I do not know how high your wall is, but a free
standing, cantilevered wall may also be a possibility. You may have to
add masonry or concrete pilasters to stiffen the wall if it gets too tall.
Make sure that you allow sufficient clearance
between the wall and the steel framing for expansion of the steel due to
the heat of a fire. NFPA, FM and NBCC have guidelines. As Harold
mentioned, the clearance should also be adequate to prevent pounding during a
I hope this helps!
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:12
Subject: RE: Firewall
is certainly one of my options. I am trying to avoid it if practicable
however. A double wall would then involve fixing one of the walls through the
insulation panel to steel work in the freezer (-25degC / -13degF). This
freezer must remain cold and operational during the project and with pallet
racking next to the wall in question, any fixing detail in that area will be
think I'm correct in saying that with a single wall I do not need a connection
to the existing building provided that collapse of the new building won't
bring the wall down with it.
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.