Yes, No, Limited Use/ Limited Application Elevators, or LULA's as there commonly referred to are limited to 25 ft of travel and must be enclosed in a rated hoistway. If the hoistway is of entirely non-combustible construction (13-8.15.5.5), the car meets the requirements of (ASME) A17.1, Part XXV , as non combustible (13-8.15.5.5) and the hydraulic fluid is non combustible (13-8.15.5.2) then sprinklers are not required at the top or bottom of the hoistway.
The elevator machine room is another issue and must be sprinklered and with that main line power disconnect (shunt trip). Of course if you can find a machineroomless unit then sprinklers arent required at all for the elevator. LULA's must also be provided with Phase I recall and Phase II fire service if the fire department will use them. Hope that helps All references to the 2007 NFPA-13 and 2005 A17.1. Of course that's merely my opinion, state or local amendments may be otherwise. John Drucker -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 5:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Elevator Pits and approved plans We are doing work in Westerville, Ohio. A school is installing a "Limited Use/ Limited Application" elevator. We submitted plans indicating approporiate modifications to the existing sprinkler system to accomodate the new elevator shaft and mechanical room. Our plans showed no sprinkler coverage in the elevator shaft. It showed a sprinkler in the elevator mech room with a water-flow switch to act as a shunt-trip. The plans were stamped and approved. We completed the job and during the final inspection, the local building inspector and fire inspector questioned why there is no sprinkler in the shaft and demanded that we supply documentation to the city regarding this. They also questioned why we installed a nwaterflow switch for the sprinkler in the mechanical room. When I explained that it was to act as a shunt-trip and showed them my copy of the NFPA 13 handbook, they replied that they've never seen that before and we would have to supply documentation on that as well. Of course, they are not Plan Examiners. They are Inspectors there to ensure compliance with the Approved Plans. They refused to sign off on our installation. Has anyone encountered this before? Did you fight them through a formal appeals process or just do whatever they wanted? _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, nor is it, unless specifically stated, intended to be relied upon by any person or persons other than the individual or entity named above and no warranties or representations are made or intended to persons or entities not named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, return this message to the address above and delete all copies. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
