Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Firewall construction

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,

36 feet is a single wall too tall.  Your gut is correct.  Make the mason's
day and build 2 walls, or get those melt off connectors.  I would go for the
2 walls and tie them independently to each structure.

Regards,
Harold Sprague


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Scott E Maxwell [SMTP:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent:	Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:28 PM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	RE: Firewall construction
> 
> Harold,
> 
> Have you done a single cantilevered wall that cantilevers about 36 feet?
> I believe that this would be a rather hefty wall for even an internal
> pressure of 5 or 10 psf, not to mention if the wall should be designed for
> an external wind pressure for situations AFTER one side has fallen down.
> My gut was telling me that a single wall is not a feasible option, but I
> know the PM will question my gut, so I was "covering my bases".
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott Maxwell, PE, SE
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Sprague, Harold O. wrote:
> 
> > Scott,
> > 
> > The 2 general types of fire resistant walls are fire walls and area
> > separation walls.  In the IBC, area separation walls are a subset of
> fire
> > barriers.
> > 
> > There are manufacturers of melt off anchors that can accommodate an
> > attachment to a single wall.  I have generally designed and detailed the
> > walls and structures to avoid melt off anchors.  In low seismic zones, a
> > single interior fire wall can be designed to cantilever from the
> foundation.
> > In high seismic areas the differential structural movement can be a
> > significant problem that tends to force you into 2 walls.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Harold Sprague
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Scott E Maxwell [SMTP:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > > Sent:	Wednesday, June 28, 2000 8:44 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
> apples,
> > > 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
> > > (collapses).
> > > 
> > > All my experience with firewalls has been to actually construct two
> walls,
> > > 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
> high
> > > bay with a truss and purlin roof and WF columns.  The other side is a
> > > two story office building with composite steel floor beams,
> non-composite
> > > roof beams and steel columns.
> > > 
> > > Any thoughts or comments?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Scott Maxwell, PE, SE
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>