access
provision has to be linked to egress
provision, and it is on this account that
this code has been prepared."

nterpreting what is actually required, under
British law, requires professional judgement by the
enforcement officer, taking into account the
structure, hazards and occupancy of a building and
based on requirements, for example, in the Fire
Precautions Act, that the building be "provided
with such means of escape in case of fire as may be



Elevators and Fire

reasonably required in the circumstances of the
case."

While on the topic of public policy, it is also
important to describe a basic difference in
ideology, in Britain and in the U.S, regarding
accommodation of people with disabilities. In
Britain, concern for these people has been
generally viewed as a public welfare issue. In the
US., the concern has been seen more as a matter
of civil rights. This basic public policy difference
between the two countries has been described by
Goldsmith (1983) and is reflected in the recent
landmark civil rights legislation known as the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
(Public Law 101-336 signed in July 1990).

Human Behavior

Regarding the concern about inappropriate
human behavior in emergencies (stated as item 5
above) it seems clear, on the basis of evidence
from general behavior in fires and other life-
threatening events plus evidence on people’s
evacuation behavior with stairs, that the fears
about inappropriate behavior are largely
unwarranted. This is especially true if people are
provided — both before and during the emergency
— with realistic information about their options
and about the conditions related to those options.
Although disasters can be physically and
Psychologically harmful to people, we can see some
truth in the opinion expressed by some
investigators of disaster behavior: "Disaster brings
out the best in people" (Bryn, 1973). The term
“best” refers, for example, to altruistic Tesponses
which often characterize coping behavior.
Furthermore, these experts often emphasize that
the greatest need, of people in emergencies, is for
useful information.

Nonetheless, despite findings from studies of
actual behavior in emergencies, it will be difficult
to change some long-held attitudes about behavior
of people in emergencies (item 5 above). One
reason is that there has been little if any research
in the last few years on the general matter of
behavior of people in fires (i.c., work subsequent
to that reviewed by Bryan, 1988). Neither has
there been work on the particular topic of
evacuation logistics plus behavior when elevator
use is an option. Apparently, not since 1977 has
the technical literature (in the U.S.) even
addressed simulation of egress by elevator from a
logistical perspective (Bazjanac, 1977; Pauls, 1977).
Even this literature is not well known in the
firesafety field. ‘

65

It is especially important to hold realistic
attitudes about human behavior in emergencies
when we are dealing with emergency egress,
including that on stairs and in elevator systems.
Some problems, such as inappropriate
overcrowding behavior with elevators, are likely to
be more perceived than real. The reality has been,
and is expected to continue, that people tend to
take each other’s needs into account to at least the
same extent as is normally the case. Indeed,
altruism is even more marked in emergencies.
This characteristic complements that of
information-seeking behavior, a topic again
addressed later in this paper.

History of Concern about Life Safety for People
with Disabilities

The literature on human behavior and on
elevator-based evacuation logistics largely predated
the marked, recent growth of concern about egress,
Tefuge, and life safety generally for people with
disabilities. Even with the increased concern over
the last few years in the U.S. and Britain, about
emergency egress for people with disabilities,
nobody has picked up the incomplete work on
evacuation logistics. Moreover, for
noninstitutional buildings, little has been done to
spell out the details of operational aspects of
tefuge concepts. A notable exception is the British
Standard, BS 5588:Part 8: 1988, in which details of
operational aspects are provided (BSI, 1988).

Much of the history of the concern, research,
and regulatory developments on life safety for
people with disabilities has been reviewed in
publications and presentations by Pauls and Juillet
(eg., the article, “Recent social and technical
developments influencing the life safety of people
with disabilities," Pauls and Juillet, 1990). There
has been an international scope to the work of
these authors. However, with current
developments, their focus is on the U.S. scene,
especially with regard to proposals recently
processed through the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) Life Safety Code (NFPA 101,
1991 edition), the International Conference of
Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code
(1991 edition), and the Council of American
Building Officials (CABO) Board for the
Coordination of the Model Codes (BCMC) report
on accessibility scoping, means of egress, and
mainstreaming.

National concern for life safety of people with
disabilities was first marked by a seminar, "Fire
Safety for the Handicapped," held in Edinburgh,