‘Elevators and Fire

ALTERNATE FLOOR RECALL PROVISIONS
FOR ELEVATORS
SHOULD BE MAINTAINED

by E. H. Sumka

ABSTRACT

When Firefighters Service for elevators was
first introduced into the A17.1 Safety Code for
Elevators and Escalators, recall of elevators was
only to a designated level. Input from local and
State authorities, as well as from the major building
codes, however, led to deliberations by the code
making body that resulted in code rules for alter-
nate floor recall provisions to be incorporated in
the ASME/ANSI A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators
and Escalators.

Background information that resulted in
A17.1 code rules requiring alternate floor recall is
provided. This information provides insight to the
code requirements and the rationale for adoption
of same.

Although there are some points of view that
feel that the alternate floor requirement be
tescinded, there are valid arguments for preserving
the alternate floor code provisions.

INTRODUCTION

The ASME/ANSI A17.1 Safety Code for Ele-
vators and Escalators, (hereinafter referred to as
A17.1) was not silent on elevator operation by
firefighters. In 1969, supplement "c" to the 1965
A17.1 Code covered fire operation of elevators in
Appendix E. Not content with having firefighters
operation in the Appendix, A17.1 formed an ad
hoc fire committee in 1971 to promulgate rules for
inclusion in the code proper and eliminate Appen-
dix E. Supplement "b" to the 1971 code was issued
in 1973 and contained an expanded Section 211
that covered firefighters operation. The need to
keep abreast with changing technology, methods
and emergency use of elevators resulted in the ad
hoc committee becoming a permanent standing
committee.

Supplement "b" called for return of elevators
to the designated level and did not recognize an
alternate floor. The designated level is defined as
the main floor or other level that best serves the
needs of emergency personnel for fire fighting or
Tescue purposes. Many jurisdictions, however, did
not agree with A17.1’s viewpoint and mandated
alternate floor provisions. As a result, the alter-
nate floor requirement became a much discussed
agenda item for the Emergency Operations Com-
mittee.

In the 1981 edition of A17.1, the code was
changed to require alternate floor recall provisions.
This change came only after extensive delibera-
tions.

RATIONALE

It is not pre-ordained that the designated level
has the lowest fuel load of any other floor in the
building. This may be the case in some major,
high rise office buildings, but it certainly is not
applicable to many other buildings, such as apart-
ments, hotels, showrooms or buildings with elabo-
Tate reception areas. But, even if it were a fact, a
fire bomb launched by a radical element can sud-
denly provide an enormous fuel load on an other-
wise sterile floor.

It should also be remembered that the prepon-
derance of buildings have elevators without an
express zone. We should not be deluded, there-
fore, into believing the contrary. In the event that
there are express zones, it is still safer to park away
from any potential fire floor. If in a particular
building, there are circumstances where it is not
desirable for elevators to park above an express
zone, then a local variance should be obtained.
This would be more appropriate than eliminating
the alternate floor altogether. There is already a
precedence for this action. In those relatively few



6

buildings where double-deck elevators are installed,
the local firefighters normally specify the manner
in which these elevators will be utilized. It is
feared that if the mandatory alternate floor
tequirement is repealed and made permissive, than
many buildings would ultimately revert to the early
code requirements that only required return to the
designated level.

What is often overlooked is the fact that if the
elevators are returned to an alternate level, the
firefighters have not lost control of the elevators.
If conditions dictate that the designated level can
provide safe egress, there is no reason why the
firefighters cannot exercise the option of calling
the elevators to the designated level by turning the
required three position keyed switch to the "on"
position. The key switch over- rides the alternate
floor and will return all elevators to the designated
level -- even though the elevators may be parked at
a floor above an express zone.

There is often the argument that the desig-
nated level is also the location of the central com-
mand station, and as a result, elevators should be
returned to this point. It would be difficult to
effectively utilize a designated level central com-
mand station if the designated level is engulfed in a
rapidly spreading fire such as the one that the
destroyed the main floor of the MGM Hotel. The
usually accepted emergency procedures are not
relevant when the fire is at the main floor. Eleva-
tors that are returned to, or parked at the main
floor are of no value if it means possible loss of
life.

Further, the presence of sprinklers is not a
panacea for occupant safety. In severe fires, sprin-
kler action may reduce the heat to 300 to 400
degrees F. Life is not tenable at those tempera-
tures. It may also be assumed that sprinklers will
teduce the probability of a large fire, but one can-
not rule out the possibility that smoke in danger-
ous quantities may be produced (McGuire).

Although sprinkler manufacturers say that
sprinklers have been proven effective in stopping
fire in a large number of buildings, smoke control
advocates note that smoke, not the flames them-
selves cause the majority of fire deaths and say that
sprinklers allow too much smoke to develop before
the area gets hot enough to start the water flow
(Miller).

Per the NFPA, smoke can knock you senseless
in one little breath. Smoke is the killer. More
deaths result from smoke than fire. Why then, if
there is smoke at the designated level, should we
ignore this and return elevators to this potential
killer. A return to an alternate floor is a better
idea.

Elevators and Fire

The effectiveness of smoke detectors for the
recall function has also been questioned because of
the possibility that smoke may be present on floors
above and/or below the fire floor. Al7.1 code has
addressed this by indicating that the first smoke
detector activation determines what floor the
elevators are returned to. This is based on the fact
that it is highly improbable that the smoke detec-
tors on floors other than the fire floor would be
activated beforehand.

As a corollary to the smoke detectors that are
Now required to initiate elevator recall, it has been
cited that the water flow switch associated with the
on-floor sprinkler system is more positive. First,
smoke detectors were chosen in order to initiate
elevator recall as soon as possible in order to
prevent the elevators from being used by building
occupants during a fire. Second, sprinklers are not
foolproof. A study of 26,309 fires in sprinklered
buildings in the U.S. and Britain over 15 years
found that the sprinklers either failed to operate or
failed to control the fires in 11% of the cases
(Penn, 1981).

COMMENTARY

It should be noted that no one combination of
life safety features can be correct for all buildings.
For those rare exceptions, a scheme that provides
balanced protection will provide a greater degree
of safety to the occupants. Sprinklers, therefore,
should be an adjunct to the smoke detector system
that is now a code requirement. Sprinklers and
smoke detectors can complement each other, thus
providing the ultimate in elevator recall safety
when used in conjunction with an alternate floor.

It is difficult to conceive why the alternate
floor should be abandoned when it is providing an
unparalleled measure of safety. There are
thousands of buildings that now have the alternate
floor. Are we suddenly going to say that this
concept is not correct? There is no background to
justify such an action; especially when we now have
systems in place that provide occupant safety by
keeping elevators away from a potential fire floor.

CONCLUSION

Retain the alternate floor requirement as
presently required by the A17.1 Elevator Safety
Code.



"Elevators and Fire
REFERENCES
ASMEJANSI A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators

and Escalators

McGuire, John, Report on Control of Smoke
Movement in High Buildings.

Miller, Michael J., "Life Safety", Building
Design & Construction, February, 1982.

Penn, Stanley, "Fire Safety, Second of a Series",
Wall Street Journal, January 21, 1981.

E. H. Sumka is a graduate of Purdue University.
He began his career in the elevator industry in
the field organization of Westinghouse Elevator in
1958. After several assignments in the Chicago
Region Headquarters of Westinghouse, he was
transferred to Westinghouse Elevator Co. Head-
quarters in New Jersey where he served in a
managerial capacity until his retirement in
November of 1987. He is a member of the Al7
Main Committee and serves on several subcom-
mittees. He is Chairman of the Emergency
Operations Committee. Since his retirement
from Westinghouse, Mr Sumka has formed his
own elevator consuting firm.