Exactly, well said. We are facing the same problem,
i.e. in a high seismic zone, it's out of any question,
the wall preferably, should not be self-standing.
On the other hand the wall tied-up to the steelwork would
incorporate undesirable and non-symmetrical
stiffness, in the new building. Because of this, we try to
wall to the steel frames, by means of links
allowing movement in the plane of the wall, but preventing it
the wall plane.
Raul Labbé S.E.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:39
Subject: RE: Firewall Connection
That's what we usually do. A cantilevered wall in masonry doesn't
seem to work past about 12'. Even then you big huge
John C. Jones, PE
would recommend using a double firewall in this
From: Derek [mailto:derekh(--nospam--at)krahn.com]
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:40 AM
I had a brief search of the archives for this topic but had no luck
in finding any assistance.
I have a situation where I need to design a firewall (not fire
separation) between an existing freezer building (steel frame clad with
insulation panels) and a new processing facility. the firewall will be
constructed in between the insulation panels of the existing building and
the steel framing of the new building.
The building is in Vancouver BC which most of you know is a high
seismic zone. The dilemma is how to connect the fire wall to the new steel
frame such that collapse of the building doesn't cause collapse of the
firewall and yet still support the wall by the frame and roof
diaphragm under seismic loads. Any magical connection out there that can
achieve this? My brief search of the archives returned some mention of
melt-away anchors, however, the possibility remains that the fire is
remote from the wall (say on the next row of columns parallel to the
wall). This could still cause the building to collapse without the
opportunity for these melt-away anchors to weaken.
My other question relates to the existing building. For those
familiar with the NBCC or BCBC. Does the existing building need to be tied
to the firewall? My understanding is that the intent of the code is simply
to supply a wall that remains standing in the event that either building
collapses. In essence, for the pure purpose of a firewall, it
does not have to be tied to either building, it can be free
any assistance is greatly appreciated.