New gurney size for elevators- 2007 CBC

Heads up!

The 2007 CBC now requires at least one elevator to be able to service a 24"X 84" Gurney.

A 2500# elevator will not make it, so at least one elevator has to be 3500#. (3002.4a).
Original Post
Stu
Get in writing!, I'd like to know the name of that manufacturer.(Kone and Schlinder cannot)
Layout the inside dimensions of the 2500# and try to drop in the 24X84 gurney "in the flat horizontal position" as the code requires. It's not possible. It's very close and the first elevator manufacturer who extends their 2500# cab to fit will get a lot of business.
WOW, your right elliotra! The company we use shows on the plans that it DOES meet Calif reqmts, see attachment Mad Got to love manufactures that lie about this stuff. We also had this happen on some sliding glass doors. When we pressed the manfacture on how they meet ADA reqmts they finally admitted that their doors actually did not met ADA reqmts.

Attachments

I was at the AIA convention this past week and stopped by Ottis and asked them about this issue. I got lucky and spoke to the person who had just completed a video (which he showed me) of how a 24"x84" gurney will fit into their 3500# elevator. When I first drew it in AutoCAD, I couldn't get one to fit. He pointed out that you need to round the corners of the gurney and then it will fit. He also pointed out that there is NOT a manufacturer in the US that even makes a 84" long gurney.
hey stu, you got me going on this now.
be careful about otis salesmen, as well they are salesmen.
powermed-x 84"x24.7"
stryker 81"x23", 80"x29"
ferno 83x24
that's as far as i got after an hours google search.

i have calls into the SFM office. my first call's reaction was "that won't work" (in response to the the gurney size in the old minimum cab size), and "maybe it's a typo" (in reference to the gurney size). this was new to him, so he's referred me others. will let you know what i find.
Thanks Brent, your minutes ahead of me. I was going to do a google search also. I have a call into ICC to get their take on the matter. The first person I talked to at ICC couldn't find anything so he referred me to someone else. I will post whatever I find out.
ok, this is what i found out. the sfm likes the ibc change to the longer gurney. the dimensions in the code was not intended to be a minimum cab size as a whole, but a cab with a minimum width and a minimum length. although they agree the wording is not effective, they don't see a discrepancy.

with the new code, and per the revised section 111, this would apply to R3 buildings. when i asked about that, the response was yes the SFM has jurisdiction over R3, but they never intended for the cab size to be applied to that use. and that if i have a problem with the local building official, to request a clarification from the SFM and they would address this formally.

as for the impact on elevator sizes, he was surprised it is such a problem. but the bottom line is that we have to show the elevator cab can fit the new gurney size.

so stu, after laying in the new gurney into the otis 3500 cab, it looks like we need to do a lot of trimming at the corners. can you get that rep to sign in blood that it works? just kidding. but we do need to show at least on paper it can work. otherwise we are taking a huge risk to find out in the field, when it is too late that they just sold us a bag of beans. i can follow up with ferno to see if we can get more dimensions.
No response yet from ICC but I checked out the gurneys you found on line. None of them give a top view where you can get an image to import into AutoCRAP and get the corner radius to see if it will fit. You are so correct, we could easily spec an elevator that would not fit the local fire dept gurney.
i talked to thyssenkrupp (their LA california rep) today. he also recommended their 3500lb unit. when pressed that the gurney wouldn't fit, he said that they are working off of a study by otis and a couple other elevator companies that show that the 84" gurney would fit in their 80" long cab. he said that gurneys have rounded corners, so it should work.

so then i pressed on. how many have they built, and have inspected to the new code in california? none, they are all in plan check. ok, of those, how many specified the 3500lb unit? none, the designers didn't want to take the chance of the studies being wrong, so they specified the 4000lb unit.

for most of our work, it is not the SFM doing the inspections (private, smaller buildings). so working this out with the local building and fire departments is possible. the wild card in all this is the state elevator inspector. we never know what he will accept until he arrives and inspects a finished elevator. and therein lies the risk.
So even if you can get the gurney in, what of the pushers and their equipment? Remember that people are getting bigger, not smaller. The AIA Design for Aging and Hospital committees, together with the Access board are reviewing patient transfer issues as we speak.
I finally rec'd a response from ICC, Beth with ICC said she just got back from a meeting last week where they discussed this very issue. She emailed me these links which talk about the upcoming change. The radius she said to use was 5"

Wayne,

The code change is G188-07/08. The initially proposed change is as follows.

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/ProposedChanges/V1_G147-206.pdf

The committee action on this proposal was As Modified (very editorial modification) and can be found under the following link.

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/ROH/IBC-G.pdf

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions.

Thanks
Beth
Beth Tubbs, PE
Senior Staff Engineer
Boston Field Office, ICC
Phone: 1-888-ICCSAFE (422-7233) ext 7708
Fax: (419)-730-6531
btubbs@iccsafe.org
http://www.iccsafe.org
In addition to the model building code language found in the 2006 IBC for section 3002.4, California's Building Code (2007 edition) has this State Fire Marshal (SFM) requirement in regards to stretchers in elevators.

This would apply to occupancies regulated by SFM (see Section 111 of the 2007 CBC)....

----------------------
3002.4a General stretcher requirements. [SFM]
All buildings and structures with one or more passenger service elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service to all landings meeting the provisions of Section 3002.4a.
Exceptions:
1. Elevators in structures used only by maintenance and operating personnel.
2. Elevators in jails and penal institutions.
3. Elevators in buildings or structures where each landing is at ground level or is accessible at grade level or by a ramp.
4. Elevator(s) in two-story buildings or structures equipped with stairs of a configuration that will accommodate the carrying of the gurney or stretcher as permitted by the local jurisdictional authority.
5. Elevators in buildings or structures less than four stories in height for which the local jurisdictional authority has granted an exception in the form of a written document.

3002.4a.1 Gurney size.
The medical emergency service elevator shall accommodate the loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher [maximum size 24 inches by 84 inches] in the horizontal position.
----------------------



4000 lbs Passenger Elevator and accommodating 24"x84" stretcher (2007 CBC, 3002.4a)...

Attachments

Photos (1)
As shown earlier, look closely at exceptions #4 & 5 to Section 3002.4a. Our Fire Dept is fairly liberal in allowing 3 story buildings and less with using a wide stairway or granting an exception, since it is their personnel that will have to carry the stretchers.
The layouts included in CodeQPoster -ISN's recent post are derived from material submitted by the National Elevator Industry Inc.(NEII)in support of the code change (now reflected in the 2009 IBC) that recognizes that all stretchers available on the North American market have rounded corners, and that a 3500 lb car with a 42 inch single slide, side opening door can accommodate an 84 inch by 24 inch stretcher. One of our member companies (a major elevator manufacturer) actually attached extensions on a 76 inch long stretcher and field tested this configuration (we were unable to locate an 84 inch long stretcher).

A staff opinion from ICC that states the 2009 IBC language is essentially an editorial clarification of the 2006 IBC requirement can be found at http://www.neii.org/stretcherinquiry.cfm.

Brian Black
NEII Code & Safety Consultant
Likes (1)
TJ
×
×
×
×
×