2008年11月15日 星期六

Status of the Use of Elevators in Fires

Status of the Use of Elevators in Fires

By Richard W. Bukowski, P.E., FSFPE

 


The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is leading a new effort to rethink the traditional stairwell-centered approach to emergency egress to embrace a more holistic strategy that includes all aspects of building design and operation, and their impacts on occupant safety. Clearly, elevators are a key component of this strategy. The effort began with a "Rethinking Egress" workshop in March 2008 and will continue in a series of workshops until a consensus of the engineering community is reached on how stairs, elevators, and other means of egress can meet the need for "timely" full evacuation of tall building occupants and response by emergency personnel.


One of the early conclusions from NIST's investigation of the events of September 11, 2001, was the need for "timely" full evacuation of tall building occupants and response by emergency personnel.1 At any significant height, stairs alone are clearly inadequate. In the late 1990s, NIST had worked with several Federal agencies and the elevator industry to study the use of elevators as a secondary means of egress (to stairs). This resulted in requirements in the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) for elevators in air traffic control towers but an attempt to extend this to other occupancies in the model codes failed. A collection of papers from this effort were published.2 In 2003, NIST took the issue to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17 Elevator and Escalator Committee, which develops and maintains the ASME A17 standards used throughout the US (and harmonized with the Canadian elevator standard

CSA B44). It was agreed to jointly organize a workshop to assess the feasibility of elevators that would be safe to use in the event of a fire in a building.


This workshop was held in March 2004, and there was a consensus among the fire service and elevator industry that it was feasible with current technology to make elevators safe for use by both occupants and the fire service in a building with a fire condition. The key observation leading to this consensus was that the requirements implemented in the 1980s in the

ASME A17.1 standard was effective in sensing the onset of hazardous conditions and taking elevators out of service ahead of unsafe conditions.


In the 1970s, there was a small number of incidents where occupants, firefighters or the fire itself, called an occupied elevator to the fire floor and opened the door onto untenable conditions (e.g., First Interstate Bank fire3). Light beams that prevent the landing doors from hitting passengers when they close were blocked by smoke, holding the doors open and preventing the car from leaving. The response from the elevator industry was twofold. First, firefighters' emergency operation (FEO) was developed and mandated on all new and upgraded elevators. FEO involves smoke detectors located in every elevator lobby and machine room that, when activated, take all elevators out of service, returning them to the designated level (of exit discharge) opening the doors, and locking them out of service. This is called Phase I recall. If the fire is on the designated level, the elevators are sent to an alternate level. The second industry response was to require signs in every elevator lobby warning not to use the elevators in fires, but to use the stairs.


The elevators are intended to be placed into Phase I recall on activation of an elevator lobby or machine room smoke detector and not for any other alarm in the building. Thus, the elevators will continue to operate in what is called normal service with a fire in the building unless Phase I is activated. Fire departments have a manual means to activate Phase I, which some utilize in order to take control of the elevators and prevent occupants from unknowingly traveling to the fire floor or becoming entrapped. Once on Phase I, firefighters can place individual cars into a manual operation mode called Phase II with a firefighter's key in a keyswitch located in the car. Phase II operation does not respond to hall calls and utilizes a special operating mode for the car controls that reduces the risk of the firefighter being exposed to fire conditions, including disabling the door light beams (see ASME A17.4).4

Based on the 2004 workshop consensus that elevators could continue to be used safely with a fire in the building until Phase I was initiated, ASME organized two task groups (one on use of elevators by firefighters and the other on use of elevators for occupant egress) to carefully study any hazards that might result and the means to mitigate these hazards. These task group activities are nearing completion, and a second workshop to share the results of the task group deliberations (including a several-hundred page hazard analysis) is planned for October 2009.


In the mid-1980s, the British adopted a requirement for a firefighter elevator as part of a firefighting shaft in all new high-rise buildings (>30 m). They developed and published a standard5 which has recently been converted (with little change) to a European standard.6 These firefighter elevators are now common in tall buildings in England and other countries that traditionally follow British Standards. Not surprisingly, the ASME work is leading to recommendations that are very similar to the British/European standard.


Due to the high level of training and preplanning common to fire department operations (and especially high rise firefighting operations) the fire service should be familiar with the system and its safe operation (ASME publishes ASME A17.43, as a training guide on elevator emergency operating procedures for the fire service). This is not true for occupant use elevators, so the occupant egress elevator is a more complex issue to the extent that their use differs from the occupants' everyday use of the system.


Current thinking (not yet finalized by the ASME task group) is that on any fire alarm in the building, the firefighter elevator(s) will be placed in Phase I to await the arrival of the fire department at the level of fire department access. The remaining elevators will evacuate the occupants from the fire floor, two floors above and two below, to the level of exit discharge and then be taken out of service to control occupant movement while the situation is assessed by the fire department. Such a phased (or partial) evacuation procedure is commonly followed in high rise buildings using the emergency voice evacuation system to direct occupants on the five floors to the stairs and (in some cases) informing occupants in the rest of the building to await further instructions.


Should the incident commander decide that full building evacuation is necessary, the elevators would be placed into full evacuation mode, unloading the building from the top down. The system would follow this top down priority, ignoring hall calls, except that these would register that occupants are awaiting elevators on those floors. If these floors had already been evacuated, cars could be sent back or fire service cars operating on Phase II used to collect occupants.


Each floor would have a fire and smoke rated elevator lobby to provide a protected waiting space and that provides a barrier from the fire. This would delay automatic activation of

Phase I, which would terminate elevator evacuation. Informational displays in the lobbies would assure occupants that the elevators are in service evacuating people, and a direct access to an egress stair from the lobby would provide an egress path if the elevator evacuation is halted. A pressurized hoistway would protect the elevator and lobby from smoke, and provisions to protect the elevator components from water are included. Emergency power, protection of the power and control wiring, and protection against water intrusion rounds out the protection package.
 


While both firefighter and occupant elevators have additional costs for safety features, the costs are low compared to the cost of wider or more egress stairs. It is interesting to note that the elevator industry design practice for normal use (to meet the demands of the start and close of the business day) results in a number, capacity, and speed to permit the self evacuation of 100% of the building population in 30 minutes to one hour (based on an industry standard design handling capacity of 12.5%7).


The benefits of using elevators are so obvious that the building codes are changing rapidly and most tall buildings are being outfitted with elevators for egress and access even before the codes and standards can be changed. In their 2009 editions, the International Building Code8 (IBC), NFPA 1019 and NFPA 500010 require fire service elevators in all new buildings over

120 feet (37 m). The City of San Francisco adopted (effective in January of 2008) a change to their building code requiring fire service elevators in new buildings exceeding 200 feet11 (61 m). Fire service elevators are included in the designs of Freedom Tower (NYC), Burj Dubai (UAE), Chicago Spire (Chicago) and many others.


NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 incorporate an adoptable annex containing requirements for occupant evacuation elevators but do not require their use in any occupancy or any threshold building height. The IBC 2009 contains similar requirements in the body, but also no requirement by occupancy or height threshold. This approach was considered more appropriate for such a significant code change. Occupant elevators are also incorporated in Freedom Tower, Burj Dubai, Chicago Spire, One Financial Center Shanghai (a modified approach where the express elevators normally serving the observation deck will stop at the required refuge floors in a fire) and others.


Richard Bukowski is with the National Institute of Standards and Technology.


 



  1. Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers. NIST NCSTAR 1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005.

  2. Bukowski, R.W., Burgess, R. and Reneke, P., Collected Publications Related to the Use of Elevators During Fires, NIST SP 983, May 2002, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/elevators/

  3. Morris, J., First Interstate Bank Fire – What Went Wrong? Fire Prevention, No. 226,

    20-26, Jan/Feb 1990.

  4. Guide for Emergency Personnel, ASME A17.4-1999, ASME New York.

  5. BSI 5588, Part 8. "Fire precautions in the design, construction and use of buildings. Code of practice for means of escape for disabled people," British Standards Institution, London, 1999.

  6. EN 81-72, "Safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts - Particular applications for passenger and goods passenger lifts - Part 72: Firefighters," European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.

  7. Strakosch, G.R., The Vertical Transportation Handbook Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1998.

  8. International Building Code, International Code Council, Falls Church, VA, 2009.

  9. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.

  10. NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2009.

  11. San Francisco Fire Code, Section 5.08, Jan 2008.

2008年11月7日 星期五

一、我要努力向上。

二、分析過後,我的確是變得超級懶惰。

三、變得不愛運動。

四、變得安逸怠惰。

五、變得空口說白話。

六、變得無所是事。

七、變得愛睡覺。

八、對於夢想,不但沒有繼續實踐,反而呈現停擺放棄,遇到困難也只剩退縮。

九、不合理的事使我忍氣吞聲得幾乎就要爆炸。

十、感到生活極盡無聊。



set a goal, a smallest goal, achieve it, then go foward toward the next smallest goal, then, the next goal will become bigger and bigger.



let me  start my perfect plan from here, no...who do I expect to "let" me? just me!  and...the lonely me will be the best.

2008年11月2日 星期日

電影一樣夢幻的蠢事

「大鮕鮐,炒韭菜...」A嘲弄著M。

「你很煩耶!」M生氣地不斷捏掐A的大腿、腰、手臂、胸。

你也知道,她捏的部位都是很容易疼痛的。

「好了喔!不要再捏了,再捏你就完蛋。」A帶著些不悅地威脅著M。

M還是不斷地捏掐那些部位,終於,A反擊了,往她胸部用力一捏、轉。M痛得叫不出來,直到A鬆開右手,M別過頭去開始啜泣。A卻笑了,笑的是她竟然不聽警告導致現在疼痛不已而啜泣,相較於幾秒鐘前的嘴臉,簡直天爙之別。約莫一分鐘後,M使力甩了A兩下臀部,A還是頑皮地笑著。

M開始收拾行李,噘著嘴,A也不想理會。室內氣氛凝結,直到M收好行李。

「載我回家。」M不帶表情地說。

A起身穿好褲子、衣服,到浴室照了鏡子,出了浴室之後,M在衣櫥旁突然堆起笑臉撒嬌地伸出雙手要A抱她、吻她。

「幹麻?!」A感到狐疑地問。

「親我!」M調皮撒嬌地說。

A的唇才剛靠近M的臉頰,M突然變臉,右手迅速朝A的下體伸去,抓著A的睪丸。

「你媽的!竟然捏我的胸部,沒人敢這樣捏我!」M凶惡的臉質問A。A沒多說任何一句話。

A才警覺這是復仇,看著M變臉的速度與那種像電影般演戲的謀略,A不禁感到不可思議,也感到與這個人之間的距離感。



在路上,他們沒再多說任何贅詞。



*****(猜猜這五個字,猜中的人送你兩張101觀景台的門票)

2008年11月1日 星期六

解離

假如可以將每個人的面貌與性情分離,那會是多完美的世界。



看到了那樸實的小火鍋,我想起當時堅持要吃樸實小火鍋的你,也許你真的很有個性,但是我不能如此客觀地評價一個人,尤其是我們還要看著對方的表情。如果你是甜美的長相,我覺得你的要求很可愛;假若你是噁心至極的外表,我連跟你吃飯的動力都沒有;又如果你長得普普通通,我大概覺得你在矯情造作吧。



被討厭的人,會有一個被討厭的外表(文藝一點的說法是:被疏離的,外表已被淋上滾燙的臭水)。



世界很不公平,也許你輸的原因就只是因為你醜了一點,但沒辦法,我的確是先看到你的外表,音速永遠超越不了光速,我光是看見了你,就失去了聽你解釋的動力,或是,連讓你犯錯的機會也沒有。

2008年10月29日 星期三

玄武岩、海

我只要看到:玄武岩+藍色的海+陽光+萬里無雲的藍天



就會想起澎湖,而且是一種遙遠的想念,是有哀傷感覺的那一種,或是懷念?我也搞不清楚了。



大概是想起小時候那種整天在陽光下玩樂、在海水裡嬉戲、大群大群的觀光客...突然,我又是在這城市裡,大概是這種失去的悵然。



現在,澎湖已經不是我想像中的那種瘋狂了,再也回不去了,我藍色的海、焦熱的沙土、寬闊的天際、淋漓的汗水、單純的童年。

2008年10月24日 星期五

來首爛爛詩吧





我來了,嵌進琉璃。

空氣中,再也嗅不到,一點死寂。



坐在角落看著的,失聰,並且看見寧靜。

慢動作的播映,散落影像的張力,淋得濕遍我的眼睛。



我走了,也帶不走光影。

空氣中,殘餘的香氣,編織起了駭人的死寂。



坐在角落看著的,失聰,並且聽見大地。

正常速度的播映,似乎,腳步都更加有力。



你走了,再也沒人洞察這片美景。

空氣中,再也沒有一點,流動的氣息。



我們踏過的,只是塊草地。

沒人知道,它怎麼嘆息、哀淒。

只剩下,那些嘈雜的回憶。



2008年10月19日 星期日

DIESEL WIDAR 8LD

28*32(diesel的L32和ENERGIE的L34 竟然一樣長)

WIDAR

0008DL

made in ITALY



正面



背面,腰帶的部份皮標好像是新的設計,以前我沒看過。



這是772的後腰帶原本該是皮標的位置,不是皮標,而是縫上一塊牛仔布料。



正面全景



令人銷魂的褲腳刷破,再加上一點油汙處理...



右口袋的DIESEL商標,今年似乎變細了,比較沒這麼粗礦。



這是另一件772,幾年前買的,跟上圖比較,這個商標比較粗。



代表義大利的三條線。



正面實穿圖,由於璀璨手殘,所以照片品質不佳。這個褲型WIDAR是有點垮褲的樣子,褲腳有收進來,褲檔的部分較長,雖然這件也是重磅數(14OZ)的,穿起來卻很舒服。



背面實穿圖,DIESEL的臀部附近的刷色,有提臀的效果,他會在股溝下檔的部份顏色下得重一點,兩臀刷白一點,再加上剪裁,屁股會翹一點點。



不用多說了。



露個點。左褲管大腿部分有一點咖啡色,那是昨天吃黑森林蛋糕巧克力抹在上面的痕跡,無傷大雅,所以決定不把它處理掉,那是一種自然的髒污。



褲檔特寫,DIESEL的褲子在小雞雞的部份刷色也是很用心的,會在三角地帶利用刷色和剪裁製造出小雞雞有一點鼓鼓的假象(雖然我不需要),同志一定會喜歡。



你看看這刷色...銷魂。