From: Scott E Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:29:12 -0400 (EDT)
Thanks for the information. It confirmed my gut feeling.
Scott Maxwell, PE, SE
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Charles Espenlaub wrote:
> You definition of firewall is correct.
> IMHO the double wall is the best bet for the reasons you stated. Trying
> to detail "breakaway clips" so only the fire side collapses without
> taking down the firewall seems iffy, especially if the fire is not right
> at the clips to melt them, but is a bay or two away, but has caused a
> collapse of the structure adjacent to the fire wall.
> Once on a one story building, we built an independent free standing
> cantilevered CMU wall as a fire wall. But on higher structures, that
> would be prohibitively expensive.
> Charles F. Espenlaub, III, P.E.
> Martin-Espenlaub Engineering
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott E Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 9:44 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Firewall construction
> I have a building which may require a firewall (as opposed to a fire
> seperation wall). Just to make sure that we are talking apples to
> my understanding of the "definition" for a firewall is that it is rated
> wall that must remain standing if the building to either side falls down
> All my experience with firewalls has been to actually construct two
> each one attached to one of the structures. Thus, if one structure
> collapses , there will still be a wall in place and the other structure
> will not collapse due to the one side collapsing.
> My question is : Has anyone done a firewall that consists of one wall?
> In the building that I am working on, the structure on one side is a
> bay with a truss and purlin roof and WF columns. The other side is a
> two story office building with composite steel floor beams,
> roof beams and steel columns.
> Any thoughts or comments?
> Scott Maxwell, PE, SE